Hardly a day goes by without my seeing some egregious statement in the media regarding bicycling. On CBS Sunday Morning, I heard the Principal of Alta+Design (and former Portland Bicycle Coordinator) flat out lie about cycling statistics in her town, but then Alta+Design has seldom been accused of being "reality based".
"Paint Saves!" seems to be their mantra, whether it's white paint, blue paint, or green paint. I suppose she's become the new Benny Hinn of Bicycling.
In the Fort Worth Star Telegram's bicycling tips, I saw the Fort Worth Police Department say it was illegal to ride a bike on the shoulder of a highway. Again, not true, just wishful thinking from a "cars first" mindset.
In the Dallas Morning News' recent side bar on cycling tips, I saw a criminally negligent statement attributed to the Texas Legislature (?) that cyclists must ride "next to the curb". Not true. The law states that cyclists on standard width roadways shall ride "as close to the road edge as is practicable", which is a totally different thing. If the road edge is unsafe due to trash, drain inlets, and bad pavement, "practicable" can mean three feet (or more) out from the edge/curb. If the road lane is sub-standard width (meaning below 12', and most urban multi-lane road lanes are), the cyclist may "take the lane", providing they don't impede the flow of traffic. That last part doesn't having a car queue up behind you, it means not allowing cars to pass.
The instruction to "ride next to the curb or road edge" is the primary cause of one of the cycling accidents most bicyclists fear the most: getting struck from the rear by a passing motorist as the motorist overtakes. If the cyclist is riding three to five feet out from the road edge in those instances, the motorist gives the cyclist a wider berth while passing, actually pulling out to pass, as opposed to keeping a straight line and squeezing the willing sacrificial cycling victim against the curb.
Cyclists! Take the damn lane. It's yours!
5 comments:
Other posts on this blog, I believe, have suggested wide right lanes as the preferred solution. These seem basically like bike lanes minus the magic paint and would have many of the same problems. Encouraging cyclists and motorists to share the lane seems inherently dangerous and contrary to the take the lane attitude that I am more accustomed to.
As always, sage commentary on the misconceptions surrounding vehicular cycling. A couple of points. :-)
I think it appropriate to define the word "practicable" to the general reader. Many have been the times when motorists or, yes, even the police have misquoted the law and stated it to be as far to the right as "practical". Practicable and practical have two entirely different meanings.
Practical refers to use or practice. This ignorance of the correct terminology is, IMO, the root of the problem when it comes to understanding. Demanding that one ride as far to the right as practical could mean along the edge of the roadway, perhaps even in the gutter pan. It is possible to ride that far right - whether it is safe to do so or not.
Practicable, on the other hand, refers to feasible or capable of performing in accordance with applicable specifications. Under this definition, riding in the gutter is out. The gutter is intended to divert water and other debris from the roadway surface; it is not intended as the roadway surface. As you properly explain, practicable confers permission upon the operator to take the entire lane if weather, lighting or road conditions dictate that to be the safest means of travel.
The fear of "getting struck from the rear by a passing motorist as the motorist overtakes" is indeed the number one concern of a majority of people. There is actually a term to refer to this concept (which I know you are aware, but your readers may not be): cyclist-inferiority complex. The truth is that overtaking crashes account for only a very small percentage of cyclist/motorist incidents. The vast majority actually take place at intersections or while turning. A ratio of 19:1, inversely. (Bicycle Transportation; John Forester; 1994, pp10-11).
As we both agree, education is the primary investment needed to get more people to consider adopting the bicycle as a viable mean of trasportation.
"Other posts on this blog, I believe, have suggested wide right lanes as the preferred solution. These seem basically like bike lanes minus the magic paint and would have many of the same problems."
In most local applications, I prefer a narrow lane, but on collector and thoroughfare roads, taking your lane can be more intimidating than is comfortable. There, the wide outside lane allows the motor vehicle to pass the bicycle with a slight deflection in course. These work well on roads with speed limits above 30 mph (40+ mph), where taking a whole lane is not always advisable.
Anti-WOL studies conducted by the FHWA, TxDOT and NCDOT have shown that cyclists tend to ride about 3 feet from the road edge in a shared lane, effectively acting as one with the traffic flow, and motor vehicles move out slightly to pass, resulting in a greater passing clear-zone.
I have actually been talking about experimenting with the opposite treatment: instead of an 11-11-14 cross section, trying a 13-13-10 with street marking to impress upon motorists that the outside lane is a slower moving lane. In a 10' lane, a cyclist riding even 2' from the curb face would then appear to be taking the lane, and thru-motorists would be drawn toward the wider lanes. Circulating motor vehicle traffic would then be drawn toward the lane from which they will exit at a reduced speed.
Instead of a WOL, a NOL (or perhaps a Narrow Users Lane... a nul).
I'd love to get a traffic study on this, but I won't hold my breath (just as I am not holding my breath on a scalp temperature study regarding children wearing poorly ventilated helmets engaged in typical youth "high-burst/stop" cycling).
Comments on this heresy?
I said... "Anti-WOL studies conducted by the FHWA, TxDOT and NCDOT have shown that cyclists tend to ride about 3 feet from the road edge in a shared lane, effectively acting as one with the traffic flow, and motor vehicles move out slightly to pass, resulting in a greater passing clear-zone."
What the rest of the study showed was that if a white stripe was placed three feet from the edge (essentially forming a shoulder, but referred to as a "bike lane" in parts of the study), the cyclists now rode between 1.5 and 2 ft. from the edge/curb, placing themselves too close to the gutter for effective maneuvering and dangerously close to the gutter-pan seam, if the road has a curb and gutter design like the vast majority of municipal streets (which is one foot out from the curb face).
The advantage is to the motorists, as they no longer deflect when overtaking, but instead actually pass the cyclist more closely, even though the cyclist is now riding closer to the edge.
I know, I keep beating this thing, but it's a huge, and I believe intentional, misrepresentation of the study's findings. Rather like the Nazis putting the slogan "Arbeit macht frei" (Freedom Through Work) over the gates to the concentration camps.
The Star Telegram ran a wonderful bit about staying to the right. There was a truck that was blinded by the sun and instead of slowing down? He killed a cyclist.
The conclusion of Bud Kennedy? The cyclist was in the middle of the lane for some unknown reason and now he is dead, cyclists should stay to the right.
I wrote a rebuttal here:
http://austincyclingnews.com/?p=213
I think his article has the potential to increase harassment for vehicular cyclists, he actually misquoted the driving laws and most readers will not check him on that.
this was his misquote:
"Texas law says that cyclists must stick to the right-hand curb or edge, except in a few extreme circumstances."
Anyone who knows the laws in Texas knows that this is not true, this is not even remotely true. My article has links to the actual law etc etc.
I suggest you post an article calling this guy out on his lies and anti-cycling propoganda.
Thanks.
A fellow vehicular cyclist in Austin, TX.
Post a Comment