Interesting piece on bicyles/roads/history
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,847
Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked 2,827 Times
in
1,543 Posts
Interesting piece on bicyles/roads/history
Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing
https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
#2
24-Speed Machine
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing
https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
I like the chronological breakdown.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I do wish he had chosen his closing words a little better. To wit:
groan.
By teaching school children how to drive their bicycles in traffic, they will have a jump start on learning how to drive cars better when they grow up.
Last edited by CbadRider; 06-11-13 at 09:01 AM. Reason: Removed inflammatory comment
#4
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
Drivers think the roads are "their" roads. History shows that starting before 1900 the League of Wheelmen was the driving force for good roads. So-------------in fact auto drivers are actually driving on "our" roads.
#5
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Unfortunately, bob shanteau is also one of those 'repeal the LAB' bliviots..... he's fallen into quite the cadre of anti-cycling tools. And it's a shame. The vehikularists position is dedicated to repealing everything positive that's happened in american cycling in the last 40 years out of a terribly misguided impression no bike laws or facilities of any kind is a preferable position for cyclists.
Last edited by CbadRider; 06-11-13 at 09:03 AM. Reason: removed derogatory comments
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
Roads existed before bicycles.
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 08:12 AM.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing
https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
Originally Posted by link
The
California Drivers Handbook shows a motorist straddling a lane line to overtake a bicyclist, which violates the requirement to drive entirely within a single lane.
Passing is an exception to the requirement to "drive entirely within a single lane" (it has to be: otherwise passing would not be legal).
As far as I know, there isn't any legal requirement to move completely into another lane when passing.
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 12:31 PM.
#8
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
njkayaker
But the roads before the League of Wheelmen got involved were little more than cow paths. The Wheelmen lobbied for smooth easily passable roads. Remember early bikes did not have inflateable tires, and needed smooth roads.
But the roads before the League of Wheelmen got involved were little more than cow paths. The Wheelmen lobbied for smooth easily passable roads. Remember early bikes did not have inflateable tires, and needed smooth roads.
#9
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Are there not laws that prohibit lane splitting in most states... wouldn't that require moving completely over?
#10
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Trouble is, the vehikular cykling movement is akin to pedestrians lobbying to remove sidewalks, curb cuts, ADA standards, crosswalks, overpasses, pedestrian crossing signals and vulnerable user laws protecting pedestrians.
It's a sham, seeking to furtively marginalize cyclists under absurd posturing their pogrom is good for cycling.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-13 at 08:28 AM.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the bridge with Picard
Posts: 5,932
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I deleted the disruptive posts and cleaned up the thread.
If you can't discuss this topic without throwing insults or regurgitating old arguments, then don't post. Anyone continuing to do so will be asked to leave the thread.
CbadRider
Forum Admin
If you can't discuss this topic without throwing insults or regurgitating old arguments, then don't post. Anyone continuing to do so will be asked to leave the thread.
CbadRider
Forum Admin
#12
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
From that piece...
This is all well and good and of course Forester constantly chants this... But bear in mind that the piece also points out that drivers, LEOs and judges don't understand the existing laws... and I contend that most motorists have no idea of the laws and that many LEOs try to enforce their own view of what the laws should be... so deleting the FTR law isn't going to mean a thing to a driving pubic that essentially has no clue anyway.
But let's go on. The biggest irony is that the piece points out that cyclists once rode along just as motorists, and shared the road completely... before lane lines existed. And before cars had the performance they have today, and the roads were as crowded as today, and before surface arterial road speed limits were and are approaching 55MPH... But, OK, I'll accept that before lane lines, cyclists were equals on the road... so all we have to do is implement the ideas of Hans Monderman and stop coddling motorists with "slot car" designed roads with helpful signs every 10 feet.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-448747.html
When we have to tell motorists to watch out for pedestrians at street corners... well frankly something is terribly wrong...
There really is no reason for that sign to exist... drivers that have passed a test and hold a license should be well aware of their responsibilities... but if they have to be told to watch for peds... do you really think they have a clue as to FTR laws? NOT HARDLY.
The FTR law needs to be repealed in order to once again give bicyclists the same rights and duties as other drivers. Unfortunately, since that law has been on the books longer than most of the readers of this article have been alive, most people see the law as normal and reasonable. But it is not. It is the result of the mistaken idea that bicyclists cannot control travel lanes. Not only is the idea that bicyclists cannot or should not control travel lanes responsible for the FTR law, it is also responsible for low mode share. FTR thinking leads to the belief that bicyclists controlling travel lanes is somehow rude or more dangerous than riding at the edge of the road or on the sidewalk.
But let's go on. The biggest irony is that the piece points out that cyclists once rode along just as motorists, and shared the road completely... before lane lines existed. And before cars had the performance they have today, and the roads were as crowded as today, and before surface arterial road speed limits were and are approaching 55MPH... But, OK, I'll accept that before lane lines, cyclists were equals on the road... so all we have to do is implement the ideas of Hans Monderman and stop coddling motorists with "slot car" designed roads with helpful signs every 10 feet.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-448747.html
It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.
There really is no reason for that sign to exist... drivers that have passed a test and hold a license should be well aware of their responsibilities... but if they have to be told to watch for peds... do you really think they have a clue as to FTR laws? NOT HARDLY.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
So what? What about the Romans?
The roads that they had made "smooth" probably were a tiny percentage of roads anyway (most likely in cities).
There was still a heck of a lot of road usage by non-cyclists (regardless of the quality of those roads).
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
"Lane splitting" is one thing. Passing is another.
Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.
The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").
This is wrong.
===================
As far as I know, there aren't any laws explicitly prohibiting lane splitting (maybe, some states prohibit it but it's not common).
In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.
Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).
Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).
Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).
No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.
Why are you talking about lane splitting?
Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.
The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").
===================
In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.
Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).
Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).
Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).
No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.
Why are you talking about lane splitting?
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 12:50 PM.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
???
Where are they complaining? What are they complaining about?
(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)
Where are they complaining? What are they complaining about?
(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 12:36 PM.
#16
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Where? See https://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-de...50BDD8D4D.html
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?
#17
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
What does it matter pedestrian advocacy groups are tirelessly working to improve equity and pedestrian access/safety.
exactly. that's the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists. it's as if pedestrians were lobbying long and hard to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians on equal footing as motorists.
Bob Shanteau and his ilk promote a denigratory view of cycling, unwittingly (or deviously) seek to marginalize cycling with their flipflopped muddle of cyclists rights, and promote an 'advocacy' platform that seeks to set cycling back 40 years in this country.
(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)
Bob Shanteau and his ilk promote a denigratory view of cycling, unwittingly (or deviously) seek to marginalize cycling with their flipflopped muddle of cyclists rights, and promote an 'advocacy' platform that seeks to set cycling back 40 years in this country.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
Where? See https://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-de...50BDD8D4D.html
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 01:06 PM.
#19
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
how about alliance for biking AND walking
or
americawalks.org/
are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america? the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists is akin to pedestrians lobbying long to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians sharing the road.
or
americawalks.org/
are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america? the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists is akin to pedestrians lobbying long to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians sharing the road.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
If you want cyclists to be "safe" like pedestrians, you should be arguing that they keep to the sidewalk.
how about alliance for biking AND walking
or
americawalks.org/
are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america?
or
americawalks.org/
are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america?
exactly. that's the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists. it's as if pedestrians were lobbying long and hard to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians on equal footing as motorists.
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 01:03 PM.
#21
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
"Lane splitting" is one thing. Passing is another.
Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.
The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").
This is wrong.
===================
As far as I know, there aren't any laws explicitly prohibiting lane splitting (maybe, some states prohibit it but it's not common).
In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.
Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).
Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).
Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).
No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.
Why are you talking about lane splitting?
Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.
The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").
This is wrong.
===================
As far as I know, there aren't any laws explicitly prohibiting lane splitting (maybe, some states prohibit it but it's not common).
In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.
Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).
Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).
Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).
No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.
Why are you talking about lane splitting?
As a cyclist, I really just want a safe pass... something that has ever widening distances as speed goes up... none of this "well I didn't hit you did I." Every time I hear that comment, I want to wave my fist past the face of the offender and then say "well I didn't hit you did I..."
But whatever... no, passing does NOT require a full lane change... but it does require a modicum of courtesy towards another human being.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
And, cyclists riding at the right side of the road way is not "lane splitting" (which is, basically, straddling a lane marker).
And riding at the right side of the roadway is explicitly allowed in all states.
It's normal and common for laws to explicitly specify exceptions to the general law.
There's no "irony" because: 1) it's not "lane splitting" and 2) exceptions to the general laws are common.
Then, why the heck are you arguing that a full lane change is required?
Passing is an exception to the requirement to "drive entirely within a single lane" (it has to be: otherwise passing would not be legal).
As far as I know, there isn't any legal requirement to move completely into another lane when passing.
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 01:20 PM.
#23
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I did state that some states have laws against lane splitting... but then seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to cyclists. But again I don't advocate that a motorist has to move to another lane... you seem to be taking my comment much further than I intended. Drop it.
#24
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
??? That some pedestrians have complaints about something doesn't mean those complaints are relevant to this discussion.
If you want cyclists to be "safe" like pedestrians, you should be arguing that they keep to the sidewalk.
No, silly. These advocacy groups aren't arguing that pedestrians should walk in the middle of highways. You are just throwing irrelevant crap into this thread.
If you want cyclists to be "safe" like pedestrians, you should be arguing that they keep to the sidewalk.
No, silly. These advocacy groups aren't arguing that pedestrians should walk in the middle of highways. You are just throwing irrelevant crap into this thread.
What the heck are you talking about??
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-13 at 02:12 PM.
#25
Homey
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,499
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2427 Post(s)
Liked 1,407 Times
in
901 Posts
Okay everyone, *tinks glass* listen up. work with me here.
BEK IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!!! GOT THAT??
Okay now that THAT's over,
Bek please leave this thread. I'm tired of the complaints and frankly, ain't nobody got time for dat. Thank you.
BEK IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!!! GOT THAT??
Okay now that THAT's over,
Bek please leave this thread. I'm tired of the complaints and frankly, ain't nobody got time for dat. Thank you.