Why the hate for Cyclists?

[printcraft]

The idea is apparently, if the lane is narrow enough that the automobile would have to get into the other lane anyway, in for a penny, in for a pound. It is plausible that a rider in the middle of the lane is more visible than one riding 18 inches from the right edge. Reliably better?

Middle of the lane is a bad place to ride. You have to deal with oil, debris and NAILS!
The safe spot is really the right side vehicle tire track, all of the phantom nails have been soaked up already.

 

[chipbennett]

My safety is part of practicable. The Texas law explains what is meant by practicable.

a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

1. the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
2. the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
3. a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
4. the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
   
   1. less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
   2. too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

Does #4 not apply only to roads with more than 2 lanes? Else, how would there be an "outside" lane? So, it doesn't apply to two-lane roads, which is generally what we're discussing here.

 

[chipbennett]

What does 'through traffic', as in 'through traffic lanes' mean to you, Chip? Arguing that not being in a through traffic lane is equivalent to being in a non-traffic lane part of the road is specious

Ya' think maybe those grates might also be located in turn lanes or lanes that are either/or? Ya' think bicycles might be in those lanes - legally? Is there a part of a lane besides a shoulder that isn't designed to carry traffic? On a two-lane country road, what lane would be the through lane and could bicyclists use it?

Your attempts to somehow be not wrong are getting pathetic. Maybe next time don't post in absolutes

I already conceded that I was wrong, so I don't know why you keep saying that I'm trying to "be not wrong".

Your example simply doesn't make the point you think it makes, and ironically, supports the point I was trying to make, given that it is (apparently) the best example you can come up with to show that road design explicitly accounts for bicycles.

 

[Ingomike]

Middle of the lane is a bad place to ride. You have to deal with oil, debris and NAILS!
The safe spot is really the right side vehicle tire track, all of the phantom nails have been soaked up already.

While I recognize the sarcasm, what you said is true, add some sprinkling rain and the oil in center is slicker than snot. As for nails, we once had a thread where folks posted the junk from the road they had gotten out of their tires. Why would it be any different for other road users, especially with those that don't have 10 ply tires?

Then there is the crown and or grooving in most roads it is not easy to stay on the crown or out of the grooves for any vehicle. That leads me to call BS on a lot of this whining about cyclists being in the middle of the road much of the time, it most often is not a practical place to ride.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Does #4 not apply only to roads with more than 2 lanes? Else, how would there be an "outside" lane? So, it doesn't apply to two-lane roads, which is generally what we're discussing here.

That's how I read it as well.

 

[BugI02]

Your example simply doesn't make the point you think it makes, and ironically, supports the point I was trying to make, given that it is (apparently) the best example you can come up with to show that road design explicitly accounts for bicycles.

It is the only one I bothered to come up with, as I only needed one

You're welcome to do an exhaustive search on your own time, though, to prove it's the only one - but claiming such without being certain is a sure way to end up arguing how the next example of your wrongness shouldn't count, either

 

[chipbennett]

It is the only one I bothered to come up with, as I only needed one

You're welcome to do an exhaustive search on your own time, though, to prove it's the only one - but claiming such without being certain is a sure way to end up arguing how the next example of your wrongness shouldn't count, either

Sure. If your sole purpose was to prove me wrong on a technicality, mission accomplished. You were right and I was wrong, and I acknowledged that and conceded the point. I'll keep conceding it, if necessary.

I actually have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Now, to the underlying point: is there any meaningful design consideration of bicycles for public roads? Or is it generally and primarily true that roads are designed for motor vehicles?

 

[Ingomike]

Now, to the underlying point: is there any meaningful design consideration of bicycles for public roads? Or is it generally and primarily true that roads are designed for motor vehicles?

What the heck is your ax grinding about. It is illogical that road design ONLY takes into account one class of users, obviously those users have diverging needs so there will be inevitable conflicts but all users are considered and accommodated as best for the entire spectrum of legal users.

 

[BugI02]

Now, to the underlying point: is there any meaningful design consideration of bicycles for public roads? Or is it generally and primarily true that roads are designed for motor vehicles?

