We’ve seen a huge influx in religion based politics and it hasn’t been to the benefit of anyone but a select few. There is a call to tax the churches and make them start paying their share. After all they are enjoying both the privilege of tax free and playing politics. You can’t have both. Right?
The old way of thinking was that if churches were taxed then the big bad government would tax them into oblivion and we’d end up with an atheist/ communist dystopia. So by not taxing the church we are in fact nurturing freedom of religion.
But we’ve seen a huge influx in political religion, or is it religious political? Either way it’s bad.
The rights of all individuals are being infringed upon by a noisy religious minority.
This is really frustrating to people like John Oliver, who did a brilliant segment on taxing churches. John’s argument is superb, witty, and clever. He pulls no punches and makes it clear that not taxing these churches is a detriment to society. But he is wrong.
We absolutely should not tax churches. Not because of their fears of being regulated out of existence by big government. (Which is a false fear), But because once that genie is out of the bottle, there is no getting it back in.
When any group accepts a tax exemption, it agrees to play by certain rules and accept a certain degree of oversight. Federal law actually makes it more difficult for the IRS to audit churches than other charities. In addition to this modest “no electioneering” rule, for example, tax-exempt groups cannot collect money for a “charitable” purpose and then use it all for the personal benefit of the director and her family (or the pastor and his family). Do you seriously believe that the IRS and possibly even criminal investigative bodies have no right to try to scrutinize possible misbehavior? The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a longtime civil liberties attorney.
Tax exempt means that churches don’t get to play openly in politics. You should not ever hear your pastor preaching from the pulpit and encouraging you to vote for a specific candidate. Churches don’t get to raise funds for elections and etc.
We do see religious leaders trying to skirt the fringes of the law and stick their fingers into the political honeypot. We’ve seen religious people taking our Civil Rights and twisting them out of existence. How or why we are allowing the meddling that we see today, I don’t know. I’m sure someone can explain it. But that doesn’t mean we open the gates of hell and give church’s legal political rights. The separation of Church and State is too vitally important to start taxing churches. Pastors, in case you weren’t aware, do pay taxes on their income. (I could flesh these thoughts out more but I’m going to leave it here for now.)
I use this example of Church and Taxes to illustrate a finer point.
Just because it seems to make sense doesn’t mean it’s logical or right or safe.
Drivers rights.
Minnesota is one of 13 states that makes refusing a breath test a crime. In 2014, there were more than 25,000 DWI arrests in Minnesota, and an estimated one in seven Minnesotans has a DWI. Via: CBS Minnesota
Drunk drivers are the scourge of our public right of ways. ( I say public right of way because if I said “Highway” you would think I’m referring to asphalt. A river is also a highway. Drinking and operating a boat is illegal.)
Highway: Public Right of Way commonly used for travel.
When you are operating a vehicle, you have a responsibility to operate carefully and with regard for other road users. Drinking and driving is showing a complete lack of regard for anyone but yourself. So is speeding and/or texting while driving. In fact anything you do in your car that takes your focus off of not killing yourself, your passengers, or anyone else on the road is a completely selfish act.
Operating a motorized vehicle is a huge responsibility. One which we take for granted. Much like churches being tax exempt keeps “church and state separate,” is taken for granted.
We see all the bad that comes from people driving drunk and we think that this gives us the right to take away the constitutional rights of drivers. It doesn’t.
Police are still duty bound to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of the people they are investigating. Any breach of this duty and bad things happen. If the Supreme Court rules that it’s legal to suspend constitutional rights because “driving,” then we have a real problem on our hands. There wouldn’t be anything to stop them from searching your backpack or saddlebags as you bike commute around town. Refusing an unreasonable search would be enough to land you in jail.
Cyclists and Drivers have a real opportunity to come together on this one. Your Constitutional rights don’t evaporate once you get behind a wheel.
The Minnesota case is interesting and I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the favor of the defendant. Or at least I sure as hell hope so.
That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of people driving drunk or about to drive drunk.* What it means is that I am in favor of cops following the law and not acting like they are somehow magically above the law because they have a badge.
Suspending someone’s Constitutional rights because they are operating a car is a slippery slope and once that genie is out of the bottle…Well you know the rest.
There is this niggling thought in my head that the auto industry and the government have a symbiotic relationship. Like drugs and needles. To inject the drug you need the needle.
We have a lot of drugged out people wanting that next injection.
Government bailouts of the auto industry. Increased spending on widening roads. building new roads, while the infrastructure we currently have is crumbling.
The best way to eliminate drunk driving is to yank licenses. It isn’t a right to have a license. It is your right to travel. But how you travel is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
Why we need to focus on sharing the road.
Part of sharing the road entails creating safe places for people to operate vehicles which are not autos. This can be through infrastructure but it can also be through education about cyclists right to use the roads we already have. Public transportation is another way we share the road. It serves the greater good to invest in public transportation, sidewalks, and low speed roads designed with bicyclist and pedestrians as priority.
Giving people choices on how to get from point A to point B is good moral governance. It gives the court options on how to deal with DWI or DUI offenders that it normally wouldn’t have. Good judges want to help people who appear in their court. Good prosecutors do not want to keep seeing the same people over and over again because they have a problem that is bigger than them. There are bad courts** out there too but I’m going to write this under the hope that they are few and far inbetween.
We don’t need to have the government strip away our Civil and Constitutional Rights away because we are auto dependent. We need to get away from our auto dependency and our abusive supplier. But to do that we need some serious rehab in the way of sharing the road.
*(I pissed off my then husband because I called the cops when he drove drunk to go get more beer. The police took the information I gave them and didn’t do anything about it. My ex made it to the store and back without killing himself or anyone else. Which just goes to show that stupid is often rewarded in society.)
**Nicholasville Kentucky, Judge Oliver, the County Prosecutor and his entire staff. These are a shining example of bad courts. My crime; being too poor to afford a car and riding a bicycle for transportation to and from work.
Make sure you are the first thing an overtaking motorist sees.
The right third of the lane is the most frequently used portion of a roadway by the average to novice cyclist. By average I mean anyone who has not had any formal education on the legal requirements and safety benefits of lane control. Many a cyclist can be considered superior in all aspects of cycling and still be average to novice in respect to controlling the lane.
IS IT LEGAL?
Our first concern would be the legality of lane control. Is it legal to take up a large portion of the road?
The answer is yes.
There are two places in Kentucky Revised Statutes that we can look to for guidance.
The first is KRS 189.340 (6) (a)
(6) Whenever any roadway has been divided into three (3) clearly marked lanes for travel, the following additional rules shall apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;
If there is a lane, KRS requires you to occupy as much of it as may be practical and you can’t leave that lane unless it is safe to do so.
The second is KRS 189.310 (2)
(2) Vehicles proceeding from opposite directions shall pass each other from the right, each giving to the other one-half (1/2) of the highway as nearly as possible.
If you are on a two lane road half of that highway is yours. The other half belongs to oncoming traffic. No one to the rear of you has the right of way or priority.
KEEP RIGHT?
A lot of people will point to KRS 189.300 and declare that any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway HAS to keep as far right as possible. But this isn’t what the statute says. I wrote an in depth analysis of KRS 189.300 Extremist thinking is hurting cycling. Please read it.
CHANGE LANES TO PASS.
Kentucky has no specific minimum passing distance. The reason Kentucky doesn’t have a minimum passing distance is because Kentucky requires all vehicles to occupy a lane of travel and when passing we “CHANGE LANES TO PASS.”
If there is a marked lane of travel, you operate in the adjacent left lane for passing. If it is a two lane highway, you pass to the left of the highway as described in KRS 189.300 and if you are on a completely unmarked highway, you still pass on the left side of the center of the highway.
When I was a little girl, my mom left the county clerk’s office after obtaining her Kentucky drivers license. My mom was visibly upset. I asked her what was wrong. She told me that the test was too easy and it must have been written for the hillbillies. She went on to explain that as she was coming out of the clerk’s office two men were waiting, next to a pickup truck, for their sister. The sister had passed my mom coming out of the clerk’s office crying. The two men said “you failed the test again?” My mom said “Those are the people we are sharing the road with.”
