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
  #1  
Old February 2nd 11, 06:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Tēm ShermĒn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Forester says...

"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?

--
Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Ads
  #2  
Old February 2nd 11, 06:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default Forester says...

On Feb 1, 9:36 pm, 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 they believe it is often done out of stubborn principle ("I
have a *right* to the road") when it is not really necessary even
without cringing.


  #3  
Old February 2nd 11, 06:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default Forester says...

On Feb 1, 9:40 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 1, 9:36 pm, 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 they believe it is often done out of stubborn principle ("I
have a *right* to the road") when it is not really necessary even
without cringing.


That said, the quoted paragraph strikes me as quite reasonable.
  #4  
Old February 2nd 11, 07:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,077
Default Forester says...

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.

- Frank Krygowski
  #5  
Old February 2nd 11, 11:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default Forester says...

On Feb 2, 5:36*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?


Er, because they don't give a damn about what Forster meant.
In the UK, you should move over, slow down and stop if neccessary to
let faster vehicles pass at the earliest opportunity. This applies
whatever you are driving or riding. So on a single track, as a
cyclist, you stop in a passing place to let a motor car PASS. This
does not mean you ride over the road margin, neither does it mean you
give up road positioning for a forthcoming junction.
  #6  
Old February 2nd 11, 02:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Forester says...

On 2/2/2011 12:36 AM, TQM Sherwin™ °_° 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?


Infidels, obviously.
  #7  
Old February 2nd 11, 05:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default Forester says...

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. 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.


  #8  
Old February 2nd 11, 05:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Duane Hebert[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default Forester says...

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.
  #9  
Old February 2nd 11, 05:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
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.


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.

  #10  
Old February 2nd 11, 06:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Duane Hebert[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default Forester says...

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.


 




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 10:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.