Light works

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:40:42 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


We've seen a lot of examples here where stats are thrown around and
causal relationships are implied where they are not necessarily proven.

And we've seen a lot of examples _everywhere_ where thin foam hats are claimed
to reduce head injuries by an astonishing 85%. It's the most commonly
stated estimate of benefit, despite no corroboration of that figure
after 25 years of trying.

So don't talk to me about stats being "thrown around."

For sure comparing simply the number of accidents with no idea whether
the number of subjects changed is bogus.

Your explanation for the apparent lack of vests' benefit? With details, please?

- Frank Krygowski

On 9/18/2014 4:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:40:42 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


We've seen a lot of examples here where stats are thrown around and
causal relationships are implied where they are not necessarily proven.

And we've seen a lot of examples _everywhere_ where thin foam hats are claimed
to reduce head injuries by an astonishing 85%. It's the most commonly
stated estimate of benefit, despite no corroboration of that figure
after 25 years of trying.

So don't talk to me about stats being "thrown around."

For sure comparing simply the number of accidents with no idea whether
the number of subjects changed is bogus.

Your explanation for the apparent lack of vests' benefit? With details, please?

- Frank Krygowski


Meh. You build a wall, they get a ladder.

in re King Richard III mentioned earlier-
steel helmet or no, technology advances

http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/...e-weapons.aspx

from that page, "spike could rip through helm and plate like
a modern can opener"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/18/2014 7:40 AM, Duane wrote:

We've seen a lot of examples here where stats are thrown around and
causal relationships are implied where they are not necessarily proven.

And of course we've also seen a lot of statistically sound, peer
reviewed studies where those that are upset about the conclusions drawn
from the statistics make up a wide variety of excuses as to why the
conclusions simply must be wrong.

For sure comparing simply the number of accidents with no idea whether
the number of subjects changed is bogus.

Don't tell that to Frank!

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:58:42 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Thu, 18 Sep 2014
07:43:42 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:17:53 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014

08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS

wrote:



On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've

been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how

they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.



It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,

but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the

right of way.





That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne

and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on

your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,

perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?



Bloody right I do.

If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly

they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!

By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more

right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their

sense of entitlement.

If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or

two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the

police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online

This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their

actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.

Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with

powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving

the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an

example).





Damned Right!



The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red

lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.

( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.

states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)



You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.

You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.





Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do

you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other

traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to

yourself (taking the lane)?



--

Cheers,



John B.

Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for "impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed for holding up four or more vehicles.

I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going
slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".

So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you
only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.

Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised
traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even
when it is unsafe to do so.

Major logic failure there somewhere.

I believe that a look at your state's traffic regulations will show
that the words "not impede" are applicable to all road traffic. At
least the states I lived in had laws worded that way.

On the contrary - we have a high court decision that a cyclist riding
on the public highway cannot be impeding traffic as he is part of it,
and that he cannot be regarded as moving unreasonably slowly if (s)he
is moving at a reasonable speed for the type of vehicle concerned.
Even if there is a nearby facility (which was what prompted the case).

The law here is completely clear that it is for the overtaking driver
to ensure that the overtaking is done safely.

Out of curiosity, does that imply that one can drive a any vehicle
down the highway at any speed commensurate with its type. Or did it
apply only to bicycles?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:00:29 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
19:00:07 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:17:53 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee



wrote:







John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014



08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:







On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee



wrote:







John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014



08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:







On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS



wrote:







On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:







Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've



been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how



they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.







It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,



but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the



right of way.











That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne



and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on



your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,



perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?







Bloody right I do.



If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly



they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!



By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more



right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their



sense of entitlement.



If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or



two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the



police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online



This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their



actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.



Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with



powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving



the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an



example).











Damned Right!







The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red



lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.



( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.



states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)







You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.



You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.











Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do



you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other



traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to



yourself (taking the lane)?







--



Cheers,







John B.



Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for "impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed for holding up four or more vehicles.



I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going

slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".



So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you

only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.



Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised

traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even

when it is unsafe to do so.



Major logic failure there somewhere.

Some people need everything spelled out for them in excruiating detail.

The post was intended to show that even a motor vehicle driver can be charged with "impeding traffic" if they are holding up 4 or more vehicles because the driver is moving his/her vehicle slower than other traffic. Thus if you are a bicyclist and are taking the lane and you're holding up 4 or more vehicles then you too can be charged with "impeding traffic".

