Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.

And under California street law?

What's that?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.
The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.
Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?

That possibility does exist.

So it was you as I remembered.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.
21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

[Yawn]
[Facts appear to bore him]

I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
California, but it does happen).

Then stay out of a discussion about traffic conditions in a small city
in California.

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
us live in California!!!

I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
relevant.

Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.

If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter....

Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
space.
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.

The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
and immediate.

See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

---
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:


It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.


I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
situations.

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.


I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
situations.

Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
controlled access freeways).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.
The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.
Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?

That possibility does exist.

So it was you as I remembered.

That response is illogical.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.
21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

[Yawn]
[Facts appear to bore him]

I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
California, but it does happen).

Then stay out of a discussion about traffic conditions in a small city
in California.

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
us live in California!!!

I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
relevant.

Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.

If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.

Done.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?

What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life. It is equally illegal to pull
out in front of a cyclist and a dump truck that have the right of way.
However, cagers will frequently cut off the cyclist, since there are
usually no consequences. The same cagers will not cut off the dump
truck, since it can squash them like a bug underfoot.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter....

Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
space.
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.

The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
and immediate.

See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?

Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.

On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman wrote:

Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
controlled access freeways).

Look: Bike lanes no more limit bike position than car pool lanes limit the position of car poolers. Legally, ALL they do is exclude vehicles. Any misconceptions to the contrary can be dealt with in other ways.

For example, with your suggested retesting, EXCEPT let's spend $0 on the retesting, and charge the driver the cost, instead. No reason to subsidize driving even more than the obscene amount it's subsidized already.

Dan

Dan Connelly wrote with longer than standard text wrapping:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
controlled access freeways).

Look: Bike lanes no more limit bike position than car pool lanes limit the position of car poolers. Legally, ALL they do is exclude vehicles. Any misconceptions to the contrary can be dealt with in other ways.

Well, if you can educate the average cager that bicycle lanes are not
ghettos that cyclists are not supposed to leave, more power to you. I
will not be holding my breath.

For example, with your suggested retesting, EXCEPT let's spend $0 on the retesting, and charge the driver the cost, instead. No reason to subsidize driving even more than the obscene amount it's subsidized already.

That is a minor point. Politically, it is not going to happen.

Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
that cyclists can be confined to.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth