Attitude and behavior toward motorists
56 views
Skip to first unread message
John Forester
Oct 16, 2012, 4:43:50 PM10/16/12
to BicycleDriving
Much discussion has been occurring regarding cyclists' attitudes and
behavior toward motorists. Attitude is a large factor in determining
behavior, but behavior does not necessarily display any particular
attitude. This discussion concerns attitudes and behavior in the USA,
not elsewhere.
The typical American attitude about the relationship between motorists
and cyclists is that motorists are superior to cyclists, or, to look at
it from the other end, cyclists are inferior to motorists. Motorists are
real traffic, while cyclists are not. Cyclists should stay out of the
way of motorists, which is what the laws are believed to say. Motorists
are able to obey the rules of the road, while cyclists are not. Using
the roads is normal and safe for motorists, while using the roads is
abnormal and dangerous for cyclists. This typical array of attitudes was
largely created by "motordom" with the intent of frightening cyclists
into behavior that makes motoring more convenient. Motordom has
succeeded, in that most American cyclists possess these attitudes.
Cyclist equality is the other prominent attitude in American cycling
affairs. This says that a cyclist properly is the legal and social equal
of a motorist, that they are both equally able to obey the rules of the
road, and that using the roads is normal and reasonably safe for both of
them.
The roadway behavior typically produced by the cyclist-inferiority
attitude is that of curb-hugging motivated by feelings of fear. The
off-roadway behavior so motivated is the use of any facility that
promises to get the cyclist out of the way of same-direction motor traffic.
The roadway behavior typically produced by the cyclist-equality attitude
is known as vehicular cycling, obeying the rules of the road for drivers
of vehicles. Just as other drivers largely cooperate together to smooth
traffic operation, so do vehicular cyclists with motorists. The attitude
largely is (although there are exceptions), one of cooperation rather
than one of antagonism.
In this spirit of cooperation, vehicular cyclists tended to ride far
enough right to make overtaking by motorists easier. While this might
look like curb-hugging motivated by feelings of inferiority and danger,
its motivation was to be cooperatively nice to motorists, to make
overtaking easier for them. Some people, both motorists and cyclists,
may have believed that this positioning by cyclists created
opportunities for safe and lawful motorist overtaking that would not
exist if the cyclist was not so far to the right. However, that belief
does not match with the traffic-engineering facts, except in the rare
case of the wide outside lane. Experience has shown that being nice to
motorists in this way has produced bad effects for cyclists. Perhaps
such positioning reinforces the motorist's attitude of superiority over
cyclists. For whatever reason, when cyclists position themselves for
easy motorist overtaking, motorists tend to squeeze by through the
narrow gap between the cyclist and traffic in the adjacent lane, even
when there is no traffic there. The cyclist who controls his lane shows
overtaking motorists that they must use the adjacent traffic lane and
must, therefore, wait until that lane is clear of traffic. When
motorists realize that, they overtake with greater clearance.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
behavior toward motorists. Attitude is a large factor in determining
behavior, but behavior does not necessarily display any particular
attitude. This discussion concerns attitudes and behavior in the USA,
not elsewhere.
The typical American attitude about the relationship between motorists
and cyclists is that motorists are superior to cyclists, or, to look at
it from the other end, cyclists are inferior to motorists. Motorists are
real traffic, while cyclists are not. Cyclists should stay out of the
way of motorists, which is what the laws are believed to say. Motorists
are able to obey the rules of the road, while cyclists are not. Using
the roads is normal and safe for motorists, while using the roads is
abnormal and dangerous for cyclists. This typical array of attitudes was
largely created by "motordom" with the intent of frightening cyclists
into behavior that makes motoring more convenient. Motordom has
succeeded, in that most American cyclists possess these attitudes.
Cyclist equality is the other prominent attitude in American cycling
affairs. This says that a cyclist properly is the legal and social equal
of a motorist, that they are both equally able to obey the rules of the
road, and that using the roads is normal and reasonably safe for both of
them.
The roadway behavior typically produced by the cyclist-inferiority
attitude is that of curb-hugging motivated by feelings of fear. The
off-roadway behavior so motivated is the use of any facility that
promises to get the cyclist out of the way of same-direction motor traffic.
The roadway behavior typically produced by the cyclist-equality attitude
is known as vehicular cycling, obeying the rules of the road for drivers
of vehicles. Just as other drivers largely cooperate together to smooth
traffic operation, so do vehicular cyclists with motorists. The attitude
largely is (although there are exceptions), one of cooperation rather
than one of antagonism.
In this spirit of cooperation, vehicular cyclists tended to ride far
enough right to make overtaking by motorists easier. While this might
look like curb-hugging motivated by feelings of inferiority and danger,
its motivation was to be cooperatively nice to motorists, to make
overtaking easier for them. Some people, both motorists and cyclists,
may have believed that this positioning by cyclists created
opportunities for safe and lawful motorist overtaking that would not
exist if the cyclist was not so far to the right. However, that belief
does not match with the traffic-engineering facts, except in the rare
case of the wide outside lane. Experience has shown that being nice to
motorists in this way has produced bad effects for cyclists. Perhaps
such positioning reinforces the motorist's attitude of superiority over
cyclists. For whatever reason, when cyclists position themselves for
easy motorist overtaking, motorists tend to squeeze by through the
narrow gap between the cyclist and traffic in the adjacent lane, even
when there is no traffic there. The cyclist who controls his lane shows
overtaking motorists that they must use the adjacent traffic lane and
must, therefore, wait until that lane is clear of traffic. When
motorists realize that, they overtake with greater clearance.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
Bob Shanteau
Oct 16, 2012, 6:03:25 PM10/16/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
The way I see it, the marginalization of bicyclists started with highway
and traffic engineers dividing roadways into lanes. Lane width is
determined by the width of the design vehicle, typically a large truck.
The maximum width of a vehicle is normally 8.5' plus 10" mirrors on each
side, so a typical lane is 10-12' wide. Lanes are not designed for two
vehicles to travel side by side in parallel. Instead they are designed
to be used in serial, with vehicles traveling sequentially, one
following the other. This in turn implies that all vehicles in a lane
travel at about the same speed. Homogeneous speeds promote both
efficiency and safety. The corollary to this is "If you can't keep up,
you don't belong." If there is more than one lane going in a direction
on a roadway, then faster vehicles use the left lane to pass. On a
two-lane road, either faster vehicles use the opposing lane to pass or
slower vehicles turn out when it is safe to do so. In any case, the
roadway is divided into travel lanes, which are designed to be used by
one vehicle at a time. I call this system the "travel lane paradigm."
In the travel lane paradigm, the only users of lanes are motor vehicle
drivers. Pedestrians are accommodated along roads on sidewalks and
across roads in crosswalks. Since bicycles typically travel slower than
motor vehicles, they do not fit into the travel lane paradigm. Instead,
bicyclists are tolerated on the roads only as long as they stay out of
the way of cars (the same way it was before lanes were striped).
Motorists are simply responding to the travel lane paradigm as created
by the highway and traffic engineers. In particular, motorists learn
that not keeping up with traffic is a sin and by implication travel
lanes are for motor vehicles only. By staying out of the way of cars the
same way as before lanes were striped, edge and sidewalk riding
bicyclists reinforce the view that roadways in general and travel lanes
in particular are for motor vehicles only.
It is the travel lane paradigm that marginalizes bicyclists and makes
bicycling less safe and efficient than it might be otherwise. Advocates
of bicycle driving challenge the travel lane paradigm by saying that
bicyclists should have equal access to travel lanes, even though the
typically lower speeds of bicycles would disrupt the orderly flow of
vehicles on roadways. Bicycle driving advocates say that bicyclists fare
best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. That would be
a huge change to the travel lane paradigm and a challenge to the
dominance of motor vehicles on our roadways. When this change was
presented to the National Committee on Traffic Laws and Ordinances in
1975, they rejected it. Even in the states where the law was changed to
give bicyclists equal access to travel lanes, reports are that
bicyclists still act as though they have to stay out of the way of cars.
