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.