S. W. B.

For many, "SWB" is an acronym for "Stopped While Black." For my loyal reader, it also may mean "Stopped While Bicycling." Heaven help those for whom BOTH acronyms might apply.

Recently, I was pulled over while riding to a nearby espresso stand in Ocean Shores. I wasn't doing anything wrong; simply riding. Fortunately for me, I have not become a target of the local police or things might have gotten ugly. As it turned out, the police were looking for a stolen bicycle and I was riding a bicycle and was consequently a "person of interest." After a bit of friendly discussion with the officer, it turned out he was looking for a pink Schwinn. I was riding a purple Trek; shown below, when pulled over. One wonders if the officer was color blind, or merely grasping for an excuse. At least he didn't feel a need to cite me for some imaginary offence. I did promise to let them know if I saw a pink Schwinn. Somehow, I doubt that bike will ever be returned to its owner, but I've been known to be wrong before...

Is this a pink Schwinn?

First Time for Everything

Just when you think you've seen pretty much everything you can see from a bike, something new pops up. This morning, I was passed by a motorist as I rode to the espresso stand. What was unique was that I was passed as I came to a stop at a stop sign. In the motorist's defense, he DID make a full lane change to pass me at the stop sign. After my stop, the motorist was looking a little bit confused and I wasn't sure about the stop line protocol. Having stopped first, I probably had the right of way, but I didn't feel real good about making a left turn to the right of a salmon motorist even IF I was in the proper position. Luckily, the guy accelerated and removed the conflict.

What would YOU have done? No, I didn't think to get the license number of the white Toyota. Myself, it seems odd to pass somebody AT a stop sign...

Roundabout Tourists

Google Maps Shot Looking Down on the Ocean Shores Roundabout. North is at Top of the Photo

Previously, here, I wrote about the Ocean Shores Roundabout. I noted that the painted bike facilities, if followed, would put cyclists into crossing conflict with lawfully operating motorists and might even put cyclists in violation with the OS Municipal Code. Myself, I simply operate my bicycle pretty much as any locals would in their motor vehicles. Over time, anybody in Ocean Shores routinely learns the rules of the roundabout and knows where to watch in order to avoid conflicts. My speed through the roundabout is not much different than anybody else’s – there is a 15MPH posted speed limit and few motorists try to go faster.

On occasion, however, there is a problem with my strategy. Mostly, these problems pop up when there are LOTS of tourists in town. Tourists, you see, don’t understand the roundabout or its rules. When there are only a FEW tourists, they mostly just watch and see what everybody else does, and do the same. If they’re coming into town, they typically turn right in order to get to their hotel/motel. When there LOTS, however, they start trying to drive around town and I’ve experienced trouble from this, both when on my bike and when I motored through the roundabout.

The basic principle of the Ocean Shores Roundabout is that, entering the roundabout, you do so from the LEFT lane if you intend to turn left or make a U turn. That limits crossing conflict to the point of roundabout entry, when you are yielding to any traffic already in the roundabout. Three of the street exits from the roundabout are four-lane, median separated streets, and the fourth is a two-lane street. The last exit is where the problems mostly occur.

The problems occur in two ways. The first problem is that tourists entering from the north don’t realize that they are supposed to be in the left lane if they want to turn left. While in the roundabout, they suddenly make a lane shift to the left. As you can imagine, it can be a little disconcerting (whether on a bike or in a car), to suddenly see a motorist shifting into YOUR lane. To minimize this, on weekends with a lot of tourist traffic, I ride closer to the right side of the left lane, and faster than usual. I also watch the wheels of any nearby motor vehicles for the “oops, I’m in the wrong lane” reaction that roundabout novices often experience. That gives me time and space to move over if the adjacent motorist wheels start moving left. If the motorist indulges his/her “MUST PASS” impulse, I point at the exit, which seems to snap them out of their confusion. This is worst at the aforementioned exit because both roundabout exit lanes merge. At other exits, I can always stay in the left lane until the conflict evaporates. At worst, that’d involve a second trip around the roundabout.

The second problem is that many tourists don’t seem to understand that traffic already IN the roundabout has the right of way over traffic wanting to enter it. That is compounded for cyclists since we simply aren’t as obvious as an ambulance flashing its lights. In such cases, when I see vehicle wheels looking like they might sprint forward into the roundabout prematurely, I hold my right hand up, with the palm facing the prospective offender. It isn’t any sort of official or proper signal, but it seems to work and nobody has yet actually violated my right of way. If someone DID simply charge into the roundabout, I guess I’d have to decide whether to change lanes, brake, or accelerate. Sometimes cycling in traffic DOES benefit from some extra speed, though this is rather the exception than the rule.

Actually, roundabouts, even though they aren’t perfect, are fun and safe for cyclists that understand how to operate in accord with general traffic principles. Nobody’s going too fast and you’ve got a lot more lane room about you when you’re on a bike. Truck drivers are probably not so fond of the Ocean Shores Roundabout.

