Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Enough of this "As Far to the Right as Practicable" Crap!

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Enough of this "As Far to the Right as Practicable" Crap!

Old 03-22-09, 02:35 PM
  #76  
EnigManiac
Senior Member
 
EnigManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258

Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by smittie61984 View Post
I try to stay as far right as possible and always will. I understand that we are truly guests of the public roadways. We are not capable of maintaining most speeds limits unless it's on a downhill and we don't pay taxes for the roadways since we don't use gas or get tags for our bikes. If we are to be considered the same as cars then vehicles passing us on a double yellow is technically illegal. But if cops enforced the double yellow law then we'd be impeding traffic which would mean we'd get a ticket too. Also we scream we want to be treated the same as cars but how many of us while riding on roadways lane split to the front of the line? We don't even need a license or insurance to ride our bikes on a roadway.

As for wearing high viz clothing. At my work I am required to wear high viz safety vests and we have a saying. "The yellow is so they can find the body". Don't get a false sense of security with a yellow vest.
You've got it all backward, my friend. We are not guests upon public roadways, motorists are: they must earn a license to operate on public roadways, it isn't a natural right as it is with human-powered pedestrians and cyclists (and skateboarders, etc.). Motorists can have their privelege revoked: we can't. And, while roads are designed to accomodate and control cars, they still face restrictions that the any member of the public does not. The police and courts simply need to start regarding motorists as guests, because when a guest in my home threatens, endangers or otherwise disrupts my space, I have that person removed and forever barred from entering again.

License plate fees and taxes and gas taxes do not fund the roads cyclists use: municipal taxes do and one way or another you are paying for the roads whether you own a home or rent. We are not required to have insurance because, for the most part, we cause little or no property damage and few injuries, if any. Motorists, on the other hand, wreak havoc on the roads to the tune of billions of dollars per year.
EnigManiac is offline  
Old 03-22-09, 09:39 PM
  #77  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I said, roody,

Originally Posted by bek
woah, buddy.

bikeforums alumbi Helmet Head and other vehement VC at chainguard marginalize what 'as far right as practicable' means is that offensive to you?

bikes as far right as practicable is not effective mandatory lane sharing. a segment of the advocacy population misinterpreting this bike specific language in that way is a grave disservice to the bicycling community at large.
and you said, roody....
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
The Cold War is over.

The New Politics: Present your own position in a positive and bold manner. Use reason and logic to politely refute your opponents. Treat people with respect even when you disagree with them. Stay on the message.

This worked for Obama, and it might work for bike advocacy also.
I couldn't care less if you and hustonb take offense at my characterization of the vacuous pundits at Yahoo's VC pledgepit Chainguard,

I meant what I said:

bicyclists shouldn't marginalize what 'as far right as practicable" affords bicyclists.

The blogger the OP referenced got it wrong; there's a contingent of VC seeking to eliminate 'as far right as practicable' language from state vehicle codes. They perpetuate the skewed misinterpretation and marginalization of what 'as far right as practicable' means to bicyclists.


here's a quote from HH, despite him not being able to defend himself (who cares? it's the public internets, searchable if hustonb wants to dig it up)

in a discussion about FTR language and what operating as far to the right as practicable means....

Originally Posted by Helmet Head, Chainguard group, yahoo, 01/09)
The law is totally fair and reasonable, as
long as one accepts the premise that mandatory lane sharing is fair
and reasonable,
when the lane is wide enough for the slow driver to
share his vehicle side-by-side with another vehicle within the lane.
woah. I refuse to accept the premise. operating a bike as far as practicable to the right is most emphatically NOT mandatory lane sharing.

bikes as far right as practicable is not effective mandatory lane sharing. a segment of the advocacy population misinterpreting this bike specific language in that way is a grave disservice to the bicycling community at large.

is that simple enough, roody? houstonb?
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-22-09, 09:43 PM
  #78  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HoustonB View Post
.... How would you feel if 'ride to the right' were rewritten as "cyclists should yield to faster traffic when it is safe to do so"?
why would I like that? that's a grave misinterpretation of what as far to the right as practicable means, too!

Jeesh... what blindsight, houstonB. you too, misinterpret and marginalize what it means. wowsers. ANOTHER one.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-22-09, 09:49 PM
  #79  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
I said, roody,



and you said, roody....