Bikeway advocates on the other hand accept the travel lane paradigm as a
given. Bikeway advocates say that although bicyclists belong on roads,
they do not belong on roadways. Bikeway advocates say that the way
bicyclists should be accommodated on roads is with a parallel set of
bikeways, analogous to sidewalks (which some call "sidepaths").. They
say that bicyclists are a third type of road user (after drivers and
pedestrians) and that they fare best when they act and are treated as
something other than drivers of vehicles or pedestrians. This would
require a change in the traffic laws as well as a massive construction
effort to build these sidepaths plus a massive education effort to teach
bicyclists and motorists how to interact wherever they cross each paths.
In northern Europe, for instance, turning motorists are required to
yield to through bicyclists passing on their right (not always
successfully, I may add). That is the system being promoted in Oregon.
Elsewhere in the US, we still have the system where bicyclists have the
rights and duties of drivers of vehicles except that bicyclists are
expected to stay out of the way of cars, except for some little known
exceptions. What a mess! No wonder bicycling is not safer more popular
in the US than it is.
In my view, the marginalization of bicyclists started with the travel
lane paradigm. I put the blame for bicycling not being safer and more
popular than it is at the feet of highway and traffic engineers who
created the travel lane paradigm and painted travel lanes on virtually
every road of any importance without considering the impact their
actions would have on bicyclists.
Bob Shanteau
and traffic engineers dividing roadways into lanes. Lane width is
determined by the width of the design vehicle, typically a large truck.
The maximum width of a vehicle is normally 8.5' plus 10" mirrors on each
side, so a typical lane is 10-12' wide. Lanes are not designed for two
vehicles to travel side by side in parallel. Instead they are designed
to be used in serial, with vehicles traveling sequentially, one
following the other. This in turn implies that all vehicles in a lane
travel at about the same speed. Homogeneous speeds promote both
efficiency and safety. The corollary to this is "If you can't keep up,
you don't belong." If there is more than one lane going in a direction
on a roadway, then faster vehicles use the left lane to pass. On a
two-lane road, either faster vehicles use the opposing lane to pass or
slower vehicles turn out when it is safe to do so. In any case, the
roadway is divided into travel lanes, which are designed to be used by
one vehicle at a time. I call this system the "travel lane paradigm."
In the travel lane paradigm, the only users of lanes are motor vehicle
drivers. Pedestrians are accommodated along roads on sidewalks and
across roads in crosswalks. Since bicycles typically travel slower than
motor vehicles, they do not fit into the travel lane paradigm. Instead,
bicyclists are tolerated on the roads only as long as they stay out of
the way of cars (the same way it was before lanes were striped).
Motorists are simply responding to the travel lane paradigm as created
by the highway and traffic engineers. In particular, motorists learn
that not keeping up with traffic is a sin and by implication travel
lanes are for motor vehicles only. By staying out of the way of cars the
same way as before lanes were striped, edge and sidewalk riding
bicyclists reinforce the view that roadways in general and travel lanes
in particular are for motor vehicles only.
It is the travel lane paradigm that marginalizes bicyclists and makes
bicycling less safe and efficient than it might be otherwise. Advocates
of bicycle driving challenge the travel lane paradigm by saying that
bicyclists should have equal access to travel lanes, even though the
typically lower speeds of bicycles would disrupt the orderly flow of
vehicles on roadways. Bicycle driving advocates say that bicyclists fare
best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. That would be
a huge change to the travel lane paradigm and a challenge to the
dominance of motor vehicles on our roadways. When this change was
presented to the National Committee on Traffic Laws and Ordinances in
1975, they rejected it. Even in the states where the law was changed to
give bicyclists equal access to travel lanes, reports are that
bicyclists still act as though they have to stay out of the way of cars.
Bikeway advocates on the other hand accept the travel lane paradigm as a
given. Bikeway advocates say that although bicyclists belong on roads,
they do not belong on roadways. Bikeway advocates say that the way
bicyclists should be accommodated on roads is with a parallel set of
bikeways, analogous to sidewalks (which some call "sidepaths").. They
say that bicyclists are a third type of road user (after drivers and
pedestrians) and that they fare best when they act and are treated as
something other than drivers of vehicles or pedestrians. This would
require a change in the traffic laws as well as a massive construction
effort to build these sidepaths plus a massive education effort to teach
bicyclists and motorists how to interact wherever they cross each paths.
