genec

I fully agree with you on this. But apparently the public and those funding schools do not agree.

I frankly believe that "road use" should be the 4th R in our education system... as it is in places like Copenhagen. But as yet there is no push to do so. In fact I am quite dismayed that driving education has been removed from public schools in some places and has been replaced by a for profit system that looks for throughput vice good solid knowledge. For some odd reason, we, the general public seem to take in stride the fact that 30,000 of our friends and family die each year due to poor motoring behaviour. We go to war for all sorts of reasons, but we look the other way at the carnage of the automobile.

So again, change the laws all you want... the driving public doesn't care. They are NOT educated now, there is NO FORM of forced education and getting a drivers license in the US is almost as easy as opening a box of Cracker Jacks.

I salute your plan... but suspect we will have robot cars long before such a thing will ever be implemented. Perhaps at that point we can look back at our horrible history of the bad old days of car carnage.

Oh and part of the problem is the belief that the car is soooo useful... motoring apologists will come on here shortly and tell you how many miles a car is driven, per person killed, and they will tell you that is a good thing. Go figure.

Daniel4

Motorists should know how to pass legally and safely. They already do so with other slow moving vehicles like buses and trucks.

bshanteau

How would you specify when bicyclists did NOT have the right to use a full lane without risking misinterpretations by prejudicial policemen and judges (and bullying motorists)?

turbo1889

Well I might be fighting a loosing battle.

But, the OP that started the thread claims to be a "Bicycle traffic engineer" so I'm sure as heck going to get as much of my $0.02 into this thread as many times as I can because from what I've seen of what they call bicycle infrastructure there needs to be some serious changes in that field. I liked some of what he had to say in his initial post and the articles he linked too, but I think he (and even more so others of his profession) need to understand my viewpoint. I'm a person who actually uses bikes as serious transportation on the roadways on a nearly daily basis nearly year around and puts more miles on my bikes then my automobiles (I'm not car free I'm car light and thus I live both sides of the equation) and I do so in a harsh and inhospitable environment both in terms of physical infrastructure, weather conditions, and the attitudes of other road users towards me. I am not really interested in the philosophical feuds of the various bicycling "advocacy" (in quotes for a reason) groups ranging from the total VC advocates who will claim that every lane in a bike lane and hate the very idea of any kind of separate infrastructure to those who demand totally separate accommodations where bicycle paths and roads never even cross each other much less meet, except for where it effects actual use in application in my life. I'm interested in what I have found actually works and doesn't work in the real world that I live in and base my philosophical arguments on that rather then the other way around and I am most certainly not impressed with what I have seen done in the way of "bicycle infrastructure" in my area, so if there is even the slightest chance that putting forth what I have learned in the real world to someone who is actually in position to make actual changes might actually change things for the better in the slightest way then I'm going to speak my piece.

In my opinion the OP of this thread has swung the pendulum too far to the other side of the usual "bicycle infrastructure" argument of making bike side paths and bicycle lanes to marginalize cyclist as much as possible to motorists delight. He is pushing too far the other direction in his argument for complete abolishment of FRAP. Bicycles and even hybrid powered cycles that combine the human motor with another power source such as an electric motor are vehicles with limited speed capabilities and on low speed roadways where the speed differential between them and other traffic is minimal if any they can most certainly hold their own as equals and the only reason it upsets motorists is because either they have a fundamental hatred of bicycles and/or territorial aggression issues or they want to speed faster then the speed limit and cyclists in traffic "taking the lane" slows down traffic to the speed limit or just a little under. There is no fundamental difference in low speed traffic for bicycles compared to automobiles and thus there is no real need for separate accommodations in most situations. However, on high speed roadways where automobile traffic is moving at speeds substantially higher then even the best cyclists have any chance of even coming close to matching FRAP and dedicated bicycle lanes do make sense and the biggest infrastructure problem is bicyclist not having a place to safely, effectively, and efficiently ride FRAP to the side of the main traffic lanes, obviously the option to use the main traffic lanes when necessary for things like left hand turns needs to be preserved but its rather ludicrous to expect cyclists only doing about 20-mph to effectively and safely mix in the same traffic lane with automobiles that want to drive 60-mph. Even with the most respectful and careful automobile drivers that is going to become at the very least a point of contention in very short order.