Given your known evasiveness over what you really said, perhaps you should precisely define what you mean by 'meaningful' in this circumstance

 

[chipbennett]

What the heck is your ax grinding about. It is illogical that road design ONLY takes into account one class of users, obviously those users have diverging needs so there will be inevitable conflicts but all users are considered and accommodated as best for the entire spectrum of legal users.

You're not that far off of the only point I've ever made related to this topic: that roads are designed for motor vehicles, but that cyclists have every right to use the road - and while that may cause inefficiency/frustration, everyone needs to figure out how to share the road respectfully.

If there's any ax to grind, it is in refuting the absurd straw men that have been created out of my position, as well as the continual, absolute refusal even to acknowledge that public roads are designed and intended for motor vehicles.

 

[chipbennett]

Given your known evasiveness over what you really said, perhaps you should precisely define what you mean by 'meaningful' in this circumstance

Evasiveness?

Do you need me to say it yet again? I'll say it yet again: I stated a rather inelegant absolute, that you refuted, and I acknowledged. So, how, exactly, am I being evasive?

 

[BugI02]

What the heck is your ax grinding about. It is illogical that road design ONLY takes into account one class of users, obviously those users have diverging needs so there will be inevitable conflicts but all users are considered and accommodated as best for the entire spectrum of legal users.

Shhhh! I'm enjoying the fact that he doesn't even seem to think that the elimination of roadside parking for room, or in some cases the actual structural widening of roads, to accommodate bike lanes don't count as bicycles being taken into consideration during road design

 

[chipbennett]

Shhhh! I'm enjoying the fact that he doesn't even seem to think that the elimination of roadside parking for room, or in some cases the actual structural widening of roads, to accommodate bike lanes don't count as bicycles being taken into consideration during road design

I actually brought up bike lanes up-thread. But do go on.

 

[BugI02]

Evasiveness?

Do you need me to say it yet again? I'll say it yet again: I stated a rather inelegant absolute, that you refuted, and I acknowledged. So, how, exactly, am I being evasive?

No, I'm serious

In order for me to prove you wrong again, perhaps once and for all this time, I need to know precisely what 'meaningful' means to you in your construction 'meaningful design consideration'

And fair warning, once I have that information, and I'm talking about specifics, I will devote no more time to the effort than it deserves
The five general stages of grief, as described by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross:

Denial: This can’t be happening.
^^^ you are somewheres in here ⌄⌄⌄
Anger: Why did this happen? Who is to blame?

Bargaining: Make this not happen and I will…

Depression: I can’t bear this; I’m too sad to do anything.

Acceptance: I acknowledge that this has happened, and I cannot change it.
^^^Let me know if you make it to here, it will save me some effort

 

[chipbennett]

No, I'm serious

In order for me to prove you wrong again, perhaps once and for all this time, I need to know precisely what 'meaningful' means to you in your construction 'meaningful design consideration'

And fair warning, once I have that information, and I'm talking about specifics, I will devote no more time to the effort than it deserves
The five general stages of grief, as described by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross:

Denial: This can’t be happening.
^^^ you are somewheres in here ⌄⌄⌄
Anger: Why did this happen? Who is to blame?

Bargaining: Make this not happen and I will…

Depression: I can’t bear this; I’m too sad to do anything.

Acceptance: I acknowledge that this has happened, and I cannot change it.
^^^Let me know if you make it to here, it will save me some effort

No, you're clearly not serious.

 

[BugI02]

It's a meaningful level of seriousness

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You're welcome to do an exhaustive search on your own time

I would, but i lost an hour thanks to DST.

 

[BugI02]

Don't blame me, I think that **** is stupid. If I wanted to do more after work I just left early - usually after going in early to compensate

 

[BugI02]

And I only played golf because of the work/social aspects, in reality a golf course is a waste of a perfectly good mountain bike park

 

[Ingomike]

I would, but i lost an hour thanks to DST.

You were going to do it in the morning?