squirtdad

Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing


https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/

Chris516

Excellent link!!!!

I like the chronological breakdown.

B. Carfree

I do wish he had chosen his closing words a little better. To wit:

groan.

rydabent

Drivers think the roads are "their" roads. History shows that starting before 1900 the League of Wheelmen was the driving force for good roads. So-------------in fact auto drivers are actually driving on "our" roads.

Bekologist

Unfortunately, bob shanteau is also one of those 'repeal the LAB' bliviots..... he's fallen into quite the cadre of anti-cycling tools. And it's a shame. The vehikularists position is dedicated to repealing everything positive that's happened in american cycling in the last 40 years out of a terribly misguided impression no bike laws or facilities of any kind is a preferable position for cyclists.

njkayaker

Why aren't riders of horses (or pedestrians) complaining?

Roads existed before bicycles.

njkayaker

This is wrong.

Passing is an exception to the requirement to "drive entirely within a single lane" (it has to be: otherwise passing would not be legal).

As far as I know, there isn't any legal requirement to move completely into another lane when passing.

rydabent

njkayaker

But the roads before the League of Wheelmen got involved were little more than cow paths. The Wheelmen lobbied for smooth easily passable roads. Remember early bikes did not have inflateable tires, and needed smooth roads.

genec

Are there not laws that prohibit lane splitting in most states... wouldn't that require moving completely over?

Bekologist

What makes you think pedestrians aren't complaining?

Trouble is, the vehikular cykling movement is akin to pedestrians lobbying to remove sidewalks, curb cuts, ADA standards, crosswalks, overpasses, pedestrian crossing signals and vulnerable user laws protecting pedestrians.

It's a sham, seeking to furtively marginalize cyclists under absurd posturing their pogrom is good for cycling.

CbadRider

I deleted the disruptive posts and cleaned up the thread.

If you can't discuss this topic without throwing insults or regurgitating old arguments, then don't post. Anyone continuing to do so will be asked to leave the thread.

CbadRider
Forum Admin

genec

From that piece...

This is all well and good and of course Forester constantly chants this... But bear in mind that the piece also points out that drivers, LEOs and judges don't understand the existing laws... and I contend that most motorists have no idea of the laws and that many LEOs try to enforce their own view of what the laws should be... so deleting the FTR law isn't going to mean a thing to a driving pubic that essentially has no clue anyway.

But let's go on. The biggest irony is that the piece points out that cyclists once rode along just as motorists, and shared the road completely... before lane lines existed. And before cars had the performance they have today, and the roads were as crowded as today, and before surface arterial road speed limits were and are approaching 55MPH... But, OK, I'll accept that before lane lines, cyclists were equals on the road... so all we have to do is implement the ideas of Hans Monderman and stop coddling motorists with "slot car" designed roads with helpful signs every 10 feet.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-448747.html
When we have to tell motorists to watch out for pedestrians at street corners... well frankly something is terribly wrong...

There really is no reason for that sign to exist... drivers that have passed a test and hold a license should be well aware of their responsibilities... but if they have to be told to watch for peds... do you really think they have a clue as to FTR laws? NOT HARDLY.

njkayaker

I know about that.

So what? What about the Romans?

The roads that they had made "smooth" probably were a tiny percentage of roads anyway (most likely in cities).

There was still a heck of a lot of road usage by non-cyclists (regardless of the quality of those roads).

njkayaker

"Lane splitting" is one thing. Passing is another.

Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.

The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").

This is wrong.

===================

As far as I know, there aren't any laws explicitly prohibiting lane splitting (maybe, some states prohibit it but it's not common).

In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.

Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).

Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).

Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).

No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.

Why are you talking about lane splitting?

njkayaker

???

Where are they complaining? What are they complaining about?

(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)

I-Like-To-Bike

Where? See https://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-de...50BDD8D4D.html
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?

Bekologist

What does it matter pedestrian advocacy groups are tirelessly working to improve equity and pedestrian access/safety.

exactly. that's the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists. it's as if pedestrians were lobbying long and hard to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians on equal footing as motorists.

Bob Shanteau and his ilk promote a denigratory view of cycling, unwittingly (or deviously) seek to marginalize cycling with their flipflopped muddle of cyclists rights, and promote an 'advocacy' platform that seeks to set cycling back 40 years in this country.

njkayaker

Not quite. (And one can dismiss almost anything in the WSJ Opinion page.)

Bekologist

how about alliance for biking AND walking

or

americawalks.org/

are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america? the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists is akin to pedestrians lobbying long to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians sharing the road.

njkayaker

??? That some pedestrians have complaints about something doesn't mean those complaints are relevant to this discussion.

If you want cyclists to be "safe" like pedestrians, you should be arguing that they keep to the sidewalk.

No, silly. These advocacy groups aren't arguing that pedestrians should walk in the middle of highways. You are just throwing irrelevant crap into this thread.

Here, you sort-of half get what I was saying. The argument that bicyclists "own" the roads because of the "good roads" initiative is a weak argument. That's is a "precedent" argument, and using it means that pedestrians and horse riders would have a better claim to "owning" the roads than bicyclists do.

genec

Merely pointing out that in some states (as you noted) it is expressly forbidden, yet in all states, it is expected that cyclists should split lanes... yet another irony of the vastly unknown bike laws.

As a cyclist, I really just want a safe pass... something that has ever widening distances as speed goes up... none of this "well I didn't hit you did I." Every time I hear that comment, I want to wave my fist past the face of the offender and then say "well I didn't hit you did I..."

But whatever... no, passing does NOT require a full lane change... but it does require a modicum of courtesy towards another human being.

njkayaker

What is one state that explicitly disallows "lane splitting"?

And, cyclists riding at the right side of the road way is not "lane splitting" (which is, basically, straddling a lane marker).

And riding at the right side of the roadway is explicitly allowed in all states.

It's normal and common for laws to explicitly specify exceptions to the general law.

There's no "irony" because: 1) it's not "lane splitting" and 2) exceptions to the general laws are common.

Then, why the heck are you arguing that a full lane change is required?

What the heck are you talking about??

genec

Uh, never did... In fact I explicitly state a "As a cyclist, I really just want a safe pass... something that has ever widening distances as speed goes up..."

I did state that some states have laws against lane splitting... but then seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to cyclists. But again I don't advocate that a motorist has to move to another lane... you seem to be taking my comment much further than I intended. Drop it.

Bekologist

no, no, you seemed genuinely unaware there are pedestrian advocacy groups in america. My analogy is apt, and you agree with my point- pedestrian advocacy groups AREN'T arguing that pedestrians should just waik in the middle of highways. This slanted, denigratory 'opinion' piece is akin to pedestrian advocates lobbying to rip out all the sidewalks and get rid of vulnerable user laws.



one could ask the same of you. You disagree with at least some of the premise of the piece of vehicukar cykling propaganda.

Siu Blue Wind

Okay everyone, *tinks glass* listen up. work with me here.

BEK IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!!! GOT THAT??

Okay now that THAT's over,

Bek please leave this thread. I'm tired of the complaints and frankly, ain't nobody got time for dat. Thank you.