CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   General (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Forester says... (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=224932)

Tēm ShermĒn™ °_°[_2_] February 2nd 11 06:36 AM

Forester says...
 
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."

So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?

--
Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Dan O February 2nd 11 06:40 AM

Forester says...
 
On Feb 1, 9:36 pm, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."

So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because they believe it is often done out of stubborn principle ("I
have a *right* to the road") when it is not really necessary even
without cringing.



Dan O February 2nd 11 06:41 AM

Forester says...
 
On Feb 1, 9:40 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 1, 9:36 pm, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."


So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because they believe it is often done out of stubborn principle ("I
have a *right* to the road") when it is not really necessary even
without cringing.


That said, the quoted paragraph strikes me as quite reasonable.

Frank Krygowski[_2_] February 2nd 11 07:14 AM

Forester says...
 
On Feb 2, 12:36*am, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."

So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because many people are easily confused.

One of the sites recently linked in these discussions contains a
pretty extensive page in which the author complains about things
Effective Cycling gets wrong. Except that, as in your example above,
it's actually his impression of Effective Cycling that's wrong. He
confuses statements others make with statements Forester makes. He
imagines motives that simply don't exist.

In other words, the author is confused.

- Frank Krygowski

thirty-six February 2nd 11 11:05 AM

Forester says...
 
On Feb 2, 5:36*am, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."

So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Er, because they don't give a damn about what Forster meant.
In the UK, you should move over, slow down and stop if neccessary to
let faster vehicles pass at the earliest opportunity. This applies
whatever you are driving or riding. So on a single track, as a
cyclist, you stop in a passing place to let a motor car PASS. This
does not mean you ride over the road margin, neither does it mean you
give up road positioning for a forthcoming junction.

Peter Cole[_2_] February 2nd 11 02:24 PM

Forester says...
 
On 2/2/2011 12:36 AM, TQM Sherwin™ °_° wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."

So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Infidels, obviously.

Jay Beattie February 2nd 11 05:26 PM

Forester says...
 
On Feb 1, 10:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:36*am, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."


So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because many people are easily confused.

One of the sites recently linked in these discussions contains a
pretty extensive page in which the author complains about things
Effective Cycling gets wrong. *Except that, as in your example above,
it's actually his impression of Effective Cycling that's wrong. *He
confuses statements others make with statements Forester makes. *He
imagines motives that simply don't exist.

In other words, the author is confused.


Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.



Duane Hebert[_4_] February 2nd 11 05:38 PM

Forester says...
 
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.



Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.

Dan O February 2nd 11 05:50 PM

Forester says...
 
On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.


Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.


I think the "as far right as practicable" is reasonable common sense
and courtesy embodied in the law, as Forester seems to be agreeing in
the quoted paragraph.


Duane Hebert[_4_] February 2nd 11 06:46 PM

Forester says...
 
On 2/2/2011 11:50 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.


Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.


I think the "as far right as practicable" is reasonable common sense
and courtesy embodied in the law, as Forester seems to be agreeing in
the quoted paragraph.


As long as you interpret practicable as Jay does.

The Quebec code says "every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme
right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except
where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left turn"

Sort of like what "extreme" and "obstructed" mean. I take that to mean
to keep as far right as I can without hitting potholes, drain gratings
etc. And this seems OK to me. But I got a lot of "sympathy" here for
living in such a backward society. I assumed that this was unusual but
it apparently isn't.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com