Walking home yesterday — all of 3/4 mile — I saw five separate incidents of people being silly on the streets. Upon seeing the first one, I thought: Oh, good blog post! Then the silliness just kept coming to the point where I thought: Oh, different blog post! And the silliness continued this morning — the last incident being a guy who tried to squeeze me at a stop sign and then ran the sign.

So here’s my upshot: Cars and bicycles, as media that allow us to write and interpret a text called the street, are separated by massive differences but share at least one uncomfortable trait: both moving machines encourage humans to understand convenience as a primary value of writing the text of the street. Within this similarity in an important difference — perhaps only of scale.

Author Robert Pirsig once wrote that riding in a car was “just more TV” because one experiences the world through a screen. Indeed, one is separated from the world by the screen in a way similar to the separation TV creates. This situation encourages people to understand other street users as objects.

The bicycle has no screen. One of its greatest strengths as a mode of transportation, however, is also a problem: Bicycles are fun to ride and encourage us to move, and keep moving, based on the sheer joy of ease of movement and maneuverability. How can this be bad? Well, just hang out for a few minutes at the 4-way stop at Hammons and Cherry. (There are actually people who argue that stopping at stop signs is difficult because — and this is just a head-scratcher  – getting moving again is somehow inefficient and difficult.)

Both sources of bad behavior are equally self-righteous, and, therefore, utterly galling.

Among the silly incidents I saw yesterday was the near collision of a bicycle and a car at National and Grand in which both parties were displaying, in the particular ways of their given media, a self-righteous disregard for other road users.

We have a cultural problem on our streets that finds its expression in the media of bicycles and cars: lack of courtesy, civility, care — take your pick. To the extent that these qualities are lacking in the driver (of any vehicle and for whatever reason) is the extent that our streets are sites of fear and danger instead of a commons where we all benefit from our collective investment.

Now you’re ready to listen to my recent interview on KSMU. I used my grumpy voice.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle safety, car culture, crazy drivers, cycling, pedestrian safety, traffic law, transportation, walking

The proposed reflective vest bill (HB 1937) solves no problem that exists on Missouri’s state highways. Bicyclists are not suffering deaths or injuries comparable to people in cars.

Perhaps we ought to require all cars to be painted day-glo and use headlights whenever the motor is running. And perhaps car drivers ought to honk at each curve and hill. Oh, and stiff fines (percentage of annual salary) for breaking traffic regulations. How about tax incentives for not driving? Why does no safety-conscious legislator suggest any of this?

(Literacy alert: That’s a (snarky) rhetorical question.)

Here’s a video I made yesterday that illustrates the power of lane position. I had not intended to use this video in this particular post — it’s a Sunday afternoon ride, so traffic is not heavy. But you’ll get the idea. The roads involved are Seminole and Fremont. The travel lane widths in most areas are not sharable (< 14 feet). Two things to note: 1) My position throughout this video is in the middle of the right tire track to the middle of the road. At no time am I closer to the road edge than 4 feet, and 2) You’ll see a motorcyclist buzz me (2:45). He is being an asshole (note that there was no on-coming traffic). I did not feel unsafe because he saw me; he did it on purpose. A driver who sees you is unlikely to hit you — even if they are being a jerk.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, cycling, traffic law, transportation

Can you spot the problem(s)?

I’m torn. On the one hand, I am a supporter of everyone enjoying bicycling in all of its many forms. Get out there and have fun!

But…

This video represents more than simply the predictable results of running a stop sign.

This is also an illustration of sport bicycling hubris. I have discussed the hegemony of sport bicycling in the U.S. bicycling culture many times (example). I believe it is largely from the behavior and experience of sport bicyclists — such as those you see in this video — that drive the idea that, among other things, bicycling in traffic is dangerous (it is not) and that one needs expensive equipment and special clothing to ride. The hegemony of sport bicycling also sets up expectations for bicyclist behavior in traffic.

Part of what I hope to achieve with Carbon Trace, in whatever small way, is to break this hegemony — to make transportation bicycling (same roads, same rules, same rights — in normal clothes) the driver of bicycling culture.

(Full disclosure: I am not a sport bicyclist. I do not own a racer. I have no interest in riding bicycles fast for exercise or any other reason. I neither follow, nor care about, bicycle racing. If you love that stuff, that’s great.)

We need to get to a place in our culture where we snicker at such antics as a sign of being out of touch — a place where sport bicyclists enjoy their sport, but where they follow the rules of the road because the hegemonic pressure dictates it.

Noted: Plenty of transportation bicyclists ignore traffic laws, too. But who is more visible in the culture? And who might be the most likely to effect change?

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

Keep your hand up if your computer has ever glitched while in use, i.e. lost its internet signal or crashed or done some other annoying thing that basically ended its functionality if even for a few seconds. Ahhhh … all of you

Now imagine a computer driving a car.

Yes, that idea is absolutely insane.

Now, as a technical and scientific curiosity aimed at learning more about what we can get computers to do, I’m all for messing around with the driverless car. Looks like great fun!

But, in practical application, what happens if the car loses its GPS signal for even a moment? What happens if the computer hits a glitch even for a moment?

Disaster.

Disaster is what happens.

Disaster is what the State of Nevada is asking for in passing regulations to pave the way for driverless cars.

People will pay with their lives for this stupid mistake.

But … we already pay with our lives for a human-controlled system — upwards of 40,000 deaths per year (up with which we would not put if these lives were lost to airplane crashes or terrorist attacks). So, really, what’s a few more deaths to advance fossil-fueled technology?

Technorati Tags: car culture, traffic, traffic law, Transportation Planning

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