Advocacy & Safety - Same Road, Different Rules, or transportation relativism

I constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists and it has always been a source of consternation for me.

Doesn't this statement undercut the fundamental differences that should instead be emphasized? I don't want crappy roads, I want bike trails without cars. My behavior on a bike is directly related to a risk assessment that includes fatal injury or critical injury as a pretty normal result. The basic function and physics of my mode of transportation makes me radically different from a car on the road and yet advocacy often claims that we are to be treated alike.

Can anybody from the advocacy angle rationalize this idea for me? Why do we want "same road same rules"? Why not advocate for "rules for cyclist, rules for cars" even on the same roads?

I guess my other problem with this philosophy is that it has become so mainstream that advocating a different view on the cars/bikes/road interaction has no opportunity to enter the dialogue. Looking forward to some feedback!

One word - predictability. Order and safety on the roadways is somewhat dependent upon everybody working from the same set of rules and having the reasonable expectation that the other users of the road are operating by the same set of rules. If you want to ride on the roads you need to follow the same rules as everyone else, albeit with a few exceptions here and there based on the class of vehicle.

How safe would the roads be if you or anyone else didn't have a reasonable expectation that others would necessarily be stopping, for example, when a signal or sign tells them to and you have the right-of-way? How about if everyone drove where ever they wanted, left side, right side, center, straddling lines, on the sidewalk, over your lawn, etc?

If you don't like following essentially the same traffic rules that other vehicles do, enjoy your bike trails and stay off the public roadways.

Can anybody from the advocacy angle rationalize this idea for me? Why do we want "same road same rules"? Why not advocate for "rules for cyclist, rules for cars" even on the same roads?

To differentiate starts down the slippery slope that one mode of transport is inferior to the other and has fewer rights.

To differentiate starts down the slippery slope that one mode of transport is inferior to the other and has fewer rights.

And that is perhaps the core of the stubborn denial of all the real and well documented advantages of bike infrastructure: Inferiority Complex.

While I support the concept behind the "Same Road, Same Rules" campaign I am less enthusiastic about the phrase.

Like "Share the Road" it is easily interpreted to mean "My Road, My Rules" by automobile drivers- and those rules are: the biggest vehicle and the most aggressive driver is King of the Traffic Jungle.

I prefer "Bikes Belong" or "Bikes Have Right to Full Use of Lane".

where is this large difference in rules needed?

do you mean, greater protections for vulnerable road users? Allowances to pass cars on the right?

there's limited places in traffic code there needs to be different 'rules', but there are plenty of places on the ground in america that merits infrastructure enhancements to more equitably support bicycling as a mode of transportation.

rules? can't structurally see much at issue, a few states have antiquated or what some in the cycling community consider 'restrictive' laws but that's far from a request for preference.

Rancid I think it boils down to the fact that traffic rules have evolved over decades, and have been tested and refined - in short, they work. If we were designing bicycle traffic from scratch we might come up with something better, based on the different physical considerations as you say. But imagining just bicycles and golf carts, without larger motor vehicles on the roads, I think we'd see pretty much the same set of laws.

And that is perhaps the core of the stubborn denial of all the real and well documented advantages of bike infrastructure: Inferiority Complex.

Agreed. But that's the argument.

I constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists and it has always been a source of consternation for me.

Doesn't this statement undercut the fundamental differences that should instead be emphasized? I don't want crappy roads, I want bike trails without cars. My behavior on a bike is directly related to a risk assessment that includes fatal injury or critical injury as a pretty normal result. The basic function and physics of my mode of transportation makes me radically different from a car on the road and yet advocacy often claims that we are to be treated alike.

Can anybody from the advocacy angle rationalize this idea for me? Why do we want "same road same rules"? Why not advocate for "rules for cyclist, rules for cars" even on the same roads?

I guess my other problem with this philosophy is that it has become so mainstream that advocating a different view on the cars/bikes/road interaction has no opportunity to enter the dialogue. Looking forward to some feedback!

Just because you're uncomfortable with riding on the road and prefer to ride on the trail doesn't mean that everyone else wants to ride only on trails. As stop and think about it, in how many areas do the trails really go everywhere or even most of where where people want to go? As even using the trails one is still going to have to transition to and use the surface roads to get where they want to go.

If we're all playing from the same playbook then everyone knows what to expect from each other. And the roads will be safer for everyone. When one group thinks that for whatever reason that the rules/laws don't apply to them that is when we have problems. Because others on the road won't know to expect from the other users.

Why should cyclists be restricted to only riding on trails? Why shouldn't we be able to safely use the roads that our taxes are paying for? If you truly feel that certain laws don't or shouldn't pertain to bicycles then I suggest that you contact your local lawmakers to change those laws.

But the bottom line is that when everyone plays by the same rules the roads are safer for everyone. It makes everyone predictable.

Also the biggest problem with the roads (at least here in The States) is that most American's have bought into the song and dance that one "needs" to have a car to be successful, or productive member of society. And our cities designs reflect that. Look at how many cities are laid out where one "needs" to have a car to go from home to work, or from home to the store. Just look at the strangle hold that not only the automobile industry has had on the American culture but look at what the oil industry has done as well.

It's bee said more then once that for decades that the oil industry has gone to great lengths to squash/kill research into alternative fuels. And now that it is clear that the worlds oil supply is running out. We are now scrambling to conduct research into alternative fuel sources.

