Posted by: John Forester on Chainguard
\n Date: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:58 am ((PDT))<\/p>\n
The issue regarding control of lanes by cyclists, precisely stated, is:
\n
1: Cyclists should have the same legal right of lane control as other
\ndrivers of vehicles. This can be called the slow vehicle law case.
\nor
\n
2: Cyclists should be assumed to have no right to control lanes, but
\nmust always act to allow the easiest overtaking by any potential faster
\ntraffic, unless failure to control the lane is dangerous. This can be
\ncalled the Far To the Right law case.<\/p>\n
That’s the issue.<\/p>\n
2.1: The FTR case has been public policy for decades, and it has been
\nsupported by three arguments:<\/p>\n
2.1.1: Cyclists are not capable of obeying the normal rules of the road,
\nand therefore are endangered if they don’t stay at the edge of the
\nroadway. This is an assertion based on the notion that cyclists are
\nyoung children, who are assumed to be safe only if they stay at the edge
\nof the roadway. Both parts are false. Most roadway cyclists are not
\nyoung children, but are sufficiently old to obey the normal rules of the
\nroad. Furthermore, roadway cycling safety requires that cyclists often
\noperate away from the edge of the roadway, so that those who do not know
\nhow to do this safely are endangered. Cyclists need to be trained to
\noperate properly.
\n
2.1.2: Having cyclists operate at the edge of the roadway keeps them
\nsafe from fast traffic. This argument assumes that fast motorists will
\nalways leave sufficient room at the edge of the roadway to accommodate
\nbicycle traffic, which is false, and it exonerates motorists who are so
\ncareless that they drive right into slower vehicles, which is seriously
\nunlawful behavior.
\n
2.1.3: Having cyclists operate at the edge of the roadway, despite the
\nexceptions for safety, will produce less delay to motorists than
\nallowing cyclists to operate as drivers of vehicles. This argument is
\nvery weak. The only condition in which the cyclist’s lateral position on
\nthe roadway might be changed to allow a motorist, who has no other safe
\nchoice than to stay behind the cyclist, to safely overtake, is if the
\ncyclist is using a lane that is wider than standard. If the lane is
\nstandard-width or narrow, which is the typical case, the cyclist can do
\nnothing to make safe overtaking possible within that lane. Only if the
\ncyclist is operating in a wide outside lane, might there be adequate
\nwidth for safe overtaking. Only in the limited case when there is
\nadequate width in the outside lane for safe overtaking, does the FTR law
\nrequire that the cyclist stay far right to facilitate overtaking by
\nfaster traffic. That is all the advantage that the FTR law can provide.<\/p>\n
2.2: The FTR case has been public policy for decades, and it has
\nproduced the following ill effects:
\n
2.2.1: The public belief that staying at the edge of the roadway is both
\nnecessary and sufficient for cyclist safety persuades cyclists that they
\nshould not leave the edge of the roadway and, therefore, would not
\nbenefit from better knowledge and skill in operating according to the
\nrules of the road.
\n
2.2.2: Motorists believe that there is always room for cyclists to move
\naside safely, simply because the FTR law says that there is.
\n
2.2.3:Some motorists believe that the FTR law expresses the right of
\nmotorists to always travel faster than bicycles, that bicycle traffic is
\nprohibited from slowing down motor traffic.
\n<\/p>\n
1: The slow vehicle law case has been public policy for decades for all
\ndrivers except bicyclists.
\n
1.1: The SVL has worked satisfactorily without ill effects.
\n
1.1.1: The slow vehicle law has worked satisfactorily, for it has not
\nhad to be modified in decades. There is no reason why it would not work
\nas well if applied to cyclists.
\n
1.1.2: The slow vehicle law provides the same opportunities for
\nmotorists to overtake cyclists as does the FTR law, as argued in 2.1.3.
\nThere would be no difference when either law is applied reasonably.
\n
1.1.3: The slow vehicle law, being applicable to drivers of all
\nvehicles, has to be administered and enforced in the way that is
\napplicable to all drivers. Enforcement according to the views of 2.1.1,
\n2.1.2, and 2.1.3, which apply only to bicycle traffic (even if not true)
\nwould be found unacceptable by the courts.<\/p>\n
1.2: The SVL would not produce the following ill effects.
\n
1.2.1: The SVL could not be interpreted as protecting children and the
\nelderly.
\n
1.2.2: The SVL could not be interpreted as demonstrating the superiority
\nof motorists over cyclists.<\/p>\n
In the light of the preceding discussion, there are two issues.
\n
3: The FTR law is based on, and allows the expression of, and encourages
\nthe behavior in accordance with, views that are both false and socially
\nundesirable.
\n
3.1: People who ride bicycles are not capable of operating lawfully and
\ntherefore should be limited as much as possible.
\n
3.2: People who ride bicycles are much less important than people who
\ndrive automobiles, and therefore should demonstrate their subservience
\nby keeping out of the way.
\n
3.3: Expression of either of these views increases the danger of
\nbicycling, by persuading cyclists to act incompetently and by
\nencouraging motorists to act aggressively.<\/p>\n
The only operating issue between the FTR and the SVL laws concerns
\noperation in wide outside lanes. In all other circumstances, safety
\ndemands operation according to the other rules of the road for drivers
\nof vehicles.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the only real issue concerns who or what determines the
\nsafety of lane-sharing in wide outside lanes. The FTR law declares that
\nit is always safe to share wide outside lanes, unless the cyclist can
\ndemonstrate, after the fact and to others, that it would have been
\ndangerous. The SVL law leaves it up to the cyclist to determine whether
\nlane-sharing would be safe and, then, whether courtesy suggests that the
\ncyclist move over. Clearly, the FTR law encourages the oppression of
\ncyclists by people with both little knowledge of the fact and other
\ncontrary interests. Equally clearly, the SVL law is based on
\ndetermination of the facts by the person in the best situation to know
\nthem (the cyclist is clearly in the best situation to determine the
\nrelative safety of different paths on the roadway) and the application
\nof normal courtesy by that person. Which is most desirable,
\ndiscriminatory oppression or safe courtesy?oldId.20090415075504140<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Posted by: John Forester on Chainguard Date: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:58 am ((PDT)) The issue regarding control of lanes by cyclists, precisely stated, is: 1: Cyclists should have the same legal right of lane control as other drivers of vehicles. This can be called the slow vehicle law case. or 2: Cyclists should be … <\/p>\n