RobertHurst

That "discriminatory wording" sets in stone your _special_ rights as a cyclist around faster traffic, rights that your predecesors on the road fought for tooth and nail.

You want discriminatory wording look at the League of American Wheelmen constitution from 1894-1996. "Whites only." That's discriminatory wording, for folks confused about the difference.

Sixty Fiver

"Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic. "

But yes... when you have to take the lane you take the lane.

kob22225

Could you step through the _special_ rights you mean by this?

With respect to slow moving vehicle code, I don't see the need for any special rights as a _bicyclist_ versus being any other slow moving vehicle driver (at the times I happen to be a slow moving vehicle driver as a bicyclist.) Therefore I want to be clear about what you mean here.

Thanks

Ken

JohnBrooking

But, surely slow-moving cars (flat tire, etc.), or farm equipment, or even horses for that matter, all covered under the slow-moving vehicle law only, are also entitled to avoid debris, avoid right-turn only lanes when going straight, prepare for left turns, etc.? If so, then I don't see how these exceptions are "special" rights for cyclists, it's just that they are only explicitly spelled out for cyclists. Why?

What about: abolish the bike-only law, and add all the exceptions we think are important to the general slow-moving vehicle law, acknowledging that they are important for all slow-moving traffic. Or if the response is that they're just common sense and needn't even be mentioned, then why mention them just for bikes?

Robert, going back to what you said yesterday about my having it backwards, I think there is some common ground in our opinions. In both cases, I think we can agree that the general public does not know enough, if anything, about the law.

If I understand you, our differences are this. My position is that most have heard about it but are very vague about it, getting just "bikes stay to the right" from it. Kind of like the amount that a lot of people know about the Bible - sort of a vague notion of what's in it, or what they think is in it, but no specific familiarity. "'Treat others as you would have them treat you' - that's in the Bible, isn't it?" Or "'Bikes have to stay to the right' - that's the law, isn't it?"

Whereas you're saying that the existence of the law isn't contributing to the perception of this vague notion of bikes having to stay to the right, and the answer is to educate the public more about the specifics of the law. I'd agree that more education would be good, but I'm not sure I agree that the existence of the law contributes nothing to the perception. I think this might be just an irreconcilable difference in our opinions, and I'll agree to disagree. I've explained it about as many ways as I know how, and you know what, I could be wrong. You have more cycling experience than I do. But in any case this has been a constructive discussion, IMO.

I don't know anything about the history of how this law came about, and it sounds like you do. Maybe you can explain it further?

crhilton

I have no problem with ride to the right laws. It gives a reasonable way in which we're supposed to help faster moving traffic get around us. If as far to the right as practicable doesn't give them room to pass then they have to wait and I've got the law to back me up. If it lets us share the lane then that's great for both of us! They get around me and I don't have to deal with them tailgating.

RobertHurst

I don't necessarily believe we need these special rights either. But the previous generation of bicyclists did and they fought for and won these concessions.

Here is the state law of Ohio: "4511.55 Riding Bicycles - Every person operating a bicycle on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, but may ride to the left of hazards, e.g., when fixed or moving objects are in the way; when there are surface hazards; when it is unsafe or otherwise impractical to do so - such as when the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side; or when a slow moving vehicle is permitted to leave the curb lane, as described in 4511.25 above."

The italicized portion is purely for bicyclists. Under the normal slow moving vehicle law, a bicyclist would be expected to place the right side of his/her vehicle where the right side of any other vehicle would be expected to be. Tractors, etc. don't have a provision to put the right side of their vehicle in the middle of the lane or anywhere other than the side based on lane width. It is generally made explicit in these laws (it varies a bit from law to law) that bicyclists as well have a different set of surface conditions that would allow them to place the right side of their vehicle farther left than would be expected for four-wheel vehicles under a reasonableness standard.

But if you folks want to throw these hard-fought laws away, be my guest. I don't think it will help anything, but it wouldn't change the way I ride one iota.