But sadly even with the renewed research into alternative fuels the gas powered engine still rules. Just look at the resistance to adopt to an alcohol based fuels. People are "crying" that to either introduce alcohol into the existing fuel supply, or burning straight alcohol will cut into the food supply.

There is also a resistance to using bio-diesel fuels, i.e. fuels based on vegetable/cooking oil.

I don't want crappy roads, I want bike trails without cars.


There are plenty of advocates for "same roads, same rights, same rules" who also support off-road paths. These paths can't support cars safely, due to their design, but are adequate for slower, lighter, narrower bikes, and that's great. Cyclists traveling on them should still endeavor to operate according to the basic "rules of the road," however, to avoid crashing into other bicyclists, and will have to use extra caution around pedestrians. The rules reduce crashes for cyclists on regardless of whether the other traffic is cars or bicycles or whether the facility is a wide road or a narrow path. It's best to treat narrow paths as miniature roads.


Why not advocate for "rules for cyclist, rules for cars" even on the same roads?


As I said before, the basic rules of the road reduce crashes for drivers of all vehicle types. Changing them makes users less predictable and increases the likelihood of crashes. There are some restrictions on motor vehicles that are required for safety or to reduce damage to roads due directly to their weight, speed, or size; these restrictions don't have any reasonable applicability to bicycles. But the basic right of way rules, destination positioning, and so forth apply equally well for crash prevention for all drivers of vehicles because of the common elements of driver perception, cognition, reaction, and vehicle maneuverability constraints.

There are plenty of advocates for "same roads, same rights, same rules" who also support off-road paths. These paths can't support cars safely, due to their design, but are adequate for slower, lighter, narrower bikes, and that's great. Cyclists traveling on them should still endeavor to operate according to the basic "rules of the road," however, to avoid crashing into other bicyclists, and will have to use extra caution around pedestrians. The rules reduce crashes for cyclists on regardless of whether the other traffic is cars or bicycles or whether the facility is a wide road or a narrow path. It's best to treat narrow paths as miniature roads.

As I said before, the basic rules of the road reduce crashes for drivers of all vehicle types. Changing them makes users less predictable and increases the likelihood of crashes. There are some restrictions on motor vehicles that are required for safety or to reduce damage to roads due directly to their weight, speed, or size; these restrictions don't have any reasonable applicability to bicycles. But the basic right of way rules, destination positioning, and so forth apply equally well for crash prevention for all drivers of vehicles because of the common elements of driver perception, cognition, reaction, and vehicle maneuverability constraints.

As you yourself touch upon, there have to be at least some of the rules that are specific to the "vehicle type". 40 years ago, left turn rules in Denmark were the same for cyclists and cars. This was changed in light of the many killed cyclists. In stead, cyclists must now continue to the other side of the crossing, and wait there for either a green light or, in lack of signals, free passage. Also, cyclists will allways have to keep to the right. No sharing the lane here. Many years of killed cyclists has effectively ruled that one out a long time ago. Of course, that could be seen as giving in to the car traffic, but on the other hand, and more to the point, it can be seen as recognizing how different bicycles and cars are in many respects. This, of course, applies in places without bike tracks. Bike tracks will in themselves lead cyclists in the direction that is least risky.

All this does not make traffic less predictable. It just takes that we all know the rules. We do have one advantage there, though: almost every car driving Dane will at times be a cyclist, too, or has at least learned the basics in their youth.

There are plenty of advocates for "same roads, same rights, same rules" who also support off-road paths. These paths can't support cars safely, due to their design, but are adequate for slower, lighter, narrower bikes, and that's great. Cyclists traveling on them should still endeavor to operate according to the basic "rules of the road," however, to avoid crashing into other bicyclists, and will have to use extra caution around pedestrians. The rules reduce crashes for cyclists on regardless of whether the other traffic is cars or bicycles or whether the facility is a wide road or a narrow path. It's best to treat narrow paths as miniature roads.



As I said before, the basic rules of the road reduce crashes for drivers of all vehicle types. Changing them makes users less predictable and increases the likelihood of crashes. There are some restrictions on motor vehicles that are required for safety or to reduce damage to roads due directly to their weight, speed, or size; these restrictions don't have any reasonable applicability to bicycles. But the basic right of way rules, destination positioning, and so forth apply equally well for crash prevention for all drivers of vehicles because of the common elements of driver perception, cognition, reaction, and vehicle maneuverability constraints.

+1,000

Well said Steve, well said.

... How safe would the roads be if you or anyone else didn't have a reasonable expectation that others would necessarily be stopping, for example, when a signal or sign tells them to and you have the right-of-way? ...

Not very, and unfortunately this applies to the do-gooders as well.

Sometimes, drivers try to help cyclists by doing something unpredictable and the cyclist is hesitant to go because they don't understand that they are stopping for them. Sometimes, after "helping" the cyclist, the drivers see the cyclist not taking advantage of the "break" and decide to continue on, just when the cyclist decides to go.

Agreed. But that's the argument.

I didn't get that one. As I see it, the OP asked why constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists. My post suggests that an Inferiority Complex is what drives the anger and stubbornness on the side of the CV'ers, who in reality are the ones demanding "same road" etc. (lots of other cyclists realize the real dangers of that position, and will plead for bicycle infrastructure).

I didn't get that one. As I see it, the OP asked why constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists. My post suggests that an Inferiority Complex is what drives the anger and stubbornness on the side of the CV'ers, who in reality are the ones demanding "same road" etc. (lots of other cyclists realize the real dangers of that position, and will plead for bicycle infrastructure).

The only "real danger" of that position are the aggressive, distracted, and inattentive drivers on the roads. And they make the roads unsafe for EVERYONE, not just cyclists or pedestrians but EVERYONE.

Which is why we have cities and states passing laws restricting the use of cell phones in cars. You do know, don't you that distracted driving is at least as if not more dangerous then drunk driving right? And look how long it took to change the opinion on drunk driving. Hopefully it doesn't take as long to change the opinion about distracted driving.

Why should cyclists be restricted to only riding on trails? Why shouldn't we be able to safely use the roads that our taxes are paying for? If you truly feel that certain laws don't or shouldn't pertain to bicycles then I suggest that you contact your local lawmakers to change those laws.

But the bottom line is that when everyone plays by the same rules the roads are safer for everyone. It makes everyone predictable.

Also the biggest problem with the roads (at least here in The States) is that most American's have bought into the song and dance that one "needs" to have a car to be successful, or productive member of society. And our cities designs reflect that. Look at how many cities are laid out where one "needs" to have a car to go from home to work, or from home to the store. Just look at the strangle hold that not only the automobile industry has had on the American culture but look at what the oil industry has done as well.

It's bee said more then once that for decades that the oil industry has gone to great lengths to squash/kill research into alternative fuels. And now that it is clear that the worlds oil supply is running out. We are now scrambling to conduct research into alternative fuel sources.

But sadly even with the renewed research into alternative fuels the gas powered engine still rules. Just look at the resistance to adopt to an alcohol based fuels. People are "crying" that to either introduce alcohol into the existing fuel supply, or burning straight alcohol will cut into the food supply.

There is also a resistance to using bio-diesel fuels, i.e. fuels based on vegetable/cooking oil.

I aggree with a lot here, just want to point out one thing (and I may have misunderstood you): By having some cyclists roaming amoong the cars, and others staying on the lanes or tracks, there will be wide-spread uncertaincy in the traffic as a whole.

As you yourself touch upon, there have to be at least some of the rules that are specific to the "vehicle type". 40 years ago, left turn rules in Denmark were the same for cyclists and cars. This was changed in light of the many killed cyclists. In stead, cyclists must now continue to the other side of the crossing, and wait there for either a green light or, in lack of signals, free passage. Also, cyclists will allways have to keep to the right. No sharing the lane here. Many years of killed cyclists has effectively ruled that one out a long time ago. Of course, that could be seen as giving in to the car traffic, but on the other hand, and more to the point, it can be seen as recognizing how different bicycles and cars are in many respects. This, of course, applies in places without bike tracks. Bike tracks will in themselves lead cyclists in the direction that is least risky.

All this does not make traffic less predictable. It just takes that we all know the rules. We do have one advantage there, though: almost every car driving Dane will at times be a cyclist, too, or has at least learned the basics in their youth.

The problem in this country is that way too many drivers, cyclists, peds, etc. don't even understand the rules for the vehicles they are operating themselves, let alone those of the other classes of vehicles...so adding new rules for other classes of vehicles tends to increase their ignorance and perception of unpredictability. To overcome this will not only require better education, but also by limiting how many exceptions and differences there are for different classes of vehicles to what is needed for safety and order. We Americans also have a tendency to create exceptions willy-nilly, just cuz we can. :o

The only "real danger" of that position are the aggressive, distracted, and inattentive drivers on the roads. And they make the roads unsafe for EVERYONE, not just cyclists or pedestrians but EVERYONE.

Which is why we have cities and states passing laws restricting the use of cell phones in cars. You do know, don't you that distracted driving is at least as if not more dangerous then drunk driving right? And look how long it took to change the opinion on drunk driving. Hopefully it doesn't take as long to change the opinion about distracted driving.

But however many laws you make forbidding drunk driving or cellphone driving, you will still have lots of "white outs" (and the occasional aggresion) in traffic, as everywhere else in life. It's one of those plain facts of life. And here's the crucial part: these "white outs" on the part of the car drivers are a lot more dangerous for cyclists than for other car drivers if traffic is mixed. And that is why cars and cyclists should only mingle where car traffic is slowed down in one way or other. The limit is probably around 20-25 m/h.

Edit: So, I can't see how this discussion has any effect on my original claim: that the stubborn VC'ing stems from an Inferiority Complex, perhaps even in combination with a legitimate feeling of having been deprived of rights one once had.

The problem in this country is that way too many drivers, cyclists, peds, etc. don't even understand the rules for the vehicles they are operating themselves, let alone those of the other classes of vehicles...so adding new rules for other classes of vehicles tends to increase their ignorance and perception of unpredictability. To overcome this will not only require better education, but also by limiting how many exceptions and differences there are for different classes of vehicles to what is needed for safety and order. We Americans also have a tendency to create exceptions willy-nilly, just cuz we can. :o

I hear you. But then, the rules for cyclists which I described above will hardly confuse car drivers. They only affect the cyclists.

I agree with a lot here, just want to point out one thing (and I may have misunderstood you): By having some cyclists roaming among the cars, and others staying on the lanes or tracks, there will be wide-spread uncertainty in the traffic as a whole.

That's where the "same roads, same rules, same rights" comes into play. If we're all playing by the same rules then everyone knows what to expect from everyone else. And motorists (and LEOs) need to learn that under certain circumstances that cyclists are allowed to use the whole lane for their/our safety. I presume that by "having some cyclists roaming among cars, and others staying on the lanes or tracks" that you are referring to those cyclists who insist on taking the lane when it is not warranted or are you talking about cyclists being in the road in general? As for riding in bike lanes or taking to the trails it should be up to the cyclist to determine when to ride in the bike lane or on a dedicated trail.

But sadly down here in Florida and several other states. We do not have that choice unless it is too dangerous to do so (something that sadly LEOs don't seem to know or care about) we have to ride in a bike lane if there is one present. Which actually leads to confusion with drivers, as they'll see a white line (i.e. the fog line) on the side of the road and assume that any space to the right of that line is a bike lane. I had a run in just last month with just such a driver.

I aggree with a lot here, just want to point out one thing (and I may have misunderstood you): By having some cyclists roaming amoong the cars, and others staying on the lanes or tracks, there will be wide-spread uncertaincy in the traffic as a whole.

Which is where I have a BIG problem with separate infrastructure...because they tend to be followed by mandatory use laws that require us to use that infrastructure instead of the roadways...even when that infrastructure is less safe or less efficient. Until such time as bike-specific infrastructure can match the roadways in coverage, access, efficiency and safety, I will fight any attempt to restrict my use of those public roadways.

The problem in this country is that way too many drivers, cyclists, peds, etc. don't even understand the rules for the vehicles they are operating themselves, let alone those of the other classes of vehicles...so adding new rules for other classes of vehicles tends to increase their ignorance and perception of unpredictability. To overcome this will not only require better education, but also by limiting how many exceptions and differences there are for different classes of vehicles to what is needed for safety and order. We Americans also have a tendency to create exceptions willy-nilly, just cuz we can. :o

Agreed, and sadly we've all seen how effective the current state of drivers education is. Unless it makes up a significant portion of their test how many drivers are really going to pay much attention to sections of their drivers handbooks that don't "pertain" to them?

But however many laws you make forbidding drunk driving or cellphone driving, you will still have lots of "white outs" (and the occasional aggression) in traffic, as everywhere else in life. It's one of those plain facts of life. And here's the crucial part: these "white outs" on the part of the car drivers are a lot more dangerous for cyclists than for other car drivers if traffic is mixed. And that is why cars and cyclists should only mingle where car traffic is slowed down in one way or other. The limit is probably around 20-25 m/h.

Which is why as has been said before here in the past, that what we need is stricter enforcement of the existing laws, as well as better drivers education.

If I only "mingled" with car traffic on roads that had a 20-25MPH speed limit I'd never be able to get anywhere. In a short while I'll be riding my bike down a road with a posted speed limit of 35MPH and then I'll be on another that is "slightly" slower 30MPH. Between where I live and my destination there are no route that I can take where I can avoid roads that are over 20 - 25MPH.

And that is the sad truth for most cities here in the US. And as I've asked in other threads do we really need "highways" that crisscross our cities that have freeway like speeds on them? I would love to see all roads within city limits be restricted to 20 - 25MPH. And leave the interstates outside of the city limits with higher speeds on them.

Is that likely to happen anytime soon? Ha, so we have to do the best that we can with what we have.

I hear you. But then, the rules for cyclists which I described above will hardly confuse car drivers. They only affect the cyclists.

You think so? What would the incentive be for motorists to learn the laws/rules that pertain to cyclists? Most people if it doesn't apply to them can't be bothered to learn something new. So we'll end up with one set of rules/laws for cars and another for cyclists and motorists won't be bothered to learn about the rules/laws for cyclists as they don't affect them.

Which will only lead to more not less confusion on the roads.

Also, cyclists will allways have to keep to the right. No sharing the lane here. Many years of killed cyclists has effectively ruled that one out a long time ago.

Same-direction traffic collisions due to lane sharing or lane-claiming by cyclists isn't a major cause of crashes on urban streets in the US, nor is this the leading cause of cyclist fatalities on urban streets. Junction conflicts, mid-block crossing while failing to yield, and riding at night without lights are the leading causes of cyclist fatalities on urban US streets. The leading causes of car-bike crashes in Raleigh, for example, involve cyclists failing to yield by riding out in front of traffic at junctions or mid-block when they don't have right of way, or riding on sidewalks where they are less visible to drivers.

Same-direction fatalities are much more common on high-speed arterials and rural highways. Engineering changes may be practical for some of these high speed corridors and not others, but for slower, downtown streets, separated pathways won't address the most likely causes of injuries to cyclists, and can make them worse by making junction manuevers more complex, less predictable, and with added delay. Cyclists are even more likely to violate bicycle-specific traffic controls when they add delay, as waiting for a bicycle-only signal does.

Which is where I have a BIG problem with separate infrastructure...because they tend to be followed by mandatory use laws that require us to use that infrastructure instead of the roadways...even when that infrastructure is less safe or less efficient. Until such time as bike-specific infrastructure can match the roadways in coverage, access, efficiency and safety, I will fight any attempt to restrict my use of those public roadways.

Agreed, which is the fact of life that cyclists here in Florida have to deal with now. As we have a mandatory bicycle lane usage law. Something that the Florida Bicycle Association is fighting to get removed. Hopefully it doesn't get expanded to include MUPs, but I can see that happening.

As I've said before in other threads I have a few bike lanes around me that are either in the door zone, or are on curves that I will not use for safety reasons. So far other then a very small number of motorists who don't get it, I really haven't had a problem with anyone for not using those bike lanes.

Which is where I have a BIG problem with separate infrastructure...because they tend to be followed by mandatory use laws that require us to use that infrastructure instead of the roadways...even when that infrastructure is less safe or less efficient. Until such time as bike-specific infrastructure can match the roadways in coverage, access, efficiency and safety, I will fight any attempt to restrict my use of those public roadways.

Yup, I can understand that. Still, as I see it, these are times where you really have a chance of getting the safe infrastructure, if you fight for it. It's a window that won't open too often, I think. Last time was around 1970. Of course, a future with extreme gas prices may bring along a cycle-friendly environment of itself, but I wouldn't count on that.

The only "real danger" of that position are the aggressive, distracted, and inattentive drivers on the roads. And they make the roads unsafe for EVERYONE, not just cyclists or pedestrians but EVERYONE.


And this is almost the crux of my ideas really, the fundamental difference between a car and a bike and the operators of each. If I'm distracted on my bike (something that I rarely let happen because of the consequences) I hit a parked car or a curb etc. The same happens with a car and ish goes wild. Disproportionate comparisons trying to be put in the same lump bunch doesn't seem to be that helpful to anyone.

Also I feel like a lack of definitions or accurate laws are in place. What constitutes a full stop on a bike is interpreted in vastly different ways by different cops or vehicles for example (trackstanding can take some heat.)
If I can protect my self and safety better by going the wrong way down a one way street than trying to mix it up with one way traffic and cars parked on the side of the road then I will. If I'm on a slick road surface and the light just turned red I'm going to burn it instead trying to brake hard. Our concept of self-preservation (at least after a good crash or two) is much more deeply embedded than it is for most drivers and that should be recognized and to a moderate degree catered to. It's not a free pass to act like a jackhole at all, but there is some variation in function and ability that I believe should be accounted for. I'm simply stating a perspective that "same same" is highly reductionist, and since it is so soundly clung to by automobile operators, LEO's, and lawmakers that its invocation diminishes other valued philosophies such as "bikes belong" or "share the road."

Same-direction traffic collisions due to lane sharing or lane-claiming by cyclists isn't a major cause of crashes on urban streets in the US, nor is this the leading cause of cyclist fatalities on urban streets. Junction conflicts, mid-block crossing while failing to yield, and riding at night without lights are the leading causes of cyclist fatalities on urban US streets. The leading causes of car-bike crashes in Raleigh, for example, involve cyclists failing to yield by riding out in front of traffic at junctions or mid-block when they don't have right of way, or riding on sidewalks where they are less visible to drivers.

Same-direction fatalities are much more common on high-speed arterials and rural highways. Engineering changes may be practical for some of these high speed corridors and not others, but for slower, downtown streets, separated pathways won't address the most likely causes of injuries to cyclists, and can make them worse by making junction manuevers more complex, less predictable, and with added delay. Cyclists are even more likely to violate bicycle-specific traffic controls when they add delay, as waiting for a bicycle-only signal does.

As such bicycle-specific controls are implemented in Denmark, cyclist casualties continue to fall. As it has been falling during the last 20 years with ever better bike infrastructure. There's no getting round it, really. It works. In the Netherlands, with more than 150% increase in cyclists during the last 40 years, the number of cyclists killed in traffic has been reduced with 80-90%. Both the increase in cycling and the reduction in deaths are dirctly related to the infrastructure.

I didn't get that one. As I see it, the OP asked why constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists. My post suggests that an Inferiority Complex is what drives the anger and stubbornness on the side of the CV'ers, who in reality are the ones demanding "same road" etc. (lots of other cyclists realize the real dangers of that position, and will plead for bicycle infrastructure).

I personally want my cake and eat it too. I like infrastructure, but I don't want to be limited to it. In those areas where I can't use infrastructure, I'm going to resort to vehicular cycling. VC is not the be-all end-all of cycling to me, but it is an important tool in the tool box.

But however many laws you make forbidding drunk driving or cellphone driving, you will still have lots of "white outs" (and the occasional aggresion) in traffic, as everywhere else in life. It's one of those plain facts of life. And here's the crucial part: these "white outs" on the part of the car drivers are a lot more dangerous for cyclists than for other car drivers if traffic is mixed. And that is why cars and cyclists should only mingle where car traffic is slowed down in one way or other. The limit is probably around 20-25 m/h.

Edit: So, I can't see how this discussion has any effect on my original claim: that the stubborn CV'ing stems from an Inferiority Complex, perhaps even in combination with a legitimate feeling of having been deprived of rights one once had.
That may work out fine in a tiny country with lots of cycling-specific infrastructure, but if it was the norm here it would amount to "Get off the road" for cyclists. There are just too many long, open stretches that many of us cycle on for business and pleasure where it would not make sense to build separate bike paths. It really is possible, even in America, for motorists and cyclists to co-exist even on high speed roads (especially on those rural highways that don't have any cell phone coverage).

