Quoted message said:It's hard for me to think of common situations where obeying the rules
of the road endanger the cyclist! (
A typical case -- waiting to make a left turn (arrowed light) while high
speed through traffic passes closely, and you are the only occupant of a
shared left/straight lane.
Quoted message said:The law requiring keeping right (in the US, etc.) predates motor
vehicles by a long margin. It originated in horse and buggy days, and
was instituted because it so greatly facilitated the flow of traffic.
Horse-drawn vehicles were generally large and fast enough to be lethal
(as is a horse by itself):
From <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/traffic_safety/history1.htm>
"1800's Although road safety as we know it started with the motoring
age, road accidents had long been a problem in the nineteenth
century, especially in the fast growing urban areas of Britain. Thus
in 1875 there were 1,589 fatalities, mostly involving horse
conveyance of some kind, and this was actually more than in
1910 (see RoSPA's Annual Road Accident Statistics)."
Bicycles are not as dangerous, by a wide margin, lethal collisions are
rare by comparison.
Categorically, bicycles are much more like pedestrians from a liability
point of view. Laws against "jaywalking" are generally held to be at
least impractical, but some consider them to be onerous.
<http://www.transalt.org/press/media/1999/990409nytimes.html>
Joggers are commonly advised to run against traffic. What is the
difference between a slow cyclist and a jogger?
Quoted message said:Can you imagine traffic in a city with high bike usage - say, Portland
Oregon - if 50% of the cyclists rode one way, 50% the other? Aside
from the head-on collisions between cyclists, think of the difficulty
of anyone trying to pull out from a stop sign, having to scan all
directions! And how do the wrong way cyclists see the traffic lights?
How do they make right turns? It would be chaos. Allowing wrong way
cycling makes no sense.
It makes no sense from an efficiency POV, but should that be a crime?
Pedestrian flows are typically chaotic, no one (usually) enforces right
of way between pedestrians. A chaotic flow with cyclists only means that
they would have to slow to walking speed. This is typical where cyclists
and pedestrians mix.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Rather than take the default approach of saying all
M-V laws apply to bicycles ...
Please, the laws at issue are _vehicle_ laws, not motor vehicle laws!
My state has different laws (and/or different versions of the same law)
for different road users. Whether you call them "vehicles" or not isn't
particularly meaningful.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Forcing cyclists to slavishly adhere to the rules of a
traffic system designed for big, fast, dangerous vehicles is unfair in
that it infringes upon our right to free passage.
Oh, not even close! I move about town very freely and efficiently
while obeying the laws. Most stop signs get a fraction-second track
stand, which costs me perhaps five seconds in deceleration/acceleration
time. If I ran every stop in my half-hour commute, I might save a
minute, perhaps two. Again, what could I possibly be accomplishing
with that extra minute? How can I pretend that infringes on my rights?
I think you would have a different experience in a congested urban
environment (where most of these debates take place).
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:My own behavior is based on elements of both exceptions. I deliberately
break what I consider to be unjust laws as an act of civil disobedience.
I also disobey laws in situations where I feel the danger to myself is
greater than danger to others. I contend that both situations are
defensible.
And again, almost everyone breaking a law has _some_ excuse. But to
me, riding on the right side of the road, or stopping for a red light,
are not unjust; they are practical. And violating those laws is, if
anything, more dangerous than obeying them.
More dangerous to you, but the purpose of the law is not to protect you
from yourself.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:You can call my motives suspect, in that they (at least in my
own mind) increase my convenience, but I hold strong beliefs that my
convenience is my right, perhaps my most fundamental right, falling as
it does under the broadest definition of liberty, with the requirement
that it doesn't infringe upon higher rights of others.
Whew! There are some novel legal theories at work there! AFAIK, the
Constitution doesn't mention a right to convenience! If it did, IRS
forms would be way, way simpler to fill out!
Not novel at all. The right of free passage goes back into the mists of
time. A modern instance: my house lot is bordered on one side by a
street categorized as a "private way". This means that, although it's
private property (mine), it's also a public way. I own it, but I must
allow free passage. A fundamental right is to be able to get from one
place to another, even though all the land in between may be privately
owned. Could you imagine a society where movement was a privilege, not a
right? Is there a scofflaw walker who would lose his right to walk?
Driving a dangerous vehicle is fittingly a privilege -- one that may be
revoked. Movement is a right that cannot be. Does cycling fall into the
"moving" or the "driving" category? I argue that it is more movement
than driving, and should be subject to movement rules not driving rules.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Traffic signals
exist at intersections primarily for the convenience of M-V operators.
When they fail, the usual consequence is delay, not carnage.
I agree. But a renegade plowing through a light has a completely
different effect than a light's total failure.
Sure, that might be reckless endangerment.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I disagree
that M-V operator convenience should trump cyclist convenience by law.
I agree with you. However, I don't see that as pertinent. Again,
fundamental traffic rules predate motor vehicles. They facilitate the
flow of _all_ vehicles. And I don't want cyclists running stop signs
into my bike, or riding head on at my bike, any more than I want
motorists doing so.
Traffic rules may predate motor vehicles, but the principle of free
passage predates those.
In urban environments, I'm concerned with pedestrians, pram pushers,
joggers, etc. They present a collision hazard. I accept their presence
and modify my behavior accordingly. I don't expect to make all their
conflicting behavior illegal for my convenience.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:My disobedience does nothing more than potentially inconvenience M-V
operators, but so does my mere presence on the road. Extrapolating the
convenience argument leads to elimination of bicycling altogether -- the
very consequence that "same rules, same rights" advocates claim
disobedience will precipitate. There is no higher right at stake. In the
same spirit as Critical Mass riders I flaunt my right to be there and to
cause inconvenience.
It really seems to me you're spreading sweet frosting on a spoiled
cake. The morality excuse sounds nice, but your solo law breaking is
related to Critical Mass in the same way armed robbery is to the
American Revolution.
My issues are based largely on the classification of a bicycle as a
vehicle. Should roller blades be considered a vehicle? I recall one
evening ride where I was paced by a guy on roller blades for almost 10
miles. What about skateboards? Pogo sticks? Skis?
The "convenience" and "safety" arguments do lead to a ban on cycling, at
least in the form of restriction to segregated facilities (mandatory
sidepaths). "Vehicles" can be arbitrarily regulated, the right of free
passage cannot. The point that Critical Mass-ers attempt to make is that
they/we have a right to free passage, regardless of inconvenience. To
demonstrate/exercise this right, there is a deliberate effort to create
inconvenience.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If you removed all traffic from existing roads except bicycles, there
would be no need for most traffic signals.
That would be true only if the traffic density of bikes was low enough
- or the speeds incredibly slow. In most American cities, if each car
were replaced by a bicycle, you'd need all the same rules, including
most of the same signals and stop signs.
Motor (and horse-drawn) vehicles are heavy enough to have almost no
non-lethal speed, they do not mix well with pedestrian flows, hence the
need for segregation and flow control, The same is not true for
bicycles. Bicycles have a range of speeds that are compatible even with
dense chaotic flows. You might want segregation and flow control to
facilitate bicycling at speeds greater than that, but that is not a
requirement.
Quoted message said:Again, it's good to realize that traffic rules did not originate with
the motor vehicle - they are not "M-V rules," they are _vehicle_ rules.
In truth, they are lethal (heavy) vehicle rules.
Quoted message said:One might imagine complete random motion of non-motorized vehicles
somehow working efficiently, but it's a fantasy. Without rules, a
society moving by a dense collection of Amish buggies and bikes would
soon achieve gridlock.
Buggies aren't bikes.
Quoted message said:The way I usually think is this: In any new road situation, I do on
the bike what I would do in a slow car. (Having driven a Volkswagen
Van, this is easy to visualize!) Following the same rules simplifies
my life greatly and smoothes my flow through traffic. If I had to
start choosing which side to ride on, which laws to obey, I think I'd
be much more stressed. And flattened!
You think like a 2 ton vehicle at all times? I don't. When things get
congested, I slow down and think/behave like a pedestrian. A bike allows
me to do this easily, even a small car or a motorcycle doesn't.
Quoted message said:I don't have any problems with obedience to traffic laws, and I
_certainly_ don't feel oppressed because of it. It gets me around with
considerable aplomb. I'm confident in traffic, and I'm treated very
well by motorists.
You should try it.
I'm generally treated badly by motorists, especially so in times where
their frustration level is already high (like urban rush hour). I don't
think my experiences are atypical. Although I recognize the difficulty
in discriminating between hostility and incompetence. My confidence in
traffic comes from my flexibility and mobility. In typical gridlock I
simply maneuver through it at pedestrian speeds (if required), just as I
would on foot.
Classification of a bicycle as a "vehicle" is a position lobbied for by
some cycling advocates who believe it will improve acceptance of cycling
(by motorists, of course), giving cycling additional "legitimacy". I
think this is a specious, particularly since it presumes a certain
amount of current "illegitimacy" (when did you stop beating your wife).
I think it's more reasonable to view cycling as part of our legacy of
freedom of movement and view any effort to water that down by accepting
status as a regulated privilege, a giant step backwards.
Another area of increasing concern where cyclists suffer from being
lumped as undifferentiated vehicles is off-road. This categorization has
led directly to the default banning of bicycles with motorized vehicles
in many areas.
Finally, I'd quote from the UK's CTC policy handbook:
<http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3839>
"Driving a motor vehicle is an inherently dangerous activity which, in
principle, should impose a high duty of care on drivers towards other
road users. The risk of injury on our roads is borne most heavily by
those groups who impose the least danger on others – pedestrians and
cyclists, children and those with impaired mobility (we refer to these
groups as Vulnerable Road Users, or VRUs). The need to correct for
similar imbalances of power or vulnerability is recognized by the law in
areas such as employment contracts, employee or public health and
safety, and consumer protection. Yet traffic law makes no such
provisions, and treats all road users as equals. Consequently the
motorists’ duty of care towards other road users is under-recognized,
both in law and more generally in public attitudes."
That about sums it up for me. As a cyclist, I don't seek equivalence
under the law, I seek protection. The law and the design of public roads
make little accommodation for cyclists. The law and road design are both
heavily biased towards the convenience and needs of motorists. Until
such time as a more equitable treatment is reached, I suffer no qualms
in exercising what I consider my rights, even if they bend the letter of
the law.
You may, of course, differ. If nothing else the point I'd like to make
is that some of us "scofflaws" behave according to principle and do not
deserve to be reflexively labeled/libeled as selfish and irresponsible.
There can be honest disagreement on these issues. I understand that you
and others may feel that my behavior and attitude "hurt the cause". What
you should recognize and respect is that I and others may feel the same
way about you and them. I take no offense at your arguments, but I find
your tendency to dismiss mine out of hand to be less than civil.
