When to honk at a bicyclist

[Hunrobe]

>Wayne Pein [email protected]

wrote:

>I assert that bicyclists can use the right lane of a multi-lane road, or
>the lane of a two lane road. There is no reason for a bicyclist to ride
>in a lane left of right except when preparing to turn left.

An "absolute" right would not require a reason to be exercised. That's part of
what would make such a right absolute.

>Please reread all my posts on this topic to figure out where you've
>misinterpreted me. Probably right after you declared that you didn't
>want to get into an argument.

I didn't misinterpret what you wrote but I'll grant that you may have expressed
yourself poorly when you posted the following:

---begin paste----

Subject: Re: When to honk at a bicyclist
From: Wayne Pein [email protected]
Date: 10/31/04 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

Hunrobe wrote:


>
> Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
> qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
> conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
> supercedes the right of any and all other road users?
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt


Yes, that is right. The reason? Because the law is written sufficiently
vague, using the word practicable, that one can't define precisely
under what roadway or traffic conditions a bicyclist can do this or that.

Regards,
Wayne

---end paste----

I didn't interpret anything. I simply took you at your word. If you don't mean
something, don't say it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Wayne Pein]

Hunrobe wrote:
>>Wayne Pein [email protected]
>
>>I *knew* it was only a matter of time until "Bob, I don't want to get in
>> an argument" Hunt would start mud slinging.
>>
>>I guess you've run out of intelligent things to say.
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>
>
> Since you have asserted an *absolute* right and absolute rights of any kind
> simply do not exist in any moral, legal, or philosophical value system,

You might want to rethink this.

Furthermore, you might want to try not to infer. It results in
misinterpretation.


what
> you term "mudslinging" is actually just truthfulness.
>

Any ol' rationale will do for some people.

Wayne


All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.
>>
>>
>
> That's what all beginner bicyclists say!

Non sequiter much?

Bill "knows enough to stay (up)right" S.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Hunrobe wrote:

>>Wayne Pein [email protected]
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I assert that bicyclists can use the right lane of a multi-lane road, or
>>the lane of a two lane road. There is no reason for a bicyclist to ride
>>in a lane left of right except when preparing to turn left.
>
>
> An "absolute" right would not require a reason to be exercised. That's part of
> what would make such a right absolute.
>
>
>>Please reread all my posts on this topic to figure out where you've
>>misinterpreted me. Probably right after you declared that you didn't
>>want to get into an argument.
>
>
> I didn't misinterpret what you wrote but I'll grant that you may have expressed
> yourself poorly when you posted the following:
>
> ---begin paste----
>
> Subject: Re: When to honk at a bicyclist
> From: Wayne Pein [email protected]
> Date: 10/31/04 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
> Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> Hunrobe wrote:
>
>
>
>>Wayne hasn't talked about your "typical situation". AFAIK, Wayne has not
>>qualified his right to use a full lane by referring to any roadway or traffic
>>conditions. He is claiming an *absolute* right. Do you agree that his right
>>supercedes the right of any and all other road users?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bob Hunt
>
>
>
> Yes, that is right. The reason? Because the law is written sufficiently
> vague, using the word practicable, that one can't define precisely
> under what roadway or traffic conditions a bicyclist can do this or that.
>
> Regards,
> Wayne
>
> ---end paste----
>
> I didn't interpret anything. I simply took you at your word. If you don't mean
> something, don't say it.


Only a zealot, and someone grasping for straws and looking for an
argument, would interpret me and try to bait me as you did, to mean a
lane other than the right lane of a multi-lane road.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's what all beginner bicyclists say!
>
>
> Non sequiter much?
>
> Bill "knows enough to stay (up)right" S.
>
>


No more than you Bill. You started it with your post. If you've got
something additive to say, you should do that. Your post didn't do
anything except attempt, and succeed, in inciting me.

I also recommend knowing a little more about bicycling than merely
staying upright.

Wayne

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what all beginner bicyclists say!
>>
>>
>> Non sequiter much?
>>
>> Bill "knows enough to stay (up)right" S.
>>
>>
>
>
> No more than you Bill. You started it with your post. If you've got
> something additive to say, you should do that. Your post didn't do
> anything except attempt, and succeed, in inciting me.

While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a
non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding
practices.

> I also recommend knowing a little more about bicycling than merely
> staying upright.

You missed the (up).

Bill "I'm pretty damned confident* in traffic, thanks" S.

*but don't take foolish chances

 

[Hunrobe]

>Wayne Pein [email protected]

wrote:

>Only a zealot, and someone grasping for straws and looking for an
>argument, would interpret me and try to bait me as you did, to mean a
>lane other than the right lane of a multi-lane road.

To sum up my take on our exchanges then:
You asserted your *absolute* right time and time again throughout this thread.
I pointed out time and time again that *absolute* rights simply do not exist.
In any context. Period. You responded by saying essentially, "Mine does.". I
didn't interpret anything, preferring to fully and accurately quote you. Now it
seems when you find your "absolute right" indefensible you qualify it.
The word "absolute" has a specific meaning. The synonym "unqualified" comes to
mind as well as the definition "not dependent on anything except itself". Why
didn't you simply offer your qualification and explain you never meant to say
your right is "absolute" and move on? This thread would have been quite a bit
shorter.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Frank Krygowski]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

>
> While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a
> non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding
> practices.

I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding practices."

In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to the
cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane is
"potentially dangerous"?

I'd call it "potentially dangerous" only in the same way that walking
across a roadway is "potentially dangerous" - or, for that matter,
walking and chewing gum.

In my view, the willingness to take the lane when appropriate is one
hallmark of a skilled cyclist. Skilled cyclists generally do this
because it is _safer_ than the alternative.

And, practically speaking, the cyclist is the person who gets to judge
when it's appropriate.

Skulking in the gutter? Now that's potentially dangerous!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> <<I 'm with Wayne on this. The typical situation with a cyclist in a
> narrow lane is extremely similar to the situation of a 30 mph driver on
> a 35 mph road - say, because he's towing a heavy trailer up a steep
> hill, or because he's transporting some very fragile cargo.
>
> He has a right to use the road. ... >>
>
> The key word there is "narrow". Cyclist
> in a NARROW lane.
>
> The situation is very different for a
> cyclist as opposed to a trailer-hauling
> truck, because if the lane is wide
> enough, the cyclist is able to share the
> lane with another vehicle.

"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
those potholes.

A lane with a big patch of broken glass at the right is a narrow lane
for a cyclist, although it doesn't affect a motorist at all.

A lane with wet fallen leaves reaching out several feet from the curb is
a narrow lane for a cyclist. So is a 12 foot lane with a 2 foot drain
grate with slots parallel to the direction of travel.

IOW, there are many road situations where an experienced cyclist knows
he cannot safely use the right portion of the lane. Motorists may not
understand this. Even cops may not understand this. But it's obvious
to the cyclist, who is likely to be much more expert in this matter, as
well as much more concerned by it.

The upshot is this: The cyclist gets to decide when he should take the
lane. Nothing else is reasonable.

There may be blatant abuses, of course - but in my experience, they are
few and far between. In fact, they are much more rare than blatant
cyclist abuse by motorists.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>
>>
>> While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it
>> wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially
>> dangerous riding practices.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding
> practices."
>
> In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to
> the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane
> is "potentially dangerous"?

Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was
saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And
apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of
course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even
suicidal at other times.

Bill "hell, pass 'em on the left on mountain road descents (but know what
the hell you're doing)" S.

 

[Wayne Pein]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it
>>>wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially
>>>dangerous riding practices.
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding
>>practices."
>>
>>In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to
>>the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane
>>is "potentially dangerous"?
>
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was
> saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And
> apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of
> course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even
> suicidal at other times.
>


Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a
bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I
can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using
the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Hunrobe wrote:

>>Wayne Pein [email protected]
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Only a zealot, and someone grasping for straws and looking for an
>>argument, would interpret me and try to bait me as you did, to mean a
>>lane other than the right lane of a multi-lane road.
>
>
> To sum up my take on our exchanges then:
> You asserted your *absolute* right time and time again throughout this thread.


> I pointed out time and time again that *absolute* rights simply do not exist.

> In any context. Period. You responded by saying essentially, "Mine does.". I
> didn't interpret anything, preferring to fully and accurately quote you. Now it
> seems when you find your "absolute right" indefensible you qualify it.
> The word "absolute" has a specific meaning. The synonym "unqualified" comes to
> mind as well as the definition "not dependent on anything except itself". Why
> didn't you simply offer your qualification and explain you never meant to say
> your right is "absolute" and move on? This thread would have been quite a bit
> shorter.
>

Because I was clearly, as any reasonable person would be, considering
the right through lane or a single lane of a two lane road.

