Well said Eden.
Printable View
Well said Eden.
This is very well put. I think it would be interesting to see if people would actually sign a pledge along those lines. If this went to a wider bike audience, I suspect "I will obey the rules of the road" would come under intense scrutiny and debate. The age-old stop sign argument would crop up again. If you don't mind, I'll see about putting a version of this up on the Bike Alliance of Wa's blog and see what happens. :rolleyes:
Feel free to use it.
(congrats on getting Lucy's bike by the way :D - it's got fast rubbed off on it by its former owner ;))
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
We should get together for another ride now that I'm more accustomed to the Seattle hills...
I also shared this on my FB page, thank you for this very good and thoughtful list!
As far as the rules of the road go - here's how I feel about it. If a law is in place we need to heed it, because that is what is expected - it is part of "be predictable". That doesn't mean that we cannot disagree with it, and in turn fight to have it changed.
If you don't agree with the stop sign law, simply ignoring it doesn't help anyone. Ignoring it angers motorists and paints with a broad brush that somehow all cyclists are law breakers and that we do tons of terrible stuff that ties up traffic and endangers everyone - which we all know is not true... If you disagree and you think the Idaho stop law is better, then fight for it - things aren't going to change on their own. If you don't know how to fight for it yourself, help someone who does.
A lot of things that cyclists want to do -- weaving between cars, for example, or not allowing room when passing a slower cyclist -- aren't likely to be codified into a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
What I see is a generalized belief that bikes shouldn't be governed by the same laws as cars. It's more a change in attitudes that's needed. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Where I live, there are a lot of students and messengers who think for some reason because they are young and hip and relatively cute, they can ride against traffic, helmetless, lightless, through stop signs, etc. It bugs me but then I am not sure if it is the crotchety old adult in me or the worry that they are giving all cyclists a bad name.
I would suggest being bugged because it's dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigoiis
Where I live, there are a lot of middle-aged, poorly dressed, strikingly unattractive people (mostly men) who think that they can ride against traffic, helmetless, lightless, through stop signs, and on the freeway.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigoiis
It's got nothing to do with young, hip, or cute. Some people just have no sense, some people have no fear, and when you put those two things together it's really scary for the rest of us.
I think that at the heart of that debate is the question: Should bicyclist have to follow the same rules as motorists? Ever since John Forester wrote Effective Cycling, the majority of bicycle advocates have fought for bicyclists to have all the same "rights and responsibilities" -- a phrase you hear often -- as motorists. I haven't heard much cogent discussion about why bicyclists should (or should not) follow the same rules as motorists. We're hybrid vehicles, fast as cars sometimes but almost as maneuverable as pedestrians. Why should we be treated exactly the same as motor vehicles, when we aren't? (This is a genuine question: I'm not settled, myself, on where bikes should fit in the scheme of laws governing road users.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
The LCI training talks about how it's much safer for bicycles to act as cars. From a predictability standpoint, I can see it. Motorists don't need any special training to anticipate what a bicyclist will do if the bicyclist is following the same rules as the motorist. I confidently bicycle on the existing road infrastructure following the same rules I do when driving. But then you have the typical problem that you encounter when a multi-use path crosses a road. Who gets priority? And precisely because bicyclists aren't motorists -- because we have different concerns, like not losing momentum and having to go slow up hills -- I can also see how it might be valuable for bicyclists to have different rules, like the Idaho stop law. And, frankly, many, many bicyclists are fearful of riding on the road with cars. Very few are going to feel confident taking the lane or moving across three lanes of traffic into a left turn lane. Legitimate fears of cars aren't really addressed with the injunction, "Just ride the same way you'd drive a car." That fear confines lots of people to sidewalks and multi-use trails, which aren't necessarily safer but feel like they are.
Back in September I rode with an LCI in Spokane. She's a fabulous lady, but she drove me NUTS by adhering rigidly to every single law. She put her foot down and looked right-left-right at every stop sign before going, even on totally deserted neighborhood streets. She refused to let motorists wave her on, but insisted they go if they had the right of way. After a while, I confess I started yearning to ride through stop signs just out of craziness. Her example actually made me start thinking about whether that kind of legalism was desirable. It's certainly what the League of American Bicyclists instructs their LCIs to teach in all their classes. I've actually really relaxed my stance on many aspects of the "rights & responsibilities" thing as a result of riding with her, so now I'm probably a bit lax according to the League's standards. I even ride through stop signs on occasion (gasp! don't tell my bike students) :rolleyes:.
Now, see, I'm the opposite (and I've never taken an LCI course yet).
I totally agree about the stop signs - and it's not just momentum, it's control - that issue applies equally to motorcycles and bicycles. Maybe that particular law should be different for two-wheeled vehicles regardless of whether they have a motor.
But from a political standpoint, the absolute worst thing we could do is set ourselves apart even more.