I mention this anecdotal story because Kentucky’s statutes are not hard to understand. The reason why the Bike League (League of American Bicyclists or L.A.B.) wrote a blog about the terrible condition of Kentucky’s laws is because they are so simple and to the point. Traffic laws which are complicated are more dangerous than those which are simple. Driving is tough. It requires your full attention. The majority of us do not operate with the intent of hurting someone and if you have to second guess yourself or stop and think “is this legal?” Someone will get hurt. For more detailed thoughts on this read “Traffic: Why we drive the way we do and what it says about us.”
Ok, it’s legal to occupy a full lane. But is it safe?
That is the question Judge Booth asked us to answer at my trial. It was a really complicated trial with all sorts of interesting plot twists. Though not interesting to me, more like frustratingly exhaustive.
Judge Booth had ruled that my operating on the roadway was legal. This was when the county attorney wanted to ban me from the road. She ruled against him. The question she asked us to visit at, what was supposed to be, my jury trial in front of her was “is it safe?”
We didn’t get to have that jury trial. I talk more about that in my book.
For now let’s answer the question.
IS IT SAFE?
You always want to be the first thing a motorist sees when they look up from a distraction, when they are trying to merge in and out of traffic, or when they are passing a slower moving vehicle.
I don’t want to discuss all of that here. At least not yet.
The first thing I want us to focus on is this. “If it’s legal, then it is safe.”
Traffic laws weren’t written to annoy or inconvenience anyone. They weren’t written for auto’s or invented at the time of the automobile. Traffic laws have been around since people were free wheeling around in chariots. Those babies could fly, but taking a corner. Yikes!
Traffic laws were written to keep public space orderly, courteous, and safe.
You stop at a stop light because it is safe.
You operate at speeds appropriate for road conditions because it is safe.
You do not leave injurious items on the highway because it isn’t safe to operate a vehicle through shards of auto glass after a collision.
All of these are statutes written in KRS 189.000, take some time and sit down and read through them. Read the definitions. There is a lot to learn there as well.
LANE CONTROL.
The scientific principle behind the safety of lane control.
It’s starts with understanding the limits of our peripheral vision.
Make a thumbs up gesture with both hands. Place them side by side at arms length. Pick a thumbnail to focus your gaze on. I typically ask people to look at their left thumbnail. Holding your left arm stationary, move your right arm out slowly to the right. Keep your eyes focused on your left thumb nail. With your peripheral vision look at your right thumbnail and once you can no longer clearly make out your thumbnail that is the limit of your peripheral vision. It isn’t as wide as you thought.
When you are operating a motor vehicle, you are focused on many different things. You might look down to see what rolled across the floor. You might look down to pick up your coffee cup. You might look down to adjust the MP3 player. You might look over your shoulder at the occupants of the rear seat.
All of these things take your eyes off the road.
The first place you look when you are undistracted is directly in front of you. Because that is where your brain has been trained to expect another vehicle.
Not on the edge of the lane.
When a cyclist is occupying the primary lane position, much like a motorcyclist does, they are placing themselves where you will see them. They want you to see them and respond. The appropriate response is to lower your speed limit. Start checking your mirrors and prepare to change lanes and pass.
All of your attention is on the road.
That’s why we control the lane. We want you to be aware of us. This is for our safety and for your convenience. If you had to explain to an officer why you struck us with your vehicle that would be one hell of an inconvenience. Don’t you think?
NOT SO FAST.
Now you might be thinking that a cyclist who is riding on the edge might have played some part in the collision which took them out. That would be a huge mistake. See the same statutes which give a cyclist the legal right to occupy a lane also require you to not hit anything with your vehicle.
So when a motorist in front of you suddenly slows down. Your first thought should be “Why?” and to expect something to be in front of them that you can’t see. If you read KRS 189.300 and 189.310 then you know that passing another vehicle isn’t a right.