Southbound Tourists Apparently Don't Notice this Sign SAYING "Left Lane if You Want to Turn Left"

Progress Toward Bike League Policy

Bike League Progress

In my previous post on Bike League need to establish a formal and public policy towards the periodic and continuing persecution of cyclists and their encounters with the law, HERE, I noted that the League had been silent on the subject of Cherokee Schill in Kentucky. Well, that silence has changed, with a promise that there is more to come.

HERE, a League cyclist recounts his ride with Schill. For my loyal reader, be sure to read the many comments. There are some troll comments and some from people that look to see the worst in the law, or the league. After seeing this post, I knew it was time to update my own.

More recently, the League presented a post on its view of the legal situation, HERE. This newer post, made yesterday, also has a fair number of comments, and, what's more, there is less extremism in most of these. In this second post, there's a promise for "what's next." I haven't seen that one yet. I hope it includes some proper statement about League policy/procedure in addition to what the League intends to do in the Schill case. We shall see. At a minimum, this represents a qualitative improvement over its response in the Reed Bates case, recounted HERE. Perhaps we ARE moving forward.

For those particularly interested in the situation, there's an extensive analysis of Cherokee's dilemma, made by expert cyclists HERE. As might be expected, this last link also has a lot of interesting and mostly well-thought-out comments.

For the typical newspaper story, with typical newspaper story comments, go HERE.

Policy the Bike League Needs

Today's Search on the Bike League Blog for Cherokee Schill

For those of you that have followed this blog since, well, since almost its very beginning, you'll recall that occasionally cyclists get on the wrong side of the law even though they are riding in accord with the law and in accord with safe practices. Chipseal was a fairly dramatic case. I was a bit more fortunate in my own minor incident. Still, it happens a lot. Blackhawk, CO tried to ban bikes. Now, Cherokee Schill is being prosecuted in Kentucky. Unlike Chip, Cherokee has made a lot of videos along the way, and rather than provide my opinion that she's really not doing anything particularly dangerous, I suggest that those interested watch a few.

THIS post is only tangentially about any of these cases. The Bike League elected NOT to get involved in the Chipseal case and has been criticized for that. Any Clarke stated that Chip was "not sympathetic" or words to that effect. Bike Texas also declined any involvement. So far, as seen in the photo at the top, there's not been much from the Bike League about Cherokee, though top notch bike lawyer Steve Magas has been involved.

Clearly, it is well beyond the resources of the Bike League to participate in all or even many cases involving cyclists. HOWEVER, I think a formal policy and process would be something that would be wise. Deciding to either get involved or NOT based on personal judgments of League management strikes me as dicey. I imagine there are some good lawyers that the League could consult, and a solid basis could be put together for actions ranging from ignoring something all the way up to helping fund an action. Such a policy should be made public, and probably posted on the League website. People wishing to contribute to a League legal defense fund might then also have a route to do so, though it probably would NOT be tax deductible. I expect that expenditure of significant league funds on legal actions would require some sort of board action or membership petition and would not be very common. However, for the league to be silent, I think they should reread Martin Niemöller and make a public policy:

 

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

Tale of Two Cities

In "Bicycle Friendly Washington State,
One can be Prosecuted Here for Not Riding at the "EXTREME RIGHT"

One might think that the laws that apply to bicyclists are pretty much the same from place to place. I used to think this as well. The laws certainly ARE effectively the same for people operating the general run-of-the-mill motor vehicle made by GM, Ford, or other major manufacturer. However, prompted by some events, I decided to do a comparison between Ocean Shores, WA and Colleyville, TX. Readers of my blog might rightly conclude these two locales weren't entirely chosen by random. For those not riding in these places, you MIGHT want to brush up on your own law so that an encounter with a policeman coming out from behind his or her windshield is less likely to become traumatic.
IN ALL CASES BELOW, BOLDING AND ITALICIZING IS MINE

STATE COMPARISON:
In Texas, there are two primary guidances on where an individual cyclist MUST ride on the road. The first, that applies ONLY to cyclists, is 551.103. It states:
"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:
(1)  the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2)  the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3)  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;  or
(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."

In Washington, the equivalent law that applies ONLY to cyclists, is Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 46.61.770. It states:
"Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. 
(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.

In both States, there are also rules that govern "to the right" behavior of ALL vehicular road motion (including cyclists). These ALSO differ between the two states, though the differences are not significant if you're operating a vehicle that takes up most of a lane (motorcyclists take note!).

Things are not quite as dissimilar as might appear, given that the laws are organized differently, with Texas also allowing bicycles to use shoulders in 545.058, but Texas law seems more straightforward to me, given that it at LEAST has the 14 foot definition codified rather than leaving "safe" up to the discretion of the arresting officer, who may have no experience in safe cycling theory or operation. Oddly, Washington State governs its non-motorized bicycle operation under the section of code entitled "Motor Vehicles."

However, there's MORE in each state that allows local jurisdictions to enact more "draconian" rules that apply to cyclists. In Washingon, one such is RCW 46.08.020 which states:

RCW 46.08.020
Precedence over local vehicle and traffic regulations.
The provisions of this title relating to vehicles shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all incorporated cities and towns and all political subdivisions therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce any law, ordinance, rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this title except and unless expressly authorized by law to do so and any laws, ordinances, rules or regulations in conflict with the provisions of this title are hereby declared to be invalid and of no effect. Local authorities may, however, adopt additional vehicle and traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this title.