I couldn't care less if you and hustonb take offense at my characterization of the vacuous pundits at Yahoo's VC pledgepit Chainguard,

I meant what I said:

bicyclists shouldn't marginalize what 'as far right as practicable" affords bicyclists.

The blogger the OP referenced got it wrong; there's a contingent of VC seeking to eliminate 'as far right as practicable' language from state vehicle codes. They perpetuate the skewed misinterpretation and marginalization of what 'as far right as practicable' means to bicyclists.


here's a quote from HH, despite him not being able to defend himself (who cares? it's the public internets, searchable if hustonb wants to dig it up)

in a discussion about FTR language and what operating as far to the right as practicable means....



woah. I refuse to accept the premise. operating a bike as far as practicable to the right is most emphatically NOT mandatory lane sharing.

bikes as far right as practicable is not effective mandatory lane sharing. a segment of the advocacy population misinterpreting this bike specific language in that way is a grave disservice to the bicycling community at large.

is that simple enough, roody? houstonb
?
No, it isn't simple at all. I can't even understand what you're talking about. Sorry.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-22-09, 10:06 PM
  #80  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
your loss i guess.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-22-09, 10:14 PM
  #81  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
maybe i should ask you a question directly, roody, about this 'as far right as practicable' business....

what does "bikes keep as far right as practicable" mean to you?

a) bikes effectively must mandatorily share the lane?

b)bikes yield to faster traffic when it's safe?

or

c)bikes allowed full use of lane for safety if determined necessary by the bicyclist.

a,b, or c, roody? which more accurately describes what 'as far right as practicable' allows a cyclist?

i take issue with the gravely mistaken impressions of some that 'as far right as practicable' is effective mandatory lane sharing,' or like houstonb maligns ' yielding to faster traffic when safe'
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 12:37 AM
  #82  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
maybe i should ask you a question directly, roody, about this 'as far right as practicable' business....

what does "bikes keep as far right as practicable" mean to you?

a) bikes effectively must mandatorily share the lane?

b)bikes yield to faster traffic when it's safe?

or

c)bikes allowed full use of lane for safety if determined necessary by the bicyclist.

a,b, or c, roody? which more accurately describes what 'as far right as practicable' allows a cyclist?

i take issue with the gravely mistaken impressions of some that 'as far right as practicable' is effective mandatory lane sharing,' or like houstonb maligns ' yielding to faster traffic when safe'
Um, I'm going to guess "c" since you put it in bold letters. I wish my tests in college were that easy!

I don't have any serious problems with the FRAP law. We have it in Michigan too. Under the FRAP law, I feel justified in taking the lane when it's too narrow to share, or when other conditions make it safer to take it. That's plenty good for me 99.999999 % of the time. But keep in mind that when it comes to a working definition of what is FRAP in a given situation, a cop, judge or jury might disagree with the cyclist. I don't think this would happen very often, but it could happen. It's a slight defect in the FRAP law, but not a major flaw.

Now will you quit yelling at me? People are dying in Afghanistan and you're getting all bent out of shape by a little bike rule. Lighten up dude!
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"

Last edited by Roody; 03-23-09 at 12:41 AM.
Roody is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 08:08 AM
  #83  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
yelling?

So, roody, i hope you see how misinterpretations of as far right as practicable by 'advokates' like the blogger referenced in the OP or others like BF's erstwhile Helmet Head does a disservice to bicycling.

To hear and read bicyclists talking about as far right as practicable in such a misleading, marginalizing way is offensive.

It should be reiterated endlessly to each other and to the public by bicyclists that 'as far right as practicable' only means as far right as the bicyclist feels safe, predicates full lane use by bicyclists when the bicyclists deem it necessary, and that lane position is determined by the bicyclist.

If you don't think road bicycling, 'share the road' and 'as far right as practicable' is misunderstood by the public in america, I hate to dissolve your sugar coating on that bitter truth.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-23-09 at 08:13 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 08:49 AM
  #84  
dynodonn
Banned.
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,465
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
yelling?

So, roody, i hope you see how misinterpretations of as far right as practicable by 'advokates' like the blogger referenced in the OP or others like BF's erstwhile Helmet Head does a disservice to bicycling.

To hear and read bicyclists talking about as far right as practicable in such a misleading, marginalizing way is offensive.

