Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The Real Issue

I have been following the debate over bicycling on public roads for quite some time now, and I think I have isolated the actual problem. We are all going to have to get back to basics.

Without getting into the unconstitutionality of Drivers Licenses, I will concede that present US Law defines operating a Motor Vehicle on Public Roads as a 'privilege'.
Traveling on public roadways by foot, horse, or bicycle is a Right, protected by our Constitution, and over a hundred years of court rulings.

The Supreme Court has recognized Freedom of Movement as a fundamental Constitutional Right as far back as 1823 (Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823) . Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled that the use of public roads and highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be deprived (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221, and Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579). "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." (Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.). "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941..

Driving is a privilege and subject to any restrictions the State feels like enforcing. Using public roads for bicycling is a right, established by the courts and protected by law. So who has more legal right to be on the road???? Think about it.

With this established, a proper course of action can now be determined. As cyclists, we need to band together and use our power of the vote, and lobby to force the States to do their job. Millions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent on roads to service a 'privileged' activity, while ignoring the needs of the rest of us. We are within our rights to demand that a commensurate portion of those funds be spent on either making existing roads safe for pedestrian, equestrian, and cycling traffic, or build a complete separate system of roads for our use. And, we should go through the courts if necessary. Cyclists could legally be classified as a Disadvantaged Minority under the law, and entitled to just compensation for all the years we have been disadvantaged. The Civil Liberties Union should stay very busy with this one....

Cyclists, as a group, should be able to file an ex parte lawsuit against the Federal Government for not being able to safely exercise our legal right to travel, just like Native Americans, Japanese Americans, and other groups who have been denied their rights have done.

We are going to have to stop being passive, and demand that OUR rights, and not someone's 'privilege', be protected and enforced. The fact that there are more cars on the roads than bikes is irrelevant. We are a Republic. If we went with Majority Rule, then homosexuals, minorities, and possibly women would still be persecuted, and relegated to 2nd-Class Citizen status. In this country, we defend the rights of minorities. Now, it's our turn......

Semper Fi.

While the right to travel is well supported, the counter argument is the mode of travel is not. If you CHOSE to ride a bike it will be argued, then that is merely a choice you have made.

Just throwing that out as devil's advocate.

Choice is irrelevant. If I travel, it necessarily follows that I will have to 'choose' some form of mobility. Since I don't have wings, flying is out. And without using a motor vehicle, or other mode requiring licensing and jumping through hoops, or mass transit, which may not be available, my choices are walking, running, horseback, or a bicycle. All of these modalities were addressed in Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan 671, 23 P 1075, 8 LRA 772 (Kan 1890). The ruling was "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, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the ‘law of the road.". The case further established that "It may be said of bicycles with greater force, as was said of the first use by railroads of public streets, that they are not an obstruction to, or an unreasonable use of, the public streets of a city, but rather a new and improved method of using the same, and germane to their principal object as a passageway. ..."

This is but one of many, many court cases involving bicycles, or other self-powered modes of transportation on public roads. The precedent has been well established, even if it is not vigorously enforced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all states explicitly already give bicyclists the right to ride on roads?

Where is our "right to travel" being infringed?

Choice is irrelevant. If I travel, it necessarily follows that I will have to 'choose' some form of mobility. Since I don't have wings, flying is out. And without using a motor vehicle, or other mode requiring licensing and jumping through hoops, or mass transit, which may not be available, my choices are walking, running, horseback, or a bicycle. All of these modalities were addressed in Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan 671, 23 P 1075, 8 LRA 772 (Kan 1890). The ruling was "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, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the ‘law of the road.". The case further established that "It may be said of bicycles with greater force, as was said of the first use by railroads of public streets, that they are not an obstruction to, or an unreasonable use of, the public streets of a city, but rather a new and improved method of using the same, and germane to their principal object as a passageway. ..."

This is but one of many, many court cases involving bicycles, or other self-powered modes of transportation on public roads. The precedent has been well established, even if it is not vigorously enforced.

This isn't the Constitution. I'm trying to figure where "bicycles" are mentioned in the Constitution.

The part that looks sticky to me is the leap from "Freedom of Movement" to "Freedom of Movement by bicycle". I don't see that connection.
I'm of the mindset that one should have the right to freedom of movement by conveyance of living beings. By this, I mean travel that is powered by a living thing should be a right and everything else is a privilege.
I realize there are issues of relativity. I can see a future where bicycles are powered by bugs or worms or something... Or some capitalist changes the definition of corn oil to make it a "living thing" to get motorized vehicles into that category.
Or perhaps some joker thinks it's okay to ride his bike/horse down the fast lane of the freeway.

Common sense is easy to understand, but very hard to write into law...

No, just because there are pedals on your electric bicycle, it does not qualify.

Courts can and do find some state or local laws to create unreasonable restrictions on basic constitutional rights due to severe practicality problems that are very application-specific.

Let's say, for example, that a state or local law prohibited all non-motorized travel on the public right of way of a local road. Residents of that road would not be able to leave their residence at all, even for short trips, without either owning or hiring a motor car. This would be an unreasonable infringement on travel rights for those who cannot afford cars or meet the requirements for a motor vehicle license, and cannot afford to hire a taxi for all such trips.

By contrast, a law that restricts some people from operating motor vehicles based on safety issues does support the right to travel, because it protects the travel rights of innocent travelers from endangerment by those who cannot be trusted to drive a motor vehicle safely, and because walking and bicycling are very affordable and available alternate methods of local travel.

The courts are not consistent about how onerous a restriction must be for practical exercise of a right before it violates the constitution. In NC, the courts ruled against an onerous local license ordinance on thru taxi travel that, if replicated across municipalities, would have made it completely impractical and cost prohibitive for taxi and limo businesses to provide inter-city ride services, the consequences of which were determined to be an unreasonable restriction on the travel rights of people who cannot drive themselves. A challenge based on similar logic could be made against local municipal bicycle license ordinances. Reciprocity, uniformity, practicality and warrants are key to the defensibility of restrictive travel regulations.

Most states provide adequate legal protection for travel by bicycle. If bicycle travel is too unsafe to practice somewhere, care must be taken to determine why that is. Is the state failing to remove dangerous drivers from the roadways or enforce the laws? Is a municipality designing roads in a defectively dangerous manner? Practical challenges to such specific problems are unlikely to require invoking the constitution; the state laws already grant cyclists the right to the roads.

In my opinion, the citing the constitution is more valuable for firing up bicyclist advocates to get them enthusiastic about defending bicyclists' rights in general. We have explicit legal rights to the roads in part because of the constitution, and that's good, and why such rights must be defended. But the real work to do is on local details of execution.

I'm of the mindset that one should have the right to freedom of movement by conveyance of living beings. By this, I mean travel that is powered by a living thing should be a right and everything else is a privilege.

That was my thinking back when I wrote this, when I was mostly focused on pedestrian safety issues related to street design problems:
http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/humanpower.htm

I still feel that way, but I don't find it directly relevant to practical, everyday advocacy. After one too many arguments with naysayers, that essay just felt good to write and have my rant.

The real issue hasn't got anything to do with the constitution, nor crazy-assed interpretations thereof. The real problem is pontificating nitwits dead set on making bicycle riding a complicated and elite pursuit wherein said nitwits are the "experts" who hold all the keys to riding the "right" way.

Or maybe I'm just drunk and bitter.

the unconstitutionality of Drivers Licenses

There goes any credibility you might have had in my eyes. Only a crackpot would think that drivers licenses are unconstitutional, just like the nuts who think that income taxes are illegal.

You mean, like a 'crackpot' that can't read? I stated "without getting into the unconstitutionality....." Most average people would understand that means I am not going to get into a discussion of drivers licenses one way or another. And I started out with that because any discussion of Freedom of Travel invariably invokes someone who wants to discuss whether Drivers Licenses are constitutional, or not. I was heading that off before it started.

