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
  #21  
Old February 10th 08, 03:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 07:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 07:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 07:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 07:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 07:29 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:

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  
Old February 11th 08, 01:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 01:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default 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  
Old February 11th 08, 01:24 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:

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  
Old February 11th 08, 01:30 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:

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

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 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.