randya

Public roads = Public access. Banning bicycling on public roads = fascist police state.

FOG

When the roads are a public good, that implies that my use of the resource has little or no adverse impact on your use, then this formulation might be right, but as a resource becomes scarce we will have an allocation method, whether implicit, such as queues, or explicit, such as congestion pricing. Banning bicycles could be a good, non-fascist, policy decision, especially if we don't act to keep bicycling safe and friendly toward other highway users.

Seanholio

Yes. Laws could be enacted for a number of things. Many of them won't survive in court if they are actively fought. They could enact a law making it illegal to eat in the park because of the trash created, inconveniencing others who wish to use a litter-free park. Won't happen.

Barring bicycles from the road won't happen.

That said, it is worthwhile for cyclists to conduct themselves in a law-abiding and polite manner, if only because it is the right thing to do. Vehicles who are obstructing traffic must give way when safe. Do so. Getting into a yelling match with an aggressive driver is a bad idea. It is better to call the police. The list goes on.

I do not advocate that people act like jackalopes. I do my best to be polite to those I share the road with. Many respond in kind, and occasionally some do not. I shrug my shoulders and move on; it's easier on my digestive tract.

randya

What a bunch of BS

Bicycles don't cause congestion, they help relieve it.

Motorists kill 40K+ of their own each year. How safe and friendly is that?

https://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

noisebeam

But it has happened for some specific roads in some cities. And it has been proposed to ban cyclist on interstate highways. The concern is not that bicycles are banned from all roads, but for certain roads, more and more.

Al

pseudobrit

Don't think for a minute a case couldn't be made that the world would be better off without cars on the road. The argument could certainly be made that banning cars from roads would save lives.

I live in Amish country. They get around on scooters, bikes, roller skates and in buggies. I suppose they have no right to the road though, since they inconvenience motorists who wish to invoke their rights to the road.

When you force someone into a car, you take away their right to use the road.

It sounds like you're getting as close as you can.

FOG

TAble 3 of that document appears to understate dramatically the costs imposed by bicycles. it is an advocacy document which would be easy to debunk. For example, it says that bicycles have no congestion costs. This is obvious nonsense, because it doesn't count the costs to motorists delayed behind bicyclists on two-lane roads. Further, it claims very low externalized crash costs for bicycling. Bicyclists get hurt, and a fair number receive medical attention for which they cannot reimburse the hospital. Further, some motor vehicle crashes are induced by bicyclists who make unexpected moves in traffic. I find it hard to believe that the external costs of bicycles are that low. The study is a cute try, but is clearly playing games with the numbers.

A better reference: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm

dwightonabike

Transportation modes that use an engine are regulated on public roads. The only place where non-motorized transportation is restricted is on limited-access highways, and even then, non-motorized transport is permitted if the limited access highway is the only viable choice. This standard has been set and tested by many court cases. Freedom of transportation is considered to be protected by the constitution, and this means you don't have to be able to afford an automobile to use the public roads.

powertoold

All right, time to ban alcohol and cigarettes folks.

FOG

No, but I might go along with banning glass beer bottles and side view mirrors.

Helmet Head

Yes, that's the power of the majority, in a purely democractic society without a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and separated powers all designed to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

randya

Anything written by an agency that serves as the governments official lobbyist for motoring is automatically suspect...the word 'bicycle' doesn't appear once anywhere in the table of contents. Anyway, we're mostly talking about local streets here, and not the interstate highway system.

Helmet Head

I don't think that's accurate.

I believe the state has no more right to take away your right to bicycle on the public ways, than it has to take away your right to walk on the public ways.

Freeways are a special case where there is no private ROW infringement alongside, and hence, do not constitute public ways of travel, and, so can be subjected to fundamental restrictions, including no pedestrians.

randya

It sounds like you think keeping bicycling safe and friendly towards other users means getting the hell out of their way, e.g. ride in the gutter or else. Maybe Serge has something to say about whether or not this is compatible with vehicular cycling...

FOG

Vehicular cycling would lower the societal costs of bicycling significantly. the real disasters are unlit bikes at night, and bicyclists who totally ignore the rules of the road. The better you bicycle, the less you will delay traffic, and the safer you will be.

randya

So what in your opinion are the 'societal costs' of bicycling? And how are they greater than the societal costs of motoring (death and injury, lost time due to traffic congestion, etc., air and water pollution, etc., etc.)? And how in your viewpoint is vehicular cycling an improvement, if vehicular cyclists cause 'delays' to motorists who don't know or understand that the cyclist in front of them is riding 'vehicularly'?

noisebeam

I see far more cars delayed by bike riders crossing at sidewalks or to the right or traffic from a straight/right lane that I do by vehicular cyclists who intergrate into the flow.

