VC vs. Hurst's "Art of urban cycling"

[Helmet Head]

Would that same vehicular cyclist have any reasons for not passing on the right in a right lane on a four lane road where all the motor traffic is stopped in the left lane, for one motorist making a left turn?
No.

If a motorist choses to leave the stuck left lane, does that motorist have an obligation to look to the right to ensure that his way is clear before changing lanes?
Of course. But it has to occur to him that there is a reason to look to the right in order for him to meet this obligation. If what is to his right is a traffic lane, he is likely to check first.
If he is in the rightmost traffic lane already, then it is much less likely to occur to him to check first.

[genec]

No.


Of course. But it has to occur to him that there is a reason to look to the right in order for him to meet this obligation. If what is to his right is a traffic lane, he is likely to check first.
If he is in the rightmost traffic lane already, then it is much less likely to occur to him to check first.

Are bicycles not traffic, too?

[Helmet Head]

Are bicycles not traffic, too? Bicyclists on bicycles are traffic, but traffic, right or wrong, is often expected to be only in traffic lanes. Traffic lanes are the primary spaces drivers check for traffic. If a driver remembers to check a bike lane too, that's great, but I, for one, would never expect it.

[Bekologist]

yet more anti-bike lane spiel by the self styled uber-VC of bike forums.

I thought this thread was supossed to be Advanced VC spout off about books, Mr. Head.

are you sure you fit the advanced VC criterea, Mr Head? My 'inner feelings' indicate mr. head's part-time riding and weekend pelotons don't give him a lot of time to practice the 'advanced' nuances of riding in traffic.

A part timer, a weekender, a recreational group rider pontificating about advanced traffic skills. Oh, brother.

and is this thread about advanced cyclists discuss cycling books, or the inevitable arguments about bike infrastructure that benefits communities, bicycling and bicyclist safety?

[genec]

Bicyclists on bicycles are traffic, but traffic, right or wrong, is often expected to be only in traffic lanes. Traffic lanes are the primary spaces drivers check for traffic. If a driver remembers to check a bike lane too, that's great, but I, for one, would never expect it.

Seems as though drivers need to be reminded that cyclists on bicycles are traffic too. That simple.

[Helmet Head]

Seems as though drivers need to be reminded that cyclists on bicycles are traffic too. That simple.
Yes, bicycles are traffic too. But drivers generally look for vehicular traffic first, and, if you're lucky, sometimes they remember to look for pedestrian traffic too. Expecting them to remember to look for a third mode of traffic, in bike lanes, is more than I'm willing to do.

The type of vehicle does not determine if you are vehicular traffic or not, it's the context in which you're traveling.

If you're in the traffic lanes, then you're vehicular traffic. If you're outside of the traffic lanes, then it's silly to expect to be treated as vehicular traffic, regardless of what you're driving or riding.

Edit: added first line, and changed to use the term vehicular traffic in place of the more ambiguous, traffic.

[Blue Order]

The type of vehicle does not determine if you are traffic or not, it's the context in which you're traveling.

If you're in the traffic lanes, then you're traffic. If you're outside of the traffic lanes, then it's silly to expect to be treated as traffic, regardless of what you're driving or riding.Have you ever bothered to look at the definition of traffic in the vehicle code? It includes vehicles, pedestrians, street cars, driven and herded animals.

Have you ever bothered to look at the definition of highway in the traffic code? It includes the roadway and sidewalks.

Your definition of traffic is arbitrary and not in accordance with what the law says traffic is, or where traffic travels.

[Helmet Head]

Have you ever bothered to look at the definition of traffic in the vehicle code? It includes vehicles, pedestrians, street cars, driven and herded animals.

Have you ever bothered to look at the definition of highway in the traffic code? It includes the roadway and sidewalks.

Your definition of traffic is arbitrary and not in accordance with what the law says traffic is, or where traffic travels. Yes, I am very well aware of the legal definition of traffic, which is broad.

I am using the colloquial definition, meaning vehicular traffic, and also that which is intended when one refers to a traffic lane.

To restate my original statement with more clarity:

Yes, bicycles are traffic too. But drivers generally look for vehicular traffic first, and, if you're lucky, sometimes they remember to look for pedestrian traffic too. Expecting them to remember to look for a third mode of traffic, in bike lanes, is more than I'm willing to do.

The type of vehicle does not determine if you are vehicular traffic or not, it's the context in which you're traveling.

If you're in pedestrian facilities, then you're pedestrian traffic. It's silly to expect to be treated as vehicular traffic when using pedestrian facilities.

If you're in the traffic lanes, then you're vehicular traffic. If you're outside of the traffic lanes, then it's silly to expect to be treated as vehicular traffic, regardless of what you're driving or riding.

Better?

[Bekologist]

silly.

[Blue Order]

Yes, I am very well aware of the legal definition of traffic, which is broad.

I am using the colloquial definition, meaning vehicular traffic, and also that which is intended when one refers to a traffic lane.

To restate my original statement with more clarity:

The type of vehicle does not determine if you are vehicular traffic or not, it's the context in which you're traveling.

If you're in the traffic lanes, then you're vehicular traffic. If you're outside of the traffic lanes, then it's silly to expect to be treated as vehicular traffic, regardless of what you're driving or riding.

Better?You're making a completely arbitrary and self-serving definition of traffic in order to support your silly notion that you're only traffic-- or even vehicular traffic-- if you're in the same lane as motor vehicles.

There's no support for your proposition in the law or anywhere else. It's just something you made up because it supports the rest of your groundless hypotheses.

[Helmet Head]

You're making a completely arbitrary and self-serving definition of traffic in order to support your silly notion that you're only traffic-- or even vehicular traffic-- if you're in the same lane as motor vehicles.

There's no support for your proposition in the law or anywhere else. It's just something you made up because it supports the rest of your groundless hypotheses. I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

All I'm saying is when someone is driving in a traffic lane with another traffic lane to his right, it's normal for him to remember to check that adjacent lane for vehicular traffic before merging into it. If he's in the rightmost lane, then he's much less likely to even think to look in the space to his right first. He's likely to not even think to look even if he just passed a cyclist a few seconds ago, and is slowing down to make a right turn, thus allowing the cyclist to catch up and pass him on the right, a very common set of conditions for a right hook.

And it has nothing to do with thinking of bicycles as traffic. It has everything to do with expectations about where traffic belongs and is expected to be. I say: ride accordingly.

[Blue Order]

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.:lol: Anybody care to comment? :lol:


All I'm saying is when someone is driving in a traffic lane with another traffic lane to his right, it's normal for him to remember to check that adjacent lane for vehicular traffic before merging into it. If he's in the rightmost lane, then he's much less likely to even think to look in the space to his right first. He's likely to not even think to look even if he just passed a cyclist a few seconds ago, and is slowing down to make a right turn, thus allowing the cyclist to catch up and pass him on the right, a very common set of conditions for a right hook.

And it has nothing to do with thinking of bicycles as traffic. It has everything to do with expectations about where traffic belongs and is expected to be. I say: ride accordingly.What about traffic in the crosswalks? The driver just drives blindly through the painted stripes, then, because traffic isn't expected there?

[Bekologist]

Sorry, Helmet Head- this thread is for "advanced vehicular cyclists" and I don't believe you're qualified as an 'advanced vehicular cyclist'- you're a weekend club rider, aren't you? -

to debate books in this thread by bandying about your pet theories about cognition and drivers.

[sbhikes]

So let me see if I understand. The difference between a vehicular cyclist and a regular one is the vehicular cyclist is more cautious when doing exactly the same thing as the regular cyclist.

Sounds to me like this agrees with Bek.

[Blue Order]

The problem, in a nutshell, that HH is struggling with is this: By narrowly defining "traffic" to include motor vehicles only, he then reasons that in order for bicycles to be "vehicular traffic," they must use the "traffic lanes." Otherwise, they're not "traffic," and thus, not entitled to vehicular rights.

Of course, HH recognizes that "traffic" includes vehicles-- both motorized and human-powered--, pedestrians, streetcars, and animals. And he recognizes that the highway includes more than just the "vehicular lanes." But if he actually adopts that definition, then he's stuck in a world in which one isn't required to ride in "vehicular lanes" in order to be entitled to vehicular rights.

And that just goes against his dogma that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Of course, there's no reason that a cyclist couldn't act as a driver of a vehicle which is at times permitted the use of the so-called "vehicular lanes," and at other times is allowed, perhaps even required, to use "other" vehicular lanes. No reason at all, except it doesn't fit with his narrow, self-imposed definition, which requires him to be mixing it up with autos at all times.

And that narrow, rigid definition is what Hurst zeroes in on, and it's grating on HH. :lol:

[genec]

Yes, I am very well aware of the legal definition of traffic, which is broad.

I am using the colloquial definition, meaning vehicular traffic, and also that which is intended when one refers to a traffic lane.

To restate my original statement with more clarity:

Yes, bicycles are traffic too. But drivers generally look for vehicular traffic first, and, if you're lucky, sometimes they remember to look for pedestrian traffic too. Expecting them to remember to look for a third mode of traffic, in bike lanes, is more than I'm willing to do.

The type of vehicle does not determine if you are vehicular traffic or not, it's the context in which you're traveling.

If you're in pedestrian facilities, then you're pedestrian traffic. It's silly to expect to be treated as vehicular traffic when using pedestrian facilities.

If you're in the traffic lanes, then you're vehicular traffic. If you're outside of the traffic lanes, then it's silly to expect to be treated as vehicular traffic, regardless of what you're driving or riding.

Better?

Sure it's a bit better, but again it points out that the weak link is motorists not driving in accordance with the laws or best practices... meaning that cyclists are granting motorists carte blanche by covering for the motorists' poor driving habits.

What do those motorists think those right side mirrors are for anyway?

Yes, cyclists can and must compensate for what motorists are failing to do... That does not excuse motorists from the responsibility.

[Bekologist]

helmie, bike lanes are NOT pedestrian facilites. what a tangled misunderstanding of road design and traffic dynamics.

[John Forester]

helmie, bike lanes are NOT pedestrian facilites. what a tangled misunderstanding of road design and traffic dynamics.

The argument about what constitutes "traffic" is no more than playing with words. Certainly, driven animals are a type of traffic. In England, I have several times had to navigate through or around flocks of sheep. But how long is it since any of you in America have had to deal with flocks or herds, particularly in the urban areas where bikeway programs operate? Traffic law does not consider the particular type of vehicle significant (except those operating on fixed tracks or rails). Traffic law is directed at two classes of person, drivers of vehicles and pedestrians. A person traveling on the highway is one or the other. (Well, he may be a passenger, but since he does nothing regarding the operation of his vehicle, he has no responsibility and is ignored by traffic law.) The discussion would have avoided all the silly semantics had it rested on that distinction.

[Bekologist]

actually, john, a portion of state laws specifically discusses bicyclists as road users nowadays.....

safe passing distances, how bicyclists may operate, the requirements of lights and safety equipment......

[KrisPistofferson]

Hurst's book was the single most helpful book, hands down, I ever read when I went car-free 7 years ago. I have not read Forester's book, to be fair, but I've learned far more about VC than I ever even wanted to from some of the disciples on this message board. Automobiles are different than bicycles, sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes you've got to lump it, and sometimes just because you can take up an entire lane, doesn't mean you should, for your own safety, and the safety of others.

[Blue Order]

The argument about what constitutes "traffic" is no more than playing with words. Certainly, driven animals are a type of traffic. In England, I have several times had to navigate through or around flocks of sheep. But how long is it since any of you in America have had to deal with flocks or herds, particularly in the urban areas where bikeway programs operate? Traffic law does not consider the particular type of vehicle significant (except those operating on fixed tracks or rails). Traffic law is directed at two classes of person, drivers of vehicles and pedestrians. A person traveling on the highway is one or the other. (Well, he may be a passenger, but since he does nothing regarding the operation of his vehicle, he has no responsibility and is ignored by traffic law.) The discussion would have avoided all the silly semantics had it rested on that distinction.Do you maintain then that a motor vehicle may drive along the length of the sidewalk, just like a bicycle?

[John Forester]

actually, john, a portion of state laws specifically discusses bicyclists as road users nowadays.....

safe passing distances, how bicyclists may operate, the requirements of lights and safety equipment......

You act as if you had discovered something new, whereas these matters have been discussed competently and at length for decades. Learn the facts and learn to make sense of them; no traffic law discusses bicyclists as road users. Traffic law, like most statute laws, either requires or prohibits; it does not discuss.

Certainly, traffic law considers subclasses of the class of drivers of vehicles: drivers of motor vehicles, drivers of streetcars, drivers of vehicles carrying hazardous products, drivers of commercial passenger vehicles (maybe only the larger ones, I am not sure), drivers of light vehicles pulling trailers, drivers of animals, drivers of bicycles.

The safe passing law that you mentioned is not a law for drivers of bicycles; it is a law requiring drivers of motor vehicles to do something. The laws regarding equipment are not part of the rules of the road (although some states do put these in the wrong place). And the laws regarding nighttime protective equipment for bicycles are an almost complete mess in most states and in the federal government, largely as the product of the self-serving activities of what used to be called the Bicycle Manufacturers Association.

Now consider the traffic laws in the rules of the road section that are applied to drivers of bicycles. Every law that I know of that applies specifically and only to drivers of bicycles is a discriminatory law enacted by motorists to try to push cyclists to the side of the road, or off the road, for the convenience of motorists. The government's bikeway program is the physical embodiment of those discriminatory laws. That's why I state that cyclists should oppose all government actions that are based on the supposed inferiority of bicycle riders.

[John Forester]

Do you maintain then that a motor vehicle may drive along the length of the sidewalk, just like a bicycle?

It is distressing to have to work with people who are either utterly ignorant or nastily provocative. The law states that drivers of motor vehicles are prohibited from driving along sidewalks, and, when they cross sidewalks they must yield to the traffic on the sidewalk. I cannot believe that you did not know that. Therefore, why try to be nasty about it?

[Blue Order]

It is distressing to have to work with people who are either utterly ignorant or nastily provocative. The law states that drivers of motor vehicles are prohibited from driving along sidewalks, and, when they cross sidewalks they must yield to the traffic on the sidewalk. I cannot believe that you did not know that. Therefore, why try to be nasty about it?Aside from at least one other inaccuracy, you stated:

Traffic law does not consider the particular type of vehicle significant (except those operating on fixed tracks or rails). Traffic law is directed at two classes of person, drivers of vehicles and pedestrians. A person traveling on the highway is one or the other.Clearly, as you acknowledged in your previous post, this is not accurate, or the law would not distinguish between automobiles and bicycles, both "vehicles" under the law.

Bringing it back to the larger argument, when Helmet Head speaks of "traffic lanes," he's conveniently ignoring the fact that bicycle lanes are also traffic lanes. Yes, we must have something to call those lanes that motor vehicles occupy, and perhaps "traffic lanes" is convenient, but it doesn't follow that a bicycle must occupy the "traffic lanes" at all times in order to be considered "traffic."

[Blue Order]

Now consider the traffic laws in the rules of the road section that are applied to drivers of bicycles. Every law that I know of that applies specifically and only to drivers of bicycles is a discriminatory law enacted by motorists to try to push cyclists to the side of the road, or off the road, for the convenience of motorists. The government's bikeway program is the physical embodiment of those discriminatory laws. That's why I state that cyclists should oppose all government actions that are based on the supposed inferiority of bicycle riders.That is not accurate at all. The laws that are applied specifically to bicycles were developed from principles of traffic law that existed long before either the bicycle or the motor vehicle appeared on the road. And in fact, the laws that apply to motor vehicles were derived from laws first developed for bicycles, based on ancient principles of traffic law.

[LittleBigMan]

Some people claim that they were unable to ride a bicycle on pavement until they read Forester's book.
LittleBigMan for one.
Wow, Pete Fagerlin is now using me as an example.

:beer:

Tell us Pete, when did you add clairvoyance to your bicycling and photography skills? Maybe you should add some reading comprehension to that list...

[Helmet Head]

Bringing it back to the larger argument, when Helmet Head speaks of "traffic lanes," he's conveniently ignoring the fact that bicycle lanes are also traffic lanes. Yes, we must have something to call those lanes that motor vehicles occupy, and perhaps "traffic lanes" is convenient, but it doesn't follow that a bicycle must occupy the "traffic lanes" at all times in order to be considered "traffic." Nothing I said is based on the assertion that "a bicycle must occupy the 'traffic lanes' at all times in order to be considered 'traffic.'"

My point is you're less likely to be considered vehicular traffic by a given driver if you are riding outside of the space normally occupied by vehicular traffic, and you should not be surprised if you are overlooked when you ride outside of that space. That's not to say that you should not be surprised if you're overlooked even if you're riding in space normally occupied by vehicular traffic: you should always verify you're noticed before you get in a situation where your safety depends on being noticed, but this verification (which motorcyclists and car drivers should also engage in) is also much easier to accomplish when riding in space normally occupied by vehicular traffic than when riding outside of that space.

[Helmet Head]

Now consider the traffic laws in the rules of the road section that are applied to drivers of bicycles. Every law that I know of that applies specifically and only to drivers of bicycles is a discriminatory law enacted by motorists to try to push cyclists to the side of the road, or off the road, for the convenience of motorists. The government's bikeway program is the physical embodiment of those discriminatory laws. That's why I state that cyclists should oppose all government actions that are based on the supposed inferiority of bicycle riders.
That is not accurate at all. The laws that are applied specifically to bicycles were developed from principles of traffic law that existed long before either the bicycle or the motor vehicle appeared on the road. And in fact, the laws that apply to motor vehicles were derived from laws first developed for bicycles, based on ancient principles of traffic law. Can you explain how what you wrote (which I doubt anyone would dispute) even addresses what Mr. Forester wrote, much less refutes it? I don't see any connection.

The first sentence in his post, "consider the traffic laws in the rules of the road section that are applied to drivers of bicycles", refers to those laws that apply " specifically and only to drivers of bicycles", which was obvious to me right away, but he clarifies in the second sentence. It is also obvious from the first sentence alone because he refers to "the ... section" with rules "that are applied to drivers of vehicles". In CA, for example, that is Division 11 (Rules of the Road), Chapter 1 (Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws), Article 4, Operation of Bicycles. (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c1a4.htm)

Even though original rules like "keep right" "are applied to drivers of bicycles", and always applied to them, before motor vehicles were even invented, that is not the type of rule Mr. Forester is talking about. Are you suggesting that the rules in Operation of Bicycles (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c1a4.htm) were developed from "principles of traffic law that existed long before either the bicycle or the motor vehicle appeared on the road"?

[John Forester]

I am going to discuss the motorist-right-turn right-hook car-bike collision accident, without reference to any particular one of the postings. And, I should remind all of you, this analysis, based on traffic engineering, traffic law, and on human factors, was done almost forty years ago, with diagrams also, and has been in easily available print form for thirty years. This is just one of the many items that people who consider themselves competent to discuss bicycle traffic operations should know about, whether or not they agree with the conclusion.

Consider the motorist who intends to turn right at the next intersection. He has already moved near the right-hand curb. He is looking where he intends to go, because he doesn't want to hit something that is in his path, and he intends to steer his vehicle along the curve of the normal road surface. He has to look ahead for traffic moving in the opposite direction that might be turning left, and which might, although it should not, cause complications. He has to look for traffic coming from his left, across the intersection. And he has to look for pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks that might enter the crosswalk. He can see all of this by merely moving his eyes, which is a quick movement. Traffic that is overtaking him on his left does not concern him. The traffic system is set up so that he doesn't have to consider traffic overtaking on his right, and to see such traffic he would have to turn his head, which prevents him from seeing other things with which he is properly concerned.

Any cyclist who tries to overtake a motorist who is turning right is just plain foolish. Yet, that is the feeling that is encouraged by a bike lane, and many do so. It is true that it would be best practice, and in some states it is required, for the motorist to merge into the bike lane considerably before reaching the intersection, on the grounds that a merge is much safer than a turn across, and once the motorist is occupying the bike lane, a cyclist should be on notice not to try to overtake, even if there appears to be room. But, corners being what they are, and vehicles having different lengths and turn radii, and a bit of laziness, there often is room. The cyclist who wishes to overtake a motorist should move left and overtake on the proper side, just as long as the possibility exists that the motorist might turn right.

I repeat, bike lanes and bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road and disrupt traffic, causing higher risk than should be present.

[Blue Order]

Can you explain how what you wrote (which I doubt anyone would dispute) even addresses what Mr. Forester wrote, much less refutes it? I don't see any connection.

The first sentence in his post, "consider the traffic laws in the rules of the road section that are applied to drivers of bicycles", refer to those law that apply " specifically and only to drivers of bicycles", which was obvious to me right away, but he clarifies in the second sentence.

Even though original rules like "keep right" "are applied to drivers of bicycles", and always applied to them, before motor vehicles were even invented, that is not the type of rule Mr. Forester is talking about. Did you really not understand that, or are you playing semantic games?I'm not playing semantic games at all. He said "every law." If he only meant "some of the laws," he should have said "some of the laws." Nevertheless, the traffic rules that apply specifically to bicycles are quite few in number. Among those are:

"bicycles traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic must keep to the right." Based on ancient traffic laws, not devised by discriminatory motorists.

"Bicycle operators must keep one hand on the bars at all times." Devised by discriminatory motorists? Doubtful.

"Bicyclists must not endanger pedestrians when riding on the sidewalk." Those dastardly motorists have now placed bicycles beneath pedestrians? or a law devised in the 1890s, before the advent of the automobile?

In fact, I'm guessing there's only one law that was devised specifically for bicycles (and not derived from previously existing traffic principles) AFTER the automobile appeared: The bike lane law. But that hardly qualifies as "every law," does it? And if you really care to analyze it, before there were automobiles, there was a Good Roads movement, started by bicyclists, for bicyclists, and the economical alternative to paving the entire street in at least one city was to pave a portion of the street-- you may have guessed it, exactly where the bike lanes sit today. Discrimination from motorists? Or catering to the needs of cyclists, before there were motorists? And once we let the dust settle from getting our facts straight, we have to examine the claim (impliedly made) that bike lanes are discriminatory-- a claim that looks suspect, to say the least, when one considers that automobiles are also proscribed by law from traveling outside designated strips of the roadway surface. In fact, considering the fact that bicycles have use of what you call "traffic lanes," as well as almost exclusive use of bicycle lanes, as well as use of sidewalks and trails, it begins to look like bicycles have far more of the "highway" available for their use than do motor vehicles.

[Helmet Head]

I am going to discuss the motorist-right-turn right-hook car-bike collision accident, without reference to any particular one of the postings. And, I should remind all of you, this analysis, based on traffic engineering, traffic law, and on human factors, was done almost forty years ago, with diagrams also, and has been in easily available print form for thirty years. This is just one of the many items that people who consider themselves competent to discuss bicycle traffic operations should know about, whether or not they agree with the conclusion.

Consider the motorist who intends to turn right at the next intersection. He has already moved near the right-hand curb. He is looking where he intends to go, because he doesn't want to hit something that is in his path, and he intends to steer his vehicle along the curve of the normal road surface. He has to look ahead for traffic moving in the opposite direction that might be turning left, and which might, although it should not, cause complications. He has to look for traffic coming from his left, across the intersection. And he has to look for pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks that might enter the crosswalk. He can see all of this by merely moving his eyes, which is a quick movement. Traffic that is overtaking him on his left does not concern him. The traffic system is set up so that he doesn't have to consider traffic overtaking on his right, and to see such traffic he would have to turn his head, which prevents him from seeing other things with which he is properly concerned.

Any cyclist who tries to overtake a motorist who is turning right is just plain foolish. Yet, that is the feeling that is encouraged by a bike lane, and many do so. It is true that it would be best practice, and in some states it is required, for the motorist to merge into the bike lane considerably before reaching the intersection, on the grounds that a merge is much safer than a turn across, and once the motorist is occupying the bike lane, a cyclist should be on notice not to try to overtake, even if there appears to be room. But, corners being what they are, and vehicles having different lengths and turn radii, and a bit of laziness, there often is room. The cyclist who wishes to overtake a motorist should move left and overtake on the proper side, just as long as the possibility exists that the motorist might turn right.

I repeat, bike lanes and bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road and disrupt traffic, causing higher risk than should be present. Just to be clear, the above obviously assumes the rightmost lane is straight-or-right (or left-straight-or-right), and, so, a bike lane to the left of the rightmost lane is not an option (as it is when the rightmost lane is right-only).

Note that this inherently problematic situation does not only apply at intersections with streets, but also at intersections with alleys, driveways and commercial entrances in which the bike lane is painted to the right of a traffic lane from which right turns are permitted.

[John Forester]

That is not accurate at all. The laws that are applied specifically to bicycles were developed from principles of traffic law that existed long before either the bicycle or the motor vehicle appeared on the road. And in fact, the laws that apply to motor vehicles were derived from laws first developed for bicycles, based on ancient principles of traffic law.

Totally inaccurate. Is it possible to grade lower than F-? Here is a statement from the Institute of Traffic and Transportation Engineers: "William Phelps Eno, was born in 1858. He was truly an international innovator in the development and application of traffic engineering. In 1903, for example, he developed the first city traffic code in the world for New York City and the first traffic plans for New York City, London, and Paris."

The laws that are applied specifically to cyclists (not to bicycles, please note, since bicycles don't give a damn if they are kept in jail). The mandatory side-of-the-road law was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1938. The mandatory-side-path law was added to the UVC in 1944. The mandatory-bike-lane law was enacted as part of California's development of bikeway standards, so it was probably the first in the nation, in 1976.

[Helmet Head]

FWIW, I'm still amazed by this.
Ask Diane (sbhikes) about her thoughts regarding riding in Atlanta (she has stated she wouldn't do it).
Diane has not read Effective Cycling.

[noisebeam]

"bicycles traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic must keep to the right." Based on ancient traffic laws, not devised by discriminatory motorists.


There is already a law in nearly every US state requiring slow moving vehicles to use the right lane or as far to the right as practible.
Why the need to have another law for bicycles?

Al

[Blue Order]

Totally inaccurate. Is it possible to grade lower than F-? Here is a statement from the Institute of Traffic and Transportation Engineers: "William Phelps Eno, was born in 1858. He was truly an international innovator in the development and application of traffic engineering. In 1903, for example, he developed the first city traffic code in the world for New York City and the first traffic plans for New York City, London, and Paris.":lol: Now I see where HH gets his "persuasive powers" from. Real charmers. :lol: The irony is, you are the one who should be receiving the F-. The first modern traffic code was developed in New York City, but it was developed well before 1903. In the 1890s, going by memory. And the first traffic law in New York City? 1647. The first state traffic law addressing bicycles? 1887. But you go on believing it was 1903 if that makes your theories jibe. :lol:

OK, how about I give you a D-, for getting the city right?

The laws that are applied specifically to cyclists (not to bicycles, please note, since bicycles don't give a damn if they are kept in jail).And you two accused me of playing "semantics" games?

The mandatory side-of-the-road law was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1938. The mandatory-side-path law was added to the UVC in 1944. The mandatory-bike-lane law was enacted as part of California's development of bikeway standards, so it was probably the first in the nation, in 1976.The side of the road law existed before bicycles ever appeared on the scene. Who cares when it was codified for bicycles? It was always a traffic principle, even before it was codified.

[Blue Order]

There is already a law in nearly every US state requiring slow moving vehicles to use the right lane or as far to the right as practible.
Why the need to have another law for bicycles?

AlI don't really know. But since it doesn't do anything differently, it can't possibly be discriminatory. They're almost verbatim the same statute.

[noisebeam]

I don't really know. But since it doesn't do anything differently, it can't possibly be discriminatory. They're almost verbatim the same statute.
Firstly it assumes that bicycles (or cyclists) will always be a SMV or SMV operator.

Al

[Blue Order]

Firstly it assumes that bicycles (or cyclists) will always be a SMV or SMV operator.

AlNo, it says that if a bicycle is not traveling at the normal speed of traffic, it must ride to the right. That's not "always."

[noisebeam]

No, it says that if a bicycle is not traveling at the normal speed of traffic, it must ride to the right. That's not "always."
There are many states that do not have the 'less than the speed of traffic' language. One state (http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c300-399/3070000190.htm)even requires one must stay far right unless faster than traffic AND at least matching the speed limit.

Al

[Blue Order]

There are many states that do not have the 'less than the speed of traffic' language. One state even requires one must stay far right unless faster than traffic AND at least matching the speed limit.

AlWhich state?

[noisebeam]

Which state?
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c300-399/3070000190.htm

[Helmet Head]

The mandatory side-of-the-road law was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1938.

The side of the road law existed before bicycles ever appeared on the scene. Who cares when it was codified for bicycles? It was always a traffic principle, even before it was codified.
I believe you're talking about "right" side of the road law (keep on the right side of the road).

The mandatory side-of-the-road law that Mr. Forester refers to is something else again (ride as far right as practicable on all roads excepts for some exceptions) and applies only to bikes.

There is something that may arguably be referred to as a mandatory side-of-the-road law for all drivers of slow moving vehicles, but what Mr. Forester refers to is the law that adds further restrictions on bicyclists beyond that always imposed on all drivers (right side of the far, right lane for drivers of slow vehicles).

[Blue Order]

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c300-399/3070000190.htmWell, first, let me say thanks for posting that... But, I should point out that it says "or," not "and." That means if you're traveling at the posted speed limit, or if you're traveling as fast as traffic, you don't have to ride to the right. You can choose one or the other, and as long as you're in compliance with one of those, you can take the lane.

[Blue Order]

I believe you're talking about "right" side of the road law (keep on the right side of the road).

The mandatory side-of-the-road law that Mr. Forester refers to is something else again (ride as far right as practicable on all roads excepts for some exceptions) and applies only to bikes.No, I was talking about what JF is talking about. And you are wrong. There is one that applies specifically to bikes, and one that applies to "slow moving vehicles," and except for some variations in state law, they're almost verbatim the same law in the UVC. And before bicycles ever appeared, slow moving vehicles still had to move as close as practicable to the right. it's an ancient principle of traffic law.

There is something that may arguably be referred to as a mandatory side-of-the-road law for all drivers of slow moving vehicles, but what Mr. Forester refers to is the law that adds further restrictions on bicyclists beyond that always imposed on all drivers (right side of the far, right lane for drivers of slow vehicles).In what way is it a further restriction?

[Helmet Head]

Well, first, let me say thanks for posting that... But, I should point out that it says "or," not "and." That means if you're traveling at the posted speed limit, or if you're traveling as fast as traffic, you don't have to ride to the right. You can choose one or the other, and as long as you're in compliance with one of those, you can take the lane.
The Law:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe...

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c300-399/3070000190.htm

The situation:
Speed limit: 25
Traffic speed: 15
Cyclist speed: 15

Q: Even though he is riding as fast as traffic, is the cyclist required to " ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe"?
A: Yes, because he is traveling "at less than the posted speed".

Thus, Al was right:


One state even requires one must stay far right unless faster than traffic AND at least matching the speed limit.

If either condition in the law is true, then the cyclist is required to keep right. Therefore, both conditions have to be false (or, using Al's language, both of their reverse connotations have to be true), for the cyclist to not be required to keep right.

A OR B = NOT (NOT A AND NOT B)

[noisebeam]

Well, first, let me say thanks for posting that... But, I should point out that it says "or," not "and." That means if you're traveling at the posted speed limit, or if you're traveling as fast as traffic, you don't have to ride to the right. You can choose one or the other, and as long as you're in compliance with one of those, you can take the lane.
I see it says: If you are riding slower than traffic OR if you are less than SL, then ride far right.

Say for example SL is posted at 25mph. Traffic moves at 30mph:
If I am cycling at 26mph - I am slower than traffic and must ride far right.
If I am cycling at 24mph - I am slower than SL and must ride far right.

To ride centerish one must be at or above posted limit AND the same speed or faster than other traffic.

Al

[Blue Order]

I see it says: If you are riding slower than traffic OR if you are less than SL, then ride far right. so far, yes.

Say for example SL is posted at 25mph. Traffic moves at 30mph:
If I am cycling at 26mph - I am slower than traffic and must ride far right.No, what that means is if traffic is moving at 30, but you are riding at 26, and the SL is 25, then you are in compliance.

If I am cycling at 24mph - I am slower than SL and must ride far right.Yes, unless traffic is moving slower than the SL. if traffic is moving slower, then you would be permitted to ride at either the speed limit, or at the same speed as traffic.

To ride centerish one must be at or above posted limit AND the same speed or faster than other traffic.

AlThe statute would have to use "and" for that to be true.

[Blue Order]

The Law:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe...

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c300-399/3070000190.htm

The situation:
Speed limit: 25
Traffic speed: 15
Cyclist speed: 15

Q: Even though he is riding as fast as traffic, is the cyclist required to " ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe"?
A: Yes, because he is traveling "at less than the posted speed".*sigh*

It doesn't use "and" in the construction. It uses "or." There's a choice given-- if either situation applies, then you're in compliance. If the statute uses "and," both situations must apply.

Thus, Al was right:


If either condition in the law is true, then the cyclist is required to keep right. Therefore, both conditions have to be false (or, using Al's language, both of their reverse connotations have to be true), for the cyclist to not be required to keep right.That's not what "or" means in statutory construction.

[noisebeam]

The statute would have to use "and" for that to be true.
If the statute replaced the 'or' with 'and' then it would make more sense as a law, still an uneccessary and prejuducial one though, but at least it would allow cyclists going less than posted limit ride centerish if they were keeping with flow of traffic and cyclists who are maintaining posted limit, even though slower than flow to ride centerish.

Al

[noisebeam]

If one is A or B then one must C

A = less than the posted speed
B = slower than the flow of traffic
C = ride as near to the right side of the roadway

Al