Discussion:
Which wrong way is right
(too old to reply)
Bock
2005-09-15 07:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Saw a unformed cycle courier traveling north to south on Hornby in the
bicycle lane within a roadway that where cars are only permitted to go
south to north.
AI
2005-09-15 14:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Legally they follow the same rules as cars.
Couriers do what ever they can to get around fast.
Post by Bock
Saw a unformed cycle courier traveling north to south on Hornby in the
bicycle lane within a roadway that where cars are only permitted to go
south to north.
DiscoDuck
2005-09-15 20:10:16 UTC
Permalink
I find it interesting that the law wants to treat cyclists like cars,
yet they are NOT cars. While similarity exists (they both have wheels,
they both are used for transport), there are FAR more difference (cars
weigh more, can carry passengers, heavier loads, can cause more damage
to the driver and others. Cycling is a healthy activity, cheaper,
improves health, efficient for medium and short distances, etc).

Why is it many people have such an "anti" cycling sentiment?
Post by AI
Legally they follow the same rules as cars.
Couriers do what ever they can to get around fast.
Post by Bock
Saw a unformed cycle courier traveling north to south on Hornby in the
bicycle lane within a roadway that where cars are only permitted to go
south to north.
Colin B.
2005-09-16 00:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Disco,

You should go to the library and get the book called Effective
Cycling, or read the BC Bike Sense manual -
http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/ or any other manuals on safe cycling. The
reason why cyclists are required to follow the same rules is that it
is safer. The rules were developed based on principles of safety. By
cycling in the wrong direction or disobeying other rules, you are
endangering yourself by putting yourself in a place where you are not
expected to be.


Colin
Post by DiscoDuck
I find it interesting that the law wants to treat cyclists like cars,
yet they are NOT cars. While similarity exists (they both have wheels,
they both are used for transport), there are FAR more difference (cars
weigh more, can carry passengers, heavier loads, can cause more damage
to the driver and others. Cycling is a healthy activity, cheaper,
improves health, efficient for medium and short distances, etc).
Why is it many people have such an "anti" cycling sentiment?
Post by AI
Legally they follow the same rules as cars.
Couriers do what ever they can to get around fast.
Post by Bock
Saw a unformed cycle courier traveling north to south on Hornby in the
bicycle lane within a roadway that where cars are only permitted to go
south to north.
DiscoDuck
2005-09-16 02:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Colin,
A bike simply isn't a car. When I hit a red light and want to turn
left, you can bet I'm going to coast left along the crosswalk till I
hit the sidewalk, then continue to go left, and on my merry way. It is
perfectly safe and efficient as thousands of cyclists prove this every
single hour.

Some cyclists think they should take up a whole right lane when at a
red light. This is not only inefficient but completely inconsiderate
to drivers. There is no reason on earth the cyclist can keep to the
far right, so that other cars can make their right turn on a red. Yes
according to some, cyclists are like cars and should act like it. They
aren't.

No matter how you slice it, there are more differences, than
similarities between motor vehicles and bicycles.

This idea that bikes are like cars is, simply put, asinine and a result
of pet peeves taken waaaaaay too far.
Post by Colin B.
Disco,
You should go to the library and get the book called Effective
Cycling, or read the BC Bike Sense manual -
http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/ or any other manuals on safe cycling. The
reason why cyclists are required to follow the same rules is that it
is safer. The rules were developed based on principles of safety. By
cycling in the wrong direction or disobeying other rules, you are
endangering yourself by putting yourself in a place where you are not
expected to be.
Colin
Post by DiscoDuck
I find it interesting that the law wants to treat cyclists like cars,
yet they are NOT cars. While similarity exists (they both have wheels,
they both are used for transport), there are FAR more difference (cars
weigh more, can carry passengers, heavier loads, can cause more damage
to the driver and others. Cycling is a healthy activity, cheaper,
improves health, efficient for medium and short distances, etc).
Why is it many people have such an "anti" cycling sentiment?
Post by AI
Legally they follow the same rules as cars.
Couriers do what ever they can to get around fast.
Post by Bock
Saw a unformed cycle courier traveling north to south on Hornby in the
bicycle lane within a roadway that where cars are only permitted to go
south to north.
Peter McNichol
2005-09-16 16:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Colin,
A bike simply isn't a car. When I hit a red light and want to turn
left, you can bet I'm going to coast left along the crosswalk till I
hit the sidewalk, then continue to go left, and on my merry way. It is
perfectly safe and efficient as thousands of cyclists prove this every
single hour.
Just because one or two do an act does not make it safe.
Riding your bicycle in a crosswalk is unsafe (and illegal) as drivers
cannot always see you until it is too late.

The correct way to turn left is like a vehicle from the left lane.
Alternately, you can walk your bike as a pedestrian.
Post by DiscoDuck
Some cyclists think they should take up a whole right lane when at a
red light. This is not only inefficient but completely inconsiderate
to drivers. There is no reason on earth the cyclist can keep to the
far right, so that other cars can make their right turn on a red. Yes
according to some, cyclists are like cars and should act like it. They
aren't.
Wrong again. The correct way to allow a motorist to turn right is to stay
left. However if the vehicle cannot turn safely then it is better to block
the lane then allow the motorist to turn in front of you (which is an illegal
act for the motorist).
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
I find it interesting that the law wants to treat cyclists like cars,
yet they are NOT cars. While similarity exists (they both have wheels,
they both are used for transport), there are FAR more difference (cars
weigh more, can carry passengers, heavier loads, can cause more damage
to the driver and others. Cycling is a healthy activity, cheaper,
improves health, efficient for medium and short distances, etc).
The only difference is in the law. Some laws only apply to motor vehicle
drivers. There is definitely a difference of weight and size. So should
you get charged as a cyclist, make sure the law applies to cyclist and
you are being charged under the correct section with the correct fine.
Alternately you could fight it in court.

Also in Ontario points off your drivers permit cannot by law be
removed for cycling offences. Be sure to check to ensure this is
not the case as errors do occur.

Peter McNichol
CAN-BIKE Instructor
DiscoDuck
2005-09-16 20:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Colin,
A bike simply isn't a car. When I hit a red light and want to turn
left, you can bet I'm going to coast left along the crosswalk till I
hit the sidewalk, then continue to go left, and on my merry way. It is
perfectly safe and efficient as thousands of cyclists prove this every
single hour.
Just because one or two do an act does not make it safe.
Riding your bicycle in a crosswalk is unsafe (and illegal) as drivers
cannot always see you until it is too late.
Too late? Too late for what? If it is red, there is no way I'm
waiting to make my left turn. I'm coasting along the crosswalk in
front of already stopped cars and making my left turn from there. IT
is safe and efficient. People who advocate otherwise are just either
paranoid, or have a pet peeve about cycling habits. They feel just
because they are paranoid cyclists that everyone should cycle like
them.
Post by Peter McNichol
The correct way to turn left is like a vehicle from the left lane.
Alternately, you can walk your bike as a pedestrian.
Incorrect. That is the LEGAL way. Not the correct way. Again a bike
is not a car so it is perfectly safe to do what I described earlier.
Did it three times already with no risk to ANYONE (once in front of a
police car. AND I had no helmet. Maybe some police are reasonable
after all).
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Some cyclists think they should take up a whole right lane when at a
red light. This is not only inefficient but completely inconsiderate
to drivers. There is no reason on earth the cyclist can keep to the
far right, so that other cars can make their right turn on a red. Yes
according to some, cyclists are like cars and should act like it. They
aren't.
Wrong again. The correct way to allow a motorist to turn right is to stay
left. However if the vehicle cannot turn safely then it is better to block
the lane then allows the motorist to turn in front of you (which is an illegal
act for the motorist).
Again paranoia. I keep right ALL THE TIME out of courtesy for the
driver.

All it is about is being considerate. IT sounds as though if someone
doesn't cycle like you, it bugs you. For me, all I care about is
safety and courtesy. The law is not about that. The law is a reaction
to lobbyists who have pet peeves.

Thousands prove that safe cycling is done every hour, but not within
the bounds of the law.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by DiscoDuck
I find it interesting that the law wants to treat cyclists like cars,
yet they are NOT cars. While similarity exists (they both have wheels,
they both are used for transport), there are FAR more difference (cars
weigh more, can carry passengers, heavier loads, can cause more damage
to the driver and others. Cycling is a healthy activity, cheaper,
improves health, efficient for medium and short distances, etc).
The only difference is in the law. Some laws only apply to motor vehicle
drivers. There is definitely a difference of weight and size. So should
you get charged as a cyclist, make sure the law applies to cyclist and
you are being charged under the correct section with the correct fine.
Alternately you could fight it in court.
Also in Ontario points off your drivers permit cannot by law be
removed for cycling offences. Be sure to check to ensure this is
not the case as errors do occur.
Peter McNichol
CAN-BIKE Instructor
Peter McNichol
2005-09-19 19:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Colin,
A bike simply isn't a car. When I hit a red light and want to turn
left, you can bet I'm going to coast left along the crosswalk till I
hit the sidewalk, then continue to go left, and on my merry way. It is
perfectly safe and efficient as thousands of cyclists prove this every
single hour.
Just because one or two do an act does not make it safe.
Riding your bicycle in a crosswalk is unsafe (and illegal) as drivers
cannot always see you until it is too late.
Too late? Too late for what? If it is red, there is no way I'm
waiting to make my left turn. I'm coasting along the crosswalk in
front of already stopped cars and making my left turn from there. IT
is safe and efficient. People who advocate otherwise are just either
paranoid, or have a pet peeve about cycling habits. They feel just
because they are paranoid cyclists that everyone should cycle like
them.
Yes, but what happens when you cross into the area where a left turning car,
on the green, can hit you? Further when you are riding this close to the cross
walk you will come from outside their field of vision and they will not see
you in time to stop.

If you choose to ride along the crosswalk then you are best stay with the traffic
and not use the crosswalk. Then when you get to the curb on the other side realign
and wait for the green going the other direction to go through in the other direction.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The correct way to turn left is like a vehicle from the left lane.
Alternately, you can walk your bike as a pedestrian.
Incorrect. That is the LEGAL way. Not the correct way. Again a bike
is not a car so it is perfectly safe to do what I described earlier.
Did it three times already with no risk to ANYONE (once in front of a
police car. AND I had no helmet. Maybe some police are reasonable
after all).
Laws are not created for cars they are created for vehicle operators.
Bicycles are vehicles.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Some cyclists think they should take up a whole right lane when at a
red light. This is not only inefficient but completely inconsiderate
to drivers. There is no reason on earth the cyclist can keep to the
far right, so that other cars can make their right turn on a red. Yes
according to some, cyclists are like cars and should act like it. They
aren't.
Wrong again. The correct way to allow a motorist to turn right is to stay
left. However if the vehicle cannot turn safely then it is better to block
the lane then allows the motorist to turn in front of you (which is an illegal
act for the motorist).
Again paranoia. I keep right ALL THE TIME out of courtesy for the
driver.
All it is about is being considerate. IT sounds as though if someone
doesn't cycle like you, it bugs you. For me, all I care about is
safety and courtesy. The law is not about that. The law is a reaction
to lobbyists who have pet peeves.
Thousands prove that safe cycling is done every hour, but not within
the bounds of the law.
So by saying this you would wait on the right of a right turn lane for
the light to turn green, while cars and big trucks turned in front of
you possibly drawing you under their vehicle if they turn to sharply.
Further then having to cross turning traffic once the light turns green.

Lining up to the left of right turning vehicles avoids interfering
with right turning traffic.

If the right lane is allows both right turning and through traffic
then line up in the middle of the lane. Should a car be waiting to
turn right then you may move left to allow them to turn. If
the right lane does not permit turns then you may wait on the right.

