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?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 1, 9:36 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 1, 9:40 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 1, 9:36 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 2, 12:36*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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

Forester says...
 

On Feb 2, 5:36*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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.

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.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 1, 10:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:36*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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.

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.

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.

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.

Forester says...
 

In rec.bicycles.tech Duane Hebert wrote:
: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.

No, I suspect that means "you must ride through the potholes, broken
glass, and dog ****, because you're non-automobile scum. Please hurry
up and die, so you can get out of our more important way.".


--
sig 54

Forester says...
 

On 2/2/2011 1:00 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Duane wrote:
: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.

No, I suspect that means "you must ride through the potholes, broken
glass, and dog ****, because you're non-automobile scum. Please hurry
up and die, so you can get out of our more important way.".

Could be. I would have to read it again in the original French to be
certain. Then again, maybe it only says "extreme" in the English version.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 2, 11:26*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Feb 2, 12:36*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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. *

Actually, my position is that bicycles are subject to the laws as
written, and as interpreted by court decisions and common sense. You
recall that I live in a state where, like many, the question of my
right to control a narrow lane has been settled firmly in my favor.

But even in less enlightened jurisdictions, common sense usually
reigns. Practically speaking, the tactics Forester describe seem to
work nearly everywhere. I've ridden in (I think) 44 states of the
Union and about a dozen foreign countries so far with no problem.

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?

- Frank Krygowski

Forester says...
 

On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:26 am, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Feb 1, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 2, 12:36 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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.

Actually, my position is that bicycles are subject to the laws as
written, and as interpreted by court decisions and common sense. You
recall that I live in a state where, like many, the question of my
right to control a narrow lane has been settled firmly in my favor.

But even in less enlightened jurisdictions, common sense usually
reigns. Practically speaking, the tactics Forester describe seem to
work nearly everywhere. I've ridden in (I think) 44 states of the
Union and about a dozen foreign countries so far with no problem.

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?


Not fully prosecuted by the legal system (one would hope, anyway), but
certainly persecuted by outraged cagers - who will in fact carry their
irritation to the rest of us.

I agree that common sense should and generally does prevail.

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.

"Practicable" is the standard UVC term adopted in most US states.

Forester says...
 

On 2/2/2011 2:20 PM, Jay Beattie 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.

"Practicable" is the standard UVC term adopted in most US states.

So it's pretty much the same as Quebec. I've only lived in Louisiana,
New York and Boston so I wasn't sure. Thanks.

Forester says...
 

Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/2/2011 1:00 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Duane wrote:

: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.

No, I suspect that means "you must ride through the potholes, broken
glass, and dog ****, because you're non-automobile scum. Please hurry
up and die, so you can get out of our more important way.".

Could be. I would have to read it again in the original French to be
certain. Then again, maybe it only says "extreme" in the English version.


ROTFL!

I read what David wrote with an outrageous French accent (you silly
English Knight), and it makes perfect sense!

The silly English Knights brought the same rule here I think.

JS.

Forester says...
 

On 2/2/2011 1:05 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Frank wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:26 am, Jay wrote:



On Feb 1, 10:14 pm, Frank wrote:

On Feb 2, 12:36 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""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.

Actually, my position is that bicycles are subject to the laws as
written, and as interpreted by court decisions and common sense. You
recall that I live in a state where, like many, the question of my
right to control a narrow lane has been settled firmly in my favor.

But even in less enlightened jurisdictions, common sense usually
reigns. Practically speaking, the tactics Forester describe seem to
work nearly everywhere. I've ridden in (I think) 44 states of the
Union and about a dozen foreign countries so far with no problem.

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?


Not fully prosecuted by the legal system (one would hope, anyway), but
certainly persecuted by outraged cagers - who will in fact carry their
irritation to the rest of us.

I agree that common sense should and generally does prevail.

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Forester says...
 

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

[snip]

cyclists will irritate motorists.

I agree.


JS.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 2, 9:46 am, Duane Hebert wrote:
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.

The roads I ride almost all have either paved shoulders of sidewalks
or someplace to keep going completely out of the marked lane. I'm not
sure it's actually legal to keep going on the paved shoulder (I'm
pretty sure cars aren't supposed to drive on that), but they're nice
places to ride when cars want to pass. Sidewalks are mostly legal,
and I'm a hybrid pedestrian on them with no speed limit when on them :
-) (excepting driveways if there's a car coming). Taking the lane
when cars want by would be ridiculous on just about any of the places
I ride, except one spot OTTOMH (a bridge). Fortunately I know where
most of the regular obstructions are, and can kind of time their
passing, although I once rode past a 1" thickj steel grate lying in
the bike lane, realized it was to cover the 2' x 3' hole (also in the
bike lane) that I went past next (in the dark :-O, just happened to be
out in the lane since no cars were coming), stopped and went back to
cover the hole.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 3, 12:50*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 2 Feb 2011
10:28:42 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:


How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?

