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)
Place your bike's wheels in the tray. Then lift the J shaped arm over the wheel and slide it down onto the wheel as close to the frame as possible. It doesn't matter which way the bike is facing, unless you have something on the front or back that will interfere with this J arm.
