On 12/10/2010 3:47 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Fri, 10 Dec 2010
08:54:36 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/10/2010 12:54 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/9/2010 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 9, 1:55 am, wrote:

Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.

Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.

--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:

295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,

(1) indicate traffic stops;
(2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
(3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
(4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
(4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;

-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.

--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:

341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--snip
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.

--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support he

487. Subject to section 492, 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.

491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless

(1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
(2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
(3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.

Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...rch/telecharge....

I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?

If those are the laws in Quebec, then (as I just said in another post)
you have my sympathy. Things are _far_ better in most US states,
including mine. A few states I've ridden in have mandatory sidepath
laws, and I've experienced the stupidity they produce, but most do
not.

So again: my sympathy to you.

I don't really need your sympathy. Whether it's a guaranteed right or
not, is not that important. No one is hiding in the bushes waiting to
take away my privilege of riding a bike.

No, just your legal ability to do so safely.

That's one opinion. How do you explain the fact that cycling seems
safer here? See Frank's post.


Where it bothers me a little is the bit about being forced to ride in a
bike lane when one exists. I typically ride faster than the traffic in
the bike lanes so if they're crowded, I don't use them.

Like I said, at least now I know why that truck was on my ass. I was in
the wrong.

No, the law is in the wrong, you were in the right.
If enough people follow your example, the place may even become
civilised.

Maybe I was in the right but I see why the truck driver was ****ed.
It's not just that I'm required to stay to the right, he's also required
to not pass me without leaving enough space. As long as we're both
following the rules, I'm fine.

I expect that if enough people ride like I was that day, the traffic
jams resulting would probably have the wrong result. Maybe when you
have a guaranteed inalienable right to the road, then you don't have to
worry about causing traffic jams.