In northern Europe, for instance, turning motorists are required to
yield to through bicyclists passing on their right (not always
successfully, I may add). That is the system being promoted in Oregon.
Elsewhere in the US, we still have the system where bicyclists have the
rights and duties of drivers of vehicles except that bicyclists are
expected to stay out of the way of cars, except for some little known
exceptions. What a mess! No wonder bicycling is not safer more popular
in the US than it is.
In my view, the marginalization of bicyclists started with the travel
lane paradigm. I put the blame for bicycling not being safer and more
popular than it is at the feet of highway and traffic engineers who
created the travel lane paradigm and painted travel lanes on virtually
every road of any importance without considering the impact their
actions would have on bicyclists.
Bob Shanteau
Serge Issakov
Oct 16, 2012, 7:15:51 PM10/16/12
to Bob Shanteau, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Bob,
What you are calling the travel lane paradigm (I like it), I have referred to in the past as "freeway mentality". Maybe we could merge terms and get 'freeway travel lane paradigm"? I think "freeway" is important to get in there, because much of what you say about travel lane expectations applies to varying degrees on different types of roads... the most on freeways, the least on narrow/slow/busy urban streets. That is, the expectation of unimpeded travel applies much more on freeways than on downtown streets, and somewhere in between on typical arterials.
I think it's imperative to distinguish freeways from surface streets (my generic term for non-freeways), and keep reminding everyone that bicyclists are far from the only impediments to constant-speed travel in travel lanes on surface streets. We have traffic entering and merging, stop signs, red lights, traffic circles, pedestrians crossing, taxis and buses slowing and stopping, other types of slow moving vehicles, drivers slowing to look for addresses or places to park, even stopping and reversing to park (parallel), congestion, etc., etc. To single out and try to exclude bicyclists for causing occasional changing of lanes or slowing is really, truly ridiculous and indefensible.
The "travel lane paradigm" must be rejected on surface streets. I suggest we do that by renaming it to be the "freeway travel lane paradigm", and pointing out that it's a mistake to apply the "freeway travel lane paradigm" to expectations on surface streets.
Serge
Bob Shanteau
--
To post: bicycledriving@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
To unsubscribe: bicycledriving+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
Trevor Bourget
Oct 17, 2012, 2:03:09 AM10/17/12
to Bob Shanteau, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the marginalization of bicyclists started with the travel lane paradigm. I put the blame for bicycling not being safer and more popular than it is at the feet of highway and traffic engineers who created the travel lane paradigm and painted travel lanes on virtually every road of any importance without considering the impact their actions would have on bicyclists.
One of my favorite ideas is to put speed governor in all motor vehicles that can only be overridden by pedaling on a "gas pedal" cycle attached to the floor. People who want to travel faster would have to work harder.
Either safer drivers or fitter Americans or both would result. Flintstones had it right in some ways, while Jetsons clearly had it mostly wrong.
-- trevor
Bob Sutterfield
Oct 17, 2012, 5:03:43 PM10/17/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Trevor Bourget wrote:
The safest motoring/bicycling I saw was in Germany on roads that are narrow (sometimes only enough for one moving and one parking lane) and unmarked, and maximum speed is under 35mph.
Are you making a safety claim or a comfort observation? Be careful not to fall into the conflation error. That way lies madness, and cycletracks.
Wayne Pein
Oct 17, 2012, 5:34:48 PM10/17/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I don't think it is travel lanes per se that are the problem; it's how
they're used. Had early legislators made it clear that lanes are for one
vehicle at a time, including for bicycle vehicles, and bicyclists
controlled the lane, perhpas things would be different.
Wayne
>
> In my view, the marginalization of bicyclists started with the travel
> lane paradigm. I put the blame for bicycling not being safer and more
> popular than it is at the feet of highway and traffic engineers who
> created the travel lane paradigm and painted travel lanes on virtually
> every road of any importance without considering the impact their
> actions would have on bicyclists.
>
> Bob Shanteau
>
--
Wayne
www.bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com
www.humantransport.org
www.bicyclinglife.com
they're used. Had early legislators made it clear that lanes are for one
vehicle at a time, including for bicycle vehicles, and bicyclists
controlled the lane, perhpas things would be different.
Wayne
>
> In my view, the marginalization of bicyclists started with the travel
> lane paradigm. I put the blame for bicycling not being safer and more
> popular than it is at the feet of highway and traffic engineers who
> created the travel lane paradigm and painted travel lanes on virtually
> every road of any importance without considering the impact their
> actions would have on bicyclists.
>
> Bob Shanteau
>
Wayne
www.bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com
www.humantransport.org
www.bicyclinglife.com
Bob Shanteau
Oct 20, 2012, 8:04:34 AM10/20/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
On 10/17/2012 2:34 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:
> I don't think it is travel lanes per se that are the problem; it's how
> they're used. Had early legislators made it clear that lanes are for
> one vehicle at a time, including for bicycle vehicles, and bicyclists
> controlled the lane, perhpas things would be different.
Yes, of course. That is in fact what we are proposing now when we
> I don't think it is travel lanes per se that are the problem; it's how
> they're used. Had early legislators made it clear that lanes are for
> one vehicle at a time, including for bicycle vehicles, and bicyclists
> controlled the lane, perhpas things would be different.
advocate for repeal of the FTR law. But as we know, motorists "hate to
go slow." Even had legislators wisely decided not to adopt the FTR law
and instead passed laws saying that bicyclists were entitled to use of a
full lane (as the NCUTLO did later for motorcyclists), I think motorists
would still have campaigned for bicyclists to be pushed to the side for
to facilitate the movement of faster traffic.
In 1975, the NCUTLO's Panel on Bicycle Laws proposed changing the
definition of vehicle to once again include bicycle along with
everything that resulted from that, including deleting the FTR provision
ov the UVC. As we know, the NCUTLO accepted virtually everything the
Panel on Bicycle Laws recommended EXCEPT deleting the FTR provision. I
have yet to find the minutes of that meeting, but in California when a
proposal was made to basically reverse the logic of the FTR law in 2003,
a legislative aide asked of the Caltrans legislative liaison, "I just
want to make sure that we're not creating a jailbreak here." Similarly,
in Hawaii, BikeMom tells us that there is concern that if the FTR law
there is repealed that HPD is "afraid bicyclists will always be in the
lane if the language is changed."
In the early years of motoring, lane lines in urban areas were not
common, But as lane lines in urban areas proliferated, local agencies
passed laws requiring bicyclists to ride at the right edge regardless of
lane stripes, as Tacoma, WA, did by 1940 (based on a court ruling I
found from there), leading to the NCUTLO adopting such a provision in 1944.
The way I see it, travel lanes along with the "right of speed" caused
the marginalization of bicyclists. If that is the case, then what does
that tell us about the likelihood of legislators repealing the FTR laws
today? The chances are not good, I'm afraid.
Bob Shanteau
Bob Shanteau
Oct 20, 2012, 1:15:36 PM10/20/12
to Bicycle Driving
On 10/20/2012 8:53 AM, beck michaels
wrote:
As to the paradigms associated with the travel lane, a joke -
why do cyclists NEED cyclists specific laws allowing us to control a 12 foot lane of traffic?
Because that's the width of a lane, and a lane is not meant to be used by more than one line of vehicles. But because car drivers can usually overtake an edge riding bicyclist without changing lanes, they think they can do it all the time without incident. Safety, though, is not about "usually," it's about "always."
If the driver of a car that is 5' wide can safely pass a bicyclist without changing lanes, then what about the driver of an SUV that is 6' wide, or the driver of a pickup truck that is 7' wide, or the driver of truck that is 8' wide, or the driver of a transit bus that is 8.5' wide? Is it any wonder that people don't "feel" safe riding a bicycle in a 12' lane?
I have heard some people, including traffic engineers, refer to travel lanes as "vehicle lanes," which would be fine if people thought of bicycles as vehicles. The fact that they don't is why bicycling is not safer or more popular than it is.
