WCoastPeddler

I'd like to prove to them that the law requiring bicycles to come to a complete stop is wrong.

If the law can be established as inappropriate for cyclists, there'd be no argument for the anti-cycling pundits (although, I'm sure that they'd find something else to complain about).

btw: if you followed the Idaho rolling stop rules and procedures (as outlined in the video) I doubt very much that you'd be putting yourself in a position of greater peril.

genec

California: Bicycle

231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.

Amended Ch. 1013, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.

"human powered device," not "vehicle."

WCoastPeddler

Vehicle or human powered device -- it doesn't really matter. We're not discussing a definition of a bicycle here. We're discussing the validity of the current laws as they relate to bicycles.

DX-MAN

BTW, yes, that article was previously posted. No biggie, tho.

WCP, there's two things I noticed here -- ONE, you are at least TRYING to corral the discussion, by the repeated point that bikes are not motor vehicles. TWO, others are in the same frame of mind as all 50 state governments -- that's irrelevant. There are laws that apply to bikes, others that do not.

I will say that FRAP laws need to just go away; really, that's about the only law I have a problem with. I can ride in the street, no minimum speed limit (slow moving vehicle law) applicable, no need to pull over for faster traffic. I must ride WITH traffic (DUH! What don't some of these fools get?), use signals, and stop at reds/stop signs. If there's no traffic at a stop, no, I don't stop -- who's gonna see it if no one's there? I slow, check, and go. I could go along with a 'stop as yield' law, sure. But until it happens, if I NEED to stop, I'll stop. I'm not so anal that I'm afraid of losing momentum. Even straddling my bike is better than not.

Now, at least 40 of the 50 define a bicycle as a vehicle; all 50 grant the same rights, and require the same responsibilities, as a car. So let's stop picking nits and come together to find some answers to our collective issues with the ignorant fools who use 4-wheeled coffins as phallic enhancers.

WCoastPeddler

Yeah, but you see, the reason that those 50 states define a bicycle as a vehicle that falls under vehicular laws is because it was easy at the time when a decision needed to be made (which was not that recent). So what happened is that one state (or province) looked at another for guidance, saw what they did and say "hey, that's a good easy solution, let's follow suit". This is the problem that needs to be undone. So long as everyone decides to follow like sheep and go along with the status quo, correcting this mess will be an arduous task.

But if there were a unified request from cyclists to change these inappropriate laws, it could be done in a timely manner and everyone would be a lot happier for it. I really don't see why this is so difficult for some to see. And in this age of the internet, getting the word out to cyclists is a lot easier than it ever has been. But unfortunately, the ability to have a serious and meaningful discussion in forums such as these ones where immaturity often prevails, makes it difficult (although, my hope is that despite this shortcoming some will get together through this medium and work together towards a positive change).

And just because this topic has been discussed previously, doesn't mean that everything that needs to be said about it, has already been said.

FRAP laws? Sorry, I don't know what this is.

atbman

Not sure what the problem is. It wasn't until I read Forester that I discovered that I was a vehicular cyclist. And I've never felt that the general laws governing traffic behaviour were unreasonable for me as a cyclist (BTW, why does nearly every article in the US media refer to bicyclists?).

There may be reasonable arguments for rolling stops and I suppose I've done them myself and I doubt very much if any UK officer would stop me, so the Idaho "experiment" could be generally introduced across the US without any diffculties or increase in accidents.

In traffic, I behave much as I do when driving: signal changes in direction/lane; look before pulling out; obey red lights; give way to other vehicles when appropriate; take the lane when necessary; move closer to the kerb ditto. I also find the argument that stopping at red lights/stop signs interferes with the flow and/or that it's more tiring to do so mildly absurd. So what if you have to slow down/stop and it takes more energy to get going again?

Ditto worries about sharing roads with a 70mph limit. My last commuter route before retiring required me to cross 2 lanes to turn right at a roundabout. It caused me some mild anxiety on occasion but never put me in any real danger - clear signalling always produced a considerate driver or two (I went right over the the RH side of the RH lane) who allowed me to do so.

From what I've read in this and other US forums, there are relatively few rules which might need altering to suit the needs of cyclists, Idaho stop law for instance, but the most effective method would be to introduce stiffer driving tests and enforce existing laws, esp. those broken by drivers (potentially more hazardous to other road users than those broken by cyclists. Add widespread cycle safety training in schools, along the lines of the new UK national standard Bikeability scheme (google it) and most of the things which cause aggravation between different groups of road users would be greatly reduced, since most people would then understand how to interact with each other, regardless of the type of vehicle. It would certainly put an end to many of the petulant and ignorant responses by drivers to such articles.

And yes, lots of separated facilities might well be valuable in specific circumstances, but they probably couldn't be shoe-horned into enough existing road layouts, so VC type skills would still be required.

Bekologist

Actually that is quite incorrect.

bicycles led to the development of modern traffic codes and were the cause for

statewide uniformity in traffic codes in several states before the dawn of the 20th century.

bikes are most assuredly germane to vehicle codes as they were the vehicles responsible for vehicle regulations in the first place!


on a side note, have you heard of the landmark 1890 case of Swift v city of Topeka?

"Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle .... This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen."

source: American Business Law Journal, "The impact of sport of bicycling riding on safety law"

WCoastPeddler

In our modern world, vehicle codes have been designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).

