tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post3587732176967151706..comments2023-04-03T03:29:32.895+01:00Comments on The Desegregated Cyclist: Invictus!Ian Brett Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-2482219358353558792012-04-11T15:56:19.686+01:002012-04-11T15:56:19.686+01:00It does, but I'm not even sure if DC has any r...It does, but I'm not even sure if DC has any roads with lanes wider than 11ft. Anyway, this is the same as other states that have FTR laws based on allowing cyclists to control substandard width lanes. DC merely codifies the width.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-69592588396733603932012-04-11T15:49:18.177+01:002012-04-11T15:49:18.177+01:00I have updated the map, taken much of the advice i...I have updated the map, taken much of the advice in the comments and fixed a couple of errors.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-71296334037373690892012-03-15T03:02:19.829+00:002012-03-15T03:02:19.829+00:00If I recall correctly, Washington DC does have a d...If I recall correctly, Washington DC does have a discriminatory FTR law and only allows bicyclists to control lanes that are 11 feet wide or narrower.Allen Muchnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14352620984793441549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-40395058568608272392012-01-26T18:18:56.270+00:002012-01-26T18:18:56.270+00:00Sorry - I somehow missed your reply and it's b...Sorry - I somehow missed your reply and it's been sitting in the moderator box for days. I really need to figure out how this site's blog tools work, LOL.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-55672355224558794872012-01-19T03:10:03.450+00:002012-01-19T03:10:03.450+00:00I would love to help. Originally I intended the ma...I would love to help. Originally I intended the map only as a personal resource, but hopefully it can serve others as a sort of very general overview of bike laws, as you say.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-80324447997305372032012-01-19T03:01:58.738+00:002012-01-19T03:01:58.738+00:00(posted on behalf of Fred Oswald)
Your map is a v...(posted on behalf of Fred Oswald)<br /><br />Your map is a very worthwhile resource. I hope that you will be able to keep it up to date. <br /><br />I undertook a similar project at http://bikelaws.org/. This is an attempt to evaluate bicycle traffic laws in all 50 states, including a rating (on an A-F scale) for each. Unfortunately, I've gotten little help so only a few states have been rated and most of the ratings are ~5 years old. I've added a link to this map on bikleaws.org.<br /><br />This comment is partly an appeal for help. Your map and Biklelaws ratings are complimentary. The map gives a quick overview of the problem and Bikelaws has more details including how to correct problems.<br /><br />I agree with Dan G's comment that the standard "Slow Vehicle Law" that applies in a non-discriminatory way to all road users in not a problem. It is what I prefer to call the "Far Right Rule" that is bicycle-specific, discriminatory and contrary to safety.<br /><br />Pennsylvania has a novel version of their bicycle to the right rule that links to the standard SVL. <br /><br />In Ohio, we proposed a similar linkage for what became HB 389 of 2006 but the Highway Patrol objected. As a last-minute compromise, I proposed some language that softens the FRR. This is now ยง 4511.55(C) of the Ohio Revised Code:<br /><br />This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the<br />edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.<br /><br />So while the Ohio FRR is bad, the added paragraph makes it less-bad.<br /><br />Another extremely important issue that you don't cover is uniform laws. Many states allow local "regulation of the operation of bicycles". Our 2006 reforms should have outlawed such local rules that conflict with state law. Unfortunately, some cities claim that because they have a state charter, they have the right to make their own rules. This is something we need to address.<br /><br />--- Fred OswaldIan Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-3793568640190960002012-01-18T04:01:49.622+00:002012-01-18T04:01:49.622+00:00She ran over her TWICE? Dear God!She ran over her TWICE? Dear God!Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-55328177365318341362012-01-18T03:56:36.190+00:002012-01-18T03:56:36.190+00:00Yes, they made cyclists vastly inferior under the ...Yes, they made cyclists vastly inferior under the "John Paul Frerer Act", in order to "protect us". Because of this act, a prominent business-woman was ran over, twice, by a motorist who was not charged. Even though she got out of her car, saw the victim, got back in and ran over the victim again! It took bystanders' intervention to stop the perpetrator. But under MS state law, she didn't do anything wrong!Jack Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09150401860259220851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-14030112603201260962012-01-17T02:49:48.022+00:002012-01-17T02:49:48.022+00:00Every far to the right (FTR) law is vague and has ...Every far to the right (FTR) law is vague and has to be interpreted - this is a big problem with these laws. When laws need to be interpreted on the fly by police officers who are not fully equipped to interpret them, they end up getting misinterpreted and people who have broken no law get arrested, charged, called to appear in court and perhaps even assaulted and jailed by officers of the law, simply because a badly written law has been misinterpreted. This is why we need to get rid of such vague terms as "ride as far right as is safe" (however benign such terms may seem) and replace them with clear wording that promotes safe and reasonable vehicle operation and which doesn't leave interpretation of the law up to individual police officers who might have a number of false beliefs about where cyclists should ride. Vague laws encourage false arrests, civil rights violations and the wasting of justice system resources.<br /><br />So in the map, I've made things as clear as possible - any FTR wording whatsoever gets the state that codifies such wording into law an automatic amber marking on the map. Any mandatory bike facility use (MBFU) law (which never appears without an FTR law) gets its state an automatic red marking. Again, my overriding concern is that these laws place cyclists at risk simply because the language exists. In my view, FTR and MBFU laws create hazards for cyclists due to both correct implementation and incorrect interpretation. It would be much better if all FTR and MBFU language was simply removed so that cyclists could choose their position on the road, just as other vehicle operators can.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-79667040310724276082012-01-16T20:55:34.651+00:002012-01-16T20:55:34.651+00:00As an FYI, Wisconsin's "ride as far right...As an FYI, Wisconsin's "ride as far right as is safe" is interpreted as valid *only* when the lane is wide enough to support both a car and a bicycle, with 3' clearance between the cyclist and the car. I believe that the generally accepted width is 15' wide for a normal width lane (including shoulder), and narrower than that is "substandard width", which is often the case when there are no shoulders. For a substandard width lane, the Wisconsin DOT advises riding in the center of the lane.<br /><br />http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/rules.htm<br /><br />Basically if there's not room in the lane for a car to pass safely (including the mandatory 3' berth), you should take up the entire lane to prevent cars from trying to squeeze by you and inadvertently hit you.Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01168799006781664530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-38523427718910662012-01-16T17:26:38.588+00:002012-01-16T17:26:38.588+00:00Handy map.
Alabama's mandatory sidepath law i...Handy map.<br /><br />Alabama's mandatory sidepath law is particularly special -- there are no exceptions spelled out. If your path is obstructed, under water, inhabited by trolls, etc, your're required to ride on it.Yokota Fritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808661100114872654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-3207538741502864462012-01-16T16:45:56.904+00:002012-01-16T16:45:56.904+00:00I agree - the law is not bicycle specific. After d...I agree - the law is not bicycle specific. After discussing this with Dan and looking into my motives in making the decision to list NC as I did, and my motives for keeping the map the way it is, my overall concern, I think, is safety.<br /><br />When there's a statute that codifies operating a vehicle far to the right, cyclists specifically are endangered in ways that other vehicle operators are not, because bicycles are narrow vehicles and whenever operating to the right is encouraged, it results in lower visibility and a potential reduction in safety for cyclists due to turning conflicts at intersections and due to the potential for unsafe passes in the lane.<br /><br />It's great that police have been advised to be aware of the special needs of cyclists as they relate to this law, but my overriding concern is that the law places cyclists at risk simply because the language exists. It creates a potential for hazards due to both correct implementation and incorrect interpretation. It would be much better and clearer if the words "or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway" were simply removed.<br /><br />Because of this issue, I've clarified the article to change the focus away from 'discrimination' and towards 'oppression'. The language we're discussing in the NC law is not discriminatory, but I still hold that it is oppressive because it encourages cyclists to move to the right. We already have way too much pressure to keep far right - I think we need to remove as much pressure as possible.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-53466372836048198542012-01-16T16:07:39.375+00:002012-01-16T16:07:39.375+00:00Ian,
We in NC believe our FTR law allows slow ope...Ian,<br /><br />We in NC believe our FTR law allows slow operators full use of the right hand thru lane when lanes are striped, and we have succeeded in developing and promoting police training based on this interpretation. The law is not bicycle-specific and pre-dates legislative interest in bicycles. However, it is 100% correct that the language of the law is vague enough that it can be interpreted by police and judges to cyclists' detriment, and is often interpreted that way.Steven Goodridgehttp://www.humantransport.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-3964490755105828032012-01-16T01:57:12.548+00:002012-01-16T01:57:12.548+00:00On 2-lane roads, it's commonly-accepted practi...On 2-lane roads, it's commonly-accepted practice for the drivers of slow vehicles to facilitate passing by faster vehicles when it is safe to do so. Where I grew up in PA, that was certainly practiced by the drivers of farm equipment and buggies. When climbing hills, I see buggies using the right half of the lane, rather than the center.<br /><br />Interpretation can be discriminatory when enforcers do not recognize that a balanced vehicle with an exposed driver needs more than the width of his body to operate safely. But in my experience, those who wish to discriminate against bicyclists are perfectly capable of making up their own imaginary laws (as Eli Damon). <br /><br />I'm not sure the law itself was specifically aimed at bicyclists, so much as anything slow in the culture of speed that was becoming predominant at the time such laws were enacted. <br /><br />I agree that mandating courteous behavior has a discriminatory feel to it. I think laws should stick to reinforcing principles of safety, not implying that the right of speed is more important than the safety or convenience of slower road users. <br /><br />The reason I wouldn't consider those statutes are discriminatory against cyclists is, if there is more than one lane, slow vehicles are entitled to the full lane with no distinction about vehicle type or lane width. Bicycle-specific FTR laws mandate bicyclists to ride to the far right in the right lane (with exceptions), even when there are other lanes available to pass.Kerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14617647529657485483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-46462564763842985322012-01-16T01:20:47.528+00:002012-01-16T01:20:47.528+00:00Amended. I'll be glad to hear of any other mis...Amended. I'll be glad to hear of any other mistakes I might have made. I do feel a little bit bad about PA and NC and I did think about the issue carefully before making up my mind - the FTR law, on its face, applies to all vehicles equally, but in practice, it's a law that can only apply to cyclists - after all, what tractor or horse and cart can travel 'as close as practicable to the right hand side of the roadway'? As I see it, it's language that was put into the law purely to address cyclists.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-25976447046651825612012-01-16T01:16:35.216+00:002012-01-16T01:16:35.216+00:00Ian,
Check your FB profile. I sent you a message ...Ian,<br />Check your FB profile. I sent you a message I think you will find interesting.<br /><br />BTW, a non-discriminatory slow vehicle law with a FTR clause for all driver on unlaned roads is NOT the same as a discriminatory bicyclist only FTR law on all roads. Please see this article for details:<br /><br />http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equality_article_nov-dec_07.pdfDan Gutierrezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04205546603455322847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-25272929166511794802012-01-16T01:06:06.261+00:002012-01-16T01:06:06.261+00:00Just checked on Mississippi. You're right. App...Just checked on Mississippi. You're right. Apparently, Mississippi DoT didn't consider it necessary to update their website after the law passed, LOL. Ouch! That's a big amendment to make, LOL. Looks like I might have to do a big rewrite.<br /><br />North Carolina and Pennsylvania do have FTR laws: "Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn." - in some ways, these laws are not as bad as other states, but they are FTR laws and, more importantly, could easily be interpreted as mandating FTR cycling by police and courts. Bexcause of this, and because of the fact that police often misinterpret such laws, any FTR law meets the criterion for getting an amber on the map.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-75627091662233954242012-01-15T23:40:59.381+00:002012-01-15T23:40:59.381+00:00I thought Mississippi added an FTR law with their ...I thought Mississippi added an FTR law with their 3ft law a couple years ago. NC doesn't have an FTR law. Neither does PA, unless the bill with the safe passing provision passed.Kerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14617647529657485483noreply@blogger.com