Bicycles Allowed Use Of Full Lane, The Million Car Challenge Campaign

Per Jobst Brandt:
A right to do something that is legal but anti social. With how many
bikies do you ride who carry handguns.

http://tinyurl.com/yfmghlm

I quit riding my bike to work in downtown Philadelphia when a
friend's practice of carrying a loaded .44 magnum in the gas tank
pouch of his motorcycle started sounding reasonable.
--
PeteCresswell

On Dec 20, 3:37 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 20, 2:19 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Dec 20, 1:13 pm, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,

"Barry" wrote:
Also you are obliged to pull over, stop and allow
backed up traffic to pass. My recollection is five
vehicles staked up and you _must_ pull over. Let's
see ...

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe
because of traffic in the opposite direction or other
conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a
passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles
are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected
by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway,
or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists,
in order to permit the vehicles following it to
proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle
is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than
the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

But apparently a bicycle is not considered a vehicle:

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or
tracks.

Only apparently. You did not try very hard.
Bicyclists are subject to the articles that I copied out.

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway
has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions
applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division,
including, but not limited to, provisions concerning
driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or
drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section
20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with
Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section
40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section
42000), except those provisions which by their very
nature can have no application.

Infractions
40000.1. Except as otherwise provided in this article,
it is unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any
person to violate, or fail to comply with any provision
of this code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant
to this code.

--
Michael Press

Here's one interpretation in one jurisdiction:

I think Ray forgot to account for the fact that ORS 814.430(2)(c)
specifically incorporates the slow moving vehicle law, ORS 811.425.
ORS 814.430(2)(c) provides:

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions
including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or
other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb
or
edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway
that
is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by
side.
Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the
requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to
comply with those requirements.

If ORS 811.525 did not apply to bicycles, then there would be no need
to reference it in ORS 814.430. Moreover, the Oregon Court of Appeals
rejected Ray's argument in State v. Potter 185 Or.App. 81, 86, 57 P.
3d 944 (2002) (upholding conviction of cyclist for impeding traffic,
ORS 811.130).

Ray also omits any mention of ORS 811.065 -- which may have been
adopted after he wrote the article. I remember talking to him a few
years ago about the new statute, and he may have even testified at the
legislature, so he certainly knows about it. Here's the statute:

811.065 Unsafe passing of person operating bicycle; penalty. (1) A
driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of unsafe passing of a
person operating a bicycle if the driver violates any of the following
requirements:

(a) The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person
operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe
distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is
safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this
paragraph, a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to
prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person
were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic. This paragraph does
not apply to a driver operating a motor vehicle:

(A) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated
bicycle lane;

(B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour; or

(C) When the driver is passing a person operating a bicycle on
the person’s right side and the person operating the bicycle is
turning left.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the
center of a roadway to pass a person operating a bicycle proceeding in
the same direction only if the roadway to the left of the center is
unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit the driver to pass
the person operating the bicycle safely and avoid interference with
oncoming traffic. This paragraph does not authorize driving on the
left side of the center of a roadway when prohibited under ORS
811.295, 811.300 or 811.310 to 811.325.

(c) The driver of a motor vehicle that passes a person operating
a bicycle shall return to an authorized lane of traffic as soon as
practicable.

(2) Passing a person operating a bicycle in a no passing zone in
violation of ORS 811.420 constitutes prima facie evidence of
commission of the offense described in this section, unsafe passing of
a person operating a bicycle, if the passing results in injury to or
the death of the person operating the bicycle.

(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing of a
person operating a bicycle, is a Class B traffic violation. [2007 c.
794 §2]

So, "the bicycle passing law" makes it clear that a car cannot cross
the center line in a no-passing zone to get around a bicycle. Since
much of Skyline is no passing, a bicycle would be treated as a slow
moving vehicle and would be required to pull off and let cars pass or
else be subject to a traffic citation for impeding traffic.

This is all hypothetical, though, since cars have been passing me on
Skyline (with and without trailers) for the last 25 years with few if
any problems. I seriously doubt that PPB or MCSD would issue a
citation to a driver who went over the center line in a no-passing
zone to get safely around a bike, so long as it was safe to do so.


(I've never been very comfortable with many of Ray's interpretations.)

Here's a recent applied analysis from what seems like a reasonable
fellow:

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/910260307

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/911090308

On Dec 20, 4:33*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 20, 3:37 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Dec 20, 2:19 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:13 pm, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,

*"Barry" wrote:
Also you are obliged to pull over, stop and allow
backed up traffic to pass. My recollection is five
vehicles staked up and you _must_ pull over. Let's
see ...

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe
because of traffic in the opposite direction or other
conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a
passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles
are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected
by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway,
or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists,
in order to permit the vehicles following it to
proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle
is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than
the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

But apparently a bicycle is not considered a vehicle:

670. *A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or
tracks.

