When to honk at a bicyclist

Mike Latondresse wrote in message . ..
Zoot Katz wrote in
:

22 Oct 2004 13:46:30 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Not my problem as I don't own a motor vehicle.

The bank took it back?

sniped good stuff

**** off, loon.

Do you think he is going to have a come-back to that Zoot??

No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
had to go and throw "loon" in there.

In article ,
(R15757) writes:

Tom,

The way I read your general slow-moving vehicle law, if you go that route and
ditch the bike code, you will also lose the right to take a lane if the lane is
skinny, or to take a lane when moving the same speed as motor traffic ("at all
times a slow moving vehicle").

Well, that one is just the municipal by-law. It doesn't seem
to be enforced. I admit I don't know if the bicycle provisions
in the more general provincial Motor Vehicle Act take
precedence over it. I wouldn't be surprised if the by-law is
so worded for the convenience of the police -- maybe it's an
ace up their sleeve in case they ever decide to crack down
on Critical Mass. Maybe I should bring the matter up with
our local cadre of cycling advocates.

The reason there is that list of exceptions in
the bike code is because different people have different ideas of what
"impracticable" means, and the vehicularists won a great victory getting the
word defined in their interest. The bike code is bike-friendly.

In his Effective Cycling, Forester accounts a different
history of those exceptions, and in fact takes credit
(or blame) for them. Of course in the world according
to Forester he practically invented cycling, so grains
of salt are called for.

None of this legislation eternally banishes slow moving
vehicles to the right-hand gutter, with no legal right
to make left turns or avoid obstacles or hazards...

Don't be so sure. Cars don't have to move left to avoid the kind of debris and
damage that cyclists must avoid. And what other slow-moving vehicle besides a
bike/cyclist would be concerned about lane width?

I believe (wrongly?) that good ol' catch-all: 'practicable'
as it appears in the general slow-moving vehicle law should
cover those situations. At those times when a bicycle isn't
a slow moving vehicle, it's just another vehicle (in
jurisdictions where it's defined as a vehicle.)

Of course cyclists here aren't required to ride over
bad shoulder pavement, or into obstacles or hazards
on the shoulder.

If you ditch the bike code, I think you would be legally obligated to ride over
bad shoulder pavement.

Anyway, what's the problem?

No big deal. I just maintain the keep-right law is
primarily concerned with the convenience of motorists.
That vehicular cyclists had to, as you say in a
subsequent post, "fight long and hard" for all those
exceptions, and to define 'practicable' as it appears
in the code, is tragic. And the law as it stands is
still too open to interpretation, and too covered with
band-aids (all those exceptions).

Cyclists have more freedom and get away with far
more than any other class of road user.

Freedom ain't necessarily legislated rights, though.

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

23 Oct 2004 05:44:48 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Your bigoted rage
keeps you from seeing straight. Spin all you want, it doesn't
change the facts.

I care spit about your domestic configuration or your stinky toys.

The fact is you're spreading myths because you're unable to accept
cagers act like scum whenever they figure they can get away with it,
scum.
--
zk

23 Oct 2004 06:02:38 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:


No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
had to go and throw "loon" in there.

How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

You're looking for an excuse to blame cyclists for drivers behaviour.
Face it, you're not going to be assaulted because I jumped a curb.
Stay on your FMUP if you're worried about it.
--
zk

(R.White) wrote in
om:


You rant and rave against the automobile but you wrote:

"Lee Valley's Vancouver stores have always been dangerously close
to where I live. When I lived in Montreal I'd have to drive to
Ottawa for my tool fix."

You drove? Yeah, let me quess, you USED to drive but now you don't
right?

Zoot you wus....you drove to Ottawa instead of riding!!

R15757 wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote in part:

I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
not.

It wouldn't kill ya to cooperate a little bit. If you
tried it I think you would be pleasantly surprised
to find it makes everybody's drive easier, yours
included.

Robert

Robert,

You have no idea how I ride. It is conjecture to think the way I ride
makes it difficult for others or myself.

Regards,
Wayne

Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:19:44 GMT,
,
Mike Latondresse wrote:


You drove? Yeah, let me quess, you USED to drive but now you don't
right?

Zoot you wus....you drove to Ottawa instead of riding!!

Yep, twice in three winters. Went a couple times as passenger too.
--
zk

Tom Keats wrote in part:

In his Effective Cycling, Forester accounts a different
history of those exceptions, and in fact takes credit
(or blame) for them. Of course in the world according
to Forester he practically invented cycling, so grains
of salt are called for.

I think we can thank Forester and his (pardon me)
sniveling minions for a lot of the comforts enjoyed by
today's urban cyclists--in large part Forester is
responsible for AASHTO wide curb lanes, bike lanes
painted to the left of right turn lanes, and smooth
concrete MUPs that flow underneath major streets.
Also, as I mentioned, the various exceptions to the
ride-to-the-right rule. A lot of that stuff didn't turn
out nearly as Forester had hoped--he would rather see
NO bike lanes and NO ride-to-the-right rule--but
compromise is/was/shall be inevitable. And that's my
basic problem with Forester: in his writings, he doesn't
seem to understand or accept the idea of
compromise.

No big deal. I just maintain the keep-right law is
primarily concerned with the convenience of motorists.
That vehicular cyclists had to, as you say in a
subsequent post, "fight long and hard" for all those
exceptions, and to define 'practicable' as it appears
in the code, is tragic. And the law as it stands is
still too open to interpretation, and too covered with
band-aids (all those exceptions).

Cyclists have more freedom and get away with far
more than any other class of road user.

Freedom ain't necessarily legislated rights, though.

With a legitimate place in both the pedestrian and
vehicular realms, cyclists have more legit legislated
freedom than any other class of road user. In addition
to that, cyclists take advantage of other non-
legislated freedoms, so it's really no contest.

North American cyclists have it damn easy.
Considering that cars and trucks are objects of
worship here, it's a remarkably lucky and precarious
situation that cyclists have as much power as we do.
We need to appreciate what we have and work to keep
it. Best way to do that is to continue riding streets in
a cooperative, common-sense fashion.

Forget about the ride-to-the-right law and its
byzantine asterisks and permutations. Nobody knows
it anyway. Thinking about laws while out riding in
traffic is pointless, at best it's secondary to the task
at hand.

Robert

It wouldn't kill ya to cooperate a little bit. If you
tried it I think you would be pleasantly surprised
to find it makes everybody's drive easier, yours
included.

Robert

Wayne Pein wrote:

You have no idea how I ride. It is conjecture to think the way I ride
makes it difficult for others or myself.


I thought you just told us how you ride, as if you were the only human being on
the planet. My mistake.


Wayne Pein wrote in part:

I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
not.

In article ,
Wayne Pein writes:

It depends. Not automatically. I think it's easier for the cyclist and
everybody else if bikes and cars take advantage of available lane-sharing
oppportunities. However, with no vehicles overtaking, I'm as far left as
practicable, not right.


I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
not.

Makes me consider another problem with the keep-right law:
say, a cyclist is comfortably sharing an unobstructed 14'
wide lane. Then the lane widens a further 2' on his right.
Should he scootch rightward 2 feet? I don't think so --
everything is already fine where he is, which is where
drivers are better able to see him. But the keep-right law
says otherwise.

It's better for riders while lane sharing to position
themselves relative to the traffic on the left, rather
than relative to the edge of the road on the right.
But the keep-right law obviates that prerogative.


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