That would be OK, but Washington goes FURTHER in the case of bicycles in RCW 35.75.010, which states:

Authority to regulate and license bicycles — Penalties.
Every city and town may by ordinance regulate and license the riding of bicycles and other similar vehicles upon or along the streets, alleys, highways, or other public grounds within its limits and may construct and maintain bicycle paths or roadways within or outside of and beyond its limits leading to or from the city or town. The city or town may provide by ordinance for reasonable fines and penalties for violation of the ordinance.

In Texas, on the other hand, localities are, in theory, given less discretion. The main authority in this case is 542.202, which states (items that apply particularly to bicycles included):

Sec. 542.202.  POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  (a)  This subtitle does not prevent a local authority, with respect to a highway under its jurisdiction and in the reasonable exercise of the police power, from:
(1)  regulating traffic by police officers or traffic-control devices;
(3)  regulating or prohibiting a procession or assemblage on a highway;
(4)  regulating the operation and requiring registration and licensing of a bicycle or electric bicycle, including payment of a registration fee, except as provided by Section 551.106;
(6)  regulating the speed of a vehicle in a public park;
(9)  designating a highway as a through highway;
(13)  adopting other traffic rules specifically authorized by this subtitle.
(b)  In this section:
(2)  "Through highway" means a highway or a portion of a highway on which:
(A)  vehicular traffic is given preferential right-of-way;  and
(B)  vehicular traffic entering from an intersecting highway is required by law to yield right-of-way in compliance with an official traffic-control device.

Steve's note: 551.106 governs electric bikes, which effectively ties local authorities MORE in the case of electric bikes than on human-powered bikes, which I find interesting given some recent bike bans in Texas. I suspect you might be able to beat one of the benighted bike bans simply by pedaling along on an electric bike. OTOH, Texas police are not noted for such distinctions when it comes to bikes of any sort.

Whew!

I think I'm not going to be able to remember all THESE details or stick them onto a little wallet-sized card as some recommend. So HERE is MY interpretation:

In Texas, you can ride wherever you think it is safe in a lane less than 14 feet wide - unless the police think otherwise. In Washington, the rules are vaguer, but the "unless the police think otherwise" applies just the same. In other words, lots of verbiage but the cops decide both places.

Now on to LOCAL rules. In Texas, one would think 542.202 ties the hands of local authorities to enact benighted or otherwise "odd" rules that apply to cyclists riding in their localities and require them to post signs when they do odd stuff. On the other hand, Washington State RCW allow local municipalities to do pretty much anything they want to do. In practice, there's not nearly so much difference as it might first appear. In either place, it's not wise to argue with a cop that has stopped you unless your lawyer has been alerted in advance and is prepared to ACT.

In Colleyville, as noted HERE, I was ordered off the road onto a sidewalk by a police officer without benefit of ANY local law requiring same. At another time, I was told by a Fort Worth police officer earphones were illegal though there is no such ordinance. In Colleyville, there are NO local rules regarding bicycle operation, other than to prohibit motor scooter operation on bike paths, which really doesn't affect me. As noted in the series of posts, one runs a risk of a ticket for obstructing traffic if the officer so deems, though no laws touch on the matter (unlike in Washington that has a "must pull over if you're holding up five vehicles or more" law)

In Ocean Shores, on the other hand, there are LOTS of laws that affect cyclists. I'll just cite a few:

10.40.010  Definitions.
G. "Right of the roadway" means the extreme right portion of the roadway which is safe to ride upon."
and
10.40.040  Riding upon city streets.
H. "Bicycles shall not be ridden upon any sidewalk in the city limits."

Note that there isn't any definition for what "extreme right portion" means, nor is there any exception for small children in the sidewalk rule. In THEORY, your six-year old could be tasered for riding on one of the few sidewalks in Ocean Shores. In reality, I've never actually heard of 010 or 040 being enforced though one sees people cycling on sidewalks in front of the OSPD frequently, especially in the summer tourist season. On the other hand, Ocean Shores isn't entirely retrograde, since they also have a complete streets ordinance (a place with few sidewalks) that states:

12.02.060 Performance standards.
The city of Ocean Shores shall put into place performance standards with measurable benchmarks to continuously evaluate the complete streets ordinance for success and opportunities for improvement. Performance standards may include transportation and mode shift, miles of bicycle facilities or sidewalks, public participation, number of ADA accommodations built, and number of exemptions from this policy approved. (Ord. 916 § 1 (part), 2012).

When I go back to Ocean Shores, I suspect I'll do some inquiries into these "continuous evaluations." Other than a little bit of paint, I can't see that the place has made significant progress in non-motorized transportation in the last 30 years. That isn't necessarily bad, since it hasn't backslid the way Colleyville did on MY NEMESIS ROAD.

OTOH, dorky local rules, made from behind a windshield aren't ALL bad. Unlike Colleyville, if I'm ordered onto a sidewalk by a local constable, I can at least say "Ocean Shores 10.40.040" makes that ILLEGAL!

One last thing, just in case there's a loyal reader out there whose eyes are not twirling in his or her sockets - one wonders how people riding through a locality are supposed to understand all these odd rules. Heck, one wonders how police that have at least some training in how the laws apply can remember all this odd stuff. I guess, thinking back on ChipSeal, mostly they don't. That, above all, should be remembered by a cyclist at any traffic stop...



Cyclists Have More Discretion in "Not Very Bicycle Friendly" Texas

 

More on Signs

This Sign is on a Four-Lane Street in Hunter Creek that has a Sidewalk Alongside - From Google Streetview

Interesting Contrast. The town of "Hunter Creek Village" has long had a ban on bikes - well, except when it doesn't.

In doing some research for a "soon to come" post on laws affecting cyclists, I noticed that some things have changed there recently at the town borders. Namely a few "regulatory" signs. Oddly, the "Share the Road" sign is on a street that has an adjacent sidewalk while the "prohibited" sign has got nothing but grass adjacent to the roadway.



THIS Sign is on a Different Hunter Creek Four-Lane Street with NO Sidewalk - From Google Streetview
One WONDERS About the Logic Involved

Who SAYS "Share the Road" isn't regulatory? Well, it's simply more MUTCD muddle...

Fun Facts with Obamacare

Fear NOT! This Message Means You're Almost There!

YOUR mileage may vary!

Right now, I'm looking into signing up with an Obamacare family health insurance package. At the moment, I'm fortunate enough to be covered under a "Cobra Plan" from my latest employer. On the other hand, I'm unfortunate enough to be a recent job departee, who got notified in 2011 he'd get cut off of his "retiree" insurance effective January 2014, as noted below

. "If you like your health insurance, you'll be able to keep it." Well, that is true as long as those controlling your health plan won't go to prison for cancelling it...

Starting out, with my current Cobra and its soon to increase premium as "1," here are the things I've found out after EXTENSIVE internet investigations, without Dem or Rep propaganda, and presuming that I'll not get any subsidies (it is unclear if I could simply declare a low income without backup, but that seems offensive to me in any event, though it might prove desirable simply to no longer declare my kids as dependents so THEY could get subsidies):

The "healthcare dot gov" site really didn't work for most of October, but it has improved to the point that one can get some projections. Fortunately, third parties, including places like Costco and my current Cobra supplier have popped up entirely outside the government site. A caveat: there ARE a lot of traplines I haven't run yet, such as the Washington State Exchange, which is different than the one you'd find in Texas through the Feds.

Regardless of all that, here's what I've found so far:

• Cobra that will run through next November has a value of 1.0. This plan is current and active through UHC Insurance and is administered by Fidelity. That's the default choice.
• Healthcare dot gov reference to Kaiser Family Foundation estimate of how much things are likely to cost for a "bronze plan" with no subsidy as a value of 0.47 (Yippee!!! Where do I sign up?)
• Kaiser Family Foundation (referred to by healthcare dot gov) estimate for a "silver plan" as a value of 0.686 (More Yippee!!! Still, WHERE do I sign up?)
• Costco offer for a HDHP plan through Aetna at a "bronze" level as a value of 1.783 (Holy Moly Batman, "affordable" really HAS changed!)
• "healthcare dot gov" offer for a "bronze plan as a value of 1.57 through Aetna.(it tells me, however, that my wife's info differs from theirs and so we can't actually sign up and we've got to send off a bunch of documents)
• "healthcare dot gov" UHC offer - NONE available
• "healthcare dot gov" HDHP plans offered - hard to determine since that part of the website isn't working right, but figuring out a workaround, I concluded there were four "HSA Eligible" plans offered, which range from a value of 1.153 to 1.574, three of which are "bronze," but one of which is "silver." (the contrast with the government-referenced Kaiser numbers really IS as great as it appears)
• UHC private plan, not available from "healthcare dot gov" and not the Cobra as a value of 0.992, though that value might only work until the end of 2013. I'm calling UHC to see if I can sign up starting in January and drop the Cobra that also comes from UHC. Keeping my fingers crossed.

FWIW, 1.0 is more than double what my employer-subsidized healthcare premiums were so this whole process is not real pleasant.

Any suggestions as to where to go to find better? Ideas about why these estimates vary so wildly? Please do NOT inject any partisan ideas into the theories. FYI, the nondimensional values quoted are based on things as of today. It seems things are getting more complicated. Regardless, I feel fortunate that I've got more put away than I thought I'd need...

MUTCD Muddle

Sign Seen in North Richland Hills, Texas. What Are We Being Advised About?

On occasion, you'll see bike blogs that pay more than a decent amount of attention to signs, and complain about the finer points of "Share the Road" or "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" items. Recently, there was a story in "Streetsblog" that expounded on an advocacy organization that fell into this trap. Khal's "LA Bikes" skated out on to that thin ice, though I don't think he actually fell in to the trap. IMO, his main error was in forgetting that the whole MUTCD thing is a result of mixing engineering and politics into an area where few people know or care about the finer points. In this post, I'll attempt to avoid falling through the ice that Khal so bravely stepped out onto. Gulp!

