First, a confession: I drive more places than I bike, though I do both. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe. But there you go.
Now, to the point of this post, which is the Globe story reporting reaction to a City of Boston report on the causes of bicycle accidents and recommendations on what to do. Apparently, advocates for cycling are upset about the following:
In an effort to make the city safer for cyclists, police will begin to hand out $20 citations to cyclists who run red lights; and the mayor’s office may push for a law requiring helmet use by bike riders of all ages. “We’re still blaming the victim,” said Dahianna Lopez, a Harvard doctoral student who worked as a consultant compiling crash data for the Boston Police Department.
Cycling advocates have objected that (1) a helmet law won’t prevent accidents; and (2) a relatively small number of accidents (12%, per the report) are directly traceable to cyclists running red lights or stop signs – by contrast, “twenty-two percent of collisions between cars and cyclists occurred when a vehicle door opened unexpectedly on a cyclist. Eighteen percent occurred when a motorist did not see a cyclist, and 12 percent occurred when a cyclist rode into oncoming traffic.”
Regarding point 1, I’d say the objection is true but irrelevant. The argument for helmets is precisely the same as the argument for seat belts: it’s a common-sense safety measure that will almost certainly prevent a good number of serious and perhaps fatal head injuries, thereby reducing the number of shattered lives and also keeping medical costs down. I find it hard to see the contrary argument. So I think this reaction is off-base:
David Watson, executive director of the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition, a statewide bike advocacy organization, said he disagrees with the conclusions of city officials on bike helmets. Forcing helmets on the heads of cyclists won’t prevent accidents, Watson said. “We need to focus on preventing a crash in the first place, not just providing protection when they crash,” he said.
Hey, here’s an idea: why not do both?
Point 2, on ticketing cyclists who run red lights, is more complicated. Here’s a quote from the Globe story that I think is illuminating:
[Cyclist] Ira Kemp of Arlington said that cracking down on bike riders who run red lights, an offense that he admitted committing on occasion, would not address one of the biggest factors in bike crashes: the behavior of motorists.
“It’s a huge cultural issue,” Kemp said. “Most motorists don’t have an ounce of respect for people on bikes.”
In my view, Mr. Kemp is both exactly right and precisely wrong. He’s right that many motorists don’t “respect” cyclists. That is a problem that has to change for the city to become more bike-friendly. But he is wrong that forcing cyclists to obey traffic laws won’t have any effect on that problem. To the contrary, motorists – including myself – get frustrated with cyclists precisely because they routinely behave like scofflaws, darting in and out of traffic, running red lights and stop signs with barely a glance toward oncoming traffic, and so forth. Be honest, now: how often have you seen a car intentionally run a red light? It happens now and then, but it’s pretty rare. In contrast, cyclists do it all the time.
Respect has to be earned. If cyclists want it, they have to behave as though they deserve it. And that means obeying the traffic laws. Right now, too many of them don’t do that. So a crackdown by law enforcement – in conjunction with other efforts, to be sure, such as the ongoing expansion of the city’s bike lanes and other efforts noted in the report – strikes me as an excellent idea.
Sean says
Ticketing cyclists for running red lights — or other infractions — to pacify frustrated motorists is terrible public policy. We should base enforcement policy — for those walking, in cars, or on bikes — to achieve safety and mobility objectives.
Yes, motorists don’t run red lights proportionally as often as bicyclists. But, consider that systemic non-compliance with a law by a particular population may be a sign that the law is poorly designed with regard to that group. There are intersections that I routinely drive, bicycle, and walk through. As a driver, I would never consider driving through a red light, even with no traffic in any direction. As a pedestrian, I wouldn’t consider waiting for the light if there is no traffic in any direction. When I’m on a bike, I’m a lot more like my walking self than my driving self. I’ll save for another time the overly broad categorization of bicyclists who run lights, considering that most do it in an objectively safe way. Those who get hit or nearly hit running lights are engaging in a separate category of behavior. Fun anecdote: after 20+ years of bicycling, I went legit last year and stop for (most) red lights now. First time I got hit by a car? Stopped, waiting for a light to turn green, a light I have safely run literally hundreds of times.
Third point, comparing bicyclists to motorists on the subject of red lights and drawing the conclusion that bicyclists are more scofflaw-y is absurd. Part of it is opportunity. There are lights where, routinely, the last car or two through the light goes after it’s red. In a car, you can’t run a light if someone else has stopped ahead of you. Second, the litany of violations by motorists is manifold: speeding, failure to signal, running stop signs, tailgating, blocking the box, driving in the bike lane, &c. Bicyclists may run red lights more, but motorists violate so many different laws. Last, and most important, is consequence. Bicyclist who violate laws mostly put themselves at risk. Motorists who violate laws have the capacity to do serious injury and death to others.
