What changed?

Remember the report by The Network (a group of young professionals attached to the Chamber of Commerce) about how to attract and retain young professionals? Here again were the top four results:

• Expand trails and bike routes for recreation and transportation.
• Enact a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places.
• Improve wages by supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses.
• Address the lack of diversity through increased awareness and support for minority-owned businesses.

Wow. We got top billing. Fantastic.

I believe the city is taking these things seriously. That’s great!

But “trails and bike routes” has apparently been translated into “bicycle lanes.” That’s not necessarily surprising. That term is, as much as anything, a metaphor for “facilities” in the minds regular folks. “Facilities” can be all kinds of helpful and progressive things.

I am not a fan of bicycle lanes in general (click here). So if you ask me if I like bicycle lanes or want to see them painted in Springfield, I’ll tell you “no.” This does not mean all lanes are bad or that I am against all facilities. It means, specifically, that I worry that some lane advocates (not necessarily our bicycle advocates) will promote poor facilities and may push for a law requiring lane use once lanes are painted (thus making bicycling suck for experienced traffic bicyclists).

I think the foundation of a good bicycle system begins with a good transportation system for all road users — one that is equitable for all users. All users should be educated in how to use the road safely and how to share it with a wide range of other users who all have equal rights and responsibilities (and equal expectations of courtesy and civility). Shared use ought to be an ethic promoted and enforced by all users.

Bicycle facilities should not reduce the bicyclist’s level of service, i.e. make it more difficult to get from point A to point B safely and efficiently or to deny access to roads. Facilities should not create traffic conflicts by encouraging bicyclists to ride in places or in ways that put them in danger. And facilities should not contradict the law or sound traffic education, e.g. creating a lane that runs against traffic. Finally, if you create facilities then I believe you (the city) are obligated to maintain them, which means keeping them cleared of debris, snow, and ice.

Progressive facilities should empower people to make the choice to ride a bicycle for transportation by making it efficient and enjoyable, i.e. easy access to destinations and no manufactured conflicts with motorists. Separation is fine as long as it does not create inferiority for the bicyclist compared to other forms of transportation.

The differences between these kinds of facilities are easy to see. Compare, for example, our greenway trails (progressive) to the new bicycle lane on Benton (regressive). (Note: That was an example. I do not mean to suggest that separated greenways are the only form of progressive facility.)

Since Springfield is moving ahead with “bicycle lanes,” I am going to seek out and publish examples of progressive facilities. And I will support such facilities, even when they involve painting lines on the street.

I will also, however, squawk like crazy if we build lanes that create conflicts or put novices in danger. I am unwilling to increase participation at the cost of safety when our roads are already safe.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle education, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, bicycle trails, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban and Regional Planning, urban design, Urban Planning, utility cycling

Something to note: You are NOT watching “hardened” cyclists or “road warriors” or “adrenaline junkies” who brave the dangers of traffic. Bicycling in traffic is safe (compared to a lot of other dangerous things you do everyday). Those concepts are used to sustain fear. You are watching people driving their bicycles and enjoying it.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle education, bicycle safety, cycling, traffic, transportation

I think the best way to approach this question is to check what the law and common understandings of the traffic system call for. First among these is the order of right-of-way (304.351. 1. Right of Way).

In general, the traffic works on two basic principles in the American context:

1. Travel to the right
2. First come, first served

The whole point of these principles is to begin creating a system of traffic in which the prime goal is not to hit anything. The prime goal is NOT to get from point A to point B at speed. Repeat: The prime goal is not to hit anything.

The establishment of traffic regulations and licencing for motor vehicles in the early part of the 20th century was entirely about mitigating the deadliness of automobiles for other users of the road. The roads, by the way, belong to us all and are for all of us to use.

In Missouri, bicycles are defined as vehicles. Bicycle drivers may use any road that does not have a posted minimum speed. By law in Missouri bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as car drivers with a very few exceptions. Here’s the relevant law regarding where bicycles may ride in the roadway:

Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.

307.190. 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.

Ride as near to the right as safe: The individual bicyclist determines what is safe.

Sharable lane width: The standard is 14 feet. If the lane is narrower than that, bicyclists may use the full lane.

Impeding traffic: This does not mean simply riding in the lane with a couple of cars behind you. Impeding traffic means holding up traffic by deliberately holding up traffic (tautology intended) (this can happen while riding two abreast under some circumstances but not by definition). A bicyclist traveling at normal bicycle speeds is not impeding anything. For more on this, I recommend reading what Robert Johnson of PedNet wrote in the Columbia Daily Tribune recently:

Common sense tells us that if a bicyclist can be fined for not keeping up with the speed of motorized traffic, it would make riding a bicycle on public roads illegal because bicyclists can rarely travel at the speed of traffic. Obviously, bicycling is not illegal, and making it illegal was not the intent of the city ordinance.

The state statute regarding impeding traffic is even clearer. That law specifies that a motorist who is willfully driving slowly is guilty of impeding traffic. The state law using the word “motorist” makes it obvious it does not apply to bicyclists.

Getting back to the concept of right-of-way, let’s take a look at what Missouri motorists are taught by the state. From page 43 of the Missouri Driver’s Guide (emphasis added):

Your highest duty as a motorist is to drive your vehicle carefully and prudently. Your speed and manner of driving must create a safe environment for yourself and other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

Where vehicles or pedestrians are likely to meet one another, and there are no signs or signals to regulate traffic, there are rules that say who must yield the right-of-way. These rules tell drivers who goes first and who must wait in different traffic situations.

The law says who must yield the right-of-way; it does not give any driver the right-of-way. You must do everything you can to prevent striking a pedestrian or another vehicle, regardless of the circumstances.

PASSING

Passing is a dangerous maneuver where the dangers are compounded by intersections, other vehicles within an intersection and two-lane roads (Refer to No Passing Zones in Chapter 3).

If you are caught speeding or passing in a construction zone or work zone on Missouri state roadways, you could be fined a minimum of $250 for the first offense and a minimum of $300 for a second or subsequent offense in addition to any other fine authorized by law according to State Statute 304.582.Use the same care when passing a pedestrian or cyclist as when passing a motor vehicle.You may need to slow down and wait for a safe opportunity to pass a pedestrian or cyclist, just as you would for any other slow-moving traffic.

It just doesn’t get much clearer than that. This is what the State of Missouri requires every licensed driver of a motor vehicle to know and practice.

Now, how does this relate to courtesy on the road?

I’ve heard many bicycle advocates use the word courtesy in regard to riding in traffic. It seems to be used mostly as a way to encourage inferiority among bicyclists, i.e. it’s only courteous to scurry out of the way whenever a car approaches.

Riding two abreast is especially troubling in this regard. It’s an assertive traffic position. But the typical bicycle advocate view of courtesy seems to be assertive = discourteous and, therefore, unethical.

Karen Karabell, of Commute St. Louis, recently wrote about riding two abreast. It seems this behavior irks car drivers more than a single bicyclist, or line of bicyclists, taking command of a lane. The video she posts is telling.

Karen believes the reason for car driver irkdom in regard to bicyclists driving two abreast is that is seems “uppity.” And it seems like it might be impeding traffic. But neither is true. It’s actually easier for cars to pass bicycles riding two abreast. First, it encourages safe passing — something the state says is damned important. Second, the distance required to pass is less when bicyclists ride two abreast.

So, no one is being impeded, and car driver’s (all drivers) are required is yield right-of-way and pass with care in order to ensure the prime goal of traffic — again: not to hit anything.

Now let’s talk ethics.

From both duty-based and consequence-based ethical reasoning, the onus of traffic safety is on the driver of the more dangerous machine. We have a duty not to hit people with our cars because cars are very dangerous machines. And it creates the greatest good and happiness for the greatest number when we avoid hurting or killing people with our cars. One way we avoid hurting and killing people by yielding right-of-way.

Two bicyclists riding abreast in traffic are neither impeding traffic nor acting discourteously or unethically. Further, it is a myth that bicyclists delay car drivers. This is easily experienced in traffic. Take a ride on National or Grand and see for yourself. Rarely does a bicyclist cause more than a few seconds delay — a few seconds. It is the responsibility of car drivers who find themselves behind bicyclists in traffic to yield right-of-way and to pass with care. There is no guarantee for anyone to travel at any particular speed. A street may be well-engineered for a 35 mph speed limit, but that engineering has nothing to do with the system of traffic set up by the state that declares: “Your highest duty as a motorist is to drive your vehicle carefully and prudently.”

That said, in CyclingSavvy we teach the concept of control-and-release. This is one way bicyclists may be courteous to car drivers. It means simply remaining in control of a lane until it is safe to release piled-up cars behind you (rather than scurrying for the gutter every time a car approaches from behind and, thus, encouraging a close pass). This is a good thing to do. It demonstrates a proper respect for our fellow road users while not accepting inferiority disguised as courtesy.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle education, bicycle safety, cycling, traffic law

• Motorists works 2 hours each day to pay for a car.
• Bicyclists work 3.8 minutes each day to pay for their bicycles.

(Obviously the costs are different depending upon one’s circumstances. The well-to-do work fewer hours for their cars. The poor work more.)

Yep, getting rid of my car gave me a huge pay raise. And it got me out from behind the wheel sitting in traffic — one of the top things Americans have cited as making them unhappy. It’s also a heath issue — all that sitting and all that stress. Win-win-win for me!

I have said this before: Using a bicycle for basic transportation in Springfield is easy. So easy. OMG it is easy. If it weren’t easy, I might not have stuck with it (because I just assumed it would be hard and that I’d end up driving a lot).

One thing, however: It helps to live close to your major destinations. That’s not a requirement. But if you live in a far-flung suburb surrounded by nothing but large traffic sewers, well, it’s going to be less easy. You can still practice the 1-mile Solution.

Technorati Tags: 1-mile Solution, bicycle advocacy, bicycle commuting, bicycle culture, cycling, green transportation, utility cycling

Hmmmmm…

Technorati Tags: bicycle culture, cycling