Peter McNichol
CAN-BIKE Instructor
DiscoDuck
2005-09-20 01:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Colin,
A bike simply isn't a car. When I hit a red light and want to turn
left, you can bet I'm going to coast left along the crosswalk till I
hit the sidewalk, then continue to go left, and on my merry way. It is
perfectly safe and efficient as thousands of cyclists prove this every
single hour.
Just because one or two do an act does not make it safe.
Riding your bicycle in a crosswalk is unsafe (and illegal) as drivers
cannot always see you until it is too late.
Too late? Too late for what? If it is red, there is no way I'm
waiting to make my left turn. I'm coasting along the crosswalk in
front of already stopped cars and making my left turn from there. IT
is safe and efficient. People who advocate otherwise are just either
paranoid, or have a pet peeve about cycling habits. They feel just
because they are paranoid cyclists that everyone should cycle like
them.
Yes, but what happens when you cross into the area where a left turning car,
on the green, can hit you? Further when you are riding this close to the cross
walk you will come from outside their field of vision and they will not see
you in time to stop.
You simply watch and make there isn't a car, that can hit you. That
simple. Same way I don't simply use the red light to ensure it is
safe. I look for cars (when cycling and driving). Looking does a lot.
Post by Peter McNichol
If you choose to ride along the crosswalk then you are best stay with the traffic
and not use the crosswalk. Then when you get to the curb on the other side realign
and wait for the green going the other direction to go through in the other direction.
Sorry, not sure what you are describing here
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The correct way to turn left is like a vehicle from the left lane.
Alternately, you can walk your bike as a pedestrian.
Incorrect. That is the LEGAL way. Not the correct way. Again a bike
is not a car so it is perfectly safe to do what I described earlier.
Did it three times already with no risk to ANYONE (once in front of a
police car. AND I had no helmet. Maybe some police are reasonable
after all).
Laws are not created for cars they are created for vehicle operators.
Bicycles are vehicles.
Yes, but my point is a bike is not car no matter how you slice it. It
is not. The law (albeit not enough) recognizes this when it permits
bikes to turn into some roads, and not others. They can fit and are
safe to do so.
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Some cyclists think they should take up a whole right lane when at a
red light. This is not only inefficient but completely inconsiderate
to drivers. There is no reason on earth the cyclist can keep to the
far right, so that other cars can make their right turn on a red. Yes
according to some, cyclists are like cars and should act like it. They
aren't.
Wrong again. The correct way to allow a motorist to turn right is to stay
left. However if the vehicle cannot turn safely then it is better to block
the lane then allows the motorist to turn in front of you (which is an illegal
act for the motorist).
Again paranoia. I keep right ALL THE TIME out of courtesy for the
driver.
All it is about is being considerate. IT sounds as though if someone
doesn't cycle like you, it bugs you. For me, all I care about is
safety and courtesy. The law is not about that. The law is a reaction
to lobbyists who have pet peeves.
Thousands prove that safe cycling is done every hour, but not within
the bounds of the law.
So by saying this you would wait on the right of a right turn lane for
the light to turn green, while cars and big trucks turned in front of
you possibly drawing you under their vehicle if they turn to sharply.
Further then having to cross turning traffic once the light turns green.
Correct. I've been doing this for over thirty years and so have
millions of others. There is no more risk than other "methods" and it
is condirate for drivers.
Post by Peter McNichol
Lining up to the left of right turning vehicles avoids interfering
with right turning traffic.
Sounds like a good idea also. But really I could say "but you risk
being hit my the left rear of the turning car. Or the car to your left
should they choose to turn right when the are suppose to can kill you."
It's paranoid as is suggesting bikes should operate like cars.
Post by Peter McNichol
If the right lane is allows both right turning and through traffic
then line up in the middle of the lane. Should a car be waiting to
turn right then you may move left to allow them to turn. If
the right lane does not permit turns then you may wait on the right.
While your method is fine, it's not any less risky. The laws created
are a result of pet peeves only, and not on any real sense (common or
scientific)

Biking is a perfectly safe activity if you just keep your eye out. It's
that simple. IT's perpetuating that they are like cars, that gives it
a perception of "risky." They aren't cars, plain and simple.
Post by Peter McNichol
Peter McNichol
CAN-BIKE Instructor
Peter McNichol
2005-09-20 13:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Colin,
A bike simply isn't a car. When I hit a red light and want to turn
left, you can bet I'm going to coast left along the crosswalk till I
hit the sidewalk, then continue to go left, and on my merry way. It is
perfectly safe and efficient as thousands of cyclists prove this every
single hour.
Just because one or two do an act does not make it safe.
Riding your bicycle in a crosswalk is unsafe (and illegal) as drivers
cannot always see you until it is too late.
Too late? Too late for what? If it is red, there is no way I'm
waiting to make my left turn. I'm coasting along the crosswalk in
front of already stopped cars and making my left turn from there. IT
is safe and efficient. People who advocate otherwise are just either
paranoid, or have a pet peeve about cycling habits. They feel just
because they are paranoid cyclists that everyone should cycle like
them.
Yes, but what happens when you cross into the area where a left turning car,
on the green, can hit you? Further when you are riding this close to the cross
walk you will come from outside their field of vision and they will not see
you in time to stop.
You simply watch and make there isn't a car, that can hit you. That
simple. Same way I don't simply use the red light to ensure it is
safe. I look for cars (when cycling and driving). Looking does a lot.
However, should a car hit you it would be your fault, as you are not in the
prescribed lane for a left turn, and you would be dead wrong.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If you choose to ride along the crosswalk then you are best stay with the traffic
and not use the crosswalk. Then when you get to the curb on the other side realign
and wait for the green going the other direction to go through in the other direction.
Sorry, not sure what you are describing here
A two phase turn. Go strait one direction other side of road. Turn ninety degrees
and wait for green to go strait again to complete left turn. Stay out of the cross
walk.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
The correct way to turn left is like a vehicle from the left lane.
Alternately, you can walk your bike as a pedestrian.
Incorrect. That is the LEGAL way. Not the correct way. Again a bike
is not a car so it is perfectly safe to do what I described earlier.
Did it three times already with no risk to ANYONE (once in front of a
police car. AND I had no helmet. Maybe some police are reasonable
after all).
Laws are not created for cars they are created for vehicle operators.
Bicycles are vehicles.
Yes, but my point is a bike is not car no matter how you slice it. It
is not.
Not saying a car is a bike. A Bike is a vehicle covered by the vehicle code.
Post by DiscoDuck
The law (albeit not enough) recognizes this when it permits
bikes to turn into some roads, and not others. They can fit and are
safe to do so.
Cyclists are permitted into residential areas because they do not usually
travel at unsafe speeds for children playing in the streets.

To use your words, no matter how you slice it, universal vehicle laws
make sense.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Post by DiscoDuck
Some cyclists think they should take up a whole right lane when at a
red light. This is not only inefficient but completely inconsiderate
to drivers. There is no reason on earth the cyclist can keep to the
far right, so that other cars can make their right turn on a red. Yes
according to some, cyclists are like cars and should act like it. They
aren't.
Wrong again. The correct way to allow a motorist to turn right is to stay
left. However if the vehicle cannot turn safely then it is better to block
the lane then allows the motorist to turn in front of you (which is an illegal
act for the motorist).
Again paranoia. I keep right ALL THE TIME out of courtesy for the
driver.
All it is about is being considerate. IT sounds as though if someone
doesn't cycle like you, it bugs you. For me, all I care about is
safety and courtesy. The law is not about that. The law is a reaction
to lobbyists who have pet peeves.
Thousands prove that safe cycling is done every hour, but not within
the bounds of the law.
So by saying this you would wait on the right of a right turn lane for
the light to turn green, while cars and big trucks turned in front of
you possibly drawing you under their vehicle if they turn to sharply.
Further then having to cross turning traffic once the light turns green.
Correct. I've been doing this for over thirty years and so have
millions of others. There is no more risk than other "methods" and it
is condirate for drivers.
By you definition it is no more considerate whether you are on the
right or left, as long as you keep out of the way of the almighty
car or truck.

I am saying keep entirely out of the way of the car or truck by being
to the left of a right turning driver. How can being on the right
be more "right" then being on the left of a right turning driver?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Lining up to the left of right turning vehicles avoids interfering
with right turning traffic.
Sounds like a good idea also. But really I could say "but you risk
being hit my the left rear of the turning car. Or the car to your left
should they choose to turn right when the are suppose to can kill you."
It's paranoid as is suggesting bikes should operate like cars.
Well drivers are less likely to turn right from the second lane then
a truck is to run over you on the right. The latter has killed many
a cyclist.

If the car or truck does not have enough room to turn then you should
not be left or right of them, but in front of them.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
If the right lane is allows both right turning and through traffic
then line up in the middle of the lane. Should a car be waiting to
turn right then you may move left to allow them to turn. If
the right lane does not permit turns then you may wait on the right.
While your method is fine, it's not any less risky. The laws created
are a result of pet peeves only, and not on any real sense (common or
scientific)
You have not provided any scientific evidence to claim what you do is
safe only the lucky mishaps of uneducated bicycle drivers.
Post by DiscoDuck
Biking is a perfectly safe activity if you just keep your eye out. It's
that simple. IT's perpetuating that they are like cars, that gives it
a perception of "risky." They aren't cars, plain and simple.
Driving any vehicle is safer if you keep your eyes open. If you do not
then the fact that the bicycle is not two thousand pounds of steel may
make you dead wrong.

Advocating following laws of convenience over laws of safety or laws
of the vehicle code does not make sense period.

Peter McNichol
CAN-BIKE Instructor
DiscoDuck
2005-09-20 17:38:33 UTC
Permalink
The law is OFTEN wrong, and always errors on the side of parnoia. What
I previously described is perfectly safe. The fact it may be law is
ony evidence that it is so, bt paranoid lobbyists.

I, and MILLIONS of cyclists have proved the "keep to the right" method
perfetly safe everyday. I will purposely do so 10 times to today and
report back to you. If you don't hear from me, it means you were
right, and I am dead. IF you do hear from me, it proves I am right and
that it is PERFECTLY safe and considerate and efficient.
The problem is ardent cyclists who feel EVERYONE should cycle like
them. Ego gets in the way and they want laws to force those to obey,
what they preceive as the "right" way of cycling.
I bet you also wear a neon reflective vest too, and advocate it be law.
Király
2005-10-08 21:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
So by saying this you would wait on the right of a right turn lane for
the light to turn green, while cars and big trucks turned in front of
you possibly drawing you under their vehicle if they turn to sharply.
Further then having to cross turning traffic once the light turns green.
Correct. I've been doing this for over thirty years and so have
millions of others. There is no more risk than other "methods" and it
is condirate for drivers.
While your method is fine, it's not any less risky. The laws created
are a result of pet peeves only, and not on any real sense (common or
scientific)
Here's an incident I witnessed today that debunks your claim that waiting at
the curb when you are going straight through is neither "not any less
risky" nor is it equally or more "condirate [sic] for drivers."

TIME AND LOCATION. 12:45PM, Saturday October 8th, 2005. Intersection of
Granville Street and West 10th Avenue in Vancouver.

OBSERVATIONS. A cyclist is heading west on 10th and stops at the stop
sign at Granville, with one foot on the curb. A black Jeep pulls up
beside her, on her left, and signals a right turn. The traffic on
Granville stops as the pedestrian controlled traffic light on Granville
turns red. The Jeep starts to turn right, into the path of the westbound
cyclist. Both parties notice the impending collision and stop. the cyclist
motions to the Jeep to go ahead and turn in front of her. By this time
there is east-west pedestrian traffic in the crosswalk blocking the
Jeep's right turn. The cyclist is trapped between the Jeep and the
pedestrians. Pedestrians in the crosswalk at this point stop, unsure if
the cyclist may try and make an escape into the crosswalk and into their
path. The cyclist dismounts, backs up, goes around behind the Jeep,
and re-mounts her bike on the Jeep's left side, where she continues to
go through the intersection and on her way. The Jeep completes his
right turn once pedestrain traffic in the crosswalk clears. [my vantage
point for the whole incident was on the the northeast corner sidewalk,
providing a clear view of all involved parties.]

SUMMARY. The cyclist's decision to stop at the curb clearly put herself
and the right-turning driver in each other's way. The vehicle was
inconvenienced by the cyclist being in the way, the cyclist was certainly
inconvenienced by having to go around behind the Jeep anyway, and the
pedestrians had to stop because they weren't sure if the cyclist might
have turned into their path. It was a lose-lose-lose situation for all
involved parties.

CONCLUSION. All of this could have been avoided had the cyclist chosen
to stop in the middle of the lane, and then opted to move left once she
noticed the right-signalling Jeep behind her. This choice would have
been much more considerate to the Jeep driver. It would also have put both
vehicles in the appropriate places, which would have eliminated any
potential right-of-way conflicts, therefore making for a safer situation
for all involved parties.