Back to my first point, is public safety best served by concentrating more effort on cyclists?
marcus-graly says
Avoids the problem of motorists turning right into you.
David says
Then again, it may be a sign that the culture of that particular group is to ignore laws that apply to them. Just sayin’.
Sean says
The “culture group” is becoming increasingly diverse. Years ago, I assumed that red-light compliance would go up as more women and older folk joined the then outlaws: the hipsters and the middle-aged wannabes. Turns out, I was way wrong. Cyclists from across the demographic landscape are out biking — and they are all running red lights.
I know you were trying to be cute and make a point, but It’s easy to dismiss people by lumping them together as an undifferentiated other.
David says
That would seem to make my point.
theloquaciousliberal says
That doesn’t “seem to make your point” at all.
The fact that all different types of cyclists are all running red lights is definitely more easily interpreted as a sign that the law is poorly designed. If women and older folks also run red lights certainly that is a point against your argument that this is really about a biker outlaw culture.
More generally, Sean has made a real effort here to provide reasoned and well-argued debate on your initial post. Your replies, in turn, have been little more than casual dismisals. You can do better.
Trickle up says
Maybe Sean meant that all types of cyclists run reds. Maybe, I don’t know about that.
But where I live a nice mix of urban and recreation cyclists mostly obey the law.
Yeah, you can see scofflaws every day, setting a bad example for the kids and making it harder for the rest of us. Mostly people don’t do that though.
Most of the drivers I see obey the law most of the time too, as far as that goes.
HR's Kevin says
The total lack of enforcement provides very little incentive for cyclists of any age to bother stopping. You have almost zero chance of ever being stopped by a cop and then will almost always get a warning. Even if you get some kind of fine, it won’t affect your insurance or driving license.
Having said that, I have no problem with some relaxation of the stopping laws for bikes, but I don’t think anyone complaining about cyclists running lights/stop signs is talking about people going slowly through a stop sign when there is little or no cross traffic. I have no problem with that. I just don’t want them blowing through red lights at high speed as I am crossing the intersection in my car or running me over when I am in the cross walk.
David says
You may behave more like your walking self when you’re biking, but legally, you are more like your driving self. That’s a big part of the problem, IMHO. Maybe your view is that the laws should be adjusted to let cyclists run red lights if, in their judgment, they can do so safely. Personally, I think that would be a truly terrible idea, but YMMV.
Sean says
Are legally obligated to stop and stay stopped until the light is red. Where’s the legal difference?
HR's Kevin says
Currently the law is rarely enforced for pedestrians and cyclists in Boston and the penalties are much lower than they are for motorists (assuming they get an actual ticket and not just a warning).
A $20 fine would be far less than a motorist would have to pay for a ticket for failing to stop, and we all know that cops aren’t going to be ticketing very many cyclists even under the new rules, so I don’t think this is such a big deal. Police already have the capability to exercise their judgement when choosing who to pull over and usually don’t snag people who are going 5 miles over the limit or who just caught the tail end of a yellow light. I would hope they would exercise the same judgement with cyclists.
cat-servant says
I bike and drive. The simple fact is that a car running a light just might kill someone else, whereas a bicycle running a red light will not. Nor will a pedestrian. Should we start ticketing pedestrians who cross against the light to make motorists feel better? If not, why should bikes be treated differently.
Idaho had a good, realistic bicycle law which reflects the fact that a bike is a not a ton of metal moving at high speed. http://urbanvelo.org/bicycle-rolling-stop-animation-idaho-stop-law/ It allows bikes to make a “rolling stop” through a light or stop sign when it is safe to do so. (Keyword when it is safe. i.e. when no cars are coming).
I’d like to see genuinely dangerous bikes ticketed–I knew someone who would go perpendicular through heavy traffic, aiming just behind a moving car and often forcing the car behind that to hit the brakes. But punishing bikes for otherwise safe behavior is counterproductive.
Jasiu says
Maybe not kill, but serious mental damage can result. How about the effect on the law-abiding driver who hits and kills or seriously maims the biker who ran the light? If that were me as the driver, people could tell me for the rest of my life that it wasn’t my fault but I’d still have to live with the fact that someone died because my car hit them.
David says
need to be simple. If there’s a red light, you stop. If there’s a stop sign, you stop. Opening them up for judgment calls will just open them up to being contested because the cop and the driver/biker disagree on whether the circumstances were such that it was OK to run the red light or whatever.
Also, bikes running red lights is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First, they can and do hit and seriously injure pedestrians. Second, when (not if) they make a mistake in deciding when it’s safe to run the light, they startle cars who are proceeding legally through the intersection, causing the cars to quickly and unpredictably change direction or slam on the brakes, which of course greatly increases the likelihood of an accident. It’s much, much better for all concerned if bikes just wait for the damn light to change. Waiting for those 30 seconds really can’t be all that bad.
Sean says
Whatever your feelings about running red lights, it’s not shared by the vast majority of bikers. Surprisingly (see above), it doesn’t seem to be getting better as the biker demographic expands (on three different dimensions, at least: age, gender, ethnicity).
There are three options:
1. Criminalize the behavior. Given the externalities of motor vehicle travel, do you really want to discourage cycling?
2. Change the infrastructure. The best answer. Bikes and cars are different, they should have separate space and rules.
3. Until 3 is accomplished, come up with new rules or an enforcement policy that separates reasonable behavior from the truly reckless.
Simple is good, but only as simple as necessary.
HR's Kevin says
I really don’t think it is a very strong argument to say that people will just break the laws anyway so we shouldn’t bother to have them. You could use that same argument to say that there should be no laws against littering or speeding for that matter.
Yes, there should be separate bike lanes and paths when possible, but there are always going to be plenty of places where pedestrians, cars and bikes are going to cross paths, so the issue is never going to go away.
In any case, I don’t think that anyone is arguing that cyclists should be ticketed for the slightest infraction of a traffic rule any more than motorists should be ticketed for slight infractions. The problem is that currently cyclists are not being penalized at all for very dangerous behavior. I really don’t think that a slight increase the enforcement is really going to be all that big a deal.
stomv says
Making a right on red is exactly the same kind of judgement call you argue bicyclists shouldn’t be allowed to make to cross.
Sure, the actual action is slightly different, the equipment different, etc. Fundamentally, allowing vehicles to turn right on red is no different than allowing cyclists to proceed through an intersection on red.
fenway49 says
and then conclude
???
The difference in “equipment” seems pretty fundamental to me. Just based on relative size and opacity alone, it’s a lot easier for someone else to see a turning car than a bike coming straight through a red light at top speed.
stomv says
in right on red, and therefore allowing discretion for cyclists would be no different fundamentally.
As for which is safer — well, they’re both perfectly safe when they’re perfectly safe. Duh. Nobody is arguing that a cyclist should be allowed to baralel through a red light at top speed. That’s a strawman you just set up. The Idaho stop calls for a cyclist to come to a red light, come to a complete stop, and then proceed as if it were a stop sign. That makes it’s requirements very similar to right on red (also requires full stop). Should MA make the Idaho stop legal? I don’t know… I see good arguments from both sides.
My point was merely that david’s argument doesn’t seem to hold water in a state which allows right on red.
Sean says
The whole campaign for mutual respect is entirely misguided. As a daily bike commuter, I’m not interested in respect. I want people to pay attention. I can count on one hand the number of dangerous incidents I’ve been involved in where the driver was angry with me. Nearly daily, I have close calls with folks who just didn’t notice me. Got hit two weeks ago, from behind, by a guy who didn’t even realize he’d hit me.
When drivers are angry with me, at least they are accounting for me.
David says
coming from a driver: you want drivers to respect you. And you don’t want them angry at you.
Sean says
But, it’s not borne out by tens of thousands of miles driven in and around Boston.
Charley on the MTA says
I once got ticketed in Cambridge for running a red light. I deserved it; wasn’t being a flat-out reckless douche, but still.
That being said, part of the evolving culture of road-sharing between cara and bikes needs to be better resources for bikes (lanes, etc), and a modicum of common sense. For instance, there are many t Intersections (NW on Mass Ave at Rindge, eg) where it makes little sense for a bike to stop except to let pedestrians cross. Road rules that have been adapted for the speed and size of cars need to be adapted for the co-existence of bikes.
Bike advocates should stress safety, and that means driver awareness, more amenities, and indeed, wearing helmets.
fenway49 says
commutes by bike and hates the reckless cyclists. In his view they give all cyclists a bad name. He also isn’t thrilled with reckless drivers or those who pay no attention either.
I drive pretty often, generally ride my bike elsewhere than the city streets. And I can attest to how many car operators run red lights. Often I’m thinking I cut it close, only to see the two cars behind me charge right through well after the light’s turned red. But bikes do tend to just fly right through. Under the law bicycles are vehicles, they’re not pedestrians. With that designation come certain rights and certain responsibilities.
jconway says
It’s long annoyed my parents who have had to contend with cyclists bumping into them over the years in a variety of ways or slowing down traffic. Separate bike lanes should help, helmets, and forcing them to stop at red lights. As my dad says, ‘if you want to use the road act like a car’.
gmoke says
from On Looking by Alexandra Horowitz
There’s also the Idaho Stop:
There’s a discussion of the Idaho stop at
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/should-cyclists-be-able-do-idaho-stop.html
As a bike rider, I practice the Idaho Stop and try to get away from cars as quickly as possible when I ride. I also tend to pray when riding, as a practice of awareness.
merrimackguy says
both times I did not see them when I stepped off the curb into the street.
I did not see them because I didn’t look in their direction, because both of them were traveling at high rates of speed the wrong way on a one way street.
Bicyclists need to obey the rules of the road.
PS I have indeed done what was mentioned in at the beginning- I opened a car door and almost made a cyclist crash. However I was in Europe, and it was nighttime and November and I admit, despite the fact that I was a seasoned traveler and was aware of the all the bikes, I wasn’t anticipating the fact that cyclist would be out under those conditions.
Trickle up says
Not the worst in this thread by far, but David’s post comes across as chip-on-the-shoulder, cruisin’-for-a-bruisin attitude.
Dude, it’s not about being a “bad person.” It’s not about your defensiveness. Your choices are your business. It’s about not hurting and killing people.
Courtesy does count, but statements like “respect must be earned” in this context sound like naked threats. They make me angry.
Guess what. You are required by law to drive safely. There’s no snotty cyclist exemption. You are supposed to refrain from maiming those bad, who-do-they-think-they-are, spandexed hipsters just as much as the nice law-abiding ones.
If you can’t handle that, pull over and cool off.
Personally, I’d love to see a zero-tolerance enforcement policy statewide. Run a light on your bike, block a crosswalk in your SUV, fail to signal, fail to yield, fail to come to a full stop, open your car door without looking, pass too close to a cyclist, the hammer should come down.
That’s what you want too, right? You’re not just singling out cyclists, are you?
In any case, traffic engineering is going to do a lot more good than traffic enforcement. Yes we can do both but public policy should be guided by what works not a thirst for blood or vengeance.
centralmassdad says
But it also certainly captures the tone of this particular topic, even among those that generally agree.
Ultimately, the goal is to rejigger infrastructure so that there are more protected bike lanes, no? Not just bike lanes, but protected ones, perhaps by putting another curb a few feet out from the existing curb, so that parked cars act as the protective buffer.
But to do this, your elected officials must necessarily: (i) take away road-space from the motorized vehicles in order to reallocate it to the pedalled varierty; and (ii) spend the dough on the infrastructure changes. And those elected officials need to sell this to a voting public that is primarily composed of people who do not bike, but do remember that one time last year when they were driving and a bicyclist did something unexpected– was on the wrong side of the road, popped out of a one way street the wrong way, ran a stop or red light, whatever– that scared the living bejeebus out of the driver who was more than aware that if anything happens, the cyclist is dead and it is the car driver’s fault. That makes for hostility later, rational or not.
There may be reasons that it is better for bikes to do rolling stops– though it seems to me like the primary reason is that undoing and redoing toe clips is a pain in the $^%^%. But it seems to me that even if this is the case, the primary goal would be to get your elected officials to tools they need to sell the infrastructure changes. Penalizing cyclists that exempt themselves from traffic rules seems like one of these tools.
David says
Boy, talk about losing the ‘tude. You might consider that yourself, trickle.
My baseline assumption, which pretty much everyone shares, is that cars are required to obey the rules of the road, and should be ticketed when they don’t. And that’s how things generally work. Sure, enforcement could be better, blah blah, but if you’re in a car, you run a red light, and a cop is nearby, odds are quite good you will get pulled over. I didn’t think it necessary to restate that. My point here – which is obviously not universally shared – is that the same should go for cyclists.
If my post made you angry, well, I don’t much care about that. What I do care about is making the roads safer for everyone – motorists, cyclists, pedestrians. My view is that doing so requires stricter enforcement of traffic vis-a-vis cyclists than has generally been the practice thus far; perhaps you disagree. My point about “respect” was a response to the attitude of cyclists like Mr. Kemp who bemoan the lack of “respect” they receive from motorists; I suggested a possible source of that difficulty. How you get from there to a “threat,” I have no idea.
Trickle up says
this is the conversation we should be having. I did not hear much of it in your original post.
Obviously, everyone ought to obey the law–and be fined for failing to do so. You are kidding yourself if you think enforcement against motorists is anything but spotty, however. And there are many jurisdictions that ticket cyclists, which I think is a good idea.
However, if you single out for enforcement cyclists’ behavior that irks you but is less dangerous than other offenses that are not ticketed, you are being ideological. Ticket everyone the same.
As for my pushback, sure, I own that. What I don’t do is turn it inside out and project it onto the world, where policy ought to be based on facts, not road rage.
