I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle.
A bicycle is a human powered vehicle and I am operating it at the speed for which it was designed.
Operators of true slow moving vehicles (such as forklifts, farm equipment, earth-moving equipment) tend to be members of unions, carry special licenses, operate their vehicles for commercial purposes, and only take those vehicles on roads under special, limited circumstances.
A bicyclist operates his vehicle as a member of the public, on public roads provided to him by the State which serves him.
Operated by the public, upon public roads, at the speeds for which the vehicle is designed, a bicycle cannot be considered to be in the same category as forklifts, farm equipment or earth-moving equipment and the like. And because bicycles are operated by the public, upon public roads, at the speeds for which the vehicle is designed, they should be deserving of public services that fit within the parameters of the bicycle. Just as roads are designed for cars which have their own properties, roads must be designed to suit the properties of the bicycle.
It is wrong to say that we are like something that barely uses the public roads at all (forklifts etc). It is wrong to say we should use those roads as is is despite the hostile designs that do not work well for bicycles. It is not good bicycle advocacy in my opinion. We are taxpayers, we are members of the public, we are operating human powered vehicles and we deserve suitably designed public accommodations.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
...carry special licenses, operate their vehicles for commercial purposes, and only take those vehicles on roads under special, limited circumstances.
Sounds like pro racers.
Bikepacker67
I'm faster than most farm equipment/forklifts!
wonkemtel
I don't disagree with the OP and I take the lane sometimes for safety and sometimes to make a point but sometimes it;s still me vs several thousands of pounds operated by a less than briliant psuedo human. I especially like when I get told to geton the sidewalk by a hummer driver as if I am less appropriate for urban roads than he is. I got pinched between a moving car and a parked car a couple of weeks ago and fell over but was ok, but bruised ribs take a while, i DIDNT GET THE PLATE BUT will be mindful next time, still I wasn;t discoraged and started commuting, today I drove but that was the first time since last Tuesday and at a 42 mile rt Im feeling good about it.
Dusk
This might be of help.
Legally Speaking - with Bob Mionske: To impede or not to impede, that is the question
By Robert Mionske, JD
This report filed April 20, 2006
Dear Bob:
I have the good fortune to live in Southern Minnesota where the roads are in good condition, and relatively free of traffic. Our club rides are always quite enjoyable and take us on some very pleasant routes through local farmland. Most of the roads we ride on have very minimal traffic, to the point where a car goes past us (in either direction) often only once every 10 or 15 minutes. In general, most motorists are quite considerate, but as always there are a few who feel that bicyclists simply do not belong on the roads.
Minnesota law states that bicyclists are allowed to ride two abreast, as long as we stay to the right side of the road, and do not occupy more than one lane. Another provision is that we do not "impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." Those motorists who do get angry that bicycles are on the road often tell us that we are not allowed to impede traffic, and this often seems to be the major basis for their complaints. This occurs even when there is no other traffic on the road, and the car may only have to slow for a few seconds until safe to pass us. So my question for you is from a legal standpoint, what exactly constitutes "impeding the normal and reasonable flow of traffic?"
Of interest, these same motorists never seem to get upset when they end up behind some large piece of farm equipment driving down the road at a pace much slower than bicycles.
Thanks
T. M.
Minnesota
Dear T.M.,
Don't you hate it when your ride on the beautiful roads in southern Minnesota, and some motorist who has no problem waiting behind some slow-moving farm vehicle, comes up behind you and starts quoting the Minnesota Traffic Regulations chapter and verse to prove that you are violating the law?...So are you? I love questions like this, because the answer is easy, and it's the right outcome:
You are not impeding traffic, and therefore, you are not violating the law by riding in the right lane. Let's find out why.
Let's start with some basics. First, in Minnesota, Section 169.01(2) of the Traffic Regulations defines a "vehicle" as
· Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
Now that's a pretty inclusive definition of vehicle, and includes farm tractors, trailers, and yes, bicycles. So what rights do bicycles have on Minnesota roads? According to Section 169.222(1) of the Traffic Regulations, "all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle..." However, as you've mentioned, Section 169.222(4) of the Minnesota Traffic Regulations also requires that "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
· When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
· Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
There are a few interesting observations to be made about the language of this statute. First, the statute requires you to ride "as close as practicable" to the right. This is standard statutory language across the United States, and merely means that you have to ride as close to the right as is feasible under the conditions. It is not a commandment to ride as close to the right as possible to the right under all conditions. In fact, the legislature suggests several conditions under which a cyclist would be justified in not riding to the right.
Second, did you notice that there's no requirement in the statute for a cyclist to ride anywhere other than the road? The statute anticipates that cyclists will be riding "upon a roadway or shoulder," and that on laned roadways, cyclists can only occupy one lane. This language indicates that the legislature intends that bicycles will be riding on the road.
Third, did you notice the words "normal and reasonable?" What is the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic? And, as you asked, what constitutes impeding "the normal and reasonable movement of traffic"? For an answer, let's ride over to Ohio.
In 1999, Steven Selz, a cyclist, was cited for "impeding traffic" in Trotwood, Ohio (see You gotta fight for your right to slooooow down). At trial, the cyclist's attorney focused on establishing the following points:
· The cyclist was riding at a reasonably normal bicycling speed;
· There was no posted minimum speed limit; and
· The established maximum speed limit was not only an unreasonable speed for a bicycle, it was an unsafe speed for a bicycle.
This part of the cyclist's case focused on the "reasonable movement of traffic"-the bicycle was traveling at a reasonable speed. But is it reasonable for a bicycle to travel at a reasonable speed if other traffic on the road is capable of moving at a faster speed? According to his attorney, Steve Magas...well, I'll let him tell it in his own words:
I argued that the most important word in the Trotwood ordinance was the word "traffic." "Traffic" cannot be impeded, so just what is "traffic." State law tells us that traffic includes far more than cars and trucks and buses. "Traffic" is defined to include "...pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars, trackless trolleys, and other devices either singly or together while using any highway for purposes of traveling." Thus a bicycle operator IS traffic -- the bicycle operator is part of the class of people protected by the statute.
"Traffic" is a broad piece of fabric, with many different threads. Not all "traffic" goes, or is capable of going, 45mph. By including these slower moving objects in the definition of "traffic" the legislature is allowing for varying speeds of vehicles on the roadways. If something is going as fast as it can on a roadway on which it has a right to proceed, how can it be "impeding" traffic?
As he notes in his account, the trial court didn't buy that argument, and Selz didn't get the yellow jersey. However, Selz wasn't quite ready to quit just yet, so he advanced to the next stage-The Ohio Court of Appeals. There, the Justices
agreed with Selz that the ordinance cannot reasonably be read as prohibiting bicycles from using a public highway. In this regard, the case before us is similar to Lott v. Smith...That court held that an operator of a corn combine could not be found to have violated the statute...The corn combine was traveling at or near its highest possible speed...The facts in the case before us are virtually identical, except that a bicycle is substituted for the corn combine. In both cases the vehicle was being operated at, or close to, the highest possible speed. In either case, holding the operator to have violated the slow speed statute would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority has not clearly expressed an intention to do.
Based on that analysis, the Ohio court held in Trotwood v. Selz that
a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can.
Now let's ride back to Minnesota. As we saw in Ohio, the statutes are virtually identical. In fact, let's look at Minnesota's definition of "traffic"; under Section 169.01(44) of the Minnesota Traffic Regulations
"Traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Almost exactly what Ohio's code says. Now, the appellate decision in Trotwood v. Selz wasn't explicitly based on that definition, but let's look again at an interesting point Selz' attorney raised at trial:
a bicycle operator IS traffic -- the bicycle operator is part of the class of people protected by the statute.
"Traffic" is a broad piece of fabric, with many different threads. Not all "traffic" goes, or is capable of going, 45mph. By including these slower moving objects in the definition of "traffic" the legislature is allowing for varying speeds of vehicles on the roadways. If something is going as fast as it can on a roadway on which it has a right to proceed, how can it be "impeding" traffic?
That's basically what the Ohio Court of Appeals said. Keep in mind that the holding in Ohio isn't binding authority upon courts in Minnesota; however, it is persuasive authority, which makes it extremely likely that any case of a similar nature in Minnesota would be decided the same way.
Now, what I've really done is tell you what doesn't constitute impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, but that's really all the courts have told us, and as long as you're riding within what the law allows, you won't run the risk of impeding traffic. What do you think? Is it time for a ride?
Good luck,
Bob
(Research and drafting provided by Rick Bernardi-law student- Lewis and Clark)
Now read the fine print:
Bob Mionske is a former competitive cyclist who represented the U.S. at the 1988 Olympic games (where he finished fourth in the road race), the 1992 Olympics, as well as winning the 1990 national championship road race. After retiring from racing in 1993, he coached the Saturn Professional Cycling team for one year before heading off to law school. Mionske's practice is now split between personal-injury work, representing professional athletes as an agent and other legal issues facing endurance athletes (traffic violations, contract, criminal charges, intellectual property, etc). If you have a cycling-related legal question, please send it to mionskelaw@hotmail.com Bob will answer as many of these questions privately as he can. He will also select a few questions each week to answer in this column. General bicycle-accident advice can be found at www.bicyclelaw.com.
Important notice:
The information provided in the "Legally speaking" column is not legal advice. The information provided on this public web site is provided solely for the general interest of the visitors to this web site. The information contained in the column applies to general principles of American jurisprudence and may not reflect current legal developments or statutory changes in the various jurisdictions and therefore should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice. Understand that reading the information contained in this column does not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with attorney Bob Mionske. Readers of this column should not act upon any information contained in the web site without first seeking the advice of legal counsel.
yes
We are usually slow moving. If a bike is a vehicle, it's a slow moving one.
It is wrong to say that we are like something that barely uses the public roads at all (forklifts etc).
Well, at the moment, there aren't a lot of us.
It is wrong to say we should use those roads as is is despite the hostile designs that do not work well for bicycles. It is not good bicycle advocacy in my opinion. We are taxpayers, we are members of the public, we are operating human powered vehicles and we deserve suitably designed public accommodations.
I'm on board w/ this one. Heck, I'd say we should be subsidized just like hybrid owners, home owners, and parents. We should definitely be more subsidized than car owners. We need a louder voice. Thanks for using yours.
I want a federal and state tax incentive, just like any alternative energy source or hybrid car. I want bigger shoulders (on the road), and more through streets in neighborhoods away from the main car drags. My city has annoying road pattern to discourage people from driving through neighborhoods.
It would also be nice to get a healthy living subsidy (from health insurance or government). I also want a sign below the share the road sign that says not to pass within 3 ft of a cyclist.
genec
Great legal opinion, thanks Dusk.
Now the rest of this is not directed at you per se, but at cyclists all over and obviously the internet browsing cyclists in particular.
Now only one problem as I see it... only a hand full of cyclists and lawyers are aware of it.
The real question is how to make motorists aware that WE ARE TRAFFIC, and that WE HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as the motorists.
I know some here will suggest that simply riding on the road in a safe legal and predictable manner will "tell" the motorist all that. I disagree... the motorists may tolerate you on the road, but nothing in your riding style will tell them that the law stands behind you. Most motorists think they are just being polite or are just avoiding you.
Don't believe me? Go ask your coworkers what they think of cyclists on the road, and if those cyclists have any right to be on the road. I think you will hear some disturbing opinion.
sbhikes
a bicycle operator IS traffic -- the bicycle operator is part of the class of people protected by the statute.
"Traffic" is a broad piece of fabric, with many different threads. Not all "traffic" goes, or is capable of going, 45mph. By including these slower moving objects in the definition of "traffic" the legislature is allowing for varying speeds of vehicles on the roadways. If something is going as fast as it can on a roadway on which it has a right to proceed, how can it be "impeding" traffic?
I'm offering that as a protected class of people, and as traffic, and as traveling at the speed for which the machine is designed, we are deserving of roadways designed to accommodate us. I see dozens of cyclists on my route every day and I'm sure I'd see many more with better accommodations.
Little Darwin
The concept about slow moving vehicles as presented in the original post is flawed.
At least in PA horse and buggy operators (such as the Amish) have full access to the road, and operate at the speed they are intended to operate (the horses are usually at a trotting pace). They many times display slow moving vehicle symbols and are treated as legal travellers and are generally treated with respect by motorists.
We as bicyclists (at least most of us) are slow moving vehicles as well... slow moving vehicle only denotes a vehicle not allowed on the road whenever they want/need to be there in the minds of the uninformed.
There is nothing I am aware of in vehicle code (I am a layman, so will accept correction) that gives slow moving vehicles a sub-vehicle status just a recognition that they are limited in their top speed below the usual traffic speed.
Am I wrong?
sbhikes
I don't think we should be excluded or have to suffer special rules and regulations just because we are slower than other vehicles. I think the roads should be designed for us to begin with and not just for vehicles that can go 45mph or more.
LittleBigMan
I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle.
A bicycle is a human powered vehicle and I am operating it at the speed for which it was designed.
Operators of true slow moving vehicles (such as forklifts, farm equipment, earth-moving equipment) tend to be members of unions, carry special licenses, operate their vehicles for commercial purposes, and only take those vehicles on roads under special, limited circumstances.
A bicyclist operates his vehicle as a member of the public, on public roads provided to him by the State which serves him.
Operated by the public, upon public roads, at the speeds for which the vehicle is designed, a bicycle cannot be considered to be in the same category as forklifts, farm equipment or earth-moving equipment and the like. And because bicycles are operated by the public, upon public roads, at the speeds for which the vehicle is designed, they should be deserving of public services that fit within the parameters of the bicycle. Just as roads are designed for cars which have their own properties, roads must be designed to suit the properties of the bicycle.
It is wrong to say that we are like something that barely uses the public roads at all (forklifts etc). It is wrong to say we should use those roads as is is despite the hostile designs that do not work well for bicycles. It is not good bicycle advocacy in my opinion. We are taxpayers, we are members of the public, we are operating human powered vehicles and we deserve suitably designed public accommodations.
Well said. I agree, and I think it's extremely important for cyclists to be accomodated in the same level of comfort, safety and convenience that motorists are, whenever possible. Of course, I say that as a cyclist, knowing that non-cycling motorists don't really understand my unique needs.
I ride the roads as they are because it's reality. There are many times I've thought, "Gee, they could widen this road," or "they could enforce the speed limit," etc. Fortunately, I'm able to get around where I need to without too many difficulties, but it's obvious that the roads were not designed with me in mind. Still, road design seem to suit me very well, considering I wasn't in their plans!
I like where you're going with this, even if it turns out your solutions might not be the same as mine.
chipcom
I think the roads should be designed for us to begin with and not just for vehicles that can go 45mph or more.
Maybe, but that horse has been out of the barn for a lot of years. Bout the only thing that will change it is a total paradigm shift prompted by some huge event, like no sources of energy to power a vehicle faster than a horse.
Here in Ohio, a bicycle is considered a vehicle. So, if I operate that vehicle on the roadways, I am operating a slow-moving vehicle, using the speeds of other vehicles on the road as a benchmark. If I ride on a MUP, well now I am the top-dawg speed-wise and the peds are the slow movers....hey there's a thought, peds required to wear them big ole triangles on their butts when walking on the MUP!
LittleBigMan
I don't think we should be excluded or have to suffer special rules and regulations just because we are slower than other vehicles. I think the roads should be designed for us to begin with and not just for vehicles that can go 45mph or more.
Maybe, but that horse has been out of the barn for a lot of years. Bout the only thing that will change it is a total paradigm shift prompted by some huge event, like no sources of energy to power a vehicle faster than a horse.
Chip, isn't that what bike lanes are for?
LittleBigMan
Seems to me that Diane has hit the crux of the matter. We are not "slow moving vehicles" in the true sense of the word, because we are often everyday users of the road.
The basic dilemma of bicycle transportation is speed differential. We are slower, and slower-moving traffic always has to be taken into account in road design so that the needs of all road users are accomodated fairly, safely and conveniently. Where many of us differ is in our approaches to solving this problem, but we should pretty much agree about the problem.
sggoodri
If my interpretation is correct, Diane worries that "slow moving vehicle" status equates her with a class of users whom the general public views as unintended or less legitimate users of public roads.
I find this interesting because where I live, the general public appears to be more accepting and tolerant of the idea of tractors, tobacco wagons, harvesters, and construction equipment (not to mention garbage trucks and mail trucks) moving at slow speeds on public roadways than they are of bicyclists. This may be because in some of these parts there are more such slow-moving motor vehicles on the road than bicyclists.
The public where I live appears to accept the idea that moving tractors, tobacco, harvesters and front loaders from one place to another often requires use of public roads by these slower-than-average vehicles, and that drivers of these vehicles ought to have the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers on the public roads when they operate there. In this context, I feel that comparing bicyclists with drivers of slow moving vehicles improves perception of the cyclists' operational and legal issues. The public bias against bicyclists, when it appears, seems to be associated with economic class discrimination or tax/regulation resentment sparked by occasional, minor travel delays, but the anti-bicyclists tend to claim that the real reason they oppose bicyclists' use of roads is the "unworkability" of road sharing with slower vehicles in principle, as if slow vehicles are a new threat being added to the road environment. But when faced with the example of slow-moving motor vehicles, which the anti-bicyclists do not oppose, the anti-bicyclists have little choice but to abandon that argument, or reveal their hypocrisy.
Helmet Head
Cyclists are not slow moving vehicles. Cyclists are people. In many jurisdictions, including Diane's CA, cyclists are not drivers of slow moving vehicles, because bicycles (legally) are not vehicles. However, cyclists do have the same rights and responsibilites as drivers of vehicles. And when we are moving slower than other traffic, then we have the same rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles that are moving slower than other traffic.
Freeways are extraordinary roads that are designed for smooth traffic flow, where slow moving vehicles are prohibited. Taking this car-centric "freeway mentality" and applying it to ordinary roads, which Diane apparently has done, is an error.
Ordinary roads are designed for wide ranges of speeds, from zero (e.g., when traffic is stopped at intersections, perhaps at a red light, or waiting for a pedestrian or left-turner to cross), and even "negative" (relative to flow) speeds (e.g., when someone backs up into a parallel parking spot), all the way up to and beyond the posted speed limit.
To contend that existing ordinary roads are not designed for cyclists requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic vehicular rules of the road, traffic flow, speed and destination positioning, and probably comes from a car-centric mentality that applies rules appropriate on extraordinary roads like freeways, to ordinary urban, suburban and rural streets and highways where such application is inappropriate.
It is disappointing to encounter so-called cycling advocates that hold this car-centric view so deeply that they don't even recognize its influence on their thinking and attitude.
The OP demonstrates typical PnP (paint 'n path) thinking. For PnP advocates, the "same rights, same roads, same rules" slogan endorsed by most cycling advocacy organizations is empty and meaningless. What they really support are "special rights, segregated roads, different rules".
LittleBigMan
I find this interesting because where I live, the general public appears to be more accepting and tolerant of the idea of tractors, tobacco wagons, harvesters, and construction equipment (not to mention garbage trucks and mail trucks) moving at slow speeds on public roadways than they are of bicyclists.
I agree that the general public tends not to see cyclists as legitimate road users. The knucklehead who got behind me and leaned on his horn yesterday was an extreme example. I found myself descending into a lower status as one of my digital appendages got a mind of it's own, communicating more directly on a similar level. ;)
There is a lot we disagree on and fight about, but one thing we agree on is that we want the freedom to ride to as many places as we can, and enjoy ourselves to the utmost without pressure.
Bekologist
oadway space is valuable public space and should be designed for all users to share without conflict. as idealized a notion of vehicular parity is, the reality of on the ground anticyclist bias exists by gashuffers.
steve goodrich mentions it above in the discrimation in his area between agricultural machinery versus bicyclists.
i'm with diane, bicyclists deserve roadway accomodation so as to maximise expedient traffic flow for all users without conflict. when a speed differential approaches 2x for the average cyclist, roadway accomodation should be encouraged to provide maximum roadway expediency by all users.
velotransit accomodations ARE speed AND destination accomodating, provide preferred and preferential lanes of travel for bikes in the presence of auto congestion and "Sweet spot" roadway and visibility positioning in the presence OR absence of petrocentric traffic.
chipcom
Chip, isn't that what bike lanes are for?
I suppose...but I always thought of bikes lanes as a way to make use of unused roadway/shoulder that was originally designed for cars and get government funding to boot!
LittleBigMan
I suppose...but I always thought of bikes lanes as a way to make use of unused roadway/shoulder that was originally designed for cars and get government funding to boot!
Now I know you're just a grouchy old jarhead!
:D
sggoodri
i'm with diane, bicyclists deserve roadway accomodation so as to maximise expedient traffic flow for all users without conflict. when a speed differential approaches 2x for the average cyclist, roadway accomodation should be encouraged to provide maximum roadway expediency by all users.
I've always supported the principle that improved passing facilities should be prioritized where passing is most common and its ease most desirable. This is the reasoning behind Cary, NC's current standard of incorporating wide outside through lanes into all new and improved arterial roadways. (The old standard was narrow outside lanes.) Adding passing space to busy, higher speed roads makes more sense than adding it to low-traffic, lower speed roads.
However, the public is unwilling to pay enough to obtain an infrastructure where no delays occur. There will always be places where drivers of some vehicles are delayed by drivers of others. The question is, how do we want to characterize this situation? Who is not accommodated by the imperfect facility - the person traveling slower, or the person wanting to travel faster? Does the road lack a "slower vehicle" lane, or does it lack a "faster vehicle lane?"
As drivers of slower vehicles, I believe that it is in our interest to promote the paradigm that the road supports slow vehicles by default, and that passing improvements are optional facilities to serve the preferences of drivers who wish to travel faster with less delay. From this viewpoint, all users can get to their desired destinations regardless of vehicle type, and the drivers of faster vehicles can get there faster depending on the availablility of passing facilities.
The alternative assumption, that travel by slower vehicles is illegitimate or impractical without special slow-vehicle lanes, would appear to limit the destinations available to cyclists.
The historical use of ordinary roads by slow-moving vehicles, and the simple system of vehicular rules that has worked reasonably well for low-speed vehicles, seems to provide a good model for the use of ordinary roads by bicycles. The addition of passing facilities to those roads where passing is most useful is all well and good as long as it does not imply illegitimacy of slow travel without such. The passing facilities might or might not be striped a separate lanes and might or might not have different widths from the lanes used by the slowest vehicles depending on the statistics of the vehicle sizes. But I think it is preferable to be considered by default to be a driver of a slow moving vehicle on a generic vehicle facility rather than a non-driver of a non-vehicle that must be kept out of the way of "real" vehicles.
-Steve Goodridge
Monoborracho
I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle.
Like it or not, the road was not designed for bicycles, but for cars. We are slow moving relative to the usual traffic.
We always lose when we tangle with anything on the road, be it a semi truck, or a dog.
Whether you like it or not its a fact, we move slowly. I don't mind the designation. I want to be seen by all drivers, and I carry a slow moving patch on the back of my rack pack when touring and in the early AM rides.
I don't want to be dead right.
sbhikes
We are slower but we are not slow-moving vehicles. We are operating our vehicles at their intended speed at or near the maximum speed and on the surfaces for which they were designed to be used (not on the factory floor or on the farm), and for the same purposes as all other faster consumer-use vehicles. So we ought to be entitled to the same considerations.
We should not be "tolerated" like tobacco trucks. We should not have to pull over for everyone who is faster. Our needs should not be at the bottom of the pile, or ignored altogether, when roads are built. I make a hell of a lot of money and have no write-offs so I deserve my tax money going where it helps me. And I deserve a subsidy as well, while I'm at it. Somebody should give me tax credits for the pollutants I'm not spewing.
patc
I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle.
Move to Ontario. Here bikes are specifically excluded from the smv definition.
sggoodri
We are slower but we are not slow-moving vehicles. We are operating our vehicles at their intended speed at or near the maximum speed and on the surfaces for which they were designed to be used (not on the factory floor or on the farm), and for the same purposes as all other faster consumer-use vehicles. So we ought to be entitled to the same considerations.
We should not be "tolerated" like tobacco trucks. We should not have to pull over for everyone who is faster. Our needs should not be at the bottom of the pile, or ignored altogether, when roads are built. I make a hell of a lot of money and have no write-offs so I deserve my tax money going where it helps me. And I deserve a subsidy as well, while I'm at it. Somebody should give me tax credits for the pollutants I'm not spewing.
Again, its interesting to me the distinctions you make, possibly based on where we live.
Here, the tobacco wagon haulers don't usually pull over for faster traffic. The state law in NC never requires drivers of slow moving vehicles to pull off the road, only to use the right lane available for their direction of travel. The purpose of building many of the roads was to transport tobacco in the first place.
Garbage trucks and mail trucks here often travel at reduced speed as they stop and go short distances, but this is required for their function. People understand why they travel slowly and accept this.
To be "tolerated" like a tobacco wagon driver or mail truck operator would, in my mind, be a step up from what we have in my area now, which is a lot of drivers who think we don't belong on the roadway at all unless it is striped with a bike lane. I would rather be viewed as the driver of a vehicle with limited speed capability than the driver of a class of vehicle that has reduced legitimacy on normal, unmarked roads.
catatonic
I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle.
A bicycle is a human powered vehicle and I am operating it at the speed for which it was designed.
Operators of true slow moving vehicles (such as forklifts, farm equipment, earth-moving equipment) tend to be members of unions, carry special licenses, operate their vehicles for commercial purposes, and only take those vehicles on roads under special, limited circumstances.
A bicyclist operates his vehicle as a member of the public, on public roads provided to him by the State which serves him.
Operated by the public, upon public roads, at the speeds for which the vehicle is designed, a bicycle cannot be considered to be in the same category as forklifts, farm equipment or earth-moving equipment and the like. And because bicycles are operated by the public, upon public roads, at the speeds for which the vehicle is designed, they should be deserving of public services that fit within the parameters of the bicycle. Just as roads are designed for cars which have their own properties, roads must be designed to suit the properties of the bicycle.
It is wrong to say that we are like something that barely uses the public roads at all (forklifts etc). It is wrong to say we should use those roads as is is despite the hostile designs that do not work well for bicycles. It is not good bicycle advocacy in my opinion. We are taxpayers, we are members of the public, we are operating human powered vehicles and we deserve suitably designed public accommodations.
What about horse-drawn carriages?
They are moving at the speeds they are designed for as well, yet they are also "slow moving vehicles".
Honestly, I think this is just beating around the bush...isn't the real point how you think people regard slow moving vehicles as "lesser traffic" or "obstructive traffic" (quotation marks because I like em!)? At least that's the vibe I'm getting from your thread.
Really, who cares what we are called...slow moving vehicles have the same rights to the road, so if they can't take a dose of real life, eff em.
genec
To be "tolerated" like a tobacco wagon driver or mail truck operator would, in my mind, be a step up from what we have in my area now, which is a lot of drivers who think we don't belong on the roadway at all unless it is striped with a bike lane. I would rather be viewed as the driver of a vehicle with limited speed capability than the driver of a class of vehicle that has reduced legitimacy on normal, unmarked roads.
+1
Again it comes down to drivers understanding and accepting us on the road rather than dodging and tolerating us.
bbonnn
Thank you, Diane! I've been looking for a way to define why I refuse to wear one of those "slow moving vehicle" triangles on my backpack or vest -- I've seen other cyclists around here use them, and it always rubs me the wrong way. I guess it's because it does put cyclists into a special class of vehicles that are temporarily on the road (like a tractor) but really belong elsewhere. I think that message de-legitimizes our presence on roadways.
What is the purpose of the "smv triangle" symbol? I would guess it's supposed to indicate to (really obtuse) drivers that a motorized vehicle, such as a forklift tooling down the road, may not be capable of travel at the speed limit -- perhaps motorists would assume otherwise without the symbol. It should be blatantly obvious to motorists that a cyclist isn't capable of doing 55mph, so I don't see the need for the symbol.
Edit: I hope it's OK to call you Diane -- I don't know you, but I love reading your posts and I've seen other posters call you Diane. Please pardon my impertinence. :)
trackhub
I seem to remember reading about a Texas Legislator who tried to get a law through that have required cyclists to wear large "Slow moving Vehicle" triangles on their backs. Luckily, the bill went nowhere.
A Texas sports commentator was quoted as saying "could you imagine Lance wearing one of these? I think not.".
What is it about public office in this country that attracts so many morons? (Not to mention individuals who are morally bankrupt, but that's another entire discussion.)
DigitalQuirk
Personally, I feel that the reflective slow-moving vehicle triangle legitimizes the use of bicycles as a means of transportation on public roads originally designed for motor vehicles in the eyes of the motoring public.
sbhikes
Thank you, Diane! I've been looking for a way to define why I refuse to wear one of those "slow moving vehicle" triangles on my backpack or vest -- I've seen other cyclists around here use them, and it always rubs me the wrong way. I guess it's because it does put cyclists into a special class of vehicles that are temporarily on the road (like a tractor) but really belong elsewhere. I think that message de-legitimizes our presence on roadways.
What is the purpose of the "smv triangle" symbol? I would guess it's supposed to indicate to (really obtuse) drivers that a motorized vehicle, such as a forklift tooling down the road, may not be capable of travel at the speed limit -- perhaps motorists would assume otherwise without the symbol. It should be blatantly obvious to motorists that a cyclist isn't capable of doing 55mph, so I don't see the need for the symbol.
Edit: I hope it's OK to call you Diane -- I don't know you, but I love reading your posts and I've seen other posters call you Diane. Please pardon my impertinence. :)
Diane is my real name so no problem there.
I think you understand what I am saying.
It occurred to me that I didn't like these analogies people have that we are just slow moving vehicles so we should just act like them, or whatever. That's just too much peering nervously in my mirror ready to step aside for the "big boys", the legitimate road users. We aren't illegitimate road users. We aren't second-class. We aren't on the road temporarily and we aren't commercial vehicles and we aren't large or Amish.
This isn't about bike lanes, either. It's more about those nasty on-ramp-like lanes and other road structures that create a hostile riding environment for cyclists.
And I even use one of those triangles on the back of my trike. That's because even in bright daylight it is glowing and highly visible. I take everything I can get being only a few inches off the ground, so low I can see what's sticking to the inside of SUV wheel wells. But a slow-moving vehicle I ain't.
I am a human powered vehicle.
Monoborracho
We are slower
I make a hell of a lot of money and have no write-offs so I deserve my tax money going where it helps me. And I deserve a subsidy as well, while I'm at it. Somebody should give me tax credits for the pollutants I'm not spewing.
This whole premise is lame. If you're not slow moving then get out with the traffic and see how long you last.
I'm glad you make a hell of a lot of money with no write-offs. Its not our fault you don't have any write-offs. If you make a lot of money I'm sure you could get some. I appreciate your taking on a greater portion of America's tax burdens of your own free will or whatever. It helps lower my tax burden.
No one owes you a tax credit for something you are not doing. Why would "somebody" owe you a tax credit? Least of all me.
Peterpan1
"I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle."
I don't understand the concept here. What is the issue? Is there some legislation or common inference being drawn in California the rest of us aren't aware of?
"Operators of true slow moving vehicles (such as forklifts, farm equipment, earth-moving equipment) tend to be members of unions,"
Farmers and small business owners of fork lifts (factory workers don't usually take them for jaunts on the roads) are members of unions? And even if so, it just seems like another non-sequitur.
