When to honk at a bicyclist

Tom Keats wrote in part:

Ipso fatso. The bicycles-keep-outa-the-way rule discriminates
against bicycles-as-vehicles, same as all the other bicycle-
specific traffic laws (mandatory side path, mandatory bike lane.)

I don't see it that way. I see it as a natural product of
the bicycle's unique skinniness as a vehicle. Because
bicycles are unique in the transportation realm, we
should expect to attract some unique laws. The
mandatory sidepath laws are quite different.

Somehow I ride five hours a day in traffic without ever
feeling oppressed by the ride-to-the-right law.

Robert

Hunrobe wrote:

Then I'll restate it. Of course a cyclist must decide on what is "practicable"
and what is not in any given situation but to be defensible their decisions
must fall within broad parameters every other road user recognizes as
reasonable. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "Mine is the only judgement that
counts", so long as your decision affects you alone but that's not the case
when discussing traffic.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

The cyclist's judgement is a function of what that individual feels safe
and comfortable doing. That supercedes the judgement of overtaking
drivers whose main consideration is their own convenience. Motorists and
perhaps by definition society sometimes think that they have a "right"
to go the speed limit or not be forced to slow down or they can force
their way thorough the cyclist's lane, but I don't believe that is more
important than cyclists' rights.

Wayne

R15757 wrote:


I don't see it that way. I see it as a natural product of
the bicycle's unique skinniness as a vehicle. Because
bicycles are unique in the transportation realm, we
should expect to attract some unique laws. The
mandatory sidepath laws are quite different.

Somehow I ride five hours a day in traffic without ever
feeling oppressed by the ride-to-the-right law.

Robert


That doesn't explain how any bicycle specific ride right rule is NOT
discriminatory to bicyclists. It just explains that you don't feel put
off by it.

I'm all for the narrowness of bicyclists affording benefits to
motorists, just like I'm all for the fact that we get around without
consuming gas or creating pollution. I'm just not for being told/forced
to give overtaking motorists benefit, in large part because there is no
benefit to me, only downsides.

Wayne

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:37:31 GMT, Wayne Pein wrote:

The cyclist's judgement is a function of what that individual feels safe
and comfortable doing. That supercedes the judgement of overtaking
drivers whose main consideration is their own convenience.

Very good, and cuts to the heart of the matter, imo.

It also helps the rider decide what his 'rights' should be based on a
functional defo.

Like the phrasing too, WP.

-B

Wayne Pein wrote in part:

That doesn't explain how any bicycle specific ride right rule is NOT
discriminatory to bicyclists.


It is no more discriminatory to bicyclists than the jaywalking laws are
discriminatory to pedestrians.

I suppose you must feel the jaywalking laws are very unjust for walkers. Why or
why not? And the sidewalk laws--discriminatory against cyclists as well?

Robert

R15757 wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote in part:

That doesn't explain how any bicycle specific ride right rule is NOT
discriminatory to bicyclists.


It is no more discriminatory to bicyclists than the jaywalking laws are
discriminatory to pedestrians.

I suppose you must feel the jaywalking laws are very unjust for walkers. Why or
why not? And the sidewalk laws--discriminatory against cyclists as well?

Robert


Jaywalking is irrelevant. This is a bicycling newsgroup.

No-riding-on-sidewalk laws are intended to protect pedestrians' safety
from irresponsible bicyclists. That is different than intending to
micromanage/microregulate bicyclists' lateral roadway position for the
convenience of overtaking motorists.

Wayne

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

I was afraid of that, because it leaves things so open-ended
and arbitrary.

Motor vehicle traffic law (indeed, /general/ traffic law) is so
nicely specific: "thou shalt not". Bicycle-specific traffic law
sounds more like: "you be the judge ... until your judgment is
superseded by Authority."

I hate being set up to be knocked down. And I still maintain
the keep-right law is so worded for the perceived convenience
of drivers, and the detriment of cyclists -- it can either set
us back up, or it can knock us down like bowling pins. Even if
cyclists are perpetually cut lots of legal slack, the 'as far
right as practicable' law is still a dangling Sword of Damaclese.

I don't like it. Doesn't keep me from riding, though.