Do you disagree, DiscoDuck? The ONLY way you can successfully argue that
your method is at least equally safe and courteous as mine, is if you
provide a counter-example to the contrary. And a counter example is
neither "I just did it four times today" nor is it "thousands of others
have done it without any incident." I would love to hear such an
argument from you, but I won't hold my breath waiting.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-10 08:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
So by saying this you would wait on the right of a right turn lane for
the light to turn green, while cars and big trucks turned in front of
you possibly drawing you under their vehicle if they turn to sharply.
Further then having to cross turning traffic once the light turns green.
Correct. I've been doing this for over thirty years and so have
millions of others. There is no more risk than other "methods" and it
is condirate for drivers.
While your method is fine, it's not any less risky. The laws created
are a result of pet peeves only, and not on any real sense (common or
scientific)
Here's an incident I witnessed today that debunks your claim that waiting at
the curb when you are going straight through is neither "not any less
risky" nor is it equally or more "condirate [sic] for drivers."
TIME AND LOCATION. 12:45PM, Saturday October 8th, 2005. Intersection of
Granville Street and West 10th Avenue in Vancouver.
OBSERVATIONS. A cyclist is heading west on 10th and stops at the stop
sign at Granville, with one foot on the curb. A black Jeep pulls up
beside her, on her left, and signals a right turn. The traffic on
Granville stops as the pedestrian controlled traffic light on Granville
turns red. The Jeep starts to turn right, into the path of the westbound
cyclist. Both parties notice the impending collision and stop. the cyclist
motions to the Jeep to go ahead and turn in front of her. By this time
there is east-west pedestrian traffic in the crosswalk blocking the
Jeep's right turn. The cyclist is trapped between the Jeep and the
pedestrians. Pedestrians in the crosswalk at this point stop, unsure if
the cyclist may try and make an escape into the crosswalk and into their
path. The cyclist dismounts, backs up, goes around behind the Jeep,
and re-mounts her bike on the Jeep's left side, where she continues to
go through the intersection and on her way. The Jeep completes his
right turn once pedestrain traffic in the crosswalk clears. [my vantage
point for the whole incident was on the the northeast corner sidewalk,
providing a clear view of all involved parties.]
SUMMARY. The cyclist's decision to stop at the curb clearly put herself
and the right-turning driver in each other's way. The vehicle was
inconvenienced by the cyclist being in the way, the cyclist was certainly
inconvenienced by having to go around behind the Jeep anyway, and the
pedestrians had to stop because they weren't sure if the cyclist might
have turned into their path. It was a lose-lose-lose situation for all
involved parties.
CONCLUSION. All of this could have been avoided had the cyclist chosen
to stop in the middle of the lane, and then opted to move left once she
noticed the right-signalling Jeep behind her. This choice would have
been much more considerate to the Jeep driver. It would also have put both
vehicles in the appropriate places, which would have eliminated any
potential right-of-way conflicts, therefore making for a safer situation
for all involved parties.
Nope, your own description states to accident happenned. Did you stop
the cyclist to get his/her name so you could report the offense to the
authourities? YOU seem to feel EXTREMELY that YOUR method should be
law. You get get his name, then report the matter to the police and
act as a witness for the crown.
Post by Király
Do you disagree, DiscoDuck? The ONLY way you can successfully argue that
your method is at least equally safe and courteous as mine, is if you
provide a counter-example to the contrary. And a counter example is
neither "I just did it four times today" nor is it "thousands of others
have done it without any incident." I would love to hear such an
argument from you, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
LOL. I call bullshit. I think you have resorted to the desperate act
of lying. Your claim you witnessed this is too convenient a time to be
believable. Also your arguments are mixed up? First you accuse me of
stating everyone should cycle like me (which was not true-I advocate
considerate safe cycling). WHen I PROVE you wrong (again) you refer
BACK to the original statement, you claimed you did not support in the
first place. Yet here you are repeating it, again (i.e. the only way
to be safe is to center yourself, or keep left of the lane).

But you want time and places of my examples of keeping to the right,
proving it is safe? OK. YOu got it. IT will be EXTREMELY easy since
I see it every single day, dozens of times. I will begin to record
this for your benefit, to you prove you wrong yet again. And will post
them here for you.

On a seperate issue, when was the last time you admitted you were
wrong? I bet never. People who support laws of "do as I do" (i.e.
keeping bikes centered or left) do so because of control ego issues.
Király
2005-10-10 16:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Nope, your own description states to accident happenned.
That's right. But there's increased likelihood that there could have
been in this scenario compared with if the cyclist had stayed
centre/left. That makes the centre/left method safer. Safety is not
about whether an accident happens or not, it's about utilizing the
method that best protects you from potential unsafe incidents. Would you
agree that cutting someone off in your car is just as safe as not
cutting them off, even if neither results in an accident? Didn't think so.
Post by DiscoDuck
Did you stop he cyclist to get his/her name
No.
Post by DiscoDuck
so you could report the offense to the authourities?
What offense?
Post by DiscoDuck
YOU seem to feel EXTREMELY that YOUR method should be law.
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim? I claimed that my method was
safer, and backed it up with facts and evidence. I never claimed that
my method should be law.
Post by DiscoDuck
You get get his name, then report the matter to the police and act as a
witness for the crown.
Witness to what? Nothing illegal happened.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Do you disagree, DiscoDuck? The ONLY way you can successfully argue that
your method is at least equally safe and courteous as mine, is if you
provide a counter-example to the contrary. And a counter example is
neither "I just did it four times today" nor is it "thousands of others
have done it without any incident." I would love to hear such an
argument from you, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
LOL. I call bullshit. I think you have resorted to the desperate act
of lying.
Think what you want, DD, but it's true. It really happened. And even if
it was purely hypothetical (which it isn't) it isn't any less valid
of an argument.
Post by DiscoDuck
Your claim you witnessed this is too convenient a time to be
believable.
Uncanny, ain't it?
Post by DiscoDuck
Also your arguments are mixed up? First you accuse me of
stating everyone should cycle like me (which was not true-I advocate
considerate safe cycling).
I never said that. yould you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
WHen I PROVE you wrong (again)
You have never proved me wrong. My claim is that my method is safer than
yours because:

1) potential right-of-way conflicts beteween right-turning vehicles and
straight-through cyclists are eliminated, and

2) The potential for these types of conflicts exists when your method is
utilized. The fact that incidents are rare or unlikely is irrelevant;
the potential exists, as evidenced by the above incident I reported.
That makes my method safer.

You haven't been able to dispute this. If you can provide an example
(real or hypothetical, it doesn't matter) that shows how you are safer by
being on the right than on the centre/left, then I'll concede the
argument and agree that both methods are equally safe. Up to the
challenge?
Post by DiscoDuck
you refer BACK to the original statement, you claimed you did not
support in the first place.
Huh? I don't get what you mean here.
Post by DiscoDuck
Yet here you are repeating it, again (i.e. the only way
to be safe is to center yourself,
I never said it was the only way. I said it was the safest way.
Post by DiscoDuck
or keep left of the lane).
I never said that either. I said to stay centre, and ONLY move left if
the vehicle behind you wants to make a right turn. Here's more that I
haven't said, in case you are curious: If the vehicle behind you is
going straight as well, it's better to stay centre, in front of him,
until the light turns green and both of you are past the intersection.
Then you may move to the right of the lane and let him pass you on your
left if it is safe to do so.
Post by DiscoDuck
But you want time and places of my examples of keeping to the right,
proving it is safe? OK. YOu got it. IT will be EXTREMELY easy since
I see it every single day, dozens of times. I will begin to record
this for your benefit, to you prove you wrong yet again. And will post
them here for you.
Here's where you don't get it. Because you do it, and you see others do
it, and because you see it many times a day, may indicate that your
method is "safe", but it doesn't prove that is equally safe as mine.
I've been able to provide details with an example (a true one by the way,
but even if it were purely hypothetical it would be just as good an
example.) That shows of one case where bring on thew centre/right is
safer. I will be perfectly happy to concede the argument to you if you
can provide an example (real or hypothetical, it doesn't matter) that
shows how you are safer being on the right than on the centre left. Then
I'll agree that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, then
you win. Again, "I just did it four times today and didn't get into
an accident" does not wash.
Post by DiscoDuck
On a seperate issue, when was the last time you admitted you were
wrong? I bet never.
Many, many times. I'm begging you to prove me wrong here, and I'll
gladly admit I am wrong if you can prove it. Can you?
Post by DiscoDuck
People who support laws of "do as I do" (i.e. keeping bikes centered or
left) do so because of control ego issues.
No argument there.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-10 08:32:59 UTC
Permalink
as a matter of fact, I'll do it 10 times tomorrow to prove you wrong
(again) and post the times and places here.
Király
2005-10-10 16:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
as a matter of fact, I'll do it 10 times tomorrow to prove you wrong
(again) and post the times and places here.
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times ans places here, and you won't
have proven anything.

Here's an example of the logic you are using:

"I never use a headlight at night. I always check to see if there are
cars coming that might not be able to see me. If so I make sure to stay
out of their way. I make sure to put myself in a place that won't get me
into potential visibility issues with cars and avoid collisions. This
method is safe and effective. I have never been in an accident, and many
others do this as well, every day, and don't get into accidents. It is
therefore safe."

Maybe. Since "safe" is a relative term, I can't really argue with that.

"Therefore it is just as safe and effective as cycling with a headlight
at night."

Wrongo. This is the same type of faulty argument you've been making
throughout this whole thread.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-10 18:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
as a matter of fact, I'll do it 10 times tomorrow to prove you wrong
(again) and post the times and places here.
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times ans places here, and you won't
have proven anything.
Not to you because again, you cannot admit you are wrong. This is
typical of people with control issues. They can't admit they are wrong
despit HUGE evidence to the contrary. So now you are saying don't
bother as no matter what you will not accept proof contrary to what you
are saying. Certainly a sign of control issues.
YOu are similar to a rapist. The crime isn't about the sex, it's about
power and control. Except your venue is cylcing. "People should cycle
as I do and I'm going to damn well make sure there are laws forcing
people to do that despite proof that my "safer" ways are exaggerated at
best, lying at worst."
Post by Király
"I never use a headlight at night. I always check to see if there are
cars coming that might not be able to see me. If so I make sure to stay
out of their way. I make sure to put myself in a place that won't get me
into potential visibility issues with cars and avoid collisions. This
method is safe and effective. I have never been in an accident, and many
others do this as well, every day, and don't get into accidents. It is
therefore safe."
Maybe. Since "safe" is a relative term, I can't really argue with that.
Then why are you? I'll tell you why. IT is because of control issues.
You accused me of telling people "My way is the right way" yet I
oppose laws enforcing my way. I PROVED beyond all doubt that it was in
fact YOU saying that since you supoprt laws to ride as you do.
Post by Király
"Therefore it is just as safe and effective as cycling with a headlight
at night."
Wrongo. This is the same type of faulty argument you've been making
throughout this whole thread.
Uhm, you're crackers. If you re-read your "Therefore..." statement
above you go against what you were trying to prove. And this "logic"
you claim I am using is wrong. My logic is based on experience. Yours
is based on ego.

Now, Here's an example of the logic you are using:

People should ride as I do, even though all evidence shows I am hyper
paranoid and ignore all evidence proving me wrong. Even my light
example above is flawed as I almost admit I am wrong with the statement
"Therefore it is just as safe and effective as cycling with a headlight
at night."

How old are you? I suspect you are either a juvenile or very elderly.

I suppose you want people to wear bright orange neon verst too while
cycling? Walking? Do you want laws for that?
Király
2005-10-10 22:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times ans places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
Not to you because again, you cannot admit you are wrong. This is
typical of people with control issues. They can't admit they are wrong
despit HUGE evidence to the contrary.
Again, pot, kettle, black. My arguments are based on facts and examples,
yours aren't. I was able to give an example that shows where the
centre/left method is safer than the keep right method. If you can give
an example where keeping right is safer than the centre/left method, then
we'll both have a point on the scoreboard. Then, if I can't come up with
a second example, I'll agree that both methods are equally safe and you
win. But you haven't been able to do that yet, because your arguments
don't show how keeping right is equally safe as centre/left. You are
arguing that your method is "safe," but not that it is as safe as mine,
because you aren't comparing it to mine.
Post by DiscoDuck
So now you are saying don't bother as no matter what you will not
accept proof contrary to what you are saying. Certainly a sign of
control issues.
Wrong again. I gave you this challenge to prove me wrong:
"I will be perfectly happy to concede the argument to you if you
can provide an example (real or hypothetical, it doesn't matter) that
shows how you are safer being on the right than on the centre left. Then
I'll agree that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, then
you win." The ball's in your court. I'm waiting for your example.
Post by DiscoDuck
YOu are similar to a rapist. The crime isn't about the sex, it's about
power and control. Except your venue is cylcing.
Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day.
Post by DiscoDuck
"People should cycle as I do and I'm going to damn well make sure there
are laws forcing people to do that
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
...despite proof that my "safer" ways are exaggerated at best, lying
at worst."
Prove it with a real or hypothetical example; an example that compares
your method to mine.

"I did it 1000 times in my life and am still here to tell about it" may
be a valid argument for "my method is safe", but it is not a valid
argument for "my method is equally safe as yours", because the statement
does not include a comparison to my method. This is the reason you
continue the argument, because you either don't understand this, or you
don't want to admit you are wrong.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
"I never use a headlight at night. I always check to see if there are
cars coming that might not be able to see me. If so I make sure to stay
out of their way. I make sure to put myself in a place that won't get me
into potential visibility issues with cars and avoid collisions. This
method is safe and effective. I have never been in an accident, and many
others do this as well, every day, and don't get into accidents. It is
therefore safe."
Maybe. Since "safe" is a relative term, I can't really argue with that.
Then why are you? I'll tell you why. IT is because of control issues.
I'm not arguing with you that your method is "safe." If it hasn't been
perfectly clear, here's the statement you've been waiting for (drum roll
please):

DiscoDuck's method of keeping to the right when stopped at an
intersection is safe.

Ta da! Music to your ears? Here's more: I'm even willing to retract my
statement that keeping to the right is "an accident waiting to happen."
Make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Here's even more: You go ahead
and do it your way, DiscoDuck. Keeping to the right is safe. There.
Happy now?

However, I AM NOT giving in to your claim that keeping to the
right is equally safe as my method. It isn't, based on the examples I
have given. I AM, however, willing to concede defeat if you can prove me
wrong with a counter example. So far you haven't been able to do that.
Post by DiscoDuck
You accused me of telling people "My way is the right way" yet I
oppose laws enforcing my way.
I never said that. I said your method was less safe than mine. Could you
please repost the relevant parts of any post made by me, to substantiate
that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
I PROVED beyond all doubt that it was in
fact YOU saying that since you supoprt laws to ride as you do.
How did you prove it? I have never once mentioned wanting a law for
anything in the entirety of this thread. Could you please repost the
relevant parts of any post made by me, with the relevant proof made by
you, to substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
"Therefore it is just as safe and effective as cycling with a headlight
at night."
Wrongo. This is the same type of faulty argument you've been making
throughout this whole thread.
Uhm, you're crackers. If you re-read your "Therefore..." statement
above you go against what you were trying to prove.
I guess my example was lost on you, so here it goes.

