Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

Cyclist Inferiority - discussion

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

Cyclist Inferiority - discussion

Old 05-01-07, 06:53 PM
  #126  
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Like I said, unless the law says it's illegal, it's legal.

There is also no law that makes it illegal, specifically, to burn your tires while accelerating. But there is a law against "exhibition of power" that makes burning your tires illegal.

Unless the law says it's illegal, it's legal.
I JUST told you that is not the case, and gave a specific example from MI law. There is no "exhibition of power" statute in MI.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:56 PM
  #127  
noisebeam
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,990

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5088 Post(s)
Liked 1,800 Times in 1,074 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
I JUST told you that is not the case, and gave a specific example from MI law. There is no "exhibition of power" statute in MI.
What about waste of finite resource?
Or reckless (which is what you use it sounds like)?
Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:57 PM
  #128  
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here is the MI statute that does not describe a specific action:

Originally Posted by Michigan Legislature
257.626b Careless or negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.

Sec. 626b.
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or a frozen public lake, stream, or pond or other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless or negligent manner likely to endanger any person or property, but without wantonness or recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:57 PM
  #129  
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
I JUST told you that is not the case, and gave a specific example from MI law. There is no "exhibition of power" statute in MI.

Oh, don't feel bad, if it doesn't help his cause, it must be due to "cyclist inferiority"
natelutkjohn is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:57 PM
  #130  
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Or reckless (which is what you use it sounds like)?
Al
That is correct, Al
deputyjones is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:58 PM
  #131  
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
I JUST told you that is not the case, and gave a specific example from MI law. There is no "exhibition of power" statute in MI.
What you gave was an example of a behavior that is illegal because a law says it is illegal, which makes my point.

The "Careless", "Reckless", and "Felonious" driving statutes specifically and others more generally are what makes doing donuts illegal.

Get it?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:58 PM
  #132  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
I JUST told you that is not the case, and gave a specific example from MI law. There is no "exhibition of power" statute in MI.
No use man.
I've been on hundreds of message boards over the years and every one of them has their own laywer wannabes, can you guess who the one here is.
It's even been pointed out to him how his assumption can be incorrect but he throws up his wall of words to defend it.
I'm sure the first person convicted of beastiality wasn't breaking a law either, but thanks to the case law way things are handled here he did time in jail and then a law was enacted.
I've already given up on this thread.
Now I'm off to comit a nonillegal *thing*.
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 06:59 PM
  #133  
galen_52657
Banned.
 
galen_52657's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Towson, MD
Posts: 4,020

Bikes: 2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Get it?
Unlikely......
galen_52657 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:00 PM
  #134  
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
Here is the MI statute that does not describe a specific action:
And there is the law that makes doing donuts illegal.

No one said anything about a specific action having to be called out specifically in that law in order to make the action illegal. If that's what you think I meant, please tell me what words I wrote that caused you to have such an absurd interpretation, so I can fix it.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:01 PM
  #135  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 12,062

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1225 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
No, unlike others I don't "try" to say anything, I just say it.
And how in the hell did you come up with that conclusion from my post?
I'm asking if it is illegal or legal to pass a line of stopped traffic on the right while in the same lane as the stopped traffic.
You said previously:

Originally Posted by pj7
Don't forget this point:
and when the vehicles are moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic.

It clearly states that the vehicles must be moving.
And then:

Originally Posted by pj7
That is what we are discussing, passing a line of stopped traffic, not just passing on the right.
Based on this statement, you seem to be distinguishing between "passing a line of stopped traffic" and "passing on the right" and maybe it's just me, but the only distinguishing feature between the two is that one is stopped and the other isn't. You made no mention of "while in the same lane."

Now, reread the Michigan law. Nowhere does it state that the lines of traffic must be in marked lanes (whereas Delaware's vehicle code does make this distinction if the road is not a one way roadway). I commented on this and it seems that you ignored it or didn't notice. What's your interpreation of "substantially continuous lanes of traffic?" If you read this as "lanes of traffic" why do you think they bothered to make the distinction? As I said before, I believe they are saying that the pavement width has to be consistent to allow for substantially continuous use, not that it must actually be marked for individual lanes. I could be wrong though.
joejack951 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:03 PM
  #136  
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by galen_52657
Unlikely......