You don’t have the right to pass someone and you are under the obligation to not hit other vehicles with your vehicle. When you rear end someone it’s your fault. Period.
CyclingSavvy
There has been a whole lot written about the safety of lane control. You can read about it on the FAQ page of CyclingSavvy.
Share this with a friend. It will hopefully save their life.
The default speed limit on all of Kentucky’s state maintained highways is 55 mph. You can find this in KRS 189.390 (3)
(3) The speed limit for motor vehicles on state highways shall be as follows, unless conditions exist that require lower speed for compliance with subsection (2) of this section, or the secretary of the Transportation Cabinet establishes a different speed limit in accordance with subsection (4) of this section:
(a) Sixty-five (65) miles per hour on interstate highways and parkways; (b) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on all other state highways; and
(c) Thirty-five (35) miles per hour in a business or residential district.
While this is the state’s (lazy) way of handling complicated people, I’d like to re-visit an old idea.
Driving at speeds appropriate for road conditions.
Like Crash or Collision Vs. Accident, words have meaning. Educating motorists about right of way needs to include the understanding of Priority.
Note that the law does not allow anyone the right-of-way. It only states who must yield.When a driver is legally required to yield the right-of-way but fails to do so, other drivers are required to stop or yield as necessary for safety. So, if another driver does not yield to you when he or she should, forget it. Let the other driver go first. You will help prevent accidents and make driving more pleasant. Via: DriversEd.com
You may have heard “You might be right but you might also be ‘dead’ right.” This is where we get that phrase which has been bastardized into an argument for PRO edge riding Vs. LANE CONTROL. The creeping idea, much like a bad ‘B’ horror film, is that from out of nowhere a motorist is going to run you over from behind. This has happened to people, which only reinforces their pre-conceived notion. But it has happened to people who ARE EDGE RIDING! *
Lane control works to help good drivers from making bad choices. There is no infrastructure on this earth which will prevent bad drivers from making bad choices. Nor will that infrastructure protect cyclists from bad drivers who make bad choices, as explained in Homicidal Maniac.
Which is why we need to take driving seriously.
It isn’t enough to educate law enforcement or have them “Get tough on motor vehicle crime,” those are old ’80s ideas and we don’t need another “War.”
We need education.
I personally believe that 90% of motorists are 100% uneducated on the value of operating at lower speeds and obeying traffic signals. I also believe that our lax enforcement of existing laws and current infrastructure are due to poor education and biased education.
There is so much room for improvement on education alone.
Education is a thankless, unsexy, and daunting task. But it can be done.
For anyone who says “we’ve had education for the past 50-100 years and it hasn’t done anything,” is presenting a straw man argument. Did you take a class at school to learn how to operate a bicycle and obey traffic laws on your bicycle? I didn’t think so. Did you have any questions on your driver’s test about how to operate around bicycles? I didn’t think so.
That’s just the surface of education. There is so much more education to be had, but we won’t have it as long as the “bicycle specific infra. only cult” has their way. These are the people who shout you down when you mention education. They are also the people who sit on your panel at John J. College of Criminal Justice during the Left Forum and smirk when you mention education. (Cough cough TransAlt.)
Education is important. So important that other countries have made higher education a “right for all” by making it free.
Infrastructure is important but you can ride your bicycle in the worst infrastructure possible and still do so safely, when you’re educated. Like I did.
DRIVERS ARE RESPONSIBLE
When I read or listen to people’s arguments about how bad drivers are so bad and so frequent that we have to have special infra because there are just TOO MANY distractions for modern day drivers. I see a person who doesn’t want to take responsibility for their own actions. They are making excuses and wanting to blame everything and everyone else for their own poor choices.
Nobody is forcing you to drive distracted.
Nobody is forcing you to drive at speeds unsafe for road conditions.
You alone are to blame.
It used to be that an auto crash was so impactful that people “felt” that “the horror” of the crash was punishment enough. The knowledge that you took someone’s life was knowledge that you’d have to live with for the rest of your life.