Not here you can't.

See Cadden vs Crown in the supreme court (then the House of Lords)

I believe that the poster started is dissertation by saying "Where I
live" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:00:29 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
19:00:07 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:17:53 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee



wrote:







John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014



08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:







On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee



wrote:







John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014



08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:







On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS



wrote:







On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:







Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've



been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how



they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.







It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,



but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the



right of way.











That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne



and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on



your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,



perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?







Bloody right I do.



If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly



they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!



By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more



right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their



sense of entitlement.



If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or



two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the



police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online



This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their



actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.



Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with



powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving



the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an



example).











Damned Right!







The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red



lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.



( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.



states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)







You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.



You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.











Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do



you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other



traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to



yourself (taking the lane)?







--



Cheers,







John B.



Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower
than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind
you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those
vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for
"impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding
traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed
for holding up four or more vehicles.



I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going

slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".



So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you

only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.



Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised

traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even

when it is unsafe to do so.



Major logic failure there somewhere.

Some people need everything spelled out for them in excruiating detail.

The post was intended to show that even a motor vehicle driver can be
charged with "impeding traffic" if they are holding up 4 or more
vehicles because the driver is moving his/her vehicle slower than other
traffic. Thus if you are a bicyclist and are taking the lane and you're
holding up 4 or more vehicles then you too can be charged with "impeding traffic".

Not here you can't.

See Cadden vs Crown in the supreme court (then the House of Lords)

I believe that the poster started is dissertation by saying "Where I
live" :-)

Perhaps we should all move to Cambridge.

But that's the rub isn't it? It's one thing to rail about cyclist's rights
to the road but it seems that what these rights actually are depends a lot
on local laws.

Here in Quebec for example there is a slow moving vehicle law that covers
everything on the road including horse driven wagons. In addition the
vehicle code specifically requires cyclists to be on the "extreme" right of
roads except when turning left or avoiding obstacles. Somehow we seem to
deal with it though.

Cambridge's law sounds better but I doubt it would be practical in
Montreal or other cities of similar populations. I also doubt it would be
practical in rural Quebec. There you're either on roads that rarely see
cars so you can mostly ride where you want or the traffic is too heavy and
fast for you to do anything but keep to the right.


--
duane

On 9/19/2014 8:48 AM, Duane wrote:

Perhaps we should all move to Cambridge.

But that's the rub isn't it? It's one thing to rail about cyclist's rights
to the road but it seems that what these rights actually are depends a lot
on local laws.

Here in Quebec for example there is a slow moving vehicle law that covers
everything on the road including horse driven wagons. In addition the
vehicle code specifically requires cyclists to be on the "extreme" right of
roads except when turning left or avoiding obstacles. Somehow we seem to
deal with it though.

Cambridge's law sounds better but I doubt it would be practical in
Montreal or other cities of similar populations. I also doubt it would be
practical in rural Quebec. There you're either on roads that rarely see
cars so you can mostly ride where you want or the traffic is too heavy and
fast for you to do anything but keep to the right.

So what does a cyclist in Quebec do when he's riding in a 3 meter lane,
and about to be passed by a 2.6 meter truck?

As it happens, I rode in Quebec this summer, my first time there. In
situations like that, I controlled the lane as usual. I had no
problems. No motorists objected, no tickets or arrests resulted.

I couldn't imagine riding at the "extreme" edge of the road, inviting
someone to squeeze closely by in that situation.

--
- Frank Krygowski

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:58:42 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Thu, 18 Sep 2014
07:43:42 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:17:53 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee


wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee


wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep
2014

08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS


wrote:



On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago
here, I've

been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't
see how

they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.



It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right
hooks,

but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has
the

right of way.





That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a
tonne

and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and
you on

your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along
at,

perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?



Bloody right I do.

If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them
responsibly

they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!

By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no
more

right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their

sense of entitlement.

If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera
or

two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to
the

police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers
online

This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their

actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.

Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with

powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without
involving

the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an

example).





Damned Right!



The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red

lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.

( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the
U.S.

states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)



You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.

You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.





Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do

you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other

traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to

yourself (taking the lane)?



