The 'Magic Bicycle'
Neal
Keeping in mind the tale of the blind men examining the elephant and each reporting a very different view of what an elephant looked like – what follows is just one facet of a view of road cycling.
And Buddha’s verse:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
mag•ic/ˈmajik/
Noun: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Adjective: Used in magic or working by magic; having or apparently having supernatural powers: "a magic wand" or “a Magic Bicycle”.
Once upon a time, long ago and far away, the bicycle acquired magical powers that it could confer to the bicycle rider.
The magic did not depend on the construction material of the bicycle ….. the bicycle could be made of bamboo, titanium, carbon fiber, or even unobtainium. The method of acquiring the bicycle …… whether through theft, lease, borrowing, or buying did not alter the magic of the bicycle.
The ‘Magic Bicycle’ could turn an ordinary pedestrian into a cyclist and legal user of public roads by the simple act of the pedestrian just mounting the ‘Magic Bicycle’. But like all magic the bicycle magic had special conditions.
For instance if the ‘Magic Bicycle’ encountered the evil Goat Head Thorn and the evil Thorn fatally punctured the bicycle tire and the air escaped …. the handsome prince riding the ‘Magic Bicycle’ would have to dismount and upon dismounting he would immediately become a pedestrian again and lose the ‘Magic Bicycle’ power, because as you recall, the power only works when the handsome prince is mounted on the ‘Magic Bicycle’. The handsome prince, now a pedestrian, having lost his magical powers, would be banished to the land of Opposite Side Of The Road to walk facing traffic on the sidewalk or on the shoulder of the road.
It was decreed that because the pedestrian acquired the magic of the bicycle so gratuitously without passing any tests of merit to determine if he was worthy ..... the magic power would be limited. The curse of the law of the Vehicle Code was put upon the pedestrian-cyclist and he was to wander on the Far Right Hand Lane and use the Bicycle Lane until he proved his worthiness to use more of the road.
Cheers,
Neal
+1 mph Faster
Trevor Bourget
Goathead thorns aren't typically found in the places where motor vehicles are driven, because they are whooshed away by the speed and size of the vehicle.
Bicycle riders don't lose or gain all their sense just because they are walking or mounted. The idiot without his wheels would still be as senseless. So do you propose to grant a pedestrian a license in order to walk on the sidewalk, or in the bike lane? It might be considered, I counted about 20% compliance with the requirement to walk facing traffic, and 0% to yield, when bicycling down the 101 coast highway from Carlsbad to UCSD today.
Again, I don't really appreciate the attempted humor and sarcasm, it does little to engender useful and rational discussion.
Continue, and you will join Beck on the list of names to whom I and others will refuse to read or respond.
-- trevor
Neal
Hello Trevor and All,
“Neal, seems you've grabbed ahold of the nether end of the 'phant.
-- trevor”
Hello Trevor and All,
Thanks for your kind and generous reply to my post to All.
Sometimes we read these posts through our own glass and see meanings not intended and I appreciate that.
Let me be more clear ….. bicycle riders lose their legal rights as a cyclist to be on public roads when they are not mounted on their ‘Magic Bicycle’ not their sense. Just by virtue of having a bicycle – a ‘Magic Bicycle’ pedestrians gain legal rights to use public roads only given to other vehicle operators by test and qualification.
To put it another way – the ‘Magic Bicycle’ [when mounted] is a (qualification free) ‘ticket to ride’.
It is not the bicycle rider that has a legal right to be on the public roads – it is the bicycle with a rider. Without mounting his ‘Magic Bicycle’ the bicycle rider, even when walking with his bicycle is not a cyclist – he is a pedestrian and not entitled to use the public roads or the bicycle lanes.
I am sorry the parable seemed humorous and sarcastic to you – it was intended ……. in all seriousness …. to be entertaining …. and lay the foundation to present a very serious question which you dodged …… and I repeat below:
What characteristics are inherent in the pedal bicycle to empower a pedestrian with a ‘Magic Bicycle’ to be granted access to the public roads without the proper testing for qualification required of truck drivers, motor car drivers, and motorcycle riders, and mix with that traffic?
In case you haven’t read the Vehicle Code recently (and I suspect that you have) pedal bicycles are often directed to travel to the far right of the road as practicable or in the bike lane where motor vehicles are not often driven and the evil goat heads are found.
