When to honk at a bicyclist

Wayne Pein

wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:

Wayne Pein


wrote:
The cyclist's judgement is a function of what that individual feels safe
and comfortable doing. That supercedes the judgement of overtaking
drivers whose main consideration is their own convenience.


The idiot weaving through surrounding vehicles, accelerating through yellow
lights, tailgating the vehicle they are behind, and generally driving like
an
ass is doing what he "feels safe and comfortable doing." in exactly the
same
way that the cyclist that disregards red lights, rides counter to traffic,
and
the like is doing what he "feels safe and comfortable doing". We have
traffic
laws because traffic is composed of groups of people in and on various
types of
vehicles all attempting to get from point A to point B. In that context our
individual opinions on what is or is not safe or comfortable must be
superceded
by what moves that group safely with the most efficiency. Allowances can be
codified- "as far right as practicable" for instance- but to claim that
one's
individual opinion supercedes that of every other road user is utter
nonsense
no matter what vehicle you choose.



Your examples are of illegal behavior. My point was based on legally
riding bicyclists using as much of the the as they choose.

Motorists and
perhaps by definition society sometimes think that they have a "right"
to go the speed limit or not be forced to slow down or they can force
their way thorough the cyclist's lane, but I don't believe that is more
important than cyclists' rights.


No one here has said that motorists have a right to force a cyclist off the
road.

Neither did I.


The motorist's "right to drive at the speed limit" is neither superior
nor inferior to the cyclist's right to the lane.
Vehicles + cooperation = efficient traffic flow.
Vehicles + "By god, MY rights are superior to his!" = unnecessary conflict
and
inefficient traffic flow.


I disagree. There is no right to drive the speed limit, but I believe
bicyclists do have a right to use the full lane if they choose
regardless of what discriminatory rules a state or municipality may
employ. So I believe this right is superior.

Wayne
Wayne,
You are free to believe whatever you wish but all your argument boils down to
is this- "I'll do as I damn well please and everyone else has to conform to my
actions because my opinion is worth more than anyone else's or even the
collective opinion of the majority as codified in the law." IOW, you are no
different than the motorist that shouts, "Get off MY road!", at cyclists.
You keep lousy company.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

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.

Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
supercedes the right of any and all other road users?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:


Wayne,
You are free to believe whatever you wish but all your argument boils down to
is this- "I'll do as I damn well please and everyone else has to conform to my
actions because my opinion is worth more than anyone else's or even the
collective opinion of the majority as codified in the law." IOW, you are no
different than the motorist that shouts, "Get off MY road!", at cyclists.
You keep lousy company.

Regards,
Bob Hunt


Bob,

You are free to have your own opinion and misinterpretation of the law.

Regards,
Wayne

Hunrobe wrote:



Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
supercedes the right of any and all other road users?

Regards,
Bob Hunt


Yes, that is right. The reason? Because the law is written sufficiently
vague, using the word practicable, that one can't define precisely
under what roadway or traffic conditions a bicyclist can do this or that.

Regards,
Wayne

In article ,
(Hunrobe) writes:

Actually Tom, most motor vehicle traffic law isn't as cut and dried as "thou
shalt not". True, a red light means "thou shalt not proceed" and a speed limit
is a limit not a suggestion but traffic codes are full of phrases like "until
it can be done safely", "does not materially obstruct", "so long as traffic is
unimpeded", and a host of other like phrases.

Well, just to further clarify my position, here's what I'm stuck
with, according to the BikeSense manual published by British
Columbia's quasi-socialized auto insurance company:
http://bikesense.bc.ca/ch4.htm

"It is important to know that there is currently no concrete
legal definition of 'as near as practicable to the right side
of the highway', so the cyclist should use discretion to
decide whether to take the lane or how far to the right to ride.
It is often safer to ride in the manner detailed in this guide.
However, this issue is still undecided and it is possible that a
police officer could issue you a ticket."

Granted, the above is just one local example, and not universal.
But for all I know there are other jurisdictions in similar
situations.

How can we obey the law when they won't even tell us what
the law is, or at least give it some context?


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:53:45 -0500, ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

The "right to drive the speed limit" is greatly inferior. In
fact, I don't believe such a right exists.

Then you've not been swayed by the cross-posted pleadings from
rec.autos.driving?
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:53:45 -0500, ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:


The "right to drive the speed limit" is greatly inferior. In
fact, I don't believe such a right exists.


Then you've not been swayed by the cross-posted pleadings from
rec.autos.driving?

Astonishingly, no! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Wayne Pein

wrote:

Bob,

You are free to have your own opinion and misinterpretation of the law.

Regards,
Wayne


Yep, just mine... and the legislators that wrote the laws.... and the courts.
Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe 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.


Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
supercedes the right of any and all other road users?

This is a tough one, Bob. We seem to be talking about the "right" of a
cyclist to take the lane, no matter what, versus the "right" of a
motorist to drive the speed limit. That makes this a fuzzy discussion,
indeed.

I think it's _absolutely_ clear that a motorist does not have an
absolute _right_ to drive the speed limit. (I'll be surprised if you
agree.)

I think a cyclist has an absolute right to use the road safely. I think
that if his safety requires it, he has a right to take the lane. And I
think he has the right to decide if his safety requires taking the lane.

I'm sure there are blatant abuses that are possible, as with most legal
situations. I'll not say a cyclist should _never_ be ticketed for
obstructing traffic. But in any halfway reasonable situation, I think
the rights of the cyclist to use the road trump the 15 second delay that
the motorist experiences.

Now if Wayne really means it's OK for cyclists to deliberately and
blatantly slow other's travel for no practical reason, then I disagree
with him.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Wayne Pein

wrote:


Hunrobe wrote:



Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or
traffic
conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
supercedes the right of any and all other road users?

Regards,
Bob Hunt


Yes, that is right. The reason? Because the law is written sufficiently
vague, using the word practicable, that one can't define precisely
under what roadway or traffic conditions a bicyclist can do this or that.

Regards,
Wayne

Have you considered that your argument, such as it is, could be used to justify
a total ban on bikes on the roadway since no law short of a ban can anticipate
*every* eventuality? In any event, I'm through discussing the issue with you
Wayne because anyone that claims their's is an *absolute* right overruling all
others- no matter what that right is- is an idiot.

Regards,
Bob Hunt