« November 2009 DC BAC Meeting Notes | Main | "my knight on a shining bicycle" »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The last sentence is the point, isn't it. Being killed by a car is rather annoying. It really should be on the list.

Many of the "annoying" things that cars do, on the list, are illegal. To call it a "rude right, "a "loony left" or "hail mary" minimizes that fact that the driver is operating the vehicle unsafely. Do we call drivers who drive the wrong way down a one-way street "the naughty salmon"?

I'm also much more in favor of separation between bikes and cars after seeing some new data in the last week. I would be interested in Washcycle's take on why this is not part of the solution.

SJE -- please post your data. If there is conclusive data about the safety of facilities it would be the first I've ever seen.

It's interesting that of the five things cyclists do to annoy motorists, three are all the same thing repeated different ways: "Cycling in the middle of the road so they can't get past us," "Cycling two (or three, or four) abreast" and "Cycling slowly when there is no room for them to overtake you" are three ways of saying "being slower traffic." A fourth one -- leaning on stopped cars -- is something I've only ever seen in a car commercial.

And it's interesting that on the red-light running he focuses on not the legitimate safety concern -- cyclists who violate others' right of way -- but instead on how it makes people who did stop for the light feel.

SJE, I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't think that separated facilities are part of the solution. I do. I'm pro-separated facilities. But the evidence I've seen is mixed on whether they're measurably safer. You may be referring to the study BikePortland referred to that showed that separated, on-road facilities are safer than roads without facilities. But the same study said trails are less safe than roads, so a call for paths and bike lanes is a call for less safe and more safe facilities, a mixed bag. I think the fact that Contrarian asked for data backs up my claim that it is debatable, by which I mean that reasonable people take differing positions on it. But, even if there is no safety advantage, there is a ridership advantage, so those who are con will have to make the case that bike lanes make one less safe or carry some other negative affect.

On leaning on a car, I've done that - well, on a bus or truck anyhow. What's funny, in fact, is that a buddy of mine did that out in Warrenton once. And the bus driver apparently called the police.

It's true that bad motorist behavior is more likely to kill cyclists than bad cyclist behavior is likely to kill motorists. I wouldn't conclude, however, that this isn't a reason to focus on improved behavior from both parties. In fact, quite the opposite: cyclists arguably have MORE to gain from a truce on the road.

guez, there's not much cyclists can do sharing-wise that we aren't already doing. It's incumbent upon the people driving the killing machines to take more care.

Sure, cyclists should be courteous and considerate. But at least two of the things that annoy drivers - riding in the center of the lane and riding slow - are things that are smart, safe cycling; so how do we reconcile that?

To be fair, Wash understated some of the legality of those bicycle behaviors. #1 is very debatable...cyclists may be entitled to the lane, but that runs counter to laws where they are to ride along the right side of the lane or road. Only way #1 would be undisputedly legal is if the right side of the lane/road was so full of trash/debris/bad pavement that the cyclist HAD to ride in the middle of the lane.

#3 may not be dangerous, but is definately illegal.

In some jurisdictions, #5 could be considered "impeding traffic", and if the bicyclist does not move over to allow traffic to pass him/her, they can be cited/issued a ticket.

Of course, on the other side, it's already been noted that all but #5 are illegal, though I'd like to point out that #2, while dangerous, isn't specifically illegal in some areas.

#1 is explicitly legal in DC any time the lane is less than 12' wide, which is virtually every road in the city.

#3 is legal. DC law specifically allows riding two abreast when traffic is not impeded.

#5 is not impeding traffic. Impeding traffic is driving unneccessarily slow. Operating a slow-moving vehicle at its normal speed is not impeding traffic. Some states (but not DC, VA or MD) have laws requiring slow moving vehicles to pull over, but in all of them the conditions he specifies -- "when there is no room for them to overtake you" -- would exempt you, slow moving vehicles are only required to pull over when there is room to do so. California is the only state I'm aware of where the slow moving vehicle statute applies to all vehicles and not just motor vehicles.

As to your point about motorist behavior #2 not being illegal, every state has safe passing laws that would apply to that.

Contrarian, WashCycle:

Yes, I was thinking of the BikePortland study. Thanks, and thanks for your comments about it.

Thanks very much for the pointer. Mr. Rothenburger opens with "I love cyclists" and then goes on to make light of ways in which motorists kill them. Except that he says "bug" instead of "kill."

I wrote to Mr. Rothenburger. Here is an excerpt: "Maybe I have you all wrong. Maybe you constantly make cutesy jokes about the nasty ways your loved ones might be killed. Maybe you really do love cyclists. If that is the case, please let us know how we can earn your hatred. I think that would be less dangerous."

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Contrarian: we have a lot more than just D.C. in this country (and even within the region). Perhaps in DC, #1 may be legal, but it's not elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, #1 is illegal in Virginia

Post cut off...here's the relevant section on #1 in Virginia: Section 46.2-905.

One of the exceptions is "substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right curb or edge" which they define as "a lane too narrow for a bicycle...and another vehicle to pass safely side by side within the lane." If a cyclists is about 2 feet wide and needs to be about a foot from the right edge and needs 3 feet passing distance and a car is about 6.5 feet wide, that means you need a lane to be at least 12.5 feet wide to be "standard". I'm not sure how many lanes in NoVa are that wide.

By substandard, I think they're referring to lanes less than 10ft (which is pretty much the low-end standard these days, especially on secondary routes). Thus, some of the more rural secondary routes would qualify.

Side note: the Virginia law on passing cyclists is a 2-ft separation, not 3ft.

If substandard meant 10ft, wouldn't it have been clearer to say 10ft. I believe you're suppose to assume that lawmakers wrote a law exactly as they meant it to be read [there may even be a Latin term for that]. And what they referred to is "a lane too narrow for a bicycle...and another vehicle to pass safely side by side within the lane." But they don't define safely, so I get to define safely and my definition of safely is 12.5 feet and I'd be pretty comfortable making that case in front of a judge.

They probably left substandard open-ended, since standards change over time.

For example, 40 years ago, the standard lane width outside the Interstates was 10 feet. These days, at least at the state-and-up level (or the arterial-and-up level), it's 12 feet, though there's still a good bit of leeway for local/county roads or roads functionally classified as less than an arterial.

The issue of when a lane is wide enough to share is complex. For a good discussion I recommend McCutcheon's brief from Maryland vs. McCutcheon at http://bikelaws.org/court_ca.pdf (McCutcheon was cited for riding too far from the edge of the roadway).
from the brief:

The 1999 AASHTO guidelines, which have been accepted and adopted by the MD SHA, define any lane narrower than 12’ as too narrow to be shared
between motorized and bicycle traffic...
When speed limits are higher than 40mph, traffic engineers recommend a minimum 14’ width for shared use lanes

The AASHTO guidelines aren't really guidelines, they have the force of law, state agencies are legally obligated to follow them. And every state has approved them.

Actually, AASHTO guidelines ARE just guidelines...AASHTO does not have any "force of law" to back them up. AASHTO guidelines/policies are followed by the state DOTs "on faith", not by any "force of law".

Now FHWA, on the other hand, does have "force of law". And since FHWA generally follows AASHTO's guidelines...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader