Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we ignore
> the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just
> convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

Cyclist's right to use the road goes back to the middle ages, if not
further. In other words, it was built-in, no laws had to be passed to
grant them the right (that's why it's called a right). Motor vehicles
have always required permission and compliance with an ever stricter set
of codes.

You can't ban bicycles from public roads. If local authorities tried to
do it, state authorities would override, if states tried it, the feds
would override. Right of free passage on public lands is sacrosanct. To
accuse scofflaw cyclists of risking that right is invoking the bogeyman.

Arif Khokar

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

>> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we
>> ignore the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just
>> convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

> You can't ban bicycles from public roads.

Probably not, but those driving motor vehicles can make riding far more
risky for all of us because of cyclists with attitudes like yours. By
following the rules and conventions of the road, you make it easier for
other users to predict your actions, and you will make it less risky to
ride, not only for yourself, but for other riders as well
(generalizations and all that).

Brent P

In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.

Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.

> Motor vehicle
> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.

None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.

> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
> unnecessarily restrictive.

Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.

> I realize it's popular among some cycling
> advocates, I've listened to the arguments, and I simply disagree. I
> don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think that's a
> reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and liabilities.

Your ideas don't scale and thusly are not workable.

Brent P

In article <cr6dnW_kSt1JlgDbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <yfCdnTWmvuSRQQHbnZ2dnUVZ_vm3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>
>>>> They aren't my private rules. They are codified IL vehicle code which is
>>>> similiar to that of most states.
>>
>>> Not really (unfortunately).
>>
>> Yes really.
>
> No, with respect to passing on the right, IL is different than any other
> state I know of, certainly very different than mine.

Losing track of things? It's still not my private rules, but the rules of
the road for the state.

>>>> You're the one operating under a private
>>>> set of rules.

>>> Somewhat. But having considered the issues of practicality and ethics,
>>> I'm comfortable with my adjustments.

>> ethics? You mean you skimming by with inches then demanding minimum
>> clearances when being repassed? That's not ethical in my book.

> Sure. What possible danger do I pose to them? What potential danger do
> they pose to me? See the difference?

You could easily do 1-2 grand in body damage to my property as you
violate the rules. You could easily get yourself hit and do damage to my
property. That's what gutter passers are doing. Yet you demand space to
protect yourself and your property? Hypocrite.

>>>> And vindictive? The law doesn't require me to give bicyclists a full lane
>>>> to pass them. That's what I do because I feel that should be done. But if
>>>> a bicycle rider is going to be a gutter passing fool, well then, why
>>>> should I make the effort for him? He gets the minimum due care, which is
>>>> simply not hitting him.

>>> I don't think that's the currently legal even in your strange state. If
>>> it is, it's apparently about to be changed to a 3' minimum -- you better
>>> start practicing.

>> Until the new law goes in effect, that is the law. And if you didn't give
>> me 3 feet when gutter passing, don't expect it when being repassed for
>> the 3rd time.

> I think the new law is a good one. It is similar to places with larger
> bike cultures like Germany. I've argued for it here (MA), but the local
> "advocates" are "vehicularists" and resist any idea that would upset
> parity. I'm sorry, until the laws of physics give us parity, the state
> laws shouldn't either.

I think it's a good law, but it comes with following the vehicle code. If
you throw out the vehicle code well then, you 'take your chances'.

brink

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469c0602$0$16367$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Brent P? wrote:
>> In article <rvmdnRycgqJVQAbbnZ2dnUVZ_sK3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>> You haven't lived until you've made a driver angry by preventing him
>>>> from kissing up his front bumper to the rear bumper of a car in front
>>>> of you.
>>
>>> Sure, that's one of the problems with "vehicular" cycling -- it really
>>> pisses some drivers off.
>>
>> Better that dead from riding stupidly.
>>> I'm convinced that many drivers think that it's illegal for cyclists to
>>> be on the road at all, while others think it's tolerable only if you
>>> never impede their progress (give unlimited unilateral right of way).
>>> It's pointless to argue with these people, I know, I've tried.
>>
>> And I won't feed their nonsense by behaving the way they see all
>> bicyclists.
>
> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we ignore
> the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just convinces
> more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

I guess. To me it's not a black-and-white thing of "obey the letter of the
law at all times." Given that the vast majority of motorists regularly
violate speed limit laws and the letter of the law with regard to stop signs
and right on red turns, it's sheer hypocrisy for these same motorists to
complain about "illegal" biking behavior that harms no one and is safely
done. There's a world of difference between a rolling stop through a stop
sign and BLOWING through it on your bicycle...

brink

brink

"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:Rc8ni.12314$B25.2980@news01.roc.ny...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we ignore
>>> the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just
>>> convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.
>
>> You can't ban bicycles from public roads.
>
> Probably not, but those driving motor vehicles can make riding far more
> risky for all of us because of cyclists with attitudes like yours. By
> following the rules and conventions of the road, you make it easier for
> other users to predict your actions, and you will make it less risky to
> ride, not only for yourself, but for other riders as well (generalizations
> and all that).