EXHIBIT A. Two methods of handling stopping at an interesection, one
preferred by Kiraly (the "centre/left" method), and one preferred by
DiscoDuck (the "keep right" method.)

EXHIBIT B. Arguments made by Kiraly include a concrete example, where
the implications of using both the centre/left and keep right methods in
that situation are presented for comparison.

EXHIBIT C. Arguments made by DiscoDuck only include the implications of
using the keep right method. The implications of using the centre/left
method in that example are not included, and are therefore not compared.

This is why your arguments do not stand up against mine. I'm comparing
my method to yours; you're comparing your method to nothing.
Post by DiscoDuck
And this "logic" you claim I am using is wrong.
Yes it is! I'm glad you finally agree.
Post by DiscoDuck
My logic is based on experience. Yours is based on ego.
Yawn. Again, pot, kettle, black.
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] People should ride as I do,
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] even though all evidence shows I am
hyper paranoid
I'd love to see that evidence. Care to repost it?
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] and ignore all evidence proving me wrong.
There's hasn't been any evidence proving my method is equally or less
safe than yours.
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] Even my light example above is flawed
[DD's interpretation of my logic] as I almost admit I am wrong with
[DD's interpretation of my logic] the statement "Therefore it is just as
[DD's interpretation of my logic] safe and effective as cycling with a
[DD's interpretation of my logic] headlight at night."
Of course it was flawed. It was flawed to show you how your argument is
flawed in the exact same way.
Post by DiscoDuck
How old are you? I suspect you are either a juvenile or very elderly.
I am 31, and I have been cycling for transportation in Vancouver on an
almost daily basis for ten years, and driving an automobile on an
off-and-on basis as well for about half that time. Prior to ten years
ago I drove an automobile on a daily basis in Greater Vancouver since I was
16. How about you?
Post by DiscoDuck
I suppose you want people to wear bright orange neon verst too while
cycling? Walking? Do you want laws for that?
Nope. I don't know where you keep getting the idea that I want more silly
cycling laws. I don't. Again, I have never once mentioned wanting a law
for anything in the entirety of this thread. You're the one who keeps
bringing it up.

K.
Baden Kudrenecky
2005-10-04 23:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Lining up to the left of right turning vehicles avoids interfering
with right turning traffic.
"Lining up" is the operative phrase. Sooner or
later you will be targeted by a driver who doesn't
care/doesn't see, or worse, possibly wants to run you
over.

Face it, a bicycle is no more a protective device in
traffic than a helmet is.

lin Baden
DiscoDuck
2005-10-05 00:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baden Kudrenecky
Post by Peter McNichol
Lining up to the left of right turning vehicles avoids interfering
with right turning traffic.
"Lining up" is the operative phrase. Sooner or
later you will be targeted by a driver who doesn't
care/doesn't see, or worse, possibly wants to run you
over.
Face it, a bicycle is no more a protective device in
traffic than a helmet is.
lin Baden
Interesting. I agree some people hate cyclists for the same reason
some hate people who won't wear a helmet. It is a control issue (not a
safety or tax dollar issue), trying to inflict their will upon others.
Having said that, my problem isn't with helmets (indeed I agree that
there is an area where it would save you some harm). It's with
people who want to force others to wear one and believe it saves more
people than it really does. That, in addition to the hypocrisy of
those that say helmet use in a car is not different since you're
"protected" by the metal of the vehicle. What a heap of crap (and they
know it). If their goal was saving lives or medical/tax dollars, they
would fist support and lobby for car helmets since head injuries from
car accidents cost approx 25 times that of cycling head injuries
Király
2005-10-05 17:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baden Kudrenecky
"Lining up" is the operative phrase. Sooner or
later you will be targeted by a driver who doesn't
care/doesn't see, or worse, possibly wants to run you
over.
Which is exactly why it's better to stop in the middle of the lane at
a red light. If the car behind you has his right turn signal on, you
move over to the left so he can go. Simple courtesy. If you stop on
the right by the curb, what happens? He likely pulls up right beside
you, on your left, wanting to turn right. Then the light turns green,
and what happens? He's probably started to turn right already, in front
of you, you're wanting to go straight, and both of you are getting in
each other's way. Neither of you are in the appropriate spot in the
lane for where you want to go. It's a collision waiting to happen.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-05 19:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by Baden Kudrenecky
"Lining up" is the operative phrase. Sooner or
later you will be targeted by a driver who doesn't
care/doesn't see, or worse, possibly wants to run you
over.
Which is exactly why it's better to stop in the middle of the lane at
a red light. If the car behind you has his right turn signal on, you
move over to the left so he can go. Simple courtesy. If you stop on
the right by the curb, what happens? He likely pulls up right beside
you, on your left, wanting to turn right. Then the light turns green,
and what happens? He's probably started to turn right already, in front
of you, you're wanting to go straight, and both of you are getting in
each other's way. Neither of you are in the appropriate spot in the
lane for where you want to go. It's a collision waiting to happen.
K.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I did the right handed way this morning, 4
times already, and tens of thousands of times in my lifetime. I also
saw about 10 different cyclists do this while I was driving today. IT
is safe, efficient and courteous. So is yours as described but you
can't convince any reasonable minded person that the right way is
dangerous or a "collision waiting to happen." Simply nonsense. The
problem is the idea of "mine is the right way. It should be done my
way." That is why silly laws are passed such helmet laws. IT's more
about ego than sense or safety.
Király
2005-10-06 01:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I did the right handed way this morning, 4
times already, and tens of thousands of times in my lifetime. I also
saw about 10 different cyclists do this while I was driving today. IT
is safe, efficient and courteous.
Okay, since you keep coming back to play the anecdotal game, I can
describe the countless times I have seen the "right-handed way" end up
with neither driver nor cyclist sure of who is supposed to go first. I
have seen many curb-hugging straight through cyclists cut off by
right-turning vehicles, and too many right-turning vehicles waiting until
the green to turn, because of the cyclist in the way hugging the curb.
Purely anecdotal, of course, but that seems to be the raod you've led us
down.
Post by DiscoDuck
So is yours as described but you
can't convince any reasonable minded person that the right way is
dangerous or a "collision waiting to happen." Simply nonsense.
The problem is the idea of "mine is the right way. It should be done my
way."
Okay, I'll play the game your way.

So you're stopped at a red light on your bike, and waiting at the curb,
which is what you call "the right way." A car pulls up on your left side
from behind, waiting to turn right. The light turns green, with you
going straight, and him turning right, both in each other's way. My
question to you is....

Who has the right of way? Do you wait for him to turn right in front of
you, or pull straight ahead?

K.
Peter McNichol
2005-10-06 14:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Which is exactly why it's better to stop in the middle of the lane at
a red light. If the car behind you has his right turn signal on, you
move over to the left so he can go. Simple courtesy. If you stop on
the right by the curb, what happens? He likely pulls up right beside
you, on your left, wanting to turn right. Then the light turns green,
and what happens? He's probably started to turn right already, in front
of you, you're wanting to go straight, and both of you are getting in
each other's way. Neither of you are in the appropriate spot in the
lane for where you want to go. It's a collision waiting to happen.
K.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I did the right handed way this morning, 4
times already, and tens of thousands of times in my lifetime. I also
saw about 10 different cyclists do this while I was driving today. IT
is safe, efficient and courteous. So is yours as described but you
can't convince any reasonable minded person that the right way is
dangerous or a "collision waiting to happen." Simply nonsense. The
problem is the idea of "mine is the right way. It should be done my
way." That is why silly laws are passed such helmet laws. IT's more
about ego than sense or safety.
The problem is the idea of "mine is the right way."

The same could be said for you DD. Just because you can justify it to
yourself does not make it right. No matter how many people do it as you
say does not make it right or safer.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-06 19:22:33 UTC
Permalink
What you fail to understand is I am not advocating legislating "my
way." Others are advocating thier way. THAT is the problem.
Keeping to the right or left is fine in my books and neither should be
mandating by law. BLOCKING traffic by centering should be illegal
however as it is inconsiderate and causes problems for traffic,
cyclists and drivers. No good comes out of it.
Király
2005-10-06 21:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
What you fail to understand is I am not advocating legislating "my
way." Others are advocating thier way. THAT is the problem.
Keeping to the right or left is fine in my books and neither should be
mandating by law. BLOCKING traffic by centering should be illegal
however as it is inconsiderate and causes problems for traffic,
cyclists and drivers. No good comes out of it.
Nobody has suggested *blocking* traffic by centering. For the
*umpteenth* time, when you are stopped in the centre, you look behind you
to see if the guy behind you wants to turn. If so, you MOVE LEFT to let
him go. This blocks *nobody*. Have you missed this point every time, or
are you choosing to ignore it to continue the argument?

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-06 22:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Garnett
Šand just as dangerous: the second car follows through with a right turn
as if he's joined at the bumper. Now you're hooped with overtaking
traffic, and the cyclist can't move. Just don't give them a chance. Line
up left or centered in the lane.
j.
Oddly enough you replied to that note but perhaps you missed that part.
Király
2005-10-07 15:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Oddly enough you replied to that note but perhaps you missed that part.
?and just as dangerous: the second car follows through with a right turn
as if he's joined at the bumper. Now you're hooped with overtaking
traffic, and the cyclist can't move. Just don't give them a chance. Line
up left or centered in the lane.
I suppose you could read into Jim's post that he advocates blocking the
right-turning traffic, but that's not how I read it. He seems to be
saying to not give the right-turning traffic a chance to block you in.
He doesn't specifically say to move left after you've centered and
noticed right-turning traffic behind you. Jim?

K.
Jim Garnett
2005-10-11 15:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Oddly enough you replied to that note but perhaps you missed that part.
?and just as dangerous: the second car follows through with a right turn
as if he's joined at the bumper. Now you're hooped with overtaking
traffic, and the cyclist can't move. Just don't give them a chance. Line
up left or centered in the lane.
I suppose you could read into Jim's post that he advocates blocking the
right-turning traffic, but that's not how I read it. He seems to be
saying to not give the right-turning traffic a chance to block you in.
He doesn't specifically say to move left after you've centered and
noticed right-turning traffic behind you. Jim?
K
Generally speaking my 30K commute reveals areas requiring proper
technique to avoid/reduce risky situations. For two right on red
intersections I encounter I know there are always cars coming from
behind that want to turn, so I pick the left side of the lane right off
the bat. On others, since I wear a small helmet mirror, when approaching
a red light as the lead vehicle I scan behind me to choose whether to
position on the left or right of center in the lane.

You can't give up too much lane space on the right either - make sure to
defend against a car coming from behind that doesn't intend to turn, but
rather boot it straight through on the green. Oftentimes they are just
as much danger as the turners. Take Edmonds, eastbound @Canada Way. The
curb lane is primarily for right turns, as straight through feeds you
into a bus stop and parked cars (can't remember off-hand but I don't
think it's signed as right turn only). With sometimes 20 or more cars
lined up for straight through in the center lane, it's very tempting for
cars to zoom up the right side & cut in hard just at the bus stop.

j.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: Spam blocker in place. E-mail address has been modified.
To reply personally, simply remove the first "j".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Keats
2005-10-14 02:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Garnett
You can't give up too much lane space on the right either - make sure to
defend against a car coming from behind that doesn't intend to turn, but
rather boot it straight through on the green. Oftentimes they are just
as much danger as the turners.
Here's one for ya: I'm eastbound on 45th (towards Central Park,)
coming up to a red light at Kerr. I notice a white van coming
up behind me, with his right turn signal blinking. So I position
myself on the detector loop, leaving the van driver plenty of
room to haul up on my right and make his turn. There's also
an oncoming left-turning driver (with his signal on) stopped at
the red light. So when the light turns green, the van goes
straight through and passes me on my right, instead of turning
like he indicated. There's me, stuck between the van on my
right and the oncoming left-turning car on my left. There was
some horn-honking -- I think from the left-turner, razzing
the van driver who changed his mind about turning. Or maybe
it was directed at me.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
DiscoDuck
2005-10-14 07:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Excellent example of what can go wrong with keeping left. Although I'm
not saying it is unsafe, it shows how those stating keeping right is
dangerous, have a misguided view of how "safe" keeping left really is.
There can be freak accidents no matter what you do. The key is keeping
an eye out and being courteous.
Tom Keats
2005-10-14 16:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Excellent example of what can go wrong with keeping left.
Nah, more of an example of Stupid Driver Tricks.
If I was on the right side, chances are the van
driver would have gone through with his right turn.
At least a vehicle passing on your right doesn't
cross your path like a vehicle cutting you off and
making a sudden right turn. And it was one incident
out of thousands of letting right turners proceed by
moving to their left.
Post by DiscoDuck
Although I'm
not saying it is unsafe, it shows how those stating keeping right is
dangerous, have a misguided view of how "safe" keeping left really is.
There can be freak accidents no matter what you do. The key is keeping
an eye out and being courteous.
I figure there's only one "courtesy" that really
matters: being predictable, and doing what we're
supposed to. That includes not inappropriately
yielding our ROW, and not signalling unless we're
really going to make that turn. In fact it's
more of a duty to others, than a courtesy.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
DiscoDuck
2005-10-14 17:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Keats
Post by DiscoDuck
Excellent example of what can go wrong with keeping left.
Nah, more of an example of Stupid Driver Tricks.
If I was on the right side, chances are the van
driver would have gone through with his right turn.
At least a vehicle passing on your right doesn't
cross your path like a vehicle cutting you off and
making a sudden right turn. And it was one incident
out of thousands of letting right turners proceed by
moving to their left.
Agreed,but someone earlier posted what could go wrong if you kept
right. "You can be clipped my the turning car, and blah blah blah".
Plain silliness.
Jim Garnett
2005-10-05 20:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by Baden Kudrenecky
"Lining up" is the operative phrase. Sooner or
later you will be targeted by a driver who doesn't
care/doesn't see, or worse, possibly wants to run you
over.
Which is exactly why it's better to stop in the middle of the lane at
a red light. If the car behind you has his right turn signal on, you
move over to the left so he can go. Simple courtesy. If you stop on
the right by the curb, what happens? He likely pulls up right beside
you, on your left, wanting to turn right. Then the light turns green,
and what happens? He's probably started to turn right already, in front
of you, you're wanting to go straight, and both of you are getting in
each other's way. Neither of you are in the appropriate spot in the
lane for where you want to go. It's a collision waiting to happen.
K
Šand just as dangerous: the second car follows through with a right turn
as if he's joined at the bumper. Now you're hooped with overtaking
traffic, and the cyclist can't move. Just don't give them a chance. Line
up left or centered in the lane.