We had a widely publicised case over here, where the rider (Daniel
Cadden, iirc) was convicted of obstruction in the magistrates court
(which doesn't set a precedent) but this decision was overturned on
appeal (which usefully, Does set a precedent).
This established that in England and Wales, it is perfectly legal for
cyclists to take the lane where necessary, and even where there is an
alternative cycling route.
The principal expert witness called on Daniel Cadden's behalf was John
Franklin.

A good man.

- Frank Krygowski

Forester says...
 

On Feb 2, 9:58 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:50 am, Phil W Lee wrote:



Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 2 Feb 2011
10:28:42 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?

We had a widely publicised case over here, where the rider (Daniel
Cadden, iirc) was convicted of obstruction in the magistrates court
(which doesn't set a precedent) but this decision was overturned on
appeal (which usefully, Does set a precedent).
This established that in England and Wales, it is perfectly legal for
cyclists to take the lane where necessary, and even where there is an
alternative cycling route.
The principal expert witness called on Daniel Cadden's behalf was John
Franklin.

A good man.


Noted.

Forester says...
 

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

What irritates me is how stupid a lot of them are. I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them. Now that's what irritates
motorist. I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on. I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I stay
way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't mean crap
when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age (64)
or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and stay the
hell out of their way. People these days have little respect for anyone,
much less cyclist.

Forester says...
 

Wes Newell wrote:

I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them.

Then you had no business driving that fast in those conditions. What
if it had been a fallen tree instead of a group of riders across the
lane? Or a group of cows? Or a police roadblock?

Don't drive like a callous, reckless asshole, and you won't find
yourself in difficult situations. The burden of ethical conduct is on
the motorist, who is the one bringing the deadly risk to the road.

Now that's what irritates
motorist. I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on.

**** you and the stinking death wagon you rode in on, then. Sell your
bike; take up hang gliding or bungee jumping or something else you can
drive your car to.

Do try harder not to kill anybody else while you're at it.

Forester says...
 

On 2/2/2011 7:25 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

Traffic, stop lights and bad weather irritate motorists. Point is, the
average motorist is already irritated. That's one good reason to ride a
bike.

Forester says...
 

On 2/3/2011 2:09 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

What irritates me is how stupid a lot of them are. I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them. Now that's what irritates
motorist. I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on. I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I stay
way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't mean crap
when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age (64)
or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and stay the
hell out of their way. People these days have little respect for anyone,
much less cyclist.

You just need to control the lane. Ask Frank.

Forester says...
 

On 2/3/2011 11:00 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Wes considered Thu, 3 Feb 2011
07:09:51 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

What irritates me is how stupid a lot of them are. I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them.

Then you were driving recklessly.
You should ALWAYS be able to stop within the distance you can see to
be clear.
A group of riders should be no more of a problem to cope with than an
agricultural vehicle, a broken down motor vehicle, an unexpected
traffic queue, or anything else.

"Should" being the operative word here.
Now that's what irritates
motorist.

Only bad ones.

Don't have data to back this up but I would be willing to bet that the
percentage of bad drivers is not close to 0.


I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on.

You accept being bullied of the road by reckless drivers?
Worse, you seem to participate in the bullying.

I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I stay
way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't mean crap
when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age (64)
or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and stay the
hell out of their way. People these days have little respect for anyone,
much less cyclist.

And you think you'll gain any respect by cowering in the gutter?

He said that when the limit is above 35 mph he will only ride on the
road if there's a shoulder. Doesn't seem unreasonable depending on the
traffic. Hardly what I'd call cowering in the gutter. Are you
recommending that he rides 30 k/h in the lane in that circumstance? If
so, how about at 40 mph limit? 50? When is it Ok to ride on the
shoulder?

This is a road that I take often to get to Oka park where we play in the
hills:
http://tinyurl.com/4u464ox

Speed limit is 80 k/h around turns and steep grades but 100 k/h when
straight. Traffic is usually a bit heavier as this is a truck bypass
route as well. Would you suggest staying off the shoulder?

Forester says...
 

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:30:27 -0800, Chalo wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died?
It wouldn't have been me, but some of them.

