Should cyclists be separated?
03-25-05 | 12:17 PM
#76
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by spang621
basically if i am to ride as far to the right as i have to keep cars from trying to squeeze by, that is the center of the lane.
On my commute there is an intersection that follows a steep downhill. The speed limit is 45. I typically go 35-40 on the downhill (for San Diegans, I'm talking about the descent on eastbound LJ Village Drive between Gilman Drive and Via La Jolla Drive).
At the bottom of the hill the intersection has 4 lanes (left-only, straight, straight, straight-or-right). Since I'm going straight, the "by the book" VC thing to do is take the left side of the straight-or-right lane. Here's the problem: This is a narrow lane (10 feet, maybe), and, until recently, was right-turn-only. So motorists turning right from northbound Via La Jolla to go east on LJ Village Drive still expect anyone in that right lane to be turning right. That expectation, coupled with my relatively limited visibility as a cyclist, even when I'm riding on the left side of the lane, contributes to the right-turners "not seeing me". In fact, that's what happened this morning... I had to merge left mid-intersection to avoid hitting the motorist who turned right, right in front of me.
So, in this case, the VC left side of the right-or-straight lane is arguably not far enough left. I think from now on I'm going to have to take the adjacent lane to the left, and deal with merging back to the rightmost lane after I cross the intersection.
In the end, the VC guidelines like "choose the rightmost lane that serves your destination" are just that, guidelines, that are the best thing to do in most, but not all, situations. The main thing is you gotta do what works.
Another rule-of-thumb that can help to decide where to ride in a given situation is considering: where would someone riding a motor scooter best be positioned in this situation?
03-25-05 | 01:52 PM
#77
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
The purpose of this thread is to foster a focussed discussion on the topic of cyclist separatism (CS): the principle that cyclists fare best when they are separated from vehicular traffic (in contrast to the vehicular cycling (VC) principle: cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles).
In particular:
That's just a start.
What are your thoughts?
In particular:
- Are you more inclined to agree with the CS principle, or the VC principle?
- Does it make sense to facilitate cycling according to the VC principle on some roads (say the slower ones), but move to the CS principle on faster ones? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it important to draw the line distinctly, or is it okay to have either/or roads?
- Do you see a relationship or connection between the CS principle and the concept of bike lanes? Do you think bike lanes foster belief in the CS principle, the VC principle, both or neither?
- How do facilities influenced by the CS principle help or hinder cyclists on various types of roads? What are the benefits of such facilities to cyclists? What are the disbenefits? Do the benefits or disbenefits carry more weight, and how?
That's just a start.
What are your thoughts?
03-25-05 | 02:37 PM
#78
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
I don't see these two ideas as separate. I would draw a distinction between pure VC, which I characterize as drawing almost no distinctions between cyclist and motorist, and realistic VC, which allows for bicycles as slow-moving, non-motorized vehicles. Call it "RVC".
The point is that the same vehicular rules and rights apply to both cyclists and faster vehicle drivers, however they tend to apply a little bit differently to cyclists because cyclists fall in the category of slower traffic much more often than do motor vehicle drivers. So those rules that apply to slower drivers apply to cyclists more often (in particular, between intersections, slower traffic keeps to the right), but all the other rules apply the same.
The RVC approach still gives bicycles the right to travel on the road. Yet, there must be standardization of the interactions between cyclists and motorists. This is done by a combination of education and appropriate facilities, which may include bicycle lanes.
It is the treating cyclists as a separate class, with a modified set of rules, and separated facilities, is what complicates and muddles the interactions between cyclists and motorists.
03-25-05 | 02:48 PM
#79
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
If you think that Forester or I mean to imply that that bikes are equivalent to other road vehicles, then we have a major misunderstanding. But I know you're not the only one who has gotten this impression.
Almost three weeks ago, in the opening post of the "Vehicular Cycling" thread under Advocacy I tried to nip this common misunderstanding in the bud:
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/91307-vehicular-cycling.html
I would like to know what Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that we are contending, or are implying, that bicycles are equivalent to vehicles.
The wording Forester has chosen in the VC principle is very precise. I don't know if you've given it the attention it deserves: Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
First, he does not say, "when they act as vehicles"; he says, "when they act as drivers of vehicles".