Yup, I can understand that. Still, as I see it, these are times where you really have a chance of getting the safe infrastructure, if you fight for it. It's a window that won't open too often, I think. Last time was around 1970. Of course, a future with extreme gas prices may bring along a cycle-friendly environment of itself, but I wouldn't count on that.

Most traffic engineers in the US have abandoned referring to bike lanes and sidepaths (aka "cycle tracks") as safety improvements because they have no scientific or empirical basis for doing so; the types and frequency of crashes that exist without them aren't addressed by these designs; they are more likely worsened compared to lawful roadway cycling, particularly on slower urban streets. Instead, the engineers refer to them in terms of popularity, attempting to be responsive to the novice cyclists who demand them. These engineers now consider their challenge being how to create such facilities without creating such a dangerous design as to be liable for increased crashes, as well as to avoid scorn from experienced cyclists who point out the flaws of such designs.

There are some types of road dieting, speed reducing, lane count reduction projects that accompany some urban bikeway installations. The traffic calming benefits of these street modifications can certainly improve safety, but that is coincidental to the bikeway installation, and often in spite of it.

Yup, I can understand that. Still, as I see it, these are times where you really have a chance of getting the safe infrastructure, if you fight for it. It's a window that won't open too often, I think. Last time was around 1970. Of course, a future with extreme gas prices may bring along a cycle-friendly environment of itself, but I wouldn't count on that.

If I "fight" for infrastructure, it would be on the behalf of others, since I am perfectly happy using our existing roadways (albeit with improvements).

I'm also not about to crawl through any open window that limits my choices and my right to use the public roadways.

That may work out fine in a tiny country with lots of cycling-specific infrastructure, but if it was the norm here it would amount to "Get off the road" for cyclists. There are just too many long, open stretches that many of us cycle on for business and pleasure where it would not make sense to build separate bike paths. It really is possible, even in America, for motorists and cyclists to co-exist even on high speed roads (especially on those rural highways that don't have any cell phone coverage).

Of course, it is possible for a good part of cyclists to ride on high speed roads, but imo that takes some good wide shoulders on those roads. Because that's where you don't get involved with the cars. You would never see kids or elderly cycle on those roads, though - only agile, alert, well trained adults. Or, I hope so!

If I "fight" for infrastructure, it would be on the behalf of others, since I am perfectly happy using our existing roadways (albeit with improvements).

I'm also not about to crawl through any open window that limits my choices and my right to use the public roadways.

Heh! I sense a cultural rift here :) Anglo-saxon Libertarians vs. European Liberals! (And that's probably where every discussion of this issue will end up)

Most traffic engineers in the US have abandoned referring to bike lanes and sidepaths (aka "cycle tracks") as safety improvements because they have no scientific or empirical basis for doing so; the types and frequency of crashes that exist without them aren't addressed by these designs; they are more likely worsened compared to lawful roadway cycling, particularly on slower urban streets. Instead, the engineers refer to them in terms of popularity, attempting to be responsive to the novice cyclists who demand them. These engineers now consider their challenge being how to create such facilities without creating such a dangerous design as to be liable for increased crashes, as well as to avoid scorn from experienced cyclists who point out the flaws of such designs.

I wonder what makes you think so. It is to the best of my knowledge not correct that infrastructure, unless carried out in a very sloppy way, worsens conditions for cyclist. As said elsewhere: Everywhere infrastructure is improved, casualties go down AND cycling goes up.

america's participation in road cycling, as well as our fatality rate, shows we can do much better planning for bike traffic.

the rules of the road stand exemplary to traffic sorting, and infrastructure for bicyclists does not have to conflict with effective transportation networks for all users.

bicycle specificity, or at least facilitation, is merited in many circumstances in the US when a road is considered part of a road utilized by cyclists in a bicycle transportation network.

there's no two ways around that.

That may work out fine in a tiny country with lots of cycling-specific infrastructure, but if it was the norm here it would amount to "Get off the road" for cyclists. There are just too many long, open stretches that many of us cycle on for business and pleasure where it would not make sense to build separate bike paths. It really is possible, even in America, for motorists and cyclists to co-exist even on high speed roads (especially on those rural highways that don't have any cell phone coverage).

There are plenty of rural, high-speed (80 km/t) roads in Denmark, both arterials and farm roads, where cycling is possible. It's not like cyclists are prohibited just because there's no side path.

Where they do have rural side-paths, the ride is way more comfortable/pleasurable with than without.

In the city, you are generally required to use side paths where available. This is not really any big deal.

Heh! I sense a cultural rift here :) Anglo-saxon Libertarians vs. European Liberals! (And that's probably where every discussion of this issue will end up)

It's got nothing to do with politics and all to do with getting from point A to point B in the safest and most efficient way possible. In this country, the public roadways (that my tax dollars pay for) are still the best tool for that job. When something better is in place, let me know and I'll be happy to give it a test.

And that is perhaps the core of the stubborn denial of all the real and well documented advantages of bike infrastructure: Inferiority Complex.

Hagen's view is erroneous. It is those with the cyclist-inferiority and the corresponding motorist-superiority attitudes that want separation from same-direction motor traffic, while those who recognize the superiority of obeying the normal rules of the road are those without those psychological complications.

