Advocacy & Safety - If cyclists fully complied with the law...

...what sort of effect would it have? Let's say, hypothetically, that some sort of disincentive to breaking the law was in effect to make anything less than full compliance disadvantageous. Whether it be from traffic fines, social stigma, etc. So there's generally no more red light running, sidewalk riding, or filtering unless specifically allowed by local laws. IOW the 'end goal' for some people here on A&S. Under this hypothetical situation how would that, in your opinion, affect traffic patterns, cycling participation, accident rates, etc.?

Anywhere from no effect to additional motorist hate crimes as a result of increased VC activity.

-Kurt

Sorry, does this scenario apply to just us, or motorists too?

Police would be less inclined to assume the cyclist is at fault in car-bike collisions, and might focus more attention on motorist behavior when considering cycling safety campaigns.

Anywhere from no effect to additional motorist hate crimes as a result of increased VC activity.

-Kurt

Vehicular cyclists experience harassment when they are in the minority, because people assume it's not normal. When vehicular cyclists comprise the vast majority of cyclists, its those who operate contrary to the rules of the road who end up stigmatized.

...what sort of effect would it have??

I think that a more interesting question is what the effect would be if motorists fully complied with the law. We currently see over 40,000 fatalities per year in the US as a result of motor vehicle collisions. Nationally approximately 12 % of all drivers in fatal accidents were intoxicated, and 30% of all drivers in fatal accidents were exceeding the speed limit. If just half of these accidents were avoided by having the drivers obey the law, that would save 8400 lives per year. One big difference between a cyclist who does not fully obey the law and a motorist, is that the cyclist is placing himself in the greatest danger through his actions, while the motorist is endangering others as well.

Sorry, does this scenario apply to just us, or motorists too?

For argument's sake let's say no. Motorist's compliance remains the same.

I already do, and I get nothing but respect around here. Seriously. But there are so few cyclists around here I don't think that most drivers have any basis to know what's normal; since I'm on the road every workday of the year, I'm betting that most drivers that are usually on the road during my commute time probably see me as often as all other cyclists combined (I can go months without seeing another cyclist, even in the summer) so it's even possible that they think that cyclists following all the rules IS normal.

traffic patterns: little change, at least around here. I don't think bikes have a big effect on traffic in general.
cycling participation: hard to see how this would change. Nobody is discouraged from riding because some cyclists are scofflaws (right?). I suppose some renegades might resent the expectation to ride legally and stop riding altogether, but I have to imagine this would be a small group.
accident rates: would improve some.

I don't think it would cause much change in motorists' perception of cyclists. Not for a long time, at least, and even then, not a big change. The motorists that resent cyclists don't resent us so much for riding illegally as for riding, period. The illegality argument is merely a justification for irrational grievances.

It'd take longer to get where you're going, we'd have the same accident rate, same deaths, and everyone would be sick of paying the huge cost of the system. I don't think it's a problem of enforcing the little laws. I think that it's a problem of getting people to pay full attention as if their life depended on it: Good luck.

I don't think it would cause much change in motorists' perception of cyclists. Not for a long time, at least, and even then, not a big change. The motorists that resent cyclists don't resent us so much for riding illegally as for riding, period. The illegality argument is merely a justification for irrational grievances.
Yep 100% correct. Some drivers don't dislike us because "it's dangerous" or they (cyclists) "do illegal stuff", they don't like us because we exist in the first place, also because there is a chance we may hold them up by a couple of seconds in the second place, and finally because that same "some of them" do NOT know how to drive properly around us, and barrel past with their foot down, not looking and hoping that they don't hit us.:twitchy:

Vehicular cyclists experience harassment when they are in the minority, because people assume it's not normal. When vehicular cyclists comprise the vast majority of cyclists, its those who operate contrary to the rules of the road who end up stigmatized.

Correction: "When vehicular cyclists comprise the vast majority of cyclists," a motorist will purposely rear-end them, or cut them off.

-Kurt

In my experience, the only thing that enrages a motorist more than a cyclist flouting the law is a cyclist rigorously obeying the law.

Arguably I think that cyclists may be less safe, make fewer and shorter trips, as well as slow the movement of traffic if they all compiled with the law to the letter.

Less safe because more cars are overtaking cyclists and having there greater difference in speed due the longer time it takes a cyclist to accelerate up to speed. It may even be more unsafe for everyone else as cars have to overtake more.

Fewer and shorter trips because those who ride for transportation and utility will find their to be more strenous due to having to stop at nearly every intersection. Those who use their bicycles to exercise will find their rides less exciting due to lower speeds and some will opt for other forms of exercise or will simply ride less.

The movement of traffic in an area with many cyclists will slow as cars have to overtake more cyclists. (Athough this is related to my second point. If cycling decreases in popularity enough there may be fewer overtakes.)

In my experience, the only thing that enrages a motorist more than a cyclist flouting the law is a cyclist rigorously obeying the law.

Ding!

-Kurt

In my experience, the only thing that enrages a motorist more than a cyclist flouting the law is a cyclist rigorously obeying the law.

Something of a cross post here... but...

I have seen that individuals acting in proper manner, and not the way as the group think, tend to ostracized. In fact, I actually experienced an extreme of this a long while back when taking a LAB Road 2 class... we were practicing and executing proper and legal left turns when we were confronted by horn honking motorist that chided us to ride "the other way." When I confronted the motorist about specifics, he pointed to a curb hugging cyclist and said "like that." I then asked how we were supposed to make left turns... "that's your problem."

I also quite often get honked at and yelled at for taking a lane on a multi-laned road, where other bicycle riders often cower on the sidewalks.

Being the "lone ranger" ain't fun. I also suspect that others observing my woes consider me the fool.

This even happened with my own family, when we were riding along in a residential area, and came up to a 4 way stop where a car was already waiting on a cross street. I stopped, my wife and son ran the sign. The motorist looked at me like I was from Mars... and my son suggested that I was an idiot. (we had words, later) My actions were the proper and legal actions, but in the examples I just gave, were frowned upon by the "less enlightened" masses. Go figure.

accident rates: would improve some.That may not be true. When Idaho changed their law to allow cyclist to treat stop signs as a "Yield" and red lights as a "Stop Sign". Collisions went down for cyclist.

Something of a cross post here... but...

I have seen that individuals acting in proper manner, and not the way as the group think, tend to ostracized. In fact, I actually experienced an extreme of this a long while back when taking a LAB Road 2 class... we were practicing and executing proper and legal left turns when we were confronted by horn honking motorist that chided us to ride "the other way." When I confronted the motorist about specifics, he pointed to a curb hugging cyclist and said "like that." I then asked how we were supposed to make left turns... "that's your problem."

I also quite often get honked at and yelled at for taking a lane on a multi-laned road, where other bicycle riders often cower on the sidewalks.

Being the "lone ranger" ain't fun. I also suspect that others observing my woes consider me the fool.

This even happened with my own family, when we were riding along in a residential area, and came up to a 4 way stop where a car was already waiting on a cross street. I stopped, my wife and son ran the sign. The motorist looked at me like I was from Mars... and my son suggested that I was an idiot. (we had words, later) My actions were the proper and legal actions, but in the examples I just gave, were frowned upon by the "less enlightened" masses. Go figure.

Sounds familiar, it's can be tough being "That bicycle guy" at times, but overall, local motorists must have become more accustom to my "eccentricities", as some motorists may put it, since it's been sometime that I've been honked at, even when riding in the lane of our multilane arterials.

The only real issue that I have because of following the letter of the law all the time is that at some corners if there's a car coming up behind me and I'm approaching a stop sign, they almost always will pull around me and blow the stop sign at 20 MPH as I am coming to a stop.

Damn drivers don't think the law applies to them.

I think that a more interesting question is what the effect would be if motorists fully complied with the law. We currently see over 40,000 fatalities per year in the US as a result of motor vehicle collisions. Nationally approximately 12 % of all drivers in fatal accidents were intoxicated, and 30% of all drivers in fatal accidents were exceeding the speed limit. If just half of these accidents were avoided by having the drivers obey the law, that would save 8400 lives per year. One big difference between a cyclist who does not fully obey the law and a motorist, is that the cyclist is placing himself in the greatest danger through his actions, while the motorist is endangering others as well.

