Protesters stage sit-in during Jarvis bike lane removal

On 5/21/2014 3:38 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 8:46 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07:42 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement.

(the one about bicyclists needing a law that allows them
to get out of the way of a truck)

The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

The "as far right as practicable" tenet plainly implies
hazard avoidance, and in fact the codes all seem to
include this explicitly.

Some traffic codes explicitly allow cyclists to move left to avoid
hazards. Some don't. Duane has claimed repeatedly that it's illegal
for him to ride further left, and has said he prefers crossing the
province border to where laws are more reasonable.


Bull****. I said that the law prevents me from riding in the middle of
the lane for no apparent reason other than I think it's a good thing to
do. I prefer crossing the border because the roads are smooth in
Ontario compared to here. On group rides we prefer Ontario because the
roads are better AND you're allowed to ride a double rotation. Get your
facts straight.

As far as I know you are required to ride on the right in Ontario as
well. Maybe SR can clarify. But I've never been anywhere that this
wasn't the law.

But even in places where cyclists are clearly permitted to be left, many
motorists don't know that and hassle cyclists. In some cases, cops
ticket cyclists. I have a lawyer friend who has successfully defended
such cyclists.

I don't see how door zone bike lanes change this, although
there is something to the argument against them that says
people will ride there because they think they're supposed
to (which just seems stupid to me; but that's me).

Yes, there certainly is "something to the argument"! A bike lane stripe
is very commonly interpreted as "Cyclists are supposed to ride here."
Most cyclists and most motorists can't conceive of any other meaning.


Inconceivable! :-)


Now we're dissing bike lanes because they may be in a door zone and
someone may be too stupid to know that they can still protect
themselves. If a "cycling advocate" wants to educate, there you go.

But it's kind of like when Frank trashes helmets by citing
mandatory helmet laws. when none of the people he's
haranguing about it endorse either MHL's or DZBL's.

Good grief, Dan, stick to one bit of nonsense at a time, OK? Yes,
there's (almost?) nobody here currently posting in favor of mandatory
helmets. But at one time, there were. And there are plenty of people
still favoring mandatory helmets, whether you're aware of that or not.
Another MHL was fought down in Maryland just a few months ago.

Again, stick to one bit of nonsense at a time.

I was pointing out a parallel. It takes at least two
things to be parallel. Neither of mine are nonsense.
Do try not to be such a dimwit.

On 5/21/2014 8:38 AM, Duane wrote:

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Some traffic codes explicitly allow cyclists to move left to avoid
hazards. Some don't. Duane has claimed repeatedly that it's illegal
for him to ride further left, and has said he prefers crossing the
province border to where laws are more reasonable.


Bull****. I said that the law prevents me from riding in the middle of
the lane for no apparent reason other than I think it's a good thing to
do.

That's odd. I've talked about controlling a narrow lane many times, and
ISTM you've repeatedly said it was illegal in Quebec. Am I remembering
wrong - or, to put it another way, are you [now] saying that a cyclist
is legally allowed to ride further left when he judges it to be necessary?

And regarding your phrasing: The problem is, if a bicyclist does leave
a bike lane for his own safety (e.g. if the bike lane is in the door
zone) he's doing it "because he thinks it's a good thing to do" - and
rightly so! But some cops may be completely ignorant of the dooring
hazard, and figure the cyclist is leaving the bike lane just "because he
thinks it's a good thing to do." Whose side are you on in such a dispute?

I prefer crossing the border because the roads are smooth in
Ontario compared to here. On group rides we prefer Ontario because the
roads are better AND you're allowed to ride a double rotation. Get your
facts straight.

My fact was that you said the laws were more reasonable in Ontario. You
just verified that, with your statement that "you're allowed to ride a
double rotation." Whose facts need straightening?

As far as I know you are required to ride on the right in Ontario as
well. Maybe SR can clarify. But I've never been anywhere that this
wasn't the law.

There are U.S. states whose laws give lists of reasons a cyclist may
ride further left. In at least some cases, they note that there may be
other valid reasons not in the list.

Unfortunately, there are also locations where use of a bike lane, cycle
track, bike path, etc. is mandatory - that is, it removes the cyclist's
legal right to the road. In some cases, this is so no matter how bad
the facility is; and I've seen some terrible ones.

Now we're dissing bike lanes because they may be in a door zone and
someone may be too stupid to know that they can still protect
themselves. If a "cycling advocate" wants to educate, there you go.

I'm working on that right now.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/20/2014 10:13 PM, Duane wrote:
Dan O wrote:


I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

+1

How about if we lobby _against_ bike facilities that say "Be stupid"?

What does a door-zone bike lane say, if not that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:35:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 10:13 PM, Duane wrote:
Dan O wrote:

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

+1

How about if we lobby _against_ bike facilities that say "Be stupid"?

I'm basically okay with that - unless by "we" you expect me to do it
(I've got better things to do than "lobby", and don't really have that
particular problem of following stupid directions anyway.)

What does a door-zone bike lane say, if not that?

"But it's kind of like when Frank trashes helmets by citing mandatory
helmet laws. when none of the people he's haranguing about it endorse
either MHL's or DZBL's."

On 5/21/2014 2:19 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:35:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 10:13 PM, Duane wrote:
Dan O wrote:

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

+1

How about if we lobby _against_ bike facilities that say "Be stupid"?

I'm basically okay with that - unless by "we" you expect me to do it
(I've got better things to do than "lobby", and don't really have that
particular problem of following stupid directions anyway.)

What does a door-zone bike lane say, if not that?

"But it's kind of like when Frank trashes helmets by citing mandatory
helmet laws. when none of the people he's haranguing about it endorse
either MHL's or DZBL's."



+2