|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding practices. I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding practices." In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane is "potentially dangerous"? I'd call it "potentially dangerous" only in the same way that walking across a roadway is "potentially dangerous" - or, for that matter, walking and chewing gum. In my view, the willingness to take the lane when appropriate is one hallmark of a skilled cyclist. Skilled cyclists generally do this because it is _safer_ than the alternative. And, practically speaking, the cyclist is the person who gets to judge when it's appropriate. Skulking in the gutter? Now that's potentially dangerous! -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
Ads |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
R15757 wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in part: I 'm with Wayne on this. The typical situation with a cyclist in a narrow lane is extremely similar to the situation of a 30 mph driver on a 35 mph road - say, because he's towing a heavy trailer up a steep hill, or because he's transporting some very fragile cargo. He has a right to use the road. ... The key word there is "narrow". Cyclist in a NARROW lane. The situation is very different for a cyclist as opposed to a trailer-hauling truck, because if the lane is wide enough, the cyclist is able to share the lane with another vehicle. "Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement. For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over those potholes. A lane with a big patch of broken glass at the right is a narrow lane for a cyclist, although it doesn't affect a motorist at all. A lane with wet fallen leaves reaching out several feet from the curb is a narrow lane for a cyclist. So is a 12 foot lane with a 2 foot drain grate with slots parallel to the direction of travel. IOW, there are many road situations where an experienced cyclist knows he cannot safely use the right portion of the lane. Motorists may not understand this. Even cops may not understand this. But it's obvious to the cyclist, who is likely to be much more expert in this matter, as well as much more concerned by it. The upshot is this: The cyclist gets to decide when he should take the lane. Nothing else is reasonable. There may be blatant abuses, of course - but in my experience, they are few and far between. In fact, they are much more rare than blatant cyclist abuse by motorists. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski wrote:
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding practices. I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding practices." In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane is "potentially dangerous"? Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times. Bill "hell, pass 'em on the left on mountain road descents (but know what the hell you're doing)" S. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding practices. I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding practices." In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane is "potentially dangerous"? Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times. Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering. Wayne |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Hunrobe wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote: Only a zealot, and someone grasping for straws and looking for an argument, would interpret me and try to bait me as you did, to mean a lane other than the right lane of a multi-lane road. To sum up my take on our exchanges then: You asserted your *absolute* right time and time again throughout this thread. I pointed out time and time again that *absolute* rights simply do not exist. In any context. Period. You responded by saying essentially, "Mine does.". I didn't interpret anything, preferring to fully and accurately quote you. Now it seems when you find your "absolute right" indefensible you qualify it. The word "absolute" has a specific meaning. The synonym "unqualified" comes to mind as well as the definition "not dependent on anything except itself". Why didn't you simply offer your qualification and explain you never meant to say your right is "absolute" and move on? This thread would have been quite a bit shorter. Because I was clearly, as any reasonable person would be, considering the right through lane or a single lane of a two lane road. Why didn't you bother to say, "By *absoulute* do you believe that bicyclists can use a left most lane without rationale?" Clearly you were thinking of this, but instead chose to bait me. So also clearly, you wanted an argument. Wayne |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Wayne Pein wrote:
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times. Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering. What part of "at other times" did you not see/read/understand, Wayne? I know when to take a lane, and when not to (and the latter is a mistake that night be made only once). Bill "no dog in this hunt, so bow-wowing out now" S. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement. For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over those potholes. snip other examples All those examples are covered in the exceptions to the ride-right law where I live. My point is that there will often be times when a cyclist can share the lane with, say, a truck. But there will never be a time when the truck will be able to share the lane with another truck. This is the root of the "discriminatory" ride-to-the-right laws. Robert |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote: B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times. Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering. What part of "at other times" did you not see/read/understand, Wayne? I know when to take a lane, and when not to (and the latter is a mistake that night be made only once). I read your "at other times." So, please tell us when a lawfully riding bicylist is "stupid and suicidal." Wayne |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
R15757 wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in part: "Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement. For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over those potholes. snip other examples All those examples are covered in the exceptions to the ride-right law where I live. My point is that there will often be times when a cyclist can share the lane with, say, a truck. But there will never be a time when the truck will be able to share the lane with another truck. This is the root of the "discriminatory" ride-to-the-right laws. Robert Untrue. A two-lane road here has 22.5 ft lanes. Two 8 ft wide trucks could drive abreast. And there are plenty of times when 3 six foot wide cars could drive abreast in 2 twelve foot lanes, a very common roadway configuration. Are these things tolerated? No. However, there exists the implicit, but spurious, expectation that motorists are allowed to pass bicyclists in the same lane and can legally lane share without the permission of the bicyclist. This is not by explicit language, but by omission of specific prohibition. Some jurisdictions create enabling regulations upon the bicyclist like the bicycle-specific ride right rule. In practice, motorists using part of the bicyclist's lane to overtake is often OK. It's quite the norm. But if it was always done with care and respect for the bicyclist, bicyclists would not have anything to complain about overtaking traffic. But, of course, this is not the case. Wayne |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Wayne Pein wrote:
Untrue. A two-lane road here has 22.5 ft lanes. Two 8 ft wide trucks could drive abreast. And there are plenty of times when 3 six foot wide cars could drive abreast in 2 twelve foot lanes, a very common roadway configuration. Are these things tolerated? No. However, there exists the implicit, but spurious, expectation that motorists are allowed to pass bicyclists in the same lane and can legally lane share without the permission of the bicyclist. This is not by explicit language, but by omission of specific prohibition. Some jurisdictions create enabling regulations upon the bicyclist like the bicycle-specific ride right rule. Good points. But I think situations where two trucks could safely share the same lane are rare at best. With cyclists, however, lane sharing is, as you say, the norm. Good points though. In practice, motorists using part of the bicyclist's lane to overtake is often OK. It's quite the norm. But if it was always done with care and respect for the bicyclist, bicyclists would not have anything to complain about overtaking traffic. But, of course, this is not the case. No, it is not the case. Realistically, however, taking the lane is no magic force field against dangerous passes. Dangerous passes are just part of riding a bike on the street. Also realistically speaking, while getting passed is a near constant thing, these passes are not a major source of danger in our daily travels, as 90% of car-bike collisons involve turning or crossing. Robert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle police officer on bicycle hit | [email protected] | General | 121 | February 6th 04 03:44 PM |