Then you had no business driving that fast in those conditions. What if
it had been a fallen tree instead of a group of riders across the lane?
Or a group of cows? Or a police roadblock?


I guess some will always fail to see the point. What does it matter to
the dead cyclist?

Don't drive like a callous, reckless asshole, and you won't find
yourself in difficult situations. The burden of ethical conduct is on
the motorist, who is the one bringing the deadly risk to the road.

Oh, I could have stopped, but still, it was irritating. I thought that
was what this was about. Btw, a fallen tree wouldn't have made a choice
to fall in the roadway. These cyclist made a choice to put themselves in
harms way. Now if you don't think that's irritating to motorist....

Now that's what irritates
motorist. I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure
you, I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that
doesn't have a shoulder to ride on.

**** you and the stinking death wagon you rode in on, then. Sell your
bike; take up hang gliding or bungee jumping or something else you can
drive your car to.

I ride for exercise. I would take up running, but can't stand for more
than a few minutes with a bad back.

Do try harder not to kill anybody else while you're at it.

Forester says...
 

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:00:54 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

Wes Newell considered Thu, 3 Feb 2011
07:09:51 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure
you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on.

You accept being bullied of the road by reckless drivers? Worse, you
seem to participate in the bullying.

I accept facts. A person on bike is no match for a 3000lb vehicle and
that's why I try my hardest to stay the hell out of their way.

I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I
stay way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't mean
crap when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age
(64) or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and
stay the hell out of their way. People these days have little respect
for anyone, much less cyclist.

And you think you'll gain any respect by cowering in the gutter?

Yes. It's called common courtesy. The roads were built for automobiles
that can go a lot faster than I can on a bike. I give them the right of
way because it doesn't bother me to do so, and I stay safer because of
it. Recently, I woman jogging on a hiking trail was killed in Dallas when
a cyclist ran into her. She had the right of way too for all the good it
did her.

Forester says...
 

On Feb 3, 11:39*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/3/2011 11:00 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:



Wes *considered Thu, 3 Feb 2011
07:09:51 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

What irritates me is how stupid a lot of them are. I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them.

Then you were driving recklessly.
You should ALWAYS be able to stop within the distance you can see to
be clear.
A group of riders should be no more of a problem to cope with than an
agricultural vehicle, a broken down motor vehicle, an unexpected
traffic queue, or anything else.

"Should" being the operative word here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Now that's what irritates
motorist.

Only bad ones.

Don't have data to back this up but I would be willing to bet that the
percentage of bad drivers is not close to 0.





* * * * * I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on.

You accept being bullied of the road by reckless drivers?
Worse, you seem to participate in the bullying.

* * * * * * * * * * * * I look at it like this.. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I stay
way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't mean crap
when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age (64)
or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and stay the
hell out of their way. People these days have little respect for anyone,
much less cyclist.

And you think you'll gain any respect by cowering in the gutter?

He said that when the limit is above 35 mph he will only ride on the
road if there's a shoulder. *Doesn't seem unreasonable depending on the
traffic. *

Are you serious? Do you really avoid all shoulderless two-lane roads
in the country? Do you recommend others do that?

Hardly what I'd call cowering in the gutter. *Are you
recommending that he rides 30 k/h in the lane in that circumstance? *If
so, how about at 40 mph limit? *50? *When is it Ok to ride on the
shoulder?

This is a road that I take often to get to Oka park where we play in the
hills:http://tinyurl.com/4u464ox

Looks fine.

Speed limit is 80 k/h around turns and steep grades but 100 k/h when
straight. Traffic is usually a bit heavier as this is a truck bypass
route as well. *Would you suggest staying off the shoulder?

If people want to use an available shoulder, fine, provided it's good
enough to ride. But if there were no shoulder, would you really never
ride there? And what do you do if the shoulder has a spot that's too
rough, or too covered with gravel?

It's beginning to sound like you couldn't ride in most of the places I
enjoy riding!

- Frank Krygowski

Forester says...
 

On Feb 3, 12:36*pm, Wes Newell wrote:

Oh, I could have stopped, but still, it was irritating.

You poor, poor man! Imagine having to put up with [gasp!] irritation
while sitting in your cushy car seat!

When _will_ they remove all irritation and delay from your driving
existence, so you can get on with all your valuable contributions to
society?

- Frank Krygowski

Forester says...
 

On 2/3/2011 1:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:39 am, Duane wrote:

He said that when the limit is above 35 mph he will only ride on the
road if there's a shoulder. Doesn't seem unreasonable depending on the
traffic.