Only apparently. You did not try very hard.
Bicyclists are subject to the articles that I copied out.

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway
has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions
applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division,
including, but not limited to, provisions concerning
driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or
drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section
20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with
Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section
40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section
42000), except those provisions which by their very
nature can have no application.

Infractions
40000.1. Except as otherwise provided in this article,
it is unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any
person to violate, or fail to comply with any provision
of this code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant
to this code.

--
Michael Press

Here's one interpretation in one jurisdiction:

I think Ray forgot to account for the fact that ORS 814.430(2)(c)
specifically incorporates the slow moving vehicle law, ORS 811.425.
ORS 814.430(2)(c) provides:

*(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions
including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or
other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb
or
edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway
that
is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by
side.
Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the
requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to
comply with those requirements.

If ORS 811.525 did not apply to bicycles, then there would be no need
to reference it in ORS 814.430. *Moreover, the Oregon Court of Appeals
rejected Ray's argument in State v. Potter *185 Or.App. 81, 86, 57 P.
3d 944 (2002) (upholding conviction of cyclist for impeding traffic,
ORS 811.130).

Ray also omits any mention of *ORS 811.065 -- which may have been
adopted after he wrote the article. I remember talking to him a few
years ago about the new statute, and he may have even testified at the
legislature, so he certainly knows about it. *Here's the statute:

811.065 Unsafe passing of person operating bicycle; penalty. (1) A
driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of unsafe passing of a
person operating a bicycle if the driver violates any of the following
requirements:

* * * (a) The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person
operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe
distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is
safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this
paragraph, a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to
prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person
were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic. This paragraph does
not apply to a driver operating a motor vehicle:

* * * (A) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated
bicycle lane;

* * * (B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour; or

* * * (C) When the driver is passing a person operating a bicycle on
the person’s right side and the person operating the bicycle is
turning left.

* * * (b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the
center of a roadway to pass a person operating a bicycle proceeding in
the same direction only if the roadway to the left of the center is
unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit the driver to pass
the person operating the bicycle safely and avoid interference with
oncoming traffic. This paragraph does not authorize driving on the
left side of the center of a roadway when prohibited under ORS
811.295, 811.300 or 811.310 to 811.325.

* * * (c) The driver of a motor vehicle that passes a person operating
a bicycle shall return to an authorized lane of traffic as soon as
practicable.

* * * (2) Passing a person operating a bicycle in a no passing zone in
violation of ORS 811.420 constitutes prima facie evidence of
commission of the offense described in this section, unsafe passing of
a person operating a bicycle, if the passing results in injury to or
the death of the person operating the bicycle.

* * * (3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing of a
person operating a bicycle, is a Class B traffic violation. [2007 c.
794 §2]

So, "the bicycle passing law" makes it clear that a car cannot cross
the center line in a no-passing zone to get around a bicycle. *Since
much of Skyline is no passing, a bicycle would be treated as a slow
moving vehicle and would be required to pull off and let cars pass or
else be subject to a traffic citation for impeding traffic.

This is all hypothetical, though, since cars have been passing me on
Skyline (with and without trailers) for the last 25 years with few if
any problems. *I seriously doubt that PPB or MCSD would issue a
citation to a driver who went over the center line in a no-passing
zone to get safely around a bike, so long as it was safe to do so.

(I've never been very comfortable with many of Ray's interpretations.)

Here's a recent applied analysis from what seems like a reasonable
fellow:

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...0091026/NEWS/9....

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...09/NEWS/9....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is right on the button, and basically what I said. A good
practical application of the law. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 20, 6:37*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

This is all hypothetical, though, since cars have been passing me on
Skyline (with and without trailers) for the last 25 years with few if
any problems. *I seriously doubt that PPB or MCSD would issue a
citation to a driver who went over the center line in a no-passing
zone to get safely around a bike, so long as it was safe to do so.

The Ohio Bicycle Federation recently succeeded in giving motorists
legal permission to cross the yellow line when it was safe and
reasonable to pass a vehicle traveling less than half the speed
limit. (In Ohio, a bike is a vehicle.)

This made legal what is probably common practice everywhere. Very
sensible, I think.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 19, 5:14*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:





In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. *It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. *I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. *I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. *It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. *NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right to use the road.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree, But all the more reason to get the word out to drivers.

On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Dan O considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:
In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

The description "brushing you back" is a massive trivialization of a
criminal assault with a deadly weapon, and cyclists are the last
people who should be using such a phrase.


Don't mean to trivialize a thing, but I think "brushed back" is a
concise yet nuanced description of exactly what they're doing - not
that the hazard is trivial, but there's not harmful intent (if there
were, harm would most assuredly ensue).