And no one mentioned Income Taxes at all. This is a bicycling forum, and we are discussing travel via bicycle..

If you are going to post, perhaps you should at least try to contribute something relevant to the discussion, rather than a sad attempt at a personal attack.


There goes any credibility you might have had in my eyes. Only a crackpot would think that drivers licenses are unconstitutional, just like the nuts who think that income taxes are illegal.

Then why even mention it?

Anyone with half a brain could figure out why licensing an activity that is a 'right' is taking that right and making it a priviledge. DUH
If travel is a right, then driving is a right. Licensing driving takes the right away. DUH
Regarding the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, it does not list all the rights that the people have. It lists some rights that are to be protected at all costs. All other rights are self evident. Read 9th and 10th amendment. DUH

As cyclists, we need to band together and use our power of the vote, and lobby to force the States to do their job.

As cyclists, we have neither the voting majority nor the lobbying clout required to oppose lobbying giants like the auto, oil, and highway construction industries.

neither cars nor bicycles existed when the US constitution was written

put that in your pipe and smoke it

Neither were computers, the internet, electricity, or indoor plumbing. But if someone were to restrict your use of these amenities, you would be complaining loudly. What's your point?


neither cars nor bicycles existed when the US constitution was written

put that in your pipe and smoke it

It is not necessary to have a 'majority'. This is not a democracy, but a republic.

Gay people do not have a majority, yet they have made a lot of progress in getting equal (or closer to it) treatment under the law.

Ethnic minorities do not have a majority vote, yet they have have made much progress in establishing their rights.

Illegal aliens have no rights at all, other than common decency, yet they have made unbelievable progress in establishing rights they are not even entitled to.

The objection on lack of majority has no validity.

In High School and College, I played football, baseball, ran track, and was on the Swim Team. If we didn't try to play the game just because we thought the other team was stronger, or better, we would've never left the locker room, instead of being the State, and Conference Champions we were.

Just something to think about.


As cyclists, we have neither the voting majority nor the lobbying clout required to oppose lobbying giants like the auto, oil, and highway construction industries.

The real issue hasn't got anything to do with the constitution, nor crazy-assed interpretations thereof. The real problem is pontificating nitwits dead set on making bicycle riding a complicated and elite pursuit wherein said nitwits are the "experts" who hold all the keys to riding the "right" way.

Or maybe I'm just drunk and bitter.
LOL Drunk and bitter or not, you've hit the nail on the head. The idea that bicyclists are an oppressed minority is a load of Forester-inspired crackpotism that should be an embarassment to those who promote it (I'm not implying that that is what you said).

But it's pretty hard to convince "experts" of that-- or anything else, for that matter. Playing the victim card is always an attractive strategy. And experts, by definition, have the strait poop, even if it is horse hockey.

I doubt this thread has much to do with the real issue, whatever that is.

But, then, maybe I'm a little bitter, too. Forester is a goof. It's unfortunate that rules of the road bicycling has come to be conflated with his lunatic psychological and social theories.

snips
But, then, maybe I'm a little bitter, too. Forester is a goof. It's unfortunate that rules of the road bicycling has come to be conflated with his lunatic psychological and social theories.

Please identify which of my theories is "lunatic" and describe, for each such that you identify, why it deserves that characterization.

Oh come on, John. You realize that's the common perception of you that people hold, don't you?

Oh come on, John. You realize that's the common perception of you that people hold, don't you?

Your argument that popularity determines truth has not had a very good reputation over the ages.

Travel along public roads and highways by bicycle is a widely held, basic right of the citizenry in this country. perhaps not specifically enumerated in the constitution, but reaffirmed and codified by so many compelling authorities in so many states as to be a universal right.


As cyclists, we have neither the voting majority nor the lobbying clout required to oppose lobbying giants like the auto, oil, and highway construction industries.

:rolleyes: ....That's why cycling advocacy often consists of building alliances and garnering wider support at the local, state and national level to bring greater clout to bear on initiatives that positively affect cyclists.

talking about redesign of streets for public safety has broad appeal among the public and special interest groups, for example.

Building alliances is par for the course for any successful bicycling advocacy.

Your argument that popularity determines truth has not had a very good reputation over the ages.

I implied nothing about truth. Truth is, about half what you say is useful, utilitarian stuff. The preachy part is just kind of pathetic though.

Schwinnhund:

You have an awesome screen name, btw; my dad taught me bits and pieces of German growing up, so I understand the irony in your chosen name.

I think what you are referring to when you mention "not being able to safely exercise our legal right to travel" is not necessarily a statutory stance of the government, but a general attitude in the United States that "roads/streets are for cars" and that, ergo, bicyclists are second class citizens. When commuting back in Indiana, I was yelled at by passing motorists more than once and told to "get on the sidewalk," (it was, ironically, actually not even legal for bikes to ride on in that city). And while I don't think that the government is "out to get us," I do think that the anti-cycling attitudes of many people in certain areas of this country are hard to ignore.

The truth is, the government subsidizes motorized travel in the form of a gigantic network of federal and Interstate highways which criss-cross the country. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing (automobiles are very useful and beneficial machines, when used properly), but like many government decisions in a republic, it was driven by popular demand. Popular demand from cyclists is actually what started the ball rolling in producing a system of paved roads in the country back in the 1890's; back then, bicycles were a very popular means of conveyance. Nowadays automobiles are the most popular method of conveyance in this country, so it only makes sense that government monies would be used to produce a system of highways for them to use. The government will probably never focus heavily on producing cycling facilities (or at least on making the existing highways more cycling friendly with larger shoulders, etc.) until cyclists begin to represent a much larger portion of the voting bloc. It is not because they're out to get us, but because we represent only an infinitesimal portion of the population compared to 50 million+ motorists. This may be unfortunate, but I think it is true.

....This is not a democracy, but a republic.
In the USA those two terms are inextricably linked. The USA is a democratic federal republic.

Illegal aliens have no rights at all, other than common decency, yet they have made unbelievable progress in establishing rights they are not even entitled to

??? So are you saying they do or do not have rights. According to current US law illegal immigrants DO have certain rights, even if I strongly disagree with how many they have.
I also agree with the assertion already made that freedom of movement means that you may move yourself by human means, and that using non-human means to move oneself upon public roadways may be legally restricted in certain ways.

ever since our country was founded on basic principles of the equality of every individual with 'inalienable rights,' that idea has been tested over and over again.

it would seem that what is written on paper as a 'right' often has to be claimed, or it can still be denied by those who are already comfortable with their own rights and don't see any need to protect the rights of small groups who they may not understand.

in fact, even one single person should have the same rights, regardless of whether he/she belongs to a minority group with power, or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all states explicitly already give bicyclists the right to ride on roads?

Where is our "right to travel" being infringed?

It is being infringed by the those in authority that think 'FRAP' means bikes being 100% chummy with the side of the road, regardless of the existence of debris.

It's being infringed by the Powers-That-Be not providing a safe riding environment for bicyclists, even though they use our tax money. It would not cost that much to redesign roads to where a person could cycle safely. I am not advocating that bikes replace cars, only that we get get fair consideration in the design and maintenance of public roads and facilities. It's been done in other places.

This isn't the Constitution. I'm trying to figure where "bicycles" are mentioned in the Constitution.

right there next to the passage about automobiles.

You might try actually reading the document, specifically, the 14th Amendment, and then researching pertinent case law such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). US case law has established that there is an unconditional right to travel, except in cases where an individual may be under investigation, under an indictment, or a fugitive from justice. Tax money is spent to try to make roads safer for drivers, therefore under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, tax money must also be spent on other modes of transportation such as walking, and bicycling, to make it safe as well. This is not being done in most places.


right there next to the passage about automobiles.

You might try actually reading the document, specifically, the 14th Amendment, and then researching pertinent case law such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). US case law has established that there is an unconditional right to travel, except in cases where an individual may be under investigation, under an indictment, or a fugitive from justice. Tax money is spent to try to make roads safer for drivers, therefore under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, tax money must also be spent on other modes of transportation such as walking, and bicycling, to make it safe as well. This is not being done in most places.

I was being quite sarcastic as there is nothing in the 14th amendment regarding automobiles... However you do bring up an interesting point regarding the Equal Protection Clause... I wonder if that has ever been brought before the courts with regard to walking and cycling? I have to admit I am not a legal beagle, so I have no idea where to look.

the right to travel is buttressed by the privileges and immunities clause in the articles of the constitution, not the 14th amendment.

United States v. Wheeler 1920


In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right.

It's being infringed by the Powers-That-Be not providing a safe riding environment for bicyclists, even though they use our tax money. It would not cost that much to redesign roads to where a person could cycle safely. I am not advocating that bikes replace cars, only that we get get fair consideration in the design and maintenance of public roads and facilities. It's been done in other places.

How is it not safe? While I have no doubt that safety could be improved, in over 40 years of cycling on the roadways I've had no cause to consider them unsafe for cycling. My point...if you want to claim that the government or "they" are infringing upon your right of movement by not providing a safe riding environment, you best have some factual data to back up your assertion.

How is it not safe? While I have no doubt that safety could be improved, in over 40 years of cycling on the roadways I've had no cause to consider them unsafe for cycling. My point...if you want to claim that the government or "they" are infringing upon your right of movement by not providing a safe riding environment, you best have some factual data to back up your assertion.

Does it have to be proven beyond the fact that most Americans consider riding a bike on the street unsafe, and use that (and a host of other excuses) to avoid cycling altogether... that perception of "unsafe" is enough.

Does it have to be proven beyond the fact that most Americans consider riding a bike on the street unsafe, and use that (and a host of other excuses) to avoid cycling altogether... that perception of "unsafe" is enough.

If you want to influence political types, perception is your huckleberry, but from a legal standpoint, as the OP seems to be railing over, it has no relevance.

Does it have to be proven beyond the fact that most Americans consider riding a bike on the street unsafe, and use that (and a host of other excuses) to avoid cycling altogether... that perception of "unsafe" is enough.

That people consider it unsafe does not mean it is unsafe, nor that the government is being negligent in providing for our equal safety. The question would be whether the government actually is being negligent to our safety; people's ignorance has nothing to do with it.

I think it would be a very difficult case to prove, even in the most unsafe areas. You'd have to show that it's the government that is responsible for unsafe conditions rather than drivers. In all but very few cases, I don't think this could really be done, as the infrastructure itself isn't usually the cause for an unsafe situation and the law (depending on the state) grants us the protections we need (at least on paper).

$.02

As cyclists, we have neither the voting majority nor the lobbying clout required to oppose lobbying giants like the auto, oil, and highway construction industries.

This is the case in Atlanta. The suburban areas only intent is to move single-occupancy vehicles through their jurisdictions. In the county I live in, it is easier to get permits for 20 gas stations, and a corner full of car dealerships, then to get a few bike lanes and sidewalks.

The 14th Amendment addresses the Equal Treatment under the law principle. Our tax money is used for automobiles, not bikes. I am not saying that bikes should replace cars. I just want them to use a very small portion (and that's all it would take) to make real cycling (going to the store, library, groccery stores, etc...)safer, and more convenient. There is no reason that this can't be done. It just hasn't been. More attention needs to be placed on pedestrian facilities and mass-transit as well.


the right to travel is buttressed by the privileges and immunities clause in the articles of the constitution, not the 14th amendment.

United States v. Wheeler 1920

1. The identification of a right does not guarantee the safety of exercising that right. I have the right to many activities that could or should be considered unsafe.

2. Considering death and injury rates as well as destruction of property you could easily argue that operating a motor vehicle is unsafe. Where is the Constitutional remedy for that?