A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Forester says...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 2nd 11, 07:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
David Scheidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Forester says...

In rec.bicycles.tech Duane Hebert wrote:
:On 2/2/2011 11:50 AM, Dan O wrote:
: On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane wrote:
: On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
:
: Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
: slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
: Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
: whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
: would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
: permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
: Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
: even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
: quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
: no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
: cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.
:
: Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
: far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
: Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
: abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.
:
: I think the "as far right as practicable" is reasonable common sense
: and courtesy embodied in the law, as Forester seems to be agreeing in
: the quoted paragraph.

:As long as you interpret practicable as Jay does.

:The Quebec code says "every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme
:right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except
:where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left turn"

:Sort of like what "extreme" and "obstructed" mean. I take that to mean
:to keep as far right as I can without hitting potholes, drain gratings
:etc. And this seems OK to me. But I got a lot of "sympathy" here for
:living in such a backward society. I assumed that this was unusual but
:it apparently isn't.

No, I suspect that means "you must ride through the potholes, broken
glass, and dog ****, because you're non-automobile scum. Please hurry
up and die, so you can get out of our more important way.".


--
sig 54
Ads
  #12  
Old February 2nd 11, 07:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Duane Hebert[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default Forester says...

On 2/2/2011 1:00 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Duane wrote:
:On 2/2/2011 11:50 AM, Dan O wrote:
: On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane wrote:
: On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
:
: Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
: slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
: Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
: whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
: would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
: permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
: Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
: even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
: quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
: no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
: cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.
:
: Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
: far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
: Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
: abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.
:
: I think the "as far right as practicable" is reasonable common sense
: and courtesy embodied in the law, as Forester seems to be agreeing in
: the quoted paragraph.

:As long as you interpret practicable as Jay does.

:The Quebec code says "every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme
:right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except
:where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left turn"

:Sort of like what "extreme" and "obstructed" mean. I take that to mean
:to keep as far right as I can without hitting potholes, drain gratings
:etc. And this seems OK to me. But I got a lot of "sympathy" here for
:living in such a backward society. I assumed that this was unusual but
:it apparently isn't.

No, I suspect that means "you must ride through the potholes, broken
glass, and dog ****, because you're non-automobile scum. Please hurry
up and die, so you can get out of our more important way.".


Could be. I would have to read it again in the original French to be
certain. Then again, maybe it only says "extreme" in the English version.

  #13  
Old February 2nd 11, 07:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Forester says...

On Feb 2, 11:26*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Feb 2, 12:36*am, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI


$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."


So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because many people are easily confused.


One of the sites recently linked in these discussions contains a
pretty extensive page in which the author complains about things
Effective Cycling gets wrong. *Except that, as in your example above,
it's actually his impression of Effective Cycling that's wrong. *He
confuses statements others make with statements Forester makes. *He
imagines motives that simply don't exist.


In other words, the author is confused.


Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. *


Actually, my position is that bicycles are subject to the laws as
written, and as interpreted by court decisions and common sense. You
recall that I live in a state where, like many, the question of my
right to control a narrow lane has been settled firmly in my favor.

But even in less enlightened jurisdictions, common sense usually
reigns. Practically speaking, the tactics Forester describe seem to
work nearly everywhere. I've ridden in (I think) 44 states of the
Union and about a dozen foreign countries so far with no problem.

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?

- Frank Krygowski
  #14  
Old February 2nd 11, 08:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default Forester says...

On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:26 am, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Feb 1, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:


On Feb 2, 12:36 am, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI


$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."


So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because many people are easily confused.


One of the sites recently linked in these discussions contains a
pretty extensive page in which the author complains about things
Effective Cycling gets wrong. Except that, as in your example above,
it's actually his impression of Effective Cycling that's wrong. He
confuses statements others make with statements Forester makes. He
imagines motives that simply don't exist.


In other words, the author is confused.


Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote.


Actually, my position is that bicycles are subject to the laws as
written, and as interpreted by court decisions and common sense. You
recall that I live in a state where, like many, the question of my
right to control a narrow lane has been settled firmly in my favor.

But even in less enlightened jurisdictions, common sense usually
reigns. Practically speaking, the tactics Forester describe seem to
work nearly everywhere. I've ridden in (I think) 44 states of the
Union and about a dozen foreign countries so far with no problem.

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?


Not fully prosecuted by the legal system (one would hope, anyway), but
certainly persecuted by outraged cagers - who will in fact carry their
irritation to the rest of us.

I agree that common sense should and generally does prevail.



  #15  
Old February 2nd 11, 08:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default Forester says...

On Feb 2, 8:38*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. *It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. *Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." *In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." *To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.


Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? *I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.


"Practicable" is the standard UVC term adopted in most US states.
  #16  
Old February 2nd 11, 08:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Duane Hebert[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default Forester says...