But however many laws you make forbidding drunk driving or cellphone driving, you will still have lots of "white outs" (and the occasional aggresion) in traffic, as everywhere else in life. It's one of those plain facts of life. And here's the crucial part: these "white outs" on the part of the car drivers are a lot more dangerous for cyclists than for other car drivers if traffic is mixed. And that is why cars and cyclists should only mingle where car traffic is slowed down in one way or other. The limit is probably around 20-25 m/h.

Edit: So, I can't see how this discussion has any effect on my original claim: that the stubborn VC'ing stems from an Inferiority Complex, perhaps even in combination with a legitimate feeling of having been deprived of rights one once had.

As a motorcyclist, I can see this from an intermediary perspective - we don't have the speed differential, but we have the "bumper doc vs hospital" consequence diffferential. Our model is fixed to the shared mode - there is no motorcycle-specific infrastructure nor ever will be; so we're pretty much committed to increased education and attention-getting.

I will say, having ridden motorcycles (and driven cars) for 30 years and hundreds of thousands of miles, that prior to cell phones death by accident wasn't on my top five list of how I expected to die. It's currently number one - I fully expect to be taken out by a distracted driver before anything else kills me. :shrug: It's been a relatively sudden and dramatic change, in my perception if not in reality.

I also will say that as a relatively new bicycle rider, the "inferiority complex" seems to be recognizable from motorcycling, but is more intense pretty much in ratio to the frequency presence in traffic. The thing that seems more or less exclusive to bicycling is the "entitlement" piece. I don't see motorcyclists promote; as some have in this thread, that they should be allowed to ride the wrong way down a one-way street or blow red lights in order to increase their safety. The closest argument I've seen is for riders to filter (split lanes in stopped traffic) in order to avoid the risk of being rear-ended at a stoplight.

KeS

where is this large difference in rules needed?

do you mean, greater protections for vulnerable road users? Allowances to pass cars on the right?

there's limited places in traffic code there needs to be different 'rules', but there are plenty of places on the ground in america that merits infrastructure enhancements to more equitably support bicycling as a mode of transportation.

rules? can't structurally see much at issue, a few states have antiquated or what some in the cycling community consider 'restrictive' laws but that's far from a request for preference.

Nearly all states have cyclist-FRAP laws.

I constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists and it has always been a source of consternation for me.

You hear this from a lot of hypocrites who don't want licenses to be required for cyclists, and who don't want people to need liability insurance to be able to ride a bike. This mantra you hear is an oversimplification that people bike "advocates" hope will trump reality.

I wonder what makes you think so. It is to the best of my knowledge not correct that infrastructure, unless carried out in a very sloppy way, worsens conditions for cyclist. As said elsewhere: Everywhere infrastructure is improved, casualties go down AND cycling goes up.

An example would be retrofitting an existing urban street with shared lanes to install a door zone bike lane. The door zone bike lane is a separated facility that is more hazardous to use than the normal shared travel lane. The engineers know that it isn't a safety improvement; the experienced cyclists know it isn't a safety improvement. The novices don't know better.

Occasionally a project is built where more asphalt width is added to a high speed roadway in order to include a bike lane that is relatively hazard-free. The width increase may make it easier to pass cyclists at greater distance, and this can be an operational improvement. But the majority of urban bike projects I've seen are not like this; rather, they are done within existing right of way to attempt to remove bicyclists from the normal shared travel lanes by directing them into higher conflict areas such as the door zones of parked cars, right-hook locations at intersections, poor surface conditions near the gutter, or sidewalk areas. These aren't an operational or safety improvement for cyclists. They are expressions of bicycle specificity for the sake of bicycle specificity, in order to market bikeway cycling to novices, and to boost the convenience of motoring. No thank you.

One word - predictability. Order and safety on the roadways is somewhat dependent upon everybody working from the same set of rules ...

If you don't like following essentially the same traffic rules that other vehicles do, enjoy your bike trails and stay off the public roadways.

Chipcom, although I agree with you more than the O.P., I do think that there are some clear differences between the characteristics of different types of vehicles, and that it would not be a bad thing to recognize these in law. Examples would include:

A large truck will have a greater stopping distance than a smaller, lighter vehicle. It would not be unreasonable to require greater spacing between a big truck and the car in front of it, than for a smaller vehicle.

An automobile is most stable when stopped - it is therefore reasonable to require a motorist to come to a complete stop at an intersection before proceeding. A bicycle is less stable a very slow speeds, or stopped, and therefore it would be resonable for the law to require that a cyclist slow, but not necessarily stop provided that there is no other traffic with right of way.

A bicycle or motorcycle is narrower than a car or truck, it is therefore reasonable (and in some places legal) to allow narrow vehicles to filter forward between rows of slow moving, wide vehicles.

A larger, faster moving vehicle is more able and likely to cause damage than a slow, low mass vehicle such as a bicycle, accordingly, there should be far less leeway given to fast heavy vehicles which are not following the rules than to slow, light vehicles.

Our vehicles are not all the same, and applying the same rules to all, regardless of what makes sense is not necessarily the best option either.

You hear this from a lot of hypocrites who don't want licenses to be required for cyclists, and who don't want people to need liability insurance to be able to ride a bike. This mantra you hear is an oversimplification that people bike "advocates" hope will trump reality.