In the first place, and in reality, we should remember that all signs are basically intended to give us information we need to safely go down the road or to make our lives on same nicer and more pleasant. Way back when, someone came up with the notion that different sorts of signs ought to have different colors and ought to be the same from place to place. Hence, the "MUTCD" was born. And THAT was the start of much arguing about the best ways to do things, much as people used to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Basically, the idea behind sign coloring is a pretty good one, and the colors are supposed to align with the purpose of the sign. The BEST summary of this that I've seen is on Richard Moeur's pages, with the color guide here.

Speed Limit Lowered in Work Zone

 Red, white, and black are regulatory colors. Stop and yield signs are red and white, speed LIMIT signs are white and black. Seems pretty straightforward. Similarly, yellow signs are advisory/warning signs. If there's a slower speed needed for an exit, it'll be on a yellow sign. Part of the problem is that people also get creative with signs, such as with the "share the road" sign at the top of this post (what are they warning us about) and with the "duck crossing" sign. Signs mainly in blue are for useful things off the road that it's good for the traveller to know about. Ditto for brown signs. ORANGE signs are used around construction. I can't really say I've seen pink signs or any of those other colors, well, except for the green signs that are the general roadway information signs.


Advisories Suggest the Lane to Reach the Informational Destinations



This Sign Advises There's a Way to Avoid Death if Your Truck's Brakes Have Failed
It is Otherwise Illegal to Simply Park There!

 

Rest Stop Bathroom Signs are ALSO Blue

 

 

Both Signs in this Photo are "Regulatory"

 

Advisory Speed

Regulatory Speed Sign

These colors are both the strength and weakness of the system. People don't seem to like "advisory share the road" signs. "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" signs seem to be prefered by the "no share" crowd, but IMO, a "BMUFL" sign is somewhat akin to implying that using a full lane is not otherwise allowed. Some might feel, on the other hand, that a BMUFL sign is akin to the "runaway vehicle" sign in that runaway vehicles clearly ARE allowed to stop places other than the runaway vehicle trap. But bikes ARE different as any cyclist that has read newspaper comments on cycling stories will know.


Ducks May Not be MUTC "Orthodox," But it's Pretty Easy to See the Warning Intent

What's the RIGHT answer? Well, IMO, I don't think it really matters. Cyclist rights are independent of any oddball signage and most people really don't understand the finer points of same in any event. Note below many signs that really don't entirely fit with the rules.



Is This Sign Warning Us We'll Fall if We Have No Front Wheel?

Someone Invented This Sign and Zip Tied it to a Pole

Business Sign Attempts to "Look" Like a Recreation MUTCD Sign



I Guess RED Makes it LOOK More Official

Business Sign Using MUTCD Green

Regulatory Looking Sign Telling City Employees Not to Cut the Wildflowers

Note the Duck Sign, and the "Construction" Barricade, Along With the Political Sign



What Regulation Does the Contractor Fall Under?

The Road Work Sign on the Bike Path is OK, but Watching for Pedestrians is a "Regulation?"
Note that the "signless" pole USED to be a Stop Sign

And YES, the "Share the Road" placard under a bike picture might fit in this bunch of pictures as well since, while one might consider the bike graphic a "warning" of bikes ahead, the "share the road" really isn't simply advisory. OTOH, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Can you spell "POLITICS?"



This "Advisory" Sign Predates MUTCD!

What's With Hit and Run?

In the Dallas Morning News blog, if you search HERE, you'll see LOTS of links to hit and run "accidents." A casual look at those suggests that more often than not, the victim is not in a motor vehicle. Is this the new way to escape responsibility?

Lost Rights by Privilege Confusion

In the United States, part of the price of encroaching “Big Government” is the loss or erosion of rights that have existed since before the founding of the Republic. One such that has been chipped away is “the right to travel.” Ironically, the right to travel has gotten mixed up with the notion of driving as a privilege versus a right. I periodically hear radio hosts ridicule the notion that driving is a privilege rather than a right, and some of those same hosts suggest that bikes should get OFF the road. Let’s examine things rationally.

First, consider the similarity and the difference between a “right” and a “privilege” as they might apply to travel on public roads. Definitions are from on-line dictionaries.

Right
A just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please

Sometimes, rights – that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

A moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

Privilege
A benefit, immunity, etc., granted under certain conditions

The advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, especially to the disadvantage of others; one of the obstacles to social harmony is privilege

(Government, Politics and Diplomacy) any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of a country by its constitution

Discussion
Clearly, there are many similarities, but I’ll explain what I see as the fundamental difference. Namely, a “right” is something you enjoy as long as you don’t do something to cause reasonable curtailment of it. The classic example is “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” On the other hand, a “privilege” is usually something you get when you fulfill the reasonably related preconditions. For example, taking a driving test, not being blind, and being able to show financial responsibility are usually considered to be “reasonable” preconditions to be able to drive. In other words, you do not have to do anything to enjoy free speech, but you are not allowed to simply drive a motor vehicle without satisfying some preconditions. Usually, driving a more dangerous vehicle adds restrictions – a heavy truck driver needs to know extra stuff to bring the risk to others down. Just as your right to free speech can be curtailed due to abuse, your privilege to drive can be curtailed due to abuse. If you habitually crash into people or “hit and run,” people can and do suffer sanctions, just as if they misuse their right to bear arms or misuse their free speech right to libel others.

Eroded Right
Until motor vehicles, nobody got licensed to operate vehicles. You didn’t get an “equestrian license” or a “cycling license.” It isn’t that government never tried to regulate such things, but the courts took a dim view of curtailments on a “right to travel.” It was presumed that all people had opportunity to travel the public roads without unreasonable constraint. The Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” extended this to include unfettered movement between the states. This all changed with the advent of the motor vehicle. Why did the courts change course? Until the advent of motor vehicles, no transport arose that used the public roads (railroads travelled on privately owned tracks) and also presented a unique danger to other road users due to a combination of very high speed and very high mass. Because of the danger, the courts felt it was reasonable to treat motor vehicle operation as a privilege. You should note that the word “privilege” shouldn’t be considered as some “special favor” from the government. In reality, if you fulfill reasonable conditions and don’t abuse them, you DO get to drive. In that way, driving IS like a right. In truth, the only way it differs from things like the right to free speech is you have to fulfill reasonable conditions first.

But, the camel had gotten its nose into the tent.

Before you knew it, “privilege” had gotten twisted around. On the one hand, it enticed lawmakers into putting ever less relevant restrictions on driving. “Driving is a privilege, not a right!” On the other hand, it lured militants to either rail about their “right” or else to demand licensing be extended to other road users such as cyclists. Really, now, the degree of danger that a 200lb vehicle at 20mph presents to others is not very comparable to the danger to others that a 4000lb vehicle at 60mph presents. The fatality data backs that up.

Sadly, in all the discussion and governmental rush to regulate, the REAL right got clouded. Namely, the right of the public to travel on public roadways without having to purchase particular means of doing so. In some ways, it is like the health care mandate that faces us in the next few years to come. The model of the railroad could have been applied – uniquely dangerous transportation travels on its own private infrastructure (ever heard of toll roads?), but we chose a different path. A principle of free movement was extended to facilitate easier commerce and greater road throughput, and even the Commerce Clause got twisted around. Rather than prohibiting dangerous forms of transport, the ones hurt or killed by the dangerous transport were first regulated and then banned from many roadways. As in many other areas, the notion that reasonable regulation should be “restrict us from killing others” became “protect us against our own actions.” In some cases, people were left with no reasonable way to travel from point to point unless they purchased a car. Pretty soon, people that did not do so were accused of endangering themselves, and scare stories accelerated a trend towards driving.

What Now?
Well, personally, I’m not an advocate. However, I know DARN sure that I will not vote for people that want to unreasonably restrict my ability to travel. That INCLUDES choices that make it impossible for me to get places unless I spend money. That INCLUDES restrictions on motor vehicle users that are unrelated to keeping them from killing others. Can you say “click it or ticket?” I really can’t support restrictions on my motorists under the cloak of their driving “privilege” except where those restrictions directly relate to the safety of those in danger as a RESULT of poor or irresponsible motor vehicle operation.

Unintended Cycling Effects

Handicap Signs Make Nice Short-Term Bike Parking. Thanks, ADA!

One problem with the large, complex laws that seem to come out with ever-greater frequency from our Congress is that unexpected things happen. HERE, I noted that the very first effect I saw from the Health Care Reform Law came from a little item stuck back on page 1239. We lost the showers that were perfect for cycling commuters. Certainly that was unintended, though it was also very real.



Showers for Cyclists - Added by
ADA - Taken by Obamacare!

Actually, that was not really an unintended effect, strictly speaking. It was an unintended modification of an unintended effect. Which brings us to the story of this post. You see, our wonderful bike commuter showers were a very nice consequence of a previous attempt to solve a real problem with complex legislation. The legislation was, I was recently surprised to learn, an attempt to extend protection to the disabled similar to that afforded by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA was passed and signed into law by George W Bush's dad. An amendment was later passed in 2008 and signed into law by George HW Bush's son. Both events were an example, all too rare recently, of bipartisan cooperation since both bills were passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President.

Well, to make a long story short, besides the bike commuter shower, the photos that accompany this post show two more unintended effects of the ADA that affect people on bikes. The one at top has little downside for cyclists. Those handicap parking signs provide supplemental short-term bike parking. I wouldn't trust most of these to stand up long to a determined thief, but they are great for a short coffee stop. The wheelchair ramp makes them even more convenient for a thirsty cyclist.

The second effect is more mixed. When I was a kid, men were men, women were women, and corners were corners. Nowadays, the first two are still true, but corners have virtually disappeared from our sidewalks. Now we have ramps. These are less clearly a good thing for cyclists. Clearly it can be nice to have added choices when you are getting off the road at the corner deli, and if you have a heavily loaded bike you are walking because you have a flat tire, they can be WONDERFUL, but such features not only encourage sidewalk riding, but they make it temptingly easy for sidewalk riders to simply SHOOT across the street compared to the corners of old. I see such behavior often. Whatever the drafters of the ADA had in mind, I don't expect that encouraging wrong-way sidewalk riding without slowing down for intersections was on the list? Anybody else know of unintended effects of major laws that affect cyclists. No fair citing laws where cyclists are specifically intended as targets or beneficiaries. We're talking accidental (no pun intended) effects.

Handicap Corners Help Get That Crippled Bike up Over the Corner. Thanks, ADA!

Handicap Ramps Encourage Sidewalk Cyclists NOT to "Stop, Look, and Listen." Hmm, ADA!

Explanation Needed for Stupid Me

"As Far Right as Practicable" Applies Equally to All on This Road? well, Unless a Court Decides Otherwise

You sometimes hear "FTR" (Far to Right) cited by bicycle advocates. In truth, most places around the US, there are two different FTR laws. The first applies to all road users. The second applies ONLY to bicycle users. What I'm looking for is what real added purpose the second one serves other than to justify discrimination against cyclists under a thin veneer of law? Certainly, the first allows full use of the lane by a motorist or motorcyclist, but unless they are ignored, so do the two exceptions to the second law, so why the separate but equal law for cyclists?

Below, follow both laws, extracted from "Texas Statutes:"

Sec. 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY. (a) (omitted)
(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:(1) passing another vehicle; or(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway..

Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY. (a) ...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:(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;(3) 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; or(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.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that two laws instead stated:

"people shall drink from the nearest available water fountain," and a second, similar law stated "colored people shall drink from the nearest available water fountain except..."

Is that what cycling advocates are looking for when they advocate for separated facilities or otherwise protected facilities? I think not, but the laws often say otherwise. If repeal of 551.103 were a major goal of a hypothetical group of Texas bike advocates, I'd join that hypothetical group right away. Otherwise, I think I need some explanation of why I should get all excited. Mostly, the roads I ride on have either no lanes at all, or they have traffic lanes that are less than fourteen feet in width. Why do I need two laws to apply to me? Shouldn't one be enough, or is this a variant on the "hate crimes" and "vulnerable user" laws (which redundantly criminalize already illegal behavior) that instead targets cyclists?

In the meantime, I am thankful that no police in my vicinity have decided to prosecute me due to them "forgetting" the exceptions to 551.103 that apply when marked lanes are involved. No, I don't plan to move to Ennis.

Endangered Species

North Texas Endangered Species - a Residential Yield Sign
For the Record, Motorists Behave Just as They Would if it'd Been a Stop Sign

Earlier, I wrote about the Idaho Stop Sign law and wondered why nobody ever seemed to think of not only implementing it for cyclists, but for motorists as well. John Romeo Alpha didn't think that was a good idea, because I think he doesn't believe in the "Land Rover Rule" corollary as applied to the John Forester dictum, namely "Motorists fare best when they act, and are treated, as the drivers of other vehicles."

APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE INSTEAD OF AUTOSTOP!
One solution to stop sign mayhem is the replacement of most stop signs with what is an endangered species, namely the Yield Sign at locations other than freeway onramps. I made a detour on my way home from work to take a photo of the only such sign I know of that is in North Texas. I LOVE THAT SIGN!!!!!!!!!!!

MAKE EVERYONE LEGAL?
A second solution would be to adopt my "equal opportunity Idaho stop" law.

TEXAS HAS A BETTER WAY!
However, I decided to reread the Texas Statutes about stop and yield signs. As it turns out, there is an easy solution. The law, as it currently stands, follows:

Sec. 545.153. VEHICLE ENTERING STOP OR YIELD INTERSECTION. (a) Preferential right-of-way at an intersection may be indicated by a stop sign or yield sign as authorized in Section 544.003.

(b) Unless directed to proceed by a police officer or official traffic-control device, an operator approaching an intersection on a roadway controlled by a stop sign, after stopping as required by Section 544.010, shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that has entered the intersection from another highway or that is approaching so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the operator's movement in or across the intersection.

(c) An operator approaching an intersection on a roadway controlled by a yield sign shall:

(1) slow to a speed that is reasonable under the existing conditions; and

(2) yield the right-of-way to a vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the operator's movement in or across the intersection.

(d) If an operator is required by Subsection (c) to yield and is involved in a collision with a vehicle in an intersection after the operator drove past a yield sign without stopping, the collision is prima facie evidence that the operator failed to yield the right-of-way.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

OK, cutting through all the legalese, here're what the rules are. I'll bet they are pretty similar where you live since most places base their traffic laws on a common, uniform model code. You have to STOP at a stop sign. Otherwise, the rules are the same as for a yield sign, except that the law goes a bit further to note that if you DON'T stop at a yield sign and collide, it is YOUR FAULT. In reality, that is the same as the Idaho stop.

BUT, if you look at the little item in (b) that I put in red bold, we could make stop signs all over the place conform to the REAL world, without having to add a single new law or replace a single stop sign.

One example is shown below:

Just stick these puppies underneath about 99% of all the stop signs that currently plague ALL traffic in a hopeless attempt to slow motorists down generally. Those same motorists will still slow WAY down whenever they see a stop sign with one of the ones with a modification advisory below it. If needed, you could even tell everyone they better not be going over 1mph when the they treat it as a yield sign. But such refinements bear the risk of sign variety, know in the nuclear weapons trade as "proliferation."