You mentioned bicycling down the 101 Coast Highway – I hope you were appreciating the effort the goat head work parties accomplished when you went through Encinitas:
My post was directed to All and if you decide not to respond, do not know the answer, or how to respond, that is of course your prerogative.
Unless you own this forum and are the (official) moderator ….. I do not believe that messages must be structured to your specifications.
If there is a preferred format directed by the owner or official moderator I will of course adhere to that format while posting on this forum.
Last time I looked this forum had something like 182 members and they probably do not all think the same .. and hopefully some may even appreciate a different form of presenting the foundation for a serious discussion ………….. :)
su·per·sti·tion/ˌso͞opərˈstiSHən/
Noun:
1.Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
2.A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice...
John Forester, one of my favorite forum writers, correctly uses the following terms at various times to describe his worldview: Official propaganda, environmentalists, engineering ineptness, incompetently designed, despise engineering, popular superstition, political purposes, cyclist-inferiority superstition, subservient far right position, fear, subservient
incompetent cyclists ….. to describe some of the various attributes about the subject of cycling.
Now while some of these terms might lend themselves to additional scrutiny when addressing the subject of cycling …. some of them may be accurate descriptions depending on where you set the bar.
For example incompetent cyclists.
in·com·pe·tent/inˈkämpətənt/
Adjective:
Not having the necessary skills to do something successfully.
Noun:
An incompetent person.
Synonyms:
incapable - unfit - unable - inefficient – unqualified
We Vehicular Cyclists do not operate according to the law for other drivers of vehicles because we do not have to be qualified or tests as do other vehicle operators ….. we are pedestrians with the ‘Magic Bicycle’ that has given us some restricted privileges to use the roads.
It is notable that Maryland lists ‘Bicycles and Pedestrians Access Master Plan’ lumping bicycles with pedestrians.
Some other states do likewise.
And confirming the sense of ‘cyclist-inferiority superstition’ the Maryland Vehicle Code also lumps “Bicycles and Play Vehicles” together.
Each of us may be incompetent cyclists depending on what standard is used to determine competence.
For example if the competence bar is set very high …… with requirements of 20/20 vision unaided, successful completion of a written test on the California Vehicle Code, demonstrate the ability to stand on one foot with eyes closed looking up for 90 seconds to test balance, the ability to do a 90 second track stand at a downhill stop sign for 90 seconds, bunny hop a 3 foot pot hole, and navigate a series of cones while maintaining a particular line, demonstrate the ability to navigate with motorists and make left and right turns in traffic, ….. I would wager that some of us would be weeded out (failed) and not qualify for a license to ride our bicycles on public roads with other properly qualified and licensed vehicle drivers.
When someone says there are incompetent cyclists they are correct ……. It depends on how high you set the bar to determine a competent cyclist and what cyclist discipline or quality is being tested.
Obviously when bicycle rider licensing is implemented the tests will not be as difficult as posed above …… but there will probably be a vision test and those with less than adequate vision that are riding on public roads will fail, those that have cognitive difficulties or cannot pass a written vehicle code test will fail, those that have poor balance and cannot hold a line in traffic will fail, and those that cannot pass a practical riding course will fail.
Currently the governments and users of public roads expect that the driver of each type of vehicle that uses the road is tested and qualified …. except pedestrians on the ‘Magic Bicycle’.
A truck driver requires a particular class of license and tests to show that she is qualified to use public roads.
A motorist driver requires a particular class of license and tests to show that she is qualified to use public roads.
A motorcycle rider needs a particular class of license and tests to show that she is qualified to use public roads.
However a pedestrian only needs to mount a ‘Magic Bicycle’ to show that he or she is qualified to use public roads. No tests. No vetting. No qualification.
The pedestrian mounted on a ‘Magic Bicycle’ can be practically blind, deaf, and insane, with middle ear balance problems, and use the roads with other licensed and qualified vehicle users …… and quite possibly be a safety concern to the cyclist and others.
What characteristics are inherent in the pedal bicycle to empower a pedestrian with a ‘Magic Bicycle’ to be granted access to the public roads without the proper testing for qualification required of truck drivers, motor car drivers, and motorcycle riders, and mix with that traffic?
Should pedestrians mounted on bicycles be granted this qualification free privilege to use public roads?