It should be reiterated endlessly to each other and to the public by bicyclists that 'as far right as practicable' only means as far right as the bicyclist feels safe, predicates full lane use by bicyclists when the bicyclists deem it necessary, and that lane position is determined by the bicyclist.

If you don't think road bicycling, 'share the road' and 'as far right as practicable' is misunderstood by the public in america, I hate to dissolve your sugar coating on that bitter truth.

Ain't that the truth, a few months back, I got into a "heated" discussion with a motorist who thought that I should be all the way up against the curb. I'm amazed that motorists can pass a row parked cars without incident, yet are intollerant to my moving right, making the inner portion of my bike the same distance from the curb as that of a normal parked car, and even closer to the curb than some full sized pickup trucks.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 09:33 AM
  #85  
HoustonB
Βanned.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620

Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
... If you don't think road bicycling, 'share the road' and 'as far right as practicable' is misunderstood by the public in America, I hate to dissolve your sugar coating on that bitter truth.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

... don't think .... misunderstood. Is a double negative the best way you can find to express your obvious confusion?

The simple truth is that the majority of motorists think that "ride as far to the right as practicable" means stay out of the way. No need for sophistry or double negatives!

This means I do think the rule is generally misunderstood. Or equally, I don't think it is understood. You now appear to be arguing the opposite side of your position.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.

Last edited by HoustonB; 03-23-09 at 09:41 AM.
HoustonB is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 10:11 AM
  #86  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
yelling?

So, roody, i hope you see how misinterpretations of as far right as practicable by 'advokates' like the blogger referenced in the OP or others like BF's erstwhile Helmet Head does a disservice to bicycling.

To hear and read bicyclists talking about as far right as practicable in such a misleading, marginalizing way is offensive.

It should be reiterated endlessly to each other and to the public by bicyclists that 'as far right as practicable' only means as far right as the bicyclist feels safe, predicates full lane use by bicyclists when the bicyclists deem it necessary, and that lane position is determined by the bicyclist.

If you don't think road bicycling, 'share the road' and 'as far right as practicable' is misunderstood by the public in america, I hate to dissolve your sugar coating on that bitter truth
.
Of course FRAP is misunderstood by the motoring public. It's also widely misunderstood by the cycling public. It's sometimes misunderstood by the police and the courts, based on what I've read on BF.

Do you see this confusion as an intrinsic problem with the FRAP law, or do you see it as merely a defect in traffic education for motorists and/or cyclists?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 01:24 PM
  #87  
aMull
Senior Member
 
aMull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,779

Bikes: Leader 735TR 09 58cm 46/17

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by smittie61984 View Post
I try to stay as far right as possible and always will. I understand that we are truly guests of the public roadways.
Which part of public roadways you don't get? I don't give a **** how fast drivers are, or how much of in a hurry they are. I have a right to use the roads to get to my destination as well, and i always take the lane. I don't see why i need to feel as a guest just because i'm getting to work in a different manner. Its sad that yuou perceive yourself in this way when you're out cycling, hugging the curb is just asking for trouble, period.
aMull is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 11:22 PM
  #88  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Of course FRAP is misunderstood by the motoring public. It's also widely misunderstood by the cycling public. It's sometimes misunderstood by the police and the courts, based on what I've read on BF.

Do you see this confusion as an intrinsic problem with the FRAP law, or do you see it as merely a defect in traffic education for motorists and/or cyclists?
I think it's a defect in american roadway culture coupled with autocentric planning and cultural bias favoring automobiles more than any wording of a law that codifies a basic traffic principle, roody.

It's not the law, it's cultural bias of american road use. removing as far right as practicable language from the books isn't going to get motorists any less upset at bicyclists using the lane.

what galls me is that doofuses like the blogger from the original post, or bicycling 'advokates' like hustonb or helmet head can knowingly misinterpret and marginalize what 'as far right as practicable' means to a bicyclist.

why cyclists like hustonb and helmet head choose to marginalize what as far right as practicable allows bicyclists independent of what the law states in black and white is beyond me. it's also beyond reproach. inexcusable.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-24-09 at 08:25 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-23-09, 11:39 PM
  #89  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HoustonB View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
... don't think .... misunderstood. Is a double negative the best way you can find to express your obvious confusion? the simple truth is that the majority of motorists think that "ride as far to the right as practicable" means stay out of the way. No need for sophistry or double negatives!
This means I do think the rule is generally misunderstood. Or equally, I don't think it is understood. You now appear to be arguing the opposite side of your position.
obtuse? i'll leave that to you, attacking my grammar after fabricating a complaint about my attribution of searchable quotes from helmet head. BTW, misunderstanding isn't a negative, it's ignorance. my statement to roody rings true.