This subtle difference emphasizes the importance of comparing the people, not the vehicles they happen to be operating.
It also underscores the critical realization that we are sharing the road with people, who are sentient, not with cars, which are insentient. A critical aspect of vehicular cycling is communicating with drivers. If one views himself as sharing the road with (insentient) cars, there is no point in even trying to communicate. It's a subtle difference, but these kind of difference can have an effect on one's own thinking, and, in particular, in the subconscious. I believe that remembering and emphasizing the fact that it's drivers who are capable of reading and sending signals back and forth with us that are on the road, and not insentient cars, makes us much more likely to use communications in our traffic cycling, which is an important skill.
Second, he says, "Cyclists fare best ..." The implication here is that operating vehicularly is not perfect, but it is the best option among those realistically available to the cyclist. In other words... "Disagree? Fine, then what behavior other than acting as a vehicle driver do you suggest would cause cyclists to fare even better?"
Third, he says "... act and are treated as drivers...", as opposed to "... are treated and act as drivers...". The order is important, for it conveys the fact that in order to be treated as a driver of vehicle, you must first act as a driver of vehicle; you will not be treated as a driver of a vehicle if you don't act like one. This is a key concept because many cyclists who are resigned to being ignored by "cars" don't even ever try to get recognition on the road. They stay in the bike lanes (relying on the bike lane to keep motorists from hitting them, not the motorists' awareness of the cyclist's presence) and cling to the edge of the road.
Finally, including the "and are treated as drivers" clause emphasizes the fact that "faring well" is never entirely within the control of the cyclist. Acting like a vehicle driver is only part of it; you must also be accepted and treated as a vehicle driver (albeit, the driver of a narrow and low powered vehicle).
But I never interpreted an equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles in the wording of the VC principle or in anything else I've ever read by Forester, and I certainly never meant to imply such an equivalence in anything I've ever written. The implications of such a premise are of course absurd, as you point out. So, again, I would very much like to know what specifically Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that either of us is contending, or is implying, that bicycles are equivalent to vehicles.
Almost three weeks ago, in the opening post of the "Vehicular Cycling" thread under Advocacy I tried to nip this common misunderstanding in the bud:
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/91307-vehicular-cycling.html
I would like to know what Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that we are contending, or are implying, that bicycles are equivalent to vehicles.
The wording Forester has chosen in the VC principle is very precise. I don't know if you've given it the attention it deserves: Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
First, he does not say, "when they act as vehicles"; he says, "when they act as drivers of vehicles".
This subtle difference emphasizes the importance of comparing the people, not the vehicles they happen to be operating.
It also underscores the critical realization that we are sharing the road with people, who are sentient, not with cars, which are insentient. A critical aspect of vehicular cycling is communicating with drivers. If one views himself as sharing the road with (insentient) cars, there is no point in even trying to communicate. It's a subtle difference, but these kind of difference can have an effect on one's own thinking, and, in particular, in the subconscious. I believe that remembering and emphasizing the fact that it's drivers who are capable of reading and sending signals back and forth with us that are on the road, and not insentient cars, makes us much more likely to use communications in our traffic cycling, which is an important skill.
Second, he says, "Cyclists fare best ..." The implication here is that operating vehicularly is not perfect, but it is the best option among those realistically available to the cyclist. In other words... "Disagree? Fine, then what behavior other than acting as a vehicle driver do you suggest would cause cyclists to fare even better?"
Third, he says "... act and are treated as drivers...", as opposed to "... are treated and act as drivers...". The order is important, for it conveys the fact that in order to be treated as a driver of vehicle, you must first act as a driver of vehicle; you will not be treated as a driver of a vehicle if you don't act like one. This is a key concept because many cyclists who are resigned to being ignored by "cars" don't even ever try to get recognition on the road. They stay in the bike lanes (relying on the bike lane to keep motorists from hitting them, not the motorists' awareness of the cyclist's presence) and cling to the edge of the road.
Finally, including the "and are treated as drivers" clause emphasizes the fact that "faring well" is never entirely within the control of the cyclist. Acting like a vehicle driver is only part of it; you must also be accepted and treated as a vehicle driver (albeit, the driver of a narrow and low powered vehicle).