You all need to get with the times. We're talking about the now, not the distant past (I'm sure that you know this).

coffeecake

+1 to what atbman. I use the Idaho stop (and yes, I know what it is.) But I still have to stop or at least yield if there are already vehicles in the intersection. I don't think anyone comes to a complete stop at a stop sign without traffic, regardless of what they're in.

unterhausen

slithering? forward on the right of traffic at lights seems to me to be the logical consequence of far to the right as possible laws (FRAP). If a car can pass a cyclist in a lane, then logically, a cyclist should be able to pass a car in a lane. FRAP is the law in almost every state in the U.S.

There are baby steps being taken in the U.S. to get away from a car centered view of all transportation issues. We have an incredibly wasteful and expensive system that is unsustainable. Bicycles are vehicles, and I think that's going to be more strongly represented in the vehicle code moving forward.

chipcom 

This notion that stops are a 'motor vehicle thing' is incorrect and wacky. Traffic control devices like stop signs, stop lights, yield signs, etc. are a consequence of stoopid, rude, impatient humans who cannot grasp that the right-of-way is not always theirs. So we have to attempt to tell people when they have or don't have the right of way. If people could identify when they have ROW and respect the ROW of others, we wouldn't need the dang things at all, for any type of vehicle, except in places where the volume of traffic is just too heavy to make self-governance safe or efficient.

Roughstuff

Slytherin, perhaps I should say. I can see Malfoy sneakin thru those cars right now.....

My lack of clarity. If you are over on the shoulder, which to me IS the bike lane, then by all means go as far forward as the roadway will allow. No different than traffic in a multiple lane setting. In contrast, if there is no shoulder (for example in an urban area) then I think a bike should line up as all other traffic does. It makes a mockery of the "gimme three feet" rule when I see cyclists slitherin' between lanes to get forward at a light.

roughstuff

DX-MAN

Uh, Rough... the shoulder, YOUR 'bike lane', is officially known in most places as the 'breakdown lane'. It's not included in definitions of the road as they pertain to travel. But do what you feel is best for you -- I ride on shoulders when I feel it's apropos.

I always thought 'slytherin' was 'filtering'.....

Bekologist

no, there has been continuity of statute. bikes were fundament in the creation of modern traffic codes. you're griping about a few changes in uniformity in 1944?

sure, i'll grant you that the preponderance of vehicle codes are steered by the need to regulate dangerous motor vehicle traffic, but your statement

is only true about the bike not being a car.

vehicle codes were most assuredly written for bicycle regulation more so than any other vehicle prior to the 20th century, let to efforts for and establishment of statewide uniformity in traffic code in several states before the turn of the century, led to the creation of the first police road 'vehicle patrols' (on bikes of course, to enforce vehicle codes bicyclists were wantonly breaking) and even the first laws that codified signalling for turns.

to say vehicle codes were designed for cars is very shortsighted of you.

WCoastPeddler

Good grief.

genec

Riiiiiight. The 85% rule is obviously written for cyclists.

Bekologist

look, you guys- it's fair to say cars rule the road nowadays (soon to be eroding in a big city near you!) and most of the laws on the books are geared towards automobile restrictions.

that IN NO WAY erases the historical record. to say bikes had nothing to do with traffic codes is shortsighted, historical amnesia. its like forgetting the US interred over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans in prison camps during WWII - or forgetting bicycling was the largest spectator sport in this country well into the 20th century, not football or baseball..... the most popular american sport was BICYCLING.

This summer I had the great delight to talk with a man who recalled for me the days of bicycling in Seattle before there were any cars to speak of. it was fascinating to get that glimpse into the recent past. This is not ancient history, this is still living history in america- bikes were key in the establishment of modern vehicle codes in this country.

The original poster brought up the Slate article about 'how to get bicyclists to obey traffic laws?' Cities with high ridership and problems(?) with brazen, lawbreaking scorchers could apply a page from the historical 'bikes are vehicles and need regulation' play book and send out bicyclist patrols to issue tickets for traffic infractions.

Remember now, the first vehicle patrols in america to enforce traffic rules were bicycle patrols


24-7 bicycle police could be roving cities issuing stoplight and rolling stop infractions to all these problematic scofflaw cyclists


(oh, thats right, society recognized by the 1930's that the real danger was from the motor vehicle and began to regulate them much more appropriately.)

WCoastPeddler

We're not discussing historical laws here -- we're discussing. current, modern day laws. Get with the program.

Bekologist

this is just absolutely worthless and weak history on your part....

do you even know what you are talking about? are you referring to the uniform vehicle code of 1944?

Don't lose sight of the past its happening right now

I'm already with the program. I'd suggest you do the same.

I'd suggest a play out of the 'bikes are vehicles and need regulatory enforcement' playbook and put out spot bicycle vehicle patrols to crack down on the egregious scorcher behavior getting the motorists windshields all steamed up.

WCoastPeddler

Good freakin' grief.

Bekologist

Nice one. So, you DON'T know what you're talking about. Fair enough, I'll give you that.

to rebut, i'd like to say,

Fripping FRAPping.

chipcom 

shoosh, he thinks he's a moderator...and we haven't had this many wacky theories since HH left us.

mikeybikes

If you want those modern laws to have an application to bicyclists, then change them. Get together with an advocacy group and push to get those laws changed.

Otherwise, quit being so serious and take apart of some of the fun these forums have to offer.

WCoastPeddler

What a joke. And an incredible waste of time.

You guys really don't get it Quite sad.

chipcom 

Hey guys, he's right.
We should all bow down and beg forgiveness and hope that we can someday achieve true rectal cranial zen, like the Master.