I agree, bicyclists' road rights are misunderstood. if you don't think so, let me pour you some bitter tea to go with your grammatical whine.



motorists think bikes need to stay out of the way independent of any 'far to the right as practicable' laws. I doubt the average motorist could even utter 'bikes should stay as far right as practicable'.

I think it's misunderstood. why you, hustonb, bike advokates like helmet head or the chummy bunch of Chainguard follow-sheep misunderstand and marginalize what 'as far right as practicable' allows bicyclists is really poor form.

Originally Posted by hustonb
.... How would you feel if 'ride to the right' were rewritten as "cyclists should yield to faster traffic when it is safe to do so"?
BLECH!!! ANOTHER disgusting misinterpretation!

how foul that a bike advocate would talk about 'as far right as practicable' language being synonymous with 'bikes yield to faster traffic when safe'. why perpetuate that innacurate skew hustonB ? blech. bicyclists don't need your interpretation, dude.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-24-09 at 08:25 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 08:52 AM
  #90  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,308

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6370 Post(s)
Liked 72 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
I think it's a defect in american roadway culture coupled with autocentric planning and cultural bias favoring automobiles more than any wording of a law that codifies a basic traffic principle, roody.

It's not the law, it's cultural bias of american road use. removing as far right as practicable language from the books isn't going to get motorists any less upset at bicyclists using the lane.

what galls me is that doofuses like the blogger from the original post, or bicycling 'advokates' like hustonb or helmet head can knowingly misinterpret and marginalize what 'as far right as practicable' means to a bicyclist.

why cyclists like hustonb and helmet head choose to marginalize what as far right as practicable allows bicyclists independent of what the law states in black and white is beyond me. it's also beyond reproach. inexcusable.

Helmet Head is long gone... I think it is time to quote only those that are still here to defend their positions. Let's not beat a dead horse any more on this Bek.

Yeah there are problems with the interpretations of the law, agreed... but I don't belive anyone has yet offered a real good suggestion as to how to change both the law and the resulting culture. Cheap gas and over-powered vehicles don't help... anyone DRIVING on the roads today can see that "rude" is often the order of the day.
genec is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 09:19 AM
  #91  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EnigManiac View Post
You've got it all backward, my friend. We are not guests upon public roadways, motorists are: they must earn a license to operate on public roadways, it isn't a natural right as it is with human-powered pedestrians and cyclists (and skateboarders, etc.). Motorists can have their privelege revoked: we can't. And, while roads are designed to accomodate and control cars, they still face restrictions that the any member of the public does not. The police and courts simply need to start regarding motorists as guests, because when a guest in my home threatens, endangers or otherwise disrupts my space, I have that person removed and forever barred from entering again.

License plate fees and taxes and gas taxes do not fund the roads cyclists use: municipal taxes do and one way or another you are paying for the roads whether you own a home or rent. We are not required to have insurance because, for the most part, we cause little or no property damage and few injuries, if any. Motorists, on the other hand, wreak havoc on the roads to the tune of billions of dollars per year.
Oh good grief leave it to a cyclist to blow up roadway use into some constitutional issue. Yadda yadda we all pay for road use and we are all entitled to use them. The question is what is the 'highest and best use.' That use is cars and trucks. By any measure---passenger miles, ton miles, revenue miles, value added miles---bicycles are a miniscule contribution to the overall transportation matrix, even if, admittedly, they have a role to play in densely populated urban centers. I have a small car (a volvo); a motorcycle (for now), and a bike. Each one has a role for which it is optimal, and I mix all three of them up in proper season.

Nor do I see some 'constitutional right' for pedestrians to 'use roadways.' Last time i looked there were varying levels of protection pedestrians receive whilecrossing the roadway...from strong presumption of innocence if you are in a crosswalk, to complete dismissal of innocence if you dash out between parked cars in the middle of a block. As for 'using' to the roadway I see no such 'right' whatsoever...parade permits are one of many proofs of this, and I know of no judge, jury, or politician (even here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts) who would say ya have the right to 'walk' down the middle of a road. As fer 'sk8terdudes' don't make me laugh.