There is a difference between rules designed to promote order and safety and those designed to generate revenue and mitigate damages. :rolleyes:

As you yourself touch upon, there have to be at least some of the rules that are specific to the "vehicle type". 40 years ago, left turn rules in Denmark were the same for cyclists and cars. This was changed in light of the many killed cyclists. In stead, cyclists must now continue to the other side of the crossing, and wait there for either a green light or, in lack of signals, free passage. Also, cyclists will allways have to keep to the right. No sharing the lane here. Many years of killed cyclists has effectively ruled that one out a long time ago. Of course, that could be seen as giving in to the car traffic, but on the other hand, and more to the point, it can be seen as recognizing how different bicycles and cars are in many respects. This, of course, applies in places without bike tracks. Bike tracks will in themselves lead cyclists in the direction that is least risky.

All this does not make traffic less predictable. It just takes that we all know the rules. We do have one advantage there, though: almost every car driving Dane will at times be a cyclist, too, or has at least learned the basics in their youth.

Hagen tells us that Denmark has a really stringent cyclist-FRAP law that goes so far as prohibiting vehicular left turns. He also says that during its time the rate of car-bike collisions has decreased, and he says it in a way that claims that the cyclist-FRAP law caused this reduction. I rather doubt that the Danes have any scientific verification of this causation claim. When the same claims were made in the USA, made by motorists intent on making motoring more convenient, analysis of the first detailed, statistically robust study of US car-bike collisions (Cross, 1976) demonstrated that these claims were false. We in the USA object to being treated as second-class roadway users by traffic laws whose only scientific justification is the convenience of motorists.

much snipped
All this does not make traffic less predictable. It just takes that we all know the rules. We do have one advantage there, though: almost every car driving Dane will at times be a cyclist, too, or has at least learned the basics in their youth.

Enacting the rules and getting people to know them is only one aspect of improving traffic behavior. The rules that are enacted also have to be consonant with both the characteristics of vehicles and with the physical and mental characteristics of human beings. If a rule conflicts with either of these, it will fail, either by collisions or by disobedience. The basic cycle-track configuration produces situations that make it very difficult for drivers (motorists and cyclists) to obey the rules that have been enacted. That is why cycle-track configurations require additional signal phases to separate the additional conflicting traffic movements created by cycle-tracks, because the drivers cannot handle them themselves.

Since the subject has been raised, it appears that Danes are more likely to accept such rules and problems because they suffer from the cyclist-inferiority complex that persuades them to act inferior to motorists.

As such bicycle-specific controls are implemented in Denmark, cyclist casualties continue to fall. As it has been falling during the last 20 years with ever better bike infrastructure. There's no getting round it, really. It works. In the Netherlands, with more than 150% increase in cyclists during the last 40 years, the number of cyclists killed in traffic has been reduced with 80-90%. Both the increase in cycling and the reduction in deaths are dirctly related to the infrastructure.

I repeat: Hagen has offered no studies demonstrating that the reduction in car-bike collisions has been caused by cycle-tracks. I suggest that there are none. I also suggest that the latest studies demonstrate the converse, that cycle-tracks increase collisions at crossing points, and therefore increase total collisions.

Chipcom, although I agree with you more than the O.P., I do think that there are some clear differences between the characteristics of different types of vehicles, and that it would not be a bad thing to recognize these in law. Examples would include:

A large truck will have a greater stopping distance than a smaller, lighter vehicle. It would not be unreasonable to require greater spacing between a big truck and the car in front of it, than for a smaller vehicle.

An automobile is most stable when stopped - it is therefore reasonable to require a motorist to come to a complete stop at an intersection before proceeding. A bicycle is less stable a very slow speeds, or stopped, and therefore it would be resonable for the law to require that a cyclist slow, but not necessarily stop provided that there is no other traffic with right of way.

A bicycle or motorcycle is narrower than a car or truck, it is therefore reasonable (and in some places legal) to allow narrow vehicles to filter forward between rows of slow moving, wide vehicles.

A larger, faster moving vehicle is more able and likely to cause damage than a slow, low mass vehicle such as a bicycle, accordingly, there should be far less leeway given to fast heavy vehicles which are not following the rules than to slow, light vehicles.

Our vehicles are not all the same, and applying the same rules to all, regardless of what makes sense is not necessarily the best option either.

I said "essentially" for a reason...there are valid reasons for having different rules for different classes of vehicles in some cases. But in most cases...all vehicles need to operate via the same rules, unless there is a compelling safety or efficiency reason not to.

For example, we are not required to stop at signs or signals as a way to test our brakes, but rather to ensure that we don't violate the right-of-way of other vehicles. Of course a bike (and indeed any vehicle) doesn't always need to come to a complete stop to ensure they are not violating another's ROW, but the law also can't attempt to determine and outline every possible situation (x driver in x vehicle going xmph at x intersection with x cross traffic, etc), so the default is STOP for everyone, as it should be. This is why I think the Idaho law is so silly...it only adds to the confusion of drivers who are now not sure whether a bike has to stop or not, while not adding one iota of safety for cyclists - it merely codifies what common sense already dictated to prevent anal cops with nothing better to do from citing cyclists for not putting their foot down or proceeding through malfunctioning lights.