Originally Posted by Bekologist
Maybe the VC consider "as far right as practicable EXCEPT" language mandatory use laws
Well, the devil is in the details. Some of the "as far right as practicable" provisions in state vehicle codes are dangerous, discriminatory and unacceptable. Consider this provision of a model UVC, which would eliminate much of the discrimination and unnecessary danger for cyclists:
§ 11-301 Drive on right side of roadway—exceptions
(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal and
lawful speed of traffic at the
time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available
for traffic,
or far enough to the right to allow overtaking and passing by faster vehicles if such passing is
safe and reasonable, except under any of the situations listed below.
1.
When overtaking and passing another 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 the operator must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on
his intended route.
The intent of this subsection is to facilitate the overtaking of slowly moving vehicles by faster moving
vehicles,
and shall not require the drivers of such slowly moving vehicles to risk their own safety in order
to facilitate overtaking.
Originally Posted by Bekologist
And bike infrastructure has been PROVEN, in cities AROUND THE GLOBE, to BOTH: 1) increase cyclists and 2) increase cyclist safety.
I think it is probably true that more novices and untrained/unskilled cyclists will ride when segregated facilities are provided and when they are led to believe that those facilities make them safer. Whether they are, in fact, safer, and whether such an increase in the number of cyclists is,
ipso facto, good for cyclists or society, is another matter.
Can you point to evidence that supports your assertion that "bike infrastructure has been PROVEN" to "increase cyclist safety?"