Re: [Bikeboard] Breaking the "deal" between motorists and bicyclists

Frank, Excellent article, thanks for sharing it with the board. Is the essay online anywhere that I could link to it on the Positive Spin site or blog? Thanks, Nick

On 5/26/2011 8:32 AM, Frank Gmeindl wrote:

Bob Shanteau, PhD, PE has decades of traffic engineering experience and accomplishments crafting the traffic laws that we have today. In the somewhat lengthy essay below, he explains much better than I have how cyclists have come to have to battle for our right to the road and how some bicycling advocates can be unwittingly working to lose that right. In the essay below, he is responding to 5 questions asked by another member of a group to which I belong, bicycledriving@googlegroups.com mailto:bicycledriving@googlegroups.com.

Frank

  > 1) Bob, is it fair to say that you think cyclists should never
  share the road when it is safe to do so, or are you okay with
  sharing the lane and road when it is safe for you to do so?

  By "share the road", I assume you mean moving to the right edge
  of the
  roadway or on a paved shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass.

  In general terms, I believe that bicyclists should "share the road"
  whenever a driver of a vehicle in similar circumstances should. The
  problem is that, for all practical purposes, there are no
  drivers of
  vehicles in circumstances that are similar to what a bicyclist
  faces.
  The dominant vehicle on the roads today is the motor vehicle,
  virtually
  all of which can travel at freeway speeds. As a result, people
  treat
  every road as though it were a freeway, where the rule is, "if
  you can't
  keep up, you don't belong." Since bicyclists usually can't keep
  up, they
  are expected to stay out of the way. Bicyclists are narrow
  enough that
  they can sulk along at the edge of the road, out of the way of
  faster
  traffic. It's as bicyclists had a "deal" with motorists:
  Motorists will
  tolerate bicyclists on the roads as long as bicyclists stay out
  of their
  way.

  I recall a conversation with a CHP Lieutenant a few years ago
  who said
  that he would stop anyone going slower than other traffic for
  impeding,
  and anyone going faster than the speed limit for speeding. It is a
  common belief that the roads are safer and more orderly if
  everyone goes
  at about the same speed. And a few months ago, during a meeting
  of the
  California Statewide Bicycle Task Force, a CHP Captain said that
  he was
  not willing to accept revising California's impeding traffic
  law, which
  now applies to all drivers (including bicyclists), so that it
  applied
  only to drivers of motor vehicles, as in the Uniform Vehicle
  Code and
  the traffic laws of about 44 other states. So it should come as no
  surprise that almost no one knows how to treat a vehicle that is
  traveling slower than other traffic, and almost everyone
  believes that
  bicyclists acting as drivers of vehicles would disrupt the safe and
  orderly flow of traffic.

  When I asked Beck about how the rules of the road apply to a slow
  motorcyclist, he answered:

  > motorcycle and have little concern for the rights of
  motorcyclists. i
  > suspect smv, low cc motor vehicles have fairly strict road use
  > requirements in CA far stricter than the cyclist allowances,

  Actually, the provision granting motorcyclists to use of a full
  lane is
  in the Uniform Vehicle Code, but not the California Vehicle
  Code. The
  CHP FAQ <http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html> says that
  motorcyclists can split lanes to pass slower traffic, but says
  nothing
  about whether slower motorcyclists must move to the right edge
  of the
  right lane to allow faster traffic to pass. (A shoulder is not
  part of
  the roadway, and vehicles are allowed only on roadways in
  California.)

  Beck's comment about slow moving low cc motor vehicles having
  stricter
  road use requirements in CA than bicycles is true. That is but
  one more
  symptom of freeway thinking carried over to conventional streets
  and
  highways. It is one more manifestation of the belief, "if you
  can't keep
  up, you don't belong." Bicycles are just about the only slow moving
  vehicles (devices in CA) on the roads today. That is because
  bicycles
  were originally recognized as vehicles and organizations such as
  the LAW
  have, for the most part, been able to fight off challenges to
  the right
  of bicyclists to use the roads. But now that status is being
  challenged
  by well intentioned people who believe that, for their own good,
  bicyclists should be treated as something other than drivers of
  vehicles. If these people get their way, we may very well see
  bicyclists
  deprived of the right to use the roads as drivers of vehicles.

