The Human Car

I'm interested in your comments about the following article:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,1125997.story

I wish to respond to the commentary published in the Sunday, March 21 eddition of The Sun entitled "Give Them Room" by Gregory T. Simmons. While Mr. Simmons hits all the in-vogue talking points with regard to bicycle transportation in and around Baltimore, unfortunately, these very same talking points help to perpetuate a host of fallacies. First, that riding a bike on a public roadway is inherently unsafe. It isn't. Second, that bike lanes advance the use of bicycles and safety of bicyclists. They don't. And third, that any form of feel good legislation aimed at errant motorists to supposedly benefit bicyclists will have its intended effect. Not a chance.

Mr. Simmons and those of his mindset propagate a form of mild psychosis best known as the bicyclist inferiority complex. People who suffer this psychosis think every motorist is out to run them off the road and that in order to ride a bicycle anywhere, a full set of private bicycle accommodations are necessary. The fact is that other than railways, bicycling is the safest form of land transportation in the U.S. In 2006, the National Safety Council reported that 928 people died while riding a bike. This compares with 45,316 motor vehicle deaths and 6,162 pedestrian deaths for the same year. Considering the fact that roughly half of the reported bicycle deaths each year are children who inadvertently ride out into traffic and another large percentage are wrong-way cyclists or non-illuminated nighttime riding deaths, the safety of an adult rider of a bicycle conforming to vehicular riding principles becomes even more pronounced. The cases of a motorist simply running into a bicyclist who is safely riding are so small as to be almost statistically insignificant. Yet those who clamor for more laws, mandatory helmet use and segregated bicycle facilities think nothing of driving their car -- a much more lethal activity.

This by no means translates into every bike ride in traffic being a walk in the park. It's not, nor should one expect it to be. A bicycle is a vehicle which requires operator knowledge and expertise like any other vehicle. Similar to a motorcycle or powered scooter, the fact that the rider is out in the open and the vehicle must be balanced demands a higher degree operator skill and vigilance than a four-wheeled vehicle. But that knowledge is readily available and the skills easily learned.

To Mr. Simmons request for legislation, there are already laws on the books that make it illegal to pass any other vehicle in a dangerous manner. There are a host of laws on the books that apply to all vehicles equally that prohibit a number of infractions with regard to overtaking another vehicle, yielding, right-of-way -- anything and everything associated with proper vehicle operation on a public road. The problem has nothing to do with how the laws are written; it's a lack of enforcement. There simply is no pro-active traffic law enforcement to speak of. When the government installs speed cameras and then mollifies the objectors by giving speeders 12 miles-per-hour grace above the posted limit, they effectively raised the speed limit of that roadway by 12 miles per hour. The average speed on the interstate system is routinely 20 miles per hour above the posted limit. While traveling by bike or by car, it would seem that the yellow line dividing opposing lanes of traffic simply does not exist for some motorists. Whether it's a same-direction motorist overtaking me when I am on my bike, or an opposite-direction motorist wishing to get around a the mail vehicle stopped on their side of the road, a percentage of motorists seem to have no qualms about crossing over the dividing line and forcing oncoming traffic to take evasive action instead of waiting for the lane to clear. I have even witnessed the local police doing this. So writing into law a three-foot passing margin will have no effect on how some people drive without enforcement. There are simply a percentage of motorists who don't follow the laws.

If the people of the state of Maryland via their elected representatives wish to make the roads safer for all users it's really quite simple: Enforce the existing traffic laws. If alternative forms of surface transportation other than the automobile are to be promoted, it's also not that difficult: Make it more exacting to gain and keep a motor vehicle operator's license and incorporate how to safely overtake a slow moving vehicle into the licensing education and testing process. Teach proper bicycle operation at a young age -- late middle school would be a good time. Maintain the road surfaces in good order for all users. To further encourage utilitarian bicycle use in urban areas where they are best suited, localities could reduce the speed limit to 30 miles per hour -- as fast as anyone need drive in an urban environment anyway.