If I got all bent out of shape about criminal assault and what not
every time I got "brushed back" by an arrogant motorist, I'd go
berserk or something in short order. I do regard it as a serious
problem, but there's not much I can do about it, so why make myself
crazy?



Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right to use the road.

The answer is education then, isn't it?
Like maybe with bumper stickers.

Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
(and might even just steel some). What will change minds is
omnipresent bicycles, withdrawal of general subsidies and favoritism
for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
users responsible for what they wreak.

On Dec 27, 10:49*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:





Dan O considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:
In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that saybicyclesalloweduseif full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. *It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right tousethe roads. *I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. *I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. *It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. *NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

The description "brushing you back" is a massive trivialization of a
criminal assault with a deadly weapon, and cyclists are the last
people who should be using such a phrase.

Don't mean to trivialize a thing, but I think "brushed back" is a
concise yet nuanced description of exactly what they're doing - not
that the hazard is trivial, but there's not harmful intent (if there
were, harm would most assuredly ensue).

If I got all bent out of shape about criminal assault and what not
every time I got "brushed back" by an arrogant motorist, I'd go
berserk or something in short order. * I do regard it as a serious
problem, but there's not much I can do about it, so why make myself
crazy?



Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right tousethe road.

The answer is education then, isn't it?
Like maybe with bumper stickers.

Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
(and might even just steel some). *What will change minds is
omnipresentbicycles, withdrawal of general subsidies and favoritism
for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
users responsible for what they wreak.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought I'd reply here because your response in part doesn't make
sense. How can you say on one hand that they don't change minds and in
the same sentence that they steel minds? So lets see, they say
cyclists are allowed to use the road. it's state law and change lanes
to pass. OK lets say that in fact the campaign begins to take off and
the message is beginning to be seen everywhere "in Traffic" on cars.
Lets say it becomes common place to see these stickers and at the same
time cycling is becoming more mainstream and more and more cyclists
take to the road. Will it help? Will some people in cars get the
message? I think some will and maybe some cyclists may get a little
more safe passage because of the effort. What we're talking about is a
message on a car directed to cars.

On Dec 29, 7:00 am, Gary wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:49 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Dan O considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:
In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that saybicyclesalloweduseif full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right tousethe roads. I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

The description "brushing you back" is a massive trivialization of a
criminal assault with a deadly weapon, and cyclists are the last
people who should be using such a phrase.

Don't mean to trivialize a thing, but I think "brushed back" is a
concise yet nuanced description of exactly what they're doing - not
that the hazard is trivial, but there's not harmful intent (if there
were, harm would most assuredly ensue).

If I got all bent out of shape about criminal assault and what not
every time I got "brushed back" by an arrogant motorist, I'd go
berserk or something in short order. I do regard it as a serious
problem, but there's not much I can do about it, so why make myself
crazy?

Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right tousethe road.

The answer is education then, isn't it?
Like maybe with bumper stickers.

Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
(and might even just steel some). What will change minds is
omnipresentbicycles, withdrawal of general subsidies and favoritism
for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
users responsible for what they wreak.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought I'd reply here because your response in part doesn't make
sense. How can you say on one hand that they don't change minds and in
the same sentence that they steel minds?

Imagine if you will some dickhead who feels so strongly that bicycles
don't belong on the road that he'll deliberately crowd them with his
pickup truck. Got it? Okay, now imagine this guy stuck in traffic
and already ****ed off about it behind what he perceives as some tree-
hugger's Prius, when he reads the bumper sticker that says bicycles
*do* belong on the road, and in fact he has to let them have the whole
lane if they decide to take it. I imagine that - in some cases and
for some dickheads - this situation may only make him more angry and
steel his resolve against tree-hugging bicyclists.

Have we "changed his mind"? Now does my response make any sense to
you?

People put a lot of messages on bumper stickers. Many of them are
amusing and offer entertainment value. As for influencing attitudes,
though, I think they're mostly just advertisements for the owner's
attitude, usually come with a lot of context, are preaching to the
choir, and give people with opposing attitudes a target for their
anger.

So lets see, they say
cyclists are allowed to use the road.

Is that just what they say? (I really only got about as far as "buy
some" on your site.) That doesn't sound too antagonizing. You'd
think it might even almost go without saying.

it's state law and change lanes
to pass.

Is the part about changing lanes also state law? Or is that the
bumper sticker's recommendation.

Most people already either change lanes to pass (when feasible), or
give ample space.

It's a relative few that are the problem. I think they believe that
bicyclists are an intrusion and obstruction in their automotive
domain, that many of them have unresolved issues involving anger and
frustration, and they vent some of this anger with aggression directed
at bicyclists. I don't think they're likely candidates for change via
bumper stickers. (Maybe if you could work a lewd pun or something
into your message... :-)

OK lets say that in fact the campaign begins to take off and
the message is beginning to be seen everywhere "in Traffic" on cars.

(I saw Bush-Cheney stickers everywhere - didn't change my mind.)