Why didn't you bother to say, "By *absoulute* do you believe that
bicyclists can use a left most lane without rationale?" Clearly you were
thinking of this, but instead chose to bait me. So also clearly, you
wanted an argument.

Wayne

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

>> Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/
>> he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well
>> pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't
>> agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at
>> times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times.
>>

> Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a
> bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I
> can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using
> the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering.


What part of "at other times" did you not see/read/understand, Wayne? I
know when to take a lane, and when not to (and the latter is a mistake that
night be made only once).

Bill "no dog in this hunt, so bow-wowing out now" S.

 

[R15757]

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

<<
"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
those potholes. >>

<<<snip other examples>>>

All those examples are covered in the
exceptions to the ride-right law where
I live.

My point is that there will often be
times when a cyclist can share the lane
with, say, a truck. But there will never be a
time when the truck will be able to share
the lane with another truck. This is the
root of the "discriminatory" ride-to-the-right
laws.

Robert

 

[Wayne Pein]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>
>
>>>Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/
>>>he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well
>>>pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't
>>>agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at
>>>times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times.
>>>
>
>
>>Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a
>>bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I
>>can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using
>>the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering.
>
>
>
> What part of "at other times" did you not see/read/understand, Wayne? I
> know when to take a lane, and when not to (and the latter is a mistake that
> night be made only once).
>

I read your "at other times."

So, please tell us when a lawfully riding bicylist is "stupid and suicidal."

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> <<
> "Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
> For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
> is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
> those potholes. >>
>
> <<<snip other examples>>>
>
> All those examples are covered in the
> exceptions to the ride-right law where
> I live.
>
> My point is that there will often be
> times when a cyclist can share the lane
> with, say, a truck. But there will never be a
> time when the truck will be able to share
> the lane with another truck. This is the
> root of the "discriminatory" ride-to-the-right
> laws.
>
> Robert


Untrue. A two-lane road here has 22.5 ft lanes. Two 8 ft wide trucks
could drive abreast. And there are plenty of times when 3 six foot wide
cars could drive abreast in 2 twelve foot lanes, a very common roadway
configuration. Are these things tolerated? No.

However, there exists the implicit, but spurious, expectation that
motorists are allowed to pass bicyclists in the same lane and can
legally lane share without the permission of the bicyclist. This is not
by explicit language, but by omission of specific prohibition. Some
jurisdictions create enabling regulations upon the bicyclist like the
bicycle-specific ride right rule.

In practice, motorists using part of the bicyclist's lane to overtake is
often OK. It's quite the norm. But if it was always done with care and
respect for the bicyclist, bicyclists would not have anything to
complain about overtaking traffic. But, of course, this is not the case.

Wayne

 

[R15757]

Wayne Pein wrote:

<< Untrue. A two-lane road here has 22.5 ft lanes. Two 8 ft wide trucks
could drive abreast. And there are plenty of times when 3 six foot wide
cars could drive abreast in 2 twelve foot lanes, a very common roadway
configuration. Are these things tolerated? No. >>

<< However, there exists the implicit, but spurious, expectation that
motorists are allowed to pass bicyclists in the same lane and can
legally lane share without the permission of the bicyclist. This is not
by explicit language, but by omission of specific prohibition. Some
jurisdictions create enabling regulations upon the bicyclist like the
bicycle-specific ride right rule.>>

Good points. But I think situations where
two trucks could safely share the same
lane are rare at best. With cyclists, however,
lane sharing is, as you say, the norm.
Good points though.

<<In practice, motorists using part of the bicyclist's lane to overtake is
often OK. It's quite the norm. But if it was always done with care and
respect for the bicyclist, bicyclists would not have anything to
complain about overtaking traffic. But, of course, this is not the case. >>

No, it is not the case. Realistically,
however, taking the lane is no magic
force field against dangerous passes.
Dangerous passes are just part of
riding a bike on the street. Also
realistically speaking, while getting
passed is a near constant thing, these
passes are not a major source of danger
in our daily travels, as 90% of car-bike
collisons involve turning or crossing.

Robert