But I never interpreted an equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles in the wording of the VC principle or in anything else I've ever read by Forester, and I certainly never meant to imply such an equivalence in anything I've ever written. The implications of such a premise are of course absurd, as you point out. So, again, I would very much like to know what specifically Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that either of us is contending, or is implying, that bicycles are equivalent to vehicles.
03-25-05 | 02:50 PM
#80
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
I don't know of anyone who advocates what you characterize here as "pure VC". The only VC I know is what you describe as "RVC". VC definitely "allows for bicycles as slow-moving, non-motorized vehicles". That is certainly the VC that is described in books like John Forester's Effective Cycling and John Franklin's Cyclecraft (though Franklin does not call it VC, he is describing the same thing as Forester).
The point is that the same vehicular rules and rights apply to both cyclists and faster vehicle drivers, however they tend to apply a little bit differently to cyclists because cyclists fall in the category of slower traffic much more often than do motor vehicle drivers. So those rules that apply to slower drivers apply to cyclists more often (in particular, between intersections, slower traffic keeps to the right), but all the other rules apply the same.
The "standardization of the interactions between cyclists and motorists" is already established by standard vehicular rules of the road. It works great, it really does.
It is the treating cyclists as a separate class, with a modified set of rules, and separated facilities, is what complicates and muddles the interactions between cyclists and motorists.
The point is that the same vehicular rules and rights apply to both cyclists and faster vehicle drivers, however they tend to apply a little bit differently to cyclists because cyclists fall in the category of slower traffic much more often than do motor vehicle drivers. So those rules that apply to slower drivers apply to cyclists more often (in particular, between intersections, slower traffic keeps to the right), but all the other rules apply the same.
The "standardization of the interactions between cyclists and motorists" is already established by standard vehicular rules of the road. It works great, it really does.
It is the treating cyclists as a separate class, with a modified set of rules, and separated facilities, is what complicates and muddles the interactions between cyclists and motorists.
I'm troubled by your understanding of "slow-moving vehicles" based on situation rather than characteristics of the vehicle. Bicycles are ALWAYS slow moving vehicles, even when other traffic is moving slower than their max speed. By your definition, a pedestrian could be classified as a slow-moving vehicle if they can sprint faster than traffic at a given time, say cars stopped during rush hour. I don't think we want pedestrians sprinting through traffic lanes. Of course, that would make for interesting laws. Would could apply VC to pedestrians and allow them to merge into lanes of car traffic as long as they can run at the same speed. Remember, pedestrians fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of other vehicles. Hmmm, seems like we have a separate system for pedestrian travel. I think they call it "sidewalks". Very controversial.
Last edited by billh; 03-25-05 at 02:55 PM.
03-25-05 | 03:12 PM
#81
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
"standard vehicular rules of the road" . . . does that include vehicle codes governing BL? If so, we have no disagreement.
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are the basic universal rules that apply in all jurisdictions in the world (except for the right/left bias), and upon which the laws in the various jurisdictions of the world are based. Vehicle codes governing BLs are local specializations that vary from area to area and are thus not part of the "standard vehicular rules of the road".
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are what allows to get on a plane, fly to Paris, and know how to drive a car or ride a bike there in accordance with the same rules that everyone else is operating under.
Regional laws that give cyclists (or any other road users) special consideration in violation of the standard vehicular rules of the road, are, by definition, in violation of those rules themselves. This applies to much of the vehicle code that governs BLs.
03-25-05 | 03:54 PM
#82
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
I'm troubled by your understanding of "slow-moving vehicles" based on situation rather than characteristics of the vehicle.
Originally Posted by CVC 21202
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ... (my emphasis)
The CA law mandating bike lane use is similar:
Originally Posted by CVC 21208
...any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, ... (my emphasis)
Bicycles are ALWAYS slow moving vehicles, even when other traffic is moving slower than their max speed.
By your definition, a pedestrian could be classified as a slow-moving vehicle if they can sprint faster than traffic at a given time, say cars stopped during rush hour. I don't think we want pedestrians sprinting through traffic lanes. Of course, that would make for interesting laws. Would could apply VC to pedestrians and allow them to merge into lanes of car traffic as long as they can run at the same speed.
