Bicyclists Have the Right-of-way, But We Don't Own the Road
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Tuesday, 05 April 2011 05:30
12:34pm | We bicyclists1 rightly believe the city is right to get a clue about our favored mode of movement.
And it's absolutely essential that we operators of gasoline-powered vehicles (I'm this, too) drive with deference to the vulnerability of our bicycling brethren on the roadways, because helmets and elbow pads don't do much against a ton of four-wheeled metal. Factor in the ineluctable reality that, however essential motorized transport may be for covering X distance in Y time or hauling a piano from here to there, pedaling a bicycle is, environmentally speaking, a holier activity than pressing a foot lever that pumps carbon monoxide (to name but one pathogen) into the air, and puh-lease. Bicycles have the right-of-way, end of story.
That should not give leave for any of us to ride as if we are not part of the human traffic flow — however they may roam — and instead act as if we’re disconnected, impervious, above it all, as if we don't have to concern ourselves with anyone not traveling like us.
All this bicycle-friendly infrastructure-building is good stuff. The more convenient it is for people to bicycle from point A to point B (especially if it becomes increasingly inconvenient to drive there), the more we'll do it. When bicycling increases and driving decreases, emissions go down, traffic goes down, the health quotient of the populous goes up a tick, businesses like the neighborhood bike shop flourish, and so on. Win-win-win, etc.
But there may be a negative sociological side-effect. Call it bicyclist entitlement.
I'm talking about riding style, such as that which I saw from my window the other day. A rider crossed into traffic not caring whom he cut off, weaving across the street against the light, then through a crosswalk and in front of a car that had a green light to make a right turn. It was almost an "I dare you to hit me" move — stupidly perilous and arrogant, as well as inconsiderate.
It was clear from the way this gent handled his racing bike that he was a skilled rider. But know-how and a nice ride is no excuse for putting car drivers in a difficult situation. Rules of the road apply both ways, and automobiles are a reality in the traffic game. Yes, people are overly reliant on them, lazy, sometimes frivolous. Yes, we should have much better public transit. Yes, in general they should be smaller and run on electric or solar or hydrogen power. But these are all separate questions. Cars are part of the playing field, and they ain't going away in this lifetime.
The key is not to focus on the cars, but on the people. However we feel about automobiles, we bicyclists don't have to be jerks to the people driving them just because our mode of transpiration is (in a certain sense) a superior choice. Yes, they damn well need to yield to us; that doesn't mean our disregard should make it any harder for them to do so.
There are laws covering this stuff. Maybe some of those laws are ignorant. Maybe sometimes the police get caught up in the letter of the law and rather miss the spirit. Maybe the police chief can be a little mixed up in his priorities. Nonetheless, the civil libertarian that I am, some rules of the road are necessary and should be enforced.
But part of the point is that they shouldn't have to be enforced: The ones that matter we shouldn't be violating simply because there's a right way to ride. And I think we all know that some of our fellow riders regularly display a wanton disregard for that right way. I don't know that it's important for every rider to come to a complete stop at every stop sign every time; I do think that plenty of bicyclists commit
transgressions far beyond this level.
I imagine one of the ways in which the last 30 years or so will be regarded by future American sociological historians is that this has been an era of a specific kind of selfishness, an "I'm gonna get mine" combining with an abdication of personal responsibility. It's "South Park"'s Cartman's "Whateva! I do what I want!"
We bicyclists deserve much, all of which will help create a better community. This should not be understood to mean that we are above the herd. The human animal is mobile and multifarious, and we need to look out for both ourselves and our herdmates, just as we should be looking both ways before we cross the street.
Footnote
1Although I have yet actually to join the ranks (soon), for the purposes of this piece we're letting me have the "we" in the title: I'm a bicyclist. We're bicyclists.
If I could do this while I was relying on a bike as my main mode of transport then everyone else on a bike can to. I have several memorable moments of almost hitting cyclists that don't stop at their end of the intersection when it's my turn to go. Having the right of way does NOT equal disregarding basic safety and courtesy!
I am glad you explained that Bicyclist do not have to obey the rules of the road.
Run red lights, run stop light, and turn infront of large vehicles & trucks.
I guess I need to get a bicycle so that the "RULES OF THE ROAD" can be ignored.
They're not registered.
They are not ticketed for not stopping at lights or stopsigns or wantonly changing lanes.
Smugness by bicyclists is not a crime; but how about annoying?
The only conclusion reached from reading this nonsensical essay is that Mr. Moore is yet another arrogant biker who believes he should be given preference over those for whom the roads and the sidewalks were designed.
How much money have we wasted on the Broadway and 3rd Street and Belmont Shore bike lanes that are little used in my observation? How about the businesses that will die because the traffic flow and parking have cut off access to the stores along those streets? Now that we have bike lanes, are the bikers going to be banned from sidewalks and the roads within 4 or 5 blocks away from the bike lanes?
As to being deferential, when I'm on the freeway, I don't demand the right of way from a semi that is much larger than me and has more and larger blindspots, and the bike shouldn't expect that it can dodge through and around traffic and that a car driving 30 mph will just stop. I'm tired of having to swerve as they come out of my blind spot between two lanes on the road or to slam on my brakes while turning because a biker doesn't deem it appropriate to stop and look when crossing a street. I'm also tired of having to jump out of the way as a bike comes up behind me on the sidewalk without warning, or two bikes come toward me and play a game of chicken until I have to move onto the grass.
Until the bikers can learn to co-exist and learn the rules of the road, they shouldn't ride. Perhaps they should be licensed. Perhaps the city can recoup some of the money spent on unused bike lanes by ticketing bikers who are violating traffic laws. Perhaps, since we have made special arrangements for the bikes on the streets, we can ban them from the sidewalks. Perhaps these "holy" people can be held to the same standard as those who use unholy means of getting to work 35 miles away.
Just some thoughts that "we" might consider.
My fellow riders seem to try to rule the road. GOOD LUCK with that.
I still say a fast moveing chevy will #@%&* you up. But hey just keep ruling the road . I will send flowers.
When traveling down a highway the person in the front has priority (right-of-way). No matter the mode of travel, or how stupid one thinks their behavior is, the trailing vehicle must exercise caution and yield. When at a 4-way or uncontrolled intersectionâ€'the vehicle that arrived first has the right-of-way, because the other vehicle has not come to a complete stop. If two or thee vehicles arrive simultaneously control is passed to the right; however, a vehicle making a left will always yield to an oncoming vehicle. At such times, and if by chance four vehicles arrive at once, common sense is in order and this should be easily sorted out.
What is not the case, as with maritime law, one yield to the slower vehicle. Nevertheless, it is logical to exercise caution when passing or operating a faster or even larger vehicle. I can tell from living in an area where there is a lot of delivery truck traffic this is frequently (but not necessarily too often) the case. Since large trucks often accelerate slowly but can roll very fast, (especially large semis), such vehicles operate at a different rhythm.
For me this is the crux of the issue that evades most traffic planners. Multimodal roadways will always present a problem because of theses inherent rhythms. Nevertheless, while trucks, buses, and taxis each operate at a distinct rhythm (as opposed to passenger cars), the rhythm of human powered transport is decidedly different. Segregation is difficult and presents its own set of issues. Outside of outlawing human power transport everyone must understand and take into account how these natural rhythms interact. Of course mistakes will be made and accidents will occur. Nonetheless, accidents can be minimized in occurrence and severity if we all behave with some mutual understanding, sans the superiority complex.
In response to John B. Greet: is there any question that cycling is "holier" from an ecological perspective? I don't know what bikes you're seeing, but mine doesn't have a tail pipe. Show me a car without a tail pipe and I will agree that bikes are no better for the environment than cars.
A few more experiences like that and I'll change from being pro-bicycle to an angry curmudgeon like everyone else.
Dan...Sounds like you are talking common sense, which seems to be lacking here.
LBGirl...Thank you so much. Well put.
Greggory.. Bicyclists DO NOT have to be treated as if they have the right of way simply because they are exposed. Common sense dictates that they should be much more careful because of it. There we go talking common sense again, how foolish of me.
Yes, many cyclists don't properly follow the rules of the road but neither do many motorists. There are most likely more motorists speeding, talking on the phone, texting, etc than there are cyclists running stop signs. Both are annoying and unsafe. A lot of people do things wrong that can put others in danger.
We are all just road users in a city we all live in. Sure I like the cycling infrastructure that is being built, but I think an important step for the City to be more 'bike friendly' is in education. I think cyclists and motorists need to be informed better about what a cyclists rights are and how they should use the road. I agree that there needs to be an end to the mentality of some bike riders that 'I'm on a bike and can do whatever I want, when I want.' I agree that bikes should not be on the sidewalk, and many don't even know that it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in business districts, on bridges, along the bluff, etc. Look it up in the Municipal Code. Nothing is done about it, so many people don't know or care. The Long Beach Guides shouldn't be allowed to ride on the sidewalk either.
Everybody needs to follow the rules of the road better, pay attention more, share the road, and all be good road users.
Greggory, when you do decide to be part of the 'we', I recommend taking the Traffic Skills courses that are given every month. (And anyone else that hasn't taken the course.)
http://longbeachcyclists.com/education-traffic-skills-101/
And Single Speedster, that is just a stupid and poor argument. You choose to ride a bike that is more difficult to stop and get moving again. Either suck it up and learn how to slow down at the intersections and put effort into speeding back up again, or buy a different bike.
2. Greggory: hydrogen cars? Puh-leeze. Go do some research. Hydrgoen has ZERO potential as an alternative energy, as it does not exist on earth, except inside water, and separating it from its oxygen takes mroe energy than it can then produce. IN other words, it's a losing proposition - unless you have a way to mine the sun?
Good summary at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Efficiency_as_an_automotive_fuel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/automotive.usa
The total power-plant-to-wheels efficiency with which a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle is likely to utilise low-carbon electricity is 20-25% - and the process requires purchasing several expensive pieces of hardware, including the electrolyser and delivery infrastructure. The total efficiency of simply charging an onboard battery with the original low-carbon electricity, and then discharging the battery to run the electric motor in an electric car or plug-in, however, is 75-80%. That is, an electric car will travel three to four times farther on a kilowatt-hour of renewable or nuclear power than a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will.
"
Ie: Once the hydrogen is freed, yes, this is zero emission - very efficient. BUT THE EQUATION HAS TO INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL PRODUCTION OF THE HYDROGEN, which ALWAYS uses more energy than it produced. It's ass backwards and a big scam. Simple math.
MR GREET: You're right, which is why conservation is all that can save civilization.
4 The U.S. currently produces over 9 million tons of hydrogen
annually, mostly for use in petroleum refining and fertilizer
production. That's enough to fuel more than 34 million cars.
4 Natural gas is an important resource for near-term hydrogen
production â€' it has a high hydrogen-to-carbon ratio (it emits
less CO2 compared to other hydrocarbons) and an existing
pipeline delivery infrastructure. But there is a limited supply
of natural gas so large-scale production of hydrogen from
natural gas is not considered a long-term option.
4 It takes energy to produce hydrogen â€' but producing any
fuel, even gasoline, requires energy. On a 'well-to-wheels'
basis, however, accounting for the full fuel cycle from
energy source to production to end-use, fuel cell vehicles
running on hydrogen produced from natural gas would use
less energy and emit less carbon than both gasoline hybrid
electric vehicles and conventional internal combustion
engine vehicles. Source: A.D. Little, Inc. Guidance for
Transportation Technologies, pp. 59 and 61
4 It is estimated that using natural gas to produce hydrogen
in the near term would increase overall U.S. natural gas
consumption by less than three percent.
4 The United States has more proven coal reserves than any
other country in the world. FutureGen is a 10-year, $1-billion
initiative to demonstrate the world's first coal-based, nearzero
atmospheric emissions powerplant to produce
electricity and hydrogen.
See www.fossil.energy.gov/futuregen
4 DOE's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative conducts research and
development focused on hydrogen production technologies
that can be coupled to next generation nuclear reactors.
See www.ne.doe.gov/hydrogen/hydrogenOV.html
4 Today, the United States has more than 6,300 megawatts
(MW) of wind generating capacity and 80,000 MW of
hydropower generating capacity, which can contribute
to creating electricity for hydrogen production.
Source: www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro
4 Biomass â€' which includes agriculture crop residues, forest
residues, special crops that can be grown specifically for
energy use, and organic municipal solid waste â€' supplies
approximately four percent of the total energy produced in
the United States.
Source: www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/biomass_today.html
Under less
optimistic assumptions regarding technology and CO2
reduction policies, H2 is unlikely to gain significant
market share as alternative fuel and technology options
(biofuels, Fischer-Tropsch synfuels, hybrids, batteryelectric
vehicles, etc.) could play a more important role
in future.