Advocacy & Safety - Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?

[Ignore the word "for" in the second choice, it's left over from an edit and I can't change it now.]

I was in a meeting about facilities yesterday with some local bike people and traffic engineers, and the engineers said something that rather surprised me. We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road.

That had never occurred to me before, that as a road designer, you wouldn't necessarily assume that people using the road, even on a bike, knew the rules of the road. Follow them, that's obviously a different story. But it seems frankly a bit crazy to me that you would design a road treatment without assuming that the users knew the basics of driving.

To me, this is an insight as to how bicyclists really are viewed as a completely different class of users from motor vehicle drivers by many traffic engineers, and helps explain why complaints about facilities conflicting with normal rules of the road don't get as much traction as the proponents of bicyclists as vehicle drivers would like.

OK, in all sarcasm I have to suggest, "why not," obviously streets are now driven upon by folks that don't know the rules of the road. Why should motorists have all the "privileges?"

Now I said that in sarcastic jest, as we all know that every driver is carefully, fully trained and tested and is fully knowledgeable about and in compliance with the rules of the road... OK OK... I'll stop.

OK, in all sarcasm I have to suggest, "why not," obviously streets are now driven upon by folks that don't know the rules of the road. Why should motorists have all the "privileges?"

Now I said that in sarcastic jest, as we all know that every driver is carefully, fully trained and tested and is fully knowledgeable about and in compliance with the rules of the road... OK OK... I'll stop.

Perhaps if the OP would get around a bit he might notice that children and young teenagers often would like to use their bicycles to get somewhere. None of them have been licensed to be "Bicycle Drivers".

OP, Cycling and Bicycle Planning SHOULD consider more than your "Serious Club Cycling"/"Internet Bicycle Driving" pals.

I was in a meeting about facilities yesterday with some local bike people and traffic engineers, and the engineers said something that rather surprised me. We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road.

That approach makes good sense to me, actually. Ideally, you want people's reactions to flow naturally from the design of the road. The less you have to depend upon arbitrary rules, the better.

The road situation last year that perfectly illustrates the point. The state took a four-lane highway and divided it into two lanes going one way and one lane going the other, and a left-turn lane in the middle. Simple, right? Everyone knows what that yellow line means. And the lane markings were painted onto the road. All people had to do was to follow the rules.

Ah, but sadly, things weren't so simple. People expect symmetry. It became an every-day occurrence to see people driving in the left-turn lane thinking that it was a traffic lane. That was especially a problem in winter when the paint was covered by snow. After about year of never-ending problems, the state finally caved in and redid the road with one lane in each direction, and a center turn lane. All the problems went away, because the design was in line with driver-expectation. (A side benefit are the nice, wide, bike lanes that got added out of the leftover space).

I agree with your engineers.

Wait you mean sidewalks were NOT designed as training grounds for children and young teens? ;)

In reality perhaps bike paths should be the designated training grounds for new cyclists... and like any street, should include appropriate signs and markings.

A stripe down the middle and a "keep right" sign as well as an occasional stop sign might not be a bad thing.



Of course when motorists hit the road they are already "so well trained" who needs signs such as this http://www.trafficsign.us/100/reg/r10-15.gif

And this is a classic: http://www.trafficsign.us/100/reg/r10-6a.gif

And how about this somewhat obvious sign for "well trained" motorists that know the "rules of the road..."

http://www.trafficsign.us/100/reg/r4-9.gif

In order to "idiot proof" any system you do need to look at eventualities that are outside of your desired norms, so yes you do need to take into account the behaviour of people who do not follow the road rules (be that all rules or all the time).

Example being the delay in traffic signals that gives a red light to all sides of an intersection for a moment - the design accepting that people will run reds, so lets give them an extra moment before we launch the other stream of traffic at them.

However, all "idiot proofed" systems run up against some problems, usually a better designed idiot.

boy, john, i suspect that means directional signage in the bike lanes and sharrows so as to emphasize correct direction of travel.

similar to 'wrong way do not enter' signs at the wrong end of freeway ramps.....


hardly much more insidious than that, i'd suspect.


don't worry about it.

Be MORE concerned your city stay focused on providing considerate roadway designs for ALL types of bicyclists in your community not just your "A" team self-important desires.

have you read "Who is the design bicyclist?"

roadway planning for bicyclists is still predicated towards lawful road bicycling behavior.

ILTB, obviously children and young teens want to use their bikes to get around. Two of them are mine. At ages 9 and 11, I trust them on local streets, but they are not yet ready to tackle Main Street and arterials by themselves (although I have ridden with them in those places). Are there any bike facilities that will make such roads safe for them to ride unaccompanied? I don't believe that there are. Are you saying that we should still attempt to try, on the theory that children and young teens may nonetheless be trying to use them? Or will the design make them feel safer, thereby encouraging them to ride on a road which they are not really ready to ride on?

Bek, I wasn't familiar with a document by that name, but a Google search turned up http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/select.pdf (report FHWA-RD-92-073), is that what you mean?

ILTB, obviously children and young teens want to use their bikes to get around. Two of them are mine. At ages 9 and 11, I trust them on local streets, but they are not yet ready to tackle Main Street and arterials by themselves (although I have ridden with them in those places). Are there any bike facilities that will make such roads safe for them to ride unaccompanied? I don't believe that there are. Are you saying that we should still attempt to try, on the theory that children and young teens may nonetheless be trying to use them? Or will the design make them feel safer, thereby encouraging them to ride on a road which they are not really ready to ride on?

Bek, I wasn't familiar with a document by that name, but a Google search turned up http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/select.pdf (report FHWA-RD-92-073), is that what you mean?

Bike facilities that can make them safe are separated bike paths that use under passes and overpasses. They use these all over Finland and they work quite well.

Of course the comment will be made that they "cannot be afforded" or it is too hard to design them into existing cities.... yet, if a new freeway was announced, or even adding lanes to an existing freeway, those same arguments seem to be resolved.

Other structures that can be incorporated are bike boulevards, which essentially render streets to resemble your local neighborhood residential roads.

