When to honk at a bicyclist

On 02 Nov 2004 04:44:45 GMT, Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

This is a tough one, Bob. We seem to be talking about the "right" of a
cyclist to take the lane, no matter what, versus the "right" of a
motorist to drive the speed limit.

I'm not asserting any such non-existent motorist right and Wayne is not
limiting himself to taking the lane to avoid hazards or enhance safety.
He's
asserted that he has an *absolute* right to ride in any lane he wishes
because
the phrase "as practicable" vests the final decision with the cyclist.
It's not
a case of cyclists' versus drivers' rights. It's a case of one road user
claiming an *absolute* right no matter what.
Suppose for an instant that Wayne is riding in a lane well to the right
of
center. There is more than adequate room for you to pass him as you
overtake
him on your bike. As you do and with no warning at all, Wayne asserts
that
absolute right of his to ride to the *left* of center. You are forced
into
oncoming traffic where you are struck. Is that an unlikely even
farfetched
scenario? Yes. Is it also an illustration of the very basic fact that no
right
is absolute? Yes. What is there about this that makes it a "tough one"?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

One thing I have not seen in this thread is that the speed limit is the
uppermost limit. On a freeway the limit is 65MPH but you will get pulled
over if you drive below 40MPH. I know because it happened to me when I
was trying to nurse a sick car back home, 140 miles worth. That only
applies to the freeway where everyone is playing race car driver. On
a country road or an urban lane there is no minimum, except that you
can't flat out park in the street. There is a rule (law?) that if you get
more than 5 vehicles behind you then you have to pull over. Where I live
the farmers drive on the road and seldom go over 20MPH, but they do have
the right to be there.
It varies from state to state, but that is basically how it works.
Bob, feel free to comment since you are the one in the business.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:



Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.



That's what all beginner bicyclists say!

Wayne

Wayne Pein

wrote:

I *knew* it was only a matter of time until "Bob, I don't want to get in
an argument" Hunt would start mud slinging.

I guess you've run out of intelligent things to say.

Wayne


I *knew* it was only a matter of time until "Bob, I don't want to get in
an argument" Hunt would start mud slinging.

I guess you've run out of intelligent things to say.

Wayne


Since you have asserted an *absolute* right and absolute rights of any kind
simply do not exist in any moral, legal, or philosophical value system, what
you term "mudslinging" is actually just truthfulness.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Wayne Pein

wrote:

I assert that bicyclists can use the right lane of a multi-lane road, or
the lane of a two lane road. There is no reason for a bicyclist to ride
in a lane left of right except when preparing to turn left.

An "absolute" right would not require a reason to be exercised. That's part of
what would make such a right absolute.

Please reread all my posts on this topic to figure out where you've
misinterpreted me. Probably right after you declared that you didn't
want to get into an argument.

I didn't misinterpret what you wrote but I'll grant that you may have expressed
yourself poorly when you posted the following:

---begin paste----

Subject: When to honk at a bicyclist
From: Wayne Pein
Date: 10/31/04 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

Hunrobe wrote:



Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
supercedes the right of any and all other road users?

Regards,
Bob Hunt


Yes, that is right. The reason? Because the law is written sufficiently
vague, using the word practicable, that one can't define precisely
under what roadway or traffic conditions a bicyclist can do this or that.

Regards,
Wayne

---end paste----

I didn't interpret anything. I simply took you at your word. If you don't mean
something, don't say it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:
Wayne Pein

I *knew* it was only a matter of time until "Bob, I don't want to get in
an argument" Hunt would start mud slinging.

I guess you've run out of intelligent things to say.

Wayne



Since you have asserted an *absolute* right and absolute rights of any kind
simply do not exist in any moral, legal, or philosophical value system,

You might want to rethink this.

Furthermore, you might want to try not to infer. It results in
misinterpretation.


what
you term "mudslinging" is actually just truthfulness.


Any ol' rationale will do for some people.

Wayne


All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

Wayne Pein wrote:
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:



Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.



That's what all beginner bicyclists say!

Non sequiter much?

Bill "knows enough to stay (up)right" S.

Hunrobe wrote:

Wayne Pein


wrote:


I assert that bicyclists can use the right lane of a multi-lane road, or
the lane of a two lane road. There is no reason for a bicyclist to ride
in a lane left of right except when preparing to turn left.


An "absolute" right would not require a reason to be exercised. That's part of
what would make such a right absolute.


Please reread all my posts on this topic to figure out where you've
misinterpreted me. Probably right after you declared that you didn't
want to get into an argument.


I didn't misinterpret what you wrote but I'll grant that you may have expressed
yourself poorly when you posted the following:

---begin paste----

Subject: When to honk at a bicyclist
From: Wayne Pein
Date: 10/31/04 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

Hunrobe wrote:



Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
supercedes the right of any and all other road users?

Regards,
Bob Hunt



Yes, that is right. The reason? Because the law is written sufficiently
vague, using the word practicable, that one can't define precisely
under what roadway or traffic conditions a bicyclist can do this or that.

Regards,
Wayne

---end paste----

I didn't interpret anything. I simply took you at your word. If you don't mean
something, don't say it.


Only a zealot, and someone grasping for straws and looking for an
argument, would interpret me and try to bait me as you did, to mean a
lane other than the right lane of a multi-lane road.

Wayne

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:



Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.



That's what all beginner bicyclists say!


Non sequiter much?

Bill "knows enough to stay (up)right" S.




No more than you Bill. You started it with your post. If you've got
something additive to say, you should do that. Your post didn't do
anything except attempt, and succeed, in inciting me.

I also recommend knowing a little more about bicycling than merely
staying upright.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:



Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.



That's what all beginner bicyclists say!


Non sequiter much?

Bill "knows enough to stay (up)right" S.




No more than you Bill. You started it with your post. If you've got
something additive to say, you should do that. Your post didn't do
anything except attempt, and succeed, in inciting me.

While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a
non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding
practices.

I also recommend knowing a little more about bicycling than merely
staying upright.

You missed the (up).

Bill "I'm pretty damned confident* in traffic, thanks" S.

*but don't take foolish chances

Wayne Pein

wrote:

Only a zealot, and someone grasping for straws and looking for an
argument, would interpret me and try to bait me as you did, to mean a
lane other than the right lane of a multi-lane road.

To sum up my take on our exchanges then:
You asserted your *absolute* right time and time again throughout this thread.
I pointed out time and time again that *absolute* rights simply do not exist.
In any context. Period. You responded by saying essentially, "Mine does.". I
didn't interpret anything, preferring to fully and accurately quote you. Now it
seems when you find your "absolute right" indefensible you qualify it.
The word "absolute" has a specific meaning. The synonym "unqualified" comes to
mind as well as the definition "not dependent on anything except itself". Why
didn't you simply offer your qualification and explain you never meant to say
your right is "absolute" and move on? This thread would have been quite a bit
shorter.

Regards,
Bob Hunt