On 2/2/2011 2:20 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.


Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.


"Practicable" is the standard UVC term adopted in most US states.


So it's pretty much the same as Quebec. I've only lived in Louisiana,
New York and Boston so I wasn't sure. Thanks.
  #17  
Old February 2nd 11, 10:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Forester says...

Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/2/2011 1:00 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Duane wrote:


:As long as you interpret practicable as Jay does.

:The Quebec code says "every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme
:right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except
:where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left turn"

:Sort of like what "extreme" and "obstructed" mean. I take that to mean
:to keep as far right as I can without hitting potholes, drain gratings
:etc. And this seems OK to me. But I got a lot of "sympathy" here for
:living in such a backward society. I assumed that this was unusual but
:it apparently isn't.

No, I suspect that means "you must ride through the potholes, broken
glass, and dog ****, because you're non-automobile scum. Please hurry
up and die, so you can get out of our more important way.".


Could be. I would have to read it again in the original French to be
certain. Then again, maybe it only says "extreme" in the English version.


ROTFL!

I read what David wrote with an outrageous French accent (you silly
English Knight), and it makes perfect sense!

The silly English Knights brought the same rule here I think.

JS.
  #18  
Old February 3rd 11, 01:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Tēm ShermĒn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Forester says...

On 2/2/2011 1:05 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Frank wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:26 am, Jay wrote:



On Feb 1, 10:14 pm, Frank wrote:


On Feb 2, 12:36 am, Tēm ShermĒn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI


$southslope.net" wrote:
"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver
on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should
understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower
than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by
facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both
drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of
danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only
when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles."


So why do so many people conflate taking the lane with deliberately
blocking traffic?


Because many people are easily confused.


One of the sites recently linked in these discussions contains a
pretty extensive page in which the author complains about things
Effective Cycling gets wrong. Except that, as in your example above,
it's actually his impression of Effective Cycling that's wrong. He
confuses statements others make with statements Forester makes. He
imagines motives that simply don't exist.


In other words, the author is confused.


Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote.


Actually, my position is that bicycles are subject to the laws as
written, and as interpreted by court decisions and common sense. You
recall that I live in a state where, like many, the question of my
right to control a narrow lane has been settled firmly in my favor.

But even in less enlightened jurisdictions, common sense usually
reigns. Practically speaking, the tactics Forester describe seem to
work nearly everywhere. I've ridden in (I think) 44 states of the
Union and about a dozen foreign countries so far with no problem.

How common is it, really, for a cyclist to be prosecuted for
controlling a lane that's too narrow for safe passing?


Not fully prosecuted by the legal system (one would hope, anyway), but
certainly persecuted by outraged cagers - who will in fact carry their
irritation to the rest of us.

I agree that common sense should and generally does prevail.


Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

--
Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #19  
Old February 3rd 11, 01:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Forester says...

Tēm ShermĒn™ °_° wrote:

[snip]

cyclists will irritate motorists.


I agree.


JS.
  #20  
Old February 3rd 11, 04:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default Forester says...

On Feb 2, 9:46 am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:50 AM, Dan O wrote:



On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:


Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.


Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.


I think the "as far right as practicable" is reasonable common sense
and courtesy embodied in the law, as Forester seems to be agreeing in
the quoted paragraph.


As long as you interpret practicable as Jay does.

The Quebec code says "every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme
right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except
where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left turn"

Sort of like what "extreme" and "obstructed" mean. I take that to mean
to keep as far right as I can without hitting potholes, drain gratings
etc. And this seems OK to me. But I got a lot of "sympathy" here for
living in such a backward society. I assumed that this was unusual but
it apparently isn't.


The roads I ride almost all have either paved shoulders of sidewalks
or someplace to keep going completely out of the marked lane. I'm not
sure it's actually legal to keep going on the paved shoulder (I'm
pretty sure cars aren't supposed to drive on that), but they're nice
places to ride when cars want to pass. Sidewalks are mostly legal,
and I'm a hybrid pedestrian on them with no speed limit when on them :
-) (excepting driveways if there's a car coming). Taking the lane
when cars want by would be ridiculous on just about any of the places
I ride, except one spot OTTOMH (a bridge). Fortunately I know where
most of the regular obstructions are, and can kind of time their
passing, although I once rode past a 1" thickj steel grate lying in
the bike lane, realized it was to cover the 2' x 3' hole (also in the
bike lane) that I went past next (in the dark :-O, just happened to be
out in the lane since no cars were coming), stopped and went back to
cover the hole.


 




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
Casio Men's Ana-Digi Forester Illuminator Watch #FT610WV-3BV -Cheapest Watch [email protected] Social Issues 0 April 30th 08 09:24 PM
J.Forester How to Brake nash General 0 March 11th 07 07:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.