mr_bill

I am indeed not a lawyer. And you?

I can't tell, are you just being pedantic?

-mr. bill

John Forester

I am not an attorney, but I served, starting in 1972, as a member of, and as a leader in, the various committees that established the modern versions of the traffic laws concerning cyclists, and worked intensively on the federal regulation concerning bicycle design and equipment.

buzzman

This is an excellent point. An image that often stays with me is this one:



It's easy to imagine automobiles and their drivers as having more rights due to the oversized shell that one human being has when behind the wheel. They seem bigger and more "entitled" to the space. Perhaps this is another way of viewing what JF means when he says, "cyclist inferiority".

Unfortunately, the practical reality, as opposed to the legal and political reality, is that they actually do take up more space. They are more powerful, they can kill you more easily than we would like to even imagine or they can maim you for life in an instant.

In order to effectively deal with that reality it does make sense for many of us to want to segregate motor vehicles from the rest of us.





Believe me I empathize with your post. Been there. Done that. More times than I'd like to think. But getting away from automobiles as much as possible is a relief for me. In the last few years I've found myself on more bike paths and for tours and recreational riding finding myself on more and more remote roads with little to no traffic. Often doing 100+ miles per day on rough dirt roads but seeing a total of 4 or 5 cars all day long- I couldn't be happier.

If I am not separated from autos due to infrastructural improvements I will find creative ways of doing it on my own, by choosing odd hours in which to ride (often early morning) or choosing remote routes unpopular with motorists like dirt roads.

And all this from a guy who rides in two of America's most congested cities on a regular basis.

mr_bill

Yes you did. In California.

And some work at the national level for NAS, which produced reports, not laws.

The CPSC regulates product safety, specifically in the case of bicycles hazardous substances. Litigation over whether the CPSC had authority to carry out regulation of bicycles resulted in the ruling that yes, indeed they did have the authority.

The UVC is a model for use by States and Municipalities. It is not law.

Bicycle *OPERATION* is guided by state, county, and municipal law, bylaw, ordinances, regulations, etc. Not federal law.

But you know all this.


-mr. bill

John Forester

So far as I can see, mr. bill is deliberately trying to make much noise out of nothing. I never wrote that bicycle operation is controlled by federal law. I did write that bicycle traffic law is much the same across the nation. That is because states pick up and copy models from each other, most often from the Uniform Vehicle Code, which adopted the laws worked out in California while I was serving on the California committees. That means that when one cycles in almost any state one is supposedly controlled by a side-of-the-road law, either one modeled on the original simple version that dated back to the 1940s, or the newer version that was developed in California in 1976. There is no point in mr. bill trying to make things more complicated than that.

John Forester

The pictures of space occupied have no relevance when discussing traffic law. But it is clear that additional information must be supplied.

American motordom applied the aphorism "Might is right" to motorists and cyclists for the purpose of getting cyclists off the road by using the sense of fearful inferiority to do it. "Stay out of our way or we will smash you!" Then motordom used that fear as the excuse for getting this put into law, first the side-of-the-road law (FTR) and then the mandatory bikeways law with its associated bikeways. After that, the bikeways advocates inherited that same usage to justify advocating bikeways.

While this is the prevailing view in American society, vehicular cyclists reject the whole inferiority process. Traffic law, before it was perverted to discriminate against cyclists, treated all drivers equally. True, there were some differences. Drivers of school buses are required to stop before crossing a railroad line, while drivers of passenger cars are not so required. Motorists are prohibited from following too closely, while drivers of horses or bicycles are not so prohibited. These all have significant safety content. However, the FTR laws, "Stay out of our way or we will smash you!" are not only purely for the convenience of motorists but are an open invitation to motorists to disobey the basic speed law.

