Just what is a Bicycle Friendly Community to the League of American Bicyclists (LAB)? Apparently, it's nothing more than paint... even when the paint has been proven to be deadly.
Notice the two signs on the post in the photo above. One says bike lane, the one above it is a plaque touting LAB's approval of the city as an official Bicycle Friendly Community. The bike lane is the proper width, but it was created in part by reducing the width of the on-street parking by about two feet, creating what's called a "door zone bike lane".
If door zone bike lanes are "bicycle friendly" (which are specifically singled out as a very dangerous design to be avoided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials... AASHTO), I'd hate to imagine what "bicycle unfriendly" would be. Oh wait, we know. According to some, Dallas epitomizes "bicycle unfriendly".
But why? Because we wouldn't install AASHTO non-compliant, deadly facilities, like this.
14 comments:
Isn't the bike lane that 11 feet or so in between the solid white line just outside the open car door and the dashed line? Looks pretty safe to me!
;-)
Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
[snip]
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
Steve,
This means one of two things, because it’s not there by accident.
1) Cyclists must use a bike lane if present on a substandard width roadway,
2) Cyclists may not use full lane if a bike lane is present.
So, humorous commentary aside, no that is not the preferred 11' bike lane to the left of the door zone.
Strictly interpreting the letter of the law, the presence of a bike lane does not make it mandatory. It merely removes exception #4A from consideration. I can think of many reasons why riding in the bike lane might not be "practicable".
In this case, I would think that exception #3 would clearly apply:
a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway;
Rest assured, the exceptions of the FTR and MBL laws are only interpreted in our favor by us.
If you have the time and money to go to court to fight an unjust citation, you may prevail there. However, even prevailing in a court of law is not a guarantee. Many a judge has substituted personal bias for correct interpretation of the law when it comes to cyclists.
A few years ago, a Delaware judge ruled against a cyclist claiming a 12ft lane. His reasoning:
Most of the lanes in Delaware were 12ft wide (or less) and he just couldn't believe the legislature intended for cyclists to be riding in the middle of the lane on most roads.
His ruling was thrown out by the magistrate before the appeal, so no legal precedent was set and future cyclists will be forced to endure the same process of wasting time in traffic court and hiring a lawyer.
Interpreting the law in our favor is necessary, but it still falls short of equity.
With all due respect to Keri, as a cyclist, I do not interpret FTR and MBL rules as being in our (vehicular cyclists') favor.
Stuart, your interpretive belief is erroneous.
The law in Texas is quite clear:
"a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless...the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is...less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane."
Dissecting each phrase, one arrives at the following ...without ambiguity.
- if the outside lane is less than 14 feet in width and in the absence of a bike lane, the cyclist may use as much of the lane as deemed safe and necessary.
- if the outside lane is less than 14 feet in width and a bike lane is installed/striped adjacent to that lane, the cyclist must make use of the bike lane.
- if the outside lane is 14 feet or wider and no bike lane exists, the cyclist must ride as far right as is reasonable, feasible and safe, while making allowance for other vehicles to overtake in the same lane.
- if the outside lane is 14 feet or
wider and a bike lane is installed/striped adjacent to that lane, in theory, the cyclist can operate in the regular travel lane provided they do so as far right as is reasonable, feasible and safe, while making allowance for other vehicles to overtake in the same lane.
The problem is the reality of the situation. In all instances of which I am aware, bike lanes are installed after the fact. In doing so, existing lanes are restriped to provide for a bike lane of three to five feet in width. This usually results in outside lanes adjacent to bike lanes of between nine and eleven feet. Given the fourteen foot minimum to operate outside the bike lane, this effectively requires use of the bike lane.
Lest I be accused of missing Stuart's regarding practicability, let me address that statement, specifically.
Strictly speaking, the practicability clause does not apply to bike lanes, IMO. That is considered a special facility and its use is mandated, regardless of practicability.
It is with this consideration in mind that I believe the "Safe Passing" rule, if signed into law, will not apply to cyclists in a bike lane. Being in their own protected space within the adjacent facility, the Magick Paint will be interpreted as affording a safety buffer.
As Keri suggested, this will remain ambiguous until tested and upheld in court. Feel free to volunteer as the test case, Stuart. You will be doing all of us a favor by verifying which interpretation of the law is more accurate.
Again, all of the above applies only to Texas in this context and only according to current verbiage. Nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, it does mandate the use of a bike lane if one is present.
velociped said...
"With all due respect to Keri, as a cyclist, I do not interpret FTR and MBL rules as being in our (vehicular cyclists') favor." -
I believe Keri's point is that we cyclists MUST interpret the law in our favor, not that the law is in our favor. As I said to ChipSeal a few months ago, that position could lead to some interesting courtroom banter.
As for Stuart's interpretation of the FTR law, you and I are in complete agreement. Everything is written into the law for a purpose, not to just fill up space.
The interpretation of those who matter (police officers, judges, etc) is certainly more likely to agree with yours than mine. However, I simply don't understand how your interpretation could be considered logically correct based on the *entire* law, not just the excerpts you quote. Sec. 551.103 requires that you ride far-to-the-right but provides *several* exceptions to that requirement. The "does not have a designated bicycle lane" clause only applies to *one* of those exceptions.
If I were to rephrase the law from the perspective of bike lanes, it would be something like:
You must use a bike lane unless:
- Doing so would be unsafe
- You are not moving slower than other traffic
- You are passing another vehicle
- There is an obstruction
- You are preparing to turn left
I'm not the sort of person to go out of my way to be a martyr but when I am riding my bike I will be worrying about how to keep myself safe, not interpreting Transportation Codes. If that lands me in court, then I will be happy to be the "test case".
Stuart is revealing himself to be a belligerent troll. Thus I will suspend further rebuttal of his illogical argument.
PM said, "I believe Keri's point is that we cyclists MUST interpret the law in our favor, not that the law is in our favor."
Must we? That point was not lost on me, but the law is what it is. One cannot reinterpret it for their own benefit, if the language plainly states a contrary intent. What we can do, is lobby our legislators to change the law. That, however, is a long and frustratingly tedious endeavor. There is also no guarantee the government will comply with those desires. (Witness the tiring and seemingly unproductive attempts to "enlighten" lawmakers in the Texas Legislature this session about the speciousness of the "Safe Passing" Bill.) Violate them anyway and you will have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
By way of an illustration, I am reminded of a recent exchange with a distant relative. She stated, "We need to show this president that we ARE a Christion[sic] nation. Don't forget that he was raised in an atheist home."
My response in part was, "Actually, we are NOT a Christian Nation. It says so in the Constitution.
"1st Amendment:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'"
(Jason Roberts, Michelle Holcomb and Paul "Doohickie" ought to pay particular heed to the middle third of that amendment.)
Her comeback? "The Constitution doesn't speak for everyone."
Need I say more?
Unfortunately, I don't think we are in as much agreement on this subject as you might believe, PM. "Everything is" NOT necessarily "written into the law for a purpose." There is a goodly portion which exists solely to serve the agenda of a specific groups or groups of individuals. All we can do is pick our battles according to our needs and hope to find a sympathetic ear to levy change.
Said Herman: "Unfortunately, I don't think we are in as much agreement on this subject as you might believe, PM. "Everything is" NOT necessarily "written into the law for a purpose." There is a goodly portion which exists solely to serve the agenda of a specific groups or groups of individuals. All we can do is pick our battles according to our needs and hope to find a sympathetic ear to levy change."
Did I say it was written for a GOOD purpose? No. The inclusion of wording into law is very intentional, very specific, and can completely change what the supporters of a law are expecting, as you and I have tried to point out. That is what keeps lobbyists busy, rewording bills, not buying lunches.
Daring to speak for Keri, I believe her position is we must be prepared to explain the difference between "practicable" and "practical", or worse even, "possible". To have to do that is outrageous, but as ChipSeal said, "We need better bike advocates."
Re: Far-to-the-right (FTR) and mandatory-bike-lane (MBL) exceptions:
In California, the MBL law has similar exceptions to the FTR law. The general slow-moving-vehicle (SMV) law also has similar exceptions.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm
One argument I've seen is that the exceptions are really just examples of what "practicable" means.
But that still puts the onus on the cyclist to 'splain it to the judge.
@PM Summer
"I believe her position is we must be prepared to explain the difference between 'practicable' and 'practical', or worse even, 'possible'."
If that is the context in which Keri's comment was intended, then I stand corrected. I did not interpret it in that light, but certainly sympathize with the sentiment. I daily find myself trying to explain the nuances of vocabulary to the illiterate.
velociped said @PM Summer... "I daily find myself trying to explain the nuances of vocabulary to the illiterate."
And I, for one, appreciate the extra effort at accommodation. ;-)
Well, I came back to the party late on this one :-)
PM is correct in explaining what I meant.
I hate the FTR law. My point was, we have to parse the crap out of it to define PRACTICABLE in our favor, but we're mostly humoring ourselves. The police simply read the nefarious intent of the law — to get the stinking cyclists out of the way. Then the burden falls on us to go to court and fight for our interpretation.
The law was written such that, in most cases, we can win in court. Otherwise, it would be easier to prove it discriminatory and have it abolished. But a lot of cyclists just give in and pay the fine rather than deal with the hassle.
Therefore, the law effectively does what it was intended to do — keep most cyclists cowering out of the way.
Post a Comment