Deal or No-Deal?

Here's a somewhat lengthy essay for your perusal and attention. If this piques your interest (or someone you know) then you might also want to take the Traffic Skill 101 class offered by the Morgantown Bicycle Board and learn more.
Register here
Or, check out other opportunities and dates here

Bob Shanteau, PhD, PE has decades of traffic engineering experience and accomplishments crafting the traffic laws that we have today. In the essay below, he explains how cyclists have come to have to battle for our right to the road and how some bicycling advocates can be unwittingly working to lose that right. In the essay below, he is responding to 4 questions asked by another member of bicycledriving@googlegroups.com.

1) Bob, is it fair to say that you think cyclists should never share the road when it is safe to do so, or are you okay with sharing the lane and road when it is safe for you to do so?

By "share the road", I assume you mean moving to the right edge of the roadway or on a paved shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass.

In general terms, I believe that bicyclists should "share the road" whenever a driver of a vehicle in similar circumstances should. The problem is that, for all practical purposes, there are no drivers of vehicles in circumstances that are similar to what a bicyclist faces. The dominant vehicle on the roads today is the motor vehicle, virtually all of which can travel at freeway speeds. As a result, people treat every road as though it were a freeway, where the rule is, "if you can't keep up, you don't belong." Since bicyclists usually can't keep up, they are expected to stay out of the way. Bicyclists are narrow enough that they can sulk along at the edge of the road, out of the way of faster traffic. It's as if bicyclists had a "deal" with motorists: Motorists will tolerate bicyclists on the roads as long as bicyclists stay out of their way.

I recall a conversation with a CHP Lieutenant a few years ago who said that he would stop anyone going slower than other traffic for impeding, and anyone going faster than the speed limit for speeding. It is a common belief that the roads are safer and more orderly if everyone goes at about the same speed. And a few months ago, during a meeting of the California Statewide Bicycle Task Force, a CHP Captain said that he was not willing to accept revising California's impeding traffic law, which now applies to all drivers (including bicyclists), so that it applied only to drivers of motor vehicles, as in the Uniform Vehicle Code and the traffic laws of about 44 other states. So it should come as no surprise that almost no one knows how to treat a vehicle that is traveling slower than other traffic, and almost everyone believes that bicyclists acting as drivers of vehicles would disrupt the safe and orderly flow of traffic.

When I asked Beck about how the rules of the road apply to a slow motorcyclist, he answered:

motorcycle and have little concern for the rights of motorcyclists. i suspect smv, low cc motor vehicles have fairly strict road use requirements in CA far stricter than the cyclist allowances,

Actually, the provision granting motorcyclists to use of a full lane is in the Uniform Vehicle Code, but not the California Vehicle Code. The CHP FAQ http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html says that motorcyclists can split lanes to pass slower traffic, but says nothing about whether slower motorcyclists must move to the right edge of the right lane to allow faster traffic to pass. (A shoulder is not part of the roadway, and vehicles are allowed only on roadways in California.)

Beck's comment about slow moving low cc motor vehicles having stricter road use requirements in CA than bicycles is true. That is but one more symptom of freeway thinking carried over to conventional streets and highways. It is one more manifestation of the belief, "if you can't keep up, you don't belong." Bicycles are just about the only slow moving vehicles (devices in CA) on the roads today. That is because bicycles were originally recognized as vehicles and organizations such as the LAW have, for the most part, been able to fight off challenges to the right of bicyclists to use the roads. But now that status is being challenged by well intentioned people who believe that, for their own good, bicyclists should be treated as something other than drivers of vehicles. If these people get their way, we may very well see bicyclists deprived of the right to use the roads as drivers of vehicles.

With that introduction and the proviso that I am not a lawyer, I will now attempt to answer your questions. In your questions, you do not specify whether the road in question has lanes or not. Originally, all roads were unlaned, and on such roads the law is that drivers of slow moving vehicles, including bicyclists, must drive as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (CVC 21654(a) and UVC 11-301(b))

On a laned road, it has been the law since the 1930's that drivers (and bicyclists) proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (CVC 21654(a) and UVC 11-301(b)) California has a law requiring drivers of slow moving vehicles on two-lane roads to take the next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following. (CVC 21656)

2) Should mature, adult cyclists ride safely right to share the road if safe when faster traffic is present?

At the start of a recent meeting of the Statewide Bicycle Task Force, the same CHP Lieutenant talked about how everyone on the road needs to be courteous. And the same CHP Captain complained about a group of bicyclists on a two lane road in the Napa Valley were delaying him and a bunch of other motorists. Alan Wachtel, Jim Baross and I explained that if there were 5 or more vehicles following, those bicyclists were required to take the next safe turnout to allow faster traffic to pass. Apparently that was news to the CHP Captain, and if we had been able to ask the bicyclists, it probably would have been news to them, too.

To answer your question, I believe that a bicyclist on a two lane road has the same duty as the driver of a vehicle to take the next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following. On a multilane road, I believe that a bicyclist has the same duty as the driver of a vehicle to use the right lane.

Consider someone driving a fully loaded truck, a recreational vehicle or an old VW bus slowly climbing a steep upgrade. On a two lane road, that driver is required to use the next safe turnout when 5 or more vehicles are following (although that law is honored more in the breach than in the observance). On a multilane road, that driver is required to use the right lane. In fact, there is even an exception in the impeding traffic law for grades. (CVC 22400)

As a courtesy, some drivers of slow moving vehicles, particularly on two lane roads, will drive on a shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass (if the shoulder is paved and the pavement is in good shape). In California, bicyclists are explicitly allowed to operate on shoulders (CVC 21650(g)), and as a courtesy, that is generally where bicyclists ride if the shoulder is paved and the pavement is in good shape, even on multilane roads. But the law does not require bicyclists to use, in Andy Clarke's words, "a perfectly rideable shoulder." Otherwise, courts would be in the position of second guessing bicyclists about when the shoulder was perfectly rideable. It would also be a denial of the right of bicyclists to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles, which is something that groups like the LAW have been defending since the 1880's.