FRAP as an absolute is not the answer. Anti-FRAP as an absolute is not the answer. It depends on the speed of the roadway as to what level of integration offers the best oppertunity to maximize convenience and safety for all road users. On low enough speed roadways such as in-town, square block grid, stop and go traffic on roadways with speed limits that do not exceed 25-mph and traffic is often backed up and does not even reach that maximum speed 100% integration with the possible exception of very young kids riding their small bikes on the sidewalks offers the best choice. On the other hand for a controlled access freeway system with speeds that often reach 75+mph a totally separate bicycle freeway may be the best option since even separate bike lanes become problematic due to crossing the high speed on/off ramps on the freeway edge. Most high speed highways (45+ mph without on/off freeway style ramps) though, I would be perfectly happy with just a decent condition paved shoulder with at least 4 foot width to it to ride and tickled pink with a well designed bicycle lane that was properly routed through the intersections.

Instead most of the idiots in charge of "bicycle infrastructure" instead build dangerous bicycle lanes on low speed roads that try to turn me into a second class citizen and marginalize me as much as possible in traffic that is moving at a slow enough speed that I can ride right in the lane riding just like I was a motorcycle without impeding other traffic and with far greater safety. And then on the high speed roadways where I actually do have need of somewhere to ride out of the main stream of much higher speed traffic but still close enough to the edge of the main stream to make myself visible and maintain my right of way rights I'm lucky to get a shoulder edge wide enough and in decent enough condition to ride and often instead end up having to "take the lane" and fight it out with motorists that want to go two or three times faster then I am going and really don't like me riding in the main traffic lane. Just as bad and potentially even worse sometimes those darn "bicycle infrastructure" guys put in a bicycle side path along side the main roadway. Usually its on only one side of the road so going on direction your riding on the wrong side of the road and coming from a direction were drivers aren't looking for you or expecting you and then more often then not the intersections of those bicycle side paths with the various side roads that connect with the road the bike path is built along side are very dangerous and do not allow for safe, effective, or efficient travel by bicycle if you use their path. The only side path I actually like in my area and is actually safer to use then riding in the main traffic lane of the main road is one that is along side a very narrow windy high speed road with absolutely no shoulder edge which makes that road more dangerous then most and that side path only crosses two major side roads for its 20+ mile length and in both cases the side path is backed off from the main road so it doesn't create a dangerous double intersection but the bicycle path makes a separate intersection with the side road. Every other side path I've encountered, however, is more dangerous to ride then riding on the main road and the most dangerous one of all in my area where I have personally witnessed two other cyclists being hit by cars at the intersections over the years is built along side a 45-mph speed limit highway that has 8 foot wide paved shoulder edges in good condition that are a way, way, way safer place to ride then that stupid bike path. They could have saved a bunch of money for the tax payers and make things way safer if they would have just used a few more gallons of paint and marked the shoulder edge of that road as a bike lane and properly routed it through the intersections, but oh no, they just had to get those darn bicyclists completely off the road and out of the motorists sight and treat them like second class citizens and criminally endanger them with that worthless piece of expensive "bicycle infrastructure".

Gallo

I think this whole take the lane thing is pretty crazy. I happen to think riding to the right is the safest most acceptable solution that has worked for a number of years. There are time when taking the lane is necessary and I am in no way suggesting that it is not reasonable. However to maintain that this how one must ride at all times is a bit nutty particularly because of claims it is safer.

I wonder how many advocates of take the lane would have a problem with a group of walkers in the bike lane forcing the cyclist out of their right away?

I am also amazed at the constant referencing of Copenhagen as a bicycle Nirvana where all get along and life is dreamy. I have been to the city more than one time and the cyclists demand their little lane at all times and have no intention of sharing. Step a foot into the bike lane and prepare for the ring ring and icy stare.
As far as riding in the countryside in Denmark pull alongside a cyclist to ride two abreast and prepare to be lectured about how that is not how we do it here and get in single file and stay to the right.