Al

barenakedbiker

A bike ride/demonstration would be much more effective than another reply letter. Everybody obeys all the traffic laws while biking on the busiest road in town would generate more publicity, debate, and reaction than another letter, which has been done to death.

FOG

Societal costs include externalized and internalized costs. The externalized costs are those that do not accrue to the individual occasioning them. Thus, a fatal accident imposes a societal cost of the lost value of the life lost, and can be estimated by how much society is willing to pay to avoid a fatality. The amount the decedent would have been willing to pay, the internalized amount, is likely to be less, so the balance is imposed on other members of society,and is externalized, and includes things like terminal care and lost value to other members of society. The societal costs of bicycle fatalities per mile will overwhelm the other societal costs, because, per mile, bicyclists are killed at an alarming rate. Vehicular cycling will dramatically reduce that rate. Vehicular cyclists will impose delays on traffic, but no more, and likely much less than cyclists who weave onto and off of the shoulder. Cyclists accrue massive societal costs by taking up the lane mile hours it takes to travel. At any given time the cyclist is taking up about half the lane miles that a car would take (unless cars are piled up behind him) but the cyclist moves about one fourth as fast as cars on the average. Thus the cyclist may take twice as much highway up to accomplish the same trip. If the cyclist were to improve his speed, he would take up much less higway, so experienced cyclists are much less burdensome to society. The pollution costs of a cycle are not zero either, because the vehicles delayed behind him are running at very ineffiecient speeds, and producing more pollutants per mile when they follow a bike.

webist

I suspect "taking the lane" while walking would get the attention of authorities
Freeways are a form of "limited access highway" thus access is indeed limited.
The state limits rights of access frequently. Try taking a 120-foot vehicle on the highway or for that matter, a dog sled.

randya

A lot of words to prove very little. Once again, too many motor vehicles on the road are the leading cause of traffic congestion, not cyclists, no matter how many there are or how slow they are traveling. Motor vehicles are the only source of air pollution on the roads and the very slight additional amount of pollution you postulate bicycles may cause by slowing a few motorists down is negligible compared to the overall volume of air pollution caused by the aggregate number of motor vehicles on the road. And you can add to that the air and water pollution caused by oil production, transportation and refining, and the water pollution caused by leaking fuel storage tanks and fuel spills, which bicyclists can have no possible contribution to, and the pollution caused during vehicle manufacture, the resource demands of vehicle manufacture (which are far far greater than pollution and resource demands caused by the manufacture of bicycles simply due to the much greater amount of resources consumed in the production of motor vehicles), and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Daily Commute

What's your source for this? Does it include the fitness benefits of cycling (fewer heart attacks, less health maintence cost, etc.)?


What's your source for how long cyclists actually delay traffic? Cars almost always pass around me without needing to slow. In downtown, cars slow me down, not the other way around.

skanking biker

ditto---


oh and once the end goal of makign cycing a feasible means of alternate transport is achieved--be prepared for the same level of taxation and regulation that applies to automobiles----i can just see some politician raving of the need for GPS systems in bikes so parents know where their kids are

Santaria

I think the point FOG is missing is two-fold.

Cagers can not follow their own laws, so the reality is, even if an 'alternative' that was acceptable enough by some to pass was found, they would still find a way to kill cyclists.

There is no grey area with this, 99% of the people you see on the roads in the morning or mid-day would kill their own grandparents to get back to wherever their destination is 5 minutes faster, and 100 MPH faster.

I agree, we should not draw attention to ourselves, simply because he is right - if it means they can get the 5/100 theory through, cagers would sell cyclists down the river. Where the logic fails is that by forcing cyclists to get into cages alongside the already overwhelming numbers, they'd lose that 5/100 pretty fast to congestion that would overwhelm them.

So ultimately, they'll do nothing but continue believing that were riding down the wrong side of the road, and belong on the sidewalk.

Brian Ratliff

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the roads cyclists are banned from (namely, some limited access highways) must always have an equivilent route on surface streets. I don't think any usage restrictions can be applied to roads that lead to places no other roads go. Otherwise, all citizens will be required to drive, which involves buying a car; something not everyone can afford. As I understand, there are no requirements on what a person must own in the US. Even homelessness is not a crime by itself.

Imagine that! All citizens in the US, required by law to buy a car.

BR