Tim McNamara wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > One might suspect that pedalcyclists don't take the lane "for
> > safety" at all, but rather to make some sort of Critical Mass-esque
> > statement about pedalcyclists' rights...
>
> You're overreaching here and perhaps you should read the laws for
> yourself. You can find them via Google for almost any state.
Scott is fairly level-headed - it strikes me as odd that he is not
completely familiar with the traffic laws in his own state.
In any case, plenty of otherwise level-headed folks have fits of
apoplexy when they find themselves anywhere near a bicyclist. Having
never been held up for anything longer than 15 or so seconds behind
one, I cannot fathom the rage.
I used to ride on the road myself. But aggressive and malicious
drivers gave me a reason to just stick with driving a car for
transport.
I have seen about a million reasons for folks not wanting bicycles on
the road, but mostly they boil down to envy of the invisibility of
bicyclist traffic infractions. I mean, if I ran stop lights and signs
with my car, soon enough I'd not have a license. Idiot bicyclists get
away with this irresponsible **** all the time.
One of my very favorite rationales for eliminating road cycling is the
myth of the oblivious bicyclist causing an accident and fleeing the
scene. I have never found a single creditiable report of such a thing
happening. I can guess that it may have happened somewhere out there -
once or twice. But it's in the realm of winning the lottery. As a
rationale for restriction or licensing, or requirement for insurance?
LOL.
My second favorite is the canard about cyclists not paying for the
road. Considering the damage cycles do to roadways, I'd say anything
above zero more than covers it. When I go and buy gas for my
lawnmower, the tax on that just covered my use of the roadway with a
bicycle. In this state, roads are not completely covered by fuel taxes
anyway. In AZ, where Scott is, that might not be the case. Here,
sales tax covers part of it. So, if I buy non-food items, I'm paying
for my bike use of the road.
> One the safety issue is no longer a problem, the
> cyclist should go back to riding to the right side of the road.
'Round here, sewer grates and narrow travel lanes were part of the
problem. After being brush-passed several times when a clear lane was
available to the left, I started taking the lane where they were
narrow, to avoid the brush-passing. Funny, riding just right of the
oil stripe made the cars use the other lane for passing.
> Most drivers don't know the rules of the road as regards the rights
of
> cyclists and other non-motorized road users, nor do they understand
> how their roads are funded, and they make silly assumptions about
> cyclists and other non-motorized road users as well.
Mostly, they think that roads are only for ICE-powered vehicles. Any
other potential user is to be bullied off.
>
> As a rule, the only significant negative interactions I have with
> drivers tend to be with extreme right-wingers (who don't seem to
> understand conservatism very well, or they wouldn't be trying to tell
> me what to do)
I find that most extremists don't understand anything very well.
Mostly, they aren't very bright, and have fewer-than-normal critical
thinking skills.
The bright ones just use the dogma to separate the dumb ones from their
cash.
> As far as a "Critical Massesque" thing goes, that's nonsense.
It is an interesting counter to the odd claim that "majority rules."
Boy, but when bikes are in the majority, ever last ounce of rational
thought goes right out the window for those who think they literally
own the road.
Doesn't matter for me any more - I transport my bike on or in my car,
and take it off when I want to go places cars can't. I'd rather get
hurt crashing because I didn't have the technical skills to negotiate a
section of trail than be injured by a fool who has no clue what the
laws state about vehicular traffic on public roadways.
E.P.