Actually Tom, most motor vehicle traffic law isn't as cut and dried as "thou
shalt not". True, a red light means "thou shalt not proceed" and a speed limit
is a limit not a suggestion but traffic codes are full of phrases like "until
it can be done safely", "does not materially obstruct", "so long as traffic is
unimpeded", and a host of other like phrases.
As for any discriminatory intent, "as far right as practicable" laws are no
more discriminatory than say traffic lights timed to give east/west traffic
longer green intervals than north/south traffic. Lights are timed to move
traffic as safely and efficiently as possible with a minimum of disruption.
Keeping slower moving traffic out of the flow of faster traffic is done for the
same reasons. That "as practicable" is added in this case simply recognizes
that the cyclist may need to move left in some instances and in others that the
cyclist's speed is equal or nearly so to the rest of the traffic so no
impedance occurs.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Wayne Pein

wrote:




The cyclist's judgement is a function of what that individual feels safe
and comfortable doing. That supercedes the judgement of overtaking
drivers whose main consideration is their own convenience.

The idiot weaving through surrounding vehicles, accelerating through yellow
lights, tailgating the vehicle they are behind, and generally driving like an
ass is doing what he "feels safe and comfortable doing." in exactly the same
way that the cyclist that disregards red lights, rides counter to traffic, and
the like is doing what he "feels safe and comfortable doing". We have traffic
laws because traffic is composed of groups of people in and on various types of
vehicles all attempting to get from point A to point B. In that context our
individual opinions on what is or is not safe or comfortable must be superceded
by what moves that group safely with the most efficiency. Allowances can be
codified- "as far right as practicable" for instance- but to claim that one's
individual opinion supercedes that of every other road user is utter nonsense
no matter what vehicle you choose.
Motorists and
perhaps by definition society sometimes think that they have a "right"
to go the speed limit or not be forced to slow down or they can force
their way thorough the cyclist's lane, but I don't believe that is more
important than cyclists' rights.

No one here has said that motorists have a right to force a cyclist off the
road. The motorist's "right to drive at the speed limit" is neither superior
nor inferior to the cyclist's right to the lane.
Vehicles + cooperation = efficient traffic flow.
Vehicles + "By god, MY rights are superior to his!" = unnecessary conflict and
inefficient traffic flow.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:

Wayne Pein


wrote:
The cyclist's judgement is a function of what that individual feels safe
and comfortable doing. That supercedes the judgement of overtaking
drivers whose main consideration is their own convenience.


The idiot weaving through surrounding vehicles, accelerating through yellow
lights, tailgating the vehicle they are behind, and generally driving like an
ass is doing what he "feels safe and comfortable doing." in exactly the same
way that the cyclist that disregards red lights, rides counter to traffic, and
the like is doing what he "feels safe and comfortable doing". We have traffic
laws because traffic is composed of groups of people in and on various types of
vehicles all attempting to get from point A to point B. In that context our
individual opinions on what is or is not safe or comfortable must be superceded
by what moves that group safely with the most efficiency. Allowances can be
codified- "as far right as practicable" for instance- but to claim that one's
individual opinion supercedes that of every other road user is utter nonsense
no matter what vehicle you choose.



Your examples are of illegal behavior. My point was based on legally
riding bicyclists using as much of the the as they choose.

Motorists and
perhaps by definition society sometimes think that they have a "right"
to go the speed limit or not be forced to slow down or they can force
their way thorough the cyclist's lane, but I don't believe that is more
important than cyclists' rights.


No one here has said that motorists have a right to force a cyclist off the
road.

Neither did I.


The motorist's "right to drive at the speed limit" is neither superior
nor inferior to the cyclist's right to the lane.
Vehicles + cooperation = efficient traffic flow.
Vehicles + "By god, MY rights are superior to his!" = unnecessary conflict and
inefficient traffic flow.


I disagree. There is no right to drive the speed limit, but I believe
bicyclists do have a right to use the full lane if they choose
regardless of what discriminatory rules a state or municipality may
employ. So I believe this right is superior.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:


The motorist's "right to drive at the speed limit" is neither superior

nor inferior to the cyclist's right to the lane. Vehicles +
cooperation = efficient traffic flow.
Vehicles + "By god, MY rights are superior to his!" = unnecessary
conflict and
inefficient traffic flow.


I disagree. There is no right to drive the speed limit, but I believe
bicyclists do have a right to use the full lane if they choose
regardless of what discriminatory rules a state or municipality may
employ. So I believe this right is superior.

I'm with Wayne on this. The typical situation with a cyclist in a
narrow lane is extremely similar to the situation of a 30 mph driver on
a 35 mph road - say, because he's towing a heavy trailer up a steep
hill, or because he's transporting some very fragile cargo.

He has a right to use the road. If the impatient idiot tailgating and
flashing his lights has a "right" to drive the speed limit, it's
certainly inferior to the first driver's right to use the road to tow
his trailer.

And as for the trailer-tower, the same is true for a cyclist using that
lane. The "right to drive the speed limit" is greatly inferior. In
fact, I don't believe such a right exists.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]