  With that introduction and the proviso that I am not a lawyer, I
  will
  now attempt to answer your questions. In your questions, you do not
  specify whether the road in question has lanes or not.
  Originally, all
  roads were unlaned, and on such roads the law is that drivers of
  slow
  moving vehicles, including bicyclists, must drive as close as
  practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when
  overtaking and
  passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when
  preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
  road or
  driveway. (CVC 21654(a) and UVC 11-301(b))

  On a laned road, it has been the law since the 1930's that
  drivers (and
  bicyclists) proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the
  normal
  speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
  driven in the right-hand lane for traffic, except when
  overtaking and
  passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when
  preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
  road or
  driveway. (CVC 21654(a) and UVC 11-301(b)) California has a law
  requiring drivers of slow moving vehicles on two-lane roads to
  take the
  next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following. (CVC 21656)

  > 2) Should mature, adult cyclists ride safely right to share
  the road if safe when faster traffic is present?

  At the start of a recent meeting of the Statewide Bicycle Task
  Force,
  the same CHP Lieutenant talked about how everyone on the road
  needs to
  be courteous. And the same CHP Captain complained about a group of
  bicyclists on a two lane road in the Napa Valley were delaying
  him and a
  bunch of other motorists. Alan Wachtel, Jim Baross and I
  explained that
  if there were 5 or more vehicles following, those bicyclists were
  required to take the next safe turnout to allow faster traffic
  to pass.
  Apparently that was news to the CHP Captain, and if we had been
  able to
  ask the bicyclists, it probably would have been news to them, too.

  To answer your question, I believe that a bicyclist on a two
  lane road
  has the same duty as the driver of a vehicle to take the next safe
  turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following. On a multilane
  road, I
  believe that a bicyclist has the same duty as the driver of a
  vehicle to
  use the right lane.

  Consider someone driving a fully loaded truck, a recreational
  vehicle or
  an old VW bus slowly climbing a steep upgrade. On a two lane
  road, that
  driver is required to use the next safe turnout when 5 or more
  vehicles
  are following (although that law is honored more in the breach
  than in
  the observance). On a multilane road, that driver is required to
  use the
  right lane. In fact, there is even an exception in the impeding
  traffic
  law for grades. (CVC 22400)

  As a courtesy, some drivers of slow moving vehicles,
  particularly on two
  lane roads, will drive on a shoulder to allow faster traffic to
  pass (if
  the shoulder is paved and the pavement is in good shape). In
  California,
  bicyclists are explicitly allowed to operate on shoulders (CVC
  21650(g)), and as a courtesy, that is generally where bicyclists
  ride if
  the shoulder is paved and the pavement is in good shape, even on
  multilane roads. But the law does not require bicyclists to use,
  in Andy
  Clarke's words, "a perfectly rideable shoulder." Otherwise,
  courts would
  be in the position of second guessing bicyclists about when the
  shoulder
  was perfectly rideable. It would also be a denial of the right of
  bicyclists to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles, which is
  something
  that groups like the LAW have been defending since the 1880's.

  > 3) is the notion of road sharing somehow beneath vehicular
  cyclists?

  You didn't say, but I will assume that you mean sharing a lane
  side by
  side with faster traffic. Drivers of slow moving vehicles are
  required
  to use the right lane. As a courtesy, I may decide to ride my
  bicycle on
  a shoulder if it is wide enough and the pavement is in good shape.
  Particularly on two lane roads, turning out every so often to allow
  faster traffic to pass is an expected action of the driver of
  any slow
  moving vehicle, including a bicycle.

  > 4) is your operating mantra One bike, the entire lane, no
  matter how wide, always?

  If we have a "mantra," it is that bicyclists should have the
  same rights
  and duties as drivers of vehicles (CVC 21200 and UVC 11-1202) We
  object
  to laws that micromanage the position of bicyclists on the road
  (CVC
  21202 and UVC 11-1205) or that require bicyclists to use bike
  lanes (CVC
  21208) or sidepaths. We believe such bicyclist-specific laws were
  enacted not for the safety of bicyclists, but to facilitate the
  movement
  of faster traffic. As such, we believe such laws discriminate
  against
  bicyclists.

  I helped write the exceptions contained in CVC 21202 and CVC
  21208 in
  the early 1970's. At the time, there were no exceptions in CVC
  21202 and
  there was no state law at all regarding bike lanes. I recall a
  meeting
  with the aide to the state senator who was authoring the
  legislation,
  and he said that the legislature would not go along with a bill
  without
  bicyclist-specific restrictions, and including the exceptions
  was the
  only way to prevent more onerous bicyclist-specific restrictions.

  I have since come to realize that the reason the legislature
  would not
  have gone along with having no bicycle-specific restrictions was
  the
  common lack of understanding among the public about how drivers
  of slow
  moving vehicles in general (and bicyclists in particular) should
  act and
  be treated. Most people believe that because it is usually
  physically
  possible for bicyclists to share the right hand lane side by
  side with
  passing vehicles of typical width (5 or 6 feet), that, out of
  common
  courtesy, bicyclists should always share the lane, even with
  vehicles of
  maximum legal width (8 1/2 feet by CVC 35100).

  If you watch how bicyclists behave on the roads, you will see
  that most
  of them engage in "edge riding" behavior. They ride in door
  zones, pass
  right turning vehicles on the right, and weave in and out of parked
  cars. They are staying out of the way, just as the "deal" with
  motorists
  dictates. And the penalty for bicyclists who violate that "deal" by
  getting in the way? They must be taught their place, of course.
  Thus the
  honking and shouting and other aggressive behavior that a
  minority of
  motorists subject on bicyclists who dare to violate the "deal" by
  operating their bicycles as drivers of vehicles. On the other
  hand, it's
  amazing to experience how most drivers respond to bicyclists
  acting as
  drivers. They simply treat such bicyclists as fellow drivers.

  Based on viewing old films of traffic, the "deal" between
  motorists and
  bicyclists apparently existed from the time when motor vehicles
  started
  to dominate the roads. It was formalized in 1944 when the original
  version of UVC 11-1205 was incorporated into the Uniform Vehicle
  Code
  and subsequently into the vehicle codes of most states. It required
  bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable on the roadway,
  without
  exception, as though bicycles were always slow moving and all
  roads were
  unlaned. At the same time, though, lane lines were being painted
  on more
  and more roads. Apparently the authors of UVC 11-1205 wanted
  bicyclists
  not to have the same lane use rights as drivers of vehicles.
  That is
  still the common belief today, despite the exceptions that were
  added in
  the 1970's.

  Things did not work out the way that we who wrote the exceptions
  hoped
  it would. Almost all bicyclists still engage in edge behavior or
  ride on
  sidewalks, and almost all motorists still expect bicyclists to
  stay out
  of their way. When faced with a narrow right hand lane with no
  shoulder,
  most people still say that there is no room on the road for
  bicyclists
  and that there is a need to create room with a bike lane or
  sidepath.
  Without special facilities, we see that bicyclists ride at the
  right
  edge, even if it means riding in the gutter or in the door zone.
  Most
  people behave as if they are still going along with the "deal"
  between
  motorists and bicyclists.

  Advocates of bicycle driving, on the other hand, want to break that
  "deal". We see a future when once again bicyclists act and are
  treated
  as drivers of vehicles. We want it to be OK for bicyclists to
  get in the
  way of cars. And the first step toward that future is repeal of
  the laws
  that discriminate against bicyclists so that legally, bicyclists
  have
  the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. Not more, not
  less.
  That will require educating legislators that bicyclists can and
  should
  be treated as drivers of vehicles. Subsequent action includes
  changes in
  highway design standards so that freeway style features are
  eliminated
  from streets and highways on which bicycles are allowed. And
  bicycles
  are detected at all traffic actuated signals. And changes are
  made in
  driver education so that motorists learn to deal with bicyclists
  using
  the full lane. And youngsters are taught how to operate their
  bicycles
  as drivers of vehicles with full lane use rights. And law
  enforcement
  officers and judges are educated about when bicyclists and
  motorists are
  operating within the law.

  Our biggest hurdle is getting other people to recognize that the
  world
  would be a better place if the "deal" were broken. We believe that
  bicyclists would be better off, but a lot of bicycle advocates
  disagree.
  They think that bicyclists would be better off instead of
  breaking the
  "deal", bicyclists were provided with segregated facilities.
  Most other
  people see nothing wrong with the "deal", so they go along with the
  segregated facilities.

  Who will prevail? Well, there are a lot more people who want to
  keep the
  "deal" in place than not. But that does not prevent us from
  pointing out
  the advantages to bicyclists of breaking the "deal".

  Bob Shanteau

P.S. by Frank Gmeindl: CHP = California Highway Control (Bob is in CA) CVC = California Vehicle Code UVC = Uniform Vehicle Code: a national guide. States may choose parts to implement. WV has chosen not to include the exceptions to the "Far to the Right" provision that the UVC offers but PA and MD have. In WV, bicycles are not considered to be vehicles. LAW = League of American Wheelmen (now LAB, League of American Bicyclists)

---

Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3661 - Release Date: 05/26/11