The fact is many roads can be made less "auto centric" and thus safer for ALL road users. It is only the undeniable and overwhelming "need for speed" that causes any road to become less bike friendly.

yep, john, that that might provide some food for thought for you.who is the design bicyclist? (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/select.pdf)

a "some roads are too dangerous for riders like my kids, so bicycle traffic shouldn't be part of the design consideration" is an absurd argument against facilities design and development, john.

Are you saying that we should still attempt to try, on the theory that children and young teens may nonetheless be trying to use them? Or will the design make them feel safer, thereby encouraging them to ride on a road which they are not really ready to ride on?
Cycling on the street without any "training" in the "rules of the road" has always occurred to me.

I am saying that the premise of your OP statement is indicative of an VC advocacy that considers self described Trained Bicycle Drivers as the only cyclists worthy of consideration:


"We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road. That had never occurred to me before..."

FWIW, I rode my bicycle to school (without parental guidance) starting in 3rd grade, and for at least 4 years through out the streets of Philadelphia before my 16th birthday and first drivers license. Including from my house in West Oak Lane to my grandmother's house and to the airport in South Philadelphia, to Independence Hall to hear JFK's address on July 4th, 1962, across the Ben Franklin Bridge to Camden and numerous visits to my friends houses in Kensington as well as lots of trips to the port to watch the ships.

"some roads are too dangerous for riders like my kids, so bicycle traffic shouldn't be part of the design consideration" is an absurd argument against facilities design and development, john.

I would say it's more like "some roads are too dangerous for riders like my kids, so bicycle riders who don't know the rules of the road shouldn't be part of the design consideration", on the assumption that the facility does not exist that makes such a road safe for those who don't know the rules. If you assume such a facility does exist (please include all intersections), then go ahead, design for my kids. But I'm skeptical.

Bike boulevards, paths, etc. are all great, provided they have minimum intersection interaction, but then that's not the same road any more.

I suppose I'm thinking mainly of bike lanes and their assorted intersection treatments, which is mainly what the discussion I was in yesterday was about.

Cycling on the street without any "training" in the "rules of the road" has always occurred to me.

I am saying that the premise of your OP statement is indicative of an VC advocacy that considers self described Trained Bicycle Drivers as the only cyclists worthy of consideration:


"We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road. That had never occurred to me before..."

FWIW, I rode my bicycle to school (without parental guidance) starting in 3rd grade, and for at least 4 years through out the streets of Philadelphia before my 16th birthday and first drivers license. Including from my house in West Oak Lane to my grandmother's house and to the airport in South Philadelphia, to Independence Hall to hear JFK's address on July 4th, 1962, across the Ben Franklin Bridge to Camden and numerous visits to my friends houses in Kensington as well as lots of trips to the port to watch the ships.


My parents did not allow me to ride a bike until I was nine years old, and then insisted that I attend the Bike Rodeo that was offered by the local fire department and the Schwinn dealer. The Bike Rodeo emphasized riding on the right and in the same direction of traffic, safe braking and turning and how to cross a busy street on a bike. Prior to the Bike Rodeo, I was only allowed to ride up and down my residential street. Afterward, I rode my bike to school regularly.

Does that Bike Rodeo constitute me becoming a Trained Bicycle Driver?

These parents also bought me my own car, later in life, on the provision that I pay for the insurance and all other expenses. It was a good lesson... I paid for the actual cost of the car several times over, and learned owning a car is not just about buying a hunk of metal, once.

I would say it's more like "some roads are too dangerous for riders like my kids, so bicycle riders who don't know the rules of the road shouldn't be part of the design consideration", on the assumption that the facility does not exist that makes such a road safe for those who don't know the rules. If you assume such a facility does exist (please include all intersections), then go ahead, design for my kids. But I'm skeptical.

Bike boulevards, paths, etc. are all great, provided they have minimum intersection interaction, but then that's not the same road any more.

I suppose I'm thinking mainly of bike lanes and their assorted intersection treatments, which is mainly what the discussion I was in yesterday was about.

do your kids understand 'the rules of the road"? if so, how does this prevent them from riding a bike in a bikelane?

you are obviously confused about AASHTO compliant bikelanes; they allow bicycling in accordance with the rules of the road. Bike facilities on road are not placed contrary to 'rules of the road'.

you are being vague about how or what you -or the traffic planners - mean by ' facilities designed for people that don't know the rules of the road' - what is that exactly and how are they designed that way???

I'm assuming they are referring to directional arrows, educational signage, etc?? bike lanes on the approach to major intersections to the left of right turn only lanes with emphasized crossover zones and 'yield to bikes' signs for motorists that "Don't know the rules of the road?"

maybe you mean -

since motorists don't know how to operate around bicyclists using the roadways should communities continue to plan for bikes as part of the transportation mix using preffered class lanes and other roadway enhancements that facilitate lawful road bicycling while enhancing safety?

FWIW, I rode my bicycle to school (without parental guidance) starting in 3rd grade, and for at least 4 years through out the streets of Philadelphia before my 16th birthday and first drivers license. Including from my house in West Oak Lane to my grandmother's house and to the airport in South Philadelphia, to Independence Hall to hear JFK's address on July 4th, 1962, across the Ben Franklin Bridge to Camden and numerous visits to my friends houses in Kensington as well as lots of trips to the port to watch the ships.

And all without bike lanes, presumably.

Rhetoric aside, I appreciate hearing more about your background. It's always good to attach some humanity to an online discussion participant. I have some attachment to Philadelphia myself, some remote family connections, and I actually had heart surgery at the Children's Hospital there, but still I've only been there a few times, so I don't know it well. Seems like a nice city, though. We toured Constitution Hall and the Liberty Bell once.

John -

what do you -or the traffic planners - mean by ' facilities designed for people that don't know the rules of the road' - what is that exactly and how are they designed that way???

I'm assuming they are referring to directional arrows, educational signage, etc?? bike lanes on the approaches of major intersections to the left of right turn only lanes with emphasized crossover zones and 'yield to bikes' signs for motorists that "Don't know the rules of the road?"

Bek, I have in mind specific facilities which seem to me to go against the normal rules of the road for vehicles, which I assume a bike has more operational characteristics in common with than with pedestrians, even when operated by Class B and C bicyclists.

The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane. This violates the vehicle principle that right turns be made as close as possible to the curb, because it encourages even the right-turning cars to stay left of through bicyclists. It also encourages the through bicyclists to pass on the right of potentially right-turning cars. We have all heard on these forums of cyclists being injured and killed in this situation, especially when large trucks and/or poor sightlines are present.

Another example I would give is bike boxes. It is my understanding that for vehicles (and again, I'm including bicycles as vehicles from an operational standpoint, even though they are not legally defined as such in all states), it is well-established that early merging is safer than late merging, when merging is required. Bike boxes discourage early merging.

I'm not saying that cyclists need to be able to consciously define phrases like "destination positioning" and "early merging" to use the road. But standard motor vehicular road design uses principles like these, and I don't think the physics of them changes just because bicycles are added to the mix. So to the extent that I sense bicycle infrastructure that goes against these principles being justified because we don't have to expect that bicycle operators know common sense rules like that you don't turn left from the right of other traffic, or you don't make sudden turns as you are entering the intersection, strikes me as dumbing down the roads at the expense of safe operation, as well as retarding the natural progression of B and C cyclists into A cyclists.

BTW, I was already somewhat familiar with the A/B/C designations, although I don't think I have read this source document before.

And all without bike lanes, presumably.

Rhetoric aside, I appreciate hearing more about your background. It's always good to attach some humanity to an online discussion participant. I have some attachment to Philadelphia myself, some remote family connections, and I actually had heart surgery at the Children's Hospital there, but still I've only been there a few times, so I don't know it well. Seems like a nice city, though. We toured Constitution Hall and the Liberty Bell once.

Maybe later; it is time for college football for the rest of the day. :)

And all without bike lanes, presumably.



Yup, and slower traffic; people tended to have windows rolled down (air conditioning was a luxury, as was FM radio), cell phones did not exist, and the highest speed limits were 65MHP, soon to be lowered to 55MPH on interstate freeways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law).

Think about that.

Just for reference, I'm talking about 1965... This movie was made in 1963... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg

SUVs did not exist, although muscle cars did... but your average mom was more likely driving a station wagon and no one had their seat belts fastened. Often families only owned one car. There were fewer cars on the road altogether.

"Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?"

Are you talking about motorists?

Because they build all kinds of roads for motorists who don't know the rules of the road.

Those tests they take at the DMV to get their license? So simple they are no guarantee the motorists know anything about the rules of the road.

:D

Bek, I have in mind specific facilities which seem to me to go against the normal rules of the road for vehicles, which I assume a bike has more operational characteristics in common with than with pedestrians, even when operated by Class B and C bicyclists.

The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane. This violates the vehicle principle that right turns be made as close as possible to the curb, because it encourages even the right-turning cars to stay left of through bicyclists. It also encourages the through bicyclists to pass on the right of potentially right-turning cars. We have all heard on these forums of cyclists being injured and killed in this situation, especially when large trucks and/or poor sightlines are present.

Another example I would give is bike boxes. It is my understanding that for vehicles (and again, I'm including bicycles as vehicles from an operational standpoint, even though they are not legally defined as such in all states), it is well-established that early merging is safer than late merging, when merging is required. Bike boxes discourage early merging.

I'm not saying that cyclists need to be able to consciously define phrases like "destination positioning" and "early merging" to use the road. But standard motor vehicular road design uses principles like these, and I don't think the physics of them changes just because bicycles are added to the mix. So to the extent that I sense bicycle infrastructure that goes against these principles being justified because we don't have to expect that bicycle operators know common sense rules like that you don't turn left from the right of other traffic, or you don't make sudden turns as you are entering the intersection, strikes me as dumbing down the roads at the expense of safe operation, as well as retarding the natural progression of B and C cyclists into A cyclists.

BTW, I was already somewhat familiar with the A/B/C designations, although I don't think I have read this source document before.

Some good points, but bear in mind that we already do "dumb down" the roads for vehicle operators, with the inclusion of many signs and markers. (see the book "Traffic, why we drive the way we drive.") We also give preferential treatment to the flow of traffic in speed and control issues, over safety. The right on red rule and the 85% speed rule are demonstrations of this.

The reality is that we do not, in our road designs, treat all vehicles and operators equally. To expect that a law granting near equality will change the reaction of various vehicle operators to one another is denying the reality of human nature.

BTW I believe a bike lane to the right of a right turn lane is poor design and should not be done. I believe that the MUTCD shows bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes.

[Ignore the word "for" in the second choice, it's left over from an edit and I can't change it now.]

I was in a meeting about facilities yesterday with some local bike people and traffic engineers, and the engineers said something that rather surprised me. We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road.

That had never occurred to me before, that as a road designer, you wouldn't necessarily assume that people using the road, even on a bike, knew the rules of the road. Follow them, that's obviously a different story. But it seems frankly a bit crazy to me that you would design a road treatment without assuming that the users knew the basics of driving.

To me, this is an insight as to how bicyclists really are viewed as a completely different class of users from motor vehicle drivers by many traffic engineers, and helps explain why complaints about facilities conflicting with normal rules of the road don't get as much traction as the proponents of bicyclists as vehicle drivers would like.

One thing that I think would help, is as I think has been said before. Mom and dad need to teach the kiddies the basics of bike riding, including the standard hand signals. Then the schools have bicycle rider ed classes. Where the students will be taught road sign recognition, traffic laws and advanced handling skills.

It would be modeled after the drivers ed classes. It would benefit cyclists because they would now know the rules of the road. And they would grow up (hopefully) to be better drivers as they would know that cyclists belong on the road. And as such (hopefully) would be more respectful to the cyclists they encounter on the road.

The reality is that we do not, in our road designs, treat all vehicles and operators equally. To expect that a law granting near equality will change the reaction of various vehicle operators to one another is denying the reality of human nature

I assume you're referring to the law that all states already do have in some form ("Same rights and responsibilities", etc.). You may be right about human nature, but I know that I do ride with the expectation of equal treatment, and I don't see why we should be satisfied with designs that reinforce inequality. Of course, I don't always get equal treatment, but by and large I have found it to work. I realize some believe that it only works for Type A's, but surely we don't want to discourage B's and C's from evolving into A's over time. Most facilities don't hinder this development that much, but the ones I mentioned do, in my opinion.