And of course he picked something to do with donuts for his example.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:04 PM
  #137  
noisebeam
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,990

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5088 Post(s)
Liked 1,800 Times in 1,074 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
No use man.
I've been on hundreds of message boards over the years and every one of them has their own laywer wannabes, can you guess who the one here is.
Thats right. The real laywers on the board would interpret the law just posted as:
"257.626b Careless AND negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.

Sec. 626b.
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway AND a frozen public lake, stream, AND pond AND other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless AND negligent manner likely to endanger any person AND property, but without wantonness AND recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction."




Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:08 PM
  #138  
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Thats right. The real laywers on the board would interpret the law just posted as:
"257.626b Careless AND negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.

Sec. 626b.
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway AND a frozen public lake, stream, AND pond AND other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless AND negligent manner likely to endanger any person AND property, but without wantonness AND recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction."




Al


Cya
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:09 PM
  #139  
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
And there is the law that makes doing donuts illegal.

No one said anything about a specific action having to be called out specifically in that law in order to make the action illegal. If that's what you think I meant, please tell me what words I wrote that caused you to have such an absurd interpretation, so I can fix it.
Not really an absurd interpretation since the discussion was in regards to a specific action of filtering in traffic. My point was that just because there is no law in MI that says you may not does not mean you necessarily may.

And Galen you can climb back into HH's designer pet carrier anytime.

and I used the donuts reference on purpose Glad you caught it.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:11 PM
  #140  
galen_52657
Banned.
 
galen_52657's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Towson, MD
Posts: 4,020

Bikes: 2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I am only here for the donuts...
galen_52657 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:18 PM
  #141  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
You said previously:



And then:



Based on this statement, you seem to be distinguishing between "passing a line of stopped traffic" and "passing on the right" and maybe it's just me, but the only distinguishing feature between the two is that one is stopped and the other isn't. You made no mention of "while in the same lane."

Now, reread the Michigan law. Nowhere does it state that the lines of traffic must be in marked lanes (whereas Delaware's vehicle code does make this distinction if the road is not a one way roadway). I commented on this and it seems that you ignored it or didn't notice. What's your interpreation of "substantially continuous lanes of traffic?" If you read this as "lanes of traffic" why do you think they bothered to make the distinction? As I said before, I believe they are saying that the pavement width has to be consistent to allow for substantially continuous use, not that it must actually be marked for individual lanes. I could be wrong though.
You're right, I did overlook that point in your statement.
As for where I was talking about "in the same lane" and such it was in the previous posts that started this entire discussion. Maybe you didn't see those, as there has been at least a full page of posts since then so it is likely. But back when I made the first comments, I made it clear to everyone in the discussion at the time that I was talking about passing a line of stopped cars while in the same lane, and passing on the right.
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:20 PM
  #142  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 12,062

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1225 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Nothing, they are not there, how could they "do something" in their absence? However, on roads such as this (and much like the major arterial arterial going through my neighborhood) motorists often resort to "get on the sidewalk" to cyclists riding in the lane (out of door zones).
Man, it's tough to keep up with these threads. Al posted in reply to my original statement and was spot on with my intent. I personally rarely hear "get on the sidewalk." As sad as it may be, I often (weekly) get gestures from passing drivers waving their hands to the right telling me where I should be riding. This happens both on narrow lane roads and on wider roads where I am avoiding right turn lanes. Just tonight, I had some teenager pass me on the right using a right turn lane while pointing to the right turn lane like that was where I should be. Of course this is all happening while we are approaching a red light.

In my experience, the notion that cyclists should stay to the right of any line seperating the main traffic lanes (not including turn lanes) from the rest of the roadway is the cause of much more harassment than the notion that cyclists shouldn't be on the road at all.
joejack951 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:22 PM
  #143  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
And there is the law that makes doing donuts illegal.