As far as being waved through a stop, that's just DANGEROUS. I refuse to accept it because I don't want to be flattened by a motorist other than the one who's doing the waving, and I don't particularly want to witness that motorist getting rear-ended, either. I will sit there for however long it takes for them to take their right of way.
Nah - I think it would be silly to require cyclists to follow the *exact same* rules as motorists..... we aren't after all cars
In many ways we already don't - for instance here in Washington (check your local laws... not all of these apply everywhere):
we don't need a license, nor do we have to register our vehicle
we don't have to have seat belts, turn signal lights or other safety equipment that only makes sense in cars
depending on the jurisdiction, we can use sidewalks and crosswalks
we are allowed to travel on the shoulder of the road
we are allowed to drink and cycle (really! - if the cops think you are a danger to yourself they can impound your bike and offer you a ride home, but you *cannot* get a DUI on a bike here - which in itself is *very* interesting.... it sets a precedent that recognizes that cycling is not inherently dangerous to others....)
I know there are other things - when you look at the RCW's you'll notice that sometimes they specifically say *motor* vehicles, rather than just vehicles in certain codes
Personally I'd support an Idaho stop law. I tend to track stand stop signs myself and only put a foot down if I need to stop for a fair amount of time. Technically its not illegal..... as long as you come to a full stop at some point.... Then again, I also tend to try to use bigger streets with lights rather than smaller ones with a ton of stops....
It may sound counter-intuitive to some people, but I often feel safer on a bigger 4 lane street with faster flowing traffic than I do on a smaller street. The bigger ones with extra lanes have plenty of room for impatient people to pass, tend to have lights rather than stop signs - and fewer of them, they tend to have *no* on street parking, which hides short me very well from traffic on side streets. On smaller streets I often feel the need to go much slower because many of the intersections are uncontrolled, the road has less room for passing and I am a lot more hidden.
I've found the same thing. For a certain commute, I've had the option of winding through residential neighborhoods, or taking the 6 to 10* lane main thoroughfare. Both have on street parking, but the residential area requires constant vigilance for vehicles that may suddenly pull out of a driveway. Or the child chasing a ball into the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
* A merge lane, three through lanes, two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane.
DH asked me yesterday whether he did the right thing in a traffic situation yesterday, on his motorcycle.
The road he was on was six lanes (three in each direction) plus a continguous bike lane. Midway between intersections, the rightmost motor vehicle lane becomes a turning lane. There's a right turn arrow in the MV lane, an adjacent STRAIGHT arrow in the bike lane, then there's a short break in the bike lane before it resumes adjacent to the middle MV lane, the rightmost one that will go straight through the intersection.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3vDkQwuSTy0/TT...tersection.jpg
(I love Google Maps...)
So DH is approaching the intersection intending to turn right. (Not the parking lot entrance in the foreground ... he would be turning at the intersection with the traffic light that's just visible ahead.) Two cyclists are ahead of him, intending to go straight. They merge over to their proper position a bit *before* the bike lane resumes in that position - riding near the white line in what will be their bike lane as soon as it resumes. IOW, he reached them opposite the parking lot entrance.
DH asked me whether it was okay to have passed them on the right, in that situation. I told him definitely yes - same as he would pass a slower motor vehicle. It's what he had done, and he was glad that I affirmed it. But the fact that he wasn't sure was sort of an eye-opener. He's been a motorcyclist for decades, and he thinks and talks and reads about traffic safety, and traffic flow, just about every day. If he isn't 100% sure how to ride/drive around bicyclists, then nobody is, and it just points up the crying need for better drivers' ed.
ETA:
Now that I think about it, it's also a great illustration why the rules need to be the same for everyone. We're all in the road together, and if the rules are different for, say, blue vehicles, but I've only ever driven a white vehicle, I might not know the rules for blue vehicles. "Predictable" means OTHER road users know what I'm going to do, and if they have no reason to know the rules that I'm operating by, they have no way to predict my behavior. Equipment regulation is one thing (there are also different equipment regulations for different classes of motor vehicles) and lane restriction is one thing (there are also lane restrictions for different classes of motor vehicles), but as far as right of way and traffic control devices, it totally needs to be the same.
Eden, I find it VERY surprising that OVI isn't a crime on a bici in your state. I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure you're in the minority there. I know it's a crime in Florida and Ohio.
Edit again:
"Same rules for everyone" is also TOTALLY relevant to the four-way-stop situation (or even the situation where automobile drivers with NO traffic control device, or with a green light, will stop out of the blue and attempt to yield to a bicyclist who has a stop sign or red light). I do the California stops when I believe it's safe, I freely admit it, but I'd MUCH rather continue to take my chances with getting a ticket, than take my chances with automobile drivers who would be even MORE confused than they are now, about who has the right-of-way. Honestly, I think the California stop issue is a non-issue. If I didn't see the cop who wound up giving me a ticket for blowing the traffic control device, then I have absolutely no right to claim that I WOULD have seen a vehicle with the right-of-way that might have flattened me.