Remember, pedestrians fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of other vehicles.
To the contrary, there is no similar argument to the contention about cyclists faring best when they act as drivers of vehicles. Specifically, there is no demonstration of an alternative. If cyclists don't fare best when they act as vehicle drivers, then what specific behavior allows them to fare even better? To act as pedestrians? No. To act as "cyclists"? What does that mean? We know what it means to act as a pedestrians. We have long established rules for that. As we do for vehicle drivers. But there are no rules for "cyclists" per se. We can only choose from the vehicular rules, or the pedestrian rules. Either works, but the former seems to fare best for cyclists.
It all comes down to this: If you disagree with the VC principle, if you reject the notion that cyclists fare best when they act as vehicle drivers, then what do you suggest instead? Describe the behavior under which you believe cyclists fare better than they do acting as (low power) vehicle drivers. if you can't, then what is your basis for disagreeing with the VC principle?
Serge
03-25-05 | 05:16 PM
#83
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina, USA
Bikes: Road, Mtn, Tandem
Originally Posted by Serge *******
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are the basic universal rules that apply in all jurisdictions ...
"The Basic Vehicular Rules Of The Road are those which apply to everyone who is driving a vehicle".
Here's a definition and two examples from Chapter 20 of the N.C. General Statutes (where the NC ROTR are located) to illustrate the BVROTR idea:
Definition of vehicle from the NCGS:
§ 20‑4.01(49)...for the purposes of this Chapter bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle except those which by their nature can have no application.
Two examples from the NCGS;
Limitations on privilege of overtaking and passing rule;
§ 20‑150(a) The driver of a vehicle shall not ...
Following too closely rule;
§ 20‑152(a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall ...
__________________
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
03-25-05 | 06:35 PM
#84
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Bruce, your examples are specific to a particular jurisdiction (North Carolina), and, therefore, are not standard (except for North Carolina) or universal by definition.
However, I understand your point. There are laws that apply to all vehicle drivers (in N. Carolina), which includes cyclists, and there are laws that apply only to motor vehicle drivers. The former constitutes the "basic vehicular rules of the road in N. Carolina".
However, I understand your point. There are laws that apply to all vehicle drivers (in N. Carolina), which includes cyclists, and there are laws that apply only to motor vehicle drivers. The former constitutes the "basic vehicular rules of the road in N. Carolina".
03-25-05 | 10:30 PM
#85
Dubito ergo sum.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Originally Posted by noisebeam
The very reason I am so in favor of WOL over BLs is that my experience with them has been so much more pleasant, not just the passing clearances, but the total and complete flexibility it gives me without any question to myself or any driver as to where I should or should not be within that WOL.
I can only speculate that its a local variation in traffic. Much like drivers in some cities respect the stop line while in Ottawa they think that's where the rear tires should be, drivers in some cities know to give ample clearance to bikes when passing while others need the magic white line to delineate space.
Further speculation: Ontario has no recommended passing clearance, if memory serves. There are guidelines for the distance to keep for vehicles in front of you (two car lengths or two seconds' travel) but none for passing. Maybe the lack of guideline leads to an under-estimate.
03-27-05 | 08:55 PM
#86
Originally Posted by CdCf
You don't seem to get it.
Bike paths are fine - as long as you're free to choose whether to use them or use the road. Here, the law says we HAVE TO use them when provided, so that's why I don't like them. Is that so hard to understand?
Bike paths are fine - as long as you're free to choose whether to use them or use the road. Here, the law says we HAVE TO use them when provided, so that's why I don't like them. Is that so hard to understand?
In the US, we still have a choice about where to ride, but that choice is being threatened by laws telling us to use a path where provided.
I don't care how many paths or bike lanes are built, as long as my rights not to use them aren't threatened.
No bike lane advocate in their right mind would ever force me to use a bike lane, anymore than I would force them not to use the bike lane. But what so many bike lane advocates ignore is that cyclists are too often required to use bike lanes and paths against our will.
__________________
No worries
No worries
03-27-05 | 09:02 PM
#87
Originally Posted by patc
I've been puzzling this. I don't like WOLs on principle, and by far the I get more passing clearance in a bike lane.