Does this special qualification free public road access for pedestrian/cyclists lead other properly vetted vehicle operators to stereotypically use labels such as: the cyclist-inferiority superstition, subservient far right position, fear, subservient incompetent cyclists?
John Forester
the Far Right Hand Lane and use the Bicycle Lane until he proved his
granted access to the public roads without the proper testing for
qualification required of truck drivers, motor car drivers, and
motorcycle riders?"
"pedestrian ... to be granted access to the public roads", meaning, I
suppose, the public roadways. The use of the public roads was always
free to all, for purposes of travel and transportation. That was the law
for pedestrians, equestrians, carriage drivers, teamsters, drovers, and
for cyclists when bicycles were invented. Along urban roads sidewalks
became built to provide a more comfortable surface for pedestrians;
cyclists took to these better surfaces, but incompatibility of movement
between pedestrians and cyclists chased the cyclists back onto the
roadway. All of these road users were expected to obey the rules of the
road existent for their period.
It was only when motor vehicles entered the picture that licensing motor
vehicles and motorists became required. This was because motor vehicles,
by being much faster, presented a greater than usual danger to the rest
of the traveling public.
Neal claims that "the curse of the law of the Vehicle Code was put upon
and use the Bicycle Lane until he proved his worthiness to use more of
ought to, but don't, cease creating, so that other more responsible
persons have to correct the errors before they get more widespread. The
imposition of the rules of the road, that became the Vehicle Code, upon
cyclists was a great benefit. That gave cyclists the same rights and
duties as all other road users; this was both fair and beneficial: it
organized traffic behavior to achieve a reasonable blend of safety and
convenience.
What Neal calls "the curse of the Vehicle Code" is not that at all. It
is the few sections of the Vehicle Code, created by motorists for their
own convenience, that demote cyclists to second class roadway users for
the supposed reason that cyclists are incapable of obeying the standard
rules of the road. If you will pay attention to Neal's argument, he
presents exactly this argument made by motorists for the convenience of
motorists, that only magic enables cyclists to obey the rules of the
road. In short, while Neal thinks of himself as presenting an argument
for cyclists, he has been unable to overcome presenting the
motorist-superiority view with which he was raised.
Neal also errs when claiming that avoiding the requirements of the far
right and bike lane laws requires that the cyclist prove his "worthiness
to use more of the road". The conditions for avoiding the strict
requirements of the far right and bike lane laws are specified as
physical conditions on the road, with no reference to the "worthiness",
or not, of the cyclist involved. I regard Neal's writing as neither
humorous nor illuminating; it is simply troublesome.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
Trevor Bourget
Bicycle riders may choose to ride on the sidewalk where it is legal, or in the edge of the roadway if it makes them feel comfortable. If there are goathead thorns to be found, they aren't where I ride. It's not because someone cleaned them up, it's because I don't ride where they are. The requirement in California to ride as far right as practicable, thanks to the efforts of some who are still on this list, explicitly says "except to avoid a hazard". Goathead thorns are such a hazard, and they are generally to be found outside of the normal traveled way used by motor traffic. So by riding within the normal traveled way I am operating in a lawful vehicular fashion. Adding bike lane stripes reduces the frequency of motor vehicles using the space, so it increases the presence of hazards such as glass and thorns. Without added cost of maintenance (public funded street sweeping or private volunteers) bike lanes reduce quality of bicycling; I hope they provide some added value, but I stay clear of them as much as practicable.
A bicycle is not a free ticket to use the roadway. Laws generally prohibit, not grant. The laws say that if you choose to use a bicycle for transport this is the required way to do it. It is also your choice to walk, and the laws say that if you choose to walk there are some requirements for that mode also.
Neal seems very intent on trying to get this question answered "why isn't testing and licensing required for bicycle riders in the roadway?". That would have been more evident if he had simply asked that question instead of all the other goating in the message, including the annoying repetition of the bolded sarcasm "magic bicycle" that is merely a by-product of lack of understanding of the above paragraphs.
The question Neal asks has been answered many times and in many forums. The reason motor vehicle operators must be licensed is because of the great danger they pose to other people. The purpose of government and law is to protect people from others. Bicyclists needn't be licensed for operation in the roadway according to that criteria because they are unlikely to hurt others. Perhaps we could license bicyclists who want to ride on the sidewalk, that would make perfect sense.
The second reason that bicyclists aren't required to be licensed to ride in the roadway is alluded to Neal: the people who wrote those laws think of bicycles as toys, which shouldn't be "in the middle of traffic" except for very short periods (when preparing to make a left turn, for example).
Passing a test doesn't make you a vehicular cyclist. Riding in the same way that you would drive if you were traveling the same route makes you vehicular. When I drive a car or motorcycle, I move to the left side of the lane when approaching an intersection in order to allow people to pass who may want to turn right. That is the same reason I share the lane when I am operating a bicycle. When the lane is wide enough for safe passage, there is no reason not to allow a motorist to proceed. What I and John object to is being told by people don't use a bicycle at all, or who ride incompetently, where and when it is safe to pass. Only bicycle riders have the experience and judgement to know what are the reasons that lead to choice of lane position that temporarily prevents overtaking motorists from using the same lane.
I hope that helps, Neal.
-- trevor
Mark Ortiz
Neal wrote:
Without mounting his ‘Magic Bicycle’ the bicycle rider, even when walking with his bicycle is not a cyclist – he is a pedestrian and not entitled to use the public roads or the bicycle lanes.
Neal, where do you get that? Pedestrians are entitled to use the public roads, except for freeways – and even there, allowances are made in emergencies. There are laws regarding what pedestrians are to do, and those are different than for vehicular traffic, but pedestrians most certainly are allowed to use the road, whether there’s a sidewalk or not. They just don’t have right of way except at marked but uncontrolled crosswalks.
The ability to travel on public roads has been regarded as a fundamental right since long before this country existed. Licensing of operators of motor vehicles is a recent artifact, adopted reluctantly due to the capability of motor vehicles to do harm. Within the realm of motor vehicles, there are further gradations of licensing requirements, which are also based mainly on the vehicle’s ability (and sometimes its cargo’s ability) to do harm.
Bicycles have been in use worldwide for about a century and a half. No country in the world licenses bicycle operators, or ever has. Many of them, however, do train bicycle operators in a systematic manner, and that is a good idea.
Mark Ortiz
Sara R
1950 something.. after alot of lobbying by the automobile powers that
be. You can read all about it in "Fighting Traffic" The Dawn of the
Motor Age in the American City by Peter Norton.
Orginally roads were for people and cars were seen as a menace. You
can read the article "In defense of Jaywalking" on the Atlantic cities
websites that I have previously provided a link to.
Pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks, marked or unmarked in
Texas.
Neal, my time is limited and I would appreciate more direct
communication rather than parables.
Neal
Hello Mark and All,
‘Without mounting his ‘Magic Bicycle’ the bicycle rider, even when walking with his bicycle is not a cyclist – he is a pedestrian and not entitled to full use the public roads or the bicycle lanes.’
You are right. Thanks ……
Should have been full use – see correction above.
Pedestrian on Roadway
21956. (a) No pedestrian may walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his or her left-hand edge of the roadway.
And as you say bicycles have been in use worldwide for a long time without licensing the riders – but that was originally true for motor cars also and changed over time so that now most motor car drivers are licensed to insure that they are qualified.
The former ‘right’ to travel on a road as a motor vehicle driver is now a licensed privilege.
Neal
Hello Trevor and All,
Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.
“Neal, you have uniformly used the word road when I think you mean highway. The highway includes the entire public right-of-way. Anybody who hasn't been licensed to operate a motor vehicle has plenty of other options to use the highway, including being a passenger in someone else's motor vehicle (such as a bus).”
high·way/ˈhīˌwā/
Noun:
1.A main road, esp. one connecting major towns or cities.
2.(chiefly in official use) A public road.
road/rōd/
Noun:
1.A wide way leading from one place to another, esp. one that vehicles can use.
2.The part of such a way intended for vehicles, esp. in contrast to a shoulder or sidewalk.
California Vehicle Code:
Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
And ………….
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
http://bikelaws.org/laws/UVC-model-bike.pdf
§ 1-186 Roadway
The words “where” and “may be” were added to emphasize that although bicycle travel on sidewalks
and shoulders is often permitted it must never be expected or required. This is because bicycle travel on
sidewalks is known to be dangerous and must not be encouraged. In addition, bicycle travel on shoulders
is not safe in urban areas or other places where cross traffic is common.
That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the
sidewalk, berm or shoulder even where such sidewalk, berm or shoulder may be used by persons riding
bicycles or other human powered vehicles. In the event a highway includes two or more separate
roadways the term "roadway" as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all such
roadways collectively.
------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are correct in that rather than ‘road’ I should have used the full form “roadway” as used in the California Vehicle Code and as used in a proposed modification of vehicle code for bicycles by an advocacy group in Ohio.
Do you know if there a use for ‘highway’ as a term of art that would make that a better word than ‘roadway’ in this context?
I think you get points for thinking outside the box ( ….. on a tangent) by taking the bus or hitchhiking ……….. to get on the highway without a license ...... but we are talking about drivers or operators here without a license.
How would a transport without wheels (for instance magnetic levitation or air cushion) be classified in the vehicle code?
Could you drive such a transport on public highways without a driver’s license?
Mounting the ‘Magic Bicycle’ is a free ticket for a pedestrian to (currently) legally use the roadway and mix with motor traffic even though possibly incompetent and unqualified – without mounting the bicycle the pedestrian is just ………… a pedestrian …… even when walking with the bicycle and cannot legally mix with motor traffic on the roadway.
Pedestrian on Roadway
21956. (a) No pedestrian may walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his or her left-hand edge of the roadway.
My understanding is that motor cars originally had a ‘right’ to the road that has morphed to a ‘privilege’ and has morphed further to a ‘privilege’ that has to be licensed.
Rights are not static.
The ‘right’ of cyclists to use the roadway is illusory and can be morphed to a ‘privilege’ that may only granted if we are tested and qualified.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/06/02/cycling-a-right-or-a-privilege/
Excerpt:
“As a fellow advocate for all Florida cyclists, I want to take a moment to express concern that the repeated mantra that we have the “right” to use the road is illusory; that “right” is actually nothing more than a “privilege” that the state can take away from us, without recrimination. Recently, in the Florida case of State v. Wells, 965 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the court reaffirmed what us lawyers all know—limitations on the use of the public rights-of-way do not implicate a fundamental constitutional right and, thus, any such law is not unconstitutional on overbreadth grounds; the right to travel does not encompass a fundamental right to drive, and driving is a privilege rather than a right.
As such, I remain concerned, and have repeatedly expressed as such, that my fellow cyclists’ continued disregard for traffic laws may ultimately lead to the banning of bicycle use—as we currently enjoy it—altogether.”
-------------------------------------
It appears to me that if you desire to have cyclists lawfully recognized as Vehicular Cyclists you need to follow the essence of the 1887 statute of New York which stated in part “shall be entitled to the same rights and subject to the same restrictions in the use thereof as are prescribed in said Revised Statutes in the cases of persons using carriages drawn by horses.”
And of course - Same Rules meaning same testing, qualification, and licensing.
--------------------------------------------------
“………. beginning in 1920, and continuing over the course of the next 30 years, courts began to hold that driving is not a right, as it had previously been viewed, but a privilege that the state may revoke. Today, that view is universal. Consider, for example, the Florida case that Lynne has cited. In that case, State v. Wells, an appellate court in Florida observed that:
courts have held that the right to travel does not encompass a fundamental right to drive…and that driving is a privilege rather than a right.”
“Nevertheless, the public mood has soured; exactly how this will impact cycling remains to be seen, but nobody should be fooling themselves into believing that society is powerless to react to their negative behavior. By the early years of the 20th century, automobiles were already widely perceived as posing a danger to the public. As early as 1902, proposals to license drivers—an unheard of regulation of the right to travel—had entered the public discourse as a means of addressing the problem; by 1913, licensing was a reality. Today, proposals to require registration of bicycles and licensing of cyclists have entered the public discourse.
Do the legislatures have the power to regulate bicycling in ways that cyclists would find extremely undesirable, completing the transformation of cycling from a right to a privilege controlled by the state? They have already demonstrated the power to do so once, and that power has been unanimously upheld by the courts. Would the legislatures and the courts do so again? That remains to be seen.”
----------------------------------------------------------------
When Vehicular Cyclists are not tested and qualified to mix with motorized vehicular traffic …… Vehicular Cyclists are not adhering to the same restrictions and responsibilities as other vehicles and may pose a danger to themselves and others. Just as motorcycle helmet laws were established for protection ……….. so might laws be established to test, qualify, and license cyclists to mix with motor traffic.
“The second reason that bicyclists aren't required to be licensed to ride in the roadway is alluded to Neal: the people who wrote those laws think of bicycles as toys, which shouldn't be "in the middle of traffic" except for very short periods (when preparing to make a left turn, for example).”
If cyclists were tested, qualified, and licensed (as are other vehicle drivers) then perhaps the people who write the laws would not think of bicycles as toys, which shouldn’t be “in the middle of traffic” ……….
What do you think?
Neal
Neal
Hello John and All,
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.
What actions by Vehicular Cyclists do you think are necessary to implement a change in the California Vehicle Code restrictions regarding bicycles?
I submit my ‘Magic Bicycle’ is no less absurd than your 'cyclist-inferiority superstition' and perhaps is more real.
I agree that “the imposition of the rules of the road, that became the Vehicle Code, upon cyclists was a great benefit.”
I do not agree “That gave cyclists the same rights and duties as all other road users; this was both fair and beneficial:” …….
……. Because cyclists do not have the same duties as other vehicle drivers – the duty to be qualified ….. cyclists do not get tested, qualified, and licensed and hence they are regarded as less qualified than other vehicle drivers that are tested, qualified, and licensed ...... and in some cases as you state ...... cyclists are regarded as toy riders.
Why is it fair to the vehicle drivers that are tested, qualified, and licensed to be asked to share the road with bicycle vehicle operators that have an unknown qualification and may be dangerous, inferior, superstitious, subservient, fearful, unhealthy, and incompetent because they are unlicensed?
Trevor Bourget
How would a transport without wheels (for instance magnetic levitation or air cushion) be classified in the vehicle code? Could you drive such a transport on public highways without a driver’s license?
The ‘right’ of cyclists to use the roadway is illusory and can be morphed to a ‘privilege’ that may only granted if we are tested and qualified.
John Forester
On 4/30/2012 3:09 AM, Neal wrote:
�Hello John and All,
�
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.
�
What actions by Vehicular Cyclists do�you think are necessary to�implement a change in the California Vehicle Code restrictions regarding bicycles?�
�
I submit my �Magic Bicycle� is no less absurd than your 'cyclist-inferiority superstition' and perhaps is more real.
�
I agree that �the imposition of the rules of the road, that became the Vehicle Code, upon cyclists was a great benefit.�
�
I do not agree ��That gave cyclists the same rights and duties as all other road users; this was both fair and beneficial:� ��.
�
��. Because cyclists do not have the same duties as other vehicle drivers � the duty to be qualified �.. cyclists do not get tested, qualified, and licensed and hence they are regarded as less qualified than other vehicle drivers that are tested, qualified, and licensed ...... and in some cases as you state ...... cyclists are regarded as toy riders.
�
Why is it fair to the vehicle drivers that are tested, qualified, and licensed to be asked to share the road with bicycle vehicle operators that have an unknown qualification and may be dangerous, inferior, superstitious, subservient, fearful, unhealthy, and incompetent because they are unlicensed?
�
Cheers,
�
Neal
�
+1 mph Faster
--
�
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
�
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
�
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
John Forester
that is a catch-22. They certainly won't think to allow bicycles to be
ridden wherever the operator wants on their own, and the first objection
that will come into their mind is that such a position would not be very
safe considering 8-year-old bicycle riders."
cyclists to travel wherever they want, regardless of age. The relevant
law is not traffic law, but the laws regarding parental responsibility,
which are an entirely different set of laws.
It may be that Trevor meant to write about not the destinations to be
reached but about the lateral position on the roadway. Well, the safety
of children has always been the argument that gets trotted out whenever
the discrimination against cyclists is an issue. But those who support
the discrimination have never justified their own argument by
discriminating only against child cyclists; they have always insisted on
discriminating against all cyclists, because that is their desire. While
it may be theoretically within traffic law to try to regulate the
activity of child cyclists, that is probably far better to be effected
within the law regarding parental responsibility.
The political problem may be more difficult today than in years past,
because the bicycle advocates with political power now insist that even
adult cyclists need more protection than even the discriminatory laws
are supposed to produce. That just means that our arguments have to be
better focused on the safety and effectiveness of obeying the standard
rules of the road.