Does "following the rules" include motorists not speeding, slow rolls
through stop signs and right on red, etc? Or are there just certain rules
that need to be followed by certain segments of the road-using public?

brink

Brent P

In article <5g4nqiF3e7ih8U4@mid.individual.net>, brink wrote:

>> Probably not, but those driving motor vehicles can make riding far more
>> risky for all of us because of cyclists with attitudes like yours. By
>> following the rules and conventions of the road, you make it easier for
>> other users to predict your actions, and you will make it less risky to
>> ride, not only for yourself, but for other riders as well (generalizations
>> and all that).

> Does "following the rules" include motorists not speeding, slow rolls
> through stop signs and right on red, etc? Or are there just certain rules
> that need to be followed by certain segments of the road-using public?

Most people choose an appropiate speed for a road. Speed is off the table
here. What we are discussing is right of way rules. I cannot find an
excuse to violate right of way rules while I am bicycling, even the
idiotic speed-control stop signs that I would love to blow off. (stop signs
put in a failed attempt to make people go slower that are VERY annoying
driving or bicycling) The reason I don't even on a bicycle is because it
would be just my luck that something would happen the first time I did
it.

Arif Khokar

brink wrote:

> Does "following the rules" include motorists not speeding,

I speed on certain roads on my bicycle (30 mph in a 25 mph zone), so no.

> slow rolls through stop signs and right on red, etc?

Stop signs that should be yield signs are treated as such.

> Or are there just certain rules that need to be followed by certain
> segments of the road-using public?

I don't drive on sidewalks, the wrong way on one-way streets, or go
straight from turn-only lanes. I don't ride that way either. In fact,
the only traffic law I violate more often when driving compared to
riding is exceeding the posted limit (though there are roads where I
ride faster than I usually drive).

Arif Khokar

brink wrote:

> There's a world of difference between a rolling stop through a stop
> sign and BLOWING through it on your bicycle...

Many stop signs are not needed. Yield signs would suffice. In fact,
part of my bicycle commute involves going through a roundabout. I like
it because I don't have to stop, or even slow down, if there's no
traffic to yield to, unlike an unwarranted stop sign.

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we
>>> ignore the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle
>>> just convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.
>
>> You can't ban bicycles from public roads.
>
> Probably not, but those driving motor vehicles can make riding far more
> risky for all of us because of cyclists with attitudes like yours. By
> following the rules and conventions of the road, you make it easier for
> other users to predict your actions, and you will make it less risky to
> ride, not only for yourself, but for other riders as well
> (generalizations and all that).

Sorry, I disagree. By being unpredictable, I make things less risky for
others since drivers have to pay more attention. This phenomenon is
easily seen where bike messengers are common. Drivers bitch, but they
watch out.

Brent P

In article <Z92dnZOrYdhYoADbnZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> Sorry, I disagree. By being unpredictable, I make things less risky for
> others since drivers have to pay more attention. This phenomenon is
> easily seen where bike messengers are common. Drivers bitch, but they
> watch out.

Until you get hit by the idiot who was text messaging thinking you'd be
predictable and you weren't.

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> I don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think
>> that's a reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and
>> liabilities.
>
> That's a selfish attitude on your part. If you want to use roads, then
> you should be willing to follow the right-of-way rules.

Whether you follow them or not is one issue, the other is whether they
make sense in the first place. The ROW rules aren't all the same between
states or between vehicles now, I'd argue that they should be even more
different between motor & non-motor users.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
>> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.
>
> Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
> you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.

As I said *outside* of ROW.

>
>> Motor vehicle
>> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
>> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.
>
> None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.

No, they don't, that's a separate topic.

>
>> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
>> unnecessarily restrictive.
>
> Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
> Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
> chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
> bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
> 'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
> road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
> with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.

Why don't we try it and see?

>
>> I realize it's popular among some cycling
>> advocates, I've listened to the arguments, and I simply disagree. I
>> don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think that's a
>> reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and liabilities.
>
> Your ideas don't scale and thusly are not workable.
>

Brent P

In article <BJWdndWe9IuO3ADbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
>>> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.
>>
>> Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
>> you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.

> As I said *outside* of ROW.

Not that I saw. Outside right of way rules is outside the rules anyway so
it makes no sense.

>>> Motor vehicle
>>> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
>>> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.

>> None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.

> No, they don't, that's a separate topic.

Yet you try to bring them in.

>>> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
>>> unnecessarily restrictive.

>> Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
>> Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
>> chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
>> bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
>> 'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
>> road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
>> with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.

> Why don't we try it and see?

See China. Even worse, now people in China are now driving in the same
manner. It's Chaos. Your concepts do not scale.