When I'm not in a bike lane, driver tend to give me at least 3 feet, and usually about 6 feet or more of clearance when they pass. When I'm in a bike lane, they don't seem to care how close they pass me, as long as they don't cross the white line that separates us.
__________________
No worries
No worries
03-28-05 | 03:23 AM
#88
Dubito ergo sum.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
When I'm not in a bike lane, driver tend to give me at least 3 feet, and usually about 6 feet or more of clearance when they pass. When I'm in a bike lane, they don't seem to care how close they pass me, as long as they don't cross the white line that separates us.
Seriously, SUV and pick-up drivers around here seem clueless as to how wide their vehicles are. On average, however, even the worst drivers won't cross the magic white line, so I can usually be assured of 2 or 3 feet of clearance when in a bike lane. No bike lane (WOL or not) and my handlebar mirror is toast.
03-28-05 | 07:13 AM
#89
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina, USA
Bikes: Road, Mtn, Tandem
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
When I'm not in a bike lane, driver tend to give me at least 3 feet, and usually about 6 feet or more of clearance when they pass. When I'm in a bike lane, they don't seem to care how close they pass me, as long as they don't cross the white line that separates us.
The stripe essentially relieves them from worrying about what's on the other side.
UVC - Uniform Vehicle Code (the model Rules of the Road for the USA)
* UVC 11-303.Overtaking a vehicle on the left
The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions and special rules hereinafter stated:
(a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance ...
** UVC 11-309.Driving on roadways laned for traffic
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply.
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
__________________
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
03-28-05 | 07:21 AM
#90
Fish Nut
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
Bikes: Hard Rock
Serge, I see you actively working on convincing cyclists to your line of thinking, but..
What are you really doing about it?
Have you made any changes in your city plans for future bike stuffs? It seems to me that that would be more effective to your goals. Even when you discuss here, I don't see you talking about methods to make changes (however, i must admit to not reading these threads in entirely, they get a little repetitive after awhile). It really does not matter how many you "convince to thinking this way is better," if no one is working for changes. That just creates a bunch of bitter cyclists.
perhaps you should run for some public office that will get you in on the planning committee for your city construction zone. Or train some of your typing skills towards letter writing.
What are you really doing about it?
Have you made any changes in your city plans for future bike stuffs? It seems to me that that would be more effective to your goals. Even when you discuss here, I don't see you talking about methods to make changes (however, i must admit to not reading these threads in entirely, they get a little repetitive after awhile). It really does not matter how many you "convince to thinking this way is better," if no one is working for changes. That just creates a bunch of bitter cyclists.
perhaps you should run for some public office that will get you in on the planning committee for your city construction zone. Or train some of your typing skills towards letter writing.
03-28-05 | 10:33 AM
#91
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
No.
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are the basic universal rules that apply in all jurisdictions in the world (except for the right/left bias), and upon which the laws in the various jurisdictions of the world are based. Vehicle codes governing BLs are local specializations that vary from area to area and are thus not part of the "standard vehicular rules of the road".
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are what allows to get on a plane, fly to Paris, and know how to drive a car or ride a bike there in accordance with the same rules that everyone else is operating under.
Regional laws that give cyclists (or any other road users) special consideration in violation of the standard vehicular rules of the road, are, by definition, in violation of those rules themselves. This applies to much of the vehicle code that governs BLs.
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are the basic universal rules that apply in all jurisdictions in the world (except for the right/left bias), and upon which the laws in the various jurisdictions of the world are based. Vehicle codes governing BLs are local specializations that vary from area to area and are thus not part of the "standard vehicular rules of the road".
The "standard vehicular rules of the road" are what allows to get on a plane, fly to Paris, and know how to drive a car or ride a bike there in accordance with the same rules that everyone else is operating under.
Regional laws that give cyclists (or any other road users) special consideration in violation of the standard vehicular rules of the road, are, by definition, in violation of those rules themselves. This applies to much of the vehicle code that governs BLs.
