2 ms·

This will be my last reply because this isn't a good faith discussion. You're individual situation is not what I have experienced in a major city. The majori

This will be my last reply because this isn't a good faith discussion. You're individual situation is not what I have experienced in a major city. The majority of cyclists are moving much slower than the flow of traffic, rarely over take each other (or other cars), use cycle lanes where available and stay over to the right when they can. You may be an exception to that - and if so fantastic ... again I'm not saying not to take the lane, stop treating me like an adversary. Again if you're advocating for better safety and better relations between drivers and cyclists that's fantastic -- do it by getting the laws changed. Stop the "easy to legally justify" when you know that what you are doing most of time is pissing people off (rightly or wrongly). Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow.

btrettel 8y ago
> This will be my last reply because this isn't a good faith discussion. I don't appreciate the accusation. I should remind you of the HN guidelines. > Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow. The laws should change to be even more friendly to cyclists, but strictly speaking, the laws don't need to be changed. You seem to take a pessimistic interpretation of the law, in contrast to case law which tends to side with cyclists based on what I've read. Case law is law, period. Look up Trotwood v. Selz for one famous case. Here's another case where a cyclist was ticketed for riding in the center of a 13.5 ft lane, but beat the ticket: https://www.news-press.com/story/news/local/2015/01/28/cyclist-fights-ticket-using-full-lane-wins/22494755/ https://www.news-press.com/story/news/local/2015/01/28/cycli... As the laws in most states are based on the Uniform Vehicle Code, case law in one state is frequently cited in others states. Unambiguous laws like those in Texas are obviously preferred, but again, are not necessary. And given that people tend not to believe me when I tell them that Texas allows cyclists to ride in any lane less than 14 feet wide, I'm not certain making the law less ambiguous really would help much. It comes down to changing attitudes, which is one thing I'm trying to do here. You believe I don't have the right to take the lane, and I'm trying to show you that the law says I do.

btrettel 8y ago

> This will be my last reply because this isn't a good faith discussion. I don't appreciate the accusation. I should remind you of the HN guidelines. > Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow. The laws should change to be even more friendly to cyclists, but strictly speaking, the laws don't need to be changed. You seem to take a pessimistic interpretation of the law, in contrast to case law which tends to side with cyclists based on what I've read. Case law is law, period. Look up Trotwood v. Selz for one famous case. Here's another case where a cyclist was ticketed for riding in the center of a 13.5 ft lane, but beat the ticket: https://www.news-press.com/story/news/local/2015/01/28/cyclist-fights-ticket-using-full-lane-wins/22494755/ https://www.news-press.com/story/news/local/2015/01/28/cycli... As the laws in most states are based on the Uniform Vehicle Code, case law in one state is frequently cited in others states. Unambiguous laws like those in Texas are obviously preferred, but again, are not necessary. And given that people tend not to believe me when I tell them that Texas allows cyclists to ride in any lane less than 14 feet wide, I'm not certain making the law less ambiguous really would help much. It comes down to changing attitudes, which is one thing I'm trying to do here. You believe I don't have the right to take the lane, and I'm trying to show you that the law says I do.