A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Oregon vs California law graphic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 9th 08, 06:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Not according to the BICYCLE LANE ZEALOTS. Of course, they seem to
lack experience of real world motorists.

No, it is the anti-bike lane zealots who have no sense of reality....

Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley).


Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only
a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again:

Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some
woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane.
What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat
behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a
couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was
so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including
along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one
automobile using those roads.

There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses
to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Ads
  #12  
Old February 9th 08, 01:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Not according to the BICYCLE LANE ZEALOTS. Of course, they seem to
lack experience of real world motorists.
No, it is the anti-bike lane zealots who have no sense of reality....

Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley).


Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only
a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again:

Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some
woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane.
What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat
behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a
couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was
so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including
along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one
automobile using those roads.

There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses
to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle.

"Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where most
cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some psychological
comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare,
even without bicycle farcilities).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
  #13  
Old February 9th 08, 01:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Jens Müller[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 287
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman schrieb:
in return for some psychological
comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare,
even without bicycle farcilities).


I've noticed that listening to music reduces that irrational fear, too.
  #14  
Old February 9th 08, 08:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley).

Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only
a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again:
Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some
woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane.
What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat
behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a
couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was
so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including
along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one
automobile using those roads.
There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses
to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle.

"Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where
most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some
psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind
(which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities).


Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a reahsh of
Jon Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless
rhetoric.

A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at
intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to
near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course
through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane.

As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe anway - either a
bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets
dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by
simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes
merge.

At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn
lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice
cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and
the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone.
Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe
dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to
make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch
inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is
violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an
accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear
and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much
clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #15  
Old February 9th 08, 08:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley).
Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only
a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again:
Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some
woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane.
What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat
behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a
couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was
so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including
along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one
automobile using those roads.
There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses
to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle.

"Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where
most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some
psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind
(which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities).


Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a re[]h[a]sh of
Jo[h]n Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless
rhetoric.

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.

A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at
intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to
near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course
through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane.

That is hardly worth being ghettoized.

As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe an[y]way - either a
bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets
dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by
simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes
merge.

And?

At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn
lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice
cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and
the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone.
Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe
dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to
make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch
inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is
violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an
accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear
and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much
clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow.

Take the lane, dude!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
  #16  
Old February 10th 08, 12:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


"Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where
most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some
psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind
(which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities).

Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a re[]h[a]sh
of
Jo[h]n Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless
rhetoric.

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.


Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.

A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at
intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to
near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course
through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane.

That is hardly worth being ghettoized.


Cut the loaded language - it is a purely emotional argument - i.e., a
fallacious one.

As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe an[y]way - either a
bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets
dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by
simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes
merge.

And?


And what? You mean the next that followed?


At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn
lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice
cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and
the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone.
Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe
dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to
make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch
inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is
violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an
accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear
and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much
clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow.

Take the lane, dude!


Why take a lane when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic
when the road design makes that unnecessary?

Do you want them to go out of their way to make it necessary for you
to merge into the stream of traffic at each intersection?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #17  
Old February 10th 08, 01:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Jens Müller[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 287
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Bill Z. schrieb:

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.


Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.


No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane and
do indirect left turns.
  #18  
Old February 10th 08, 01:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Eric Vey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.


Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.


No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane and
do indirect left turns.


BZ still doesn't understand that since "they have their own lane"
motorists want cyclists to stay in those lanes. Turning left out of that
lane is the cyclist's problem, not theirs. "We can't go in their bicycle
lane, why do they think they can come into ours?"
  #19  
Old February 10th 08, 02:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


"Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where
most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some
psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind
(which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities).
Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a re[]h[a]sh
of
Jo[h]n Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless
rhetoric.

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.


Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.


It has nothing to do with my or any other cyclist competence. The marked
bicycle lane implies to motorists that is where the cyclists will be,
and they wonder what the hell the cyclist is doing when he/she properly
moves into the left lane to make a left turn. I have even had cagers
pass me on the left when I was in the left half of the left lane
signaling a left turn.

A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at
intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to
near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course
through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane.

That is hardly worth being ghettoized.


Cut the loaded language - it is a purely emotional argument - i.e., a
fallacious one.

Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is
influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane".

As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe an[y]way - either a
bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets
dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by
simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes
merge.

And?


And what? You mean the next that followed?

There is a scenario posted, but no analysis.

At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn
lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice
cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and
the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone.
Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe
dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to
make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch
inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is
violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an
accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear
and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much
clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow.

Take the lane, dude!


Why take a lane when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic
when the road design makes that unnecessary?

Taking the lane prevents getting "right-hooked" by right turning motor
vehicles. Duh.

Do you want them to go out of their way to make it necessary for you
to merge into the stream of traffic at each intersection?

I have no issue with that. It takes so little effort to change lanes or
slow down and speed up a metal box. The drivers need to move their feet
some to keep circulation going.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
  #20  
Old February 10th 08, 02:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Oregon vs California law graphic

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.


Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.


No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane and
do indirect left turns.


Yes, the cagers would like for us to dismount and make two (2) street
crossings as pedestrians. The cagers would also like us to ride on the
sidewalk, since they consider bicycles toy only suitable for multi-use
paths.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Graphic design jerseys Mika Techniques 3 June 18th 07 06:37 PM
World Transport - a great graphic.. PiledHigher Australia 2 August 28th 06 01:16 PM
Graphic for muscle recruitment comparing standing/sitting? [email protected] Techniques 5 June 14th 06 02:06 PM
Hermiston, Oregon to Hood River, Oregon? Ted Rides 7 December 4th 05 07:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.