Advocacy & Safety - vehicularists/facilitators

Don't know if this has been posted...
http://www.slate.com/id/2232555/

Zounds, what a fence straddling piece of work this article is!

"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.

It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code. :twitchy:

The "can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" part of most states' vehicle code applies to rules regarding turn signals, windshield wipers, brake lights and the like.

I've run stop signs. And non-responsive traffic lights, as well. But I'm a vulnerable road user who looks out for his own skin and does not expect those with the legal right of way to yield to me. I know who comes out on the short end a collision and behave accordingly.

Perhaps the true path lies in a blend of both ways, the vehicularist & the facilitator.

Don't know if this has been posted...

It has: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=594941

Zounds, what a fence straddling piece of work this article is!

"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.

It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code. :twitchy:

The "can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" part of most states' vehicle code applies to rules regarding turn signals, windshield wipers, brake lights and the like.

I've run stop signs. And non-responsive traffic lights, as well. But I'm a vulnerable road user who looks out for his own skin and does not expect those with the legal right of way to yield to me. I know who comes out on the short end a collision and behave accordingly.

Perhaps the true path lies in a blend of both ways, the vehicularist & the facilitator.

Consider that some states straddle the same fence by calling bikes not "vehicles" but "human powered devices."

"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.

It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code. :twitchy:
It's true. The bicycle is not a car - vehicle codes were designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).

.....
"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.

It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code. :twitchy:

......

I don't take Umbrage, DT...I am only mildly offended by the law. Perhaps I should take penumbrage? :)

To me a bike is not a vehicle. Vehicles on the roadway have many features bicycles do not: turn signals, brake lights, headlights for safe night riding and daytime visibility, safety/collision/restraint features, etc. features, etc. In addition many cyclists want vehicular treatment on one hand but special treatment (slythering forward between lanes at a light for example) on the other.


roughstuff

I don't take Umbrage, DT...I am only mildly offended by the law. Perhaps I should take penumbrage? :)

To me a bike is not a vehicle. Vehicles on the roadway have many features bicycles do not: turn signals, brake lights, headlights for safe night riding and daytime visibility, safety/collision/restraint features, etc. features, etc. In addition many cyclists want vehicular treatment on one hand but special treatment (slythering forward between lanes at a light for example) on the other.


roughstuff

Do you consider a horse and buggy a vehicle? Didn't cars not have head/taillights when they first came out? Also didn't the first cars not also lack turn signals, seatbealts, etc.?

A bike certainly can be classified as a "vehicle" but it's not a motor vehicle, for which modern vehicle laws were written.


Do you consider a horse and buggy a vehicle? Didn't cars not have head/taillights when they first came out? Also didn't the first cars not also lack turn signals, seatbealts, etc.?
Not sure what exactly you're getting at in your post -- are you attempting to say that a car and a bike are the same thing?

A bike certainly can be classified as a "vehicle" but it's not a motor vehicle, for which modern vehicle laws were written.


Not sure what exactly you're getting at in your post -- are you attempting to say that a car and a bike are the same thing?

The point that I'm trying to make is that at different times in the development of different types of vehicles that they didn't always have all of the same safety devices that "modern day" vehicles currently do. But were still considered to be vehicles.

While that may be true, I fail to see how it is relevant to this discussion since we're talking about modern times -- and the modern rules that are inappropriately applied to bicycles. The rules that roughstuff uses as examples are certainly relevant to modern times since they currently exist -- and are certainly inappropriate when it comes to bicycles. Most modern vehicle laws to not adequately apply to bicycles as viable modes of transportation but instead as an inconvenience to motorists.

From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.

TITLE 32

MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION

CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY REGULATORY ACT

PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY

(92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.

A vehicle (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): vehiculum) is a mechanical means of conveyance, a carriage or transport. Most often they are manufactured (e.g. bicycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle), cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile), motorcycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle), trains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train), ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship), boats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat), and aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft)), although some other means of transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport) which are not made by humans also may be called vehicles; examples include icebergs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg) and floating tree trunks.

What you guys are missing, is that yes, bicycles are vehicles, but they're not motor vehicles. Just because they are clumped into the same category as motor vehicles doesn't mean that it's correct.

A bicycle is not a car. It's quite simple, really.

Perhaps you missed in my post above where I wrote:


A bike certainly can be classified as a "vehicle" but it's not a motor vehicle, for which modern vehicle laws were written.

