Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.

Most states have similar laws known as Far to the Right (FTR) laws. The wording is quite often different state to state. For example, some states require bicyclists to ride as far right as “practicable” — whateverthehell that means. Although the word “safe” in Missouri law isn’t much better. What’s safe? Who gets to decide?

I drive my bicycle with the understanding that I am the one who gets to define “safe” because I am the one responsible for my own safety. What I think is safe is taking the lane, i.e. generally defaulting to a center to center-right position well in command of the lane and within the sight-line of other vehicle drivers in most traffic situations. (Nuance and detail will have to wait for the comments section.)

Is this a good law? Does it encourage safe bicycling?

No and no. Bob Shanteau has published an excellent history of the concept of traffic lanes and the role of FTR laws at I Am Traffic. It is well worth your time to learn how bicyclists came to be pushed to the edge of the road and what the consequences are. For example, riding far to the right increases your chances of these types of crashes:

• Right hooks
• Left crosses
• Driveway and intersection pull-outs
• Sideswipes and rear ends during overtaking maneuvers
• Door zone crashes
• Road edge hazards

This pushing to the edge has become so normal in our culture that far too many bicycle advocates actually believe edge riding is safe and preferred.

I have the opportunity to talk with lots of bicyclists. And I hear all kinds of tales about how awful it is to ride a bicycle in Springfield and how nasty and stupid motorists are here.

Poppycock!

Whenever I hear these stories I ask about driving habits. And it is always the same: The people who have bad experiences on Springfield streets and with Springfield motorists are edge riders. I never hear the same stories from people who know how/when/where to take the lane. I rarely experience anything other than a safe and cooperative environment on the streets of Springfield.

As I have said a gazillion times: If riding a bicycle for basic transportation were dangerous or difficult, I wouldn’t be doing it.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle safety, cycling, i am traffic, Springfield Missouri, traffic, traffic law

I’m not against them. I have no problem with them in any cultural, political, or economic way (unlike, say, Dorothy Rabinowitz). I simply do not understand how they can possibly work, i.e. actually attract enough users to make the system pay. And by “pay” I do not mean profit. I don’t see how such systems can even pay to maintain the bicycles that surely take a beating.

But apparently they do work. The system I saw in Antwerp last summer was surprisingly robust (from the perspective of a 6-hour walk around the city). Cities keep building these systems. So something must be going right — right?

Technorati Tags: bike share, cycling

Technorati Tags: Springfield Missouri

So take a look at this picture. That’s the city rack near the Patton Alley Pub. I was there for happy hour yesterday. You don’t see my bicycle there, do you? I had to park a block away. A whole freaking block! Away! From the bar! I mean, geeeez! What the hell is going on? Who are all these people?

Note: Here’s proof from KSPR that I was indeed drinking beer yesterday. Although they failed to adequately explain the kind of “driving” I was doing

A-hem, well, OK, yeah, I am happy to see all these bicycles even if I have to park farther from the beer. And despite my protestations to the (nuanced) contrary, I am happy to see more people riding bicycles — I’m simply not willing to do anything (e.g. put novices in danger) to achieve this.

So I guess what I’m saying is: I was kinda happy to ride another block then walk another block because so many people had parked at this rack.

In case you’re wondering what the headline is all about — read my last two headlines

Technorati Tags: bicycle culture, cycling, Springfield Missouri

Before one can discuss anything intelligently with another person (with whom one disagrees) the two interlocutors must reach stasis — a situation in which they understand and accept the source(s) of their disagreement. Situations that are out of stasis are not truly discussable. The best example of that in our culture is the abortion issue. Pro-life? Pro-choice? Not only are those positions out of stasis, the parties do not want to achieve stasis because there’s a danger in it: once you agree about that with which you disagree, a chance is opened that you might be — horrors! — persuaded.

So what I was hinting at is this: Much of bicycle advocacy is out of stasis and is, therefore, not discussable.

What could we agree upon to reach stasis? Allow me to suggest a short list (certainly not exhaustive; and I certainly expect my readers to add to it):

1. The rules of safe movement ought not be violated.

OK, so, yeah, that’s a really short list. And I am not suggesting — as I noted in the qualification above — that this list is exhaustive.

I want to begin the discussion here with the general agreement that the rules of safe movement ought not be violated — by planners, by engineers, by motorists, by bicyclists, by anyone.

If you believe that it is OK to violate the rules of safe movement, then we have nothing to discuss. The reason: Rules create the system of traffic. Without rules there is no system. So disagreement with the rules of safe movement is absurd.

Now that may sound like I’m simply trying to slam-dunk the discussion before it ever begins And, in a sense, that is true. But I’m not playing a rhetorical trick here. I am simply pointing out that in order to advocate for certain types of bicycle infrastructure, one must be willing to violate the rules of safe movement. If so, I’m going to point it out and ask: why?

There are many answers to why (e.g. increase participation). I have yet to hear one that’s persuasive. Or, one might not have thought it through far enough to see that what one is asking for is a death zone.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle safety, cycling, Transportation Planning