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 09:26 AM
  #92  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roughstuff View Post
Oh good grief leave it to a cyclist to blow up roadway use into some constitutional issue. Yadda yadda
I guess "as far right as practicable" applies to your politics also.

__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 09:31 AM
  #93  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Helmet Head is long gone... I think it is time to quote only those that are still here to defend their positions. Let's not beat a dead horse any more on this Bek.

Yeah there are problems with the interpretations of the law, agreed... but I don't belive anyone has yet offered a real good suggestion as to how to change both the law and the resulting culture. Cheap gas and over-powered vehicles don't help... anyone DRIVING on the roads today can see that "rude" is often the order of the day.
gene, that HH stands exemplar (and familar) as a chainguard Vehicular cyclist willing to marginalize what 'as far right as practicable' means to bicyclists isn't 'beating a dead horse'. I'll focus on hustonB's wildly innacurate equating of 'as far right as practicable' with 'bikes yield to faster traffic when safe' if it will make you feel better. Bike 'advocates' willing to marginalize what as far right as practicable allows bicyclists -like the blogger from the OP, or HustonB's misrepresentation of it as 'yielding' to faster traffic' are loathsome.

this thread's original post - about the bloggers' mistaken blogblurg that as far right as practicable in some way demands a compromise on his safety or a limitation on him taking the lane-

say what? from a 'bicycle advocacy and safety' blogger? just to gripe about a concept he chooses to deliberately mischaracterize? lame.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-24-09 at 09:42 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 09:47 AM
  #94  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
......and over-powered vehicles don't help... anyone DRIVING on the roads today can see that "rude" is often the order of the day.
Ya know what what is odd, genec, is why we submit to this overpowering. I agree machismo is part of it...but to be honest, how many guys an gals ACTUALLY know about and use all this power? To me it always seemed to be just 'there,' and ya had to pay for it twice...once for the price of the power, and second for the cost of the fuel to run such an overpowered engine. I have always thought that restrictions on horsepower would be a great step forward, in terms of mitigating traffic, accident, rudeness and road hogging issues.


roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 09:54 AM
  #95  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,308

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6370 Post(s)
Liked 72 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Roughstuff View Post
Oh good grief leave it to a cyclist to blow up roadway use into some constitutional issue. Yadda yadda we all pay for road use and we are all entitled to use them. The question is what is the 'highest and best use.' That use is cars and trucks. By any measure---passenger miles, ton miles, revenue miles, value added miles---bicycles are a miniscule contribution to the overall transportation matrix, even if, admittedly, they have a role to play in densely populated urban centers. I have a small car (a volvo); a motorcycle (for now), and a bike. Each one has a role for which it is optimal, and I mix all three of them up in proper season.

Nor do I see some 'constitutional right' for pedestrians to 'use roadways.' Last time i looked there were varying levels of protection pedestrians receive whilecrossing the roadway...from strong presumption of innocence if you are in a crosswalk, to complete dismissal of innocence if you dash out between parked cars in the middle of a block. As for 'using' to the roadway I see no such 'right' whatsoever...parade permits are one of many proofs of this, and I know of no judge, jury, or politician (even here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts) who would say ya have the right to 'walk' down the middle of a road. As fer 'sk8terdudes' don't make me laugh.

roughstuff
That same "highest and best use" also applies to "least efficient and most polluting." The fact is that while indeed trucks offer a decent way to move goods, the fact is that far too many cars are overused to the point of overcrowding the same roadways that are used to move the aforementioned goods.

Single passenger short distance automotive transportation in the US is the least efficient and most polluting way that the auto is used. The most classic example is "taking the kids to school."