--

Cheers,



John B.

Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower
than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind
you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those
vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for
"impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding
traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed
for holding up four or more vehicles.

I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going
slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".

So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you
only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.

Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised
traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even
when it is unsafe to do so.

Major logic failure there somewhere.

I believe that a look at your state's traffic regulations will show
that the words "not impede" are applicable to all road traffic. At
least the states I lived in had laws worded that way.

On the contrary - we have a high court decision that a cyclist riding
on the public highway cannot be impeding traffic as he is part of it,
and that he cannot be regarded as moving unreasonably slowly if (s)he
is moving at a reasonable speed for the type of vehicle concerned.
Even if there is a nearby facility (which was what prompted the case).

The law here is completely clear that it is for the overtaking driver
to ensure that the overtaking is done safely.

Out of curiosity, does that imply that one can drive a any vehicle
down the highway at any speed commensurate with its type. Or did it
apply only to bicycles?

In the UK; we have "construction & use" legislation that specifically
mentions power to weight ratio.

Theoretically - you can be ticketed for limping home with a knackered
engine.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:27:58 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Fri, 19 Sep 2014
19:02:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:58:42 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Thu, 18 Sep 2014
07:43:42 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:17:53 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014

08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS

wrote:



On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've

been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how

they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.



It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,

but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the

right of way.





That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne

and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on

your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,

perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?



Bloody right I do.

If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly

they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!

By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more

right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their

sense of entitlement.

If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or

two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the

police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online

This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their

actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.

Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with

powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving

the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an

example).





Damned Right!



The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red

lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.

( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.

states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)



You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.

You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.





Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do

you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other

traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to

yourself (taking the lane)?



--

Cheers,



John B.

Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for "impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed for holding up four or more vehicles.

I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going
slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".

So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you
only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.

Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised
traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even
when it is unsafe to do so.

Major logic failure there somewhere.

I believe that a look at your state's traffic regulations will show
that the words "not impede" are applicable to all road traffic. At
least the states I lived in had laws worded that way.

On the contrary - we have a high court decision that a cyclist riding
on the public highway cannot be impeding traffic as he is part of it,
and that he cannot be regarded as moving unreasonably slowly if (s)he
is moving at a reasonable speed for the type of vehicle concerned.
Even if there is a nearby facility (which was what prompted the case).

The law here is completely clear that it is for the overtaking driver
to ensure that the overtaking is done safely.

Out of curiosity, does that imply that one can drive a any vehicle
down the highway at any speed commensurate with its type. Or did it
apply only to bicycles?

It would apply equally to an ox-cart, if anyone wanted to use one.

Probably not in Jolly Old England, but in the U.S. we do have groups
of people who still travel by horse and buggy - the "plain folks",
Amish and such.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:42:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/19/2014 8:48 AM, Duane wrote:

Perhaps we should all move to Cambridge.

But that's the rub isn't it? It's one thing to rail about cyclist's rights
to the road but it seems that what these rights actually are depends a lot
on local laws.

Here in Quebec for example there is a slow moving vehicle law that covers
everything on the road including horse driven wagons. In addition the
vehicle code specifically requires cyclists to be on the "extreme" right of
roads except when turning left or avoiding obstacles. Somehow we seem to
deal with it though.

Cambridge's law sounds better but I doubt it would be practical in
Montreal or other cities of similar populations. I also doubt it would be
practical in rural Quebec. There you're either on roads that rarely see
cars so you can mostly ride where you want or the traffic is too heavy and
fast for you to do anything but keep to the right.

So what does a cyclist in Quebec do when he's riding in a 3 meter lane,
and about to be passed by a 2.6 meter truck?

As it happens, I rode in Quebec this summer, my first time there. In
situations like that, I controlled the lane as usual. I had no
problems. No motorists objected, no tickets or arrests resulted.

I couldn't imagine riding at the "extreme" edge of the road, inviting
someone to squeeze closely by in that situation.

We have that law in Thailand - bicycles and motorcycles must ride on
the left side of the road, and you can be stopped and fined if you do
not, although honestly that is fairly rare.

But the point is that it seems to work well. On a roadway of your
description the overtaking vehicle simply pulls out into the other
lane. Just exactly as they did on the two lanes of my youth.

It used to be, you know, that all roads were only two lane :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.