BTW I believe a bike lane to the right of a right turn lane is poor design and should not be done. I believe that the MUTCD shows bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes.

To clarify, in this case it is not a right turn only lane, it is a combined through and right turn lane, then the bike lane. The recommendation in this case is ambiguous in both AASHTO and MUTCD, which both mainly discuss right turn only lanes. Whether the same recommendations also apply to through/turn lanes is unclear, although such lanes do have present the same possibility of conflict, albeit slightly lessened by the fact that not all of the motor vehicles are turning right. I maintain that it still goes against the rules of the road as I explained above, but the engineers were not convinced that that was good enough reason to not "provide cyclists their own space", rather than "abandon them" by ending the bike lane.

One thing that I think would help, is as I think has been said before. Mom and dad need to teach the kiddies the basics of bike riding, including the standard hand signals. Then the schools have bicycle rider ed classes. Where the students will be taught road sign recognition, traffic laws and advanced handling skills.

It would be modeled after the drivers ed classes. It would benefit cyclists because they would now know the rules of the road. And they would grow up (hopefully) to be better drivers as they would know that cyclists belong on the road. And as such (hopefully) would be more respectful to the cyclists they encounter on the road.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? It is worth noting that most of the European countries put more of just this type of emphasis on bicycling education than we do here. So I invite you to get certified as a bicycling instructor and join us in reaching out to the school systems with this education. Unfortunately, most moms and dads don't bother, and some don't even know it themselves.

<Snip>
So to the extent that I sense bicycle infrastructure that goes against these principles being justified because we don't have to expect that bicycle operators know common sense rules like that you don't turn left from the right of other traffic, or you don't make sudden turns as you are entering the intersection, strikes me as dumbing down the roads at the expense of safe operation, as well as retarding the natural progression of B and C cyclists into A cyclists.

<Snip>

It would be nice operators of motor vehicles would remember that. The other day my neighbor and I were headed to Gateway Mall, and were stopped 2nd or 3rd vehicle back from the stop light in the right lane. When some moron in a white pickup traveling down the left lane makes a right hand turn without slowing or stopping. Fortunately that fool didn't hit anyone. And sadly (but not too surprisingly) I have seen people make left hand turns from the right hand lane.

Yup, and slower traffic; people tended to have windows rolled down (air conditioning was a luxury, as was FM radio), cell phones did not exist, and the highest speed limits were 65MHP, soon to be lowered to 55MPH on interstate freeways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law).

Think about that.

Just for reference, I'm talking about 1965... This movie was made in 1963... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg

SUVs did not exist, although muscle cars did... but your average mom was more likely driving a station wagon and no one had their seat belts fastened. Often families only owned one car. There were fewer cars on the road altogether.

Considering that most cars back then didn't even have seat belts, wouldn't it be difficult to fasten what wasn't there?

Considering that most cars back then didn't even have seat belts, wouldn't it be difficult to fasten what wasn't there?

Mandatory seat belt installation occurred in the US in 1965; many manufactures had already began installing them, with Ford leading the way in the US.

http://www.driverstechnologyassociation.co.uk/seatbelts.htm

Of course wearing of seat belts was another story.

My first car, a 1962 Buick LeSabre had seat belts. My sisters first car, a 1964 Chevy had seat belts. (these were 10 year old used cars by the time we got them.)

That would be nice, wouldn't it? It is worth noting that most of the European countries put more of just this type of emphasis on bicycling education than we do here. So I invite you to get certified as a bicycling instructor and join us in reaching out to the school systems with this education. Unfortunately, most moms and dads don't bother, and some don't even know it themselves.

John,

Where can one go to get certified, and how much does it typically cost, and how often does one need to get recertified?

In Texas, things defined as "traffic" in our statutes includes "herded animals, either singly or in a group". How would your engineers design a road to accommodate cattle?

Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.

Those engineers were making crazy talk!

"Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?"

Not sure how the weird placement of the through bike lane / right turn lane fits into that question. And, not sure how many of the rules of the road it should be presumed that road users don't know, either. But, can we assume that a motorist who is not very aware of bicycles' place on the road can at least be assumed to think that "bikes belong in bike lanes", and maybe would be able to look for a cyclist in the bike lane, if the driver had to cross the bike lane to get to their right turn lane? (ok, sorry there, that business of them looking for us is problematic)

Bike boxes - that's going to take some training. Not so wild about how they basically encourage filtering, but on the other hand, getting the bikes out front makes them easier to see, and it's hard to run over someone that you can see, right? (oops)

I can see why that movie from 1963 isn't being shown anymore ... after all, several times the narrator said that the kids should be riding their bikes just like someone would drive a car (!!!). Or, maybe it's the monkey/evolution business. Perhaps someone should create a video featuring monkey-suited SUV and sportscar and truck drivers ...

On perhaps a more serious note, "dumbing down" of design, to handle some of the less able road users, is clearly a basic part of the roadway engineers' job; it's an implicit factor of safety. Even if the safety feature isn't used all of the time, it needs to be there. Buildings have fire exits and are designed to resist earthquakes, but there aren't fires all the time, nor earthquakes.

In Texas, things defined as "traffic" in our statutes includes "herded animals, either singly or in a group". How would your engineers design a road to accommodate cattle?

Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.

Those engineers were making crazy talk!

I have to laugh... I wonder how the average motorist (not the rancher in the know) would handle zooming down the two lane road, marked at 70MPH, cresting the next rise to find the road filled with cattle.

Bek, I have in mind specific facilities which seem to me to go against the normal rules of the road for vehicles which I assume a bike has more operational characteristics in common with than with pedestrians, even when operated by Class B and C bicyclists.

The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane. This violates the vehicle principle that right turns be made as close as possible to the curb, because it encourages even the right-turning cars to stay left of through bicyclists. It also encourages the through bicyclists to pass on the right of potentially right-turning cars. We have all heard on these forums of cyclists being injured and killed in this situation, especially when large trucks and/or poor sightlines are present.

A better design would be to drop the stripe prior to the intersection, but understanding vehicular rules of the road that motorists will not be cutting off other vehicles ahead of them, how does your design preference favor bicyclists over a dashed bikelane stripe? why is this a concession to those that 'don't know the rules of the road' it seems concurrent with rules of the road.


Another example I would give is bike boxes. It is my understanding that for vehicles (and again, I'm including bicycles as vehicles from an operational standpoint, even though they are not legally defined as such in all states), it is well-established that early merging is safer than late merging, when merging is required. Bike boxes discourage early merging.

bike boxes are ALL ABOUT MERGING, but only when traffic is stopped. gosh, vehicular cyclists filter into bikeboxes and 'bike box position' between lanes of traffic.

virtual bike boxes- road space ahead of a large stopline in conjunction with a large crosswalk - provide the same operational advantages to vehicular cyclists that have filtered for safety and operational/visibility reasons to the head of the line.


I'm not saying that cyclists need to be able to consciously define phrases like "destination positioning" and "early merging" to use the road. But standard motor vehicular road design uses principles like these, and I don't think the physics of them changes just because bicycles are added to the mix. So to the extent that I sense bicycle infrastructure that goes against these principles being justified because we don't have to expect that bicycle operators know common sense rules like that you don't turn left from the right of other traffic, or you don't make sudden turns as you are entering the intersection, strikes me as dumbing down the roads at the expense of safe operation, as well as retarding the natural progression of B and C cyclists into A cyclists.

BTW, I was already somewhat familiar with the A/B/C designations, although I don't think I have read this source document before.

the designs you mention doesn't go against the 'rules of the road'. bike boxes and dashed bike lanes approaching intersections fully recognize the rules of the road and are designed for those that do know how to 'play by the rules of the road' -

Where can one go to get certified, and how much does it typically cost, and how often does one need to get recertified?

National certification is with the League of American Bicyclists (http://www.bikeleague.org/), League Cycling Instructor certification. Details at this page (http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/instructors.php). You have to first take the Traffic Skills 101 course, which is offered in most states a few times a year, generally around $50, and also be a member of the League.

Your local or state level advocacy groups may also offer their own more limited certifications. For instance, the Bicycle Coalition of Maine (http://www.bikemaine.org/), where I live, has a Bicycle Safety Educator program where they train you to present their curriculum (http://www.bikemaine.org/edu_bsep.htm) to 4th and 5th graders, and then will also pay you to do so through a funding contract with the Maine DOT. They also provide materials for working with middle-school students in after-school bicycle clubs. Maybe your area has something similar, I don't know, but you can probably find out with a little research.

Mandatory seat belt installation occurred in the US in 1965; many manufactures had already began installing them, with Ford leading the way in the US.

http://www.driverstechnologyassociation.co.uk/seatbelts.htm

Of course wearing of seat belts was another story.

My first car, a 1962 Buick LeSabre had seat belts. My sisters first car, a 1964 Chevy had seat belts. (these were 10 year old used cars by the time we got them.)

Yes, cars had them but they weren't mandatory.

I think you're off by 3 years. From what I've found it was 1968 when seatbelts became mandatory equipment.

When did seat belts become mandatory equipment on United States motor vehicles? (http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/cars-boats-planes-trains/when-did-seat-belts-become-mandatory-equipment)

The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required automobile manufacturers to install lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts for front seats in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until 1984, when the first state laws were passed mandating seat belt use. At present, there are 48 states in which it is illegal for a driver or passenger to travel without a seat belt (the exceptions are Maine and New Hampshire). Of those 48 states, 10 have primary enforcement, meaning that police can stop and ticket a motorist simply for not wearing a seat belt. The other 38 states with seat belt laws have secondary enforcement, meaning that police can only ticket people not wearing seat belts if they pull the car over for some other reason.

As of 1996, 75 percent of automobile occupants in states with...

http://www.answers.com/topic/when-did-seatbelts-become-mandatory-equipment-on-united-states-motor-vehicles

The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required the installation of lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts in the front seats of cars in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until after 1984, when the first state laws were introduced that penalized drivers and passengers who did not use the device. As of the late 1990s, 68 percent of automobile occupants regularly use their seat belts.

Yes, cars had them but they weren't mandatory.

I think you're off by 3 years. From what I've found it was 1968 when seatbelts became mandatory equipment.

When did seat belts become mandatory equipment on United States motor vehicles? (http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/cars-boats-planes-trains/when-did-seat-belts-become-mandatory-equipment)

The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required automobile manufacturers to install lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts for front seats in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until 1984, when the first state laws were passed mandating seat belt use. At present, there are 48 states in which it is illegal for a driver or passenger to travel without a seat belt (the exceptions are Maine and New Hampshire). Of those 48 states, 10 have primary enforcement, meaning that police can stop and ticket a motorist simply for not wearing a seat belt. The other 38 states with seat belt laws have secondary enforcement, meaning that police can only ticket people not wearing seat belts if they pull the car over for some other reason.

As of 1996, 75 percent of automobile occupants in states with...

http://www.answers.com/topic/when-did-seatbelts-become-mandatory-equipment-on-united-states-motor-vehicles

The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required the installation of lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts in the front seats of cars in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until after 1984, when the first state laws were introduced that penalized drivers and passengers who did not use the device. As of the late 1990s, 68 percent of automobile occupants regularly use their seat belts.

In 1965 shoulder belts were not required. Just lap belts.

And yeah it took a long time before the general public took to wearing them.

But bottom line... traffic was different then, when I learned how to ride a bike, and did it regularly as a kid. Traffic was different in the late '70s too, when I was car free. Remember speed limits did not exceed 55MPH. Now local connectors and arterial roads have 55 and 65MPH speeds... and more traffic.

These days, in spite of my experience, distracted drivers scare the poop out of me. I have had more close calls in the past 3-4 years than I like. And my reaction times are NOT getting better.