The reality is that we need to have a balanced transportation policy... wherein the most effective means is used for the task, be it rapidly moving goods or locally moving people. Our current national cultural focus is that the "auto is king." That has lead to over crowded roadways and a huge demand on foreign oil resources, which further complicates our national agenda and our international relations.
genec is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 09:55 AM
  #96  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roughstuff View Post
Ya know what what is odd, genec, is why we submit to this overpowering. I agree machismo is part of it...but to be honest, how many guys an gals ACTUALLY know about and use all this power? To me it always seemed to be just 'there,' and ya had to pay for it twice...once for the price of the power, and second for the cost of the fuel to run such an overpowered engine. I have always thought that restrictions on horsepower would be a great step forward, in terms of mitigating traffic, accident, rudeness and road hogging issues.


roughstuff
Also, even if you want speed, engines run more efficiently at higher rpms, so you save even more fuel if you drive fast often. High horsepower should be reserved for the small minority of drivers who tow extemely heavy loads.

But restricting horse power? Government regulation? That's pretty radical stuff. I guess your politics aren't as far right as I thought!
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 10:01 AM
  #97  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
That same "highest and best use" also applies to "least efficient and most polluting." The fact is that while indeed trucks offer a decent way to move goods, the fact is that far too many cars are overused to the point of overcrowding the same roadways that are used to move the aforementioned goods.

Single passenger short distance automotive transportation in the US is the least efficient and most polluting way that the auto is used. The most classic example is "taking the kids to school."

The reality is that we need to have a balanced transportation policy... wherein the most effective means is used for the task, be it rapidly moving goods or locally moving people. Our current national cultural focus is that the "auto is king." That has lead to over crowded roadways and a huge demand on foreign oil resources, which further complicates our national agenda and our international relations
.
I agree, and you put it very well. The only thing I could add is that trucks, while obviously useful, are also overused. Freight trains are much more efficient and should be relied on whenever possible. Tax rates and federal infrastructure spending encourage roads over rail, unfortunately.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 10:02 AM
  #98  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Also, even if you want speed, engines run more efficiently at higher rpms, so you save even more fuel if you drive fast often. High horsepower should be reserved for the small minority of drivers who tow extemely heavy loads.

But restricting horse power? Government regulation? That's pretty radical stuff. I guess your politics aren't as far right as I thought!

No, they are not. And I wonder isfa horsepower regulation would be able to get thru, simply because it can be marketed as beneficial in so many ways...

(1) engines would be lighter and cheaper;
(2) fuel economy would be better;
(3) aggressive behavior such as tearing away when the light turns green would be curbed;
(4) speed limits would be more likely followed;
etc....

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 10:08 AM
  #99  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,308

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6370 Post(s)
Liked 72 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Also, even if you want speed, engines run more efficiently at higher rpms, so you save even more fuel if you drive fast often. High horsepower should be reserved for the small minority of drivers who tow extemely heavy loads.

But restricting horse power? Government regulation? That's pretty radical stuff. I guess your politics aren't as far right as I thought!
Restricting horse power is one thing... offering a wide variety of vehicles that meet our true transportation needs is quite another. The advent of the "supersized" vehicle in the early '90s is a particular part of the problem.

The muscle car culture is another issue... look at car ads on TV and ask yourself when was the last time you saw something that was aimed at transportation vice "sex, power, and speed."

America has a "size problem." From Big Gulps, to SUVs, to Mini-Mansions. Eventually we have to deal with it...

The recent rise in gas prices was just part of that wake up call. Perhaps the current economic crisis is another indicator of our "abuse of resources."

I honestly don't have the answers... but I do know that our current path of consumption is not sustainable... and that reality has to be understood by the entire nation. It will happen, but it is up to each one of us as to how painful the reality of that concept will be. Remember when "recycling" was an unheard of concept? Things can change.
genec is offline  
Old 03-24-09, 10:16 AM
  #100  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
I agree, and you put it very well. The only thing I could add is that trucks, while obviously useful, are also overused. Freight trains are much more efficient and should be relied on whenever possible. Tax rates and federal infrastructure spending encourage roads over rail, unfortunately.

We already have alot of that. Trains carry alot of freight..in fact, often goods are shipped in the back of trucks piggybacked on trains, to some point near their destination; then they are offloaded, shipped locally by truck, etc. There are long hauls on the interstates simply because some shipments are high enough value (and time is unpredictable) that movement is best done that way. This is especially true for multiple dropoff loads.

Don't forget...building 'highways and post roads' is specifically mentioned as one of the powers and responsibilities mentioned in the constitution. Most people (environmentalists excepted) have known since Roman times that transportation is a key factor in economic, political, amd military security.

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.