|
BillH, actually it is more insidious than that... There is the implication that cyclists "rights" are violated... however, the cyclist is only a cyclist when they use a bicycle, the operator, a human, retains all their "rights" and can invoke the "rights" of any other operator simply by changing machines.
No other group of "segregated" humans has ever been able to switch "classes" simply by choice... And in this case, choice of modes of transportation. I wonder when the "trainists" are going to argue that they have the right to leave the tracks... or the motorists have the right to access the sidewalks... :D |
Originally Posted by genec
BillH, actually it is more insidious than that... There is the implication that cyclists "rights" are violated... however, the cyclist is only a cyclist when they use a bicycle, the operator, a human, retains all their "rights" and can invoke the "rights" of any other operator simply by changing machines.
No other group of "segregated" humans has ever been able to switch "classes" simply by choice... And in this case, choice of modes of transportation. I wonder when the "trainists" are going to argue that they have the right to leave the tracks... or the motorists have the right to access the sidewalks... :D And it doesn't mean we only have those rights when we're operating motor vehicles. It means we have those rights while we're riding our bikes:
Originally Posted by CA VC 21200
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, ...
That is not true for pedestrians, skate boarders, skiers, skaters, or "trainists"... Serge |
Originally Posted by SERGE
I know you're kidding, but do you realize that in order for this to be funny you have to overlook the little point about the law recognizing that cyclists have the same rights as do vehicle drivers.
|
Originally Posted by sbhikes
Driver intolerance to cyclists being out of the bike lane or otherwise using the road in a vehicular manner is a driver education issue, not a bike lane issue.
|
Originally Posted by genec
And the same laws also recognized the differences in operation of various vehicles, and provided special provisions therein: " any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic..."
However, I would like to see that challenged, because I believe, in practice, it does. Consider the following scenario presented by John Forester on rec.bicycles.soc in 1994:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Consider the cyclist who is setting up for a left-hand turn
at the next intersection and has left the bike lane. A motorist exits a driveway from the cyclist's left and makes a left turn, hitting the cyclist. The cyclist has severe injuries and can't talk for a time. The accident report will list the cyclist as at fault for not being in the bike lane, in violation of 21208 (California Vehicle Code number). The motorists' attorney argues, with specious accuracy, that had the cyclist been in the bike lane where he belonged, his client would never have hit him. If the cyclist can't talk, or can't remember the accident (a regrettably frequent event), in a legal sense he is done for. Even if he can explain that he intended to turn left, he is open to the argument that he put himself in danger by leaving the bike lane unnecessarily early. Motorists never have to make similar arguments; cyclists have to make such arguments because, in the context of American motoring society, the bike-lane laws were advocated, written and enacted by motorists to make cyclists do just that. Words that appear to express the fair notion that the roadway is fairly divided between motorists and cyclists were actually intended, and in fact are used as, methods of discriminating against cyclists. |
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That's right, which is why, technically, 21208, does not violate the rights of cyclists.
However, I would like to see that challenged, because I believe, in practice, it does. Consider the following scenario presented by John Forester on rec.bicycles.soc in 1994: Com'on you can make all kinds of outlandish scenerios where the motorists attorneys if the cyclist is not able to defend themselves... such as the lawyer/professor in Dallas: "the sun was in my eyes" or the northern Cal woman who claimed the experienced female rider "crossed the line." Neither one of these involved Bike Lanes. Shall I go on? Speaking of second class... in this auto-centric society, cyclists don't have a chance... look at the accident case histories in Forester's book... it has not gotten any better. |
Originally Posted by genec
And how would that cyclist be "protected" if the motorist claimed the same defense when the cyclists was on the right side of the motorist in a WOL and swerved to avoid a pot hole...
In order to prove that a motorist was driving too slow, and his driving too slow was a contributory cause to some collision, you have to prove the motorist was driving too slow. With a cyclist it is assumed, unless proven otherwise. That's not fair. |
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Originally Posted by jf
Consider the cyclist who is setting up for a left-hand turn
at the next intersection and has left the bike lane. A motorist exits a driveway from the cyclist's left and makes a left turn, hitting the cyclist... Rather than complain about bike lanes, your money/time would be better spent on a bright neon-green jacket with reflective piping, good lighting, a bike flag or any other visiblity aid device you are comfortable with. You will be more visible and you will put the decision in your favor. How could they not see you? Plus, you have the right of way. This statute that you quote does not match the rules of the road for California that I have read that says that you have an obligation as a bicyclist to make left turns from left turn lanes. |
Originally Posted by sbhikes
This could happen regardless of the presence or absence of bike lanes.
Rather than complain about bike lanes, your money/time would be better spent on a bright neon-green jacket with reflective piping, good lighting, a bike flag or any other visiblity aid device you are comfortable with. You will be more visible and you will put the decision in your favor. How could they not see you? Plus, you have the right of way. This statute that you quote does not match the rules of the road for California that I have read that says that you have an obligation as a bicyclist to make left turns from left turn lanes. As to "complaining" about bike lanes, I just want to bring their problems and dangers (including those inherent to the fundamental concept of bike lanes, which thus applies to ALL bike lanes) to the attention of cyclists. What's wrong with that? |
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
As to "complaining" about bike lanes, I just want to bring their problems and dangers (including those inherent to the fundamental concept of bike lanes, which thus applies to ALL bike lanes) to the attention of cyclists. What's wrong with that?
|
Well, as long as folks keep making posts that indicate they still don't get it...
|
Maybe someone should post a poll and vote on exactly what species of troll inhabits these pages...
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...ssrebutter.htm http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ego.htm :) |
:p
|
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Well, as long as folks keep making posts that indicate they still don't get it...
|
Originally Posted by sbhikes
There it is everybody! Just agree with Serge and he'll stop!
But misstatements about VC, bike lanes, mischaracterizations of what I said or what I meant, etc., compel me to clarify... (much like this quoted statement) |
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That's right, which is why, technically, 21208, does not violate the rights of cyclists.
However, I would like to see that challenged, because I believe, in practice, it does. Consider the following scenario presented by John Forester on rec.bicycles.soc in 1994: |
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Well, as long as folks keep making posts that indicate they still don't get it...
Why do so many think it is their "duty" to slow the world down to their pace? Like I proposed before, go to work, work at 1/3 the speed of everyone else, and see what happens. That's why drivers don't want cyclists constantly slowing them down. It's a carry-over from the rest of our culture. Every time I see someone reminding us of our "rights" on the road, I notice that the "responsibilities" are never stressed. |
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Actually, agreement is not required to get me to stop.
But misstatements about VC, bike lanes, mischaracterizations of what I said or what I meant, etc., compel me to clarify... (much like this quoted statement) The message that others get is what you said. It involves more than just the exact wording. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.