View Poll Results: Please choose the option that most accurately reflects your position.
I support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes when they exist.
2
2.11%
I support laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes as long as they have reasonable exceptions (e.g. CA's 21208).
27
28.42%
I would support repealing any laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes.
16
16.84%
I would support a law that explicitly said cyclists are never required to ride in a bike lane.
6
6.32%
I would support repealing any laws that require cyclists to ride in bike lanes AND I would support a law that explicitly said cyclists are never required to ride in a bike lane.
44
46.32%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll
Mandatory bike lanes
03-24-05, 08:04 PM
#676
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Serge *******
To provide an objective means by which to determine whether a given position is supported by logic and reason based on reasonable premises, or is nonsense...
I'm willing to put my position up to such scrutiny (and have).
I'm willing to put my position up to such scrutiny (and have).
03-24-05, 08:49 PM
#677
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Yeah but you're not willing to consider counter arguments ... Therefore it is not a discussion... Just Serge "preaching."
Gene, in addition to the counter points to my argument that you made in #659, you also made three statements of your opinion about my general opinions about bike lanes which did not constitute a counter argument to the specific argument I presented.
As to the actual counter points you presented, I considered them and addressed them in detail in #662.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=662
It is you who are not considering and responding to what I'm saying. For example, in #662, in response to a point of yours I considered and could not understand the relevance of, I asked for clarification, which you never provided:
Originally Posted by Serge
My premise simply states that because of this, motorists (like you) assume that cyclists are more predictable because of a painted stripe... You're not disputing this, are you?
The only reason this is not a discussion is because you're not giving my argument the careful consideration you would have to give it to see whether it's convincing or has flaws. The full argument is presented in post #674 and is awaiting your analysis. I put a lot of time and effort into it, and would appreciate your giving it some attention. Thanks.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=674
Last edited by Serge Issakov; 03-24-05 at 09:08 PM.
03-24-05, 09:14 PM
#678
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 760
Bikes: Road, Mtn, Tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Serge, in order to comment on just some of your items I've pruned the others from this reply.
Comments on the premises listed above; as you may know,
Comments on the reasoning listed above; as you may know,
Here's a version of that conclusion which, IMHO, is more "in line" 
with the US model Rules:
Originally Posted by Serge *******
PREMISES
- Motorists assume that cyclists riding in bike lanes are more predictable than are cyclists riding in WOLs because of the painted stripe.
- Cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes because they are confident motorists will not cross the BL stripe and hit them from behind.
- When riding in a WOL, the cyclist has the right-of-way in that lane, which the passing motorist must take care not to violate.
- When riding in a BL, the cyclist does not have any right-of-way in the adjacent lane used by the motorist.
- the assumption here is based on a Rule of Road < the US model rule is UVC 11-309(a), Driving on roadways laned for traffic>
- this assumption isn't based on a Rule of Road <the US model rule is UVC 11-303(a), Overtaking a vehicle on the left, which "works" the same regardless of markings, signage, or the lack thereof>
- same comment as for premise #2
- same comment as for premise #1
Originally Posted by Serge *******
REASONING
- Because cyclists are just as likely to swerve to avoid an obstacle regardless of the presence of the stripe, cyclists are actually no more predictable in bike lanes than when they are riding in the same position in a WOL.
- the assumed behavior would be contrary to a Rule of Road < the US model rule is UVC 11-309(a), Driving on roadways laned for traffic>.
Originally Posted by Serge *******
CONCLUSION
Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL with a smaller safety margin than a cyclist in a WOL, and because there is no basis to justify a smaller safety margin (cyclists are just as likely to swerve), the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.
Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL with a smaller safety margin than a cyclist in a WOL, and because there is no basis to justify a smaller safety margin (cyclists are just as likely to swerve), the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.
with the US model Rules:- Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL more closely than if there was no BL stripe, and
- because the cyclist is more likely to fall due to debris which are swept into (but not beyond) the BL by vehicle types banned from the BL,
__________________
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
Last edited by bwileyr; 03-25-05 at 12:37 AM. Reason: increase readability
03-24-05, 09:38 PM
#679
Sumanitu taka owaci
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Bwileyr,
I finally see the light. Now I know why it's best to keep it simple.
I didn't understand a word of what you just said. Maybe I should ask Serge, or John E.
(I did understand this, tho: "Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL to the left thereof at less of a distance than if there was no BL stripe, and because the cyclist is more likely to fall due to debris which are swept into, but not beyond, the BL by the vehicle types which are forbidden to travel where the BL is, the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.")
I sure as hell don't want to play chess with you guys.
I finally see the light. Now I know why it's best to keep it simple.
I didn't understand a word of what you just said. Maybe I should ask Serge, or John E.
(I did understand this, tho: "Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL to the left thereof at less of a distance than if there was no BL stripe, and because the cyclist is more likely to fall due to debris which are swept into, but not beyond, the BL by the vehicle types which are forbidden to travel where the BL is, the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.")
I sure as hell don't want to play chess with you guys.
__________________
No worries
No worries
Last edited by LittleBigMan; 03-24-05 at 09:44 PM.
03-24-05, 10:17 PM
#680
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Any argument I post you will counter with the typical: "well I have not seen it, it does not happen to me, therefore it does not happen" statements.
That is the point I made in what you called ad hominem attacks and non sequitors.
I then continued and offered my counter points in that same post 659, and you dismissed them, except my point 1, in your post 662.
Any other counterpoints I offer, you will simply dismiss, so there is no point in going on.
That is the point I made in what you called ad hominem attacks and non sequitors.
I then continued and offered my counter points in that same post 659, and you dismissed them, except my point 1, in your post 662.
Any other counterpoints I offer, you will simply dismiss, so there is no point in going on.
03-24-05, 11:29 PM
#681
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bruce - thank you.
Gene - I'm disappointed. I did not dismiss your 659 counterpoints in my 662 post. 662 speaks for itself.
Gene - I'm disappointed. I did not dismiss your 659 counterpoints in my 662 post. 662 speaks for itself.