Galen Wallace, Towson

Bekologist

chock full of fallacies and strawman arguments.

it became clear this fella is a vehicular parrot as soon as 'inferiority' cycling got mentioned in his 'essay'.

"full set of private bicycle accommodations are necessary" does he talk like that to his grandmother?


did that get published? blech. what a pile. it wasnt clear what he was endorsing other than no bike lanes or safe passing laws. make cycling safer teaching bike ed in middle school, better drivers ed, and enforcing existing laws? well, those all play a very small part in making communities more amenable to bike transportation.....

another throw the cyclists to the lions parrot. his message is one of unwittingly stunting populist bicycling thru navel gazing about his own road prowess.

Wanderer

Tooo looooooong to read..........

njkayaker

The only proof that passing was done "in a dangerous manner" is a collision. The problem is that motorists have no real information about what is still dangerous without a collision. It's not clear to me that the same distance is appropriate for passing cars and bicycles. Motorists get lots of practice/experience passing other cars but comparatively less passing bicyclists.

The value of a "x foot passing" law is that it gives motorists a clearer picture of what isn't "dangerous". Such a law is nearly unenforceable (but that doesn't mean it has no value).

(Note, too, that there are laws that effectively ban cell-phone use without a specific law that bans cell-phone use.)

sudo bike

Bicycles have a fairly unique characteristic of regularly operating FRAP (there are other vehicles that do, but none so common that I can think of). As such it lends to it a situation that doesn't often happen when you are talking about just cars - you are sharing a lane and passing occurs within that lane. Not even to mention the fact that since bikes often operate slower, motorists can get impatient which can lead to a number of unsafe actions, including a tight pass. I see nothing wrong with clarifying what exactly an unsafe pass is, which seems to be all this law does... it simply spells out plainly that under 3' is considered unsafe. I fail to see how this doesn't conform to vehicular cycling principles.

The Human Car

In Yoram Kaufman's fatality a SUV barreling towards him at 55 mph on a 25 mph road. Because he might have veered, the accident was clearly not entirely the drivers fault according to the state law.

We already have safe passing laws, ya, right.

DX-MAN

Without something like a 3'-passing law, the definition of what is acceptable separation (notice I didn't say 'safe') is left to someone who's already inconvenienced, and therefore p.o.'d. Thanks, no -- some impatient anus in a 3000-lb, 200-hp land rocket isn't a reliable judge of my safety.

Since bicycles are inherently slower, yeah, we have to deal with FRAP in a lot of areas in this country, which most of us already know doesn't mean "up against the curb". But DRIVERS believe that, not knowing the difference between 'possible' and 'practicable'. PRACTICABLE puts the definition of what is safe for us in our hands. And since we are slower by nature, we can't be expected to maintain the same speed on a lot of roads, therefore, we can only be impeding if we're dawdling along. (1mph is hyperbole, but not strawman -- less than 9-10 for an adult would be pretty much dawdling, IMO.)

The article does make one good point -- lack of enforcement, but doesn't really address the motivation behind it. I don't buy the overworked cop idea, when I can see them just sitting in their cars for half an hour or more at a time, not operating the radar gun or anything else. MAYBE they're doing paperwork.... (BTW, I also think cops have too much paperwork -- few reports should be bigger than the ticket out of the book for the average uniform.)

It's just a sad fact of life that the cops are mostly auto-centric, as is the rest of the population. Cars are all over, bikes are few -- if bikes were equal on the road in REALITY and not just theory, there'd be more of them -- standard cop logic. Just like "if you have nothing to hide, why can't I search you?" So bikes are minimized in the eyes of the law, regarded as toys, for the most part. There's also the thought that if a cyclist is ABLE to report something like this, then it couldn't be that bad, because they're still in one piece.

We're fighting the whole "no blood, no foul" mentality.

gcottay

To me it's a boring combination of misinformation and stale argumentation seemingly designed to discourage three-foot legislation and advance a particular extreme position. I ride vehicularly but do not appreciate the Taliban mentality in which rigid purity is all, creating enemies of those who should be friends.

sudo bike

Can we not turn this thread into another droll "impeding traffic" thread. I mean, I'm willing to have a go at honest debate if you are, but it's getting old...

