vehicularists/facilitators
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#2
Can't ride enough!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south Louisiana
Posts: 1,235
Bikes: IFab Crown Jewel, Giant Defy, Hardtail MTB, Fuji finest, Bianchi FG conversion
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Zounds, what a fence straddling piece of work this article is!
"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.
It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code.
The "can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" part of most states' vehicle code applies to rules regarding turn signals, windshield wipers, brake lights and the like.
I've run stop signs. And non-responsive traffic lights, as well. But I'm a vulnerable road user who looks out for his own skin and does not expect those with the legal right of way to yield to me. I know who comes out on the short end a collision and behave accordingly.
Perhaps the true path lies in a blend of both ways, the vehicularist & the facilitator.
"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.
It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code.
The "can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" part of most states' vehicle code applies to rules regarding turn signals, windshield wipers, brake lights and the like.
I've run stop signs. And non-responsive traffic lights, as well. But I'm a vulnerable road user who looks out for his own skin and does not expect those with the legal right of way to yield to me. I know who comes out on the short end a collision and behave accordingly.
Perhaps the true path lies in a blend of both ways, the vehicularist & the facilitator.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edgewater, CO
Posts: 3,213
Bikes: Tons
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#4
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Zounds, what a fence straddling piece of work this article is!
"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.
It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code.
The "can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" part of most states' vehicle code applies to rules regarding turn signals, windshield wipers, brake lights and the like.
I've run stop signs. And non-responsive traffic lights, as well. But I'm a vulnerable road user who looks out for his own skin and does not expect those with the legal right of way to yield to me. I know who comes out on the short end a collision and behave accordingly.
Perhaps the true path lies in a blend of both ways, the vehicularist & the facilitator.
"Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians." As a trained 'vehicularist', I take particular umbrage to this statement & the paragraph that follows.
It's not a car code - it's a vehicle code.
The "can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" part of most states' vehicle code applies to rules regarding turn signals, windshield wipers, brake lights and the like.
I've run stop signs. And non-responsive traffic lights, as well. But I'm a vulnerable road user who looks out for his own skin and does not expect those with the legal right of way to yield to me. I know who comes out on the short end a collision and behave accordingly.
Perhaps the true path lies in a blend of both ways, the vehicularist & the facilitator.
#5
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's true. The bicycle is not a car - vehicle codes were designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).
#6
Punk Rock Lives
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Throughout the west in a van, on my bike, and in the forest
Posts: 3,354
Bikes: Long Haul Trucker with BRIFTERS!
Liked 71 Times
in
56 Posts
To me a bike is not a vehicle. Vehicles on the roadway have many features bicycles do not: turn signals, brake lights, headlights for safe night riding and daytime visibility, safety/collision/restraint features, etc. features, etc. In addition many cyclists want vehicular treatment on one hand but special treatment (slythering forward between lanes at a light for example) on the other.
roughstuff
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I don't take Umbrage, DT...I am only mildly offended by the law. Perhaps I should take penumbrage?
To me a bike is not a vehicle. Vehicles on the roadway have many features bicycles do not: turn signals, brake lights, headlights for safe night riding and daytime visibility, safety/collision/restraint features, etc. features, etc. In addition many cyclists want vehicular treatment on one hand but special treatment (slythering forward between lanes at a light for example) on the other.
roughstuff
To me a bike is not a vehicle. Vehicles on the roadway have many features bicycles do not: turn signals, brake lights, headlights for safe night riding and daytime visibility, safety/collision/restraint features, etc. features, etc. In addition many cyclists want vehicular treatment on one hand but special treatment (slythering forward between lanes at a light for example) on the other.
roughstuff
#8
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A bike certainly can be classified as a "vehicle" but it's not a motor vehicle, for which modern vehicle laws were written.
Not sure what exactly you're getting at in your post -- are you attempting to say that a car and a bike are the same thing?
Not sure what exactly you're getting at in your post -- are you attempting to say that a car and a bike are the same thing?
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
The point that I'm trying to make is that at different times in the development of different types of vehicles that they didn't always have all of the same safety devices that "modern day" vehicles currently do. But were still considered to be vehicles.
#10
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
While that may be true, I fail to see how it is relevant to this discussion since we're talking about modern times -- and the modern rules that are inappropriately applied to bicycles. The rules that roughstuff uses as examples are certainly relevant to modern times since they currently exist -- and are certainly inappropriate when it comes to bicycles. Most modern vehicle laws to not adequately apply to bicycles as viable modes of transportation but instead as an inconvenience to motorists.
From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.
From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.
Last edited by WCoastPeddler; 10-20-09 at 02:44 PM.
#11
Can't ride enough!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south Louisiana
Posts: 1,235
Bikes: IFab Crown Jewel, Giant Defy, Hardtail MTB, Fuji finest, Bianchi FG conversion
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
TITLE 32
MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY REGULATORY ACT
PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY
(92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.
MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY REGULATORY ACT
PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY
(92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.
#12
A vehicle (Latin: vehiculum) is a mechanical means of conveyance, a carriage or transport. Most often they are manufactured (e.g. bicycles, cars, motorcycles, trains, ships, boats, and aircraft), although some other means of transport which are not made by humans also may be called vehicles; examples include icebergs and floating tree trunks.
#13
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What you guys are missing, is that yes, bicycles are vehicles, but they're not motor vehicles. Just because they are clumped into the same category as motor vehicles doesn't mean that it's correct.
A bicycle is not a car. It's quite simple, really.
Perhaps you missed in my post above where I wrote:
Really not sure what your guy's argument is.
A bicycle is not a car. It's quite simple, really.
Perhaps you missed in my post above where I wrote:
Really not sure what your guy's argument is.
#14
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Perhaps you guys also missed what I wrote here:
From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
While that may be true, I fail to see how it is relevant to this discussion since we're talking about modern times -- and the modern rules that are inappropriately applied to bicycles. The rules that roughstuff uses as examples are certainly relevant to modern times since they currently exist -- and are certainly inappropriate when it comes to bicycles. Most modern vehicle laws to not adequately apply to bicycles as viable modes of transportation but instead as an inconvenience to motorists.
From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.
From what I can see, haphazardly clumping and regulating bicycles with laws designed specifically for automobiles and other motor vehicles was done because it was the easiest and most convenient way for politicians and lawmakers to deal with bicycles. It is far from being the correct solution.
As put forth in F.S. 316.2065
316.2065 Bicycle regulations.--
(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
What you guys are missing, is that yes, bicycles are vehicles, but they're not motor vehicles. Just because they are clumped into the same category as motor vehicles doesn't mean that it's correct.
A bicycle is not a car. It's quite simple, really.
Perhaps you missed in my post above where I wrote:
Really not sure what your guy's argument is.
A bicycle is not a car. It's quite simple, really.
Perhaps you missed in my post above where I wrote:
Really not sure what your guy's argument is.
#17
You're right, a bicycle is not a car. Neither is it a motor vehicle (unless it's a moped). But both bikes and cars are vehicles, as well as aircraft, and to a lesser extent, icebergs. Unfortunately, icebergs and aircraft do not occupy the roadway, generally speaking, so they are not included in the highway/transportation code. Modern vehicle codes also include laws for bicycles.
What I want to see is stringent laws delineating the operation of strollers. Technically, they are vehicles, and belong on the roadway, since they convey people. The same with shopping carts. When will someone put a stop to this lawless menace???!
What I want to see is stringent laws delineating the operation of strollers. Technically, they are vehicles, and belong on the roadway, since they convey people. The same with shopping carts. When will someone put a stop to this lawless menace???!
#18
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Unless you're going to mention what justifies the current laws, I don't get why you're even posting in this thread.
Last edited by WCoastPeddler; 10-20-09 at 03:16 PM. Reason: Added quote
#19
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You're right, a bicycle is not a car. Neither is it a motor vehicle (unless it's a moped). But both bikes and cars are vehicles, as well as aircraft, and to a lesser extent, icebergs. Unfortunately, icebergs and aircraft do not occupy the roadway, generally speaking, so they are not included in the highway/transportation code. Modern vehicle codes also include laws for bicycles.
What I want to see is stringent laws delineating the operation of strollers. Technically, they are vehicles, and belong on the roadway, since they convey people. The same with shopping carts. When will someone put a stop to this lawless menace???!
#20
The laws are in place to facilitate the movement of traffic with as little accidents, and as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately this tends to favour motorists, as they are in the majority and most of the lawmakers operate vehicles. Hence infrastructure is built for motor vehicles, more people drive cars, and the vicious cycle continues. Until bicyclist comprise a large proportion of the commuting, voting, and law-making population, more cycling-specific laws are not going to happen.
I don't think that more laws are the answer anyways, as staying alive is a powerful incentive, and the results of your actions on a bicycle are more immediate than in a car. Savvy cyclists use strategies to facilitate their movement through motor vehicle traffic Witness videos of traffic in India, where there are few traffic lights or stop signs. They actually have a higher thoroughput of people than more heavily regulated areas. Having more specific bicycle codes will slow bicycle traffic down, and prove a disincentive for people to bike. I do not want more laws for me regulating where I can or cannot ride. I would prefer more education on everyone's part so I don't have to scream obscenities at some ignorant motorist. So really, I mostly agree with you, but thanks for trying to antagonize me.
I don't think that more laws are the answer anyways, as staying alive is a powerful incentive, and the results of your actions on a bicycle are more immediate than in a car. Savvy cyclists use strategies to facilitate their movement through motor vehicle traffic Witness videos of traffic in India, where there are few traffic lights or stop signs. They actually have a higher thoroughput of people than more heavily regulated areas. Having more specific bicycle codes will slow bicycle traffic down, and prove a disincentive for people to bike. I do not want more laws for me regulating where I can or cannot ride. I would prefer more education on everyone's part so I don't have to scream obscenities at some ignorant motorist. So really, I mostly agree with you, but thanks for trying to antagonize me.
#22
Punk Rock Lives
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Throughout the west in a van, on my bike, and in the forest
Posts: 3,354
Bikes: Long Haul Trucker with BRIFTERS!
Liked 71 Times
in
56 Posts
Well, in their time and in their day yes, they were. Now, given the nature of modern roadways, I would not and would expect (and as many of you would) that a horse and buggy keep as far to the right as practicable. Given special laws for antique and vintage vehicles, I can see them fully entitled to the roadway in a convoy or other, rare, circumstances.
Keeping with the humor creeping into this thread, I might also add I insist that the Amish start wearing helmets.
In any case: cars have improved their safety devices as technology and social mores require.
roughstuff
#23
Can't ride enough!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south Louisiana
Posts: 1,235
Bikes: IFab Crown Jewel, Giant Defy, Hardtail MTB, Fuji finest, Bianchi FG conversion
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And reading the Louisiana law, you will see that a man on horseback is considered a vehicle here.
Makes it interesting around Mardi Gras time.
Makes it interesting around Mardi Gras time.
#24
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The laws are in place to facilitate the movement of traffic with as little accidents, and as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately this tends to favour motorists, as they are in the majority and most of the lawmakers operate vehicles. Hence infrastructure is built for motor vehicles, more people drive cars, and the vicious cycle continues. Until bicyclist comprise a large proportion of the commuting, voting, and law-making population, more cycling-specific laws are not going to happen.
I believe that a large enough proportion of the public currently rides bicycles to justify building that infrastructure -- as is evidenced by the many, many cities in North America that are making considerable efforts to accommodate bicycles and the needs of cyclists.
I don't think that more laws are the answer anyways, as staying alive is a powerful incentive, and the results of your actions on a bicycle are more immediate than in a car. Savvy cyclists use strategies to facilitate their movement through motor vehicle traffic Witness videos of traffic in India, where there are few traffic lights or stop signs. They actually have a higher thoroughput of people than more heavily regulated areas. Having more specific bicycle codes will slow bicycle traffic down, and prove a disincentive for people to bike. I do not want more laws for me regulating where I can or cannot ride. I would prefer more education on everyone's part so I don't have to scream obscenities at some ignorant motorist.
https://urbanvelo.org/bicycle-rolling...daho-stop-law/
Note that there are rules in place that prohibit "blowing through" a stop sign -- which seems quite reasonable to me.
Interesting that you bring up India -- yes, they do get around quite well there (and in other similar counties where bikes are common place) but in North America, they'd be breaking laws left and right and centre.
So really, I mostly agree with you, but thanks for trying to antagonize me.
#25
Thanks, I had figured you are a decent guy but just got caught up in posting. The debate over bikes-as-vehicles has been beaten to death in A&S and I don't think it adds anything new here.
Regarding the article and stop signs - I think that the author's position is a little disingenuous, sort of "ZOMG I didn't know you could get a ticket on a bike!!" They're not treating their responsibilities as a cyclist seriously, and I think it's related to an underlying perception of bikes as toys. The same people probably would get upset if they were ticketed for jaywalking, as they consider their right-of-way to be paramount.
That being said, I prefer to stop at stop signs. I'm familiar with the Idaho stop, and I use it often, with no traffic. However, where I live, if I treated stop signs as optional, I'd soon be a lovely hood ornament as everyone here expects you to stop at one. (There are a lot of cars who don't stop at them, but I'll save that rant for another time.) The anti-cyclist rants in the local paper usually have "not stopping at stop signs" as their main grievance in the crusade against cyclists. I like to prove them wrong.
Regarding the article and stop signs - I think that the author's position is a little disingenuous, sort of "ZOMG I didn't know you could get a ticket on a bike!!" They're not treating their responsibilities as a cyclist seriously, and I think it's related to an underlying perception of bikes as toys. The same people probably would get upset if they were ticketed for jaywalking, as they consider their right-of-way to be paramount.
That being said, I prefer to stop at stop signs. I'm familiar with the Idaho stop, and I use it often, with no traffic. However, where I live, if I treated stop signs as optional, I'd soon be a lovely hood ornament as everyone here expects you to stop at one. (There are a lot of cars who don't stop at them, but I'll save that rant for another time.) The anti-cyclist rants in the local paper usually have "not stopping at stop signs" as their main grievance in the crusade against cyclists. I like to prove them wrong.