BS and you know it! I personally know one person who was admitted to the hospital for a concussion and suspected broken ribs (found to be bruised only) as a result of being hit by a bicyclist on the sidewalk. How does this not endanger others?

I've seen a bicyclist chase down a pedestrian after the bicyclist ran the red light and hit the pedestrian more than 10s after the signal change. The bicyclist chased the pedestrian 100 ft so that he could sneak up behind him and smash the bicycle into the back of the pedestrians head. Not endangering others again I suppose...

On a daily basis, I see bicyclists forcing their way through crowds of hundreds of pedestrians in the crosswalk and sidewalks. Again I supposed the bicyclist isn't putting anyone in danger other than him/herself.

What about psychological trauma? If a motorist hits and kills a bicyclist as a result of the bicyclist making an illegal maneuver, would the motorist not suffer psychological trauma? Ever know anyone who had survivor's guilt and then put a .45 to his face after an accident where his passenger and the other motorist (at fault) perished on the scene?

What if a motorists is startled and in a panic swerves to avoid the bicycle and hits another vehicle or pedestrian and causes death or injury? Still putting only him/herself at risk I suppose.

Just because a bicycle and bicyclist are small in comparison to an automobile does not mean they cannot cause harm to others. The risk of causing death, injury, and property damage are still very real even if the it is smaller compared to an automobile.

I suspect no effect whatsoever. Bicycles will still be slower than cars and it is only where drivers have been unable to pass, or feel that I should not be on the road because they had to think about passing a slower vehicle that I've had direct "complaints".

Post #2 summed things up perfectly!

Be careful what you wish for. If I obeyed the law I would have to ride in door-zone bicycle lanes :mad: and do countless other stupid things depending on how you interpret as far right as practicable ... you start pressing the police to enforce bicycle laws and next thing you know you get arrested for taking the lane and not the clown riding with no lights the wrong way. So, no, I think it is completely misguided to want to see the laws enforced, not until we get good laws.

If all road users obeyed the laws which apply to them, traffic would be slower - and would benefit from the safety features which orderly traffic flow brings.
Is this possible? Probably not. I'd submit that if every active cyclist always broke the law, we'd still break fewer traffic laws than the total group of motorists (law-abiding, semi-law-abiding, and opportunists) do. There are more motorists than cyclists, and it's virtually impossible to drive very far without transgressing in some way.

Akohekohe, YOU are the one who gets to interpret "as far right as practicable" ... If you can't be safe in a certain position on the road, you don't have to be there. It isn't "practicable" to run the risk of being doored.

I've seen a bicyclist chase down a pedestrian after the bicyclist ran the red light and hit the pedestrian more than 10s after the signal change. The bicyclist chased the pedestrian 100 ft so that he could sneak up behind him and smash the bicycle into the back of the pedestrians head.




WOW...that must have been one hell of a wheelie!!!


The issues you comment about are so rare....its like catching a STD while playing with yourself! :)

Akohekohe, YOU are the one who gets to interpret "as far right as practicable" ... If you can't be safe in a certain position on the road, you don't have to be there. It isn't "practicable" to run the risk of being doored.

Of course I agree but how do you think I'm going to fare with a non-cyclist judge, policeman and prosecutor. I was once pulled over by a policeman for failure to keep right when I was going 40 mph in a 35 mph zone! I didn't get a ticket but the policeman was sure convinced I was breaking the law and that is my point. Do you really think you are going to prevail in court if you get arrested for not riding in the bicycle lane door zone? Here is how it will go:
Judge: So you are telling me that you didn't ride in the bike lane because it would be dangerous if someone opens a car door?
You: Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Judge: Don't you know that opening a car door into traffic is illegal? So you are justifying your illegal behavior because you are saying someone else might act illegally. That is like saying it is ok to shoot someone because they might shoot you first. Guilty as charged.

I honestly don't think you are going to win the argument that as far right as practicable doesn't mean you are supposed to ride in the door zone.

Of course I agree but how do you think I'm going to fare with a non-cyclist judge, policeman and prosecutor. I was once pulled over by a policeman for failure to keep right when I was going 40 mph in a 35 mph zone! I didn't get a ticket but the policeman was sure convinced I was breaking the law and that is my point. Do you really think you are going to prevail in court if you get arrested for not riding in the bicycle lane door zone? Here is how it will go:
Judge: So you are telling me that you didn't ride in the bike lane because it would be dangerous if someone opens a car door?
You: Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Judge: Don't you know that opening a car door into traffic is illegal? So you are justifying your illegal behavior because you are saying someone else might act illegally. That is like saying it is ok to shoot someone because they might shoot you first. Guilty as charged.

I honestly don't think you are going to win the argument that as far right as practicable doesn't mean you are supposed to ride in the door zone.

Hmm, I seem to recall reading (in this very forum) about two cyclists who when illegally ordered by a cop to stop and refused that at least one if not both had the charges dropped. Plus I seem to recall an ER doctor getting convicted for using his car as a deadly weapon against two bicyclists.

And as in the above case the judge also rode so I think that these days that it is likely to get at least a bicycle friendly judge. And there are cops who also ride and are bicycle friendly granted it seems like they are few and far between but they are out there.

As for riding in bike lanes that are in the door zone at least here in Florida or at the very least St. Pete there is no law that says that those of us on a bicycle HAVE to stay in the bike lane. We can still even if there is a bike lane ride in the lane. And I would say that if one is riding at or so close to speed limit as not make a difference that one should ride in the lane and allow slower cyclists to use the bike lane.

I would recommend printing out and carrying a copy of your states law(s) regarding bicycle operation, and highlighting sections that you think are to be the most beneficial if you are stopped by a LEO. Such as the exceptions to "riding as far right as practicable" as well as politely reminding the LEO that practicable and possible do not mean the same thing. Even if they think so.

WOW...that must have been one hell of a wheelie!!!


The issues you comment about are so rare....its like catching a STD while playing with yourself! :)

No wheelie. Once the bicyclist caught the pedestrian, he dismounted and picked up the front end.

The incident where the guy ended it with a .45 to his face may also be rare and not bicycle related, but very real to me.

While these two specific incidents may be rare, I do see bicyclists riding 15 MPH plus on the sidewalks and through red lights when there are hundreds of pedestrians in crosswalks. This is a huge hazard from the POV of someone who is 85% pedestrian (other 15% is a mix of mostly bus and rail, and some bicycle and auto). I don't see how the bicyclist can only be endangering himself when he's playing Frogger with pedestrians everywhere.

My point was that the belief that bicyclists only endanger themselves when breaking laws is false.

I don't see how the bicyclist can only be endangering himself when he's playing Frogger with pedestrians everywhere.




LOL good one! I agree to a point. Big..Big..and I mean Big citys are bad for that. The large citys.... but are not huge like St Louis...we really dont see that type of thing too often. Experienceing these things you speak of seem to be issues in the Huge citys. I would like to see it first hand....justifies my trip to NYC!!! Then I will be able to give you my thoughs on your issues with city bikers.

Be careful what you wish for. If I obeyed the law I would have to ride in door-zone bicycle lanes :mad: and do countless other stupid things depending on how you interpret as far right as practicable ... you start pressing the police to enforce bicycle laws and next thing you know you get arrested for taking the lane and not the clown riding with no lights the wrong way. So, no, I think it is completely misguided to want to see the laws enforced, not until we get good laws.

Doesn't your state have an exception to riding in bike lanes if there are hazards in the BL? I would consider the potential for flying doors to be a hazard.

Be careful what you wish for. If I obeyed the law I would have to ride in door-zone bicycle lanes :mad: and do countless other stupid things depending on how you interpret as far right as practicable ... you start pressing the police to enforce bicycle laws and next thing you know you get arrested for taking the lane and not the clown riding with no lights the wrong way. So, no, I think it is completely misguided to want to see the laws enforced, not until we get good laws.

Doesn't your state have an exception to riding in bike lanes if there are hazards in the BL? I would consider the potential for flying doors to be a hazard.
Akohekohe is correct about being concerned about unintended consequences coming from "strict enforcement" of traffic law on bicyclists. Presumably "far right as practicable" laws could (and would) be interpreted as requiring bicyclists to ride in the door zone of parked cars, and could (and would) be strictly enforced whether there is a bike lane or not.

Though Genec and others may be correct about a potential for flying doors in the door zone, LEO's and motorists can be just as correct by pointing out the "potential" of collisions with motorists if cyclists are not as far right as practicable.

In addition, the strict enforcers could argue that on balance, the benefits of far right as practicable laws for the public at large (less "potential" for severe bicycle-moving motor vehicle accidents and smother traffic flow) outweighs the reduction in "potential" of door zone collisions.

Strict enforcement of traffic laws on bicyclists is a can of worms for cyclists who ride for utility and/or transportation in urban centers.

IMO, strict enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists (as well as cycling registration/licensing schemes) is usually proposed by anti-cyclist motorists who object to the presence of cyclists on the street whether they are legal or not, and by mostly suburban cyclists who would not be affected and who are all for cracking down on the lowlife cyclists who don't fit their own social and cycling profile.

I find that I get more respect, and courtesy, when I obey the law.

Sure, there are still some jerks out there; but, they would be jerks, no matter what. They think the law doesn't apply to them, and that they can do whatever pleases them.

They are still jerks, and I'm still alive.

Be aware of your surroundings, and you will be OK.

Suburban cyclist have no voice in cities in which they don't reside. Nor do motorist from outside the city. If registration or increased enforcement is at hand it's because city residents want it.

Akohekohe is correct about being concerned about unintended consequences coming from "strict enforcement" of traffic law on bicyclists. Presumably "far right as practicable" laws could (and would) be interpreted as requiring bicyclists to ride in the door zone of parked cars, and could (and would) be strictly enforced whether there is a bike lane or not.

Though Genec and others may be correct about a potential for flying doors in the door zone, LEO's and motorists can be just as correct by pointing out the "potential" of collisions with motorists if cyclists are not as far right as practicable.

In addition, the strict enforcers could argue that on balance, the benefits of far right as practicable laws for the public at large (less "potential" for severe bicycle-moving motor vehicle accidents and smother traffic flow) outweighs the reduction in "potential" of door zone collisions.

Strict enforcement of traffic laws on bicyclists is a can of worms for cyclists who ride for utility and/or transportation in urban centers.

IMO, strict enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists (as well as cycling registration/licensing schemes) is usually proposed by anti-cyclist motorists who object to the presence of cyclists on the street whether they are legal or not, and by mostly suburban cyclists who would not be affected and who are all for cracking down on the lowlife cyclists who don't fit their own social and cycling profile.


Seems like it'd be real easy to argue that door openings are a greater threat, statistically, than rear enders. You could also make the argument that rear enders are easily the legal fault of the car in back. If cars can't be trusted to scan what's directly in front of them there's a much bigger problem than bicycles sharing the roadway.

You could also argue that far right as practicable doesn't mean that you must ride as far as you possibly could to the right. That's the typical argument, and it's kept us out of the door zone thus far.

I see no reason to think massive enforcement is likely. As of yet it doesn't exist for anything. Cars don't get it, bikes don't get it, and even parking doesn't get it (although parking is probably the closest in some dense areas). It's simply not worth it.

The only reason I see for enforcement on bicycles to play catch up to enforcement on autos is a huge complaint from motorists. This would involve someone actually spending real time lobbying, instead of a few random letters to the editor. It'll probably happen (and maybe has) somewhere, sometime. And it'll probably be driven by an increase in cyclists. However, my guess is that this will be a short lived fight and the city will see $$$ from the rising cycling population: Why chase away an effective means to get downtown from those pesky suburbs that have been draining your finances for so long.

Leaving aside the bozos who ride the wrong way on one way streets, hop on and off sidewalks, etc., I think that if vehicular type cyclists observed every letter of the law at all times under all circumstances, drivers who get mad at cyclists would probably get even madder... because cyclists would be impeding their progress and speed even more.

Anyway, no matter what cyclists do, you can't please motorists. They may use things like going through red lights as an excuse, but the real problem is that the American puritan work ethic ingrained in the whole society makes them see cycling as unproductive and self-indulgent or downright childish. Even though the religious basis of it is gone, the way of thinking persists.

To cycle safely in urban areas, you need to have a skin thick enough to be able to shrug them all off.

Seems like it'd be real easy to argue that door openings are a greater threat, statistically, than rear enders. You could also make the argument that rear enders are easily the legal fault of the car in back. If cars can't be trusted to scan what's directly in front of them there's a much bigger problem than bicycles sharing the roadway.

You could also argue that far right as practicable doesn't mean that you must ride as far as you possibly could to the right. That's the typical argument, and it's kept us out of the door zone thus far.

I see no reason to think massive enforcement is likely.
First, I agree with you that massive enforcement is unlikely despite the wishes of a few letters-to-the editor/shock radio anti-cyclist ranters and malcontents.

Second, I also agree that your suggested arguments could be argued, but not necessarily successfully in the face of a public that actually was fed up with cyclists (for whatever reason)l. Lots of traffic rules and facilities are installed to protect less than perfect and inattentive drivers from themselves, i.e. rumble strips, 4-way stop signs and guard rails. Rules that have the appearance of protecting motorists and cyclists from the consequences of moving collisions can win a lot of arguments. Rules that have the appearance of removing cycling nuisances from "unnecessarily" slowing down traffic could also be the winning hand in an argument over this issue.

Third, to repeat I don't see this argument happening at the present time unless there is some unusual circumstance or personality driving the issue.

Fourth and BTW, though it would real easy to argue that door openings are a greater threat, statistically, than rear enders, it may be a lot harder to successfully argue that case when the probabilities AND severity of the typical/likely accident consequences are considered, especially on streets with parking and free flowing traffic, where motorists normally are traveling at the speed limit, or above. To argue that traffic must be slowed down to accommodate the few cyclists that cannot feel safe enough to the right may not be a winning argument with the public.

Of course I agree but how do you think I'm going to fare with a non-cyclist judge, policeman and prosecutor. I was once pulled over by a policeman for failure to keep right when I was going 40 mph in a 35 mph zone! I didn't get a ticket but the policeman was sure convinced I was breaking the law and that is my point. Do you really think you are going to prevail in court if you get arrested for not riding in the bicycle lane door zone? Here is how it will go:
Judge: So you are telling me that you didn't ride in the bike lane because it would be dangerous if someone opens a car door?
You: Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Judge: Don't you know that opening a car door into traffic is illegal? So you are justifying your illegal behavior because you are saying someone else might act illegally. That is like saying it is ok to shoot someone because they might shoot you first. Guilty as charged.

I honestly don't think you are going to win the argument that as far right as practicable doesn't mean you are supposed to ride in the door zone.

Last night I did a quick Google search and found Hawaii's bicycle law and not too surprisingly it's written pretty similarly to other state laws. Here's a link to it:

http://www.pathhawaii.org/Overview_HI_Bike_Laws.pdf

First, I agree with you that massive enforcement is unlikely despite the wishes of a few letters-to-the editor/shock radio anti-cyclist ranters and malcontents.

Second, I also agree that your suggested arguments could be argued, but not necessarily successfully in the face of a public that actually was fed up with cyclists (for whatever reason)l. Lots of traffic rules and facilities are installed to protect less than perfect and inattentive drivers from themselves, i.e. rumble strips, 4-way stop signs and guard rails. Rules that have the appearance of protecting motorists and cyclists from the consequences of moving collisions can win a lot of arguments. Rules that have the appearance of removing cycling nuisances from "unnecessarily" slowing down traffic could also be the winning hand in an argument over this issue.

Third, to repeat I don't see this argument happening at the present time unless there is some unusual circumstance or personality driving the issue.

Fourth and BTW, though it would real easy to argue that door openings are a greater threat, statistically, than rear enders, it may be a lot harder to successfully argue that case when the probabilities AND severity of the typical/likely accident consequences are considered, especially on streets with parking and free flowing traffic, where motorists normally are traveling at the speed limit, or above. To argue that traffic must be slowed down to accommodate the few cyclists that cannot feel safe enough to the right may not be a winning argument with the public.


You don't argue law to the public, you argue to a judge. Keeping the law written the way it is may be another matter, and you're right: If it came down to a vote they'd ban us from all but a few back roads.

Dooring accidents kill more cyclists... They're often followed by a "rear ender" where the guy behind you runs over you after you're thrown into traffic. The traffic isn't slowed for the cyclists, it's slowed for the parking. Convincing a motorist of that may be difficult, but convincing a cyclist that the 8 foot wide parking is taking up more space than he is would be pretty tough ;). And the cyclist is right. At least he's using his space to move around on the street.

I would hope that if mandatory laws (that are actually enforced) to ride in the bike lane, regardless of hazard, were passed that cyclists would stop riding down streets with bike lanes. That would, hopefully, quickly get those lanes painted back and then we could use those streets again. This may be a good, even if paranoid, reason to not push for bike lanes.

Anyway, no matter what cyclists do, you can't please motorists. They may use things like going through red lights as an excuse, but the real problem is that the American puritan work ethic ingrained in the whole society makes them see cycling as unproductive and self-indulgent or downright childish. Even though the religious basis of it is gone, the way of thinking persists.



I've never heard that explanation of it before. It's interesting.

Dooring accidents kill more cyclists... They're often followed by a "rear ender" where the guy behind you runs over you after you're thrown into traffic.
Kill more cyclists than what? Also any source or reference for this claim?

When evaluating risk of door zone accidents, don't neglect to consider the percentage of cyclists who ride in the door zone vice those who take a lane on the same busy street. Not many accidents happen to non existent or rare cyclists.

Last night I did a quick Google search and found Hawaii's bicycle law and not too surprisingly it's written pretty similarly to other state laws. Here's a link to it:

http://www.pathhawaii.org/Overview_HI_Bike_Laws.pdf

Yes, and here is the relevant portion:

(c) Whenever a usable bicycle lane has been provided on a highway, any person operating a bicycle at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride within such bicycle lane, except that such person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if such overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane;
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.


So, yes I know that the possibility of a car door opening can be interpreted as an "other hazardous condition," but I think you are going to have trouble prevailing with that argument in court. There is another issue in addition to getting a ticket and that is what happens if you get hit riding in the lane when there is an adjacent door zone bicycle lane. You can bet the attorney defending the MV operator when you sue for damages is going to argue contributory negligence on your part because the law requires you to ride in the bike lane. So, just because no one is being ticketed is no reason not to push to get the law changed.

it wouldn't make one bit of difference one way or the other

Do you think a city that makes bike lanes mandatory and installs bike lanes like the one pictured below will accept cyclist refusing to use the bike lane because of door zone concerns.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

Note the illegally parked cars, note how the bike lane keeps zigging out forcing extremely close passing of cyclist and creating a dangerous situation, note that most of the bike lane is in the door zone, note that there is NO line of sight for motorist in the many driveways to see cyclist in the bike lane.

This is the bike lane the city painted, even after a well thought out street redesign had been worked agreed upon between the city and cyclist. The new mayor just tossed out the plan and painted this crap. I believe that akohekohe was involved with the city in drawing up the GOOD plan.

And how about this State bike lane in which the through lane and bike lane combined are too narrow to share.

Which of the legal reasons for leaving the bike lane can we use to ride safely?

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5348/dcp03400pu8.jpg

Do you think a city that makes bike lanes mandatory and installs bike lanes like the one pictured below will accept cyclist refusing to use the bike lane because of door zone concerns.
I don't know what the city will "accept", maybe it would help if you also described how strictly the city actually enforces the mandatory requirements. How many tickets are issued to cyclists for out of lane violations?

The actual risk of these bike lanes might be put in perspective, if you could present some facts about how many (or better yet what percentage of) serious injuries are a result of door zone crashes. For lack of a standard measure for serious injuries perhaps you might use over night hospital admissions or (though less indicative of injury severity) ER visits.

Yes, and here is the relevant portion:

(c) Whenever a usable bicycle lane has been provided on a highway, any person operating a bicycle at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride within such bicycle lane, except that such person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if such overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane;
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.


So, yes I know that the possibility of a car door opening can be interpreted as an "other hazardous condition," but I think you are going to have trouble prevailing with that argument in court. There is another issue in addition to getting a ticket and that is what happens if you get hit riding in the lane when there is an adjacent door zone bicycle lane. You can bet the attorney defending the MV operator when you sue for damages is going to argue contributory negligence on your part because the law requires you to ride in the bike lane. So, just because no one is being ticketed is no reason not to push to get the law changed.

Cyclists in Hawaii should petition for the removal of the language making it mandatory that cyclists ride in a bicycle lane IF there is one provided. As I said at least here in St. Pete if not the state of Florida there is no provision in the law that requires cyclists to remain in the bike lane. And given that there is a good chance (being as cars aren't suppose to use them) of debris in bike lanes as well as being located in the door zone. And as well meaning as bike lanes are and laws requiring cyclists to stay in them. Bike lane can be a dangerous place for cyclists to ride.

Even if it isn't changed I would have to presume that as with the AFRAP language of most state laws that it is the cyclist who gets to decide if it is safe to remain in the bike lane and not the motorists on the road, or the cop trying to enforce his/her interpretation of the law.

And straying slightly off topic for a second I found it interesting that unlike how it was reported in another thread that according to the Hawaii law that bikes with wheels smaller then 20" do not have to register their bikes. But for ease of recovery in case of theft that they should be registered.

Do you think a city that makes bike lanes mandatory and installs bike lanes like the one pictured below will accept cyclist refusing to use the bike lane because of door zone concerns.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

Note the illegally parked cars, note how the bike lane keeps zigging out forcing extremely close passing of cyclist and creating a dangerous situation, note that most of the bike lane is in the door zone, note that there is NO line of sight for motorist in the many driveways to see cyclist in the bike lane.

This is the bike lane the city painted, even after a well thought out street redesign had been worked agreed upon between the city and cyclist. The new mayor just tossed out the plan and painted this crap. I believe that akohekohe was involved with the city in drawing up the GOOD plan.

How the bloody hell is a person suppose to ride in that "bike lane?"

And how about this State bike lane in which the through lane and bike lane combined are too narrow to share.

Which of the legal reasons for leaving the bike lane can we use to ride safely?

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5348/dcp03400pu8.jpg

I would have to say that all of the exceptions. As that is NOT a safe bike lane. I wouldn't even call that a bike lane.

I would have to say that all of the exceptions. As that is NOT a safe bike lane. I wouldn't even call that a bike lane.

There is one section of my commute, all one has to do is move the above pictured BL, the same width and all, to the right to include the concrete gutter pan, practically forcing a cyclist to be a " gutter bunny". Though the pictured BL is what you and I consider unsafe, it still presents an escape opportunity with more lateral movement to the right than being jammed up against a curb.

There is one section of my commute, all one has to do is move the above pictured BL, the same width and all, to the right to include the concrete gutter pan, practically forcing a cyclist to be a " gutter bunny". Though the pictured BL is what you and I consider unsafe, it still presents an escape opportunity with more lateral movement to the right than being jammed up against a curb.

This is true, but just barely. But a strong gust of wind or a gust of wind from passing 18-wheeler and a cyclist will find themselves in the gutter pan anyway. And is that a storm drain next to the bike?

How the bloody hell is a person suppose to ride in that "bike lane?"
Probably the same way that a cyclist rides around any obstacle (such as illegally parked cars) that is blocking his path, bike lane or not.