Besides which impeding traffic has nothing to do with a 3' passing law.

DX-MAN

sudo, it's all interrelated -- FRAP, or lack of it affects impeding, 3'-passing is affected by FRAP/no FRAP, beased simply on the idea that those who want cyclists off the road will use anything they can grab to outlaw us -- and WAAAAY too many courts accomodate their arguments.

And speaking for myself, I'm not trying to turn this thread into anything, I'm addressing points that were made by other posters. You want to moderate, earn the job.

sudo bike

I'm still not seeing the tie-in. They are related... but no more than any other traffic laws are interrelated. A 3' passing law simply spells out plainly what constitutes a safe pass. This has little to do with impeding traffic. Impeding traffic has to do with when a vehicle must pull off the roadway. The only way a 3' passing law would really affect that is inasmuch as if there is not enough room for at least 3' of passing space then a cyclist might be cited for impeding when he otherwise might not have been (let's not get into whether he should be or not at this point). I could only really see this happening if a cyclist was riding FRAP, rather than taking the lane, in a substandard width lane for sharing (i.e. leaving himself less than 3' of "cushion")...


Easy there, killer.

All I'm saying is we just went through a bear of a thread about this. Which, I would note, ended in closure. If you want to turn this thread into another SMV thread, have at it.

squirtdad

DX-Man..... I clipped a ton of your post.....just wanted to comment on this statement specifically.

This is not by any means 100% true, as with any law what happens in actual court rulings brings the preponderance of case law. As an example, in california, there is a state supreme court opinion (don't know the tecnical term, but is was not a ruiling based on a case, but the court was asked for how they would interpret parts of the FRAP code) that basically says that single file is required. In short, 2 bicylist cannot decide it is practicble to ride side by side as the the cyclist on the left is as far right a practible because there is a cylist on the right.

Back to OP..... I think the idea of a clear standard that is well understoood 3 ft/ 1 yard/ 1 meter gives a better guidline to all concerned, motorists, cylists and hopefully law enforcement. So there is value there

njkayaker

There is also an implicit understanding that "practicable" doesn't mean "anything goes". That is, there has to be a "good", "reasonable", "convincing" reason to move to the right. Put another way, the reason has to seem reasonable to other people too. The problem with convincing other people is that most other people aren't cyclists (and are not aware of the risks to cyclists) and often think that there is nearly no reason ever to leave the right side. People often think FRAP means "shoulder". (One thing FRAP does not allow is taking the lane in all situations.)

Technically, with riding abreast, tthe left rider isn't riding as close to the right edge anyway (ie, it's clear that riding abreast is a voluntary choice and fails to be a "good" reason to stay left). Anyway, many states address "single file/abreast" issues explicitly and apart from the FRAP law.

The Human Car

I'll note as long as bicycle safety training is NOT part of the police curriculum, the police are very likely to understand practicable as possible (we have statements from MD police to that effect) or at best 2' from the curb no matter how convoluted the resulting course maybe. Additionally police statements have a lot of sway in the lower courts so unless you want to go through what Chipseal is going through to get the issue to a higher court the word "practicable" does not do us a lot of good under current conditions.

FWIW I thought the following illustration that might do some good in a lower court (or police):

A judge wearing a robe while hearing a case is practicable.
A judge wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt while hearing a case is practical.
A judge wearing a tutu while hearing a case is possible.

High Roller

I agree 100% with Mr. Wallace's comments. More enforcement of existing laws, more stringent qualification of motor vehicle operators, and reduced urban speed limits will do much more to foster a hospitable environment for cyclists than an unenforceable measure that serves only to reinforce our persecuted victim status.

sudo bike

Out of curiosity, do you think that this would be applicable (or at least attempted to be applied) in a case where a cyclist has the right to take the lane?

I mean, by California law you need not share the lane with a car if it's of "substandard width"... but what is substandard for a car and bike to ride side by side may not be substandard for two bikes to ride side by side.

Has anyone ever heard of FRAP being invoked to pop someone not riding single file in a situation where single file would have no bearing on motor vehicle traffic? Just curious...

desconhecido 

Wallace has explained a well-considered pro-bicycle opinion about how bicycle traffic should be integrated which is basically in accordance with how the rest of the world treats bicycle traffic. We don't need bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, or other transportation features that segregate bicycle traffic from auto traffic. We don't need special passing laws for bicycles -- current laws, if adequately enforced, are sufficient. It seems to me that Wallace's opinion is basically that expressed by John Forester in his "Effective Cycling" book (which I read about 25 years ago). Bicycle traffic should mostly be treated as any other traffic and bicycle riders should be expected to behave as all other traffic.

Unfortunately, that's not how things are in the United States today and as long as bicycle transportation remains marginal I don't see how it can change. So, I think Wallace is wrong (in practice, though not theory) about the 3' rule. I also confess to liking some bike lanes. Others, not so much. The worst thing is a crap filled, narrow bike lane carved out of a high-traffic street with a 35mph speed limit (which means that traffic is traveling at 40-45mph). You start out with a 12' lane and then narrow it for the bike lane and the drivers think it's ok to pass you as fast as they can without consideration as if it's the bike rider's obligation to create the safety margin rather than the other way around. That's the sort of thing, I believe, that Wallace is against.

squirtdad

It's been a while since I dug this up. (for another A*S thread of course).... but what I remember is the opinion was an interpretation of the California FRAP law, stating that FRAP implies single file riding and that an argument that that "I am riding as far right is safe, because there is a ccylist beside me means I am ok and we can take the whole lane" is not valid. Also as I remember the California FRAP law has a specific allowance for passing.

Late I will try to dig up the details. Don't know of any actual cases

and remember this is a 3 foot thread..... so I am trying to keep it there

sudo bike

I was thinking more of a different situation.

For example: I'm toodling along and come across a narrow lane - too narrow for a car to pass safely. As such, I should take the lane. After taking the lane, a friend turns in from a side street and joins me. Since I'm already in a lane taking position anyway, does it matter if he rides at my side rather than behind? Just curious, I've never personally heard of any applications of FRAP around here...

sudo bike

More on track - in theory, I don't disagree. It should be that way. But you know what they say about theory and practice...

njkayaker

It doesn't look like CA has any single-file or abreast law (many states do). Therefore, if FRAP is not required (in a narrow lane), abreast is (implicitly) allowed (since nothing says it is not allowed). Note that the CA FRAP law does talk about passing bicycles (which isn't "riding abreast").

squirtdad

My take is that you are taking the lane.....as is legal and a specific right supported by the callfonia FRAP code see below. There fore you are covered by frap and based on the opinion from the CA supreme court just because you take the lane it doesn't mean you can ride parallel. The code also talks about passing.

I have no idea if this is enforced, but it could be for things like critical mass to hazard a guess

Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

genec

I tend to agree... the reality is "3 foot LAWs" are unnecessary, but informing the public that a safe distance is more than "I missed you" IS necessary... along with a host of other tidbits of how to properly share the road with legitimate road users.

But a law... not hardly, the law is already there. It is the information that needs disseminating to an otherwise poorly trained motoring public... that is the task at hand.

genec

Ya gotta finish it...
A judge wearing a tutu while hearing a case is not probable.

njkayaker

Keep in mind that we don't have the actual words the supreme court used (I'm assuming that what you indicate is all they said about it).

The supreme court ruling indicated that riding parallel isn't riding FRAP. Clearly, taking the lane isn't riding FRAP either. There isn't any prohibition to riding parallel except when FRAP is required.

Put another way, if a cyclist is allowed to ride in any part of the lane (in a "substandard width lane"), it doesn't make sense that that cyclist is magically required to ride at the right side of that lane when there happens to be a bicycle to his right.

"For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

While "vehicle" includes "bicycles", it would seem that "vechicle" here means a "vehicle" of normal width (like a car).