From what I can figure out, the common line of reasoning goes like this:
(1) Lanes are intended for one line of vehicles
(2) Lanes are sized for large trucks
(3) Motorists hate to go slow
(4) Bicycles are narrow and bicyclists usually can't go as fast as motorists want to go
(5) Bicyclists are vulnerable
(6) Bicycles and motor vehicles don't mix
(7) Bicyclists need to ride at the edge and "stay out of the way of cars"
(8) Bicycles are not vehicles
(9) Travel lanes are actually "car lanes"
(10) There is "no room on the road for bicycles"
(11) We need to build a parallel network for bicycles like we have for pedestrians
Bob Shanteau
Fred Oswald
Oct 20, 2012, 9:02:01 PM10/20/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Bob Shanteau wrote something that we should all print out, frame and hang in the middle of the family room.
Safety, though, is not about "usually," it's about "always."
Safety is our strongest argument. However, we must be able to explain to the clueless why safety is compromised by riding in the gutter. And with most "bicycle advocates" including our bicycle friendly national organization demanding more seats on the back of the bus, this will not be easy.
Fred Oswald
Wayne Pein
Oct 21, 2012, 10:24:22 PM10/21/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Bob, You've done great work in chronicling the history of FTR. Thanks
for that.
I think advocates should make that case that riding near the side
collapses the Space Cushion
(http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/infrastructure/the-space-cushion/) which
increases the risk of several collision mechanisms. Bicycles are like
motorcycles; why should one have less space and safety when using a
bicycle? Make the case that when going slow you need more space from
relatively fast passing motorists, not less.
Wayne
for that.
I think advocates should make that case that riding near the side
collapses the Space Cushion
(http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/infrastructure/the-space-cushion/) which
increases the risk of several collision mechanisms. Bicycles are like
motorcycles; why should one have less space and safety when using a
bicycle? Make the case that when going slow you need more space from
relatively fast passing motorists, not less.
Wayne
beck michaels
Oct 22, 2012, 11:39:23 PM10/22/12
to Serge Issakov, Bicycle Driving
From: Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com>
"............................The way I see it, travel lanes along with the "right of speed" caused the marginalization of bicyclists. If that is the case, then what does that tell us about the likelihood of legislators repealing the FTR laws today? The chances are not good, I'm afraid."
Bob Shanteau
bob's last couple of sentences make a good point.
whatever riders think of these bicyclist specific lane control directives, they are in evidence in over 40 states, and a handful of the remaining states have restrictive slow moving vehicle FRAP or FTR (sic) if you prefer, that regulate a bicyclist to the right under a lot of traffic conditions. And all states will have these SMV-FRAP laws, which may or may not be written/interpreted in favor of
cyclists controlling the travel lane. As we can see from some states,
SMV-LAWS can very well regulate bikes to the right on all manner of roadways. Serge mentioned the very restrictive nature of Kentucky's SMV-FRAP (FTR sic) law a couple of weeks ago in a post to the group.
The chance of repealing these laws is slim.
However, many states allow bicyclists to
control the lane under a wide, exhaustive list of cyclist-specific exceptions in laws that allow bicyclists to control travel lanes
under many circumstances. Look at the promotional materials coming out of Florida and the FBA, or the commentary associated with the Ohio 'impeding traffic' Selz v Trotwood ruling. Even 'bikes may use full lane' signs are recognition predicated on bicyclist specific metrics that lanes are too narrow to share safely.
Since repeal is slim, a far better tactic for cyclists looking to enhance our road rights is to STRENGTHEN public perceptions of safe cycling under these laws, and strengthening the wording of these laws to allow bicyclists broad allowances to 'control the lane'. California's or the UVC's standard exceptions
are quite exhaustive; even better is Colorado's bike law that explicitly calls for bicyclists moving slower than traffic to control the entire lane, and only share it when safe.
Calls to repeal laws that stand a slim chance of repeal doesn't make sense.
It also doesn't make sense to waste bicyclists political capital on fighting this unlikely fight,
particularly since many of the states' bicyclist specific laws are written to be quite permissive in cyclists rights to control the lane.
As to the paradigms associated with the travel lane, a joke -
why do cyclists NEED cyclists specific laws allowing us to control a 12 foot lane of traffic?
Because we will NEVER, repeat NEVER, get motorists to understand why a 3 foot wide bicyclist needs 12 feet of space.
I'm going to recommend the tactic of 'strong laws for bicyclists' similar to Colorado's.
Fighting rights is
paradoxical.
Beck
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages