Author: Eli Damon

I was born in 1977. I am principally a math teacher and have been teaching since the age of 17. I have a B.E. in computer engineering from SUNY Stony Brook (2000) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Umass Amherst (2008). In the Society for Creative Anachronism, I am Lord Eli of Bergental, member of The Order of the Fountain. I first learned to ride a bike, in the common sense, at age 7. Due to a visual disability I cannot acquire a driver's license. I once thought of this limitation as a severe one. I made some trips by foot, bike, and bus, and relied on friends and family members with cars to give me rides for some other trips. For the most part, however, the difficulty I had in traveling prevented me from living what most people would consider a full life. I learned to DRIVE a bike at age 27, and it radically transformed my life. Suddenly, I could go wherever I wanted, whenever I wanted, in a reliable, flexible, carefree manner. It felt as if I was no longer disabled. Now I travel almost entirely by bicycle. I have found that good cycling habits provide me with more freedom and flexibility than I could ever achieve through driving a motor vehicle. I have cycled in ten states and the District of Columbia, on a wide variety of roads under a wide variety of conditions. I have made trips of up to 200 miles.

Crossing A Double Yellow Line

Co-author: Steven Goodridge.

What would you do?

You are driving your car along a narrow two-lane road when a cyclist comes into view up ahead. Of course, you are a lawful, responsible, and respectful driver. You recognize that the lane is not wide enough to safely pass within it, so you slow down. If your sight lines are limited, you follow behind the cyclist until sight lines open up. If you are approaching an intersection where you might have to stop, then you follow behind the cyclist until you are past that point as well. If there is oncoming traffic, you wait for it to clear. Then, you move into the oncoming lane, accelerate, and pass the cyclist, leaving them plenty of room for safety and comfort. When you are safely past the cyclist and their forward right-of-way, you move back into the proper lane and continue on your way. No problem, right? Just another everyday driving maneuver.

But what if a traffic engineer decided to have a solid double yellow line applied down the middle of that road? Wouldn’t your passing maneuver be a violation of traffic law? So what do you do? Do you call the police to complain about the cyclist? Do honk or yell at the cyclist to move over? Do you try to squeeze past the cyclist without moving into the oncoming lane? Of course not. You’re a lawful, responsible, respectful driver. Do you follow behind the cyclist until your route diverges from theirs or you reach a point where the design of the road changes? That’s certainly a safe and legal option, but it is inconvenient and it seems unnecessary, since you can see an opportunity to pass safely. Or do you just take the first opportunity to pass safely, legal or not?

If you are like most motorists, you take the first opportunity to pass the cyclist safely, regardless of the stripe. After all, the purpose of the solid yellow line is to indicate where it is unsafe to pass, and the purpose of prohibiting drivers from crossing a solid yellow line to pass another driver is to prevent unsafe passing. So if it is safe to pass, then why is the solid yellow line there in the first place?

How did we get here?

Our surface streets have carried a wide variety of low-speed vehicles – horse drawn carriages, bicycles, tractors – since long before the popularity of motoring. Our traffic laws protect the right to drive these slower vehicles while also defining the limited privileges of overtaking for drivers who want to travel faster. For instance, overtaking drivers are prohibited from moving into the path of oncoming traffic or moving left of center where short sight distances would make this unsafe. The traffic laws clearly state that a driver wishing to pass another driver must wait behind until conditions are safe for passing without interfering with other travelers.

Dead Man's Curve along the Marquette–Negaunee Road in Marquette County, Michigan, shown in 1917 with its hand-painted center line. Source: Wikipedia — Dead Man’s Curve along the Marquette–Negaunee Road in Marquette County, Michigan, shown in 1917 with its hand-painted center line. *Source: Wikipedia*

As motoring became increasingly popular over the last century, motor-vehicle crashes took a tremendous toll in human life. One of the most devastating crash types involves a high-speed motorist swerving or drifting left of center on a two-way roadway and colliding head-on with oncoming traffic. Highway engineers discovered that marking a stripe down the center of such roadways reduced such collisions by helping drivers keep track of their position relative to the center of the roadway. Marking of stripes in the center of roads that carry traffic at high speeds or high volumes eventually became standard practice. These markings are an early example of “traffic controls” that traffic engineers install with the intent to encourage safe operation in compliance with the traffic laws. Over the decades, traffic engineers have added more and more traffic controls to roadways, sometimes with good results and sometimes with unintended consequences. Because the traffic engineering profession is half hard science and half social experiment, the full effects of traffic controls sometimes take time to reveal themselves.

In response to motorist errors, traffic engineers began marking no-passing zones in areas where the sight distance was inadequate to safely pass a vehicle traveling just below the maximum posted speed limit.

Some collisions that occur on two-lane roads are caused by motorists attempting to pass other drivers in when oncoming traffic is too close, but might be beyond the passing motorist’s sight distance when the maneuver begins. Although the passing law requires drivers to heed the sight distance required to pass safely, some drivers underestimate the sight distance needed, particularly when passing traffic moving at high speeds. (Other drivers choose to risk passing regardless of clearly inadequate sight distance.) In response to this, traffic engineers began marking no-passing zones in areas where the sight distance was too short for passing a vehicle traveling just below the maximum posted speed limit ¹. A solid stripe became the standard marking for no-passing zones, with dashed markings used elsewhere. Some states, such as Vermont and Missouri, adopted traffic laws that treated the solid centerline as a warning rather than a statutory prohibition against passing, but most states adopted laws that prohibited passing on a two-lane road wherever a solid centerline was present.

Over time, solid centerlines proliferated over a larger percentage of roadway miles. On many two-lane roads, solid centerlines continue for miles at a time, with no dashed sections at all.

Over time, solid centerlines proliferated over a larger percentage of roadway miles. Engineers marked them extending out several hundred feet from intersections, in areas with driveways, and anywhere else that the engineers considered unsafe for passing, particularly at high speed. The formulas and tables used to determine where to place solid centerlines assumed that the vehicle being passed was traveling near the maximum posted speed limit¹, so that dashed centerlines, indicating permission to pass, became quite rare. On many two-lane roads, solid centerlines continue for miles at a time, with no dashed sections at all. Passing of same-direction motorists on two-lane roads declined over time, partly because of the scarcity of legal passing zones, but also due to greater availability of multi-lane roads for longer route segments. Toward the end of the 20th century, traffic engineers saw passing zones to be less important as the amount of low-speed traffic declined (toward extinction, some may have presumed) and many of the motorists who did pass on two-lane roads were exceeding the speed limit.

The markings that traffic engineers placed on most miles of two-lane roads did not communicate a reasonably convenient process for passing low-speed vehicles.

Yet low-speed vehicles did not disappear from the roadways. Bicycles, thought by many in the mid-20th century to be obsolete, suitable only as children’s toys, later resurged as an economical, healthy, energy-efficient travel mode. Mopeds and scooters continued to be used as an affordable alternative to motorcycles. Horse-drawn carriages remained in use by traditionalist groups and equestrian tour operators. Farm tractors and construction vehicles were joined by new types of short-range electric utility vehicles. Laws throughout the country recognize a general right to travel on public roadways. At I Am Traffic, we are aware of some troubling infringements on this right, but the law does generally recognize that the public’s right to the road is not dependent on speed capability. But the markings that traffic engineers placed on most miles of two-lane roads did not communicate a reasonably convenient process for passing low-speed vehicles. The system is broken.

In some places, highway engineers have attempted to make two-lane roads wider to accommodate passing of some types of slower vehicles, but most roads cannot be widened due to economics. Instead, drivers of low-speed vehicles often become scapegoats for the dysfunctional nature of the road design and lane markings. Because traffic engineers have not considered the requirement to pass low-speed vehicles when designing the roads, many in government treat drivers of such vehicles as “unintended users” and marginalize their use of typically marked roadways.

What’s the problem?

In most of the United States, a motorist is not clearly permitted to cross a solid centerline to pass a cyclist when safe. Yet practically all drivers do, rather than continue to follow the cyclist at reduced speed. Drivers recognize that current striping policies for no-passing zones are overly restrictive in the context of low-speed vehicles. Mathematical analysis bears this out. For instance, safely passing a motorist traveling at 35 mph on a 45 mph road requires a sight distance 600 feet longer than passing a 15 mph bicyclist on the same road ².

There is a common provision permitting a driver to cross a solid centerline to pass an “obstruction”. Does a cyclist qualify as an obstruction? Some police departments take this interpretation while others do not. But police department policy is not law and for many reasons cannot take the place of law.

Some departments will apply a common exception for passing an “obstruction” to slow moving vehicles.
Considering cyclists to be obstructions is not necessarily good for cyclists, even if it seems to work in particular cases.

Moreover, considering cyclists to be obstructions is not necessarily good for cyclists, even if it seems to work in particular cases. Other drivers engaged in normal driving behavior are not referred to as obstructions, and referring to cyclists this way is degrading and can lead to further ill treatment in the future. It can even lead to bad outcomes in court proceedings, where the characterization of cyclists as obstructions might be carried into a different context.

The legal ambiguity around crossing a solid centerline is a source of conflict for cyclists, motorists, police officers, and driving instructors. Motorists can be unnecessarily inconvenienced because they believe that they are not allowed to pass a cyclist. Their frustration can lead to resentment and hostility toward cyclists. It can even lead to riskier behavior and crashes. A motorist might honk or yell at cyclists or might buzz them to avoid crossing a solid centerline. In the worst cases, motorists have attempted to squeeze past cyclists within the same lane and fatally struck the cyclists.

A cyclist can feel anxious about motorists following behind for too long, as can happen if a motorist believes that passing is prohibited. The cyclist can feel obligated to move to the edge and encourage motorists to squeeze past at an unsafe distance. There is a common belief that cyclists are legally obligated to enable passing regardless of the inconvenience or danger to themselves. This belief is completely false – cyclists’ obligation to facilitate passing is no greater than for other drivers – but the legal ambiguity about crossing a solid centerline exacerbates this belief. People are entitled to assume that the law and the design of roads make sense and will not lead to absurd situations. A motorist who is doing everything right, but can’t get around a cyclist, even if traffic is light, might understandably assume that the cyclist is doing something wrong. Police officers are vulnerable to the same confusion, and may stop or ticket cyclists for bogus infractions such as “impeding traffic” (which by law only applies to drivers traveling more slowly than they reasonably can).

control-release-series — Click photo to enlarge

The ambiguity about crossing a solid centerline frustrates driving instructors who teach cyclists or motorists about safely interacting with the other. In a typical encounter between a cyclist and a motorist on a narrow two-lane road, the safe and effective technique for the motorist is to wait behind the bicyclist until it is safe to move into the oncoming lane to pass. The safe and effective behavior for the cyclist consists of controlling the lane (taking a position in the lane far enough leftward to discourage motorists from attempting to pass) while there is oncoming traffic or any other condition that would make passing unsafe, and at other times encouraging the motorist, through a more rightward position and/or gestures, to move into the oncoming lane to pass. This technique is known as Control and Release. However, discussion of these techniques is frequently derailed by arguments over whether it is legal for the motorist to cross a solid centerline to pass a cyclist and when it is legal for a cyclist travel on a road under any conditions in which motorists cannot legally pass.

Can we fix this thing?

The long-term solution is for traffic engineers to include low-speed vehicles as design vehicles on all ordinary surface roads and to provide appropriate passing facilities depending on context. For instance, important through roads intended to support high speed traffic might warrant more convenient passing facilities than low-speed, low-volume, local streets. Such widespread engineering changes will not be achieved any time soon. In the meantime, an easier fix is needed. A prime candidate for such a fix is a provision in traffic codes that explicitly permits a driver to cross a solid centerline to pass under appropriate conditions. Some states have already implemented this fix. Colorado³, Maine⁴, Mississippi⁵, Ohio⁶, Pennsylvania⁷, Utah⁸ and Wisconsin⁹, for example, have added provisions to their respective traffic codes explicitly allowing drivers to cross a solid centerline to pass a slow-moving vehicle, or a bicyclist specifically, under safe conditions.

The vast majority of motorists are already crossing solid centerlines to pass cyclists today. What isn’t happening is a substantive public discussion about how to do it safely.

We propose that prohibitions on crossing solid centerlines be relaxed by adding an exception for passing vehicles traveling at a sufficiently low speed. In Ohio, for example, this speed threshold is half the maximum posted speed limit. Such an exception would be applicable to passing tractors, construction vehicles and horse-drawn carriages, in addition to bicycles. Most motorists already cross solid centerlines to pass all of these vehicles when safe. However, Ohio’s exception is not entirely satisfactory. It is not uncommon for a cyclist’s speed to be greater than half the maximum posted speed limit, while still being unnecessarily slow for a following motorist. For example, it is well within the range of normal conditions for cyclist to be traveling at 20mph in 30mph zone or even 30mph in a 50mph zone (going down a hill, for example). If the road is straight, then sight distance would likely be adequate for a motorist to pass this cyclist safely and without exceeding the maximum posted speed limit.

Model No-Passing-Zone Exception

When passing a pedestrian, bicycle, tractor, or other slow moving vehicle, the operator of a vehicle may drive on the left side of the center of a roadway in a no-passing zone when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with or endangering other traffic on the highway.

Alternatively, states could redefine the meaning of the solid centerline from a statutory prohibition on passing to a warning that passing may be unsafe. This is already the case in some states, such as Vermont (the Vermont statute requires signs, not solid striping alone, to define a no-passing zone). All of the other laws restricting passing due to oncoming traffic and limited sight distance would still apply.

We ask that legislators modernize their passing laws to reflect safe and practical passing practices, and that cycling advocates make a priority of lobbying them to do so.

The vast majority of motorists are already crossing solid centerlines to pass cyclists today. What isn’t happening is a substantive public discussion about how to do it safely. Changing the law to reflect prudent behavior will facilitate this discussion as well as better public education and more effective law enforcement. We at I Am Traffic believe that relaxing the solid centerline no-passing rule is essential to reducing sideswipes, unsafe close passing, and harassment of bicyclists on two-lane roads. We ask that legislators modernize their passing laws to reflect safe and practical passing practices, and that cycling advocates make a priority of lobbying them to do so.

Footnotes

^{1. NCHRP Report 605, Passing Sight Distance Criteria, Transportation Research Board, 2008. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_605.pdf↩}

^{2. Consider a driver planning a pass on a 45 mph road. Observation of real-world behavior shows that drivers take an average of seven-seconds to pass a 15 mph bicyclist (with a speed differential of 10 mph), but an average of ten seconds to pass a 35 mph car. A seven second pass at 25 mph covers about 256 feet worst case (ignoring acceleration). By comparison, a ten second pass at 45 mph covers about 660 feet. An oncoming 45 mph driver travels 462 feet in seven seconds and 660 feet in 10 seconds. The required safe passing sight distance in the average bicyclist case is therefore about 600 feet shorter than in the average motorist case. Also, the slower passing speed is safer, should the passing driver misjudge; the oncoming driver will have more time and distance to reduce speed and “cooperate” with the pass as is often the case whrn passing a stationary obstruction. While the law prohibits a passing driver from interfering with an oncoming driver and requiring that driver to slow, this interference is much less dangerous when passing a slow bicyclist than when passing a fast motorist. This is why there are so few crashes involving oncoming vehicles when drivers are passing cyclists on two-lane roads.↩}

^{3. Colorado No-Passing-Zone Exception

42-4-1005. Limitations on overtaking on the left

(1) No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this article and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and, in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within two hundred feet of any approaching vehicle.

(2) No vehicle shall be driven on the left side of the roadway under the following conditions:

(a) When approaching or upon the crest of a grade or a curve in the highway where the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance as to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction;

(b) When approaching within one hundred feet of or traversing any intersection or railroad grade crossing; or

(c) When the view is obstructed upon approaching within one hundred feet of any bridge, viaduct, or tunnel.

(3) The department of transportation and local authorities are authorized to determine those portions of any highway under their respective jurisdictions where overtaking and passing or driving on the left side of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may by appropriate signs or markings on the roadway indicate the beginning and end of such zones. Where such signs or markings are in place to define a no-passing zone and such signs or markings are clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person, no driver shall drive on the left side of the roadway within such no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark such no-passing zone throughout its length.

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply:

(a) Upon a one-way roadway;

(b) Under the conditions described in section 42-4-1001 (1) (b);

(c) To the driver of a vehicle turning left into or from an alley, private road, or driveway when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with, impeding, or endangering other traffic lawfully using the highway; or

(d) To the driver of a vehicle passing a bicyclist moving the same direction and in the same lane when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with, impeding, or endangering other traffic lawfully using the highway.↩}

^{4. Maine No-Passing-Zone Exception

Title 29-A: MOTOR VEHICLES HEADING: PL 1993, C. 683, PT. A, §2 (NEW); PT. B, §5 (AFF)

Chapter 19: OPERATION HEADING: PL 1993, C. 683, PT. A, §2 (NEW); PT. B, §5 (AFF)

Subchapter 1: RULES OF THE ROAD HEADING: PL 1993, C. 683, PT. A, §2 (NEW); PT. B, §5 (AFF)

§2070. Passing another vehicle

1. Passing on left. An operator of a vehicle passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction must pass to the left at a safe distance and may not return to the right until safely clear of the passed vehicle. An operator may not overtake another vehicle by driving off the pavement or main traveled portion of the way.

[ 1997, c. 653, §11 (AMD) .]

1-A. Passing bicycle or roller skier. An operator of a motor vehicle that is passing a bicycle or roller skier proceeding in the same direction shall exercise due care by leaving a distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle or roller skier of not less than 3 feet while the motor vehicle is passing the bicycle or roller skier. A motor vehicle operator may pass a bicycle or roller skier traveling in the same direction in a no-passing zone only when it is safe to do so.↩}

^{5. Mississippi No-Passing-Zone Exception

MS Code § 63-3-1309 (2013)

(1) While passing a bicyclist on a roadway, a motorist shall leave a safe distance of not less than three (3) feet between his vehicle and the bicyclist and shall maintain such clearance until safely past the bicycle.

(2) A motor vehicle operator may pass a bicycle traveling in the same direction in a nonpassing zone with the duty to execute the pass only when it is safe to do so.

(3) The operator of a vehicle that passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction may not make a right turn at any intersection or into any highway or driveway unless the turn can be made with reasonable safety.↩}

^{6. Ohio No-Passing-Zone Exception

4511.31. Hazardous zones

(A) The department of transportation may determine those portions of any state highway where overtaking and passing other traffic or driving to the left of the center or center line of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may, by appropriate signs or markings on the highway, indicate the beginning and end of such zones. When such signs or markings are in place and clearly visible, every operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley shall obey the directions of the signs or markings, notwithstanding the distances set out in section 4511.30 of the Revised Code.

(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply when all of the following apply:

(1) The slower vehicle is proceeding at less than half the speed of the speed limit applicable to that location.

(2) The faster vehicle is capable of overtaking and passing the slower vehicle without exceeding the speed limit.

(3) There is sufficient clear sight distance to the left of the center or center line of the roadway to meet the overtaking and passing provisions of section 4511.29 of the Revised Code, considering the speed of the slower vehicle.↩}

^{7. Pennsylvania No-Passing-Zone Exception

§ 3307. No-passing zones.

(a) Establishment and marking.–The department and local authorities may determine those portions of any highway under their respective jurisdictions where overtaking and passing or driving on the left side of the roadway would be especially hazardous and shall by appropriate signs or markings on the roadway indicate the beginning and end of such zones and when the signs or markings are in place and clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person every driver of a vehicle shall obey the directions of the signs or markings. Signs shall be placed to indicate the beginning and end of each no-passing zone.

(b) Compliance by drivers.–Where signs and markings are in place to define a no-passing zone as set forth in subsection (a), no driver shall at any time drive on the left side of the roadway within the no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark a no-passing zone throughout its length.

(b.1) Overtaking pedalcycles.–It is permissible to pass a pedalcycle, if done in accordance with sections 3303(a)(3) (relating to overtaking vehicle on the left) and 3305 (relating to limitations on overtaking on the left).

(c) Application of section.–This section does not apply under the conditions described in section 3301(a)(2) and (5) (relating to driving on right side of roadway).↩}

^{8. Utah No-Passing-Zone Exception

41-6a-708. Signs and markings on roadway — No-passing zones — Exceptions.

(1) (a) A highway authority may designate no-passing zones on any portion of a highway under its jurisdiction if the highway authority determines passing is especially hazardous.

(b) A highway authority shall designate a no-passing zone under Subsection (1)(a) by placing appropriate traffic-control devices on the highway.

(2) A person operating a vehicle may not drive on the left side of:

(a) the roadway within the no-passing zone; or

(b) any pavement striping designed to mark the no-passing zone.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply:

(a) under the conditions described under Subsections 41-6a-701(1)(b) and (c); or

(b) to a person operating a vehicle turning left onto or from an alley, private road, or driveway.

41-6a-701. Duty to operate vehicle on right side of roadway — Exceptions.

(1) On all roadways of sufficient width, a person operating a vehicle shall operate the vehicle on the right half of the roadway, except:

…

(c) when overtaking and passing a bicycle or moped proceeding in the same direction at a speed less than the reasonable speed of traffic that is present requires operating the vehicle to the left of the center of the roadway subject to the provisions of Subsection (2)

↩}

^{9. Wisconsin No-Passing-Zone Exception

346.09 Limitations on overtaking on left or driving on left side of roadway.

(3)

(a) Except as provided in par. (b), the operator of a vehicle shall not drive on the left side of the center of a roadway on any portion thereof which has been designated a no-passing zone, either by signs or by a yellow unbroken line on the pavement on the right-hand side of and adjacent to the center line of the roadway, provided such signs or lines would be clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person.

(b) The operator of a vehicle may drive on the left side of the center of a roadway on any portion thereof which has been designated a no-passing zone, as described in par. (a), to overtake and pass, with care, any vehicle, except an implement of husbandry or agricultural commercial motor vehicle, traveling at a speed less than half of the applicable speed limit at the place of passing.↩}

Overcoming Ignorance And Fear

Introduction

This is the story of living with a disability, overcoming that disability, suffering under a forced re-imposition of that disability, struggling against that imposition, and finally subduing it. That is not my physical disability of blindness, but my intellectual disability of ignorance and fear.

I wrote the first half of this more than a year ago, but I could not bring myself to publish it. I felt like the final chapter was missing, and I had to live that chapter before I could write it.

I dedicate this article to John Forester, who through his writing rescued me from my own accidental ignorance. And to Andrew Fischer, who came to my aid in the struggle against others’ willful ignorance.

I am deeply grateful to my friends, particularly members of the Barony of Bergental and the bicycle driving community, for giving me some light during a very dark period. There were many days during that period (and there continue to be such days) when I could not find a compelling reason to get out of bed. But there were also days when my friends provided such a reason when I would not otherwise have found one.

Blindness

I am blind. I am not totally blind. Some would describe me as “partially blind” or “visually impaired.” The details are not important to the rest of the story, but people tend to be curious about it, so I will explain.

I was born with a rare, hereditary eye disorder called “retinoschisis.” Balls of fluid, called “scheses” (plural of “schesis”), partially separate my retina from the back of my eye. My acuity is impaired and I am missing some parts of my peripheral vision. The disorder also comes with a risk of retinal detachment, which results in total blindness in the affected eye. There is currently no corrective procedure. Since the defect is in the retina rather than the lens, it cannot be corrected with glasses or contacts.

I also have some secondary symptoms. I don’t have as much control over my eye movements as most other people. I must compensate for my reduced peripheral vision and eye movement control by turning my head more than most people do. I can’t wink, and I tend to blink more than most people. I have what is called a “nystagmus.” If I look intently, my eyes instinctively dart around, trying to focus. But they can’t get the focus they expect, so they just keep darting around. It’s a neat party trick.

It is hard to describe my vision or to compare it to normal vision because I have never had normal vision. It looks normal to me, and I have no other experience to compare it to. But I am told that everything looks blurry to me compared to someone with normal vision and that parts of my peripheral vision are missing. The blurriness means that I cannot make out as much detail as most other people.

I have trouble recognizing people. I have trouble making out small details or details of distant objects. My night vision is especially poor.

My blindness renders me unqualified to legally drive a motor vehicle. For a long time I thought of this as a severe limitation. I did not know of any other means of transportation that would give me the flexibility I needed to live a full and normal life.

On the spectrum of blindness, my vision is actually quite good. It is far better than the uncorrected vision of many people whose vision is fully corrected with glasses or contacts. Most people cannot detect my blindness through casual observation. Until I tell them that I am blind, they just think I’m weird (which I am, and proudly so). I can read most normal-size print under the right conditions. I do not use a cane or dog when I walk.

Apparently, I am quite comfortable performing many tasks by feel for which most people rely on their vision: for example, climbing/descending stairs, shaving, and turning a bolt with a screwdriver.

Immobility

My blindness renders me unqualified to legally drive a motor vehicle. (My brother has slightly higher acuity than me, and did have a driver’s license for a short period.) For a long time I thought of this as a severe limitation. I did not know of any other means of transportation that would give me the flexibility I needed to live a full and normal life. I got by with a combination of walking, biking, riding buses, and getting rides with friends and family members. With these methods I could meet my basic needs but not much more. Limitations on my mobility constrained my opportunities much more than any direct consequence of my disability: my options for where I could live, work, shop, and socialize.

Walking was slow and impractical for almost all trips. Biking was also slow, although faster than walking. It was also difficult, stressful, and still quite limiting. I only felt comfortable going short distances on familiar and comfortable routes. I had quite a few crashes too. Riding buses could be faster than biking, but it could also be slower than walking. It was extremely inflexible and unreliable. Bus routes only go certain places and only at certain times. Often buses are late, don’t stop, or don’t come at all. Missing a bus, even by a minute, could mean being twenty minutes late, an hour late, or not getting there at all. It could also mean becoming stranded far from home. So it was necessary to plan a trip well in advance and leave a lot of buffer time. There is also a severe limit on what can be carried on a bus. Getting rides from friends and family was also inflexible and unreliable, as well as humiliating. I would have to start looking for a ride days or weeks in advance, and I often did not find one. I could not choose when to arrive or depart or even know when I would arrive or depart. If my ride was late to pick me up, then I was late to arrive. If my ride wanted to leave early or stay late then I had to leave early or stay late. And there was a social liability in that my ride’s flexibility was constrained by their commitment to me.

Socializing was especially difficult for me for many reasons, but an important one was that my mobility limitations hindered my ability to act spontaneously or to interact with others on an equal basis. I could not go where other people went without great effort and planning, which often included the indignity of imposing on others for a ride, which I might or might not receive. Asking for a ride might not seem like it should be so humiliating, but as an integral part of my life, it left me in a constantly dependent and inferior social position. I was lonely and isolated. I could not relate to other people, and I resented them for taking for granted the freedom that for me was unavailable. I resented the World for leaving me behind.

“You Are Healed-AH!”

In the summer of 2005, approaching my twenty-eighth birthday, I separated from my wife (now my ex-wife). My principal social outlet at the time was my weekly choir practice, which I had been traveling to with my wife in her car, so it was important to me to continue attending. It was fifteen miles away (ten miles was my limit at the time) on unfamiliar, difficult, scary roads, so biking seemed impossible. I was too far out of the way for other members of the choir to pick me up. There were no buses that could take me.

Before we were married, my wife (then my fiancé) had bought me a book about cycling. She had known even less than I did about cycling (which was not much at the time) and was not at all familiar with the book. But she knew that I rode a bike. She had been poking around on the Web, had come across the book, and bought it for me.

I had never gotten around to reading it before, and I had forgotten about it until this transportation crisis arose. In desperation, I dug the book out and started reading it, hoping to find a clue to my mobility problem. The book was Effective Cycling by John Forester.

As I read the book, I became very excited. It suggested that I should ride my bike according to the same rules as drivers of motor vehicles use and that I should stay away from the edge of the road, sometimes riding in the center or even on the left side of a lane, thus occupying the entire lane. I knew that the designs of roads provided a simple and predictable environment for motorists to travel with ease and flexibility. If I could use the roads in the same manner on a bike, then I could go anywhere with the same ease and flexibility. This was a totally new concept to me, and I was somewhat skeptical of it, but I recognized its immense potential.

It was as if I was no longer disabled. I was still blind, but ignorance, not blindness, had been my disability all along. I had been healed. I could go wherever I wanted, whenever I wanted.

I cautiously began to test out the techniques I had read about. On a familiar, comfortable road near where I lived (Strong St. in Amherst, MA), I rode a little farther from the edge than I had before. I immediately noticed that motorists passed me at a greater, more comfortable distance. I tried moving a little farther from the edge, and motorists left me an even wider gap. I also noticed that I could ride a straighter course, at a higher speed, with less effort away from the edge than I could near the edge.

I quickly became comfortable riding assertively on small quiet roads. I advanced my testing to bigger, busier roads. And then even bigger, even busier roads. I learned how to look at the horizon and follow the lane line to my left rather than following the right edge. I also grew more comfortable with scanning and signaling. I was ready to take on the scariest road I knew of: Route 9 in Hadley, a major four-lane arterial.

I headed out to the Hampshire Mall. Approaching University Drive, where Route 9 widened from two lanes to four, and where I would earlier follow the edge, I continued on a straight course to end up in the middle of the right lane. It worked! I looked straight ahead and held my position. Motorists passed me in the passing lane rather than squeezing by right next to me. With the edge of the road farther away from me, I found that I was able to focus my gaze farther ahead and move faster with less effort. Traffic controls no longer took me by surprise like they did before because they were all placed so as to be easily noticed from that middle-of-the-lane position. I also noticed that being directly in line with other traffic enabled me to take clues from traffic ahead of me about what I would encounter. When I got near mall, I scanned, signaled, yielded, and moved to the left through lane. When I got to the beginning of the left-turn lane, I moved right into it. It was amazing how easy it was. When the light turned green, I turned into the Mall. I was no longer afraid.

It was as if I was no longer disabled either. I was still blind, but ignorance, not blindness, had been my disability all along. I had been healed. I could go wherever I wanted, whenever I wanted. I could do all of the normal things that other people did. I could live a full, normal life. I could go to choir practice.

I had the honor of meeting John Forester at the I Am Traffic Bicycle Education Colloquium. The image above is my copy of his book, which he signed at that event.

Conquering Unfamiliar Territory

On a 95-degree summer afternoon, I started on the fifteen mile trip to Holyoke, where my choir practiced. I passed Atkins Market and entered unfamiliar territory.

I struggled up the steep winding road to the Notch in my lowest gear. I fought to keep the pedals moving and the front wheel pointing forward. I rounded a curve, hoping to see the top, but there was just another curve. I kept going. Finally, I rounded a curve and I saw the top. My muscles hurt terribly, but I kept pushing until I reached the top. I rested and drank some water. Then I claimed my reward: flying down the smooth, straight, south side of the Notch.

I would never have made it up that hill with mind and body divided by the stress and difficulty of my old way of cycling. By freeing myself of that stress and difficulty, I was able to unite mind and body to achieve new heights, literally and figuratively.

I reached the South Hadley side of the Connecticut River, but I couldn’t find the bridge to Holyoke. I went around and around trying to find it until I finally realized that I was misreading my map. Before, being lost like that would have been terrifying, but with my new ability, being lost no longer meant being stuck. I calmly searched for the bridge until I found it.

South of the bridge, I entered the urban core of Holyoke, another unfamiliar setting. But an unfamiliar road no longer scared me. I knew that I could count on the familiar patterns of other roads. I was hot and exhausted, but I was also happy and confident.

I made my way to my friends’ house where practice was held, and I collapsed. They weren’t home. I sat and waited until some relief came along in the form of an ice cream truck. A little later, my friends came home and reminded me that there was no practice scheduled that week. Oh, well.

I continued to exploit my newfound freedom and expand my sense of possibility, cycling on a wide variety of roads under a wide variety of conditions, even making a couple of three-day, two-hundred-mile journeys. I made these trips because there were opportunities at the end that I wanted to take. I could never have made those trips or taken those opportunities before my transformation. It would have been overwhelmingly difficult, stressful, and scary.

I felt compelled to share the knowledge that led me though such a powerful transformation with other. I began corresponding with cycling instructors and pursuing cycling instruction certification.

A Crippling Blow

As I continued to exploit my newfound freedom, I was sometimes stopped and threatened by police officers, who disapproved of my assertive cycling behavior, the defensive driving techniques that made bicycle transportation practical and allowed me to build a life for myself. I had never interacted significantly with a police officer before, and the experience was quite scary. However, these encounters did not deter me because they all ended quickly. They would stop me, order me to move to the edge, or sometimes to get off of the road entirely, threaten to arrest me, and then move on. So I would simply move on as well, confident that my right to the road was secure and that I was not in significant danger.

My spirit was crushed. I was terrified. Knowing that I would eventually be stopped by a police officer again, that I was under a standing threat of arrest and that I could be held in jail for an indeterminate duration without even being convicted of a crime: It all made me feel completely helpless.

But these threats escalated in the Fall of 2009. First I was stopped in Hadley. Hadley was close to Amherst, where I lived, and I had been through it many times. I had never been stopped in Hadley before. The other stops had been farther from home, in places where I did not expect to travel very often. Being stopped in a place where I traveled on a weekly basis was a higher level of threat. The threat was intensified when the same officer stopped me a month later, seized my bicycle, made me walk to the police station to retrieve it, and renewed his threat of arrest.

Shortly thereafter, I was stopped by a police officer in West Springfield. I had been stopped in West Springfield several times before, but nothing had come of them. During the previous West Springfield stop, officers had even acknowledged my legal right to the road. But this time the officer arrested me and charged me with the crime of disorderly conduct. At my arraignment, the judge informed me that if I was arrested anywhere, for any reason, while the charges were pending, that I could be held in jail until their resolution.

My spirit was crushed. I was terrified. Knowing that I would eventually be stopped by a police officer again, that I was under a standing threat of arrest in Hadley, that a police officer who stopped me would discover that I was facing criminal charges, that the discovery could further bias them against me, that a threat of arrest and criminal charges was credible, and that I could be held in jail for an indeterminate duration without even being convicted of a crime: It all made me feel completely helpless. I was afraid to leave my home unescorted for fear of another police stop. And when I did leave my home, I was overcome with such intense anxiety that I could not enjoy what I was doing. I was extremely depressed, feeling like a prisoner in my home.

Moreover, I was afraid of the possibility of being found guilty. Such a finding would be terrible and not only for the usual reasons that a criminal conviction is terrible. It would also render illegal an essential function of my life, one that I had suffered without for most of my life. After living with a disability for twenty-eight years, then being freed from its constraints and enjoying that freedom for four years, I was forced back into the constraints of my disability once again. It was like I imagine it would be for someone who lives to adulthood unable to walk, then learns to walk as an adult only to have someone shatter his knees with a sledge hammer a few years later and again be unable to walk.

The Nightmare Continues

After four months of prosecution, a week before the scheduled trial, the district attorney agreed to drop the charge. I was a little bit freer, but I was still terrified of the possibility of future encounters with police officers, and I was still overcome with anxiety when I left home. I desperately wanted some means to ensure my safety, but I was told that there was nothing I could do to achieve it. Short of that, I wanted to at least know for sure what danger I was in, particularly in Hadley, but I was told that the only way achieve that was to go out and see what happened. I apparently had no choice but to pretend to live my life as normal, all the while expecting the nightmare to resume at any time.

I have never had a talent for acting. I was unable to pretend that everything was okay. But I did venture out a little and try to rebuild some of the life I had before. I had been doing some private tutoring and looking for a full-time teaching position before I was arrested. I felt that things were too uncertain to resume that. I started with some social activities with people I felt comfortable with. That would reduce my anxiety a little. But I was always apprehensive of the possibility of further conflict with the police. And being unable to determine where I stood with them was especially upsetting. There was no way to ask them if their threats still stood and get a meaningful answer.

A few months after the disorderly conduct charge was dropped, the same Hadley police officer stopped me a third time. He accused me of wiretapping and seized my camera. I received notice a few days later that he had charged me with wiretapping as well as disorderly conduct.

I bought a sport video camera with the hope of collecting on-bike footage for educational videos. When I went out, I mounted it on my helmet and set it to record my trip, hoping to refine my camera technique and maybe catch some interesting traffic interactions. It also gave me some security in that it would enable me to document a police encounter.

A few months after the disorderly conduct charge was dropped, the same Hadley police officer stopped me a third time. He wrote me a traffic citation. He also accused me of wiretapping and seized my camera. I received notice a few days later that he had charged me with wiretapping as well as disorderly conduct.

I was again a helpless prisoner. I pleaded for help from anyone who might have been able to help me, but most were unwilling to do much. After six months of prosecution, a judge eventually threw out the charges in response to a motion to dismiss. But I now knew that the Hadley police were willing to carry out their standing threats. I knew that I was not safe. I was still a prisoner.

One of the people that I had asked for help was attorney Andrew Fischer, and in the Fall of 2010, he agreed to pursue a lawsuit against the Hadley police, in which we would ask the court for an injunction, an order to leave me alone.

It was another year before he filed the lawsuit. At that point, I felt a good deal safer traveling because I knew that the judge would hear about any interference from the Hadley police. I was still in a tenuous position, but a much better position than before. I could at least begin to rebuild my life. I moved to a new home in Easthampton. One major difficulty in coping with the pending lawsuit was the legal hazards of speaking or writing about my experience. I felt an intense desire to discuss the experience that dominated my thoughts with others, and suppressing that desire was intensely frustrating and it continued to isolate me. The lawsuit continued for more than two years.

Victory, Affirmation, Freedom Restored

Many people take for granted the ability to travel freely. They do not realize how precious it is, and they do not understand what it is like not to have it.

I was unable to secure the injunction I had asked for, but I was able secure a summary judgement ruling and a settlement that clearly constitute a victory, albeit a weaker victory than I had hoped for. Through the settlement, I was able to achieve a solid sense that I would have some recourse if the Hadley police were to interfere with my travels again. My victory was, in fact, historic, being the first time a federal court had ever affirmed a cyclist’s right to the road. I have come a long way toward rebuilding my life, but I also have a long way to go. I cannot simply “move on.” However, I am now free to move forward. Things are slowly getting better.

Many people take for granted the ability to travel freely. They do not realize how precious it is, and they do not understand what it is like not to have it. Having discovered it after living without it for most of my life, it is certainly very precious to me. And having recovered it after it was seized from me makes it all the more precious.

You can hear me speak about my long conflict with the Hadley police in my recent interview on the Strong Towns podcast.

Making The Case For Equality

I live in Easthampton, Massachusetts. Late in 2011, I began an effort to remove discriminatory language from my city’s bicycle ordinances, an effort that concluded late in 2012. As part of the effort, I attempted to educate city officials, most of whom had little knowledge of or interest in cyclists’ right to the road, about the true nature and consequences of these laws. As a result of my attempt, I was able to greatly expand and refine the way I explain these topics.

Laws That Discriminate Against Cyclists
The Far Right Rule
A New Home, A New Dicovery
The Role Of Traffic Regulations
Positioning Narrow Vehicles
The Role of Courtesy
Effects Of Discriminatory Laws
The Result Of My Effort

Laws That Discriminate Against Cyclists

Bicycles must be considered and treated as equal road vehicles and bicyclists must be treated as full and equal drivers of vehicles in traffic laws and policies. Inequitable laws, which discriminate against bicyclists compared to other road users by allowing non-uniform local regulation, restricting access or movement must be repealed.

From the I Am Traffic Equality Goals
Every state in the United States has a law that initially grants those traveling by bicycle all of the rights enjoyed by those who travel by motor vehicle, or by vehicle in general. And every such law goes on to make broad exceptions this rule. Some of these laws, in acknowledgement of the exceptions’ breadth, go on further to make exceptions to the exceptions. These laws often restrict, beyond what is required of other drivers of vehicles, the roads a cyclist can drive on and the position on a road that a cyclist can occupy. They can also require or prohibit certain equipment. These laws tend to be vague and arbitrary. Some states permit municipalities to impose further restrictions. The map on the right, provided by Dan Gutierrez, shows which states permit local traffic regulations and which states guarantee uniform statewide traffic regulations.

Many of the city ordinances that concerned me were contrary to the Massachusetts traffic code. (I use the term “code” loosely, as Massachusetts statutes are notoriously disorganized.) This raised a debate over whether Massachusetts law permits municipalities to enact their own traffic regulations. I, along with a number of my colleagues, am under the impression that Massachusetts does not permit local traffic regulations, and that is what I argued. However, some have expressed a contrary opinion, and I have been unable to find a clear demonstration of either position.

The Far Right Rule

By far the most problematic of all common elements of bicycle laws is what I call the “Far Right Rule”, also known as “(As) Far Right As Practicable”, “AFRAP”, “FRAP”, “Far To Right”, and “FTR”. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO), “a private, non-profit membership organization dedicated to providing uniformity of traffic laws and regulations through the timely dissemination of information and model legislation on traffic safety issues,” (defunct as of 2008) expresses the Far Right Rule in its last (2000) version of their Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) as follows.

11-1205 Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
4. When riding in the right turn only lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

Many state vehicle codes include similar language, and in those states the language has caused great confusion, conflict, hardship, and expense for bicyclists. This map, provided by Dan Gutierrez, shows which state traffic codes include far right rules and which do not.

My home state of Massachusetts does not have a far right rule. The city ordinance that concerned me most, the one that inspired and motivated my effort, was a far right rule. At the time, city ordinance, Section 3-41 read as follows.

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right-hand side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing vehicles or approaching vehicles proceeding in the same direction.

Problems with the Far Right Rule and other related language were recognized at least as early as the implementation of a far right rule in California in the early 1970s. California lawmakers sidestepped the problems by adding on many qualifications and exceptions to the rule, and more have been added since then (see the UVC excerpt above). In fact, with so many exceptions, the rule rarely applies, but that does not eliminate the problems. As early as 1975, NCUTLO’s bicycle subcommittee issued a report pointing out these problems and recommending removing the language from the Uniform Vehicle Code, although the full committee voted by a narrow margin not to take their recommendation. (Information about the history of the UVC was gathered through a conversation with Bob Shanteau, who has tracked down and reviewed primary source documents.)

So why is the Far Right Rule so problematic?

It is confusing. Few people are familiar with the word “practicable”, its meaning or implications for the law. Instances of the Far Right Rule that include qualifications and exceptions are long and complicated. It is difficult for most people to follow or remember them. The term “substandard width lane” is used idiosyncratically, and a whole other sentence is included to explain it.

It is vague. Few people have the expertise needed to competently judge what is and is not a practicable position for a cyclist to occupy, what constitutes an unsafe condition, when moving left helps to avoid one, or how wide a lane is needed for a bicycle and a “vehicle” (the UVC and many state vehicle codes explicitly define “vehicle” as excluding bicycles) to travel safely side by side within it.

It is prejudicial. Most people (cyclists, motorists, police officers, etc.), assuming they are aware of a far right rule in their jurisdiction, interpret the rule not by its technical implications, but by its overall message, especially if that message accords with their own attitudes and beliefs. Exceptions and qualifications aside, the overall message of the rule is that cyclists must stay to the right. That is the number one priority, the law insinuates. This accords with the common attitude that roads are for cars. Bicycles are toys, not real vehicles. Cycling is a frivolous activity, and cyclists have no compelling need to use the roads, or to use all features of the roads. Bicycles don’t belong on the road but can be tolerated as long as they stay out of the way. It accords with the belief that going slow is dangerous and that closer to the edge is always safer if you’re going slow. Through its vague and confusing language and its insinuation of priority for motorists over cyclists, the Far Right Rule begs to be misinterpreted by those who would see a cyclist riding confidently in line with other traffic and think, “That’s so wrong. It can’t possibly be legal.”

A New Home, A New Discovery

I moved to Easthampton, Massachusetts, from nearby Amherst, in July, 2011. In November, 2011, I had an unpleasant encounter with an Easthampton police officer, who did not acknowledge my legal right, as a cyclist, to use the road in the same manner as a motorist. I have had similar conflicts with police officers in other departments, and some of them escalated to extremes. Fortunately, this one did not.

When I reported the encounter to my friends, one, a fellow cyclist and Easthampton resident, wrote a letter of complaint to the police chief. He shared the chief’s response with me. The chief’s response was a non-sequiturial reference to city ordinance Section 3-41. The ordinance had no direct bearing on the conflict. The officer had never even accused me of violating it. From there, I read the city’s bicycle ordinances thoroughly. I found the entire body of bicycle ordinances to be replete with problems.

I contacted my ward representative to the City Council and voiced my concerns. As it turns out, he is also a cyclist, and he had his own concerns about the ordinances. He invited me to write up my concerns and send them to him. As it turns out, he is also the chair of the ordinance committee. He agreed to have the committee review the bicycle ordinances. With the help of another friend, who is also a fellow cycling instructor and Easthampton resident, I turned my complaint into a proposal.

Over the next several months, I met with the ordinance committee to discuss my proposal. In these discussions, they concurred with me on many of the more minor problems, but they repeatedly put off discussing my greatest concern, Section 3-41, what I call the “far right rule.” I got the sense that the notion of repealing the far right rule would be controversial because the committee, like the general public, was not all that enlightened about the issues for cyclists regarding lane position. I would have to educate them. Toward this goal, I gave a presentation to the committee on the subject of lane position for cyclists. I am quite proud of the result and am fortunate that it was recorded so that I can share it with you (it is embedded at the end of this post).

Presenting the Case

The Role Of Traffic Regulations

A bicycle is a vehicle. A cyclist is a driver of a vehicle. It is important to acknowledge this from the start because it has implications that surprise, and even offend, many people. But it is true under the common meaning of the word “vehicle”. Moreover, every jurisdiction either explicitly encodes this fact into law or makes a technically equivalent declaration.

This is important because the Rules of the Road, the basic principles on which traffic laws are based, are what they are because of the general characteristics of roads, vehicles (how they move) and of people driving vehicles on roads (how they perceive and react to their environment). Bicycles, cars, and many other vehicles possess all of the characteristics that make the Rules of the Road effective in facilitating safe and convenient travel. The Rules of the Road were formulated at the beginning of the 20th century, when the dominant vehicle was the horsecart. They were adapted from rules for waterways, which are far older. We often take them for granted now.

What do we expect of traffic regulations? Please excuse my presumption, but I will speak for all of us on this. As you read this, think about how actual traffic regulations accord with these expectations? Try to imagine what traveling would be like if traffic regulations did not meet these expectations.

We expect traffic regulations, like other laws, to be clearly specified. We want to know precisely what acts are lawful and what acts are unlawful, so that we can be sure to act lawfully, and so that can defend ourselves against accusations of acting unlawfully. We also want to be sure that others clearly understand what the law requires, so that they can act lawfully, so that they can be held responsible for acting unlawfully, and so that they cannot mistakenly accuse us of acting unlawfully.

We expect traffic regulations to be uniform over large areas. Most laws pertain to what we do in one particular place. But driving is about moving from place to place. We often pass through many jurisdictions on a single trip. Learning and remembering many different sets of rules, frequently switching from set to set, keeping track of which set to use when, researching new sets of rules before traveling to and through new jurisdictions: we would probably find this to be extremely burdensome. It would render us quite vulnerable to accusations of acting unlawfully. What did I do? Did I break the law? What law? What jurisdiction? Was it an accident? How can prove it was an accident?

We expect traffic regulations to be the same for all drivers and all vehicles. Again, we don’t want to have to learn different sets of rules for driving different types of vehicles. We also want to be able to readily anticipate what other drivers will do, readily enough for it to be instinctive. We want to be able to do this under a wide range of conditions, including at long distances, at high speeds, and in darkness. Hmmm, let’s see. What kind of vehicle is that? It’s a ?-mobile. And what is the rule for a ?-mobile in this situation? I remember. No, wait. That’s not it. Oh, right, the rule is–

We expect traffic regulations to be compatible with the way vehicles move and the way people perceive and react to their environment when driving. For example, the rules should not require us to move from side to side because vehicles can’t generally do that. The rules should have us focus our attention to the front most of the time, not the rear or side, because people are not made to focus their attention to the rear or side, particularly while moving. This is why other drivers are required to yield to us when approaching us from our rear or side, but we must yield to other drivers in front of us.

We expect traffic regulations to offer us trust and flexibility. Conditions on the road are dynamic and complex. No one but us, as the drivers of our respective vehicles, is in as good a position to assess our circumstances and to choose the best course of action. We need to have the flexibility to do what conditions demand. Lawmakers must not attempt to micromanage our actions before the fact. They must trust us to respond to conditions that only we, not they, experience.

We expect traffic regulations, like other laws, to solve more problems than they create. A rule that isn’t part of a solution is part of a problem. We expect the law to respect our dignity and liberty by imposing no more limitations on us than is necessary to solve a genuine and compelling problem, with side effects that are substantially milder than the original problem. We expect the arguments connecting cause (problem) to effect (solution) to hold up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny.

Positioning Narrow Vehicles

While most vehicles have the basic characteristics of vehicles that make the Rules of the Road what they are, vehicles are distinguished from each other by many additional characteristics, and driving a vehicle of a particular type comes with additional issues beyond those of driving in general. One such characteristic shared by a very substantial class of vehicles is that of being narrow (or substantially narrower than is typical). Here are some examples of narrow vehicles.

When driving a vehicle of close-to-typical width, people rarely think about their lateral position on the road. But when driving a narrow vehicle, choosing a position is far more complex and far more critical then when driving a wider vehicle. With a narrow vehicle, there are more options to consider and the decision has greater consequences. Advantages of a good position include

avoiding stationary hazards,
being able to travel along a predictable course,
having a clear view of the road ahead and around corners,
noticing and reacting to changing conditions early,
being readily noticed and correctly judged by others,
discouraging dangerous maneuvers by others, and
having room to maneuver around or escape from hazards that take you by surprise.

Likewise, disadvantage of a bad position include

encountering more stationary hazards,
being prone to making erratic maneuvers,
having an obstructed or cluttered view of the road ahead and around corners,
being prone to overlooking or reacting poorly to changing conditions,
being easily overlooked or misjudged by others,
encouraging dangerous maneuvers by others, and
having no room to maneuver around or escape from hazards.

Here is a list of factors that influence a cyclist’s choice of position.

DESIGN – curvature, configuration of lanes (i.e. number/direction/ destination), lane width, edge features (e.g. parked cars, shoulder, curb, guardrail, signs, trees, rumble strip), driveways/intersections (e.g. frequency, size, busy-ness), intersection designs (i.e. sight lines, merges, diverges, turn lanes, slip ramps, traffic lights), approaching changes
SURFACE – facilities (e.g. sewer covers, storm drains, expansion joints, demand actuated traffic signals), damage (e.g. potholes, cracks), foreign material (e.g. water, snow, ice, sand, gravel, tree debris)
WEATHER – precipitation (e.g. rain, snow), ambient light (e.g. darkness, low sun), wind
TRAFFIC – other drivers’ speed, vehicular traffic volume, possible pedestrian traffic, possible pedestrian-like vehicular traffic, animals, motorist behavior trends
CYCLIST – bicycle equipment, destination, speed, familiarity with road

I meant what I said about it being a complex decision. Fortunately, it is usually an intuitive decision rather than an intellectual one. The skill of choosing a good position is improved with training and practice. Below are some photographs of road conditions in my area (click each image for a closer look). They are frames taken from video I captured with a helmet camera while cycling. Try to identify the conditions shown in these photographs that might influence the choice of position for a driver of a narrow vehicle. Or better yet, look at the conditions on the roads in your area. Try to identify those that might influence the choice of position for a driver of a narrow vehicle.

Driving too close to the edge is dangerous and burdensome. For safety and convenience, cyclists should stay well away from the edge. Sometimes this means being in the middle, or even on the left side, of a lane. Sometimes it means being in a lane other than the rightmost lane. Watch the animation below for a demonstrates.

LANE CONTROL ANIMATION

This video is a real-life demonstration of the difference between an assertive position and a timid one (http://vimeo.com/17300276).

And this video shows a number of potential crashes that are easily avoided with an assertive position (http://vimeo.com/11539932).

How do we decide what the best position to take is? As I said before, traffic is dynamic and complex. There are many factors that influence the decision. Hence, there can be no simple rule or algorithm for determining the best position. It can only be made by someone who is present and fully aware of the conditions. And conditions can change rapidly. There is no time to apply a rule or algorithm that accounts for all factors, even if one could be formulated. While the decision can be evaluated intellectually after the fact, it must be primarily an intuitive decision. Also, the knowledge, training, and experience needed to select a good position or competently evaluate one after the fact are frustratingly rare. A cyclists position should not be evaluated before the fact, and it should not be evaluated by any of the majority who lack the necessary knowledge, training, and experience.

While there can be no rule or algorithm for choosing the best position, there is one very important guideline. More adverse conditions demand a more assertive position. Let me repeat that because it is important.

More adverse conditions demand a more assertive position.

Occupying more space is almost always safer. It is only a question of how much is enough.

The Role Of Courtesy

So if it is safer and more convenient for a cyclist to keep away from the edge, what obligation does a cyclist have to make room for other drivers pass? Regardless of what ill-conceived and carelessly drafted laws might insinuate, your first priority as a driver should be safety. You should always drive defensively. Your second priority should be your own convenience. You have the right to travel on public roads, and you have the right to a trip that is as easy and carefree as anyone else’s trip. You should feel free to exercise that right fully. You should not curtail your exercise of that right for what is usually the trivial or imaginary convenience of another. Your third priority is courtesy. You should facilitate passing when it is safe and convenient. Laws and norms sometimes implicitly penalize caution or efficient travel for cyclists. These laws and norms should be resisted. We should not penalize cyclists for using caution or for traveling efficiently, as long as it is done with caution.

When you, as a cyclist, want to determine whether you should move over, you should ask yourself the following questions. If you answer YES to all of them, then by all means, do the courteous thing and let others pass you.

Are other drivers present?
AND
Do they want to pass?
AND
Are they currently unable to pass safely?
AND
Are they refraining from passing?
AND
Is it likely that they will be unable to pass safely for a substantial period?
AND
Would they be able to safely pass right away if I were to change position?
AND
If they passed me, would they then be able to move freely?
AND
Would my new position be safe and convenient for me to travel in?
AND
Would my new position be safe and convenient for me to move to now?

An argument I had earlier compels me to point out that it is not safe to change your position until you fully assess the situation, yield to anyone you are required to yield to, communicate your intention to other drivers, and achieve confidence that they will not interfere with your move or make any sudden moves of their own. This takes at least a few seconds under the mildest of conditions.

In this excerpt from my presentation, I explain the control and release technique.

Questions 8 and 9 are the only ones involving the cyclist’s convenience, and it might be surprising how rarely they need to be asked. The chain is almost always broken before that. The chain breaks at Question 7 in a traffic jam or approaching a red light. It breaks at Question 6 on a narrow road, and at Question 5 on a wide road, including a multi-lane road. It breaks at Question 4 if they blow past you when it is not safe to pass. Sometimes I move right to enable a motorist to pass only to find that they are correctly preparing for a right turn by waiting behind me. They didn’t even want to pass. It is rare for a motorist to have to wait for a substantial period to pass a cyclist, even an assertive one. In the rare cases when there is a substantial wait, the cyclist rarely has any reasonable way to shorten it.

For example, here is some footage I took while preparing for a left turn. As I am trying to move left in preparation for my turn, several motorists make aggressive and somewhat risky last-second passes. Since I am scanning and yielding they did not create a problem for me, but they could have simply passed me on the right after the roadway widened. Also notice that they end up alongside me or BEHIND me in the other lane at the intersection. Remember the car with the flames painted on the front? Followed by the white pickup truck? I turn and look back at them while I wait for the light.

And here is another example demonstration of the real cause of delay (hint: it’s not a cyclist) from Keri Caffrey.

It is important to understand that cyclists and motorists (and other travelers) largely want the same things. They want get where there are going safely and conveniently. They want to share the road cooperatively and harmoniously with their fellow travelers. Cyclists do not want to make anyone’s life more difficult. If anything, they tend to be overly accommodating at the expense of sacrificing their own needs. They even tend to make concessions that offer no practical benefit to anyone else, just to avoid conflict. They want to help others whenever they reasonably can.

The narrowness of a bicycle gives its driver a special ability to facilitate passing, which drivers of wider vehicles do not have. They are almost always happy to use that special ability when doing so does not involve sacrificing their own needs. Other vehicles give their drivers other special abilities, which can be used to help others. But the special ability offered by a bicycle is treated differently. Cyclists’ special ability is often used against them. They are often pressured or bullied into using that ability to help others at the expense of sacrificing their own needs. A cyclist who moves over to help us pass could have decided that it was too dangerous or too inconvenient, or they could have decided to drive a wider vehicle. We should not resent cyclists for being in the way. We should appreciate that they selected a vehicle that, unlike many others, often gives them the ability to get out the way. When they use that ability to help us pass, we should recognize that they did so for our benefit.

Effects Of Discriminatory Laws

Discriminatory laws put those who would travel by bicycle in a vulnerable position. They can render safe and effective bicycle travel unlawful or legally ambiguous. Or they can subject cyclists’ behavior to excessive scrutiny, so that they must anticipate being called to defend their behavior at any time. Lawmakers’ failure to unequivocally affirm the right to travel by bicycle (or by any simple means, for that matter) contributes to harassment by motorists and police officers and hinders justice for cyclists who are harassed or who are involved in a crash.

Discriminatory laws that use confusing, vague, prejudicial language can foster widespread misinterpretation of the law by public officials of all kinds, including police officers, as well as motorists generally, and even cyclists themselves. They frustrate the efforts of cycling educators to teach defensive driving techniques. Laws that use vague language implicitly dump the responsibility for interpreting them primarily on police officers and secondarily on prosecutors, judges, etc., a responsibility that they are not necessarily prepared to handle. This is the case with the vague language, “as near to the right-hand side of the roadway as practicable,” from the old Easthampton ordinance Section 3-41. In fact, few police officers receive any substantial training in effective cycling or bicycle law enforcement (a major problem for cyclists), let alone what would be needed to judge something as subtle as a cyclist’s position. This makes cyclists who drive defensively legally vulnerable.

Using bicycles for transportation offers vast benefits. It should be encouraged, not discouraged. Many people (including me) rely on bicycles as a means of transportation. Many of them could greatly enhance their lives by learning to use those bicycles more effectively. Many more people could greatly enhance their lives by replacing some or all of their travel using mass transit or personal automobile by cycling, assuming that they were made to feel comfortable using defensive techniques. These changes can make travel quicker, easier, more reliable, more flexible, less stressful, and less expensive, thus enhancing the possibilities for homes, education, jobs, shopping, health care, entertainment, socializing, political activity, and/or capital investment. For those who make the change, it opens up new dreams and ambitions and elevates their overall quality of life.

Beyond the benefits to individuals, using bicycles for transportation offers vast benefits to communities, governments, and societies. More cycling leads to less use of motor vehicles, which leads to to less congestion, less demand for motor vehicle parking, fewer crashes, less environmental and noise pollution, and less money diverted from the local economy. Expanding people’s options in life leads to more economic and cultural productivity, and hence more tax revenue. Fewer crashes leads to less public expense for health care and emergency services. Safe cycling behavior leads to less stress and conflict for everyone on the road.

However, discriminatory laws often prevent these benefits from being realized. Legal vulnerability makes cycling in a safe and convenient manner more stressful. Such laws can discourage people from cycling in such manner. Those who have other transportation options be discouraged from cycling entirely. Even those who have no inclination to travel by bicycle are deprived of the public benefit of bicycle transportation.

The Result of My Effort

I consider my effort to amend the Easthampton bicycle ordinances a success. The ordinances were, in fact, amended as a result of my work, and all off the changes were positive. However, I did not get all of the changes I wanted. There will be opportunities for further changes in the future.

Section 3-41 was not repealed, but it was changed. Whereas it previous read

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right-hand side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing vehicles or approaching vehicles proceeding in the same direction.

it now reads

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right-hand side of the roadway as is safe, unless, preparing to make a left turn, riding in a lane which is too narrow to share safely, avoiding degraded street surfaces (“broken pavement”) and sewer grates, avoiding the “door zone” of parked automobiles, avoiding obstructions such as pedestrians and stopped vehicles or avoiding debris which could damage the bicycle or degrade handling (sand/gravel/glass).

The word “practicable” has been replaced with “safe”, and some exceptions have been added. I have some concern that the changes give an air of legitimacy to an inherently illegitimate rule. For this reason, I did not participate in drafting the new ordinance.

But changes to the ordinances is not the only result, or even the most important one. I believe that the greater success was in using the ordinances as a platform to educate and raise consciousness about cycling, paving the way (no pun intended) for future improvements not only in law, but in culture as well. And as the pyramid indicates, we cannot change behavior without changing culture.

For more information about my effort to reform the Easthampton bicycle ordinances, see my article Partial But Definite Success Amending Easthampton Bicycle Ordinances.

Author: Eli Damon

Crossing A Double Yellow Line

What would you do?

How did we get here?

What’s the problem?

Can we fix this thing?

Model No-Passing-Zone Exception

Footnotes

Overcoming Ignorance And Fear

First My Own, Then That Of Others

CONTENTS

Introduction

Blindness

Immobility

“You Are Healed-AH!”

Conquering Unfamiliar Territory

A Crippling Blow

The Nightmare Continues

Victory, Affirmation, Freedom Restored

Making The Case For Equality

CONTENTS

Laws That Discriminate Against Cyclists

The Far Right Rule

A New Home, A New Discovery

Presenting the Case

The Role Of Traffic Regulations

Positioning Narrow Vehicles

More adverse conditions demand a more assertive position.

The Role Of Courtesy

Effects Of Discriminatory Laws

The Result of My Effort