RobertHurst

John, I honestly don't know too much of the history of this law. I do know that bicyclists were granted all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles in some places when all the vehicles had animals attached to the front. That goes way back. I'm not sure when the 'practicable' clause came about. If I had to bet I'd say in the early decades of the 20th century. I have dug up and looked at the Denver code from the 1950s, and there it was right there: 'practicable.' Bicyclists were required to ride as far right as practicable, with no exceptions mentioned. My sense is that some time in the 1970s when JF was badgering city councils in California these special exceptions for bicyclists started to show up in state and municipal codes around the country, a process that continued through the decades and is ongoing. This general interest in removing everything back to basic slow moving vehicle law is fairly recent as far as I know.

I think the general population has a sense that bicyclists are 'supposed to follow the law.' But I don't think very many of them are aware of the ride-to-the-right rule at all, or the exceptions. I think everybody just brings their own personal suspicions and assumptions to the table when they encounter a bicyclist on the road. For the most part people accept our presence there and are willing to cooperate with us as long as we cooperate with them. I don't think that would change with a change in the law. As I said, no matter what the law says, I think I will be riding the same way.

I'm curious as to the specific ways people feel persecuted by this law as it stands.

cyclezealot

I know you will find a police officer who will enforce such laws unreasonable. But, the law in and of itself makes sense.. We need not block traffic if there is not just cause..

kob22225

A person misinterpreting slow moving vehicle law might expect that, but that is not how the law should be interpreted. SMV code is usually written 'as far right as practicable'... and it is not practicable for a bicyclist to ride where wide slow moving vehicle drivers tend to place his/her right wheel. (Note, in my opinion this traditional 'practicable' wording is not great, but as long as interpreted correctly I suppose it is OK for now.) The other specifics spelled out, of course, ought to be covered by the 'practicable' wording.

Note that your excerpt does not qualify this code to say 'at times when a bicyclist represents a slow moving vehicle.' Therefore this code explicitly adds some enumerated specifics (specifics that should be implied in pithy well written _general_ SMV code for _any_ vehicle) and then _repeats_ far-right-practicable code, applying it to an unqualified bicyclist in order to spell out the specifics.

Therefore this code adds nothing extra _for_ bicyclists.

However, it _does_ provide a potential finger hold for people looking to misapply a crappy interpretation against bicyclists.

Here is the problem I see: The general culture - including the bicyclist culture - has an immature or incorrect understanding of best roadway bicycling practice. Therefore it is a bad idea for bicyclist advocacy to waste effort or draw too much attention to fine parsing/writing of traffic law at this time in our history. More harm then good likely. Incorrect education is almost a sure thing, given the dynamics of a State level legislation debate.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that over the last 2 decades or so PA has managed to drop all _bicyclist_specific_ 'far right as practicable' code, leaving only a SMV version. Maybe this is one case - done in this manner where it is only excizing redundant code - where we might get a minor plus with little chance of backfiring in a culture of ignorance (and maybe not... maybe still just tickling the dragon.)

Anyway this adds up to me voting "Yea" but with the thought that the effort gets a position low in triage.

Brian Ratliff

incorrect.

Oregon Bicycle Manual
Oregon Drivers Manual, pp 76-78.

randya

and exactly how is this information reaching existing licensed drivers?

Brian Ratliff

Government doesn't play a role once the license is given - this goes for any new road law, not just in regards to cyclists. But tickets, signage, the issuing of a bicycle oriented license plate, bike lanes, bike boxes, press statements, and the encoding the rights of cyclists in official documents are all examples of how the state of Oregon is working to try to get drivers to be more cognizant of the rights of cyclists on the road.

Teens are the greatest threat and they are being reached by the drivers manual. A special 3 pages specifically devoted to the relationship between drivers and cyclists is not nothing. Parents of said teens learn by helping their teen study for the drivers test. You are expecting social change to happen too quickly and expecting government to do more than is possible given it's structure - all the government can do is set the rules and enforce them. Every once in a while you've got to step back and look at the state of the forest as you fight the good fight in the trenches.

kob22225

Bike lanes are an example of an immature culture buildinging its incorrect thinking about roadway bicycling into the infrastructure. Good education is bicyclists' biggest need (primarily for themselves at this point in history.) Opposing bikelanes will always be near the top of my advocacy list. It is a twofer: it fights bad design; the discussion of that opposition is good education.

It is my understanding (haven't read that link you provided in detail yet) Oregon has bad law with respect to bikelanes.

I do not find it is practicable to use bikelane lateral width on typical roadways. I will always be in normal travel lane space. If the law does not allow this, the combination of poor design (bikelanes) and bad law (requirement to use bikelane space when placed) creates an unworkable situation for proper bicycling. When I avoid bikelane delimited lateral width - I am not being rude, I am not just trying to make a statement... I'm just one bicyclist riding the way that allows we to enjoy safe bicycling on all and any roadway.

Bekologist

never ridden in a bike lane vehicularily, eh, kob ?

"always be in the normal travel space" "unworkable situation for 'proper' bicycling"

I think you are the type or rider Robert Hurst was describing when he mentioned 'uncompromising lane takers'

kob22225

That is the problem with that terminology. It is near meaningless since lane position is a continuum, not an either/or 'taker' or not.

Also, now, here you are attempting to assign it to me, a safe bicyclist who rides with a _reasonable_ level of concern for road sharing versus roadway bicyclist safety considerations - applied in the context of a culture that does not understand safe roadway bicycling.

Bekologist

????

I asked a simple question, kob. 'meaningless terminology'?

'applied in a context of a culture that does not understand safe roadway bicycling' - are you talking about the culture here?
in Bike Forums' Advocacy and Safety Forum? Those of us posting context in this cultural exchange most certainly do.

man, someone has drunk the EC koolaid, bruther!

NEVER used a bikelane as a vehicular cyclist? I find that hard to believe.

Does anyone else find Kob's statements above -

an example of what Robert Hurst would describe as an 'uncompromising lane taker?' I suspect some of that is internet bluster or he IS one of those types robert described. Wayne Pein seemed to think there are NO 'uncompromising lane takers out there' and Kob2226 seems to disprove that.

Brian Ratliff

Meh, tired argument and beside the point of the OP. Not going to get into the bike lanes pro and cons in this thread.

genec

Yet "mature culture" in the US has about 1% of transportation needs met by bicycle, while other countries that have "immature" infrastructure have far higher levels of transportation by bicycle.

Immature... right...

genec

Brian the statement was "there is ZERO effort being made to reeducate motorists on these points... "

How many motorists do you think read the Oregon Bicycle Manual?

This is really part of the whole problem... cyclists may be well educated, but are sharing the roads with clueless drivers that bring only their own prejudice and misunderstanding to the road. Sure they mostly try to avoid us (as Robert points out), just as motorists will also try to avoid any animal in the street...

CB HI

And you have yet to answer the simple question of: "What specific dangerous bikelane design would YOU oppose?"

Brian Ratliff

To put stuff in the drivers manual and to produce an official pamphlet detailing how bicyclists are to ride on the streets (which IIRC, follows some of the basics of vehicular cycling) is not nothing. To say that there is zero effort being put out is flat out wrong and does not give the government enough credit. Again, the government only has so many strings it can pull. What do you expect the DMV to do? Re-license the entire state of Oregon?

After spending some time just riding my bike and getting out of this forum for a while, I've become less jaded about the world. It's good enough that ridership in Portland metro area has more than doubled since I started living here (about 8 years ago) and that drivers seem better informed and better behaved about and around cyclists. It's moving in the right direction.

genec

Re-license the entire state...? Uh, yeah, if it wasn't done right the first time...

But I understand what you are saying. My comment is based the fact that really few motorists know how to treat cyclists and that information is just often not presented nor reinforced... hence the issues we tend to face.

The fact is the various state governments issue drivers' licenses in this country far easier, by comparison, than most other industrialized nations. We therefore reap what we sow.

John Forester

We need to fill in some blanks in Hurst's wide-ranging knowledge of cycling. I have already posted today information to provide some of this information (on Bekologist's challenge), but I repeat a bit of it here. The side-of-the-road law and the mandatory bike-path law both first appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code revision of 1944.