And to reference Rancho Santa Fe as an area where the residents have problems with cyclist allow me to retort as that is a regular area for my riding.
1) The roads are mostly narrow but if you know how to get around often not travelled as much as other areas.
2) Taking the lane here would put drivers at risk as many of the roads are twisty and are not safe to pass in the other lane
3) I often see cyclists in this area riding two and three abreast chatting it up and not moving to the right when they hear a car come from behind
4) Riders like the above give cyclist like me a bad name and enrage drivers

I am a firm believer in share the road and see no need to change a system that has worked. I think that a bicycle is a vehicle and has rights to the road but not the whole road at all times.

When I ride with a group we have a few things that are said often within the group.
Car Back
Single file
Slowing
Stopping
Clear

My children at ten years old understood these call outs at ten years old and still do today

Flame away

turbo1889

The simplest shortest way I can re-state my answer to the FRAP question:



IF Roadway speed <= 25mph THEN there is usually no need for FRAP at all or any separate bicycle infrastructure, sharrows would be nice.

IF Roadway speed > 45mph THEN there is need for FRAP and a well designed bicycle lane correctly routed through intersections.

IF Roadway speed > 25mph and < 45mph THEN could go either way depending on individual conditions.



Edit: ~ Realizing of course that I consider FRAP to be if possible outside of the main traffic lane to the right of the white line and unless the lane is really wide (not happening in my area) sharing a lane with a car side by side I consider highly problematic at best.

turbo1889

@ Gallo

Do you ride much in traffic on low speed roadways (25mph or less speed limit), especially in-town, square grid, stop and go traffic? Have you tried riding in traffic like that by "taking the lane" and riding a bicycle in traffic just like you would ride a motorcycle?

Just wondering about your viewing point from which you base your opinion. For me I know that such traffic conditions is where I find FRAP the most useless and "take the lane" VC type riding the most useful so just wondering if you have tried that combination out (combination of that kind of traffic conditions with that style of riding).

Not flaming you, just genuinely curious about the experience base of your stated opinion.

Gallo

I am in San Diego and often ride in heavy traffic. I get passed by hundreds if not thousands of cars on a ride

I try to avoid busier streets but that is impossible at all times.

25 mph is a suggestion her in Southern California and I cannot maintain 25 unless for long I am in a paceline or going downhill

I take the lane if I have to but do not have a death wish and feel no need to assert my rights.

The groups I ride with also feel no need to take the lane

I have been a cyclist for more than thirty years

FBinNY 

Depending on the interpretation of the FTR rule, they already do.

It really becomes a question of how best to share the road. In most (all?) states slow moving vehicles are required to keep to the right, and in many are also required to pull over and let backed up traffic pass from time to time. This applies to ALL slow moving vehicles, from farm tractors and construction equipment which cannot go faster, to slower drivers of passenger cars, and everything in between including bicycles.

So I combine a loose reading of FTR which allows taking the lane when it's warranted, with common courtesy, and adjust my lane position according to circumstances. This may be anywhere in the right half of the lane, from just to right of center to one foot in from the outer line. When cars need (want) to pass I'll move over where there's room and allow them to do so.

IMO we don't need to change any laws, but focus on educating all drivers on the basics of sharing a road where different speeds are in play.

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps the OP can expound on the professional requirements/standards for a "bicycle traffic engineer."

turbo1889

I don't know what they are but from what I have seen being an actual regular bicycle rider in traffic isn't one of the standard qualifications. Based on his initial post the OP of this thread at least appears to be well above the standard of the idiots they have let loose up in my area, but I have no idea what that standard is.

turbo1889

Here are some photos that generally explain the level of intelligence I've come to expect when it comes to bicycle infrastructure (not mine found on google image search):

FBinNY 

And people ask me why I'm generally opposed to bike specific infrastructure.

turbo1889

If you actually read some of the published standards for bicycle lanes they actually are pretty decent material ~ apparently no one bother to actually use the standards.

Believe me, I would love it if we actually got some people capable of actually designing some decent bicycle infrastructure doing their thing to make life better for everyone but apparently some of them can't even be trusted with a paint brush much less actually changing any actual earth, concrete, and pavement infrastructure and not just moving paint lines around.

bshanteau

Let me tell you a little about myself.

Like many others at the time, I got my first real bicycle (a Gitane road bike) during the bike boom in the early 1970's. I used it so much that my girlfriend said I had "wheels for feet." I soon became interested in bicycle advocacy in the San Jose area, but realized that I needed to become a traffic engineer to do that effectively. I already had a BS in Physics, so I decided to go to UC Berkeley to get a Master's degree in transportation engineering. While there a professor invited me to stay for PhD and I did. My dissertation was on transit bus loading and scheduling.

I moved to Indiana in 1980 to teach at Purdue and do some research, mostly on transit bus routing, measuring compliance with the nationwide 55 mph speed limit, and highway cost allocation. I mostly lost interest in bicycle advocacy.

I moved back to California in 1986 to be a traffic engineer with the City of Concord. That is also the year I became registered as a traffic engineer in the State of California. In 1989, I became traffic engineer for the City of Monterey. In 1995, I became an expert witness and consulting traffic engineer, which is what I still do for a living. I have qualified numerous times as an expert witness in court.

I still dabbled in bicycle advocacy, but got back into it seriously again in 2008 when I found out that the governor was going to sign that year's bill to require bicycle detection at traffic actuated signals (bills in previous years had been vetoed). I went to a meeting of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee and convinced them to form a subcommittee to recommend standards and guidelines for bicycle detection, of which I was the bicycling representative. That resulted in the adoption of language in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices requiring bicycle detection at all new and modified actuated traffic signals along with guidance on signal timing for bicyclists.

During that time I volunteered to be the Transportation Engineering Liaison for the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. The article on the Marginalization of Bicyclists was the culmination of years of thinking about how highway engineering and traffic law affect bicycling.

That's a brief history of me and why I call myself a bicycle traffic engineer. If you want to know more, you can Google me or ask me directly. I make my email address widely known and belong to several mailing lists.

njkayaker

???

NYS talks about "roadway" and clearly does not consider the "shoulder" as part of that. The "roadway" is the part of the "road" used for normal travelling. "Road" includes the "roadway" and the "shoulder" (and other irrelevant stuff).

All (as far as I know) disallow driving/travelling on the shoulder. The shoulder is often not built to take that sort of load anyway. NYS is one of the few states that requires cyclists to use the shoulder (under certain conditions). While driving on the shoulder is prohibited, no state appears to care at all when cyclists use the shoulder (they likely prefer that cyclists use the shoulder).

njkayaker

This is unusual.

The shoulder isn't "ordinarly" used for vehicular travel (I'd guess, even in MT). In most states, you can cross shoulders or park on them in emergencies but you'd get a ticket for actually "travelling" in them.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-324.htm

You can't pass a car on the right using the shoulder in MT (the shoulder isn't the "main-traveled portion of the roadway").

I-Like-To-Bike

Thank you for explaining your qualifications.

wphamilton

OP makes a good argument, and this is an excellent point. Is it not reasonable that the failings of the FRAP laws, and of the general understanding and enforcement thereof, are due to the exception basis manner of their application? Even the FRAP law itself is an exception: yes, you can ride a bike on the streets BUT .... it creates a separate -exceptional- class of road users right from the start. And then there are the exceptions to the exception. It makes much more sense to have one set of laws for all vehicles, then address slow moving vehicles - any vehicle regardless of whether or how powered. The default should be the set of traffic laws that we all follow, which would necessarily include using the full lane. Exceptions are when you're impeding traffic (move over when you can) just like any other slow moving vehicle. I think that OP has persuaded me.

hallux

I think another poster touched on this, there is a failing of driver education as much as anything else. His plan, though, would cost considerable money, which I'm sure many would object to paying for through their taxes or higher road use taxes on fuel. When I was preparing for my license (17 years ago), I don't recall ANYTHING about what is being discussed here, including in a driver's ed. course. Also, and I'm not saying ignorance should be acceptable (and I'm guilty here), how many people will go through and read the entire driving code, section for section and word for word unless they're trying to find something to prove they were in the right in a situation? I thought so.

bshanteau

My point is that trying to teach people about when bicyclists do and do not have the right to use a full lane for the past 30+ years has not worked. It's just too complicated. Besides, most people don't want to believe that bicyclists ever have the right to use a full lane.