No one said anything about a specific action having to be called out specifically in that law in order to make the action illegal. If that's what you think I meant, please tell me what words I wrote that caused you to have such an absurd interpretation, so I can fix it.
How about you little rant on eating broccoli being illegal?
That points out a "specific" thing as being illegal.
Don't do the John Kerry flip flop thing on us now.
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:23 PM
  #144  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 12,062

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1225 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
You're right, I did overlook that point in your statement.
As for where I was talking about "in the same lane" and such it was in the previous posts that started this entire discussion. Maybe you didn't see those, as there has been at least a full page of posts since then so it is likely. But back when I made the first comments, I made it clear to everyone in the discussion at the time that I was talking about passing a line of stopped cars while in the same lane, and passing on the right.
I've read the entire thread and understand the difference between passing on the right in a seperate lane and passing on the right in the same lane. My question to you is: where does the Michigan code state that the vehicles must be in seperate lanes? Also, if you interpret "substantially continuous lanes of traffic" as meaning "seperate lanes for traffic" why do you think they made the distinction in this law? For the record, I don't believe that Michigan means "seperate lanes for traffic" when they state "substantially continuous lanes of traffic."
joejack951 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:33 PM
  #145  
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
How about you little rant on eating broccoli being illegal?
That points out a "specific" thing as being illegal.
Don't do the John Kerry flip flop thing on us now.
Actually HH is more the Rush Limbaugh of BF. If you can't win the argument just insult them.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:37 PM
  #146  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
I've read the entire thread and understand the difference between passing on the right in a seperate lane and passing on the right in the same lane. My question to you is: where does the Michigan code state that the vehicles must be in seperate lanes? Also, if you interpret "substantially continuous lanes of traffic" as meaning "seperate lanes for traffic" why do you think they made the distinction in this law? For the record, I don't believe that Michigan means "seperate lanes for traffic" when they state "substantially continuous lanes of traffic."
Of course we were just using Michigan as an example here. And I'm not necessarily interpeting anything here. It's the people who try to "interpet" laws just so they could do something in order to avoid something that everyone else is part of that are the ones standing in front of a judge trying to show why they played lawyer instead of playing it safe.

Here is the relevant part in the Michigan Vehicle code that pertains to passing traffic on the right. Of course it is not clear, at least not as clear as people would like it to be.

(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by
parked vehicles of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles
in each direction and when the vehicles are moving in substantially
continuous lanes of traffic.


You'll see in the snippet that it says "and when the vehicles are moving" as well as "continuous lanes of traffic".
Nowhere do I see it saying anything about sharing a lane.
I was looking for something telling me it was legal to pass on the right in the same lane, and as of yet I haven't been shown that.
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:38 PM
  #147  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
Actually HH is more the Rush Limbaugh of BF. If you can't win the argument just insult them.
JF himself resorted to that earlier in this thread.
Like Father like son.
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:42 PM
  #148  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
Actually HH is more the Rush Limbaugh of BF. If you can't win the argument just insult them.
Incorrect. I've posted my suspicions before. HH is:

__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:49 PM
  #149  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Actually, we have a cop in here right now, we can just ask him.
Deputy Jones. What would you do if.
You saw two lanes of traffic sitting at a stop light. The outside lane is wide enough for two cars but is not marked as an extra lane. So there are only two marked lanes for traffic. Someone in the right lane pulls to the right, passes all the other traffic and waits at the head of the line right next to the lead car in the right lane. The light goes green. The impatient driver then gives it the gas and pulls in ahead of the lead car.
What would you do as a police officer on patrol?
Now imageine that the impatient car filters up to the front, and while the light is still green he turns left in front of the lead car and is now the lead car himself. The light goes green and they all take off.
what would you do then?
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:51 PM
  #150  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 12,062

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1225 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by pj
Nowhere do I see it saying anything about sharing a lane.
I was looking for something telling me it was legal to pass on the right in the same lane, and as of yet I haven't been shown that.
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction and when the vehicles are moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic.

What part of the bolded text says that you must be in a different lane? Seems pretty clear to me that they are just saying you need to stay on the pavement to pass on the right.
joejack951 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.