Originally Posted by billh

If by some stretch of the imagination, you were cited for not riding in a mandatory bicycle lane, and you could prove that the lane was obstructed or littered with glass, I'm sure the judge would let you off. Again, I'm not saying your point is rubbish, I'm saying I don't think it is the issue here.

Originally Posted by billh

I'm not so much interested in mandatory bicycle lanes as exploring the thinking of the anti-bicycle lane crusaders.

Originally Posted by billh

I'm not so much interested in mandatory bicycle lanes as exploring the thinking of the anti-bicycle lane crusaders.

Originally Posted by BT

How come one can drive a horse and wagon or threshing machine down the road in the normal vehicle lane but not a bicycle?

Originally Posted by genec

A car is not = to a bike, nor is a bike = to a horse, or a thresher or a cement truck. The closest vehicle to a bike is a motorcycle, but it has the horsepower (no pun intended) to maintain the speed of other vehicular traffic while still having the mobility of a bike.

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Your argument is based on a) the welfare of the cyclist and b) the convenience of motorists. Jurisprudence says that rights to the public way may be restricted in order to protect welfare of others--say mandatory driver licensing and motor vehicle inspections--but that's not (a). (a) is about the state preventing the cyclist from engaging in risky behavior--risk that hasn't actually been established, by the way--and (b) is about motorist convenience, convenience which is ordinarily assured by the keep-right rule.

As for horsedrawn wagons and the like, I refer you to the Supreme Court case Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. It is by right, not permit.

Originally Posted by genec

I was simply pointing out why these other wider vehicles must travel in the vehicular traffic lane... IE they are not nearly as nimble.

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

But that's not true. Motorcycles are pretty narrow and nimble too. "But they're faster," you say, which is true. But then garbage trucks are wider and slower. And horsedrawn wagons are horsier. And a Boxster is smaller and more nimble than a Hummer.

There is a truly wide array of vehicular performance profiles, even if we just talk about motorized vehicles. That a bicycle has different operating characteristics is immaterial unless you can demonstrate that as such it somehow presents a risk to the rights of others or general welfare.

It means that you can build facilities for them that they are uniquely qualified to use, just as you could for a Porsche or a Ducati, but to require their use is a different matter. Such restrictions need to pass constitutional muster and in this expert's opinion ;) they don't.

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Because that is not a restriction it's a uniformly applied rule of operation that insures that traffic flows as smoothly as possible. It is a rule that has a well-established history and whose meaning has become quite clear. It is well understood that the general prescription for slow traffic to keep right does not in any way reduce the rights of slow vehicle operators to merge left as necessary to avoid in-lane obstacles, prepare to reach destinations that may lie on the left side of the road, or otherwise use all parts of the traveled way as necessary.

On the other hand, rules that require cyclists to use bike lanes where they exist presumably imply an additional restriction than the general requirement to keep right. What exactly that is is not clear. When is a cyclist allowed to prepare for a left turn? If the right lane is full of sand and gravel and the cyclist is not able to go as fast as they like are they allowed to leave the bike lane? Even if they're still moving slower than the prevailing speed of the lane adjacent to the bike lane? Are they instead under obligation to reduce their own speed and remain within the bike lane? What of poorly implemented bike lanes? The burden now must fall to the bike lane to demonstrate to the court that they had sufficient cause to leave the lane, even if the court has no such practical experience that may allow them to adequately judge the merits of the cyclists claims.

What of cyclists maintaining a 20mph paceline? Must they do so in the bike lane if traffic in other lanes is traveling faster than 20mph? Are clubs then restricted from club rides unless they're willing to compromise their safety or travel substantially slower? Why would such a restriction apply to cycling clubs but not car clubs or motorcycle clubs? How come one can drive a horse and wagon or threshing machine down the road in the normal vehicle lane but not a bicycle?

Originally Posted by nick burns

Well, you ought to think again. Go back and read about the examples of poorly designed bike lanes and some of the cyclists cited for not using them. It's not a stretch of the imagination.

