Since this thread is about going straight and not turning right, and my post was in response to someone who implied that the right lane should be saved for those turning right, and since my entire argument is that it is OK to go straight in a lane where turning is permitted, it is a most tortured reading indeed to assume that I was referring to a situation where someone was refusing to turn where it is permitted. And since I have stated three times now that that is *not *what I meant, it is downright dishonest to keep claiming that it is.
This helps avoid the “right hook” collision, where the motorist passes (or worse, almost passes) the bicycle, then immediatly turns right. If the car is required to occupy (actually block) the bike lane before turning, this can’t happen. Even if the car driver changes lanes on top of the cyclist, they still probably cause a crash, but when the bicycle and car are going the same direction, the cyclist is less likely to end up under the car’s tires.
No one is saying that is what you meant. We are saying that’s how WE read what you SAID. Obviously only you can say what you meant but it is certainly possible that you were not as clear in what you said as you apparently think you were. Asmovian too read it the same way TLD and I did, which was NOT the way you meant it and no one says it was.
To impute dishonesty to what was a simple miscommunication is beyond bizarre. He misunderstood you. So did I. So did Asmovian, apparently. Why? Because your statement was not clear. Now, you can assert to your heart’s content that it was blindingly obvious and any other reading is “tortured,” but the fact that three separate posters misread it in the exact same way rather disproves that assertion. You were misunderstood. It happens. Yes, Virginia, even to you.
I have no idea how you made this leap in logic. I haven’t seen any posts that claim you didn’t mean what you actually meant. All that has been argued is that others interpreted your post differently than the way you’d meant it. Why you now believe people are making dishonest claims is beyond me.
And…upon edit, Jodi has beaten me a second time.
Which comment, specifically?
Posts 74, 85, 87, 92, 98 show that I did not mean what it is claimed I said. I never claimed not to mean what I actually meant, so perhaps that is the source of yoor confusion.
I guess The Loaded Dog must be no one, then.
It is dishonest to assert I said one thing, when I have stated 5 times that I did not.
Since this thread is about going straight and not turning right, and my post was in response to someone who implied that the right lane should be saved for those turning right, and since my entire argument is that it is OK to go straight in a lane where turning is permitted, it is a most tortured reading indeed to assume that I was referring to a situation where someone was refusing to turn where it is permitted.
Let me make it excruciatingly simple. I said it is OK to be going straight in a lane where turns are permitted. A poster said that drivers going straight should reserve such lanes for drivers who are turning. I replied that turning is an option, not a requirement, to which TLD responded that that was the most bizarre rule he had ever heard of. Nowhere did anyone mention, refer to, address, comment on, or in any way suggest that the point at hand was about whether people who are turning in a lane where both maneuvers are allowed should be required to turn until **TLD **brought it up. It is entirely a figment of his imagination. In point of fact, if people were required to turn, this thread would not even exist.
This one:
Now please realize that I (and I imagine others, now) are quite clear on what you actually meant. But at least three of us, when we first read that comment, thought you meant that turning right on a red is allowed, but turning right on a red is not required even when it is your intention to turn right.
Your accusations of a “tortured reading” notwithstanding, the flow of conversation led some of us to take a different view of your comment than you intended. This is NOT the same as saying you did not mean what you claim you meant. All I’m saying is that I took your words differently than you meant them. I believe (though I could be mistaken) that Jodi and TLD are saying the same thing. Which is why it is so perplexing to me that you’d suggest anyone was being dishonest. I’m not sure how that’s even a factor here.
Again, it is dishonest to pretend that that is my meaning when I have repeatedly stated that it is not.
I would agree with you if anyone were actually pretending that at this point. Going back through the posts you’ve cited, it seems like everything stated by TLD was based on misunderstanding the initial comment of yours that I quoted. I still don’t see where someone is purposefully misconstruing your statement.
But I suppose this thread has been hijacked enough. I’m ending my contribution to that part of it.
It’s not “at this point.” The point started 30 posts ago. That is the point I am talking about.
In threads like this, some of the grumpy posters forget that, at times, even a six lane road won’t handle the number of cars that try to move there. It’s going to be crowded and slow, no matter what any individual does. It doesn’t help matters to have drivers in the mix who “have to get there in twelve minutes, or they’re gonna die.”
I’ve been on congested six lane streets where it takes a mile to get an opening to change lanes. In a jam like that, it’s crazy to get in the center lane just to save some grump two seconds, when you might have to overshoot your turn by half a mile because you couldn’t get back in the turn lane.
If you drive in the city, sometimes traffic will be congested and slow. There simply isn’t enough room for all those cars to go fast. Accept it. Get used to it. Adjust your life to make enough time for it.
There are things worth getting angry over. Traffic is not one of those things.
Uh… yes. I understand it’s a lane where you can go straight or turn. I know about these (I used one five minutes ago). I was never questioning that, or in any way asserting that folks should be forced to turn if they don’t want to.
I’m talking about people INTENDING to turn. I find it weird that they would wait.
(to the folks who have disagreed by way of, “I understand what you mean, TLD, but I disagree that it’s weird”, I have no problem with that)
Beyond that, I’m not going to try to explain it again. Explaining. Is. Futile.
And I never was, so your continued insistence that you were responding to me, when I corrected you over and over, is what’s weird.
Here you are talking about turning traffic. THIS IS WHAT I WAS BLOODY ANSWERING.
I’ve already addressed this.
And I’ve already addressed this. You can’t retroactively make yourself clear when in fact you weren’t, and three separate people have told you that you weren’t.
So let me make it excrutiatingly simple: You are apparently completely unwilling, or perhaps unable, to recognize: (1) a simple misunderstanding in (2) a largely unimportant discussion that (3) you should just let go.
For myself, the net effect of this thread (or, more specifically, your arguments in it) is not to conclude that you are in fact correct in your assertions, but to conclude that you’re one of those people who makes me regret having made any sort of effort to talk to them, because the discussion becomes so tiresome and their refusal to acknowledge another POV so obvious. That’s a mistake I’ll make a note not to make again, at least until the bad taste of this thread wears off and I forget about it.
I figured it was something like this. The explanation a bicyclist gave me boiled down to “the bike lane is a LANE, just like all the other lanes. You merge into it (and signal) just like if you were in a center lane merging into a right lane.” Which made a lot of sense to me, put that way. The CA rules of the road give you the rule, but not the rationale.