Really not sure what your guy's argument is.

Perhaps you guys also missed what I wrote here:


From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.

While that may be true, I fail to see how it is relevant to this discussion since we're talking about modern times -- and the modern rules that are inappropriately applied to bicycles. The rules that roughstuff uses as examples are certainly relevant to modern times since they currently exist -- and are certainly inappropriate when it comes to bicycles. Most modern vehicle laws to not adequately apply to bicycles as viable modes of transportation but instead as an inconvenience to motorists.

From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.

It's relevant, because most states do recognize bicycles as being vehicles and as such requires them to obey all laws, and rules set forth for vehicles.

As put forth in F.S. 316.2065

316.2065 Bicycle regulations.-- (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/Sec2065.HTM)
(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

What you guys are missing, is that yes, bicycles are vehicles, but they're not motor vehicles. Just because they are clumped into the same category as motor vehicles doesn't mean that it's correct.

A bicycle is not a car. It's quite simple, really.

Perhaps you missed in my post above where I wrote:



Really not sure what your guy's argument is.

They may not be motor vehicles, but they are vehicles, and they are expected to follow the laws and rules of the road. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

You're right, a bicycle is not a car. Neither is it a motor vehicle (unless it's a moped). But both bikes and cars are vehicles, as well as aircraft, and to a lesser extent, icebergs. Unfortunately, icebergs and aircraft do not occupy the roadway, generally speaking, so they are not included in the highway/transportation code. Modern vehicle codes also include laws for bicycles.

What I want to see is stringent laws delineating the operation of strollers. Technically, they are vehicles, and belong on the roadway, since they convey people. The same with shopping carts. When will someone put a stop to this lawless menace???!

They may not be motor vehicles, but they are vehicles, and they are expected to follow the laws and rules of the road. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

You see, you really are missing the entire point of this discussion -- which is that motor vehicle laws are not appropriate for bicycles. We all get what the laws currently are -- what's being said here is that the laws are incorrect and need to be changed.

Unless you're going to mention what justifies the current laws, I don't get why you're even posting in this thread.

You're right, a bicycle is not a car. Neither is it a motor vehicle (unless it's a moped). But both bikes and cars are vehicles, as well as aircraft, and to a lesser extent, icebergs. Unfortunately, icebergs and aircraft do not occupy the roadway, generally speaking, so they are not included in the highway/transportation code. Modern vehicle codes also include laws for bicycles.
Do you even have the slightest ability to comprehend what has been written in this discussion so far? The vast majority of current motor vehicle laws in the US and Canada do not deal specifically with bicycles in an adequate fashion. Bicycles have been clumped into motor vehicle laws because it was the easy thing to do -- probably because they were viewed as a recreational toy, and a nuisance. Now that bicycles are being used more commonly as transportation vehicles, the laws need to be altered to reflect this.


What I want to see is stringent laws delineating the operation of strollers. Technically, they are vehicles, and belong on the roadway, since they convey people. The same with shopping carts. When will someone put a stop to this lawless menace???!
Now (pardon me for saying so) you're just being a dick. Really, if you're not willing to take the discussion seriously, why bother posting at all?

The laws are in place to facilitate the movement of traffic with as little accidents, and as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately this tends to favour motorists, as they are in the majority and most of the lawmakers operate vehicles. Hence infrastructure is built for motor vehicles, more people drive cars, and the vicious cycle continues. Until bicyclist comprise a large proportion of the commuting, voting, and law-making population, more cycling-specific laws are not going to happen.

I don't think that more laws are the answer anyways, as staying alive is a powerful incentive, and the results of your actions on a bicycle are more immediate than in a car. Savvy cyclists use strategies to facilitate their movement through motor vehicle traffic Witness videos of traffic in India, where there are few traffic lights or stop signs. They actually have a higher thoroughput of people than more heavily regulated areas. Having more specific bicycle codes will slow bicycle traffic down, and prove a disincentive for people to bike. I do not want more laws for me regulating where I can or cannot ride. I would prefer more education on everyone's part so I don't have to scream obscenities at some ignorant motorist. So really, I mostly agree with you, but thanks for trying to antagonize me.

And yes, I realize you want to keep A&S a humour-free zone. Keep fighting the good fight!

Do you consider a horse and buggy a vehicle? Didn't cars not have head/taillights when they first came out? Also didn't the first cars not also lack turn signals, seatbealts, etc.?