Vehicular cyclists reject the might is right superstition, which is all that it is, because it goes against the long history of public use of the public roads. All road users get treated equally, subject to operating in ways that enable all other users to so operate and without causing undue damage to the road. While vehicular cyclists reject superstitions as wrongly created and of no legal force, they strongly oppose the legal imposition of cyclist inferiority to motorists through the FTR and similar laws. Those are the unjust laws that legally inhibit American cycling; they need to be repealed.

John Forester

It is all very well to advocate "segregation [of] motor vehicles from the rest of us". That's really sloppy thinking, for you are advocating having all the motor vehicles in Area M and all the people in Area P. The trouble with such sloppy thinking is that it enables you to advocate wishful thinking without consequences. So let us discuss what seems to be the subject of this group, the relationship between motor traffic and bicycle traffic.

Complete segregation is just plain impossible. There have to be areas in which both modes must be allowed, and expected, to operate. By and large, this is going to be most of our street system. Now, my question of you is this. Given that motor traffic and bicycle traffic will be operating together, do you favor the present American system in which cyclists have legal status inferior to motorists with the legal requirement that cyclists' prime duty is to stay out of the way of motorists? It seems to me that your writings rather favor this system and, nowhere, have I read of your opposition to it. It seems to me that true advocates of bicycle transportation ought to be supporting the legal equality of cyclists with motorists, no matter what may be their views about segregation. But "bicycle advocates" have been ignoring this need.

buzzman

Yep. Totally agree.

genec

John first and foremost I agree that total segregation is impossible... just can't happen and doesn't need to happen. Anyone riding a bicycle for longer than say 30 days will find that they are quite comfortable in motor vehicle traffic that is moving at very "human speeds" that we typically apply to residential and urban core areas -- 25-to even 35MPH. Bicycle traffic and motor vehicle traffic can work very well at such speeds and the mix of such should be fully encouraged. To that end I would love to see better "traffic training" in our public schools to encourage such a mix and full equality for all road users in such situations.

But at the other end of the speed scale... above 40MPH and vastly higher, there is no mix. The speed of fast motor vehicle traffic segregates slower traffic (human powered) from faster traffic... and this is largely encouraged by the laws (slow traffic keep right). Cyclists become second class road users in such situations... we have to play games in an attempt to mix at such speeds... playing "road sneak" as you put it...

Negotiation with faster traffic becomes difficult a higher road speeds (not impossible, but uncomfortable and difficult). The noise and constant passing of fast heavy cars/trucks etc becomes annoying to the cyclist if not dangerous. Where such high speed roads exist for the convenience of the motor vehicle driving public... there needs to also be alternatives for the non motor vehicle driving public... pedestrians, cyclists, wheel chair users, et al. There should be no expectation that slow vehicle users have to share busy fast roadways with the driving public; especially when this public may also be distracted by devices in their vehicle... something that is a violation of the laws, but this is overlooked by the theory of vehicular cycling proponents... the latter which depend highly on adherence to "the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles." The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles requires that an operator pay attention and yield to those in front of the operator... including at such locations as intersections. We know for a fact that this is a weak area for the driving public as such public has in fact hit pedestrians and cyclists at such locations due to not following the rule to yield to those in front of the operator. (signs are posted at busy corners to remind motorists of said responsibilities... for a reason)

So while complete segregation is not possible, nor needed, some alternative solution is needed beyond expecting low speed road users to mix with fast traffic on busy high speed roads... frankly bike lanes are NOT a good solution. A better solution is an alternative low speed street... or in lieu of that, a proper well designed path. If such is not possible for some reason, then the busy high speed road should be put on a road diet of some kind and traffic calmed. (this of course would be a rare situation, as generally there is some means of making a proper path in most places if there were a directive to do so)

buzzman

I'm curious as to whether any studies have been done in the US that tell us, in fact, what percentage of cyclists do ride according the rules of the road for vehicles and what percentage do not.

John Forester

So far as I know, I am the only person who has made such studies. I did a bunch of studies in cycling cities in Northern California (the region where I lived) in the 1980s. Some results are shown at:
https://johnforester.com/Articles/Fac...s/bikelane.htm

In another study, I measured the behavior of cyclists riding to work in the Sunnyvale area, for which the population average was a flunking 55% (with 70% considered the lowest acceptable score).

buzzman

Then wouldn't that mean that the only evidence to prove the theory of "cyclists fare best" comes from you? How is that scientific? How is that peer reviewed? How is that a valid conclusion?

Why should I accept that premise if there is no objectively gathered evidence on which I could base my opinion?

I'm confused.

John Forester

The aphorism that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is derived from a great wealth of material and not at all from studies of the average behavior of American cycling populations, which are irrelevant in this context.

buzzman

But you linked a study, which you undertook, with values set by you, with analysis of the results by you and used it as evidence that "cyclists fare best when...". ( you placed it in contrast to cyclists using bike lanes).Is such a study only relevant if you did the study and not relevant if you did not conduct the study?

And what is the source of the "great wealth of material" of which you speak? Am I to assume that, once again, it is material gathered by you and you alone?

I am even more confused.

B. Carfree

Which do you think would be easier and cheaper to achieve: increasing the compliance with existing law by actually enforcing it (fines may be raised to cover costs), or building this extensive network of secondary roads for the few low-speed people?

I routinely ride over half the distance from my house to yours. I ride almost exclusively on roads with speed limits in excess of 40 mph, not that there is any choice. I encounter scores of other cyclists along the way with varying degrees of experience from total noobs to the very competent and confident. Few of them complain about the fact that we are riding on a roadway with a 55mph speed limit without a bike lane (but with a shoulder most of the time). I just don't see ODOT or CALTrans building a secondary network for the few thousands of cyclists who ride this route annually when, for a pittance of that cost both states could simply add a fee to traffic tickets and hire some troopers to hand them out.

A further problem I see with your suggestion is the secondary effect of creating/enhancing the notion that cyclists do not, in fact, belong on our roadways; don't pretend you don't understand this is an inevitable outcome of your ideal. Even the local "road diet" proposal in little Eugene (Willamette St.) has created a public discussion of whether cyclists should be viewed to belong on the road with many, including many segregation-oriented cyclists, advocating for skipping the road diet and simply encouraging cyclists to bypass the retail-oriented street in question for side streets that don't actually go thru and obviously don't access the businesses or to encourage/require sidewalk riding.

"Infrastructure" is a term that would be better understood to include not only paint, bollards and concrete but social aspects and enforcement protocols.

genec

And that existing infrastructure is likely why cyclists represent LESS than 2% of all commuters out there. BTW what will it cost to hire those officers and have them work that route... forever? And how many officers will it take to ensure that the motorists are driving safely all the time?

Go you one further... we cyclists are already restricted from interstates, with speed limits of 65MPH and higher... why is it that we are allowed on surface streets with speed limits of 55 - 65MPH... what makes those surface streets so much more safer than an interstate?

Yes, I know that there are cyclists that ride exclusively on busy high speed roadways... the few, the brave, the strong, the road sneaks, the alpha... ever wonder why so few cyclists ride on such streets?

As far as road designs that don't go through... that is where new standards come in... directives that mandate full connectivity... but as long as a few cyclists are all we ever expect... such mandates and changes will never happen.

John Forester

So you are too lazy to read the material, but complain anyway? That's all too frequent among the bikeway advocates. I made a study and reported both the method and the results. You say that I "set the values". Well, the values are stated in the study, as the scores to be assigned for movements and penalties. If you disagree with my evaluation of, for example, the value assigned to moving through a stop-signed intersection and the penalty for not looking to yield to traffic (+5) and (-4) respectively), then provide a reasoned statement. The same goes for all the other evaluations. My sample selection was, after the observation of one cyclist finished, to observe the next cyclist I saw on the right side of the roadway while cycling back towards the center of town. That is not pure random selection, but there is no reason to suggest that that method of selection produced a bias. If you disagree, then state your disagreement.

You ask whether such a study would be "not relevant if you did not conduct the study". Now that's plain scientific nastiness that you really ought not to be committing; all scientific studies should be candidates for replication, and this is no exception. So, to avoid being viewed as merely promoting scientific nastiness, you need to present some other equivalent studies for comparison of results. Well, Buzzman, where are these hypothetically existing studies?

Buzzman questions the source of "the great wealth of material" that supports the aphorism that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." He suggests that this "is material gathered by [me] and [me] alone?" Well, to use an example from the bike-lane paper, I think that it is better, when approaching a right-turn-only lane, the cyclist intending to go straight is better off acting like the driver of a vehicle and early moving to the left of that lane of traffic than to ride up on the right-hand side of it. What do you think, Buzzman? To use another example, is it better to be harassed by a police officer for obeying the rules of the road instead of the side-of-the-road restriction, or is it better not be so harassed, as a normal driver would not be. I opt for the no harassment situation. What is your opinion, Buzzman? Or, is it better for bridge expansion joints to be built to be safe for the wheels of all drivers of vehicles, both motorists and cyclists, or to have the joints built to be safe for motorists or dangerous for cyclists? I opt for equal safety for motorists and cyclists. What is your view, Buzzman? I repeat: there is a wealth of such material. Which of it do you intend to deny, Buzzman?

Arguing from an ignorant ideology is always dangerous.

mr_bill

I choose no side-of-the-road restriction. My lane, my choice. Any questions?

-mr. bill

I-Like-To-Bike

You are not confused at all, your sentences above are right on target and the bottom line as to the credibility and relevance of the so-called "tests," and cherry picked analyses of others' work and whatever other what-nots used by John Forester to reach his predetermined conclusions.

Any further "explanations" (i.e. I/He said it; I believe it; That settles it!) will only be more of the same circular reasoning and sophistry as used for the past 40 years. My recommendation: Don't waste the electrons.

buzzman

Good advice. Thanks.

B. Carfree

I do not know what it would cost to adequately enforce the law on our roadways. However, I can make an estimate. (Yes, I am aware that this estimate will be picked apart and will be more or less valid for various regions.) Look at any roadway/intersection in your area. In my experience, nearly every motorist (yes, cyclists too) breaks the law every block or two. Obviously, the first few years it will be easy pickings for dedicated traffic enforcement. I'm sure such officers could initially easily average fifty citations per shift by writing ten tickets per hour for five hours and dedicating the rest of the shift to court/paperwork. As I said, we would ideally add a fee to the moving violations to pay for this service. Even a paltry $100/citation nets $5000/shift. My cops cost $400/shift to employ. That's a tidy profit that can be used to gently wind down the enforcement once the motoring public has changed its habits. How large that pool of profit gets would depend on the learning curve of the motoring public.

So, there are some upfront costs associated with equipment and training, followed by a massive profit, followed by some years of winding the program down. The costs could well end up at zero. Best of all, this program could be done on an experimental basis in a small region as proof of concept and expanded as desired.

Remember my comment about my regular rides towards your home? The Pacific Coast does see a fair number of cyclists (not enough considering the beauty, but more than many other beautiful American landscapes see). There is no way to ride down the coast line without riding on 55 mph roadways. Those riders I ride with, pass, meet in campgrounds or share lunch with aren't all drawn from the competent and confident bin. I've ridden with old men who walk up every hill, young women who have never ridden more than five miles from their homes prior to launching their coastal journey, foreign grad students who view this as the biggest adventure of their lives and, of course, a few experienced riders. Contrary to your assertion, many, many people are willing to ride on high speed roads.

As far as what makes a surface street safer to ride than an interstate, other than the entrance/exit designs, they aren't. Interstates tend to have nine-foot shoulders and good sight lines; surface streets often lack adequate shoulders and more often than not have grade and curve features that obstruct sight lines. However, who wants to cross and exit or entrance that is being taken at freeway speeds by motorists?

QUOTE=genec;16428344]As far as road designs that don't go through... that is where new standards come in... directives that mandate full connectivity... but as long as a few cyclists are all we ever expect... such mandates and changes will never happen.[/QUOTE]
Yes, there is definitely much room for improvement in this area. As has been discussed here before, and hit upon above, freeway-style intersections are totally inappropriate for roads that aren't in fact freeways.

genec

You do realize that PCH the highway you cite where folks ride up and down the coast is not heavily traveled in many areas... and is often two lane blacktop outside of major cities. I toured PCH from San Fran to San Diego with three other people back in 1986 and it has not changed much since. (yes, I have driven it since I toured it and know where there have been a few changes)

But more importantly the kind of roadway I am constantly rallying against is the 6 lane+ wide heavily used high speed stuff that is often seen in urban areas... high speed arterial roads that are virtual "interstate" highways on surface streets. Take the "old men who walk up every hill, young women who have never ridden more than five miles from their homes" and put them on such streets and see how they fare. These arterial roads exist in various forms all over the US, but are especially prevalent in the west, and may be the ONLY road connecting some areas. They don't offer the 9 foot shoulders a real interstate offers.

buzzman

I toured the PCH (Olympia, WA to San Fran) back in the early 1970's and my memory of it was a combination of visual splendor and sections of some of the worst cycling I've encountered on any of my tours. The downside was logging trucks, "chip" (?) trucks and RV drivers that could barely control their vehicles at times. There weren't as many cyclists on the route at that time and certainly an increase in numbers may have made drivers somewhat more aware and accommodating.

My understanding is that the road has had little change since that time and before I posted my response thought I'd google for some on line comments about riding the PCH more recently. These were the first few hits on Google and I didn't have to do much looking before I came across these comments, which are pretty good examples of what most of the blogs and comments I found said.

And from a thread on BF about riding the PCH:

Now due to the road construction it is probably pretty accurate that much improvement to the existing infrastructure may not be all that possible. It's a pretty unique landscape and strong enforcement of passing and speeding laws might do some good. Using the PCH as an example of why bike infrastructure is not "cheaper and easier" is a bit of a reach.

And is the measure of whether bike infrastructure is worth it to be based on the "cheaper and easier" alternative? Since B.Carfree seems to advocate for "quality" infrastructure I'm guessing he understands that quality is not always cheap.

B.Carfree also makes mention of the "few thousands" of cyclists who take this route. Is that meant that the fewer numbers of cyclists are also a reason to not provide infrastructure? As someone who just rode home on a plowed bike path tonight in Boston as thousands of cars passed by and I counted the barely half dozen bike tracks for my 10 mile ride home I was glad that our small numbers warranted not only a path but plowing. I choose to ride a bike to work, to a lot of places and as someone who chooses that alternative I feel I deserve as safe a route to my destination as possible.

Expecting cyclists to accept conditions the average motorist would never tolerate seems inequitable at the very least. We deserve safe passage. The cyclists who ride the PCH are the hardier in spirit and nerve and not representative of the average citizen who would never take on such a challenge, in large part due to passing motor vehicular traffic.

In my opinion, every reasonable effort should be primarily made to make the roadways we travel on as safe as possible and then enforcement.

So for me: PRIMARY- infrastructure (and not always bike specific-only when necessary due to poor road conditions) and
SECONDARY- Enforcement and education.

But enforcing laws and educating drivers and cyclists but forcing them to share inadequately designed infrastructures is shortsighted.

B. Carfree

Buzz, you simultaneously claim the only reason the Pacific Coast works for cyclists is because there are so many who ride it and then claim there are very few because they are only that subset of cyclists who are hardier and brave. You're being inconsistent, and it seems to be coming from a need to impose ideology rather than contend with the facts on the ground.

Since you have never been bashful about dismissing people's notions of what is going on in your backyard that are at variance with your first-hand experience, I shall now return the favor. The southern half of the coast of OR is literally my backyard. I ride to/along it scores of times per year. I ride it between Reedsport and The Russian River twice per year to visit my dentist as well as friends and family. I haven't given all the potholes names yet, but I almost could.

During what others consider the peak riding season along the coast, from June to mid-October, pretty much every campground fills with cyclists. No, I don't know how many that is, but on any given day I will meet between five and fifty other riders. These folks are hardly the hardiest of souls. They span the cycling spectrum with what appears to be a bias towards relatively new riders who are enthusiastic as can be. They're hardly the "competent and confident" that Jan Heine references. They're just looking for an epic trip and, for the most part, they appear to be getting that. Many of the folks I meet are either riding the coast for the second time (or more) or have been doing it in parts for a couple of years as their vacation time allows.

How can that be? The roads are 55 mph speed limit roads with a high percentage of trucks. On uphill segments and in towns the shoulder disappears in order to have two travel lanes in that direction. What new cyclist would return to do this again after such an experience? They aren't conforming to the stereotype of fear, dagnabit!

Perhaps we're all a bit off in our assessment of what is needed. Enforcement of traffic laws (or any other laws, for that matter) does not happen on the stretch of the coast that I ride regularly. The infrastructure is fair, mostly four to seven foot shoulders, but has many sections of "take the lane" and some downright horrific bridge crossings in OR, followed by both narrower shoulders and extended stretches of no shoulder at all on Hwy 1 in CA. I doubt if it is a safety in numbers thing, since I certainly ride many miles between cyclist sightings.

Maybe what is working there is that the coast attracts people who want to ride their bike along the coast and so they leave their excuses at home. Simply put, what we need to get more cyclists may just be to have more people want to ride. Perhaps adding more bike-specific infrastructure will help us get there (hopefully we'll build good stuff, not dzbl and intersection-laden sidepaths), maybe better law enforcement would do it, maybe some social change that somehow encourages active lifestyles, maybe all of that. I just don't know. I do know we should stop pretending that no one will ride anywhere without changing everything, much as I would like to see some changes. And it certainly doesn't help to have everyone exaggerate their perceived narrow escapes into regular death-defying heroics. I've probably had more near-death experiences in cars and trucks than on my bike, and I have a lot more time in the saddle than behind the wheel.

To answer your questions to me: No, cost is not the only factor to consider and I would prefer we build quality roads that are safe and effective for all users no matter the cost and do that for all roads regardless of how many people are walking or riding at present. As a matter of our current political climate, that's not going to go far, so cost will be a factor.

That said, quality builds can often be had for trivial costs. How much does it cost to remove subsidized on-street parking in favor of two-meter bike lanes? How much does it cost to change the timing of traffic lights to reduce the prevailing speed on a roadway? I recently looked at the Tower Bridge into Sacramento, an old commuting route of mine. They spent the money to add wide sidewalks on both sides of this bridge, but didn't provide any means for cyclists to ride from West Sacramento to Sacramento across this bridge by any means but taking the lane; all that was needed was a bit of paint and a bit of ramping from the bike lane that ends at the bridge to the widened sidewalk, which was plenty wide to serve both peds and cyclists. If we're not doing the easy, cheap things, we shouldn't be holding out for a never-to-be-built second set of roadways, ramps and bridges.

cyclintom

John, while I agree with you that bicyclists should be required to drive as other road users I think that there is a great deal of difference between a double semi gravel hopper truck driving at 80 mph on Niles Canyon and a bicyclist riding through a four way stop in Palo Alto with no traffic in sight and yet the fines are liable to be identical.

I wouldn't have any idea of how to write laws that would give both the requirement for bicycles to act in a vehicular manner when around motorized traffic and yet be free to act as a much slower and man power device when traffic is not around but the fact is that not being able to ride through a stop sign or being required to touch a foot down does nothing but discourage cycling by greatly increasing travel times.