"carry special licenses"
Not farmers. But, believe me, I won't be feeling better about this if it starts with licensing bikes...
"operate their vehicles for commercial purposes"
Unlike bike couriers, Lance, or wine country tour operators...
"and only take those vehicles on roads under special, limited circumstances."
In other words, like the rest of us, when they need to.
A purpose of the slow triangle is if you come quickly upon a vehicle that by general outline appears to be a normal vehicle, or massive enough to be substantial, and you haven't been following it long enough to have noted it's speed or direction, then you get a visual cue as to what it is, and why it might swing wide to take a gate into the next farm lane. Bikes other than the pre-flattened trike etc... are instantly identifiable as a bike. They have a very obvious silhouette, and almost everyone has ridden one, at one time or another. They do not require special identification as far as I can see. It's important that they are visible but what they are up to on roads is usually obvious. I don't see that a slow vehicle designation would mean much. The slow vehicle marker doesn't help much with slow vehicles either.
NoRacer
...cyclists are not drivers of slow moving vehicles, because bicycles (legally) are not vehicles.
Wrong! In the state of Maryland, legally, a bicycle -is- considered a vehicle, as shown here:
Bicycles are vehicles and as such must obey all the same traffic laws, including stopping at red lights, stop signs, etc. (]TR § 21-1202 (http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_statutes.exe?gtr&21-1202))
TR § 21-1202 cites § 21-504 (http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_statutes.exe?gtr&21-504), which states:
§ 21-504.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall, if necessary, warn any pedestrian by sounding the horn of the vehicle.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise proper precaution on observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated individual.
Maryland Vehicle Code § 11-104 (http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_statutes.exe?gtr&11-104) defines a "bicycle" as:
§ 11-104.
"Bicycle" means a vehicle that:
(1) Is designed to be operated by human power;
(2) Has two or three wheels, of which one is more than 14 inches in diameter;
(3) Has a rear drive; and
(4) Has a wheel configuration as follows:
(i) If the vehicle has two wheels, with both wheels in tandem; or
(ii) If the vehicle has three wheels, with one front wheel and with two rear wheels that are spaced equidistant from the center of the vehicle.
LittleBigMan
Bicycles are slow-moving vehicles in a class all by themselves. Our needs are quite different from operators of tractors, horse-drawn carriages, or heavy equipment.
For one thing, I can be passed by cars more easily, since I am narrower. For another thing, my speed tends to vary more because I'm human-powered, going very fast downhill and much slower uphill. I have to be more careful than most slow-moving vehicle operators to avoid potholes and road debris. I'm more vulnerable in a crash than most.
sggoodri
It occurred to me that I didn't like these analogies people have that we are just slow moving vehicles so we should just act like them, or whatever. That's just too much peering nervously in my mirror ready to step aside for the "big boys", the legitimate road users. We aren't illegitimate road users. We aren't second-class. We aren't on the road temporarily and we aren't commercial vehicles and we aren't large or Amish.
This isn't about bike lanes, either. It's more about those nasty on-ramp-like lanes and other road structures that create a hostile riding environment for cyclists.
If busy roads with higher speeds were simply built with adequate width for safe and easy passing of slower users like cyclists, would you feel that you needed to do too much peering into your mirror and getting out of the way?
And if highway engineers designed junctions with the assumption that entrance and exit paths would encounter "mixed traffic" including lower speed vehicles, would that work?
I personally don't see why road engineers can't consider bicycles as part of a general class of slower vehicles, including electric mopeds, gas mopeds, neighborhood electric vehicles, meter-reading vehicles, horsedrawn carriages, and so forth. If the engineers could design the roads and the police enforce the laws to make travel conditions reasonably safe and enjoyable for this entire class of users, do we really need to single out bicyclists as a special class and segregate them with separate lanes from the others?
-Steve Goodridge (from Cary, NC, where golf car operators are allowed to use striped bike lanes, but the wacky local golf car law requires them to merge left into the normal travel lane if a bicyclist wants to pass them from behind, since bicyclists are expected to stay in the bike lanes.)
bookishboy
...and we aren't large or Amish.
I agree with a lot of what you've said, but unfortunately, we *are* Amish, at least in the minds of the folks who are going to yell out their windows at us. We're the folks who (in their view) can't afford a car, or aren't permitted to drive, or choose for 'religious' reasons not to drive one. We Pedalling Amish are to be tolerated at best, or else encouraged to sensibly adopt the habits of the automotive masses.
Are you willing to tolerate the eccentricities of an Amish person who drives a horse-and-buggy, because of their unusual beliefs and the fact that there aren't many of them? If so, you're reinforcing the same attitude that you've just been complaining against. I'm pretty sure an Amish person would feel the same way about their 'slow-moving vehicle' that you and I do about ours. (Any Amish folks care to comment? If so, what are you doing on an internet forum?)
It would be really nice to see *all* of traffic taken into consideration when our local, state and national road systems are being designed and built.
The real question is how to make motorists aware that WE ARE TRAFFIC, and that WE HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as the motorists.Critical Mass rides seem to be one way. They make the point, they're only once per month, during the afternoon commute home, and they're inclusive rather than exclusive. Unfortunately, they also seem to operate at the whims of the local constabulary. The more annoying/inconvienent they are, the more they make their point.... and the more likely they are to result in ticketing, bike confiscations, arrests, etc.
LittleBigMan
I personally don't see why road engineers can't consider bicycles as part of a general class of slower vehicles, including electric mopeds, gas mopeds, neighborhood electric vehicles, meter-reading vehicles, horsedrawn carriages, and so forth. If the engineers could design the roads and the police enforce the laws to make travel conditions reasonably safe and enjoyable for this entire class of users, do we really need to single out bicyclists as a special class and segregate them with separate lanes from the others?
I think the main thing is that when you have exceptions to the rule in traffic (bicycles, slow-moving vehicles,) you have to take into account their own peculiar needs, while at the same time not varying significantly from the general rules governing traffic flow.
(...Cary, NC, where golf car operators are allowed to use striped bike lanes, but the wacky local golf car law requires them to merge left into the normal travel lane if a bicyclist wants to pass them from behind, since bicyclists are expected to stay in the bike lanes.)
This is really whacked-out. What are these planners smoking?
MartinPion
ANY vehicle not moving at the speed of traffic or the normal speed prevailing is defined as "a slow moving vehicle" and that applies to motor vehicles too! A motorist deliberately moving at less than the speed limit can be ticketed for obstructing traffic.
The rule for bicyclists in Missouri is that they should stay to the right as far as is SAFE (not as far as is POSSIBLE, an important distinction) with exceptions, e.g. when making a left turn, or to avoid road hazards, or when in a narrow lane.
Martin Pion
thinkbicycling.com
I-Like-To-Bike
Originally Posted by sggoodri(...Cary, NC, where golf car operators are allowed to use striped bike lanes, but the wacky local golf car law requires them to merge left into the normal travel lane if a bicyclist wants to pass them from behind, since bicyclists are expected to stay in the bike lanes.)
This is really whacked-out. What are these planners smoking?
Not so wacked out as anyone who pays attention to such a "law" or "expectation." I find it hard to believe anyone, anywhere would either enforce or comply with such a "law."
LittleBigMan
A motorist deliberately moving at less than the speed limit can be ticketed for obstructing traffic.
I think that only applies when the intent is obstruct. I know of no law that forces anyone to drive at exactly the speed limit wherever possible.
LittleBigMan
Not so wacked out as anyone who pays attention to such a "law" or "expectation." I find it hard to believe anyone, anywhere would either enforce or comply with such a "law."
I'll bite. People often don't know about laws that are passed, and never worry about them. Not until they try to claim their rights under the law, and find themselves powerless. This has happened to me, and believe me, it's humiliating to be abused by the very system that's supposed to protect you. I've had judges do it, policemen do it, and why? The short answer: because they could.
It's not stupid to care about the letter of the law. It's prudent.
On a side note, it would be refreshing if ILTB were to stick to points and avoid personal attacks.
sentinel4675
Bookish,
Who is to determine what types of vehicles will be used in the future? In the late 50's and 60's when roadways were really growing, bikes were mainly used by kids and families and very few were for commuting. Since that time, bike commuting has increased, but even so, it isn't any where near the volume of cars used for commuting. With limited tax money available, they have to use their money somewhat wisely and for the majority of people who use the roadways. I agree there should be some wider shoulders to bikes to safely use.
chipcom
This whole premise is lame. If you're not slow moving then get out with the traffic and see how long you last.
Funny, I been riding 'out with the traffic' for 40 or so years and here I still is, masa!!!
chipcom
For another thing, my speed tends to vary more because I'm human-powered
Ha, I am skeptical of your claims of being human...got any proof? A DNA sample will do. :D
chipcom
I think that only applies when the intent is obstruct. I know of no law that forces anyone to drive at exactly the speed limit wherever possible.
Many freeways have a minimum speed limit...but that really isn't applicable in the context of bicycles.
I agree there needs to be intent to obstruct - or the capacity to match the normal flow of traffic, which a bicycle does not have in some cases.
I-Like-To-Bike
On a side note, it would be refreshing if ILTB were to stick to points and avoid personal attacks.
And I'll bite back, What personal attack? Steve discusses an obscure local law that allegedly affects golf car operators and extrapolates it into some sort of non-legal "expectations" affecting bicyclists. My point is clear; what bicyclist is affected by this so-called law? Except perhaps one who is wrapped around the axle about the use of golf cars in a vacation/tourist areas and deliberately confuses an obscure local golf car user issue with bicyclists' issues.
On the positive side at least there is no more attempt at confusing exaggerated Segway user "issues" with bicyclist issues.
LittleBigMan
Ha, I am skeptical of your claims of being human...got any proof? A DNA sample will do. :D
Don't get me started, this is a family forum. ;)
Helmet Head
...cyclists are not drivers of slow moving vehicles, because bicycles (legally) are not vehicles.
Wrong! In the state of Maryland, legally, a bicycle -is- considered a vehicle, as shown here:
If you think Helmet Head is wrong, that's probably a reason to check your premises... ;)
In this case, you edited out a rather important part of my statement, which I now restore in bold: "In many jurisdictions, including Diane's CA, cyclists are not drivers of slow moving vehicles, because bicycles (legally) are not vehicles.
When a Californian is addressing another Californian on a matter of California law, what is the relevance of Maryland law?
scarry
Dream on. I just wish they could patch the potholes on the existing roads.
If they can't even maintain the existing roads, what makes you think that they will re-design them.
I don't think we should be excluded or have to suffer special rules and regulations just because we are slower than other vehicles. I think the roads should be designed for us to begin with and not just for vehicles that can go 45mph or more.