Well, in their time and in their day yes, they were. Now, given the nature of modern roadways, I would not and would expect (and as many of you would) that a horse and buggy keep as far to the right as practicable. Given special laws for antique and vintage vehicles, I can see them fully entitled to the roadway in a convoy or other, rare, circumstances.

Keeping with the humor creeping into this thread, I might also add I insist that the Amish start wearing helmets. :)

In any case: cars have improved their safety devices as technology and social mores require.

roughstuff

And reading the Louisiana law, you will see that a man on horseback is considered a vehicle here.

Makes it interesting around Mardi Gras time.:lol:

The laws are in place to facilitate the movement of traffic with as little accidents, and as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately this tends to favour motorists, as they are in the majority and most of the lawmakers operate vehicles. Hence infrastructure is built for motor vehicles, more people drive cars, and the vicious cycle continues. Until bicyclist comprise a large proportion of the commuting, voting, and law-making population, more cycling-specific laws are not going to happen.
Yes, the laws do favour motor vehicles -- that's because we've been living in a car-centric society for the last hundred years. But now that times are changing and we're seeing more and more people riding bicycles as transportation (I can't emphasis the transportation aspect enough) there is a need to reassess those laws that apply equally to bicycles and determine more appropriate solutions. The current laws at best are problematic and create difficulties for getting around on a bicycle -- and as you indicate, the infrastructure needs to be revised as well (and this is going to take a very long time to implement).

I believe that a large enough proportion of the public currently rides bicycles to justify building that infrastructure -- as is evidenced by the many, many cities in North America that are making considerable efforts to accommodate bicycles and the needs of cyclists.



I don't think that more laws are the answer anyways, as staying alive is a powerful incentive, and the results of your actions on a bicycle are more immediate than in a car. Savvy cyclists use strategies to facilitate their movement through motor vehicle traffic Witness videos of traffic in India, where there are few traffic lights or stop signs. They actually have a higher thoroughput of people than more heavily regulated areas. Having more specific bicycle codes will slow bicycle traffic down, and prove a disincentive for people to bike. I do not want more laws for me regulating where I can or cannot ride. I would prefer more education on everyone's part so I don't have to scream obscenities at some ignorant motorist.
I don't think more laws are preferred by many -- I know that I don't want more laws. But this discussion is not about making more laws for bikes, it's about not adhering to the inappropriate laws that are in place for motor vehicles -- in essence, it's about creating fewer laws. But bear in mind that it might also mean creating laws that do regulate how bicycles are ridden. In the case of the stop sign laws being discussed in the article, having a few rules that allow a different type of behaviour than a motor vehicle seems quite reasonable to me. If you haven't yet watched the video about the current stop sign laws in Idaho, it's well worth a look:

http://urbanvelo.org/bicycle-rolling-stop-animation-idaho-stop-law/

Note that there are rules in place that prohibit "blowing through" a stop sign -- which seems quite reasonable to me.

Interesting that you bring up India -- yes, they do get around quite well there (and in other similar counties where bikes are common place) but in North America, they'd be breaking laws left and right and centre.



So really, I mostly agree with you, but thanks for trying to antagonize me.
My apologies, my intent was not to be antagonistic.

Thanks, I had figured you are a decent guy but just got caught up in posting. The debate over bikes-as-vehicles has been beaten to death in A&S and I don't think it adds anything new here.

Regarding the article and stop signs - I think that the author's position is a little disingenuous, sort of "ZOMG I didn't know you could get a ticket on a bike!!" They're not treating their responsibilities as a cyclist seriously, and I think it's related to an underlying perception of bikes as toys. The same people probably would get upset if they were ticketed for jaywalking, as they consider their right-of-way to be paramount.

That being said, I prefer to stop at stop signs. I'm familiar with the Idaho stop, and I use it often, with no traffic. However, where I live, if I treated stop signs as optional, I'd soon be a lovely hood ornament as everyone here expects you to stop at one. (There are a lot of cars who don't stop at them, but I'll save that rant for another time.) The anti-cyclist rants in the local paper usually have "not stopping at stop signs" as their main grievance in the crusade against cyclists. I like to prove them wrong.

I like to prove them wrong.
I'd like to prove to them that the law requiring bicycles to come to a complete stop is wrong.

If the law can be established as inappropriate for cyclists, there'd be no argument for the anti-cycling pundits (although, I'm sure that they'd find something else to complain about).

btw: if you followed the Idaho rolling stop rules and procedures (as outlined in the video) I doubt very much that you'd be putting yourself in a position of greater peril.

TITLE 32

MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION

CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY REGULATORY ACT

PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY

(92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.

California: Bicycle

231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.

Amended Ch. 1013, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.

"human powered device," not "vehicle."

Vehicle or human powered device -- it doesn't really matter. We're not discussing a definition of a bicycle here. We're discussing the validity of the current laws as they relate to bicycles.

BTW, yes, that article was previously posted. No biggie, tho.

WCP, there's two things I noticed here -- ONE, you are at least TRYING to corral the discussion, by the repeated point that bikes are not motor vehicles. TWO, others are in the same frame of mind as all 50 state governments -- that's irrelevant. There are laws that apply to bikes, others that do not.

I will say that FRAP laws need to just go away; really, that's about the only law I have a problem with. I can ride in the street, no minimum speed limit (slow moving vehicle law) applicable, no need to pull over for faster traffic. I must ride WITH traffic (DUH! What don't some of these fools get?), use signals, and stop at reds/stop signs. If there's no traffic at a stop, no, I don't stop -- who's gonna see it if no one's there? I slow, check, and go. I could go along with a 'stop as yield' law, sure. But until it happens, if I NEED to stop, I'll stop. I'm not so anal that I'm afraid of losing momentum. Even straddling my bike is better than not.

Now, at least 40 of the 50 define a bicycle as a vehicle; all 50 grant the same rights, and require the same responsibilities, as a car. So let's stop picking nits and come together to find some answers to our collective issues with the ignorant fools who use 4-wheeled coffins as phallic enhancers.

Yeah, but you see, the reason that those 50 states define a bicycle as a vehicle that falls under vehicular laws is because it was easy at the time when a decision needed to be made (which was not that recent). So what happened is that one state (or province) looked at another for guidance, saw what they did and say "hey, that's a good easy solution, let's follow suit". This is the problem that needs to be undone. So long as everyone decides to follow like sheep and go along with the status quo, correcting this mess will be an arduous task.

But if there were a unified request from cyclists to change these inappropriate laws, it could be done in a timely manner and everyone would be a lot happier for it. I really don't see why this is so difficult for some to see. And in this age of the internet, getting the word out to cyclists is a lot easier than it ever has been. But unfortunately, the ability to have a serious and meaningful discussion in forums such as these ones where immaturity often prevails, makes it difficult (although, my hope is that despite this shortcoming some will get together through this medium and work together towards a positive change).

And just because this topic has been discussed previously, doesn't mean that everything that needs to be said about it, has already been said.

FRAP laws? Sorry, I don't know what this is.

Vehicle or human powered device -- it doesn't really matter. We're not discussing a definition of a bicycle here. We're discussing the validity of the current laws as they relate to bicycles.

Not sure what the problem is. It wasn't until I read Forester that I discovered that I was a vehicular cyclist. And I've never felt that the general laws governing traffic behaviour were unreasonable for me as a cyclist (BTW, why does nearly every article in the US media refer to bicyclists?).

There may be reasonable arguments for rolling stops and I suppose I've done them myself and I doubt very much if any UK officer would stop me, so the Idaho "experiment" could be generally introduced across the US without any diffculties or increase in accidents.

In traffic, I behave much as I do when driving: signal changes in direction/lane; look before pulling out; obey red lights; give way to other vehicles when appropriate; take the lane when necessary; move closer to the kerb ditto. I also find the argument that stopping at red lights/stop signs interferes with the flow and/or that it's more tiring to do so mildly absurd. So what if you have to slow down/stop and it takes more energy to get going again?

Ditto worries about sharing roads with a 70mph limit. My last commuter route before retiring required me to cross 2 lanes to turn right at a roundabout. It caused me some mild anxiety on occasion but never put me in any real danger - clear signalling always produced a considerate driver or two (I went right over the the RH side of the RH lane) who allowed me to do so.

From what I've read in this and other US forums, there are relatively few rules which might need altering to suit the needs of cyclists, Idaho stop law for instance, but the most effective method would be to introduce stiffer driving tests and enforce existing laws, esp. those broken by drivers (potentially more hazardous to other road users than those broken by cyclists. Add widespread cycle safety training in schools, along the lines of the new UK national standard Bikeability scheme (google it) and most of the things which cause aggravation between different groups of road users would be greatly reduced, since most people would then understand how to interact with each other, regardless of the type of vehicle. It would certainly put an end to many of the petulant and ignorant responses by drivers to such articles.

And yes, lots of separated facilities might well be valuable in specific circumstances, but they probably couldn't be shoe-horned into enough existing road layouts, so VC type skills would still be required.

vehicle codes were designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).

Actually that is quite incorrect.

bicycles led to the development of modern traffic codes and were the cause for

statewide uniformity in traffic codes in several states before the dawn of the 20th century.

bikes are most assuredly germane to vehicle codes as they were the vehicles responsible for vehicle regulations in the first place!


on a side note, have you heard of the landmark 1890 case of Swift v city of Topeka?

"Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle .... This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen."

source: American Business Law Journal, "The impact of sport of bicycling riding on safety law"

In our modern world, vehicle codes have been designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).

You all need to get with the times. We're talking about the now, not the distant past (I'm sure that you know this).

+1 to what atbman. I use the Idaho stop (and yes, I know what it is.) But I still have to stop or at least yield if there are already vehicles in the intersection. I don't think anyone comes to a complete stop at a stop sign without traffic, regardless of what they're in.

To me a bike is not a vehicle. Vehicles on the roadway have many features bicycles do not: turn signals, brake lights, headlights for safe night riding and daytime visibility, safety/collision/restraint features, etc. features, etc. In addition many cyclists want vehicular treatment on one hand but special treatment (slythering forward between lanes at a light for example) on the other.


roughstuff

slithering? forward on the right of traffic at lights seems to me to be the logical consequence of far to the right as possible laws (FRAP). If a car can pass a cyclist in a lane, then logically, a cyclist should be able to pass a car in a lane. FRAP is the law in almost every state in the U.S.

There are baby steps being taken in the U.S. to get away from a car centered view of all transportation issues. We have an incredibly wasteful and expensive system that is unsustainable. Bicycles are vehicles, and I think that's going to be more strongly represented in the vehicle code moving forward.

This notion that stops are a 'motor vehicle thing' is incorrect and wacky. Traffic control devices like stop signs, stop lights, yield signs, etc. are a consequence of stoopid, rude, impatient humans who cannot grasp that the right-of-way is not always theirs. So we have to attempt to tell people when they have or don't have the right of way. If people could identify when they have ROW and respect the ROW of others, we wouldn't need the dang things at all, for any type of vehicle, except in places where the volume of traffic is just too heavy to make self-governance safe or efficient.

slithering? forward on the right of traffic at lights seems to me to be the logical consequence of far to the right as possible laws (FRAP). If a car can pass a cyclist in a lane, then logically, a cyclist should be able to pass a car in a lane. FRAP is the law in almost every state in the U.S.

There are baby steps being taken in the U.S. to get away from a car centered view of all transportation issues. We have an incredibly wasteful and expensive system that is unsustainable. Bicycles are vehicles, and I think that's going to be more strongly represented in the vehicle code moving forward.


Slytherin, perhaps I should say. I can see Malfoy sneakin thru those cars right now.....

My lack of clarity. If you are over on the shoulder, which to me IS the bike lane, then by all means go as far forward as the roadway will allow. No different than traffic in a multiple lane setting. In contrast, if there is no shoulder (for example in an urban area) then I think a bike should line up as all other traffic does. It makes a mockery of the "gimme three feet" rule when I see cyclists slitherin' between lanes to get forward at a light.

roughstuff

Uh, Rough... the shoulder, YOUR 'bike lane', is officially known in most places as the 'breakdown lane'. It's not included in definitions of the road as they pertain to travel. But do what you feel is best for you -- I ride on shoulders when I feel it's apropos.

I always thought 'slytherin' was 'filtering'.....

In our modern world, vehicle codes have been designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).

You all need to get with the times. We're talking about the now, not the distant past (I'm sure that you know this).

no, there has been continuity of statute. bikes were fundament in the creation of modern traffic codes. you're griping about a few changes in uniformity in 1944?

sure, i'll grant you that the preponderance of vehicle codes are steered by the need to regulate dangerous motor vehicle traffic, but your statement


The bicycle is not a car - vehicle codes were designed for cars (and other motor vehicles). is only true about the bike not being a car.

vehicle codes were most assuredly written for bicycle regulation more so than any other vehicle prior to the 20th century, let to efforts for and establishment of statewide uniformity in traffic code in several states before the turn of the century, led to the creation of the first police road 'vehicle patrols' (on bikes of course, to enforce vehicle codes bicyclists were wantonly breaking) and even the first laws that codified signalling for turns.

to say vehicle codes were designed for cars is very shortsighted of you.

Good grief.

no, there has been continuity of statute. bikes were fundament in the creation of modern traffic codes. you're griping about a few changes in uniformity in 1944?

sure, i'll grant you that the preponderance of vehicle codes are steered by the need to regulate dangerous motor vehicle traffic, but your statement

is only true about the bike not being a car.

vehicle codes were most assuredly written for bicycle regulation more so than any other vehicle prior to the 20th century, let to efforts for and establishment of statewide uniformity in traffic code in several states before the turn of the century, led to the creation of the first police road 'vehicle patrols' (on bikes of course, to enforce vehicle codes bicyclists were wantonly breaking) and even the first laws that codified signalling for turns.

to say vehicle codes were designed for cars is very shortsighted of you.

Riiiiiight. :rolleyes: The 85% rule is obviously written for cyclists. :notamused:

look, you guys- it's fair to say cars rule the road nowadays (soon to be eroding in a big city near you!) and most of the laws on the books are geared towards automobile restrictions.

that IN NO WAY erases the historical record. to say bikes had nothing to do with traffic codes is shortsighted, historical amnesia. its like forgetting the US interred over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans in prison camps during WWII - or forgetting bicycling was the largest spectator sport in this country well into the 20th century, not football or baseball..... the most popular american sport was BICYCLING.

This summer I had the great delight to talk with a man who recalled for me the days of bicycling in Seattle before there were any cars to speak of. it was fascinating to get that glimpse into the recent past. This is not ancient history, this is still living history in america- bikes were key in the establishment of modern vehicle codes in this country.

The original poster brought up the Slate article about 'how to get bicyclists to obey traffic laws?' Cities with high ridership and problems(?) with brazen, lawbreaking scorchers could apply a page from the historical 'bikes are vehicles and need regulation' play book and send out bicyclist patrols to issue tickets for traffic infractions.

Remember now, the first vehicle patrols in america to enforce traffic rules were bicycle patrols


24-7 bicycle police could be roving cities issuing stoplight and rolling stop infractions to all these problematic scofflaw cyclists :rolleyes:


(oh, thats right, society recognized by the 1930's that the real danger was from the motor vehicle and began to regulate them much more appropriately.)

We're not discussing historical laws here -- we're discussing. current, modern day laws. Get with the program.

this is just absolutely worthless and weak history on your part....


Yeah, but you see, the reason that those 50 states define a bicycle as a vehicle that falls under vehicular laws is because it was easy at the time when a decision needed to be made (which was not that recent). So what happened is that one state (or province) looked at another for guidance, saw what they did and say "hey, that's a good easy solution, let's follow suit". This is the problem that needs to be undone. So long as everyone decides to follow like sheep and go along with the status quo, correcting this mess will be an arduous task.

do you even know what you are talking about? are you referring to the uniform vehicle code of 1944?

Don't lose sight of the past its happening right now ;)

I'm already with the program. I'd suggest you do the same.

I'd suggest a play out of the 'bikes are vehicles and need regulatory enforcement' playbook and put out spot bicycle vehicle patrols to crack down on the egregious scorcher behavior getting the motorists windshields all steamed up.

Good freakin' grief.

Nice one. So, you DON'T know what you're talking about. Fair enough, I'll give you that.

to rebut, i'd like to say,

Fripping FRAPping. :lol:

Nice one. So, you DON'T know what you're talking about. Fair enough, I'll give you that.

shoosh, he thinks he's a moderator...and we haven't had this many wacky theories since HH left us. :lol:

We're not discussing historical laws here -- we're discussing. current, modern day laws. Get with the program.

If you want those modern laws to have an application to bicyclists, then change them. Get together with an advocacy group and push to get those laws changed.

Otherwise, quit being so serious and take apart of some of the fun these forums have to offer.

What a joke. And an incredible waste of time.

You guys really don't get it Quite sad.

Hey guys, he's right.
We should all bow down and beg forgiveness and hope that we can someday achieve true rectal cranial zen, like the Master.