|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Eric Vey wrote:
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?" Trying to convince Zaumen of that is apparently impossible. He needs to infiltrate the enemy camp (motorists who do not believe bicyclists have rights) to understand how they think. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Jens Müller writes:
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. Not according to California law, which specifically states that bicyclists may leave a bike lane to prepare for a left turn, among other exceptions. I've done this any number of times and drivers never seem to be surprised. You seem to have a German domain name. As I recall, it is far more difficult to get a drivers' license in Germany than in the U.S. because the German government actually expects drivers to show some reasonable level of competence. I don't think it unreasonable to expect drivers to understand basic right of way rules. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Eric Vey writes:
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?" Buses sometimes have their own lane, including bus lanes on the right side of the raod, and drivers do not expect buses preparing for left turns to make their turns from the rightmost lane. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman writes:
Eric Vey wrote: 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?" Trying to convince Zaumen of that is apparently impossible. He needs to infiltrate the enemy camp (motorists who do not believe bicyclists have rights) to understand how they think. Sharman, you are an idiot. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman writes:
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. Conspiracy theory. BTW, since the vast majority of the public in the U.S. are not cyclists, including the legislators, perhaps you'd care to eplain why they haven't managed to get the legislature to make their alleged wishes a matter of law. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman writes:
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. Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California Driver's Handook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the written test). http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize the point. Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane". Nonsense. They know better. 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. Nope. If you are about 14 feet from the lane stripe to the left of the driver's path, a driver will have to make too sharp a turn to conveniently cut you off. That's still enough room for a driver heading straight to pass you easily. BTW, this distance is what Jon Forester rcommends in _Effective Cycling_ as the nomimal position to be in given a wide outside lane. With nromal 12 feet traffic lanes, this would put you about 2 feet inside a bike lane on roads that have those lanes. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes: 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?" Buses sometimes have their own lane, including bus lanes on the right side of the raod, and drivers do not expect buses preparing for left turns to make their turns from the rightmost lane. Well gee. The bus, unlike the bicycle, is a motor vehicle. The bus, unlike the bicycle travels at roughly the same speeds as the motor vehicles. The bus, unlike the bicycle, will "win" in a collision between itself and a personal motor vehicle. The bus, unlike the bicycle, is big enough that it is hard for even an inattentive motorist to miss. In conclusion, the bus differs from the bicycle in some important aspects. The above should be obvious, even if not mentioned in the California Statutes. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: Eric Vey wrote: 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?" Trying to convince Zaumen of that is apparently impossible. He needs to infiltrate the enemy camp (motorists who do not believe bicyclists have rights) to understand how they think. Sharman, you are an idiot. Who is "Sharman" (sic)? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: 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. Conspiracy theory. BTW, since the vast majority of the public in the U.S. are not cyclists, including the legislators, perhaps you'd care to eplain why they haven't managed to get the legislature to make their alleged wishes a matter of law. The vast majority of motorists in the US do not obey speed limits, yet the laws are not revised. Of course, the US has evolved into something that is a democracy in appearance only. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: 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. Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California Driver's Hand[b]ook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the written test). Not all the world lives in California (although Zaumen seems to think so). http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize the point. Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane". Nonsense. They know better. Who is they (indefinite pronoun)? Nonsense. Most people (at least in the US) do not even understand basic concepts such as they do NOT have the right of way when merging into traffic. To expect them to understand cyclists rights and behavior will not happen unless they are forced to. 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. Nope. If you are about 14 feet from the lane stripe to the left of the driver's path, a driver will have to make too sharp a turn to conveniently cut you off. That's still enough room for a driver heading straight to pass you easily. No, they will just "sideswipe" instead of "right-hook" in that circumstance. BTW, this distance is what Jon Forester r[e]commends in _Effective Cycling_ as the nomi[n]al position to be in given a wide outside lane. With n[o]r[]mal 12 feet traffic lanes, this would put you about 2 feet inside a bike lane on roads that have those lanes. Zaumen still does not understand how the painted bicycle lane influences cagers. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |