#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:17 PM |