AVOID SIGN PROLIFERATION
Of course, it isn't very inspired, and probably doesn't conform to the traffic device rules, but I don't claim to be a traffic engineer. If you were determined to pander to people on bikes, you could make the sign "Cyclists treat as yield." If you were an animal lover, you could make it "Dog Carts Need Not Stop." I'll bet each of you could come up with a dozen variants. For example, PaddyAnne might want one saying "Bikes With COOL Bells Treat as Yield." John Romeo Alpha might want "Stop if you Don't Get Up and Go Ride." In Austin, they might want signs saying "Treat as Yield if You are a Longhorn." Still, personally, all humor aside, I think such stop sign supplements, to be generally understood, ought to be simple and nondiscriminatory. What's more, sign proliferation is NOT a good thing. Traffic works as well as it does because the rules are simple and few. THAT, more than anything else, is the problem with much new bike stuff such as bike boxes and green paint - it confuses people. KISS is an honored principle.

I can think of hundreds of places these little gems could go. And, while they might remain endangered, the few remaining Yield signs around could take comfort that many other signs were with them in the spirit of Texas 545.153(c).

ONE FINAL UPDATE
Pre-emptive war was not a "Bush" thing. From 1972, Randy Newman sings an anthem of why you don't want the nuclear thing to get out of control. To video from Dr Strangelove, inspired by Los Alamos Bikes.

Listen to it at another level and it could be a cyclist anthem though I would never want to drop the big one on my motorists.

License Cyclists?

Lately, dimbulb legislators in New York and elsewhere have fallen over themselves to see whether Republicans or Democrats can be most clueless about cyclists and cycling. Both parties have proposed cycling license schemes in ways that have repeatedly failed in the past. Neither seems to have hit on a simple and obvious solution. In reality, licensing cyclists might well be a GOOD IDEA and it could even be done without the classical failing of government programs that fail to recognize you regulate and tax behaviors you want less of. The real question is how do you both encourage cycling AND license cyclists? It's easy to see how you can use regulation to discourage cycling, which is exactly why you see so many commenters on news articles advocating doing exactly that TO cyclists. Their agenda is simply to get RID of as many cyclists as they can. Golly, no big secret there. My own licensing scheme has, as you might guess, a little different motivation.

Anyway, I applied small government principles to the problem of licensing cyclists while making such a program something more than an excuse to torture anyone wanting to ride a bike to the grocery store. First off, it seemed clear to me that adding a brand new licensing program would generate a whole new expensive bureaucratic program with no real prospects of success. No good. Government already costs too much. THEN, it hit me that almost everyone, from time to time, operates a bicycle at least in their neighborhood, or supervises children that do so. What's more, riding a bicycle is the most elemental vehicle operation. How is it that we allow people to get an operator license for a high-powered motor vehicle without having to show competence with a simpler KIND of vehicle?

I pondered all this and then it occurred to me. In order to obtain or renew a driver/vehicle operating license, one should be required to show and demonstrate basic familiarity with bicycle operating principles on public roads. No new government program needed at all! People unable to ride a conventional bicycle can demonstrate competence via any of the various "special" bikes available. Since almost all people ride bikes on at least rare occasions, or supervise child riders, all people with a driver's license would now have at least some bike competence. Turned around, one might marvel at how we imagine someone unable to operate a bicycle safely is capable of operating a high-powered, 4000lb motor vehicle safely while chatting on a cell phone. In reality, riding a bike could be the basic driving license, with people allowed to add endorsements for increasingly complex vehicles such as cars and ranging up to commercial vehicles. The basic framework already exists in every state in the US and every province in Canada. Actually experiencing safe bike riding might also help reduce the irrational fears that many people have about bikes.

What about kids, you might ask? Well, that is admittedly tougher, though most schools do have school ID nowadays and understanding of principles could be tested as part of the school standardized testing. We'd not want to see any child left behind! Golly, that phrase could acquire a whole new meaning. Added cycling in school could even represent a shortcut to later demonstration of motor vehicle proficiency, somewhat as driver's ed does now. There is really no reason why demonstration of competency on a bike on the road requires being sixteen. That might make sense for adding a "motor vehicle operator" endorsement to the basic license. I don't know, but I imagine my clever readers could come up with sensible approaches.

Learn to Operate These Safely to Obtain a Basic License

Certainly, there'd be a myriad of details to work out, such as what do you do with unrepentant scofflaws, but we have that problem with people driving motor vehicles without a license today anyway. Besides, as Ellis County has demonstrated, it is entirely practical for a local jurisdiction to throw a cyclist in jail if they believe he/she is misbehaving. A six month suspension of the motoring endorsement would also certainly reduce the number of people that insist on riding against traffic.

It might be interesting to hear the comments of the "license cyclists" crowd about this proposal, which might be the first practical means ever proposed to license cyclists. "Well, I didn't mean THAT!!!! I just wanted to punish those Lance wannabes."

Am I serious? Well, it really makes at least as much sense, and maybe more, as some of the schemes I've seen, but I also think most politicians have a stronger instinct for survival. However, as a cyclist, wouldn't it make you feel a little more confident if you knew every single person driving a car had proven they could ride a bike safely?


Later, Add an Endorsement to Your License in Order to Operate Something More Dangerous