ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-11-2013, 07:03 AM   #2836
JimVonBaden
"Cool" Aid!
 
JimVonBaden's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Oddometer: 48,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrt10x View Post
The vehicle is not entering the road.. it is already there... the bicyclist "owns" the lane he is riding to the right of.. he is not merging, or entering, or anything except moving farther to the left of a lane he already legally occupies.


You are a master at misscommunication. If there is a bicycle lane, the bicycle does not also own the car lane next to it. That is the point of the previous conversation.


Quote:
The law of gross tonnage argument comes up every time, and it is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent... If A then B, B therefore A... the fact that I will lose a battle with a car on my bike,, has absolutely no bearing on the right or wrong. Yes the end result will be that I am right, and dead, or in the hospital, but that does not make my actions wrong. A semantics argument, maybe, but that is what this thread had devolved into... hence my previous point, about just not getting it.
Quote:

Gummee has the patience of Job as far as I am concerned, I pop into these threads on occasion and see the exact same discussions.. ground hog day 101.
Again you are mastering misscommunication and confusing concepts. Being right is great, but that does not stop you from being dead. Foolishly pulling into traffic expecting others to yield is a fool's game. You may have the legal right, and I would agree that you would IF you are simply riding on the right of the lane and not in a dedicated bicycle lane, but that means little to the referenced law.

Maybe best if you just stay off the thread as you stir up bicycle supporters with your "communication" style. For clarification, I am a rider and bicycle supporter!

Jim
JimVonBaden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 07:26 AM   #2837
mrt10x
Dumba$s Jarhead
 
mrt10x's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Woodland Park, CO
Oddometer: 3,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimVonBaden View Post
[/FONT]

You are a master at misscommunication. If there is a bicycle lane, the bicycle does not also own the car lane next to it. That is the point of the previous conversation.


[FONT=Helvetica]

Yes that sentence is not elegantly written. However, you are incorrect.. I clearly stated that if the lane to the right of the white line is marked as a bicycle lane then the cyclist does not own the lane to his left. The original post that started this latest bunch of posts never clarrifies if it was marked as a bicycle lane. See posts 2817 and 2818.

Again you are mastering misscommunication and confusing concepts. Being right is great, but that does not stop you from being dead. Foolishly pulling into traffic expecting others to yield is a fool's game. You may have the legal right, and I would agree that you would IF you are simply riding on the right of the lane and not in a dedicated bicycle lane, but that means little to the referenced law.

Maybe best if you just stay off the thread as you stir up bicycle supporters with your "communication" style. For clarification, I am a rider and bicycle supporter!

Jim
I stand by my position that the "right but dead" argument is an "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy that detracts from the true discussion at hand.

Edit: I know you are a cyclist.. I have followed all the cycling threads throughout the forum. I am simply making a legalistic argument vice a realistic argument... Realistically I have ridden very little over the last three years because the road conditions here on Aquidneck Island are deplorable... and unsafe, with zero bike lanes and very few roads with any type of shoulder. I will still continue to argue from a legalistic point of view.
__________________
We are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of "security." And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone.

mrt10x screwed with this post 07-11-2013 at 07:36 AM
mrt10x is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 07:36 AM   #2838
bwalsh
Beastly Adventurer
 
bwalsh's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Hell town
Oddometer: 10,556
I can agree with the Ground Hog day statement. Its the same old arguments rehashed over and over and over going on 200 pages. I think inmates stopping by this thread for the first time should be required to read the entire thread before posting as their argument has been already been beat into the ground ad nauseum..

I think Rodney King said it best...

"Can we all get along?"

I'll take this thread as a "NO".
__________________
2004 XR650L / 2001 R1150GS
NWVA TAG NWVA TAG MAP RTE THREAD & IN LIST



bwalsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 07:46 AM   #2839
Vertical C
Beastly Adventurer
 
Vertical C's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: On the road in Americas
Oddometer: 1,746
Whether its a car or a cyclist that puts my life in danger by just pulling into my lane rather than taking the time to look properly (and I dont mean a glance over the shoulder) there will never be peace.
Vertical C is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 08:00 AM   #2840
bwalsh
Beastly Adventurer
 
bwalsh's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Hell town
Oddometer: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical C View Post
Whether its a car or a cyclist that puts my life in danger by just pulling into my lane rather than taking the time to look properly (and I dont mean a glance over the shoulder) there will never be peace.
New topic? I thought the thread was about overtaking bicycles, not bicycles changing lanes without looking.

OK, that's a new one.
__________________
2004 XR650L / 2001 R1150GS
NWVA TAG NWVA TAG MAP RTE THREAD & IN LIST



bwalsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 08:15 AM   #2841
windmill
Beastly Adventurer
 
windmill's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kent, Washington State
Oddometer: 4,084
I too support the rights of cyclists to safely and responsibly use the road without harassment by other road users.

Most cyclists are fine, but the topic of this thread is about questionable or outright arrogant choices some cyclists make, yes all user groups have their bad apples too, but that's not the topic.
Excluding the haters, and wingnuts, discussing differences in opinions is good for all users as understanding is key to harmonious use.

Unless it can be shown factually by traffic code, I must question the concept that a cyclist riding on the shoulder to the right of a lane marker "owns" the lane to the left of the lane marker too, having the right of way to cross a lane marker without regard to traffic present in that lane.
Your either actually in the travel lane with traffic, or your not, if you choose to enter a lane with other traffic its a merge, and a merging vehicle is obligated to yield to traffic, that's universal.


The whole concept that a cyclist has a right of way without regard to traffic because he is the most vulnerable is a red herring as a cyclists poor decision can endanger others.
All road users should be on the lookout for the unexpected, but its naive to expect it from others, especially when its something that's not a commonly recognized rule and/or specified traffic code

Like it or not, we all have the responsibility to avoid bad and distracted drivers, and to not compound their bad decisions. No user has the right to use the road without regard to the conciquences of their actions.
__________________
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills".

windmill screwed with this post 07-11-2013 at 08:23 AM
windmill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 08:37 AM   #2842
JimVonBaden
"Cool" Aid!
 
JimVonBaden's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Oddometer: 48,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrt10x View Post
I stand by my position that the "right but dead" argument is an "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy that detracts from the true discussion at hand.

Edit: I know you are a cyclist.. I have followed all the cycling threads throughout the forum. I am simply making a legalistic argument vice a realistic argument... Realistically I have ridden very little over the last three years because the road conditions here on Aquidneck Island are deplorable... and unsafe, with zero bike lanes and very few roads with any type of shoulder. I will still continue to argue from a legalistic point of view.
Never mind, it is fine. I've had a rough week.

Thanks,


Jim

JimVonBaden screwed with this post 07-11-2013 at 02:25 PM
JimVonBaden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 02:43 PM   #2843
mrt10x
Dumba$s Jarhead
 
mrt10x's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Woodland Park, CO
Oddometer: 3,175
Hey Jim..I apologize as I am often guilty of arguing silly points for the sake of arguing. I was really bad in my younger days... no reason for me to pick out silly little points and try to defend them.. this isnt jomamma. I am stuck in a chair with a broken leg after a little MX accident a couple of weeks ago.. I let my mouth get ahead of my brain..... again
__________________
We are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of "security." And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone.
mrt10x is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 04:20 PM   #2844
Warin
Retired
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Oddometer: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical C View Post
Whether its a car or a cyclist that puts my life in danger by just pulling into my lane rather than taking the time to look properly (and I dont mean a glance over the shoulder) there will never be peace.
Q1) So you'd rather have the cyclist ride in the lane ALL the time, rather than occupying the verge?

Q2) A merging vehicle does need to merge. Do they have to stop and wait for every vehicle behind them for 10 km to pass before 'merging'? I've had people blow their horns .. when they are 300 meters away in a 60kmh zone.. how much space/time do they need?

A glance over the should should be enough to identify the traffic conditions and merge. It is not reasonable to expect a slow moving vehicle not to slow traffic when it merges.. take a turn going up the hill .. they don't stop and they do merge.
Warin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 04:42 PM   #2845
Dranrab Luap
E-Tarded
 
Dranrab Luap's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Oddometer: 29,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrt10x View Post
I stand by my position that the "right but dead" argument is an "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy that detracts from the true discussion at hand.

Edit: I know you are a cyclist.. I have followed all the cycling threads throughout the forum. I am simply making a legalistic argument vice a realistic argument... Realistically I have ridden very little over the last three years because the road conditions here on Aquidneck Island are deplorable... and unsafe, with zero bike lanes and very few roads with any type of shoulder. I will still continue to argue from a legalistic point of view.
I can't follow what the fuck you are typing about. If a cyclist is to the right of a solid white line and doesn't yield right of way to vehicles to the left of that line before he crosses it, the cyclist is legally wrong.
Dranrab Luap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 06:18 PM   #2846
windmill
Beastly Adventurer
 
windmill's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kent, Washington State
Oddometer: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrt10x View Post
we can go round and round all you want.. but you are incorrect, now this varies state to state,,, but I have yet to find one that requires a cyclist ride on a shoulder by law.
It seems your confusing lane requirements with lane discipline.

Lane requirement examples,
Keep right except to pass.
No trucks in left lane.
Carpool only.
Cyclists keep right.

Lane discipline examples,
Signal lane changes.
Maintain lane in intersection.
Yield when changing lanes.
Do not straddle lanes.

Painted or reflector lane markers are just that, lane markers. crossing them requires signaling, and yielding to traffic, bicycles are not exempt.
__________________
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills".
windmill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 06:56 PM   #2847
filmfan
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: live free or die
Oddometer: 472
So, how do you define the portion of the lane a vehicle is entitled to?
Is the width of the lane by whatever length the vehicle is?
Or, is it only some portion of the width of the lane?

If it's only some portion, then what would that be? The width of the vehicle?
So cars are entitled to 6 or 8 feet of the lane width, trucks get 10, motorcycles get 3 and bicycles get 2?

I don't think that is how it works in the real world, either practically, or legally.

Bicycles are required to keep to the right of rightmost lane of the roadway. The roadway is the area between the fog lines.

The assumption at least by most of the cyclists around here, is that the bicycle is entitled to the full width of the roadway when their safety, in their estimation requires that they ride in some other location in the lane than the extreme right hand side. So, in that sense, the bicycle is not merging into traffic, he is already part of the traffic stream.

We all know that right doesn't make might, that if some car is approaching fast, moving into the center of the lane may not be a good idea at that moment. But it doesn't mean the cyclist is obliged to wait until there are no cars visible either, any more than you wait until the right lane is clear in the visible distance to merge into the right lane of a freeway in your truck, car or whatever.
The practicality is that you merge in front of vehicles when they have adequate space and time to deal with your maneuver if they need to. And you delay your merge if the conditions won't work for everyone involved. And you do your best to make sure that the reaction they need to make is minimal or none.

We can debate endlessly how some folks make dumb moves, and there are lots of threads devoted to those discussions. In comparison to threads like Killboy, we're just getting started here, but maybe let's keep it to a more fruitful discussion.

filmfan screwed with this post 07-11-2013 at 07:03 PM
filmfan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 07:23 PM   #2848
windmill
Beastly Adventurer
 
windmill's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kent, Washington State
Oddometer: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmfan View Post
So, how do you define the portion of the lane a vehicle is entitled to?
All vehicles including bicycles are entitled to the entire lane they are actually occupying, unless that is superceeded by some other requirement such as where its required to keep right except to pass, a delay of 5 or more vehicles is illegal, or a minimum speed limit, that would require them to give way.


A reasonable and logical interpretation of the various laws seems to imply that cyclists have the right to use travel lanes when they can keep up with traffic, or there is no safe alternative, and they have a responsibility to not unduly interfere with normal traffic flow when there are other options.
There are not hard and fast rules for all possible situations, there must be some application of common sense and courtesy by all road users, but unfortunately some people have no consideration beyond themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmfan View Post
The practicality is that you merge in front of vehicles when they have adequate space and time to deal with your maneuver if they need to. And you delay your merge if the conditions won't work for everyone involved. And you do your best to make sure that the reaction they need to make is minimal or none.
__________________
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills".
windmill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 07:30 PM   #2849
JimVonBaden
"Cool" Aid!
 
JimVonBaden's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Oddometer: 48,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrt10x View Post
Hey Jim..I apologize as I am often guilty of arguing silly points for the sake of arguing. I was really bad in my younger days... no reason for me to pick out silly little points and try to defend them.. this isnt jomamma. I am stuck in a chair with a broken leg after a little MX accident a couple of weeks ago.. I let my mouth get ahead of my brain..... again
It is all good, my apologies as well!

Jim
JimVonBaden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 07:44 PM   #2850
*Gmoney*
don't look here
 
*Gmoney*'s Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Where I want to be
Oddometer: 860
I live in AZ
and I always share the road,
they get the dirt shoulder.

Gummee knows which signs I obey in AZ.
He even told me once to get off my lazy ass and ride one.

But to be serious
when I follow bikes I slow down, going the same speed as them,after all they ride two or three abreast in the same lane, enjoying the neighborhood that I live in,after all they think it is a Scenic Route same as me.
They freak out,
because I am going as slow as them,
windows down enjoying the fresh air, good reminder ,stop and smell the cactus.
Who are these men on bikes that pull over and demand
that I pass them, wave their arms and signal,
I am not allowed to enjoy my neighborhood the same as them?
*Gmoney* is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014