The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone

[Paul Johnson]

On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Festivus wrote:
>
> > The behaviors we all routinely see:
>
> > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
> > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
>
> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
> how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
> in another lane.

Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> (I don't
> think you're trolling, BTW.

Then please note all the crossposting
in his original message.

It's quite clear that Paul Berg's agendum
and intent is to incite antipathy and
resentment toward cyclists.

He ought to be ashamed of himself for
being so antisocial and hurtful.

I'm a little ashamed of myself for reverting
to being an East Ender and giving him some
succinct advice. But few things are more
provocative and dander-raising to me than
messing with the benign freedom of bicycling.

So, in some ways, I regret resorting to using
certain distasteful language, and thereby
diminishing and befouling the general tone
of r.b.m.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Bill Shatzer]

Paul Johnson wrote:

> On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Festivus wrote:

>>>The behaviors we all routinely see:

>>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
>>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane

>>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
>>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
>>in another lane.

> Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
> all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Rather clearly not "at all times".

With motorcycles, it's NEVER illegal to ride two abreast.

"ORS 814.250 Moped or motorcycle operating more than two abreast;
penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of operating a moped or
motorcycle more than two abreast if the person is operating a moped or
motorcycle on a roadway laned for traffic and the person is riding
abreast of more than one other motorcycle or moped in the same lane for
traffic."

With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the normal
and reasonable flow of traffic".

"ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person
is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of
traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing
conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the
right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this
section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable
to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following
circumstances:

....

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single
lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic."

Now whether it's a smart idea to ride motorcyles two abreast is a
different question; it's not - though a staggered formation is different
than two abreast and is an OK riding spacing.

But regardless of how smart it is, two abreast on motorbikes is not illegal.

Peace

 

[John S.]

On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.
>
> Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organd learn a bit about the issue before
> posting.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.
>
> > Visit www.cyclehelmets.org andlearn a bit about the issue before
> > posting.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....

.... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all
those nasty things?

Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Festivus]

Brent P wrote:

> 1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in
> numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly.

Perhaps. Yet we still require EVERY motorist to have a valid license.
Since the remaining portion is so tiny, the vast majority of the
cyclists are already covered. Those who have not need only pass the
same test required of anyone operating a motorized vehicle. You can
even waive the driving test, putting bicycle riders under even less
obligation to prove competency than the motorists.

The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules
of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed
as a bad thing is hard to understand.

> 2) To make bicyclists jump through more hoops and demonstrate competency
> greater than that required for an automobile is just the height of
> stupidity.

When I actually suggest such a thing on this thread, feel free to remind
me yet again.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Paul Johnson wrote:

> On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Festivus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The behaviors we all routinely see:
>>
>>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
>>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
>>
>>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
>>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
>>in another lane.
>
>
> Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
> all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.
>
>

It ought to be ignored.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Shatzer wrote:


>
> With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the normal
> and reasonable flow of traffic".
>
> "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
> commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person
> is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of
> traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing
> conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the
> right curb or edge of the roadway.
> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section
> if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the
> right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
>



> ...
>
> (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
> bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single
> lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable
> movement of traffic."
>

Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists
within-lane position should be ignored.

Wayne

 

[Festivus]

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Festivus wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The behaviors we all routinely see:
>>>
>>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
>>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
>> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to
>> use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane,
>> pass us in another lane.

From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual:

"Riding side by side
You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if
you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to
pass you safely, ride single file."

Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed,
but the circumstances determine proper behavior.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> 1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in
>> numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly.
>
> Perhaps. Yet we still require EVERY motorist to have a valid license.

No, we don't. Government does. And by that government has lowered driving
to an effective government granted privilege. Government for instance has
decided to add all sorts of additional non-driving requirements to have
what it has classified as a privilege. Government has also made different
classes of people, some need to comply while others do not. For instance,
illegal aliens get a slap on the wrist at most for driving without a
license. The government has a interest in making them welcome here and
thusly doesn't stomp on them as it would you or I.

> Since the remaining portion is so tiny, the vast majority of the
> cyclists are already covered. Those who have not need only pass the
> same test required of anyone operating a motorized vehicle. You can
> even waive the driving test, putting bicycle riders under even less
> obligation to prove competency than the motorists.

To what harm to bicyclists? To get that tiny percentage we will be
subject to government whim. Government may add all sorts of conditions
and taxes to have the license. Police will put up checkpoints where we will
have to produce our papers. We will be stopped and forced to produce
papers. Is this really good for bicycling? Is it really of any benefit to
society?

> The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules
> of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed
> as a bad thing is hard to understand.

You need to break your conditioning that is all.

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

On Aug 22, 7:04 am, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.
>
> > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before
> > posting.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....

They got one for EVERYTHING! They seem to think it's chic and
POLITICAL!

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

On Aug 22, 8:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.
>
> > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before
> > > posting.
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....
>
> ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all
> those nasty things?
>
> Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

More than 18 is a good number to do if some boyfriend etc. won't want
to kill you.

You have to gift wrap that one, helmet won't do.

 

[Festivus]

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
>
> You forgot to tell him he almost got caught tickling his sister last
> time.

Brother. Sister's too ugly.

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

On Aug 22, 10:00 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Festivus wrote:
>
> >>>The behaviors we all routinely see:
>
> >>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
> >>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
>
> >>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
> >>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
> >>in another lane.
>
> > Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
> > all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.
>
> It ought to be ignored.

Ditto this.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:

>> Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
>> all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.

> It ought to be ignored.

Of course, you know that isn't really the law, but why let that prevent an
opp to troll?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>
>>
>> With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the
>> normal and reasonable flow of traffic".
>>
>> "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
>> commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the
>> person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed
>> of
>> traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing
>> conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to
>> the right curb or edge of the roadway.
>> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this
>> section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as
>> practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of
>> the following circumstances:
>
>
>
>> ...
>>
>> (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
>> bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
>> single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
>> reasonable movement of traffic."
>>
>
> Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists
> within-lane position should be ignored.

Attitudes like that will get bikes banned from traffic altogether. Nice
troll!

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>Festivus wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The behaviors we all routinely see:
>>
>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
>
>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
>in another lane.

Then you won't mind if I pull my Miata up alongside your bike in the
lane?

When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road,
then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to
pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable.



--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Festivus wrote:

>
> The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules
> of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed
> as a bad thing is hard to understand.

The reason motorists have to prove some minimal level of education is
because motor vehicles are demonstrably dangerous to others. Bicycles
are generally not dangerous to other people.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Festivus wrote:

> From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual:
>
> "Riding side by side
> You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if
> you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to
> pass you safely, ride single file."
>
> Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed,
> but the circumstances determine proper behavior.

Just because the Oregon Bicyclist Manual says something, doesn't mean
the writers know what they are talking about. Individual bicyclists
should generally ride at about the position of the left bicyclist when
two are abreast. In other words, a single bicyclist should take as much
lane space as typical two abreast riders.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>>Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
>>>all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.
>
>
>>It ought to be ignored.
>
>
> Of course, you know that isn't really the law, but why let that prevent an
> opp to troll?
>
>

Ignoramus,

How am I supposed to know that the OP did not properly cite Oregon law?

Quit stalking me.

Wayne