Helmet Head

It is true that the value of developments out of practical reach by human power has risen with the popularity of the automobile, but distances are an urban sprawl issue, not a roadway design issue.

High maximum speed limits usually exceed the requirements for bicyclists (though there are some downhills on which they do not meet my requirements ). I, for one, have no requirement for low maximum speed limits. Do you? My only requirement is that there be no minimum speed limit. Freeways are a separate matter.

Multiple lanes also exceed the requirements of cyclists (or, as you say below, are "overkill"). But that is hardly an example of not meeting our requirements.

Again, freeways are a separate matter. If you're going from L.A. to San Francisco by bike, the coastal route is obviously preferable to the inland I-5 route favored by motorists in a hurry.

But since a cyclist can reasonably get from A to B for any two points A and B in the continental U.S. using surface streets (including 8 lane arterials, but not freeways), I don't see which needs are not being met.

The devil is in the details. What specific needs of cyclists are not met by meeting the needs of motorists? Name the "need" that is allegedly not being met.

Allister

Do you seriously believe that the two can be separated in any way?

joejack951

Interrupting the flow of traffic is vehicular for the driver of any vehicle. Roads would look a lot different if motorists never had to worry about interupting the flow of others (no stop signs, red lights, yield signs, etc.).

Allister

Exactly, but it's not 'interrupting' anything. It's part of the flow of traffic, which is a contantly varying thing, dependant on many conditions, including cycling. Using the term 'interrupting' or 'disrupting' implies something out of the ordinary, which it isn't.

larryfeltonj

It most certainly doesn't. A traffic signal interrupts my forward movement, and it isn't out of the ordinary.

Allister

Normal traffic flow doesn't mean perpetual forward movement. Traffic signals allow movement from intersecting roads, which is necessary for optimal traffic flow. Traffic signals are a method for regulating traffic flow. If all directions were for some unplanned reason brought to a halt, that would be an interruption.

But the main point I was trying to make was - if you see what you do as 'interrupting' or 'disrupting' traffic, you're not seeing yourself as being a part of the traffic, which I thought was the fundamental premise of VC. Yes, sometimes traffic needs to slow down or otherwise change the rate or direction of flow to allow for cyclists, but that's not an 'interruption' to the process, it's a necessary part of the process.

This sort of mentality plays right into the kind of thinking that says we shouldn't be on the road at all. It's the kind of thinking that accepts choked roads as an inevitable and even accepted part of traffic, but a cyclist taking the lane as unacceptable.

I accept this may not be what Serge was talking about, but it wouldn't be the first time he chose his words poorly.

larryfeltonj

It probably wouldn't be productive to dig further into the word "interrupting" (which I view very differently from the word "disrupting"), but I certainly wouldn't disagree with the assertion that cyclists should be viewed as part of the normal flow of traffic.

joejack951

Disregarding my word choice, my point was the same as yours. Normal traffic "flow" isn't really a "flow." A cyclist (or any other vehicle that wasn't there before) operating in traffic is just one more factor affecting the flow. Overall, the affect of one more vehicle (operating lawfully) is very little on the overall "flow" of traffic regardless of that vehicle's speed.

Helmet Head

Nor would I. Duh.

Helmet Head

Of course. A given roadway design can cover long or short distances. A given route over just about any distance can be covered by dirt road design, a freeway design, or anything else in between.

Distance between points is a separate issue from the type of road it is. There is some overlap, of course, but that's beside the point.

Helmet Head

In the context of laws about the rights and responsibilities of drivers of slow moving vehicles, normal traffic flow most certainly means perpetual forward movement. That is, as long as there is forward movement in the traffic, then the laws generally apply. If that flow is interrupted, by a traffic signal, someone slowing to park, or whatever, then the driver of a slow moving vehicle is no longer required to move and keep right. With respect to that kind of flow, a cyclist moving slower than motor traffic who is controlling a main traffic lane, most certainly "interrupts" or "disrupts" the flow, as does the driver of any slow moving vehicle.

But you do have a good and important point. In order to ride safely, effectively and comfortably in traffic, it is important to not see yourself as being an aberration to the traffic in general. That is, it's important to recognize that interrupting or disrupting normal traffic flow is a normal and not bad thing. This is what traffic signals, drivers of slow moving vehicles, stop signs, drivers slowing (or even backing up ) to park or turn, etc. do. Cyclists do too. That's fine.

genec

That is highly inconsistent with your Answer C issue regarding the flow of traffic...

Keith99

Perhaps the name, little else. I graduated high school in 1970, in 10th grade (that would make it 1968) part of drivers ED was a Disney film about mister walker and mister wheeler (driver). Road rage by any other name.

Helmet Head

Why do you think it's inconsistent at all, much less highly inconsistent?

Are you surprised that accidents can happen more often when there are red lights, stop signs, drivers slowing to park or turn, drivers operating relatively slow moving vehicles, etc? That doesn't mean any one those things is not normal, or is a bad thing Just something to be aware of, and try to avoid when safe and reasonable to do so.

genec

I remember that film too... Perhaps the biggest difference is that the publicity and the use of guns on the freeway to resolve such issues, had not been broached until the '90s. The phrase did not come into common use prior to that time according to Wikipedia...

But certainly, as I mentioned, "disagreements" existed long before.

Helmet Head

How many incidents, nationwide, involving guns and road rage have there been in the last 20 years? 2? 4? 10?

Do not confuse the emergence of the use of some term to refer to a given phenomena with the emergence of the phenomena itself.

Evolution had been going on for billions of years before Darwin coined that term. Do you think there was a sharp increase in evolution at the turn of the 19th century? Didn't get much publicity before then...

genec

Well, let's just take a look at the two core statements:

That latter statement being a combination of the question and answer you provided earlier.

So if indeed "normal" is disruption and interruption of the flow of traffic, then accidents should also be considered "normal." While one may joke that indeed accidents are part of the "normal" traffic pattern, one could also argue that this is NOT a desirable outcome.

The DMV seems to feel that traveling faster or slower than the flow of traffic is a bad thing, so perhaps disruption and interruption is also a bad thing... (unlike what you imply)... while, indeed it is apparently "normal," as stop lights and other traffic do disrupt and interrupt the flow of traffic regularly.

Am I surprised that any of these "normal" disruptions can lead to accidents... No, what surprises me is that some motorists fail to heed these normal occurrences, be they stop signs, stop lights or cyclists; all of which are part of the normal traffic condition.

But clearly there is a contradiction between what you feel is bad and what the DMV feels is bad. Perhaps the DMV needs to reconcile their answers with the reality of day to day traffic, where vehicles regularly travel at different speeds and traffic regularly stops and starts. Perhaps the DMV should stop pushing a mentality that discourages differences in traffic flow (which often frustrates motorists), and should instead indicate that traffic flow is an ever changing situation that demands motorists' full attention and that one should not come to expect smooth flow.

genec

There have been 4 alone in the San Diego area in the past year.

Helmet Head

Four road rage related shootings, are are you counting gang car-to-car shootings?

Helmet Head

I still don't see the contradiction.

Gene, are you saying you disagree with the statement, " Accidents can happen more often when one vehicle is traveling faster or slower than the flow of traffic"? From the point of view of deer, the fact that mountain lions eat them is both normal and "bad".

Since one vehicle traveling faster or slower than others can make accidents happen more often, it's something that should be avoided, when safe and reasonable to do so.

An ambulance responding to an emergency is another example of one vehicle traveling faster than the flow of traffic, that that can cause accidents to happen more often, but, overall, is still not a bad thing. Don't lose sight of the big picture.

genec

Nah, been a lot more of those.

The problem is that both the gang shootings and the road rage shootings tend to be "minor" news stories unless there is a death.