The best way to educate motorists on bicyclists' rights to the road is to ride respectfully and have facts on your side. Here are some resources for cyclists and drivers on sharing the road.
Sharing the Roads:
CYCLISTSOn the Road:
- The same laws that apply to motorists apply to cyclists
- Obey all traffic control devices
- Use hand signals to indicate stops and turns other users
Always Wear a Properly Fitting Helmet:
- Wear a helmet, no matter how short the trip
Ride on the Right:
- Always ride in the same direction as traffic
- Use the furthest right lane that heads to your destination
- Slower moving cyclists and motorists stay to the right
Ride Predictably:
- Ride in a straight line
- Don't swerve in the road or between parked cars
- Check for traffic before entering street or intersection
- Anticipate hazards and adjust your position accordingly
Be Visible:
- Wear brightly colored clothing that provides contrast
- Use a white front light in low light conditions
- Use a red rear light in low light conditions
- Use a reflector or reflective tape or clothing anytime
- Announce yourself by making eye contact with motorists
Sharing the Roads:
MOTORISTSDrive Cautiously:
- Reduce speed when encountering cyclists
- Don't tailgate, especially in bad weather
- Recognize hazards cyclists may face and give them space
Yield to Cyclists:
- Bicycles are considered vehicles
- Cyclists should be given the appropriate right of way
- Allow extra time for cyclists to traverse intersections
Be Considerate:
- Scan for cyclists in traffic and at intersections
- Do not blast your horn in close proximity to cyclists
- Look for cyclists when opening doors
Pass with Care:
- When passing, leave at least one meter between you and a cyclist
- Wait for safe road and traffic conditions before you pass
- Check over your shoulder before moving back
Watch for Children:
- Children on bicycles are often unpredictable
- Expect the unexpected and slow down
- Don't expect children to know traffic laws
- Because of their size children can be harder to see
Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!
On May 10, 2007 10:46:38 AM
ADT, Jack wrote:
Bike . . . lanes are constant reminders to vehicles that cyclists have rights too! In other words, these lanes serve as continuing education!
Yeah. They say: "
This is where the cyclist belongs, in
this lane. If you see them in the
ordinary travel lanes, that's
not where they belong.
The problem is, staying to the right, where bike lanes invariably are, is
not always the correct thing to do. For example, when a cyclist wishes to make a left turn, the
correct thing to do is to shoulder check, signal and move
left into the appropriate lane or, on a two lane road, move left
close to the center line prior to making your turn. Bike lanes, however, tend to imply that the cyclist must
always stay right
at all times.
Even cyclists who know how to make a proper left turn are hampered by cycle lanes because, though the
cyclist might know the difference, sometimes the
motorist does not. This results in angry horn honking as the motorist demands that the cyclist return to "their" space when they're actually making a perfectly legal and proper left turn.
Then there are bike lanes that are poorly maintained. The law in most states and provinces allows a cyclist to use his or her judgment to decide, when encountering debris or surface flaws in a bike lane, when
not to use the lane and instead use the travel lane where the surface is more stable. Debris is, unfortunately,
very common in bike lanes since it is into the bike lane that passing car tires "sweep" debris...
Bike lanes are a pretty dangerous way to "educate..."
There will always be an inherent conflict between motorized vehicles and pedestrian-cyclists.
Why? Because cyclists are slower? The rules of the road and meant to accommodate slower vehicles equally with the faster ones.
"Pedestrian-cyclists" implies that cyclists are closer to being pedestrians rather than vehicle operators. I disagree. An experienced cyclist travels, on average, between 25 and 35 km/h over level ground. On downhills, speeds can reach or exceed
50 km/h. That's
more than sufficiently fast to qualify as a
vehicle, not a pedestrian.
I know that my wife and many friends will not comfortably ride on streets without bike lanes. Your personal view is not helping them and its pervasiveness is preventing the cycling world from having needed riders to create more critical mass.
Just getting butts out on bicycles isn't going to help if those cyclists don't have clue one how to interact with traffic, and cycle lanes encourage cyclists to get out there without
any education because the cycle lanes create a false sense of security.
If you want to get more cyclists riding,
education is the key.
Educate the cyclist
and the motorist on how to interact on the road, and tell them
why the rules are there. If more cyclists understood the dynamics of traffic interaction and actually
tried vehicular cycling principles, maybe more people would
be comfortable riding on the road without the irrational fear of being mowed down
only because there are cars on the road with you.
If you've been riding for 50 years, you of all people must know how safe it
really is to be out there...
I wish you were right but numerous studies and successful cities say otherwise.
Would you care to provide my readers with some links
to these studies?
On May 11, 2007 1:16:06 PM
ADT, Jack wrote:
There's a great deal of misperception about bike lanes and misleading information is being circulated. This information is used in ways that is destructive to the cycling community and should be stopped.
I agree. Except it is
you, not I, that is circulating that misleading information.
The idea that bike lanes prevent cyclists from using non-bike painted areas for travel is absurd. Just as cars and truch traverse bike lanes, cyclists too may use (and must) other sections of the road when necesary and prudent. If you know of a law that states differeently I would appreciate seeing it.
I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about
perception. A cyclist that knows the law is an
educated cyclist. Of
course the educated cyclist is going to know the difference.
I know the difference.
My point is that
most cyclists are
not educated (based on my observations... I encounter at least one bad cyclist
every ride). In turn, cyclists who are
not educated, seeing a bike lane, tend to assume that that lane is the only part of the
road they're
allowed to use.
(BTW, before I get nailed for using the term "educated" too broadly, I don't mean that these cyclists are not educated
academically. I'm referring
specifically to how educated they are as far as
driving their bicycles in traffic.)
IMHO, the biggest problem in cyclist education throughout North America is this: the idea that cyclists are somehow "different" from other vehicle operators and need to be
treated differently in some way. They do
not. By following all the principles laid out in the
Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, a cyclist can safely negotiate in and out of
any kind of traffic,
including motor traffic, without needing
any kind of special road markings.
Why do so many cyclists get hurt? Simple. Most honestly don't know that the rules of the road apply to
them, just like everyone
else using the road. A vast majority of cyclist/motorist collisions happen at intersections and a vast majority of
those collisions, in turn, are caused by the cyclist ignoring stop signs, traffic lights, intersection signals or positioning themselves in the incorrect lane or the incorrect position
within the lane to clearly indicate intention.
None of these problems have anything to do with the presence or absence of cycle lanes. They have to do with ignorance on the part of the cyclists as to what responsibilities their right to use the road carries.
In addition, you may want to travel to other cities around the world to see how they address the "right side only" area for bike lanes. Some of the most interesting designs are where bike lanes are in the middle of the road.
I'll grant that there are some interesting and fairly safe designs out there, particularly in Europe. I still see them as a waste of time for the most part, though.
The existence of bike lanes do not nullify the rights to avoid road hazards.
True. The trouble is that many people, cyclists and motorists alike, don't
realize this.
I never implied that cyclists-pedestrians were in the same class...it doesn't help when statements are improperly twisted. The only similarity is that both are often overlooked in the design of our streets.
Pedestrians aren't overlooked in most street designs (with the possible exception of rural roads). There are sidewalks. There are walk signs. Those are
pedestrian features. But, then again, pedestrians, by definition are not
vehicle operators. Naturally, they're going to need separate facilities. Cyclists, OTOH,
are vehicle operators. The rules of the road are
perfectly capable of accommodating them
without
any special features on the road.
Without proper recognition, road designs not only imply that cyclists are unwelcomed and not accorded the same rights as drivers in motorized vehivles, but actually increase cycling risks and conflict unnecessarily.
Nothing about standard road markings and features implies that cyclists are not welcome to use the road.
That attitude is
solely the result of our car-dependent culture. The car is
so ubiquitous in our society now that the unimaginative among us just can't
coneive of the idea of using anything
else on the road. This is a fault, not in the roads as designed, but in North American
culture.These problems are exacerbated by many other problems: lack of law enforcement, attitude of drivers, irresponsible cyclists, poor signage, etc.
Absolutely.
The rules-design of the road also create conflicts and this is undeniable. A simple but obvious example are highways . . . Along such highways, designers may want to create a separate bike path for cyclists in order to address the inherent conflict and not a bike lane. Sharing the road in these circumstances is highly dangerous and imprudent.
Well, highways are a slightly different case. Unlike ordinary roads, highways were built
specifically for
high speed motor vehicle traffic. On a highway, I
will acknowledge that there
is an inherent conflict due to the much higher speed differential between the motor vehicles using such roads and the cyclist.
As a general rule, I would recommend a cyclist use a more conventional road. If no such road exists between the cyclist and their intended destination,
then I
would advocate the creation of a separate bike path parallel to the highway.
That being said, there
are highways in my local area that I use from time to time depending on my intended destination. I
always take the
shortest route. Naturally, if the highway presents the shortest route, that's the route I'll take. However, presented with
two routes of
equal length, one on conventional roads and one on the highway, I'll almost
always choose the highway.
The reason is simple. To be blunt, most of the conventional roads around here are in
dire need of repair. The highway, OTOH, tends to be glass smooth and in good repair because, unlike the conventional roads, it must accommodate much faster traffic. Even the smallest pothole might shatter the suspension or rim of a car blasting over it at 100 km/h. Since I prefer smooth roads, I prefer to use a highway when possible.
For example, to get to North Sydney from here, I have a choice of two routes
. I could take
Keltic Drive, or I could take
Highway 125.
Both routes are virtually
identical in length. I prefer the highway to
Keltic Drive.
If I take
Keltic Drive, I have to cross a very old bridge across
Sydney River that's in pretty rough shape. Not to mention it's narrow and hard to negotiate. If I take Highway 125, OTOH, the pavement is
perfect and the road is
wide with a good, wide, paved shoulder to ride on. The highway simply makes more sense. It's more comfortable, I can go faster and I don't have to delay anyone.
Now I will admit that these highways are fairly well suited for cycling because of their wide, paved shoulders which, IMHO, is almost as effective as a separate path. I just stay in the shoulder, completely out of the way of approaching traffic. The only time I enter the traffic lane is when crossing an exit ramp. I shoulder check and move into the traffic lane to signal my intention to continue on the highway and re-enter the shoulder once past the ramp.
I have used these highways safely dozens of times without any problems and, done properly,
most cyclists can use such roads. However, I do
not recommend highway cycling to an inexperienced cyclist. A cyclist should get thoroughly comfortable with negotiating traffic on conventional roads
first before tackling traffic on highways, negotiating with traffic on merges.
Other potential riders are prevented from riding and I know many. My friends who came here from Europe, use to cycle everyday and prefer to do so, now use their autos instead. What does that tell you?
It tells me that their perception of the risks involved in cycling with motor traffic are vastly inflated.
Accepting and promoting the status quo fails the tests of inclusiveness and respect.
"Inclusiveness" is my entire argument. We need to
include cyclists in the flow of traffic, not
segregate them into their "own facilities." To do otherwise is, IMHO, simply bigoted, not on the basis of race, but on the basis of the vehicle one chooses to drive.
On May 11, 2007 1:17:11 PM
ADT, Tom Frost Jr. wrote:
I . . . want . . . to nitpick about one thing in John's similar-to-my-Triad . . . set of tips: "Whether you ride or drive"? I'm always "driving", whether the vehicle that I'm driving is a bike or a car.
You're absolutely right, Tom. My bad. *HANGS HEAD IN SHAME*
