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

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> 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!
>
>

Ignoramus,

Only a moron would say, "Attitudes like that will get bikes banned from
traffic altogether."

Second, you wouldn't know a troll if one bit you on the ankle.

Wayne

 

[John S.]

On Aug 22, 10:01 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

Yes, I know you feel that you have a civil right to not wear a helmet
as some narrow minded motorcycle riders do. However, since someone
else will have to pay for your care and well being when you sustain
permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall
I think you have a civil responsibility to act in a mature manner.
Difficult though it may be.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> 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 I allow you or other motorists to do so, no I don't mind. Happens
all the time.

>
> 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.

Don't be an ignoramus. Only places with discriminatory and bastardized
laws make up such nonsense, so don't parrot them. If you don't like the
way I use the right lane, pass me in the left. That's how competent
drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't do that, don't drive.

Wayne

 

[Arif Khokar]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> 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.

What about those interstate highways where trucks go well under the
limit while ascending a grade. I have to use another lane to pass them,
yet you don't seem to have a problem with this.

 

[Arif Khokar]

John S. wrote:

> However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well
> being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head
> strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility
> to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be.

Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for
treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral
vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all
cyclists who suffered head injuries put together.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 22, 3:44 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:01 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.organdlearna 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
>
> Yes, I know you feel that you have a civil right to not wear a helmet
> as some narrow minded motorcycle riders do. However, since someone
> else will have to pay for your care and well being when you sustain
> permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall
> I think you have a civil responsibility to act in a mature manner.
> Difficult though it may be.

I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a
helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent
only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who
don't do numbers.

Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of
bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being
cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back.

Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities
per hour exposure for each of those groups.

Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US
for each of those groups.

Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain
permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall"
is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or
many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage. But that is absolutely
false. When you look at lists of sources of serious brain injury in
America, bicycling isn't even on the list. It's down in the
"miscellaneous" category. And when you figure the risk per hour
exposure, it's also quite low.

Of course, if you're not a numbers person, you may not understand
that.

And, BTW, if you think it's reasonable to dictate helmet wearing so
others don't have to pay for care, there are much more important fish
to fry. As an example, you should post your height, weight, detailed
diet, exercise plan, and family history. We'll all want to be sure
you're not one of the hundreds of thousands debilitated by strokes
each year due to the factors I mentioned. We certainly don't want to
pay for your care.

If there's a problem, of course, one possible remedy would be to tell
you to bicycle more. One famous researcher (Mayer Hillman, of
London's Policy Studies Institute) has determined that bicycling does
20 times as much good as harm. That's whether or not you wear a
helmet. The helmets really don't help.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Paul Johnson]

On Aug 22, 9:06 am, Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

However, if you actually ride a bicycle, you would already know that
where that can actually be done in practice is so rare that it is
effectively illegal. Kind of like how marijuana is legal free and
clear in the US, but only with a tax stamp that can't be purchased.

 

[Paul Johnson]

On Aug 22, 9:04 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> 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.

Many roads do necessitate such laws. To make a blanket statement like
that makes me wonder if you belong on a bicycle, and I'm a cyclist.

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Berg wrote:
> ~
>
> In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
> the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
> required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
> have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
> meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
> have the same or similar requirements.
>
> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists


Stuff it. We dont need more laws and restrictions not to mention
more money going to greedy bastards out of the pockets of those who
cant afford it.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Paul Johnson wrote:

>>
>>Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists
>>within-lane position should be ignored.
>
>
> Many roads do necessitate such laws. To make a blanket statement like
> that makes me wonder if you belong on a bicycle, and I'm a cyclist.
>

No, they don't. Precisely which roads necessitate such laws?

Wayne

 

[Festivus]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:06 am, Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> However, if you actually ride a bicycle, you would already know that
> where that can actually be done in practice is so rare that it is
> effectively illegal. Kind of like how marijuana is legal free and
> clear in the US, but only with a tax stamp that can't be purchased.
>

I actually DO ride a bike, and I keep to the far right whenever there is
a vehicle present traveling my direction. I'll move up abreast of a
riding partner when the road is clear, but as soon as one of us notices
a car approaching from behind, we'll move to single file.

It's the only way to stay alive, frankly.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> 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.

I was stuck behind a box truck and two garbage trucks on my way home from
work today. They were going much slower (varied between 15mph and
stop in a 50mph zone) than I ride a bicycle. Two lane road, no passing
zone. I had to just crawl along and deal with it. (I was driving) It's
funny how people accept it when it is a truck or some other 'slow'
motorized vehicle even when there is no good reason for it (I could see
no traffic jam ahead, and when I did finally get to pass them, nobody was
ahead of them), but when it's a bicycle they get their panties in a
bunch despite being much easier to pass, even when given a full lane.

I drive and usually give bicyclists a full lane and it's never been a
bother. two lane road, heavy traffic, I've passed bicyclists with as much
room as I would expect under practically every condition. It has never
been an issue. I have rarely needed to adjust my speed more than 5mph for
more than just a few seconds. If I could only say the same about
motorists.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:

> Quit stalking me.

Quit trolling us.

 

[Bill Shatzer]

Brent P wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>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.

> I was stuck behind a box truck and two garbage trucks on my way home from
> work today. They were going much slower (varied between 15mph and
> stop in a 50mph zone) than I ride a bicycle. Two lane road, no passing
> zone. I had to just crawl along and deal with it.

Your trucks were breaking the law as well. Slow moving vehicles are
required to yield to overtaking vehicles if a passing lane is
unavailable. ORS 811.425.

A rule which applies equally to slow moving bicyclists as well, incidently.

Peace and justice,

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:06 am, Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed,
>> but the circumstances determine proper behavior.
>
> However, if you actually ride a bicycle, you would already know that
> where that can actually be done in practice is so rare that it is
> effectively illegal....
>
Huh? Riding bicycles two abreast can be done safely most of the time on
many rural roads where the numbers of cars passing per hour may be in
the single digits or low teens. These roads are not uncommon in the US.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 22, 7:53 pm, Bill Shatzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your trucks were breaking the law as well. Slow moving vehicles are
> required to yield to overtaking vehicles if a passing lane is
> unavailable. ORS 811.425.

Only if there is "an area sufficient for safe turnout".

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/docs/vcb/VCB811.pdf

I don't live in Oregon (and probably don't live where Brent lives),
but pretty much all two-lane roads in my area that would be covered by
ORS811.425 are either in city areas with curbs, or banked, soft
shoulders further out. In either case, big trucks going 15mph in a 50
zone as Brent described are perhaps doing so because they cannot
safely turnout far enough and let following vehicles pass in a legal
manner anyway.

Actual, planned turnouts are few and far in between around here,
except out in farm country.

If there is no safe turnout available, then ORS811.410 should override
what ORS811.425 might say about passing and who's obliged to do what.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> I guess there's no law against fantacizing
> about running people down, or hurting/maiming/
> killing them in various other ways.
>
> But you folks who do, really oughta be
> ashamed of yourselves....

Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the stuffing up
one end.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>Quit stalking me.
>
>
> Quit trolling us.
>
>

Ignoramus,

Same something useful.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>Quit stalking me.
>
>
> Quit trolling us.
>
>


Ignoramus,

If you think I'm trolling, killfile me or don't respond to my posts.
Obviously, however, you can't resist me.

Wayne

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Quit stalking me.
>>
>>
>> Quit trolling us.
>>
>
>
> Ignoramus,
>
> If you think I'm trolling, killfile me or don't respond to my posts.
> Obviously, however, you can't resist me.
>

I never got the impression Bill swung that way.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com