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

Wow. Newsy day transportation-wise in Springfield. Check it out.

Grand St. at MSU Eyed for Improvement: Never was their a better stretch of road needing some attention to make the lives of pedestrians and non-motorized traffic better.

A preliminary design shows the project would cost around $2 million to pay for upgrades of traffic lights at both Kings Avenue and John Q. Hammons Parkway, left-turning lanes at the intersections, wider sidewalks and a longer pedestrian underpass underneath Grand, Gugel said.

Changes Planned on Two Streets: No, that isn’t urban art you saw on Walnut between Hammons and Kimbrough this morning. The street will be closing until March (except for local traffic) for continued streetscape and stormwater improvements.

New Look Planned for MSU Corridor: This one worries me a bit.

The city plans to add a right-turn lane for southbound traffic on National to turn onto Monroe, Haynes said. On Monroe, the plan calls for adding two more lanes west of the intersection.

Once built, Monroe would have one inbound lane from National and three outbound lanes to National, Haynes said.

Let’s examine this; take a look at this photo (click for larger image):

 The red line is the MSU bikeway. It’s a 2-way lane about 7-feet wide except for a narrow portion on Monroe. The green line shows the traffic pattern for cars. Florence and Madison are 1-way streets. The yellow circle shows the intersection in question — National and Monroe.

Here’s the problem I see: Many motorists ignore the 1-way designation. They drive north on Florence on the bikeway, which is a painted lane in this area (the rest of the MSU bikeway system is separate paths, not painted lanes). Neither the university nor the Springfield Police Department show much interest in enforcing the 1-way street. When my daughter was a student at Greenwood and traveled to and from school along the marked red route, she regularly encountered cars going the wrong way on the bikeway. I called to complain many times. No interest (although MSU once put down some fresh paint after I called). I gave up after my daughter left Greenwood. I contend that the problem on Florence will only get worse leading to a very dangerous situation for bicyclists who use the bikeway here. Motorists will tend to fill up the three proposed campus exit lanes on Monroe (i.e. build it, and they will come). These lanes and a new traffic signal will be an extra temptation for motorists using Florence to get to dorms, Taylor Clinic, and PSU. The reason is obvious: It will be much easier to access National — an important north-south artery — from Monroe rather than from Madison.

(I could question bikeway system in whole or in part — some stretches are very nice; others are problematic — but that’s a discussion for another time.)

What are the chances that MSU security or the Springfield Police Department will suddenly begin showing an interest in the double-whammy on Florence once this new intersection is finished?

I’m thinking it’s time to regularize this portion of the bikeway. Part of the improvement project should be to separate this section of the bikeway so that it fits the rest of the system and removes bicyclists (mostly novice students) from the motorist scofflaws.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle safety, cycling, traffic design, traffic law

How hard is it for a bicyclist to stop at a stop sign or red light?

Really. How hard?

Answer: Not hard at all. I know this because I 1) Ride a bicycle everyday in traffic, and 2) I stop at all stop signs and red lights.

Now I acknowledge that there may be a few, limited circumstances in which stopping is not appropriate or  not safe. I can’t think of any examples at the moment, but I’ll bet a few Carbon Trace readers can.

That said, for the most part (and with the acknowledgement above), I believe failure to yield to proper traffic controls — e.g. stop signs and traffic lights — is a failure of morals. It is a declaration that the person failing to stop is simply too damned important to be inconvenienced by such trifles. (Note: I do not accept the typical excuse that it is somehow difficult to stop in terms of cycling efficiency. That’s just a silly excuse to run stop signs springing from the hegemony of sport cycling in our culture.)

Do you protest?

Let’s just ask Dionette Cherney what she thinks about the need for bicyclists to follow traffic laws.

Oh, wait. We can’t ask her because she just died because a bicyclist ran a red light and hit her causing a head injury.

Even if there were no laws governing traffic, even if there were no orders of right-of-way, bulling ahead without regard for the safety of others would still be wrong.

Technorati Tags: bicycle safety, cycling, traffic law, walking

For more on my opposition to the 3-foot passing law (why it is a really bad idea), check out these posts:

• I Want More Than three Feet
• What Is A Safe Passing Distance
• How Drivers Think

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle education, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, cycling, traffic law

BTW, the actions of the officer and the powers-that-be who put people in danger (or allow it to happen) is immoral. It doesn’t matter that it’s his job or it’s the law (if it is). It doesn’t matter what their intentions are.

Technorati Tags: bicycle infrastructure, bicycle safety, cycling, traffic design, traffic law