government and rules of the road cycling
John Forester
Committee, in which rules of the road cyclists were prominent,
indicating that government would work only through government's
Bicycling & Walking Committee.
To which I replied:
I've seen this for years. And told you about it. Now the rest of you
need to learn. Government wants nothing to do with rules of the road
cycling and those who do it. Government opposes the principle of rules
of the road cycling. It is up to us, alone, to promote, preserve, and
protect rules of the road cycling. Those who might aid us are not bike
advocates, environmentalists, traffic police, or any others like that.
Those who might aid us would be those concerned with good government,
having a tidy consistent set of rules of the road, those concerned with
the purpose of the public road system, those really concerned about
traffic safety, and the like. It is up to us to promote, preserve, and
protect rules of the road cycling.
To which Serge replied with a picture of the Bicycles May Use Full Lane
(BMUFL) sign, implying that this sign indicates governmental approval of
rules of the road cycling. Getting approval for this sign apparently
took a big battle (I was not part of this) so that those who got it can
claim a victory against Motordom, but this sign does not in any way
indicate governmental approval of rules of the road cycling. Indeed, if
government approved of rules of the road cycling there would never be
any need for such signs. The BMUFL sign indicates only that one specific
condition exists at its location, the narrow-lane exception to the Far
To The Right law that California cyclists got into California traffic
law in 1976 (and which has been copied in almost all other states). That
says that where a traffic lane is too narrow for a motorist to safely
overtake a cyclist within that lane at normal speed, the motorist must
either slow down or change lanes to overtake. BMUFL signs are installed
where the roadway is too narrow for a bike lane, which government would
rather have. But where it can't get a bike lane, but still wants
something there for cyclists, it puts up BMUFL signs. In no way does
that indicate governmental approval for rules of the road cycling.
Rather, it indicates specific disapproval of rules of the road cycling,
because if government approved of rules of the road cycling there would
never be any need for BMUFL signs.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945
619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com
Serge Issakov
I too understand the battle to get the BMUFL sign in the MUTCD was difficult and long (about 10 years), but now that it's in it's relatively easy to get GOVERNMENT agencies to post it wherever appropriate, which like you say, at least in the San Diego area, is pretty much anywhere there is insufficient space for a bike lane.
However, it seems to me that the need for the sign is not due to lack of government approval of rules of the road cycling, but due to widespread culture ignorance (by cyclists and law enforcement as well as the public at large) about the safety and comfort benefits of full lane use which underlie the narrow lane exception. That widespread ignorance in turn forms the foundation of the governmental regulation of cyclist positioning on roadways, which is simply a reflection of this widespread cultural ignorance. In other words, the root problem is the cultural ignorance, not the governmental policy, though of course there is a feedback loop in there. But initiatives like BMUFL and sharrows are helping to break the cycle.
For example, a video like this one just published by Bike Norfolk, espousing the benefits of full lane use, was practically unheard of 10 years ago when Dan & Brian were just getting started, and is now getting almost commonplace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izW43fiaq1I&sns=fb
I'd like to add that I think characterizing the government and cultural policies and views about cycling as disapproval of rules of the road cycling is misleading. After all, all states generally recognize bicyclists as drivers, and everyone generally expects cyclists to obey the rules of the roads. Further, drivers of other slow moving vehicles get "special" treatment - it's not just bicyclists. For one example, look at the current SB1151 bill in California being proposed regarding special rules of the roads for drivers of NEVs; much worse than what is imposed on cyclists, but still unfairly characterized as a reflection of the government's disapproval of "rules of the road NEV driving".
We still have a long way to go, to be sure, and not everything is moving in the right direction, but much of it is. I, for one, seek to encourage that to continue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
John Forester
Serge and I have slightly different points of view regarding
government and rules of the road cycling. He asserts that the root
cause of governmental disapproval of rules of the road cycling is
due to "widespread cultural ignorance", as if this ignorance had
simply appeared out of nowhere. First, this is not at all
ignorance; it is the deliberately created view that motorists are
legitimate roadway users and cyclists are not. This was created by
Motordom (a name that motorists chose for themselves) to make
motoring more convenient by frightening cyclists off the roads.
Yes, frightening cyclists of same-direction motor traffic. That
fear is contrary to the car-bike collision facts, for
same-direction motor traffic causes only 5% of car-bike
collisions. Motordom's campaign to frighten cyclists of
same-direction motor traffic has been so successful that most
Americans suffer from the cyclist-inferiority phobia and Motordom
got laws to prohibit cyclists from operating as normal drivers of
vehicles. Not that Serge writes "all states generally recognize
bicyclists as drivers." What Serge doesn't write is that that
recognition is of drivers who are acutely endangered by
same-direction motor traffic, are not capable of operating safely
according to the rules of the road, and therefore must be
restricted more tightly than other drivers. Of course this is
nonsense; it is the belief and legal system created by Motordom to
make motoring more convenient.