So changing the law so that bicyclists ALWAYS have the right to use a full lane would be so much easier. The message would only have to be communicated once. People would no longer be able to claim that bicyclists never have the right to use a full lane.

Such a change in the law is NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT to change the behavior on the streets. But what we are doing now, trying to teach people to respect the right of bicyclists to use a full lane without first changing the law, is a fool's errand.

hallux

Changing the law, even with significant advertisement of the new law, won't help much either. Just look at the handsfree cell phone laws in place in many states. There was A LOT of press about it and people STILL don't put the phone down when driving. Those laws have developed into "distracted driving" laws (without much press) which pretty much prohibit using a cell phone even on speaker if you're holding it in your hand in proximity to your face (as I see MANY people do probably thinking they're not breaking the law).

The only recent change in traffic law that I've seen that has taken any kind of hold is New York's "move over" law that requires you to give one lane of clearance when passing an emergency or roadwork vehicle parked on the shoulder, or slow down while passing that vehicle if you can't change lanes.

Gallo

I understand the point you are trying to prove. But I feel the change in the law would be widely accepted and reviewed and vetted in the cycling community and not so much in the general population.

We have a new Sharrow lane that was recently put in Encinitas CA. I was on a group event when we took advantage of this new lane and it was indeed one of those situations where we should be taking the lane. I can only describe the attitude of some of the cyclists as drunk on their new found power. Riding too far left almost in the only lane that cars could pass in and laughing and yucking it up.

I think that this law change will only give cyclists like the ones whom were giddy with their new found freedom (which was essentially not new simply labeled better) and they will push the barrier of what is acceptable. If you always have the right their are many that will always demand the right. The result could be more friction than now between cyclists and motorist and might lead to more conflicts.

Lets face it a confrontation between a car and cyclist rarely is won by the cyclist. A cyclist demanding their right of use of the full lane could result in more accidents not less. A distracted driver sometimes has problems seeing another car, a lone cyclist in the middle of a lane would be very easy to miss especially during commuting times.

I think the cycling community would be better served to reach out to the education of new drivers and have some of the rules tested on original permitting than globally changing the law.

bshanteau

Boy, if that is the belief of most of most bicycle advocates, I'm in the wrong group. I just may move to pedestrian advocacy instead.

It looks like we are paying dearly for our failure 40 years ago to get bicycle education into the elementary schools. Now we have 2 generations of bicycle advocates who have no faith in the value of education. That's depressing.

The way I see it, the lack of faith in the value of education is just one item in a false set of beliefs that is the cause of most of the problems that bicyclists encounter. For more, see the iamtraffic.org web site, particularly this video:
https://vimeo.com/64152426

genec

As I stated several times in this thread... many motorists believe that driving is a right, and the only way to correct that assumption is to start with the basics... ALL ROAD USERS NEED TO BE EDUCATED AT THE BASIC SCHOOL LEVEL.

Bob, indeed it is too bad you were not able to get this stuff into schools 40 years ago. Oddly I got my first bicycle education from school sponsored event back in Fort Worth, Texas... the school system back there, with the fire department, put on an annual Bike Rodeo... where one would go to learn better cycling skills, register your bike, and practice your skills. Later in life I took drivers' ed at the public school. Why this same sort of education, with prerequisites, and written tests, and measured progression is not available today, is beyond me. Driving (or cycling) is a life long skill as basic as writing or math.

My son had no bike Rodeos here in San Diego. And Drivers' Ed was a for profit company joke... of several half Saturdays in a row.

I had classroom time... we discussed scenarios, we watched notoriously bad automotive safety films and then we worked on simulators... we finally went to real cars and spent time in various situations practicing. Finally we took tests and were prepared for the real DMV situation.

I believe education is the key... and the public school system is the means. Too bad it will take several generations to purge our society of the drivers that believe they own the road because they pay "road tax." No doubt, self driving cars will be here before the educated motoring public is ever in the majority.

Frankly I think early education is the best answer... starting with some basic road sharing and sign principals in early grades, progressing to on the road bicycle use, and finally, in high school, progressing to driver training.