Originally Posted by Blue Order
I'm not playing semantic games at all. He said "every law." If he only meant "some of the laws," he should have said "some of the laws." Nevertheless, the traffic rules that apply specifically to bicycles are quite few in number. Among those are:
"bicycles traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic must keep to the right." Based on ancient traffic laws, not devised by discriminatory motorists.
"Bicycle operators must keep one hand on the bars at all times." Devised by discriminatory motorists? Doubtful.
"Bicyclists must not endanger pedestrians when riding on the sidewalk." Those dastardly motorists have now placed bicycles beneath pedestrians? or a law devised in the 1890s, before the advent of the automobile?
In fact, I'm guessing there's only one law that was devised specifically for bicycles (and not derived from previously existing traffic principles) AFTER the automobile appeared: The bike lane law. But that hardly qualifies as "every law," does it? And if you really care to analyze it, before there were automobiles, there was a Good Roads movement, started by bicyclists, for bicyclists, and the economical alternative to paving the entire street in at least one city was to pave a portion of the street-- you may have guessed it, exactly where the bike lanes sit today. Discrimination from motorists? Or catering to the needs of cyclists, before there were motorists? And once we let the dust settle from getting our facts straight, we have to examine the claim (impliedly made) that bike lanes are discriminatory-- a claim that looks suspect, to say the least, when one considers that automobiles are also proscribed by law from traveling outside designated strips of the roadway surface. In fact, considering the fact that bicycles have use of what you call "traffic lanes," as well as almost exclusive use of bicycle lanes, as well as use of sidewalks and trails, it begins to look like bicycles have far more of the "highway" available for their use than do motor vehicles.
I don't know Blue Order's sources, but I have read different facts, he has many errors in his history, and also his logic is definitely fallacious. About the only custom, not a traffic law but common practice, in the days long before motor vehicles, concerned drivers meeting. In the USA, each driver moved to the right to let the other through (In England, the custom was to move left, instead; hence the differences today.) From this there developed the custom of overtaking on the left, when there was room enough on the roadway to overtake at all.
Blue Order's conjecture about bike-lane paving as the first step is incorrect, though it may have occurred in one location. The discussion in the early cycling press was another entirely. The paved area was the sidewalk, the area for walking, which makes a lot of sense. Cyclists liked the smoothness of the paved sidewalks, to the consternation of pedestrians -- this was in the days of the high-wheelers -- and the cycling press urged cyclists to ride safely in the roadway, even if it were less comfortable and took more work, precisely to protect the public image of cyclists.
I'll grant Blue Order the correction about the law that he mischaracterizes as ""Bicycle operators must keep one hand on the bars at all times." The California wording is: No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle, or article which prevents the operator from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars. This was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1938. Not discriminatory, but it doesn't apply to traffic movements.
Blue Order is fallaciously claiming that the law that cyclists on sidewalks have to yield to pedestrians is a law for cyclists as drivers of vehicles. It isn't. And, by the way, I wrote it as it first appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code in the big bicycle revision of 1975. It closes with the specific disproof of Blue Order's claim: A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. Not a driver at all, this sidewalk cyclist, but a pedestrian.
Blue Order claims the following: ""bicycles traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic must keep to the right." Based on ancient traffic laws, not devised by discriminatory motorists." That's utterly inaccurate. The relevant section in the UVC was added in 1944, and it stated: "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction." That's exactly what nearly all states had, it was enacted by motorists without cyclist input, and it clearly discriminates against cyclists by prohibiting the normal use of the full width of the roadway. The somewhat more reasonable revision that includes the concept of slower than traffic was recommended in February, 1975, by the California Statewide Bicycle Committee that was created by the Legislature with the intent of working out a mandatory sidepath law. Instead, I managed, with great controversy, to get the Committee redirected, and one result of that activity was the new concept that Blue Order claims is ancient.
Also, Blue Order evidently fails to recognize the distinction between travelling on the right side of the road and being required to be as far to the right as is practicable.