Forester says...

On Feb 4, 5:59*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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

prob the same consensual democratic deals-bike lanes in place to suit
farm equiopment, hurricane escape lanes, emergency vehicle lanes, oi/
coal truck laneage/snow routing....excedpt for Virginia off course. In
Virginia the extra tar was added padding the contractors profits when
inspectors only inspected the main road surface as required by law
then the extra was double billed without inspection.

On 2/4/2011 11:58 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
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.

I was referencing a comment by someone else that the motorists where
they lived saw only one cyclist per day.

But it sounded like it from the way you were talking. Here in Montreal,
there are cyclists everywhere so it's less common to see conflicts
between drivers and cyclists. They occur but rarely.

On Feb 4, 3:59 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.


In my state there are ample exceptions in the law (including
specifically the word "debris", which as we know practically every
bike lane or path collects. That coupled with the fact that cops
mostly don't prioritize enforcement on bicyclists (and rightly so,
IMO) leaves me pretty free to make the decision for myself. The lanes
and path are nice to have as an option, though (... and sidewalks and
parking lots and bark dust berms and... :-)

On 2/4/2011 2:43 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:01:32 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

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

Not around here. They die about 50% of the time. The rest are just
maimed. Now I'd probably feel safe if I were in a part of the world where
there's a lot of riders. There just isn't that many around here. Maybe
one for every 1000 cars.

Your area is really filled with homicidal drivers that kill cyclists on
purpose all the time? I refuse to believe that.

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

On 2/4/2011 2:13 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:15:22 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Is the lane wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass single-file cyclists
*safely* without crossing the center-line? If not, the cyclists
*should* be far enough out into the lane, for the overtaking traffic to
have to wait to overtake until the other lane is clear of oncoming
traffic. Vehicular Cycling 101. Maybe you should enroll in one of
Frank Krygowski's classes:

That'll get you killed around here. But you can ride however you want.
It's not my life.

What will get you killed is riding near the edge of a narrow lane, and a
driver passes you when there is oncoming traffic, and accidentally clips
you.

Your scenario is fear mongering, and has no basis in reality.

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

On 2/4/2011 2:26 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:20:51 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

On 2/3/2011 6:00 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:21:51 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote: [...]
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.[...]

B U L L S H I T !

Local roads are paid for almost entirely by property taxes; and license
fees and fuel taxes do *not* cover the externalities of motor vehicle
use. Cycling is a *right*, motor vehicle use is a *privilege*.

I don't know what country you are from but all but residential community
roads here are paid for with federal, state, and/or city/county taxes.

Primarily local taxes for local roads, outside of block grants. State
and federal fuel tax money is *not* a source (in the US).

The state and feds get this money from gas taxes at the pump among other
ways. And they get a lot. Something like $.60 for every gallon of gas

That is nothing compared to gas taxes in most of the industrialized world.

sold. So, some city, all county, all state, and all federal highways are
paid for with these taxes, not individual property taxes.

No, city and county roads are *not* paid for by fuel taxes.

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

On 2/4/2011 11:24 AM, 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

No, you are the arrogant and rude one for what you wrote above.

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.

And Wes Newell is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, if he
believes these defamatory comments about Professor Krygowski.

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

On 2/4/2011 11:54 AM, 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.

One of the defects of the US Constitution is that allows government too
much power over individuals.

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.


In reality, the government of the US restricts the rights of the
citizens in many immoral ways.

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

On 2/3/2011 2:30 AM, Chalo Colina 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?

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.

+1 x 10 ^100

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

On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
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.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way. There is no right to cross private land (unlike the UK),
and no requirement for the government to provide a right-of-way. The
government can also bar individuals from public land if it so desires.

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