I don't like cycling in the city much these days. Country, and paths, and off road... no problem; but mixed fast traffic in exburbs**... NOT GOOD. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Does that make me someone who "doesn't know the rules of the road???" Not by a long shot. But I do want better facilities... fewer autocentric roads that are focused on moving fast, vice safe. There has been some recognition of this locally... some roads have been calmed. (gee, wonder why...) But this is a slow process, and it was slow in recognition. But indeed, traffic engineers have recognized that frankly some roads are dangerous.... especially for peds... hence the frequent sad display of this sign...
http://www.trafficsign.us/100/reg/r10-15.gif


Com'on, why do we even need that sign... have motorists forgotten rule one... Don't run over the people? Sheesh. :notamused:




**exburbs... not quite sure what to call this... it is not suburbs with long arterial roads, nor is it dense city with city grids, it is the stuff in between, with high speed roads, lots of strip malls, and far too much heavy fast traffic.

Hey to get back to John Brooking's OP... I really do feel that road users should know at least some basic rules.

But at the same time, I don't feel roads should be geared to one type of user, but should consider all users.

Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.


ChipS, you did forget one little detail... too too TOO many kids today are wrapped up in their stupid little video games, handhelds too, and get easily bored if they're not pushing buttons at a rate of 100x per minute. They don't have the attention span to learn traffic laws/rules/flow by looking out the window... and considering the way most folks drive today, it'd just be exacerbating the problem! Yikes!

ChipS, you did forget one little detail... too too TOO many kids today are wrapped up in their stupid little video games, handhelds too, and get easily bored if they're not pushing buttons at a rate of 100x per minute. They don't have the attention span to learn traffic laws/rules/flow by looking out the window... and considering the way most folks drive today, it'd just be exacerbating the problem! Yikes!
Yikes indeed!
Nothing like calling out a pile of irrelevant stereotype BS - to NOT make an argument about youth, cycling, the topic thread, or anything else coherent.

And all without bike lanes, presumably.

Rhetoric aside, I appreciate hearing more about your background. It's always good to attach some humanity to an online discussion participant. I have some attachment to Philadelphia myself, some remote family connections, and I actually had heart surgery at the Children's Hospital there, but still I've only been there a few times, so I don't know it well. Seems like a nice city, though. We toured Constitution Hall and the Liberty Bell once.

I rode a bicycle throughout Philadelphia as a youth in the 50's and early 60's, and as an adult bike commuter in the 70's. What I liked best is the complete freedom to ride any way I wanted to. No nannys, no anal parrots clucking traffic law minutia, and almost no hassles of any type from anybody. I still ride a couple days a year from my sister's house in Abington to Center City, West Philadelphia, Reading Terminal and the 9th Street Market via Valley Green and Fairmount Park and the city streets. The bike lanes that have been added don't make much difference to me as I ride exactly in the same locations on the street where I did 40 and 50 years ago. I pay just as little or as much attention to traffic signals as needed to insure my safety, just like 40 and 50 years ago.

Note: When I used to ride to Independence Hall as a kid, the Liberty Bell was still on the ground floor. . There was no special building for it and of course none of the hysterical security rigmarole as there is now. I'd park my bike almost right in front of the same door that Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson entered to sign the Declaration of Independence. I find biking near the current security maze quite depressing now.

[Ignore the word "for" in the second choice, it's left over from an edit and I can't change it now.]

I was in a meeting about facilities yesterday with some local bike people and traffic engineers, and the engineers said something that rather surprised me. We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road.

That had never occurred to me before, that as a road designer, you wouldn't necessarily assume that people using the road, even on a bike, knew the rules of the road. Follow them, that's obviously a different story. But it seems frankly a bit crazy to me that you would design a road treatment without assuming that the users knew the basics of driving.

To me, this is an insight as to how bicyclists really are viewed as a completely different class of users from motor vehicle drivers by many traffic engineers, and helps explain why complaints about facilities conflicting with normal rules of the road don't get as much traction as the proponents of bicyclists as vehicle drivers would like.

I think that the engineers assume that if you could drive, you would not choose to use pedal power, instead you would be driving. They then compound this by assuming that if you could not drive, that you never knew how, and never learned the rules of the road.

Back in the late 1960's the local police department in my town had a booklet, this booklet contained a complete copy of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, with the sections that applied to bicycles in bold type. They gave them out in schools, typically in April or May as the bicycle season was getting started. This was in small town Ontario, where drivers were polite and motor vehicle and bicycle interactions were typically limited to younger riders. Because I first got one of these when I was around 8, I actually knew the rules of the road, long before I learned to drive.

Designing roads so that those who do not know the rules of the road specifically, can still use the road is an ideal. Some older drivers may have forgotten more then most new drivers know, and the exact rules of the road my vary from place to place. For example to turn right, when facing a red light is legal in Ontario, but not in Quebec. However they can also make the information more readily available

For example if there is a local bicycle map, printing the rules of the road as applies to bicycles in the margins would be helpful, making such information available in public service announcements and newspapers would also be helpful. Also helpful is information regarding driving around bicycles, in PSAs and newspaper adverts. A whole chapter of the drivers handbook should be dedicated to driving around bicycles, ebikes and other "green" transportation methods.

"Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?"

Not sure how the weird placement of the through bike lane / right turn lane fits into that question.

I did want to answer this, but got busy this week and didn't dare get sucked in! :innocent:

Consider this travel lane design:

http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/b/0/3/f/global_11145119.jpeg

Essentially, this is what the bike lane in this intersection is. (If you imagine both of these being through/right lanes, that would be exactly what it is, except the rightmost one is for optional use by bikes only.) Obviously what's wrong here is that the design routes some through traffic to the right of some right-turning traffic. The term "destination positioning" refers to the fact that when traffic is going in different directions, left turners should be to the left of other traffic, right turners to the right, and through traffic in between. Most drivers haven't heard the term "destination positioning", but I would expect that traffic engineers would consider this a "rule of the road", because their general lane design always reflects it. Why are bikes treated differently?