03-28-05 | 10:38 AM
#92
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
Well, then, are you also troubled by the vehicle code that governs bicycle use on the roadways that is also based on situation rather than characteristics of the vehicle? For example, the "keep to the right" law in CA, that requires cyclists to keep to the right, only applies in situations where cyclists are moving slower than traffic:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
The CA law mandating bike lane use is similar:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
Thank you for identifying what I believe to be the key to separationist mentality. First of all, bicycles are not ALWAYS slow moving, though they are ALWAYS low power, relative to the other vehicles. But power is irrelevant to the applicability of the rules of the road. Some vehicles weigh over 3000 lbs and have only 60 HP (1963 VW bus), while others weigh less than 2000 lbs and have over 500 HP (Cobra). Yet the laws that govern them are exactly the same. On a hill where the VW bus is moving slower than traffic, it must keep to the right. The VW bus is always a low power vehicle, and a bicycle is always even slower. But what matters is current speed. When the cyclist and the VW bus can keep up with the rest of traffic, then the slow speed rules of the road do not apply. And they shouldn't.
Sure, I guess a law that gave the pedestrians the right to jump into traffic as long as it is moving at 0-6 mph would not violate the standard vehicular rules of the road, but there is no point in doing it. There is, however, a point to allowing cyclists participate as drivers of vehicles in traffic.
If that were true, you'd have a compelling argument. But it is easy enough to show that pedestrians do not actually fare best when they act as drivers of vehicles, by demonstrating that they fare better when they act and are treated as, well, pedestrians.
To the contrary, there is no similar argument to the contention about cyclists faring best when they act as drivers of vehicles. Specifically, there is no demonstration of an alternative. If cyclists don't fare best when they act as vehicle drivers, then what specific behavior allows them to fare even better? To act as pedestrians? No. To act as "cyclists"? What does that mean? We know what it means to act as a pedestrians. We have long established rules for that. As we do for vehicle drivers. But there are no rules for "cyclists" per se. We can only choose from the vehicular rules, or the pedestrian rules. Either works, but the former seems to fare best for cyclists.
It all comes down to this: If you disagree with the VC principle, if you reject the notion that cyclists fare best when they act as vehicle drivers, then what do you suggest instead? Describe the behavior under which you believe cyclists fare better than they do acting as (low power) vehicle drivers. if you can't, then what is your basis for disagreeing with the VC principle?
Serge
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
The CA law mandating bike lane use is similar:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
Thank you for identifying what I believe to be the key to separationist mentality. First of all, bicycles are not ALWAYS slow moving, though they are ALWAYS low power, relative to the other vehicles. But power is irrelevant to the applicability of the rules of the road. Some vehicles weigh over 3000 lbs and have only 60 HP (1963 VW bus), while others weigh less than 2000 lbs and have over 500 HP (Cobra). Yet the laws that govern them are exactly the same. On a hill where the VW bus is moving slower than traffic, it must keep to the right. The VW bus is always a low power vehicle, and a bicycle is always even slower. But what matters is current speed. When the cyclist and the VW bus can keep up with the rest of traffic, then the slow speed rules of the road do not apply. And they shouldn't.
Sure, I guess a law that gave the pedestrians the right to jump into traffic as long as it is moving at 0-6 mph would not violate the standard vehicular rules of the road, but there is no point in doing it. There is, however, a point to allowing cyclists participate as drivers of vehicles in traffic.
If that were true, you'd have a compelling argument. But it is easy enough to show that pedestrians do not actually fare best when they act as drivers of vehicles, by demonstrating that they fare better when they act and are treated as, well, pedestrians.
To the contrary, there is no similar argument to the contention about cyclists faring best when they act as drivers of vehicles. Specifically, there is no demonstration of an alternative. If cyclists don't fare best when they act as vehicle drivers, then what specific behavior allows them to fare even better? To act as pedestrians? No. To act as "cyclists"? What does that mean? We know what it means to act as a pedestrians. We have long established rules for that. As we do for vehicle drivers. But there are no rules for "cyclists" per se. We can only choose from the vehicular rules, or the pedestrian rules. Either works, but the former seems to fare best for cyclists.
It all comes down to this: If you disagree with the VC principle, if you reject the notion that cyclists fare best when they act as vehicle drivers, then what do you suggest instead? Describe the behavior under which you believe cyclists fare better than they do acting as (low power) vehicle drivers. if you can't, then what is your basis for disagreeing with the VC principle?
Serge
03-28-05 | 11:33 AM
#93
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
These "standard rules" of which you speak . . . were they written on tablets of stone, brought down from the mountain by Forester?
Anyway - as to the source of the "standard rules" - I think they were devised and adopted in the late 19th century, perhaps earlier, and evolved in detail ever since into the particular laws we have in all the different jurisdictions of the world today. But the fundamentals - the "standard" rules, are the common denominator, if you will, of all the laws governing vehicular traffic in the world.
Originally Posted by billh
I think you need to examine your "separtist" attitude about pedestrians.
Last edited by Serge Issakov; 03-28-05 at 11:44 AM.
03-28-05 | 12:10 PM
#94
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Ladyjai
Serge, I see you actively working on convincing cyclists to your line of thinking, but..
What are you really doing about it?
Have you made any changes in your city plans for future bike stuffs? It seems to me that that would be more effective to your goals. Even when you discuss here, I don't see you talking about methods to make changes (however, i must admit to not reading these threads in entirely, they get a little repetitive after awhile). It really does not matter how many you "convince to thinking this way is better," if no one is working for changes. That just creates a bunch of bitter cyclists.
perhaps you should run for some public office that will get you in on the planning committee for your city construction zone. Or train some of your typing skills towards letter writing.
What are you really doing about it?
Have you made any changes in your city plans for future bike stuffs? It seems to me that that would be more effective to your goals. Even when you discuss here, I don't see you talking about methods to make changes (however, i must admit to not reading these threads in entirely, they get a little repetitive after awhile). It really does not matter how many you "convince to thinking this way is better," if no one is working for changes. That just creates a bunch of bitter cyclists.
perhaps you should run for some public office that will get you in on the planning committee for your city construction zone. Or train some of your typing skills towards letter writing.
My purpose here is to learn how to convey cycling ideas (those of others as well as my own) in writing, and to learn from others.
My position against bike lanes is politically unfavorable. The vast majority of society is comprised of motorists who favor bike lanes because they facilitate their ability to pass cyclists without having to slow down or adjust their lateral position... bike lanes get cyclists out of the way. Many cyclists, even some who are lukewarm on bike lanes per se, have learned to use the general favorability of bike lanes to achieve various goals, like using bike lanes to justify onstreet parking removal and/or to widen roadways, and even by establishing a career as a cycling facilities expert.
Meanwhile, the majority of cyclists take bike lanes for granted and are unfamiliar with the existence of the arguments against them.
That leaves a small minority of cyclists, and an extremely tiny minority of the general population, that agrees with me on this issue. Until that changes substantially, there is no hope in turning the tide. Maybe some day I'll write a book, or be involved with a movie on the topic. In the mean time, I going to keep plugging away here.
A lot of these issues are difficult to explain in words. Regardless of what side you're on, it's difficult to explain your position. Of those who favor bike lanes here, few have been able to explain very clearly why. It's no different on the other side. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons on both sides, that it's just hard to express them.
For me, a key theme is integration vs. "separatism" (and, hence, this thread). I believe an important aspect in learning how to ride in traffic safely and with comfort, is learning how to communicate with drivers and how to be integrated with them (which does not require operating at the same speed in case that's what anyone is thinking). It seems to me that the solid 6" wide stripe that identifies a bike lane, coupled with the laws governing bike lanes, is an expression of a separatist mentality that hinders and represses the integrated thinking I am trying to advocate for cyclists.
03-28-05 | 12:51 PM
#95
Dominatrikes
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 0
From: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
I for one have no problem whatsoever with drivers passing me as fast as they want to when I'm on my side of the bike lane line and they are on the other. I see no reason for them to slow. I find that when there is a line there they stay on their side of it, and when there is no bike lane that the passing clearance they give me is highly variable. I prefer predictability from motorists (like they prefer from cyclists) and find that the bike lane provides it.