3) Is the notion of road sharing somehow beneath vehicular cyclists?

You didn't say, but I will assume that you mean sharing a lane side by side with faster traffic. Drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to use the right lane. As a courtesy, I may decide to ride my bicycle on a shoulder if it is wide enough and the pavement is in good shape. Particularly on two lane roads, turning out every so often to allow faster traffic to pass is an expected action of the driver of any slow moving vehicle, including a bicycle.

4) Is your operating mantra One bike, the entire lane, no matter how wide, always?

If we have a "mantra," it is that bicyclists should have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles (CVC 21200 and UVC 11-1202) We object to laws that micromanage the position of bicyclists on the road (CVC 21202 and UVC 11-1205) or that require bicyclists to use bike lanes (CVC 21208) or sidepaths. We believe such bicyclist-specific laws were enacted not for the safety of bicyclists, but to facilitate the movement of faster traffic. As such, we believe such laws discriminate against bicyclists.

I helped write the exceptions contained in CVC 21202 and CVC 21208 in the early 1970's. At the time, there were no exceptions in CVC 21202 and there was no state law at all regarding bike lanes. I recall a meeting with the aide to the state senator who was authoring the legislation, and he said that the legislature would not go along with a bill without bicyclist-specific restrictions, and including the exceptions was the only way to prevent more onerous bicyclist-specific restrictions.

I have since come to realize that the reason the legislature would not have gone along with having no bicycle-specific restrictions was the common lack of understanding among the public about how drivers of slow moving vehicles in general (and bicyclists in particular) should act and be treated. Most people believe that because it is usually physically possible for bicyclists to share the right hand lane side by side with passing vehicles of typical width (5 or 6 feet), that, out of common courtesy, bicyclists should always share the lane, even with vehicles of maximum legal width (8 1/2 feet by CVC 35100).

If you watch how bicyclists behave on the roads, you will see that most of them engage in "edge riding" behavior. They ride in door zones, pass right turning vehicles on the right, and weave in and out of parked cars. They are staying out of the way, just as the "deal" with motorists dictates. And the penalty for bicyclists who violate that "deal" by getting in the way? They must be taught their place, of course. Thus the honking and shouting and other aggressive behavior that a minority of motorists subject on bicyclists who dare to violate the "deal" by operating their bicycles as drivers of vehicles. On the other hand, it's amazing to experience how most drivers respond to bicyclists acting as drivers. They simply treat such bicyclists as fellow drivers.

Based on viewing old films of traffic, the "deal" between motorists and bicyclists apparently existed from the time when motor vehicles started to dominate the roads. It was formalized in 1944 when the original version of UVC 11-1205 was incorporated into the Uniform Vehicle Code and subsequently into the vehicle codes of most states. It required bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable on the roadway, without exception, as though bicycles were always slow moving and all roads were unlaned. At the same time, though, lane lines were being painted on more and more roads. Apparently the authors of UVC 11-1205 wanted bicyclists not to have the same lane use rights as drivers of vehicles. That is still the common belief today, despite the exceptions that were added in the 1970's.

Things did not work out the way that we who wrote the exceptions hoped it would. Almost all bicyclists still engage in edge behavior or ride on sidewalks, and almost all motorists still expect bicyclists to stay out of their way. When faced with a narrow right hand lane with no shoulder, most people still say that there is no room on the road for bicyclists and that there is a need to create room with a bike lane or sidepath. Without special facilities, we see that bicyclists ride at the right edge, even if it means riding in the gutter or in the door zone. Most people behave as if they are still going along with the "deal" between motorists and bicyclists.

Advocates of bicycle driving, on the other hand, want to break that "deal". We see a future when once again bicyclists act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. We want it to be OK for bicyclists to get in the way of cars. And the first step toward that future is repeal of the laws that discriminate against bicyclists so that legally, bicyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. Not more, not less. That will require educating legislators that bicyclists can and should be treated as drivers of vehicles. Subsequent action includes changes in highway design standards so that freeway style features are eliminated from streets and highways on which bicycles are allowed. And bicycles are detected at all traffic actuated signals. And changes are made in driver education so that motorists learn to deal with bicyclists using the full lane. And youngsters are taught how to operate their bicycles as drivers of vehicles with full lane use rights. And law enforcement officers and judges are educated about when bicyclists and motorists are operating within the law.

Our biggest hurdle is getting other people to recognize that the world would be a better place if the "deal" were broken. We believe that bicyclists would be better off, but a lot of bicycle advocates disagree. They think that bicyclists would be better off instead of breaking the "deal", bicyclists were provided with segregated facilities. Most other people see nothing wrong with the "deal", so they go along with the segregated facilities.

Who will prevail? Well, there are a lot more people who want to keep the "deal" in place than not. But that does not prevent us from pointing out the advantages to bicyclists of breaking the "deal".

Bob Shanteau

P.S. by Editor: CHP = California Highway Control (Bob is in CA CVC = California Vehicle Code UVC = Uniform Vehicle Code: a national guide. States may choose parts to implement. WV has chosen not to include the exceptions to the "Far to the Right" provision that the UVC offers but PA and MD have. In WV, bicycles are not considered to be vehicles. LAW = League of American Wheelmen (now LAB, League of American Bicyclists)