CrescentMoon

Don't know if this has been posted...
https://www.slate.com/id/2232555/

Da Tinker

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.

mikeybikes

It has: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=594941

genec

Consider that some states straddle the same fence by calling bikes not "vehicles" but "human powered devices."

WCoastPeddler

It's true. The bicycle is not a car - vehicle codes were designed for cars (and other motor vehicles).

Roughstuff

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

Digital_Cowboy

Do you consider a horse and buggy a vehicle? Didn't cars not have head/taillights when they first came out? Also didn't the first cars not also lack turn signals, seatbealts, etc.?

WCoastPeddler

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?

Digital_Cowboy

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.

WCoastPeddler

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.

Da Tinker

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.

coffeecake

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.

WCoastPeddler

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.

WCoastPeddler

Perhaps you guys also missed what I wrote here:

Digital_Cowboy

It's relevant, because most states do recognize bicycles as being vehicles and as such requires them to obey all laws, and rules set forth for vehicles.

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.

Digital_Cowboy

They may not be motor vehicles, but they are vehicles, and they are expected to follow the laws and rules of the road. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

coffeecake

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???!

WCoastPeddler

You see, you really are missing the entire point of this discussion -- which is that motor vehicle laws are not appropriate for bicycles. We all get what the laws currently are -- what's being said here is that the laws are incorrect and need to be changed.

Unless you're going to mention what justifies the current laws, I don't get why you're even posting in this thread.

WCoastPeddler

Do you even have the slightest ability to comprehend what has been written in this discussion so far? The vast majority of current motor vehicle laws in the US and Canada do not deal specifically with bicycles in an adequate fashion. Bicycles have been clumped into motor vehicle laws because it was the easy thing to do -- probably because they were viewed as a recreational toy, and a nuisance. Now that bicycles are being used more commonly as transportation vehicles, the laws need to be altered to reflect this.

Now (pardon me for saying so) you're just being a dick. Really, if you're not willing to take the discussion seriously, why bother posting at all?

coffeecake

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.

coffeecake

And yes, I realize you want to keep A&S a humour-free zone. Keep fighting the good fight!

Roughstuff

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

Da Tinker

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.

WCoastPeddler

Yes, the laws do favour motor vehicles -- that's because we've been living in a car-centric society for the last hundred years. But now that times are changing and we're seeing more and more people riding bicycles as transportation (I can't emphasis the transportation aspect enough) there is a need to reassess those laws that apply equally to bicycles and determine more appropriate solutions. The current laws at best are problematic and create difficulties for getting around on a bicycle -- and as you indicate, the infrastructure needs to be revised as well (and this is going to take a very long time to implement).

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 more laws are preferred by many -- I know that I don't want more laws. But this discussion is not about making more laws for bikes, it's about not adhering to the inappropriate laws that are in place for motor vehicles -- in essence, it's about creating fewer laws. But bear in mind that it might also mean creating laws that do regulate how bicycles are ridden. In the case of the stop sign laws being discussed in the article, having a few rules that allow a different type of behaviour than a motor vehicle seems quite reasonable to me. If you haven't yet watched the video about the current stop sign laws in Idaho, it's well worth a look:

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.


My apologies, my intent was not to be antagonistic.

coffeecake

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.