I was not badgering city councils in California to do anything about the side-of-the-road law, for the very simple reason that I knew, as did anyone with some knowledge of the matter, that city councils in California have no power to do anything about traffic law. I did serve as the only cycling representative permitted on the California Statewide Bicycle Committee, which was officially charged by the Legislature to analyze traffic law regarding bicycles and make recommendations for the Legislature to enact. The unofficial charge, kept secret from cyclists, was to enact a mandatory-bike-lane law and a mandatory-sidepath law to enable the imposition of the Dutch-style bikeway plan that had already been secretly prepared.

Before I discovered the actual purposes of the Committee, I had been arguing that the side-of-the-road law was bad law for two reasons. It was advocated as a cyclist safety law, requiring cyclists to stay out of the way of motorists lest they be squashed, which we knew was a superstitiously inaccurate view of dangers to cyclists that made cyclists into second-class road users. It was also bad law because it contradicted other rules of the road essential to safe operation. I argued that the slow vehicle law, which was equally applicable to all road users, was recognized as a means of facilitating traffic flow instead of the superstitious safety argument of the same law as applied to cyclists alone, and was therefore administered and enforced by means reasonable to all road users and with which cyclists agreed.

In the discussion, the Committee applied to the Attorney General for an opinion about the right-side law. The Attorney General replied with an Official Opinion that the specific requirement for cyclists to stay right took precedence over the general requirement to move to the center of the roadway to prepare for a left turn. Therefore, cyclists had to turn left from the curb lane. It took a few days for that to sink in. When it did, the Attorney General reissued the Official Opinion with the same number, but completely reversing the original issue. The new version stated that the requirement to ride right was a general requirement that was superseded whenever specific requirements applied, such as the requirement to prepare for turning left by approaching the center of the roadway.

As I said, the secret charge to the Committee was to enact a mandatory bike-lane law and a mandatory sidepath law. They weren't about to reduce the strength of the ride right law, which would undermine their other work. So they collected together all the conflicting statutes that I had mentioned and put them into exceptions. Not to be nice to cyclists, obviously, but to protect the ride right law from being overturn by a judge who noted the conflicts with other sections of traffic law. The final conflict, that between right-turning motorists and straight-through cyclists, I purposely did not mention to the Committee, to see whether they were thinking on their own or were just reacting to my comments. That exception did not get into the law until years later, because they weren't thinking about the good of cyclists but about how to keep cyclists under strict control.

We cyclists did manage to prevent enactment of a mandatory sidepath law in California, by citing the obvious traffic hazards that would likely result in large personal injury lawsuits against the city, county, or state who produced sidepaths. No other argument worked with the majority of the Committee.

JohnBrooking

Just to be clear, John: You say that the ride to the right was put into the UVC in 1944, but I think from reading you elsewhere that the activity you are talking about with the California Statewide Bicycle Committee occurred in the early 1970's, correct?

Do you know anything about how the law originally came into being in 1944? That would be interesting to know.

John Forester

I know something, but not all. First, this was wartime when all the cyclists were involved in other activities and were in no position to object. But, in any case, I think that cyclists would never be informed of such legal changes until they were enacted by states (some states had, because UVC contained only rules that had been tested as laws in at least one state). That was because cyclists were considered to be nobodies; Fred Delong (an industrial engineer) and Dr. Graves, MD, were both serving in Europe, and, after the war was over, when I first learned about American adult cycling, they were revered as being almost the only cyclists with higher degrees. Second, more significantly, this was the time when continuous, sustained high speed motoring seemed to be right on the horizon for the general public. I remember reading a Popular Mechanics or Popular Science magazine of the time describing a future trip from New York City to Buffalo or Toledo, or somewhere like that. The vehicle was equipped like a luxury van, with a rear-mounted engine derived from the prewar Auto Union Grand Prix cars (they had 600 hp, or more). The block average speed for the trip was given as 100 mph. American engineers knew about the German autobahns and they had one or two freeways of their own. The whole emphasis was to clear those dangerous bicycles from the path of 100mph cars. Therefore, in one revision, we got both the side-of-the-road law and the mandatory sidepath law.