Are you serious? Do you really avoid all shoulderless two-lane roads
in the country? Do you recommend others do that?

Of course not. Depending on the traffic. Do you ride on all
shoulderless two-lane roads in the country with traffic rolling at 90
k/h or more without taking the shoulder?

Hardly what I'd call cowering in the gutter. Are you
recommending that he rides 30 k/h in the lane in that circumstance? If
so, how about at 40 mph limit? 50? When is it Ok to ride on the
shoulder?

This is a road that I take often to get to Oka park where we play in the
hills:http://tinyurl.com/4u464ox

Looks fine.

In the picture there's no traffic. I knew when I posted that you would
respond with something like that.

Speed limit is 80 k/h around turns and steep grades but 100 k/h when
straight. Traffic is usually a bit heavier as this is a truck bypass
route as well. Would you suggest staying off the shoulder?

If people want to use an available shoulder, fine, provided it's good
enough to ride.

That was the point. Why accuse them of skulking in the gutter?

But if there were no shoulder, would you really never
ride there? And what do you do if the shoulder has a spot that's too
rough, or too covered with gravel?

Would I never ride on a highway with a speed limit of 90k/h that had
traffic if there was no way to get out of the lane? Are you serious?

Anyway, I was asking Phil if he called that skulking in the gutter. I
already know your opinion.

It's beginning to sound like you couldn't ride in most of the places I
enjoy riding!

Couldn't? That's right Frank. I'm too busy cowering in the frigging
gutter to be capable of riding anywhere that you would.

FIND ANOTHER FRED.

Forester says...
 

On 2/3/2011 4:05 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
snip
This is a road that I take often to get to Oka park where we play in the
hills:
http://tinyurl.com/4u464ox

Speed limit is 80 k/h around turns and steep grades but 100 k/h when
straight. Traffic is usually a bit heavier as this is a truck bypass
route as well. Would you suggest staying off the shoulder?

What about the case described, where there isn't a shoulder?
Or where the shoulder is unfit to ride on, because of debris, poor
surface, uncleared snow or ice, obstructions, etc?

Well he says that he won't ride on a road with a limit 35mph that
doesn't have one. That's his choice.

I was questioning your referring to riding on the shoulder as skulking
in the gutter. If there is enough traffic going fast enough, I'll ride
on the shoulder as I guess that most people would. I don't consider
myself skulking in the gutter. To me, riding in the gutter means riding
next to the curb on a street with a curb and a gutter when I should be a
couple of feet out. Not riding on a shoulder on a highway with a lot of
fast moving cars.

Forester says...
 

Phil W Lee wrote:

That is a major reason for the "safety in numbers" effect - the more
cyclists that are encountered by motorists, the more they come to
expect (and respect) them.

Or resent them, at least until there is some critical mass perhaps...

I live at the foothills of Mt Dandenong. A small extinct volcano about
35 km east of Melbourne,

It is riddled with roads. Like a rabbit warren above ground.

Over the past 5 - 10 years there has been a steady increase in the
number of cyclists riding Mt D., yet the behavior of the motorists has
steadily got worse, AFAICT.

Maybe there are more motorists as well. I guess there are.

We used to ride up there two abreast, single file when cars approach
from behind to let them pass. There was rarely if ever a problem I can
recall.

Now the Victorian roads authority has seen fit to install signs to
indicate cyclists should ride single file all the time, though this is
not required by law.

The cyclists often don't know their rights.

The motorists think they know that cyclists should be single file, and
if cyclists are found two abreast, they are considered in the wrong and
liable to cop abuse.

Coupled with this the impatience of some that overtake over double white
lines on approach to blind corners leaves me astounded there are not
more accidents. (Is it an _accident_ when someone willfully does
something so stupid and causes a smash?)

I've also heard from a cyclist who lives on top of the mountain that a
cafe shop owner doesn't like cyclists at the shop because they are a
nuisance on the road and take up seats at the cafe that tourists and
other people could be using.

What kinda screwed logic is that! Some people think a cyclists money
isn't as good as someone elses, because cyclists are a *nuisance* on the
road!

Sheesh.

JS.

Forester says...
 

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:05:26 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

You seem to have misread the OP of this subthread. This is a situation
where there is no shoulder. Where the hell did the idiot expect them to
be riding - levitating above the surrounding countryside?

I expected them to follow the law and ride single file close to the right
side of the road. I'm the idiot? They would have been the ones dead
except for my avoiding them. Cyclist are hit and killed all the time
around here. And most of the time it isn't their fault. Even then,
nothing usually happens to the driver unless he's committed some
violation. Point being, dead is still dead, right or wrong.

Forester says...
 

Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:05:26 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

You seem to have misread the OP of this subthread. This is a situation
where there is no shoulder. Where the hell did the idiot expect them to
be riding - levitating above the surrounding countryside?

I expected them to follow the law and ride single file close to the right
side of the road. I'm the idiot? They would have been the ones dead
except for my avoiding them. Cyclist are hit and killed all the time
around here. And most of the time it isn't their fault. Even then,
nothing usually happens to the driver unless he's committed some
violation. Point being, dead is still dead, right or wrong.

Is it really the law for cyclists to be riding single file where you
are? It's not in Victoria, Australia, though many cyclists and
motorists here don't know the law in this regard.

Where is here for you, Wes?

On second thoughts, better not say. Frank will undoubtedly dig up some
stats to try to prove you wrong and label you a gutter skulking, fear
mongering coward. But don't let that worry you. He's renowned for it.

JS.

Forester says...
 

?Just use common sense and take personal responsibility, Shermie.

Bill "problem solved; off you go" S.

Forester says...
 

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:21:51 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

Wes Newell considered Thu, 3 Feb 2011
17:50:46 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:
I accept facts. A person on bike is no match for a 3000lb vehicle and
that's why I try my hardest to stay the hell out of their way.

Better get rid of the car then - it's no match for a 40,000lb semi, and
you wouldn't want to risk getting in their way.

No where close to the same. My car isn't going 10mph in front of the
semi. You can be sure of one thing though. I never drive beside a semi on
multi lane roads except to pass. I try and stay out of their way too for
the same reason. My little car is no match against them in a collision.
Right or wrong, I'll be the one dead first.

How do you ever manage to get out of bed?

Carefully.:-)

I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I
stay way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't
mean crap when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to
my age (64) or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the
rules and stay the hell out of their way. People these days have
little respect for anyone, much less cyclist.

And you think you'll gain any respect by cowering in the gutter?

Yes. It's called common courtesy.

No, it's called stupid.

So, I should just ignore the law and ride in the middle of the lane? Now
that's what I'd call stupid. Deadly stupid.

It builds false expectations among motorists that nothing will ever be
in their way, and they can recklessly charge around blind bends without
consideration of what may be there. When everyone acts as you do, the
motorists start thinking they have some kind of RIGHT to be criminally
negligent morons - just the attitude you seem to be demonstrating. That
is a major reason for the "safety in numbers" effect - the more cyclists
that are encountered by motorists, the more they come to expect (and
respect) them.

They do have the right to the roadway. They pay for it with license fees
and gas taxes. Cyclist don't pay for it. We are just allowed to use it.
There are way too many drivers that don't pay attention to what they're
doing for me to challenge them by getting in their way. I've put 1500
miles on my bike in the last 8 months. The one time I decided to take a 2
lane road out of the neighborhood to get to a parts store I came very
close to being a bug on the front of a truck. And that road actually had
a 35mph speed limit. Now I'm not a shy person, and I've had my more than
fair share of fights, but that's one a cyclist of any size can't win.
Call it what you want.

The roads were built for automobiles
that can go a lot faster than I can on a bike.

You really should study some history.

This is 2011, not 1890.

I give them the right of
way because it doesn't bother me to do so, and I stay safer because of
it. Recently, I woman jogging on a hiking trail was killed in Dallas
when a cyclist ran into her. She had the right of way too for all the
good it did her.

Good reason not to ride in areas where you can expect pedestrians. Stick
to the roads, which were built for vehicles - including bicycles.

Just pointing out that cyclist can be just as unsafe as drivers.

Forester says...
 

On 2/3/2011 5:59 PM, Bill Sornson wrote:
?Just use common sense and take personal responsibility, Shermie.

Bill "problem solved; off you go" S.

Context?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Forester says...
 

On 2/3/2011 1:09 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

What irritates me is how stupid a lot of them are. I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them. Now that's what irritates
motorist.

What if there had been a slow-moving end-loader and oncoming traffic?
Then you would have been the one in deep doo-doo. It is highly
irresponsible for your braking distance to exceed your sight line on
public roads.

I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on.

You are missing out on a lot of nice rural roads then; some of which
only have few motor vehicles per hour.

I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I stay
way the heck out of their way.

Getting killed by a homicidal driver is like getting hit by lightning.
It could happen, but is *exceedingly* rare.

Having the right of way doesn't mean crap
when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age (64)
or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and stay the
hell out of their way. People these days have little respect for anyone,
much less cyclist.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.