03-28-05 | 01:03 PM
#96
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Originally Posted by Serge *******
The source of the standard and universal vehicular rules of the road is a very interesting question, and I've been wondering about it myself. One thing is for sure... they're not from Forester! These rules have been around since before he was born! Just this morning I was reading John Franklin's Cyclecraft, which I highly recommend. You have to do the right/left orientation flip since he's writing for Britain, but that's actually a good thing... I think it forces you to think about each situation a bit more. The amazing thing is how radically different this book is in style from Forester's Effective Cycling, yet how remarkably similar it is in terms of advise and recommended techniques for traffic cyclists. In a lot of ways Cyclecraft is a much better explanation of vehicular cycling than is EC. But I would recommend reading both books to any cyclist who spends any time riding on the streets with motor vehicles.
Anyway - as to the source of the "standard rules" - I think they were devised and adopted in the late 19th century, perhaps earlier, and evolved in detail ever since into the particular laws we have in all the different jurisdictions of the world today. But the fundamentals - the "standard" rules, are the common denominator, if you will, of all the laws governing vehicular traffic in the world.
Before you will be able to convince me that I need to examine my "separtist" attitude about pedestrians, you will have to examine and address what I already said about it, instead of quoting it without comment.
Anyway - as to the source of the "standard rules" - I think they were devised and adopted in the late 19th century, perhaps earlier, and evolved in detail ever since into the particular laws we have in all the different jurisdictions of the world today. But the fundamentals - the "standard" rules, are the common denominator, if you will, of all the laws governing vehicular traffic in the world.
Before you will be able to convince me that I need to examine my "separtist" attitude about pedestrians, you will have to examine and address what I already said about it, instead of quoting it without comment.
03-28-05 | 01:10 PM
#97
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by billh
Argh. Do I HAVE to??
03-28-05 | 01:20 PM
#98
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I for one have no problem whatsoever with drivers passing me as fast as they want to when I'm on my side of the bike lane line and they are on the other. I see no reason for them to slow. I find that when there is a line there they stay on their side of it, and when there is no bike lane that the passing clearance they give me is highly variable. I prefer predictability from motorists (like they prefer from cyclists) and find that the bike lane provides it.
Somebody recently accused me of not accepting the points of view of others or something. Yet this post is a great example of what I'm looking for on this forum.
While most of my argument against bike lanes deals with problems at intersections, this aspect of it addresses between intersection problems, and is based on the premise that bike lanes encourage high-speed close passing by motorists of cyclists without slowing down or adjusting their lane position (to increase the passing distance), and that that is a bad thing (for cyclists).
Some people have argued, directly or indirectly, that bike lanes do not have that effect.
But here you have pointed out something else entirely. Something very interesting. Essentially, you're saying you don't care if motorists are traveling 40+ mph faster than you in the adjacent lane, and, apparently, even if they're doing so only a few feet away, as long as they stay in their lane.
Here, you are rejecting a core assumption in my argument, so of course it is not convincing to you.
Why you're okay with fast/close passing (when there is a separating bike lane stripe) and I am not, is perhaps a question we can address later.
03-28-05 | 01:45 PM
#99
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 0
From: Munich
Bikes: Lemond Alpe d´Huez, Scott Sub 10, homemade mtb, Radlbauer adler (old city bike), Dahon impulse (folder with 20 inch wheels), haibike eq xduro
I have not read the whole thread but I think the basic premise of the thread is wrong here - it is not cyclists who should be separated from the rest of the world but motorised vehicles that should be separated - we would not let jet aircraft land in the streets so why do we tolerate teenagers speeding up and down at insanely high speeds
__________________
only the dead have seen the end of mass motorized stupidity
Plato
(well if he was alive today he would have written it)
only the dead have seen the end of mass motorized stupidity
Plato
(well if he was alive today he would have written it)
03-28-05 | 02:18 PM
#100
Thread Starter
Vehicular Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by royalflash
...I think the basic premise of the thread is wrong here - it is not cyclists who should be separated from the rest of the world but motorised vehicles that should be separated -
At restrooms do we separate the boys from the girls or the girls from the boys?
Is it Kosher to separate the meat from the dairy or the dairy from the meat?
Does the gourmet chef separate the yolks from the whites or the whites from yolks?
How is separating the As from Bs any different from separating the Bs from the As?
Either we're separating the motorists from the cyclists and the cyclists from the motorists, or we're not.
The issue isn't about separating motorists from cyclists or cyclists from motorists, the question is whether they should be separated at all.