Lets say it becomes common place to see these stickers and at the same
time cycling is becoming more mainstream and more and more cyclists
take to the road.

Now you're talking! Yes - omnipresent bicyclists - that's the
ticket! Awareness will also become mainstream.

Will it help?

(See above about bumper stickers.)

Will some people in cars get the
message?

Some people might, and there's nothing wrong with that at all; but I
don't think the ones who really need it will.

I think some will and maybe some cyclists may get a little
more safe passage because of the effort. What we're talking about is a
message on a car directed to cars.

If you read all my comments in this thread I think you may see that
I'm on your side. I think I said something like "Sure, bumper
stickers - fine." (I might now add: Go ahead, knock yourself out,
good luck with that.) In my last post that didn't make sense to you,
I was just defending my comments against criticism that I was
massively trivializing "criminal assault with a deadly weapon".

On Dec 29, 7:00 am, Gary wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:49 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Dan O considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:
In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that saybicyclesalloweduseif full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right tousethe roads. I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

The description "brushing you back" is a massive trivialization of a
criminal assault with a deadly weapon, and cyclists are the last
people who should be using such a phrase.

Don't mean to trivialize a thing, but I think "brushed back" is a
concise yet nuanced description of exactly what they're doing - not
that the hazard is trivial, but there's not harmful intent (if there
were, harm would most assuredly ensue).

If I got all bent out of shape about criminal assault and what not
every time I got "brushed back" by an arrogant motorist, I'd go
berserk or something in short order. I do regard it as a serious
problem, but there's not much I can do about it, so why make myself
crazy?

Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right tousethe road.

The answer is education then, isn't it?
Like maybe with bumper stickers.

Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
(and might even just steel some). What will change minds is
omnipresentbicycles, withdrawal of general subsidies and favoritism
for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
users responsible for what they wreak.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought I'd reply here because your response in part doesn't make
sense. How can you say on one hand that they don't change minds and in
the same sentence that they steel minds? So lets see, they say
cyclists are allowed to use the road. it's state law and change lanes
to pass. OK lets say that in fact the campaign begins to take off and
the message is beginning to be seen everywhere "in Traffic" on cars.
Lets say it becomes common place to see these stickers and at the same
time cycling is becoming more mainstream and more and more cyclists
take to the road. Will it help? Will some people in cars get the
message? I think some will and maybe some cyclists may get a little
more safe passage because of the effort. What we're talking about is a
message on a car directed to cars.

Just one more reply to clarify: I have no problem with bumper
stickers on a million cars informing and encouraging drivers to accept
and respect the bicyclist's right to use the road, and appreciate
inroads to widespread awareness and acceptance. (However, I can't
even afford to buy all the bike parts I want/need, so I don't see
myself buying any of them.)

On Dec 29, 7:08*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:00 am, Gary wrote:





On Dec 27, 10:49 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Dan O considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:
In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that saybicyclesalloweduseif full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. *It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right tousethe roads. *I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. *I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. *It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. *NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

The description "brushing you back" is a massive trivialization of a
criminal assault with a deadly weapon, and cyclists are the last
people who should be using such a phrase.

Don't mean to trivialize a thing, but I think "brushed back" is a
concise yet nuanced description of exactly what they're doing - not
that the hazard is trivial, but there's not harmful intent (if there
were, harm would most assuredly ensue).

If I got all bent out of shape about criminal assault and what not
every time I got "brushed back" by an arrogant motorist, I'd go
berserk or something in short order. * I do regard it as a serious
problem, but there's not much I can do about it, so why make myself
crazy?

Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right tousethe road.

The answer is education then, isn't it?
Like maybe with bumper stickers.

Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
(and might even just steel some). *What will change minds is
omnipresentbicycles, withdrawal of general subsidies and favoritism
for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
users responsible for what they wreak.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought I'd reply here because your response in part doesn't make
sense. How can you say on one hand that they don't change minds and in
the same sentence that they steel minds? So lets see, they say
cyclists are allowed to use the road. it's state law and change lanes
to pass. OK lets say that in fact the campaign begins to take off and
the message is beginning to be seen everywhere "in Traffic" on cars.
Lets say it becomes common place to see these stickers and at the same
time cycling is becoming more mainstream and more and more cyclists
take to the road. Will it help? Will some people in cars get the
message? I think some will and maybe some cyclists may get a little
more safe passage because of the effort. What we're talking about is a
message on a car directed to cars.

Just one more reply to clarify: *I have no problem with bumper
stickers on a million cars informing and encouraging drivers to accept
and respect the bicyclist's right to use the road, and appreciate
inroads to widespread awareness and acceptance. *(However, I can't
even afford to buy all the bike parts I want/need, so I don't see
myself buying any of them.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Dan,

I understand what your saying. The campaign will reach some and not
others, that's a givin. If your in, contact me off list.