Forester says...

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:26:18 -0500, Duane Hebert wrote:

Don't know where Wes is from. Maybe it's another place where
motorists see one bicycle per day...

More like one a month unless you count the local kids riding their bike
in their neighborhood. It's rare to see a cyclist on any of the main
streets. AFAIK there aren't any designated bike lanes around here.

On Feb 4, 10:55*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. *I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Bob Mionske's book _Bicycling and the Law_ devotes pages 8 to 14 to
the question of cyclists' rights to the road. He demonstrates our
rights to the road based on statutory law, common law and the
constitution. He quotes and references court decisions affirming that
right, going all the way back to the 1880s.

Mionske's book refers to the U.S. Perhaps some of that legal logic
doesn't work in Quebec, I don't know; but I'd think the common law
portions would.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it.

While that's truly regrettable, that doesn't remove your right to the
road.

Similarly, pedestrians and bicyclists are often prohibited from
limited access roads. Cars with only one motorist inside are
prohibited from high occupancy lanes. But putting restrictions on
behavior is not the same thing as removing rights.

IANAL, but you should read Mionske.

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/4/2011 11:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it.

While that's truly regrettable, that doesn't remove your right to the
road.

poo-tee-weet!

Similarly, pedestrians and bicyclists are often prohibited from
limited access roads. Cars with only one motorist inside are
prohibited from high occupancy lanes. But putting restrictions on
behavior is not the same thing as removing rights.

IANAL, but you should read Mionske.

Can you or Mionske ride your bikes on 128S? All that I'm saying is that
the "right" to ride a bike can be restricted. Some rights are
inalienable. Others, not so much.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:32:02 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:30Â*am, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:46:49 -0800, Chalo wrote:
It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the
spell.

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation.

In your case, several months was obviously not enough. You still suffer
from delusions of privilege, you seem unable to comprehend written laws,
you have grossly inflated ideas on the minimal risks of bicycling,
you're ignorant of infrastructure funding, and your attitude needs
improvement. You have a LOT to learn.

I suggest giving up your car for two solid years, and spending that time
a) riding a bike, and b) trying to learn.

- Frank Krygowski

I can now see why I was warned about you. You're arrogant, rude, and
obviously have delusions of grandeur. In reality, you're probably just a
self centered nut with a below average IQ. Ah, a quick search shows you
as a prof of ME. That explains it.

On Feb 4, 7:55*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. *I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. *I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. *I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. *I don't remember many lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/4/2011 12:54 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.


Thanks once again for the clarification. I have the impression that
you'll start billing soon g

On 2/4/2011 12:24 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:32:02 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:30 am, Wes wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:46:49 -0800, Chalo wrote:
It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the
spell.

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation.

In your case, several months was obviously not enough. You still suffer
from delusions of privilege, you seem unable to comprehend written laws,
you have grossly inflated ideas on the minimal risks of bicycling,
you're ignorant of infrastructure funding, and your attitude needs
improvement. You have a LOT to learn.

I suggest giving up your car for two solid years, and spending that time
a) riding a bike, and b) trying to learn.

- Frank Krygowski

I can now see why I was warned about you. You're arrogant, rude, and
obviously have delusions of grandeur. In reality, you're probably just a
self centered nut with a below average IQ. Ah, a quick search shows you
as a prof of ME. That explains it.

Aside from your questionable attack on hapless MEs everywhere, I'd say
you got that pretty much straight. And in record time. It took me
nearly 2 weeks to tell him to f*ck off.

On 2/4/2011 10:55 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

No, nor on any limited access highway in MA. Neither can you walk, ride
a horse or a motor scooter.


I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

In the absence of any required permission, I think its status defaults
to the same as walking or any other mobility, the original "right of way".


Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have a
right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

There are still few lanes, but they're finally being added since the sea
change in bicycle advocacy, going from anti to pro bike facility in
recent years.

Mandatory sidepath laws are really a relic. The number of states with
them has declined in recent years. It's one issue that all cycling
advocates seem to agree on.

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

blind egocentric narcissism:
riding a bike is a 'right'.

as 'pursuit of' ?

happiness ?

OH! off course, 'under the law'

more likely under the SUV

yawl don't have a right to ride a bike, yawl have the rights to not
have authority or fersure redundantly illegal authority telling yawl
cannot ride a bike.

That's a legal universe apart from road reality.

My disbelief betond silent passers riding low spoke count wheels and
IQ's is a group riding middle of my lane on twisty hilly blind corner
roads refusing right of way when expletive deleted there's room
bermside to give-now us not just me-room to safely pass at speeds
higher than 10 mph.
So I tap the airhorn and the bums wave me around into a blind
corner....
sheeeeet

On Feb 4, 5:23*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

Mandatory sidepath laws are really a relic. The number of states with
them has declined in recent years.

There are fifteen left, AFAIK:
AL, GA, KS, LA, MI, NE, NY, ND, OK, OR, SC, UT, VA, WV, WY

It's one issue that all cycling
advocates seem to *agree on.

Well, IIRC, there was a recently failed attempt in Washington to add
one, in return for getting a three foot clearance law passed. Some
bike advocates (including Andy Clarke of the League of American
Bicyclists) supported that.

I don't know what to say about a bike advocate who's in favor of
mandatory sidepaths.

- Frank Krygowski