So, Serge's argument that displaying the Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign (BMUFL) indicates that government favors rules of the road cycling is incorrect. It says that one part of the cyclist-inferiority laws doesn't apply at this particular location. By doing so it validates the general principle of cyclist inferiority at all other locations rather than showing governmental approval of rules of the road cycling. I repeat, we rules of the road cyclists are the only road-using group that promotes and defends the equal legitimacy of cyclists with other drivers of vehicles. Those tasks of promotion and defense must be done by us, because nobody else is going to do it for us.
As a side issue, Serge seems not to understand what rules of the
road cycling is. The definition has been long standing. Rules of
the road cycling, otherwise called vehicular cycling, is cycling
according to the rules of the road that apply to all drivers of
vehicles.
Serge Issakov
John,
Would you define "rules of the road NEV driving" as "driving NEVs according to the rules of the road that apply to all drivers of vehicles"? Otherwise called "Vehicular NEVing", perhaps? And would you argue that the government has no interest in "rules of the road NEV driving"?
I just think that language in these terms is misleading in a number of ways.
Most people I know, including most cyclists I know, genuinely believe that it makes sense for slow moving cyclists to keep far right; as close to the right edge as is safe and reasonable (which is generally closer to the edge than I believe is safe and reasonable, but that's a different issue). I think they would believe this regardless of what the law says, as in the few states where the law does not have this requirement, like North Carolina, there is no significant different in belief about this, as far as I know. And, again, in states that do have FTR, including CA, the law just reflects this widespread belief. And the underlying belief has much more to do with slow moving traffic in general and the beliefs about how that affects normal speed of traffic, and has nothing to do with bicycles in particular. This is why I keep bringing up the NEV example, because that demonstrates the problem is not specific to bicycles, but to slow movement and the perceived associated safety, impeding and passing issues.
So the real issue is that most people exaggerate to themselves the magnitude of the slower traffic "problem".
Another reason I'm optimistic is that I believe the introduction of self-driving vehicles into the mix will help with this, because they will demonstrate how much less slow traffic affects safety and trip time than most seem to believe it does.
John Forester
Serge raises several issues all mixed up together. To make sense we need to separate these issues. Serge mixes so-called safety and delay, and he mixes NEVs and other slow-moving vehicles and bicycles.
I consider the so-called safety issue first. It is well known that the American public considers cycling in traffic to be quite dangerous and that the danger comes from same-direction motor traffic. If anyone wants to argue that this is not the American public opinion about the safety of cycling in traffic we can argue this elsewhere; for this discussion I consider this an axiom. This fear applies to cyclists and bicycles. It does not apply to horse drawn carriages, to equestrians, to NEVs, nor to other slowly-moving vehicles. This fear controls society's and government's attitudes toward cycling and the traffic laws about cycling. Because this fear is contrary to fact and controls action, it is a phobia, named the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Its history need not be told here.
Delay caused by slowly-moving vehicles is a different issue that has very little of the emotional power of the so-called bicycle safety issue. We have one regulation regarding low vehicular speeds, that which requires that vehicles using freeways be capable of maintaining 40 miles per hour; vehicles that cannot maintain that speed are prohibited from freeways. We could consider whether we should have a class of vehicle capable only of some lower speed, with appropriate restrictions on its use. The first consideration is that normal (non-freeway) streets must be capable of operating with both very slow traffic and traffic moving up to the speed limit at any location. I know that motorist-supremacy ideologues like to argue that all traffic ought to be operating at the speed limit, but that is not practical. I argue that the normal street traffic operating system must accommodate traffic that is operating at any speed between very slowly and the local speed limit. A system that did not provide this type of service would not enable cities to exist. If anyone chooses to argue this axiom we can have that discussion elsewhere. Since the normal street system has to handle this range of speeds, there is no need for some class of medium-speed vehicles with special restrictions on their use.
===========================
Serge also introduces a new discussion about nomenclature. He
suggests that someone might object to the restrictions applied to
NEV use, and insist on driving an NEV while violating the NEV
restrictions but obeying the rules of the road for drivers of
vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of this occurring. Serge
suggests calling this "vehicular NEVing". So what? But Serge adds
in another issue, asking me whether this would indicate that the
government has no interest in "rules of the road NEV driving"?
Well, the fact that government has issued the restrictions on NEV
use demonstrates that government has no desire, no interest in,
having NEVs operating only according to the rules of the road for
drivers of vehicles.
__._,_.___
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (4)
Have you tried the highest rated email app?With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[[[[[ PLEASE REMOVE UNNEEDED MATERIAL ON REPLIES ]]]]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding address shown below:
Subscribe: chainguard...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: chainguard-...@yahoogroups.com
Switch to Digest Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
Normal Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
To e-mail system: http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
.
__,_._,___