The answer I get most often is that some cyclists are not comfortable riding further into the lane to go straight, which is obviously true. My argument with the design, besides its poor safety record, is that it also teaches them the opposite of destination positioning. So if you consider destination positioning a rule of the road, albeit a subconscious one for most drivers (maybe "principle" would be a better word), the design both violates it and discourages the learning of it.

The engineer's position that he's designing for all cyclists, including those who don't know the rules of the road, implies to me that he's thinking that it's possible to create a design in which the rules of the road don't matter and cyclists don't have to learn them. That's what bothers me. I don't think such a design exists today, and I'm doubtful that it ever can. The laws of physics don't change according to vehicle mode.


Bike boxes - that's going to take some training. Not so wild about how they basically encourage filtering, but on the other hand, getting the bikes out front makes them easier to see, and it's hard to run over someone that you can see, right? (oops)

Which is exactly why merging early and taking a place in line at a red light is actually a good option. And early and gradual merging, especially when the light is already red or turning red and other traffic is slowing down to your speed, and you are looking behind you and signaling, is much safer than late and sudden merging, which is the entire basis of bike box operation. That becomes dangerous when the light changes to green as the cyclist is preparing to enter the box. Eliminating that danger requires giving the cyclist some warning that the light is going to change, or giving cyclists and motorists separate light phases (which increases the wait on red for all users).


On perhaps a more serious note, "dumbing down" of design, to handle some of the less able road users, is clearly a basic part of the roadway engineers' job; it's an implicit factor of safety. Even if the safety feature isn't used all of the time, it needs to be there. Buildings have fire exits and are designed to resist earthquakes, but there aren't fires all the time, nor earthquakes.

True. The engineer also made the point of how surprisingly dumb many car drivers can be, which we can certainly all agree with here! :notamused: His point being that they also design on the assumption that car drivers don't always know the rules of the road as well as they should. :(

John, to that engineer and anyone else planning to design mixed use roads (all surface streets), I suggest they get on a limited power moped (and actual bicycle would be much better) and use the roads to get a feeling how cyclists might and could handle the traffic situations and any road markings they are proposing.

Just yesterday I was driving a truck that had an engine problem... it would not go over 50MPH. I was on an interstate freeway. The reactions of motorists (even with hazard lights on) was simply eye opening, and somewhat disappointing. Some drivers simply do not look ahead, nor plan ahead... and their reactions to a slow moving vehicle is quite scary.

Consider this travel lane design:

http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/b/0/3/f/global_11145119.jpeg



The 'enlightened' City of Portland, LAB platinum-level bicycle friendly city, actually thinks that this is a good design for cyclists, and that by painting the bike lane green the right turning motorists will know to look for and yield to through cyclists on their right. I say, EPIC FAIL.

But the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals actually agrees with the city and the LAB and recently gave a national award to the city's Traffic Engineer (http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/16/city-traffic-engineer-wins-award-from-national-bikeped-group/) for his advocacy of these designs.

:eek:

1) We live in an area with a high percentage of immigrants, who, if they know the rules, often don't follow them.

2) Police are far to busy with drug busts and other drama to bother with traffic infractions. If they did, people would quickly learn and obey the rules.

Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?

I was actively involved with a traffic idea, I'll call it for want of a better term, called Transplan 2010 in Winnipeg for a couple years. One of my complaints, from the perspective of a person who was new to the city, was their use of Route Numbers and road names. In Winnipeg the road names change every few blocks, and I think the worst street for that has something like 6 different names. So they decided to pick certain roads/routes that went right through the city fairly seamlessly and give them Route Numbers instead. Trouble was that these Route Numbers were chosen randomly. There was no order to them or anything. Route 96 might be in the furthest north part of the city, Route 112 might be through the centre, and Route 89 might be in the furthest south, with all sorts of random numbers chosen for routes in between.

In addition to that, they had no signage. You'd be driving along and all you'd get is a tiny sign hidden behind some foliage indicating either Route 96 or a street name, but never both.

It was quite challenging to drive in Winnipeg and even Winnipegers almost seemed to pride themselves on the fact that most newcomers got badly lost. So I brought all that up in the meetings, and happened to talk to the guy who came up with the route system. It was supposed to make getting around Winnipeg easier, but they should have made a plan before randomly assigning numbers to whatever they figured was a route. One of his comments was that he had the routes all memorized. That's great for him ... but what about for someone who has never been to the city before?

The whole Transplan 2010 thing didn't amount to much, but I did notice that more and larger signs appeared giving both the route number and the street name so that it was easier to get around.

If you're making a traffic plan, you have to make it for people who have never been to your city before ... and who don't know the specific rules of the road in your city, or province, or state. This is especially true in this "global economy" where you might have people moving to your city from all over the world.

But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.

And having said that, I think more education and testing should be done to help people know the rules of the road.

When I was in elementary school, at about the age of 10 we were required to take a bicycle course as a part of one of our other classes. The main part of that course was all about road signs and other road rules. I thought it was great then, and I still do. I already knew most of that stuff, but it taught us in a formal way.

Then at the age of 15 I got my Learner's Licence ... a written test (done on the computer, even back in those days) which entitled me to be able to drive with another qualified driver. Again, I thought that was a great idea because the test was all about the rules of the road.

Now here's the thing ... I would not be opposed to having a law which requires drivers to take a written (computer) test on the rules of the road every 5 or 10 years. They wouldn't have to take the driving part of the test, because to me that had very little to do with road rules and a lot more to do with handling a piece of machinery. But they would have to take the written test.

The written test would, of course, be updated as road laws change ....... and would also include sections about the rules and rights of cyclists, pedestrians, and other potential road users.

Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?

I was actively involved with a traffic idea, I'll call it for want of a better term, called Transplan 2010 in Winnipeg for a couple years. One of my complaints, from the perspective of a person who was new to the city, was their use of Route Numbers and road names. In Winnipeg the road names change every few blocks, and I think the worst street for that has something like 6 different names. So they decided to pick certain roads/routes that went right through the city fairly seamlessly and give them Route Numbers instead. Trouble was that these Route Numbers were chosen randomly. There was no order to them or anything. Route 96 might be in the furthest north part of the city, Route 112 might be through the centre, and Route 89 might be in the furthest south, with all sorts of random numbers chosen for routes in between.

In addition to that, they had no signage. You'd be driving along and all you'd get is a tiny sign hidden behind some foliage indicating either Route 96 or a street name, but never both.

It was quite challenging to drive in Winnipeg and even Winnipegers almost seemed to pride themselves on the fact that most newcomers got badly lost. So I brought all that up in the meetings, and happened to talk to the guy who came up with the route system. It was supposed to make getting around Winnipeg easier, but they should have made a plan before randomly assigning numbers to whatever they figured was a route. One of his comments was that he had the routes all memorized. That's great for him ... but what about for someone who has never been to the city before?

The whole Transplan 2010 thing didn't amount to much, but I did notice that more and larger signs appeared giving both the route number and the street name so that it was easier to get around.

If you're making a traffic plan, you have to make it for people who have never been to your city before ... and who don't know the specific rules of the road in your city, or province, or state. This is especially true in this "global economy" where you might have people moving to your city from all over the world.

But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.

And having said that, I think more education and testing should be done to help people know the rules of the road.

When I was in elementary school, at about the age of 10 we were required to take a bicycle course as a part of one of our other classes. The main part of that course was all about road signs and other road rules. I thought it was great then, and I still do. I already knew most of that stuff, but it taught us in a formal way.

Then at the age of 15 I got my Learner's Licence ... a written test (done on the computer, even back in those days) which entitled me to be able to drive with another qualified driver. Again, I thought that was a great idea because the test was all about the rules of the road.

Now here's the thing ... I would not be opposed to having a law which requires drivers to take a written (computer) test on the rules of the road every 5 or 10 years. They wouldn't have to take the driving part of the test, because to me that had very little to do with road rules and a lot more to do with handling a piece of machinery. But they would have to take the written test.

The written test would, of course, be updated as road laws change ....... and would also include sections about the rules and rights of cyclists, pedestrians, and other potential road users.

Great Ideas, some more:

If you fail the written test, you need to take it again, if there are 25 questions on the test, then there should be categories of similar questions, the computer randomly picks from each category. This way a driver could take the test 4 times, and have only a few duplicate questions. The position of the answers also is randomly selected, for pick the correct answer type questions. The advantage of a computerized test is that it could be designed so that if your not fluent in English then there are a selected collection of other languages that can be tested in.

If a driver fails the written test, the first time, they should be required to repeat the test, but also submit to an eye test, peripheral vision test and a road test, before their licence is renewed.

john- you're blowing smoke.

this


The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane.

is NOT that picture. you have begun to misinform this forum. find a diagram of how the proposed intersection is really being designed.

the intersection treatment you describe, not fallaciously illustrate, IS vehicular and appropriate and ridable by both people that DO know these empheral 'rules of the road' and those that may not.

you want bicyclists to stay off some roads until they are trained? how distinctly unpopulist of you.

even the federal highway administration recognizes that ALL roads need to be designed with bikes in mind as part of the transportation mix.

not your lousy, elitist "they can't handle the motor vehicle traffic so i want to discourage bicyclists from using public rights of way and people from travelling under their own locomotion freely in this country."

pretty lame, buddy.

john,

you're an league cycling instructor, aren't you?

you're familiar with THIS

Smart Cycling, bicycle friendly communities and Bikelanes (http://www.bikeleague.org/members/instructor/pdfs/smart_cycling_bike_lanes.pdf)

then, eh?

an excerpt...


.... There is a clear and general principle that vehicles turning or changing lanes have the responsibility to make sure they can make the turn safely and not cross the path of another roadway user – we must expect motorists to follow this principle when crossing a bike lane to make a turn just as when they cross a sidewalk, crosswalk and/or shoulder. If a motorist hits a bicyclist (or if another cyclist hits a cyclist when turning) it suggests they have failed to take this basic precaution. (this is true in both the presence and absence of a bike lane, btw- bek)


....On roads with higher volumes of right turning traffic and through cyclists, the manuals typically suggest the bike lane stripe be dashed in advance of the intersection to allow cyclists and motorists to merge to the appropriate place for their intersection maneuver – and a bike pocket at the intersection, to the left of the right turn lane, can help guide cyclists to the best spot for safe through travel as well as alerting motorists to the place where they can expect cyclists to be.

so, dashing the stripe like you describe IS kosher! :D

<Snip>

But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.

<snip>


Would this count as one or two headlights?

http://www.marwiusa.com/smallpic/big_pro-elite.jpg
PRO-ELITE (http://www.marwiusa.com/default.aspx?taxid=24&cid=productview&bbid=3&pid=44#42)

What about lights mounted to the helmet such as this one?
http://www.marwiusa.com/smallpic/big_elite.jpg
ELITE (http://www.marwiusa.com/default.aspx?taxid=24&cid=productview&bbid=3&pid=49#42)

On the first one the lamps share a battery but are independently switchable. And obviously on the helmet mounted one the it's one bulb, one battery, one switch. Do they count housings, switches, or bulbs?

Is there any limit to the number of taillights that one can have on their bike?

Would this count as one or two headlights?

On the first one the lamps share a battery but are independently switchable. And obviously on the helmet mounted one the it's one bulb, one battery, one switch. Do they count housings, switches, or bulbs?

Is there any limit to the number of taillights that one can have on their bike?

How should I know? I don't make the law.

It appears that the act (the whole Vehicle Equipment Regulations act, not just this bit about cycling equipment) is under review at the moment and has not been replaced by an updated one yet. However, it says this:

"Bicycle equipment
99(1) A person shall not ride a bicycle at night time unless the bicycle has the following:
(a) at least one headlamp but not more than 2 headlamps;
(b) at least one red tail lamp;
(c) at least one red reflector mounted on the rear.
(2) A person shall not ride a bicycle unless the bicycle has a brake."

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/regu/alta-reg-322-2002/latest/alta-reg-322-2002.html

The new traffic acts etc. are here, and the bit above should be in in the Traffic Safety Act - Vehicle Equipment Regulations link, but as I said, it appears that the act is under review because it isn't there just now.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/556.htm