David says
because there isn’t a cop around every time someone runs a red light. Do you support cameras at intersections that snap pictures of your license plate as you run a red light, and then mail you a ticket? That’s how you dramatically increase the enforcement rate. That’s an interesting topic for another post.
stomv says
Unless that rule is:
* speeding, but by no more than 9 more than the limit
* actually stopping when the light is yellow and it is safe to do so, instead of you and the three cars behind you juicing the “orange” light
* double parking, so long as your flashers are on
* pretending not to see that pedestrian at an unsignalized intersection
* using turn signals
* coming to a FULL STOP at a stop sign, every when there isn’t a car coming the other way
We don’t expect or assume that cars are required to obey the rules of the road. We give leeway when we perceive that their violations don’t cause substantial safety hazards. That’s perfectly OK with me by the way. I just think that we should do the same thing for peds (jaywalking and crossing against the light are OK when there’s no car coming) and for bikes (treating a stop light like a stop sign, for example). It’s true that we don’t believe it safe for autos to run red lights, and we expect cops to ticket for that. That collective wisdom comes from decades of experience, and frankly, we don’t have the same kind of data to suggest it’s true for cyclists or pedestrians.
Christopher says
When I see a cop I make darn sure I follow every one of those rules to the letter.
Trickle up says
* Not blocking intersections or crosswalks
* Stopping at the stop line, never over it
* Never pulling across traffic and blocking it so as to make a left turn
* Only passing cyclists at a safe distance, even if that means waiting 5 or 10 whole seconds
Enforcing these and other infractions for cars would do more for safety and mobility than strict enforcement of rules for cyclists. But by all means, crack down on everyone.
danielmoraff says
Requiring helmets is a commonsense idea but it’s also a bad one.
The problem is, you start requiring helmets, you do the following:
-you make it way more inconvenient to bike (who’s going to spontaneously hop on a bike if they have to tote around an inconvenient head-shell?)
-you send a message that biking is some kind of extreme sport.
Highly recommend this excellent article on the subject (emphasis added):
ChiliPepr says
I think it would be safer if all bicyclist have to wear DOT (Motorcycle) helmets…. OK, not really, but you are sounding a bit like the motorcycle riders who want to repeal the helmet law…
danielmoraff says
Except that it’s totally different because there’s no critical mass of motorcyclists to aspire to. Helmet laws are disastrous for efforts to mainstream cycling, and the single most important way to improve bike safety is to mainstream cycling.
roarkarchitect says
In the suburbs bicyclists ride 2 or 3 across – not acceptable – I was always taught keep to the right of the road – and I do. I also do run RED lights on my bike – when there are not cars going the other way – safer for everyone.
BTW – I almost got run over as a pedestrian a couple of times on a bike trail in Amsterdam – and a mother had her baby in the front basket of a bike (a SWAT team would come after her in the US for doing this).
Christopher says
…that the rules of the road for bikes were exactly the same as for cars (and that you are supposed to walk your bike across an intersection, but I never see that). There may be valid arguments to change those laws, but until they are changed they should be enforced.
stomv says
… and therein lies my biggest beef with the way society treats cyclists. We’ve dramatically changed the rules and expectations for auto-bike interactions. We’ve introduced new lane markings, even new rules about opening the car door.
But we haven’t bothered to educate motorists. They go in to the DMV every X years to renew their license, and we don’t even give them a pamphlet, no less make them retake a written test.
Yet we as motorists have no problem complaining that cyclists don’t follow the rules. Motorists by and large don’t even know that they’re not following the rules!
maxdaddy says
I think far too much of the focus, in almost all discussions involving bikes, is on the interaction of cars and bike(r)s. This immediately sets up a misleading virtuous contrast: good bike(r)s, bad cars.
At least where I live, on Beacon Hill, this gets things almost wholly wrong. Here, in terms of good behavior as between cars and bike(r)s, the cars win hands down. It’s a daily occurrence to see bike(r)s flout the most obvious safety concerns. They go the wrong way on one-way streets. They violate traffic lights. They zoom down the hilly side streets through Charles Street intersections. The ride on the sidewalks. They seem to have no brakes: the routine substitute is “Behind you!” as they nearly are upon you.
Of course, we have more bike(r)s than ever in our neighborhood with the city’s Hubway program: almost always when I walk by a stand, most or all of the bikes are gone.
We’ve had some serious accidents but mostly lots of near misses.
Enforcement needs to be better. But let’s acknowledge that people–pedestrians and bikers alike–may not fully understand the rules. So let’s get them down on paper in simple format. That includes putting them at each of the city’s Hubway stands, since so many users may come from out of town. Then let’s have some serious and unbiased public education–not education that is used as an opportunity to lobby for or against more bike lanes, but education that simply tells everyone what the rules of the road (and the sidewalk, including bike parking) are today. Finally, we must have reasonable future enforcement. If this means ticketing wayward bikers, that’s fine by me: I don’t expect, as a driver, to be let off for running a light or driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and I don’t see why any biker should expect this either. I’m getting a little tired of experiencing near misses myself on local streets, or seeing them.
As I understand the law, the key difference–except on limited access highways–is between vehicles and pedestrians. Cars and bikes are vehicles. Pedestrians have the right of way. Always. Very few car drivers fail to yield this right. Bike(r)s routinely scoff at it. Stiff, sensible enforcement will, pretty quickly I expect, put an end to this scoffing.
stomv says
I say hogwash to your last statement.
At unsignalized crosswalks, peds have an incredibly tough time getting a motorist to stop. Autos are 7′ wide. Bicycles are 3′ wide and almost always traveling more slowly. That autos are so much more dangerous keeps the ped’s feet planted firmly on the concrete, but that doesn’t mean that the auto didn’t fail to yield.
I have no problem with a plainclothes officer ticketing every vehicle who fails to yield. I’ll bet dollars to doughnaughts that more motorists than cyclists will violate.
jamaicaplainiac says
Respect does not have to be earned. Human beings deserve respect because they are human beings, and I don’t have to prove anything to you in order to not deserve to be killed by you. I should think this is obvious.
One commenter complains about cyclists taking up the entire lane, which it is their legal right to do. I want to point out that every time you pass a cyclist on your right, that person has ceded their legal right to the lane in order to be courteous to you. Strange how you don’t mention this epidemic courtesy that cyclists show to drivers.
Are we all going to adhere to the letter of the law now? Cool. I’ll be in the middle of the lane tomorrow, and I dearly hope you are right behind me.
Christopher says
…but that’s not the respect level we’re looking at here. We talk all the time in a variety of contexts about respect having to be earned and this is no different. Bicyclists are supposed to be on the far right of the road, not taking up the lanes meant for cars unless posted like they are in Lowell. Lose the attitude!
stomv says
christopher — you’re flat out wrong.
Cyclists are not legally nor morally obligated to be on the far right of the road. Cyclists are legally entitled to take the lane. Always. Every single time. No matter what. Even the left lane if there are two lanes in the same direction. Furthermore, there are loads of good reasons for this. Just some of the reasons why I might not be riding against the curb…
* Debris
* Dangerous storm drains
* Potholes or other road damage too far to the right to hinder motorists
* Overgrown vegetation
* Risk of parallel parked car doors opening
* Poorly parked parallel cars
* Doubly parked cars
* Turning left
* Overtaking another bicycle, jogger, etc.
* Too narrow for a motor vehicle to safely pass
* Seeing a motorist approach an intersection or a driveway up ahead from my right
* Knowing that motorists at this particular location aren’t very neighborly about letting me merge leftward, and I’ve got to deal with something in the above list not immediately but soon enough
This entire thread is about bicycle scofflaws, but the reality is that most motorists — including, clearly, christopher — don’t know the motor vehicle laws as they relate to bicycles. This is what cyclists are up against. A few motorists are hostile, most are ignorant. While other bicyclists stopping at all red lights may reduce motor vehicle driver’s hostility toward me*, it doesn’t get at my most common hazard, which is motor vehicle operators who simply don’t know their obligations and my obligations.
* I can control the actions of other bicyclists no more than any other [fill-in-the-blank] can control the actions of other human beings who happen to have one thing in common with this person. A motorist who uses the behavior of other bicyclists to justify being rude or dangerous toward me, or to justify public policy which doesn’t protect me while on the road is, well, whatever. You fill in the blank for yourself.
kirth says
See below. Ignorance of the law is obviously not limited to motorists.
Christopher says
…but I was definitely taught growing up that the lanes are for cars, the margins are for bikes, and the sidewalk (or left margin in the absence of a sidewalk) were for pedestrians. I definitely think that should be the case. The lanes should be reserved for forms of transit capable of reaching the posted speed limit.
SomervilleTom says
Your last sentence never has been true, and the rules about yielding reflect that reality. Even the rules for *boats* reflect a different cultural reality (power boats are required to yield for sailboats).
The reality has always been that the more powerful vehicle is expected to yield to the older or less powerful technology — this is why there are special markings on interstates and turnpikes. In the part of the country where I grew up (a MD suburb of DC), it was (and I presume still is) commonplace to have horses, haywagons, tractors, buggies, mules, and similar conveyances sharing the road. Cars were and are expected to stop and/or yield — the slower conveyance ALWAYS has the right-of-way.
Haywagon
Amish buggy (Lancaster County, PA)
Highways are public property, farmers and Amish pay as much in taxes as everybody else, and every citizen therefore has a right to use a highway, road, or street — and to do so in reasonable safety.
Christopher says
I don’t see a whole lot of horses and buggies on MA roads. Obviously bikes can fit on the margins whereas buggies cannot. I stand by what I think the rules should be.
kirth says
The law says otherwise:
Bicyclists have a duty to facilitate being overtaken by faster vehicles. If your bicycle were consistently going the speed limit, you might argue that you can use the whole lane. Bicycles don’t consistently operate at, or even near the speed limit. If they used the whole lane, they’d be obstructing traffic.
roarkarchitect says
I ride my road bike on the same winding road where groups of cyclists ride 3 across – they have pissed the drivers on the road off – I don’t want to be collateral damage – I’ve debated giving up my road bike and just using my mountain bike – but that’s tough in the fall and spring when the mountain bike trails close.
stomv says
it’s illegal to ride three wide. It’s also illegal to attempt to pass unsafely.
What happens all the time — both in “peletons” and in city streets — is that the cyclist is familiar with that stretch of road, and knows that motorists like to try to pass there and that it is unsafe. Therefore, in an act of self-preservation, the bicyclist(s) obstruct the lane, because a law-abiding motorist wouldn’t attempt to pass there, but many motorists do anyway.
Now, I’m not arguing that in the particular case being discussed above that the situation I describe is the right one. I am writing that I “take the lane” every single day in a few specific locations because I’ve seen motorists constantly behave far too aggressively and try to overtake me where it simply isn’t safe (for me!) for them to do so. My only three options are (a) be unsafe, (b) don’t ride, or (c) ride in such a way that prevents them from breaking the law, even if it sure looks like I’m breaking the law.
It’s tricky stuff. We all want to get to where we’re going quickly, and we all tend to see the best in ourselves and the worst in others. When the “other” doesn’t look anything like us (6,000 lbs vs. 250 lbs), it’s even easier.
jamaicaplainiac says
I’m not sure these sections say what you think they say. You’ve left out this part of Section 89, section 2: If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
Please note the importance of safety in the law about overtaking. Safety, not speed, must be the primary consideration of the overtaking vehicle.
The language here clearly applies to both cars and bikes. Bikes do not have a special duty to facilitate overtaking. They have exactly the same duty (and rights) as cars.
It sounds to me like we’re into interpretation about what constitutes unnecessary obstruction. I think I can pretty clearly argue that my riding beyond the reach of unexpected car door openings is a necessary obstruction indeed.
roarkarchitect says
The road I get worried about – and its great to ride on – is 3+ miles long – if you are in a car – and bikes are riding two or three across – you have to follow the bikes for miles at 10-12 miles an hour. This is wrong and just arrogance among some cyclists.
kirth says
I left that part out because it’s not relevant to whether cyclists “have a right to take up the entire lane,” which is what I was responding to. Are you saying I’m wrong in thinking the law says they do not have that right?
roarkarchitect says
And that cyclist activists are endangering the rest of us law abiding riders – and they need to be ticketed.
Much the same as the messenger bikes without brakes – or skiers who drink and barrel down the mountain at 35 miles an hour with no control.
It’s lack of respect for other individuals.
jamaicaplainiac says
So, clearly cyclists riding three abreast are in the wrong. And I was wrong about that. My bad!
Otherwise, though, what I see the law to be saying is that you can’t make unreasonable efforts to prevent someone from passing as long as they signal and it is safe for both vehicles to do so.
I have never seen a car signal in order to pass me, as they are quite clearly required by law to do.
Vehicles being passed can’t be “unreasonable,” but I don’t see anything about how they have to travel outside the center of the lane.
The law clearly states that riding two abreast is okay. Which implies that one cyclist can legally travel a safe distance to the left of another, which means, yeah, as far as I can tell, bikes can use the whole lane.
I recognize this is different in suburban and rural areas, but in most of Boston, the speed thing is kind of a canard anyway. If there’s any kind of traffic, the car going thirty mph is going to be sitting doing zero mph for long enough that the average speed is about the same as a bike doing ten .
roarkarchitect says
I can understand in JP – but the law needs to be changed at least in the suburbs – it doesn’t make sense – and is dangerous to the cyclist.
Sort of related but – my biggest nightmare is hitting either a cyclists or a motorcyclist. Never assume a car can see you.
stomv says
For a variety of reasons:
1. The data for seat belt use are clear. The data for helmet use, as it turns out, are far less clear. It’s simply not obvious that helmet use substantially improves safety. As a side note, the data for helmet use on motorcycles are clear.
2. Every single automobile comes with seat belts. They’re in the car. Not so with helmets.
3. A seat belt is designed to fit an extremely wide range of people automatically. A helmet requires correct fitting, and isn’t (can’t?) be designed to simply click on and have a safe fit.
4. Sharing a seat belt is no biggie — sharing a helmet is, well, flat out gross.
5. Relative to the cost of a car, a seat belt is peanuts. Relative to the cost of a bike, a helmet is not. (Don’t use a $5k bike any more than I wouldn’t use a $400k auto for this example)
6. In conjunction with seat belts, we’ve spent the last 100 years building infrastructure to maximize safety for motorists. The techniques have evolved over time, but the intention hasn’t. In America, we’ve spent about 10 years worried about safe infrastructure for bicyclists, and even then only in some places. Seat belt requirements came after we had done loads of other things to reduce both accident rates and accident severity. We haven’t done so for bicyclists.
It’s easy to use the Netherlands as an example, because they’re on the far end of the spectrum. Their head injury rate per 1000 miles of bicycle use is far, far, far lower than tUSA’s, and yet their helmet use is also far lower. It is the operation of motor vehicles and bicycles which has the greatest room to improve safety — and that’s a combination of education and better infrastructure. As for the former — why isn’t bicycle safety a bigger part of getting [and renewing!] a drivers license? After all, every motorist will interact with cyclists, and most cyclists have a drivers license too! As for the latter, clearly marked bike lanes result in better (and more frequently legal) behavior by both motorists and cyclists. It turns out that when the infrastructure makes it clear that bicyclists are members of the transportation community, both the other members and the bicyclists behave more civilly.
Christopher says
…that if one wears a helmut one has less chance of head injury if knocked off or falls off a bike? Seems I don’t need a lot of elaborate study to verify that.
stomv says
a study was done in the UK where a professor rigged up his bike with a number of small sensors.
He rode dressed as a man, with a helmet.
He rode dressed as a man, without a helmet.
He rode dressed as a woman, with a helmet.
He rode dressed as a woman, without a helmet.
It turns out that the distance by which cars passed him was remarkably correlated — helmets mean closer passing cars.
Maybe that means more accidents, maybe not. Maybe its different in the UK than in the USA. Maybe cyclists without helmets ride more slowly and carefully precisely because they feel more vulnerable.
Maybe with a helmet law fewer people ride a bicycle, and that decision (in aggregate) makes things safer or less safe for that person or for the remaining cyclists, motorists, peds, etc.
All things being equal, I’d rather have a helmet on my head. But, the mere act of wearing a helmet means that all things are not equal, and that’s why it’s not at all obvious.
Christopher says
I just know that every once in awhile one DOES happen, at which point the helmut is there to protect your head. As a driver I know I do not change my passing distance based on whether the cyclist is wearing a helmut.
stomv says
I mean, to hell with a study which studied a large population to statistical significance. That wanker didn’t consider christopher. He *knows* he doesn’t change his passing distance. He knows because he knows, that’s how he knows. Just like he knows that bicycles belong on the far right of the road, even when, well, in fact, they don’t.
P.S. For the love of God, it’s a helmet, not a German.
P.P.S. The helmet example extends to motorists too. Why not require motorists to wear helmets? They’d be safer too, right? Maybe, maybe not — just like bicyclists. But hell, why not demand that the other group make changes instead of worrying about making changes ourselves, right?
Christopher says
…bu ditch the attitude with the rest. Seat belts are the appropriate car equivalent. I think others have mentioned descrepencies in yor understanding of the law and I’m entitled to my opinion on what it should be. Once someone does fall down it doesn’t really matter what anyone’s intentions were.
stomv says
Seat belts are not even close to the car equivalent, others have not mentioned dependencies in my understanding of the law, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions. Just be prepared for a bit of some attitude when your opinions aren’t formed by facts. Just as in every single issue regarding an auto [see tolls and gas tax], you transform from a well informed and well reasoned poster to a “me! me! me!” poster.
Christopher says
…if I thought for a moment that an issue or a perspective on an issue only applied to me. I just think that in a context that purports to be reality-based we could use a dose of reality regarding the role cars play in people’s lives. For the sake of this particular discussion, and most others for that matter, I try to find the appropriate balance usually in the sense of the greatest good for the greatest number, though I understand we can debate what constitutes that. For the sake of this thread I advocate policies and methods that enhance the safety and accessibility of all travelers.
jamaicaplainiac says
So, a couple of points that make me sad. The report is clear (with the corrected numbers–note that the draft version online has math errors) that cyclists being doored is a far bigger problem than cyclists running red lights.
And yet we’re arguing about cyclist behavior.
Motorists flout traffic laws all the time. Speed limits, use of turn signals, yielding to pedestrians, and yes, the laws about overtaking–are all ignored pretty widely. People disobey the traffic laws they think they can get away with disobeying. This causes problems for cars, bikes, and pedestrians.
But let’s talk about cyclist behavior.
I’m not saying that we cyclists (I am also a driver, but I bike to work) shouldn’t ride safely.
But for God’s sake. People insulated by tons of metal are so eager to focus on what other people should be doing differently.
Even here on Blue Mass Group, where I’d hope there would be some understanding about the importance of bikes to the life of a city.
I’m not a daredevil, and I don’t ride with a chip on my shoulder trying to piss people off. I’m just trying to get to work alive. So do you think you could check before you open your door? Do you think you could pass me with more than two inches of clearance? Am I asking too much here?