j.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: Spam blocker in place. E-mail address has been modified.
To reply personally, simply remove the first "j".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DiscoDuck
2005-10-05 21:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Centering in lane is what gives cyclists a bad name. IT is inefficient
and very inconsiderate to drivers. You're more likely cause a future
injury to another cyclist down the road for being so inconsiderate and
frustrating the driver. Some will take it out on later cyclists due to
thier frustration caused by the previous inconsiderate cyclist.
Király
2005-10-06 01:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering in lane is what gives cyclists a bad name. IT is inefficient
and very inconsiderate to drivers.
Inconsiderate? Far from it. If the traffic behind you is going
straight through, there's no problem. If they are, you move left so they
can go, which puts both of you out of each other's way. It is the *most*
considerate thing you can do when stopped at an intersection.

Inefficient? As in it takes extra leg power to move from the curb to the
centre when you get to the intersection? You've got to be kidding.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-06 02:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering in lane is what gives cyclists a bad name. IT is inefficient
and very inconsiderate to drivers.
Inconsiderate? Far from it. If the traffic behind you is going
straight through, there's no problem.
Correct, if you keep the right or left. But centering ( you must have
missed that part) in a lane when a car is behind you waiting to turn
right is inconsiderate and cause traffic issues (not to mention
credibilty issues for cyclists).

If they are, you move left so they
Post by Király
can go, which puts both of you out of each other's way. It is the *most*
considerate thing you can do when stopped at an intersection.
Or right as that puts you completely out of the way as well. Noting
wrong with keeping right (unless you believe the paranoid crap abo;ut
getting clipped, etc. Utter nonense).
Post by Király
Inefficient? As in it takes extra leg power to move from the curb to the
centre when you get to the intersection? You've got to be kidding.
Inefficient to keep centered. You really didn't read my post very
well, did you. I suggest re-reading it as I was stating keeping center
is inefficient for drivers and inconsiderate. That is why I keep right
to be considerate of drivers turning right. IF you wish to be left,
that is fine but don't try and say keeping right is dangerous-it isn't.
THousands do it daily without incidence.
Post by Király
K.
Király
2005-10-06 07:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering in lane is what gives cyclists a bad name. IT is inefficient
and very inconsiderate to drivers.
Inconsiderate? Far from it. If the traffic behind you is going
straight through, there's no problem.
Correct, if you keep the right or left. But centering ( you must have
missed that part) in a lane when a car is behind you waiting to turn
right is inconsiderate and cause traffic issues (not to mention
credibilty issues for cyclists).
That's why you look behind you to see if anyone is wanting to turn right,
then you move left. Did you miss that part of my post?
Post by DiscoDuck
Or right as that puts you completely out of the way as well. Noting
wrong with keeping right (unless you believe the paranoid crap abo;ut
getting clipped, etc. Utter nonense).
You didn't dispute that being on the right puts you and the right-turning
driver on your left in each other's way, but you don't seem to think
that's a problem. That's too bad.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Inefficient? As in it takes extra leg power to move from the curb to the
centre when you get to the intersection? You've got to be kidding.
Inefficient to keep centered. You really didn't read my post very
well, did you. I suggest re-reading it as I was stating keeping center
is inefficient for drivers and inconsiderate.
We've already discussed the inconsiderate part. You mentioned
inefficient. I didn't get what you mean by inefficient, and I still
don't. Can you clarify the inefficiency, please? The drivers end up
burning more gasoline, or what?
Post by DiscoDuck
That is why I keep right to be considerate of drivers turning right.
IF you wish to be left, that is fine but don't try and say keeping
right is dangerous-it isn't.
Your way puts yourself and right-turning drivers in each other's way.
Mine doesn't. That makes my method safer and more considerate to the
driver than yours. You're fighting a losing argument, DD.
Post by DiscoDuck
THousands do it daily without incidence.
Thousands of drivers change lanes without signalling and run stop signs
daily as well without incidence. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

You do what you want, DD. You have your idea on how things should be
done and your mind isn't changed easily. You keep repeating the same thing
over and over even though you're losing the argument.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-07 16:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering in lane is what gives cyclists a bad name. IT is inefficient
and very inconsiderate to drivers.
Inconsiderate? Far from it. If the traffic behind you is going
straight through, there's no problem.
Correct, if you keep the right or left. But centering ( you must have
missed that part) in a lane when a car is behind you waiting to turn
right is inconsiderate and cause traffic issues (not to mention
credibilty issues for cyclists).
That's why you look behind you to see if anyone is wanting to turn right,
then you move left. Did you miss that part of my post?
Post by DiscoDuck
Or right as that puts you completely out of the way as well. Noting
wrong with keeping right (unless you believe the paranoid crap abo;ut
getting clipped, etc. Utter nonense).
You didn't dispute that being on the right puts you and the right-turning
driver on your left in each other's way, but you don't seem to think
that's a problem. That's too bad.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Inefficient? As in it takes extra leg power to move from the curb to the
centre when you get to the intersection? You've got to be kidding.
Inefficient to keep centered. You really didn't read my post very
well, did you. I suggest re-reading it as I was stating keeping center
is inefficient for drivers and inconsiderate.
We've already discussed the inconsiderate part. You mentioned
inefficient. I didn't get what you mean by inefficient, and I still
don't. Can you clarify the inefficiency, please? The drivers end up
burning more gasoline, or what?
Post by DiscoDuck
That is why I keep right to be considerate of drivers turning right.
IF you wish to be left, that is fine but don't try and say keeping
right is dangerous-it isn't.
Your way puts yourself and right-turning drivers in each other's way.
Mine doesn't. That makes my method safer and more considerate to the
driver than yours. You're fighting a losing argument, DD.
Post by DiscoDuck
THousands do it daily without incidence.
Thousands of drivers change lanes without signalling and run stop signs
daily as well without incidence. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
No, they don't. Simply false. I see that once every couple of years.
You're suggesing it happens often? They why do I only see it every
couple of years (the lane change without signal DOES happen often, yes
but that isn't nearly as dangerous as running stop signs. They still
(hopefully) look but do not use the signal for whatever reason)
Post by Király
You do what you want, DD. You have your idea on how things should be
done and your mind isn't changed easily. You keep repeating the same thing
over and over even though you're losing the argument.
K.
LOL. I'll just address your last paragraph since I'm in a hurry at the
moment.
I'm NOT losing the argument. I've proved you and others wrong here
EVERYTIME (and will do so here, again). THe problem is your ego can't
admit you are wrong, wrong wrong.
I DON'T have an idea of how things are done. YOU DO. YOU are the one
advocating a LAW mandating what people HAVE to do. I am not. I am
advocating sense and courtesy-YOU ARE NOT. YOU want a law keeping to
the left. I do not. So tell me, who is telling how others should
cylcle?
Király
2005-10-07 20:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Thousands of drivers change lanes without signalling and run stop signs
daily as well without incidence. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
No, they don't. Simply false. I see that once every couple of years.
You're suggesing it happens often? They why do I only see it every
couple of years
Right outside my living room window is a two-way stop sign. I'd estimate
that 20-30% of drivers go right through the stop sign. They might slow
down a little bit, but not nearly enough to avoid a collision if a
vehicle with the right of way is coming down the cross street. I've seen
close calls many times. I guess this doesn't happen at the stop signs you
frequent.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
You do what you want, DD. You have your idea on how things should be
done and your mind isn't changed easily. You keep repeating the same thing
over and over even though you're losing the argument.
K.
LOL. I'll just address your last paragraph since I'm in a hurry at the
moment.
I'm NOT losing the argument. I've proved you and others wrong here
EVERYTIME (and will do so here, again).
You've proved nothing. All you've said is "I do it a different way, and
thousands of others do it, therefore it's just as safe and courteous as
your method." It's like saying "I have a quarter in my pocket,
therefore it's going to rain tomorrow." One has nothing to do with the
other.
Post by DiscoDuck
THe problem is your ego can't admit you are wrong, wrong wrong.
Pot. Kettle. Black. You are making a fool out of yourself, DD.
Post by DiscoDuck
I DON'T have an idea of how things are done.
You can say that again.
Post by DiscoDuck
YOU DO. YOU are the one advocating a LAW mandating what people
HAVE to do.
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
I am not. I am advocating sense and courtesy-YOU ARE NOT.
I pointed out how my method is safer and more courteous to drivers than
yours, right in the post to which you just responded. If that's not
advocating sense and courtesy, what is? Your method may be "safe", which
is a relative and subjective term, but mine is safer. I've provided
ample reasons why so, and you haven't disputed any of them. You seem to
have abandoned those parts of the thread.

If you disagree with my claim that my method is safer than yours, say why.
You'll need to do better than "because I said so" or "because I do it
this other way" or "because other people do it too and they don't get
into accidents." None of these things are proof, despite what you think.
Post by DiscoDuck
YOU want a law keeping to the left.
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
I do not. So tell me, who is telling how others should cylcle?
I told you, in these exact words, "You do what you want, DD." There is a
better way out there, and I am *suggesting* that you give it a whirl, not
*telling* you. You might be surprised if you try it out and like it.

You might be surprised to hear this, DD, but at one time, I too did the
"keep to the right" method that you like. Then I learned about the
centre/move left method, and the reasons why it is the safest and most
courteous thing to do at intersections. So I switched.

Now, in case it has been unclear, I'm not telling you to switch. You do
what ever you feel is safe and what works for you. This thread has not
been about forcing a method on others, it has been about which
method is safer. I've been able to back up my arguments with facts and
examples, which you have not been able to dispute. The best you've been
able to do is provide opinions and anecdotal evidence, which simply do
not hold up your argument that your method is just as safe. But your
ego seems to be getting in the way of your understanding of that.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-10 23:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
"I will be perfectly happy to concede the argument to you if you
can provide an example (real or hypothetical, it doesn't matter) that
shows how you are safer being on the right than on the centre left. Then
I'll agree that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, then
you win." The ball's in your court. I'm waiting for your example.
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
You've stated here that even if I use ACTUAL examples you will not
accept it as proof.
So today I did it 6 times, purposely to prove you wrong (again).

· 11:10 AM Corner of Cambie and 18th. Waited at red light on the
right side of the lane, where a car, turned right, passing me on my
left, completely and safely.
· 11:11 AM Corner of Cambie and 16th Waited at red light on the right
side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came, turned
right, passing me completely and safely.
· 11:14 AM Corner of Cambie and 12th Waited at red light on the right
side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came, turned
right, passing me completely and safely.
· 11:16 AM Corner of Cambie and Broadway Waited at red light on the
right side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came,
turned right, passing me completely and safely. Actually three cars
turned, passing me on my left.

I will be reporting more tomorrow and later this week (until you admit
you are wrong but I doubt it).
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
YOu are similar to a rapist. The crime isn't about the sex, it's about
power and control. Except your venue is cylcing.
Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day.
Post by DiscoDuck
"People should cycle as I do and I'm going to damn well make sure there
are laws forcing people to do that
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
I already proved you wrong when you said NO one said and re-posted
that. Thankfully you admitted at the time that indeed that person did
state that. I'm tempted to find yours but truthfully the thread is
too long to bother. Besides it takes off track about the initial
issue. Your claim that keeping right is dangerous.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
...despite proof that my "safer" ways are exaggerated at best, lying
at worst."
Prove it with a real or hypothetical example; an example that compares
your method to mine.
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
Yet you want me to provide examples (which I did above). Would you
make up your mind? Now you're asking me for that same proof?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Maybe. Since "safe" is a relative term, I can't really argue with that.
Then why are you? I'll tell you why. IT is because of control issues.
I'm not arguing with you that your method is "safe." If it hasn't been
perfectly clear, here's the statement you've been waiting for (drum roll
DiscoDuck's method of keeping to the right when stopped at an
intersection is safe.
Ta da! Music to your ears? Here's more: I'm even willing to retract my
statement that keeping to the right is "an accident waiting to happen."
Make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Here's even more: You go ahead
and do it your way, DiscoDuck. Keeping to the right is safe. There.
Happy now?
Yes, actually. That does please me. I must say perhaps you're more
honest and open minded than many cycling zealots here.
Post by Király
However, I AM NOT giving in to your claim that keeping to the
right is equally safe as my method. It isn't, based on the examples I
have given. I AM, however, willing to concede defeat if you can prove me
wrong with a counter example. So far you haven't been able to do that.
The same examples you told me would not prove anything? You said (for
the third time
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
You accused me of telling people "My way is the right way" yet I
oppose laws enforcing my way.
I never said that. I said your method was less safe than mine. Could you
please repost the relevant parts of any post made by me, to substantiate
that claim?
"accident waiting to happen" (which you've since retracted)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I PROVED beyond all doubt that it was in
fact YOU saying that since you supoprt laws to ride as you do.
How did you prove it? I have never once mentioned wanting a law for
anything in the entirety of this thread. Could you please repost the
relevant parts of any post made by me, with the relevant proof made by
you, to substantiate that claim?
I guess my example was lost on you, so here it goes.
EXHIBIT A. Two methods of handling stopping at an interesection, one
preferred by Kiraly (the "centre/left" method), and one preferred by
DiscoDuck (the "keep right" method.)
EXHIBIT B. Arguments made by Kiraly include a concrete example, where
the implications of using both the centre/left and keep right methods in
that situation are presented for comparison.
EXHIBIT C. Arguments made by DiscoDuck only include the implications of
using the keep right method. The implications of using the centre/left
method in that example are not included, and are therefore not compared.
This is why your arguments do not stand up against mine. I'm comparing
my method to yours; you're comparing your method to nothing.
I've simply been stating it is completely safe and in fact have
stated yours is too. But my point (which seems to have been lost on
you after all)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
My logic is based on experience. Yours is based on ego.
Yawn. Again, pot, kettle, black.
Uhm, where did I say no one should use yours? You have been saying
mine is unsafe. I haven't made that same claim against your
"mthod"
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] People should ride as I do,
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
By advocating how "safe" your method is. Examples are riddled in
this very post
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] even though all evidence shows I am
hyper paranoid
I'd love to see that evidence. Care to repost it?
"Accident waiting to happen"
Happy?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] and ignore all evidence proving me wrong.
There's hasn't been any evidence proving my method is equally or less
safe than yours.
Because you said
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
[DD's interpretation of my logic] Even my light example above is flawed
[DD's interpretation of my logic] as I almost admit I am wrong with
[DD's interpretation of my logic] the statement "Therefore it is just as
[DD's interpretation of my logic] safe and effective as cycling with a
[DD's interpretation of my logic] headlight at night."
Of course it was flawed. It was flawed to show you how your argument is
flawed in the exact same way.
Post by DiscoDuck
How old are you? I suspect you are either a juvenile or very elderly.
I am 31, and I have been cycling for transportation in Vancouver on an
almost daily basis for ten years, and driving an automobile on an
off-and-on basis as well for about half that time. Prior to ten years
ago I drove an automobile on a daily basis in Greater Vancouver since I was
16. How about you?
IN my late thirties and USE to cycle ALL THE TIME until the helmet law
came into effect. Now I cycle only to prove my point, and when it is
safe to avoid the police (as I did not wear a helmet)
Király
2005-10-11 02:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
"I will be perfectly happy to concede the argument to you if you
can provide an example (real or hypothetical, it doesn't matter) that
shows how you are safer being on the right than on the centre left. Then
I'll agree that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, then
you win." The ball's in your court. I'm waiting for your example.
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
You've stated here that even if I use ACTUAL examples you will not
accept it as proof.
No I won't, not unless your example shows a case of how being on the
centre/left is less safe than being on the right.
Post by DiscoDuck
So today I did it 6 times, purposely to prove you wrong (again).
Which isn't proof at all.
Post by DiscoDuck
· 11:10 AM Corner of Cambie and 18th. Waited at red light on the
right side of the lane, where a car, turned right, passing me on my
left, completely and safely.
· 11:11 AM Corner of Cambie and 16th Waited at red light on the right
side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came, turned
right, passing me completely and safely.
· 11:14 AM Corner of Cambie and 12th Waited at red light on the right
side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came, turned
right, passing me completely and safely.
· 11:16 AM Corner of Cambie and Broadway Waited at red light on the
right side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came,
turned right, passing me completely and safely. Actually three cars
turned, passing me on my left.
Here's why none of these are acceptable: What would have happened had
the cyclist been in the centre and then moved left to allow right-turning
traffic to go? Nothing. It would have been the same. That's why your
arguments are not proof. I was able to give an example that showed how
being on the right was less safe than being in the centre/left. That
makes my method safer than yours, unless you can show me an example of
how being on the centre/left is less safe than being on the right. Real,
or hypothetical, it doesn't matter. If you can do that, then you've
proven that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, and I
then can't come up with another example to make the score 2-1, then we
will be tied, and I'll concede the argument.
Post by DiscoDuck
I will be reporting more tomorrow and later this week (until you admit
you are wrong but I doubt it).
Please make sure the examples include a comparison of what happens when both
the centre/left and keep right methods are used, or you are wasting your
time.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
"People should cycle as I do and I'm going to damn well make sure there
are laws forcing people to do that
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
I already proved you wrong when you said NO one said and re-posted
that. Thankfully you admitted at the time that indeed that person did
state that.
Yup, I conceded that one like a mature adult. My mistake.
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm tempted to find yours but truthfully the thread is too long to
bother.
Ha. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. I never, never once
said that there should be any law of any kind.
Post by DiscoDuck
Besides it takes off track about the initial issue. Your claim that
keeping right is dangerous.

I already conceded that one too. And you congratulated me for it, just
down below a little bit. The argument is about which method is safer.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
...despite proof that my "safer" ways are exaggerated at best, lying
at worst."
Prove it with a real or hypothetical example; an example that compares
your method to mine.
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
Yet you want me to provide examples (which I did above). Would you
make up your mind? Now you're asking me for that same proof?
The examples are missing the comparison. I filled in the comparison for
you, to show you that there's no difference between the stay right and
the centre/left methods in those cases. But that still leaves me
one point ahead of you, because I've provided an example that shows my
method safer than yours in one case, and you haven't been able to do
vice versa yet.
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, actually. That does please me. I must say perhaps you're more
honest and open minded than many cycling zealots here.
Good, so we can leave the "safe" argument behind, and concentrate on the
"safer."
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
However, I AM NOT giving in to your claim that keeping to the
right is equally safe as my method. It isn't, based on the examples I
have given. I AM, however, willing to concede defeat if you can prove me
wrong with a counter example. So far you haven't been able to do that.
The same examples you told me would not prove anything?
That's right. My example showed a comparison of the outcomes of the
utilization of each method. A thousand examples of yours, that do not
include a similar comparison just don't stack up. Provide me with ONE
that shows your method outperforming mine in the safety department. One
is all you need.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You accused me of telling people "My way is the right way" yet I
oppose laws enforcing my way.
I never said that. I said your method was less safe than mine. Could you
please repost the relevant parts of any post made by me, to substantiate
that claim?
"accident waiting to happen" (which you've since retracted)
Even if I hadn't retracted it, there's nothing in there that says "My way
is the right way and yours is wrong." But since I have retracted that
statement, why are you even bringing it up?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
EXHIBIT A. Two methods of handling stopping at an interesection, one
preferred by Kiraly (the "centre/left" method), and one preferred by
DiscoDuck (the "keep right" method.)
EXHIBIT B. Arguments made by Kiraly include a concrete example, where
the implications of using both the centre/left and keep right methods in
that situation are presented for comparison.
EXHIBIT C. Arguments made by DiscoDuck only include the implications of
using the keep right method. The implications of using the centre/left
method in that example are not included, and are therefore not compared.
This is why your arguments do not stand up against mine. I'm comparing
my method to yours; you're comparing your method to nothing.
I've simply been stating it is completely safe and in fact have
stated yours is too. But my point (which seems to have been lost on
you after all)
If your method is "completely" safe, then you are claiming that there is
no other safer method, because there can be no improvement on
"complete." But it isn't completely safe, becuase my method is safer.
Now, I am not saying my method is completely safe either, but it is safer
than yours.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
My logic is based on experience. Yours is based on ego.
Yawn. Again, pot, kettle, black.
Uhm, where did I say no one should use yours?
Uhm, where did I accuse you of saying that? I never said that. Could
you please repost the relevant parts of any post made by me, to
substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
You have been saying mine is unsafe.
I didn't say unsafe, I said *less safe* than mine. Have you forgotten
that I said "DiscoDuck's method of keeping to the right when stopped at
an intersection is safe." It was in the post to which you just replied. Or
have you forgotten already?
Post by DiscoDuck
I haven't made that same claim against your "mthod"
I never said that you did. But you have claimed that your method is
equally safe as mine, and that's wherein my objection lies.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] People should ride as I do,
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
By advocating how "safe" your method is. Examples are riddled in
this very post
I never said that people should do it the way I do it, any more than you
are saying that people should do it the way you do it.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] even though all evidence shows I am
hyper paranoid
I'd love to see that evidence. Care to repost it?
"Accident waiting to happen"
Happy?
Yes, maybe that was a little paranoid, but I retracted that. Have you
forgotten already, a second time? And what else is there? You said "all
the evidence", so there must be more than just that.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] and ignore all evidence proving
me wrong. > >
There's hasn't been any evidence proving my method is equally or less
safe than yours.
Because you said
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
That's right, because your examples are not comparing your method to
mine. They are comparing your method to nothing. And when the issue is
how safe your method is vs. mine, they are irrelevant.
Post by DiscoDuck
IN my late thirties and USE to cycle ALL THE TIME until the helmet law
came into effect.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Now we know a little more about each
other. Was this information supposed to have any relevance to the
argument?
Post by DiscoDuck
Now I cycle only to prove my point,
LOL! Based on your postings throughout this thread, that doesn't
surprise me in the least.
Post by DiscoDuck
and when it is safe to avoid the police (as I did not wear a helmet)
I'm curious, when is it safe to avoid the police? During a shift change,
or something?

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-11 08:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
"I will be perfectly happy to concede the argument to you if you
can provide an example (real or hypothetical, it doesn't matter) that
shows how you are safer being on the right than on the centre left. Then
I'll agree that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, then
you win." The ball's in your court. I'm waiting for your example.
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
You've stated here that even if I use ACTUAL examples you will not
accept it as proof.
No I won't, not unless your example shows a case of how being on the
centre/left is less safe than being on the right.
Left is fine, center causes driver to be pissed off (rightly) with
cyclists.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
So today I did it 6 times, purposely to prove you wrong (again).
Which isn't proof at all.
LOL. DOING WHAT YOU SAID IS UNSAFE, ISN'T PROOF AT ALL?!! Talk about
denial.!
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
· 11:10 AM Corner of Cambie and 18th. Waited at red light on the
right side of the lane, where a car, turned right, passing me on my
left, completely and safely.
· 11:11 AM Corner of Cambie and 16th Waited at red light on the right
side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came, turned
right, passing me completely and safely.
· 11:14 AM Corner of Cambie and 12th Waited at red light on the right
side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came, turned
right, passing me completely and safely.
· 11:16 AM Corner of Cambie and Broadway Waited at red light on the
right side of the lane, waited for a right turning car, which came,
turned right, passing me completely and safely. Actually three cars
turned, passing me on my left.
Here's why none of these are acceptable: What would have happened had
the cyclist been in the centre and then moved left to allow right-turning
traffic to go? Nothing. It would have been the same. That's why your
arguments are not proof. I was able to give an example that showed how
being on the right was less safe than being in the centre/left. That
makes my method safer than yours, unless you can show me an example of
how being on the centre/left is less safe than being on the right. Real,
or hypothetical, it doesn't matter. If you can do that, then you've
proven that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, and I
then can't come up with another example to make the score 2-1, then we
will be tied, and I'll concede the argument.
Yet you won't concede it as I have provided such examples before and
below.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I will be reporting more tomorrow and later this week (until you admit
you are wrong but I doubt it).
Please make sure the examples include a comparison of what happens when both
the centre/left and keep right methods are used, or you are wasting your
time.
Sigh, already provided six of the "right" method and will continue
to do so. I'll leave the center and left examples up to you. You
keep doing yours and I'll keep doing mine. As according to you I
should be hurt soon since mine is more "unsafe" than yours, thus
proving your right (very soon your sure).
Having said that, if centered you will annoy a driver (by the way I
already posted this before) causing her (or him) to be annoyed with
cyclists therefore driving more aggressively towards cyclists than if
you had remained left or right (which, again is perfectly safe).
Centering only antagonizes drivers and is VERY inconsiderate.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
"People should cycle as I do and I'm going to damn well make sure there
are laws forcing people to do that
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
I already proved you wrong when you said NO one said and re-posted
that. Thankfully you admitted at the time that indeed that person did
state that.
Yup, I conceded that one like a mature adult. My mistake.
YET you effectively retract it, below several times by changing the
issue to which is "safer". Yet I always stated both are safe, with
the right or left method more considerate to drivers.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm tempted to find yours but truthfully the thread is too long to
bother.
Ha. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. I never, never once
said that there should be any law of any kind.
Post by DiscoDuck
Besides it takes off track about the initial issue. Your claim that
keeping right is dangerous.
I already conceded that one too. And you congratulated me for it, just
down below a little bit. The argument is about which method is safer.
Which bring us back to the point we argued about in the first place.
Therefore your admission must be null and void and not genuine,
You're NOW trying to change "tactics".
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
...despite proof that my "safer" ways are exaggerated at best, lying
at worst."
Prove it with a real or hypothetical example; an example that compares
your method to mine.
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
Yet you want me to provide examples (which I did above). Would you
make up your mind? Now you're asking me for that same proof?
The examples are missing the comparison. I filled in the comparison for
you, to show you that there's no difference between the stay right and
the centre/left methods in those cases. But that still leaves me
one point ahead of you, because I've provided an example that shows my
method safer than yours in one case, and you haven't been able to do
vice versa yet.
Now you're backtracking against your admission (previous posts and
below)that my version is NOT unsafe or risky.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Yes, actually. That does please me. I must say perhaps you're more
honest and open minded than many cycling zealots here.
Good, so we can leave the "safe" argument behind, and concentrate on the
"safer."
Now you're changing the issue. You intitally suggested how dangerous
my "right" way was. Now you're backtracking to change the issue.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
However, I AM NOT giving in to your claim that keeping to the
right is equally safe as my method. It isn't, based on the examples I
have given. I AM, however, willing to concede defeat if you can prove me
wrong with a counter example. So far you haven't been able to do that.
The same examples you told me would not prove anything?
That's right. My example showed a comparison of the outcomes of the
utilization of each method. A thousand examples of yours, that do not
include a similar comparison just don't stack up. Provide me with ONE
that shows your method outperforming mine in the safety department. One
is all you need.
Again, I ALWAYS CLAIMED BOT METHODS where perfectly safe. IT is you
backtracking now.
Answer me this: Do you challenge me to find my post stating how both
methods are safe?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You accused me of telling people "My way is the right way" yet I
oppose laws enforcing my way.
I never said that. I said your method was less safe than mine. Could you
please repost the relevant parts of any post made by me, to substantiate
that claim?
"accident waiting to happen" (which you've since retracted)
Even if I hadn't retracted it, there's nothing in there that says "My way
is the right way and yours is wrong." But since I have retracted that
statement, why are you even bringing it up?
Because you kept speaking about how much safer your version it (and
continue to do so).
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
EXHIBIT A. Two methods of handling stopping at an interesection, one
preferred by Kiraly (the "centre/left" method), and one preferred by
DiscoDuck (the "keep right" method.)
EXHIBIT B. Arguments made by Kiraly include a concrete example, where
the implications of using both the centre/left and keep right methods in
that situation are presented for comparison.
EXHIBIT C. Arguments made by DiscoDuck only include the implications of
using the keep right method. The implications of using the centre/left
method in that example are not included, and are therefore not compared.
This is why your arguments do not stand up against mine. I'm comparing
my method to yours; you're comparing your method to nothing.
I've simply been stating it is completely safe and in fact have
stated yours is too. But my point (which seems to have been lost on
you after all)
If your method is "completely" safe, then you are claiming that there is
no other safer method, because there can be no improvement on
"complete." But it isn't completely safe, becuase my method is safer.
Now, I am not saying my method is completely safe either, but it is safer
than yours.
Nonsense. Let prove it here and now this week by both of us doing our
versions. Whoever doesn't report back has ovioulsy died and loses
the argument
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
My logic is based on experience. Yours is based on ego.
Yawn. Again, pot, kettle, black.
Uhm, where did I say no one should use yours?
Uhm, where did I accuse you of saying that? I never said that. Could
you please repost the relevant parts of any post made by me, to
substantiate that claim?
Post by DiscoDuck
You have been saying mine is unsafe.
I didn't say unsafe, I said *less safe* than mine. Have you forgotten
that I said "DiscoDuck's method of keeping to the right when stopped at
an intersection is safe." It was in the post to which you just replied. Or
have you forgotten already?
IT doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you trying to refute my
point-hence my defense of your attack.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I haven't made that same claim against your "mthod"
I never said that you did. But you have claimed that your method is
equally safe as mine, and that's wherein my objection lies.
Yet you admit (below) that your viewpoint is paranoid (again see below)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] People should ride as I do,
I never said that. Could you please repost the relevant parts of any
post made by me, to substantiate that claim?
By advocating how "safe" your method is. Examples are riddled in
this very post
I never said that people should do it the way I do it, any more than you
are saying that people should do it the way you do it.
I'm afraid you did but espousing how safer it is to keep left or
centered.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] even though all evidence shows I am
hyper paranoid
I'd love to see that evidence. Care to repost it?
"Accident waiting to happen"
Happy?
Yes, maybe that was a little paranoid, but I retracted that. Have you
forgotten already, a second time? And what else is there? You said "all
the evidence", so there must be more than just that.
There is. Why don't you even try it? OR are you soooooo scared
you'll be killed. Or do you prefer to remain here, arguing over
semantics? IT seems you do and of course I will oblige.
But at least you admit you are paranoid. Thus my initial point. But
after admitting that you would rather remain to argue over semantics.
Again I will oblige
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
[DD's interpretation of my logic] and ignore all evidence proving
me wrong. > >
There's hasn't been any evidence proving my method is equally or less
safe than yours.
Because you said
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Do it 100 or 1000 times, post all the times and places here, and you
won't have proven anything.
That's right, because your examples are not comparing your method to
mine. They are comparing your method to nothing. And when the issue is
how safe your method is vs. mine, they are irrelevant.
I've mentioned it several times. You can re-read my notes if you
missed it (again). IT's not rocket science (although you seem to
want to make it such)
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
IN my late thirties and USE to cycle ALL THE TIME until the helmet law
came into effect.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Now we know a little more about each
other. Was this information supposed to have any relevance to the
argument?
Post by DiscoDuck
Now I cycle only to prove my point,
LOL! Based on your postings throughout this thread, that doesn't
surprise me in the least.
Post by DiscoDuck
and when it is safe to avoid the police (as I did not wear a helmet)
I'm curious, when is it safe to avoid the police? During a shift change,
or something?
You learn to avoid certain cars (cops) at certain times. But to error
on the side of caution, I avoid ALL police (walking, cycling, or
driving) since I cannot differentiate between good ( cops that leave
you alone) and bad (bored cops that bother you even though you are NOT
bothering anyone else). IN the winter, it's generally safer since
fewer "outdoor" cops around.
Király
2005-10-11 10:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
No I won't, not unless your example shows a case of how being on the
centre/left is less safe than being on the right.
Left is fine, center causes driver to be pissed off (rightly) with
cyclists.
Oh, have we come back HERE again? You abandoned the thread where the
point was made that centering doesn't piss off right-turing drivers
as long as the cyclist moves left to let them turn. And going
immediately to the left without first centering is also less safe,
because a straight-through car could pull up beside you on your right.
This will put you in between two lanes of accelerating cars, not
someplace I feel safe being.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
So today I did it 6 times, purposely to prove you wrong (again).
Which isn't proof at all.
LOL. DOING WHAT YOU SAID IS UNSAFE, ISN'T PROOF AT ALL?!! Talk about
denial.!
Uhhh, no. Your examples prove just fine that the keep right method is
safe. I've alreade conceded that to you. But your examples do not show
that your method is equally safe as mine, because they do not include a
comparison of what would happen in the same situation had my method been
used instead. Comprende?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
proven that both methods are equally safe. If you can do that, and I
then can't come up with another example to make the score 2-1, then we
will be tied, and I'll concede the argument.
Yet you won't concede it as I have provided such examples before and
below.
Examples that give a particular situation that show that utilizing the
keep right method is safer than the centre/left method for that
situation? No you haven't.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Please make sure the examples include a comparison of what happens when both
the centre/left and keep right methods are used, or you are wasting your
time.
Sigh, already provided six of the "right" method and will continue
to do so. I'll leave the center and left examples up to you. You
keep doing yours and I'll keep doing mine.
Then you concede defeat. All of your examples show that your method is
"safe." But if you can't compare your method to mine with an example,
then you can't argue that your method is as safe as mine. You're just
not making the comparison.
Post by DiscoDuck
As according to you I should be hurt soon since mine is more "unsafe"
than yours,
Nope, less safe than mine does not translate into an impending accident.
Post by DiscoDuck
thus proving your right (very soon your sure).
My right to do what?
Post by DiscoDuck
Having said that, if centered you will annoy a driver (by the way I
already posted this before) causing her (or him) to be annoyed with
cyclists therefore driving more aggressively towards cyclists than if
you had remained left or right (which, again is perfectly safe).
Centering only antagonizes drivers and is VERY inconsiderate.
How so? If they are turning right, you move left so they can go, and
both of you are out of each other's way. If the car behind you is going
straight, you can allow him to pass once both of you are safely through
the intersection and you can safely move to the right of the lane. How
is this antagonizing the driver?
Post by DiscoDuck
YET you effectively retract it, below several times by changing the
issue to which is "safer". Yet I always stated both are safe, with
the right or left method more considerate to drivers.
Only my very original post in this thread, the one I retracted, has
been about "safe." In ten out of the remaining eleven of my posts in this
thread, the point I have been making is *not* whether your method is
"safe", it is that my method is *safer*. The remaining one post was
me admitting to you that I missed Jim's statement to stay centred.

*Safer* is not a recent change in the argument, it's been my argument the
whole way through, except for my very first post, which I have since
retracted. Re-read the thread if you don't believe me.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
I'm tempted to find yours but truthfully the thread is too long to
bother.
Ha. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. I never, never once
said that there should be any law of any kind.
I see you've ignored that challenge.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Besides it takes off track about the initial issue. Your claim that
keeping right is dangerous.
I already conceded that one too. And you congratulated me for it, just
down below a little bit. The argument is about which method is safer.
Which bring us back to the point we argued about in the first place.
Therefore your admission must be null and void and not genuine,
You're NOW trying to change "tactics".
See above. No change. You just haven't been reading my posts very
carefully if you think I've switched from an argument about "safe" to one
about "safer" just recently.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
The examples are missing the comparison. I filled in the comparison for
you, to show you that there's no difference between the stay right and
the centre/left methods in those cases. But that still leaves me
one point ahead of you, because I've provided an example that shows my
method safer than yours in one case, and you haven't been able to do
vice versa yet.
Now you're backtracking against your admission (previous posts and
below)that my version is NOT unsafe or risky.
That's not the point I was making. No backtracking. Let it be
understood that I believe your method to be safe. But my claim is that
my method is safer. That does not mean that your method is any less safe
than "safe", it's just less safe than mine.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Good, so we can leave the "safe" argument behind, and concentrate on the
"safer."
Now you're changing the issue. You intitally suggested how dangerous
my "right" way was.
Initially, yes I did. But I retracted that, remember?
Post by DiscoDuck
Now you're backtracking to change the issue.
Nope, the issue in all of my posts since that first one has been about
which method is safer. No backtracking at all. Reread the thread.
Post by DiscoDuck
Again, I ALWAYS CLAIMED BOT METHODS where perfectly safe.
Take the word "perfectly" out of there and I'll agree with that
statement. By putting the word "perfectly" there you are claiming that
both methods are equally safe and that no other method is better than
either of these two. That's what I dispute, because I've shown how my
method is safer than yours.
Post by DiscoDuck
Answer me this: Do you challenge me to find my post stating how both
methods are safe?
No need to do that. I agree that both methods are safe. The issue is
about which method is safer.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Even if I hadn't retracted it, there's nothing in there that says "My way
is the right way and yours is wrong." But since I have retracted that
statement, why are you even bringing it up?
Because you kept speaking about how much safer your version it (and
continue to do so).
So, even if I retract my statements and concede you are right in that
case, you will still argue that case against me? What's the point?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
If your method is "completely" safe, then you are claiming that there is
no other safer method, because there can be no improvement on
"complete." But it isn't completely safe, becuase my method is safer.
Now, I am not saying my method is completely safe either, but it is safer
than yours.
Nonsense. Let prove it here and now this week by both of us doing our
versions. Whoever doesn't report back has ovioulsy died and loses
the argument
Even if that were to happen to one or both of us, it would prove neither
your nor my argument because it is a purely anecdotal case. It's like
the anti-helmet crowd who says "I'll ride with lid, you ride without, if
you die and I don't then it proves that helmets are safer." Purely
nonsense. You, of all people, should be able to relate to that.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I didn't say unsafe, I said *less safe* than mine. Have you forgotten
that I said "DiscoDuck's method of keeping to the right when stopped at
an intersection is safe." It was in the post to which you just replied. Or
have you forgotten already?
IT doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you trying to refute my
point-hence my defense of your attack.
So, you are agreeing with me on that point, then?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said that you did. But you have claimed that your method is
equally safe as mine, and that's wherein my objection lies.
Yet you admit (below) that your viewpoint is paranoid (again see below)
My claim that your method is "a collision waiting to happen" was a
little paranoid and melodramatic, yes. That's why I retracted it. But
my claim that my method is safer than yours is not at all paranoid. If
you wish do dispute that, you'll need to argue against one of my ten
posts (well, now eleven if you include this one) made since that one.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
I never said that people should do it the way I do it, any more than you
are saying that people should do it the way you do it.
I'm afraid you did but espousing how safer it is to keep left or
centered.
Yes I am saying it is safer. No I am not saying therefore do it that
way. I've presented my facts and arguments; any readers of this thread
are completely welcome to adopt or ignore any part(s) of any method and
do as they right well please.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Yes, maybe that was a little paranoid, but I retracted that. Have you
forgotten already, a second time? And what else is there? You said "all
the evidence", so there must be more than just that.
There is. Why don't you even try it? OR are you soooooo scared
you'll be killed.
Been there, done that. Prefer my safer method. Sometimes I have to do the
keep right method because I have no choice; i.e. when the city installs
a cyclist-activated signal button at an intersection and puts it at the
curb. If I can get to the button and then over to the centre of the
lane before any cars come up from behind, I do. Sometimes a
right-turing car will pull up beside me while I'm still at the button,
though, putting each of us are in each other's way. Lately the city has
been installing the buttons at more appropriate places, that put the
cyclist to the left of right turning traffic. Northbound Cypress Street at
Broadway comes to mind.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do you prefer to remain here, arguing over
semantics? IT seems you do and of course I will oblige.
Of course I will argue over semantics if the semantics completely change
the meaning of what is being said.
Post by DiscoDuck
But at least you admit you are paranoid.
Not that I am now, but that I was on my first post; the one I retracted.
Remember?
Post by DiscoDuck
Thus my initial point.
...The point that your method is "safe." A point which I have not
disputed in any of my arguments since the very first one, and to which I
recently said "DisckDuck's method is safe." You're the one who keeps
bringing this up after I've already conceded it to you.
Post by DiscoDuck
But after admitting that you would rather remain to argue over semantics.
Nope, just arguing the same point I have been making in my previous ten
posts, which you haven't successfully countered.
Post by DiscoDuck
Again I will oblige
Fine by me. I just hope you will start to present some valid arguments.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
That's right, because your examples are not comparing your method to
mine. They are comparing your method to nothing. And when the issue is
how safe your method is vs. mine, they are irrelevant.
I've mentioned it several times. You can re-read my notes if you
missed it (again). IT's not rocket science (although you seem to
want to make it such)
You haven't mentioned it once.
Post by DiscoDuck
You learn to avoid certain cars (cops) at certain times. But to error
on the side of caution, I avoid ALL police (walking, cycling, or
driving) since I cannot differentiate between good ( cops that leave
you alone) and bad (bored cops that bother you even though you are NOT
bothering anyone else). IN the winter, it's generally safer since
fewer "outdoor" cops around.
LOL, and you call me paranoid!

K.
Király
2005-10-11 13:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Even if that were to happen to one or both of us, it would prove neither
your nor my argument because it is a purely anecdotal case. It's like
the anti-helmet crowd who says "I'll ride with lid, you ride without, if
you die and I don't then it proves that helmets are safer." Purely
nonsense. You, of all people, should be able to relate to that.
Whoops, typo. I meant to say "pro-helmet-law crowd" instead of
"anti-helmet crowd", in case there was any confusion.

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-11 19:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Centering the lane is plane rude, inconsiderate and you'll only piss
off drivers more, who dislike cyclists-causing them to "cut close" to
future cyclists to "teach them a lesson." DO NOT do this. You'll only
endanger other cyclists. Keeping left is fine, and so is right.
Király
2005-10-12 22:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering the lane is plane rude, inconsiderate
I find it laughable that you went and dredged up an old post and replied
Post by DiscoDuck
Which is exactly why it's better to stop in the middle of the lane at
a red light. If the car behind you has his right turn signal on, you
move over to the left so he can go. Simple courtesy.
That's why you look behind you to see if anyone is wanting to turn right,
then you move left. Did you miss that part of my post?
For the *umpteenth* time, when you are stopped in the centre, you look
behind you to see if the guy behind you wants to turn. If so, you MOVE
LEFT to let him go.
...all of which you ignored.

What's even more hilarious, though, is you accused me of being
Post by DiscoDuck
[by centering in the lane] you'll only piss off drivers more, who
dislike cyclists-causing them to "cut close" to future cyclists to
"teach them a lesson."
Who's really being paranoid here?

K.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-13 22:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering the lane is plane rude, inconsiderate
I find it laughable that you went and dredged up an old post and replied
Post by DiscoDuck
Which is exactly why it's better to stop in the middle of the lane at
a red light. If the car behind you has his right turn signal on, you
move over to the left so he can go. Simple courtesy.
That's why you look behind you to see if anyone is wanting to turn right,
then you move left. Did you miss that part of my post?
For the *umpteenth* time, when you are stopped in the centre, you look
behind you to see if the guy behind you wants to turn. If so, you MOVE
LEFT to let him go.
...all of which you ignored.
Because you shouldn't be there in the first place-period. It's not
rocket science and I'm not sure why you can't get that. stay to the
left or right but not center.
Post by Király
What's even more hilarious, though, is you accused me of being
Post by DiscoDuck
[by centering in the lane] you'll only piss off drivers more, who
dislike cyclists-causing them to "cut close" to future cyclists to
"teach them a lesson."
Who's really being paranoid here?
You for suggesting earlier that keeping right is somehow less safe than
left or center. It's that simple. It's no secret that some drivers
dislike cyclists therefore centering is only going to piss off those
drivers who will later try and take it out on future cyclists. How
many posts have you seen here about dangerous drivers, etc? Many of
those are in retaliation for conconsiderate cyclists. THat's not
paranoid-that is a fact.
Post by Király
K.
Király
2005-10-14 09:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Because you shouldn't be there in the first place-period. It's not
rocket science and I'm not sure why you can't get that. stay to the
left or right but not center.
Okay, DD. Your point of not being in the centre is that it ticks off
right-turning drivers. But my point was that if somebody behind you
wants to turn, you can move to the left so they can go. That's
inconsiderate to nobody. So why should you not be there in the first
place? Was there some other reason? You haven't mentioned it if there
is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Király
Who's really being paranoid here?
You for suggesting earlier that keeping right is somehow less safe than
left or center. It's that simple.
I was able to back up that claim with facts and examples, all of which you
have now abandoned since you can't seem to put together any coherent
arguments against them.
Post by DiscoDuck
It's no secret that some drivers dislike cyclists therefore centering
is only going to piss off those drivers
How does centering piss them off, as long as you allow right-turning
vehicles to turn by moving to the left?
Post by DiscoDuck
...who will later try and take it out on future cyclists. How
many posts have you seen here about dangerous drivers, etc? Many of
those are in retaliation for conconsiderate cyclists. THat's not
paranoid-that is a fact.
Not a fact at all - cite one case. You are being overly paranoid.

While we are on the subject, here's another scenario that I'd like to
know how you would handle.

Consider an intersection that has left-turn arrows for north-south traffic
on at the same time (I think Lougheed and Gaglardi in Burnaby is such an
intersection.) Imagine you are on your bike, eastbound on Lougheed, and
you stop at the red light on Gaglardi. You wish to go straight through on
Lougheed, and you prefer the keep right method, so you are stopped at the
right side of the rightmost lane, which allows both straight-through
traffic and right turns.

The left-turn arrows are on for traffic turning from southbound Gaglardi
to eastbound Lougheed, and for northbound Gaglardi to westbound Lougheed.
That means that right-turning traffic behind you may turn right onto
southbound Gaglardi unimpeded by any other traffic. Nearly all vehicles
in the lane behind you are turning right.

So there you are, waiting at the curb, with car after car turning right,
around you. Eventually the light turns green and you can go, but you are
trapped behind all the right-turning cars. So, your choices are:

1) Looking behind you and waiting for some right-turning driver to stop at
the green light and wave you through. This driver would be doing this out
of extreme courtesy to you, because he'd be holding up all the traffic
behind him by stopping at the green,

2) Wait there until there's a car that's not turning, and then you can
quickly boot it through the intersection beside him. This is risky because
there might not be much time for you to get out of the way of the
right-turning car behind him. This could also mean waiting through several
more light changes until a straight-through car comes, because almost
everybody in that lane is turning right,

3) Try and force your way through all the right-turning cars, which would
mean cutting someone off and obviously dangerous, or

4) Something else I can't think of, but something that DiscoDuck knows
about, who will pipe up and enlighten me.

Of course, none of this would be a problem if you were situated on the
left of the lane and cars could safely turn right behind you.

So, DiscoDuck, you claim to have done the right-handed method thousands of
times, so you must have run into this kind of thing before. What did you
do? I can't think of how I could handle this situation safely by being at
the right of the lane. Shed the light on me please.

K.
Peter McNichol
2005-10-13 14:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Any Vehicle is allowed to occupy a lane.

Is centreing rude for a truck driver, a car driver, a motorcycle driver.

No!

Centreing is legal and safe.

Moving left is courtesy it is not required. It is not law nor should it be.

Making centreing illegal would be akin to removing cyclists off the road
just so car drivers could ignore other road users.

I see no justification to make centreing illegal for cyclists but legal
for all other vehicle operators.

I see no justification for additional laws against the cyclist.

===================

Passing a vehicle on the left to make a right is illegal.

Therefore, by waiting on the right of a lane you DD are encouraging
drivers to turn illegally.
Post by DiscoDuck
Centering the lane is plane rude, inconsiderate and you'll only piss
off drivers more, who dislike cyclists-causing them to "cut close" to
future cyclists to "teach them a lesson." DO NOT do this. You'll only
endanger other cyclists. Keeping left is fine, and so is right.
DiscoDuck
2005-10-13 22:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McNichol
Any Vehicle is allowed to occupy a lane.
Is centreing rude for a truck driver, a car driver, a motorcycle driver.
No!
Uhm how do drivers "center" in a lane?
The point is by centering as a cyclist you are stopping a driver who
may want to turn right. Simply rude and promoting the "dislike" of
cyclists causing the "bad" rep some people feel they have.
Post by Peter McNichol
Centreing is legal and safe.
Legal, yes, safe no. That causes many drivers to dislike cyclists more
than they already do since it is rude and inconsiderate to drivers.
Post by Peter McNichol
Moving left is courtesy it is not required. It is not law nor should it be.
If it isn't, it should be law for obstructing traffic. We should be
discouraging the blocking of traffic.
Post by Peter McNichol
Making centreing illegal would be akin to removing cyclists off the road
just so car drivers could ignore other road users.
That is a silly stupid statment (and have trouble beleiving you
actually believe that). Most cyclists to not center anyway as most are
courteous that way. Mandating more efficient use of the road would not
promote drivers to ignore cyclists.
Post by Peter McNichol
I see no justification to make centreing illegal for cyclists but legal
for all other vehicle operators.
This doesn't make sense. How do you center a motor vehicle? IT takes
up most of the lane. You seem to think the two are the same-they are
not. Cars are much more powerful and weigh much more and can cause
much more damage.
Post by Peter McNichol
I see no justification for additional laws against the cyclist.
Agreed (ie remove the helmet law as that discourages cycling). But
prohibiting centering by cyclists is not against cyclists. It simply
would dis-allow blocking of traffic by inconsiderate cyclists.
Colin B.
2005-10-14 02:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Peter McNichol
Any Vehicle is allowed to occupy a lane.
Is centreing rude for a truck driver, a car driver, a motorcycle driver.
No!
Uhm how do drivers "center" in a lane?
The point is by centering as a cyclist you are stopping a driver who
may want to turn right. Simply rude and promoting the "dislike" of
cyclists causing the "bad" rep some people feel they have.
Post by Peter McNichol
Centreing is legal and safe.
Legal, yes, safe no. That causes many drivers to dislike cyclists more
than they already do since it is rude and inconsiderate to drivers.
If the cyclist and the motorist are heading straight, being centred in
the lane is the only safe place for the cyclist to be, unless the lane
is a minimum 4.3 metres (in which case it is safe to share side by
side.) Too many cyclists think it is safer to veer toward the
crosswalk and then merge back into traffic (often dangerously) on the
other side. Cyclists are safest if they keep a straight line and are
predictable.


Colin
DiscoDuck
2005-10-14 07:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin B.
Too many cyclists think it is safer to veer toward the
crosswalk and then merge back into traffic (often dangerously) on the
other side.
Sorry, not understanding what you are saying is unsafe, here? PLease
re-phrase.
Colin B.
2005-10-15 05:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Disco,

The cyclist is heading north and is the right side of the lane, as
soon as he enters the intersection, still heading north moves further
to the right and cycles in the crosswalk across the intersection and
once at the other side, moves left to re-enter the traffic stream.

This is unsafe as the cyclist has to re-enter the traffic stream
instead of holding his line. This also confuses motorists who aren't
expecting the cyclist to re-enter the traffic stream. Cyclists just
like other motorists are safest when they are predictable and keep a
steady line and are unsafe cutting in and out of the flow of traffic.


Colin
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Colin B.
Too many cyclists think it is safer to veer toward the
crosswalk and then merge back into traffic (often dangerously) on the
other side.
Sorry, not understanding what you are saying is unsafe, here? PLease
re-phrase.
Loading...