Again, if the bike lane puts me in danger of dooring, puncture, or worse, I will not use it. And it should not be my responsibility to prove to a judge that the engineers, planners, and lawmakers screwed up.

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Then maybe you ought to visit that other thread because that's not what this is about. I'm not crusading against bike lanes here, I'm being realistic arguing that there are many valid reasons for a cyclist to not be in a bike lane, reasons which may not be adequately captured in law or likewise identified as such by a police officer or judge. Meanwhile there is no logical basis on which to predicate such a law except at the convenience of motorists, a convenience that unduly burdens the right of cyclists to the public way.

Originally Posted by genec

I don't know... but it seems to be one of those rules like mandatory seat belt laws and helmet laws that legislators put into place to "mother" us, whether we need the laws or not.

Originally Posted by billh

Again, most of your argument is about the implementation of bicycle lanes (debris, what if this or that, etc), not the concept of the lane itself, which has everything to do about whether they should be mandatory or not.

Originally Posted by Serge *******

All true, but never-the-less, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers.

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Unlike seat belt use, bike lane use has never been shown to be safer. In the absense of such evidence, who do you think mandatory bike lane use laws is really for?



No, my argument is that there are many reasons for me to use various positions on the entire width of the road. It is not my duty to demonstrate that I need to be there (which is the very best bike lane requirement--the very worst don't even allow such flexibility). It is my right to use those positions as necessary. The keep-right provision is well understood and sufficient, additional restrictions are unecessary and only imply an undue and vague burden on cyclists.

Cyclists should be held to the same level of conduct as other roadway users. Again, to cite the US Supreme Court, "Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

Originally Posted by billh

Bicycle lane markings (properly designed, implemented, maintained, with properly worded laws) do not deprive cyclists of any rights, either.

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Then what's the point of such a law if they have no further effect beyond what already exists?



I don't think it's misunderstood at all. I believe that the intent of mandatory bike lane use is to impose additional burden on cyclists and to restrict their rights to the rest of the roadway.

Originally Posted by billh

If one is there, I'll use it. If I need to move out of it, I will. No problem. Just like driving a car in striped motor vehicle lanes. Sometimes I move out of those lanes. I see no difference.

Originally Posted by billh

Hypothetically speaking, what if there WERE a well designed, properly constructed, well-maintained bicycle lane??? Somewhere, in some perfect world. I'm not saying I can show you one right now, or there ever was one constructed. Just pretend there is one. Would you still be against a law requiring you to ride in it?

Originally Posted by bostontrevor

Really? I'll refer you to Oregon where a cyclist is required to use a bike lane if "the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed."

Note that this is essentially an administrative process: the streets or public works department may hold a public hearing and on no basis other than what they feel is reasonable, declare a bike lane safe. It is a 100% subjective process. Note that there isn't even a requirement that a cyclist be able to operate at all legal speeds, only "reasonable" speeds. Who defines what a reasonable speed for a cyclist is?

What I hear you saying is that mandatory use laws are acceptable because in practice they do not effectively limit your access to other parts of the road. My response to that is then why have them at all? Unless they serve to limit the cyclist's access to the road in some meaningful way they serve no purpose at all. In the former case, I object and in the latter case they are useless clutter.

Originally Posted by bt

My response to that is then why have them [mandatory use laws] at all? Unless they serve to limit the cyclist's access to the road in some meaningful way they serve no purpose at all. In the former case, I object and in the latter case they are useless clutter.

Originally Posted by nick burns

I have ridden in well designed bike lanes and quite like them.

However, . . .

Originally Posted by nick burns

Let me turn the tables- Can you give me reasons why you wish to see cyclists banned from the regular traffic lanes and forced to ride in only designated areas?

Originally Posted by billh

OK, let me stop you there. How can you have a problem with a law that requires you to use them? You still get from point A to point B, right? That's all I care about.