How soul crushing.
Now, thanks in part to religion, we can pray all that away. Our prayers will forever lift up those killed and ease the burden of anyone who did the killing. A little religious dusting up and a healthy dose of conservative “it’s my God given right,” values and they are off and zooming towards their next collision. With the help of the auto insurance lobby, all auto wrecks are paid for by insurance. And if you’re well to do, especially if, you’ll hear people talking about the “Better Car” they’re going to buy instead of how torn up they are that they took a life. That doesn’t mean that I think we shouldn’t have insurance. I think that we have used insurance as an excuse to do bad things in our autos. TOWANDA!!
Who would not want to drive without fear of having an accident and not lose a lot of money ? With it, you can cover all traffic complications. This type of car insurance is especially necessary if you drive the car for someone else or a company car. Even driving a car on a loan would be much safer if you fully insured cheap full coverage auto insurance. Via: ReadingRobot
But ingrained in our psyche is that old idealism about “surviving an auto crash is punishment enough.” I’m sure you’ve heard “Let the punishment fit the crime,” in auto traffic injuries and fatalities it’s rare to see the punishment fit the crime. We have a winking idealism to “minor traffic” infractions.
Whether a defendant – the person convicted of a crime – broke a state or federal law, when it comes determining his punishment or sentence, an overriding concern is that it be proportional to his crime. In other words, the punishment should “fit the crime.” The idea is easy to understand. We don’t want to send people to prison for minor traffic offenses. Putting that idea into action, however, isn’t always so simple. Via: LawyersDotCom
In Conclusion:
I believe we need to revisit driver responsibility and figure out effective ways of getting the message across to people.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW YOU DRIVE.
Thank goodness traffic wasn’t too badly impacted. (Sarcasm)
I’m (not) sorry, reporting with emphasis about traffic being congested due to a crime scene isn’t good reporting.
KRS 189.390 (2) An operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall not drive at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the traffic and for the condition and use of the highway.
Speed limits in URBAN zones.
A woman was killed on a residential street in Nicholasville KY. She was crossing her street when a driver fatally struck her.
According to Officer Grimes of Nicholasville PD, the motorist didn’t commit a crime until they fled the scene. Officer Grimes said “This could have just been a traffic accident. Where they didn’t see the individual or whatever may have happened.” In fact Officer Grimes attitude is the typical “Aw shucks. Accidents happen,” attitude so prevalent in law enforcement when it comes to driver on pedestrian crime.
While this is the opinion of a few poorly educated law enforcement officials. Is it what the statute in Kentucky actually says?
Kentucky’s traffic statutes are directly from the Uniform Vehicle Code and they are pretty basic. Every state follows these basic laws. Some states have rewritten the UVC to narrow the scope of its definitions. This can be good in that it takes something which could be interpreted one of two ways and plainly says what the intention of the law is. It can be bad in that if it is too narrowly defined you could be breaking the law and not know it.
URBAN ZONES
Urban zones are areas of built up infrastructure. They include residential, businesses, and mixed use. In towns and cities with good city planning and zoning laws, you will find sidewalks, clearly marked pedestrian crossings, and lower speed limits.
The absence of pedestrian friendly infrastructure is not an excuse for striking a pedestrian with your auto.
Speed limits in Kentucky are statutorily set and can be reduced by petitioning the State Secretary of Transportation.
KRS 189.390(3) The speed limit for motor vehicles on state highways shall be as follows, unless conditions exist that require lower speed for compliance with subsection (2) of this section, or the secretary of the Transportation Cabinet establishes a different speed limit in accordance with subsection (4) of this section:
(a) Sixty-five (65) miles per hour on interstate highways and parkways;
(b) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on all other state highways; and
(c) Thirty-five (35) miles per hour in a business or residential district. (4) (a) If the secretary of transportation determines, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, that any speed limit is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection, or upon any part of a state highway, the secretary of transportation may establish by official order a reasonable and safe speed limit at the location.
While the state has set the “official” maximum statutorily to 35 mph, it should be noted that the bulk of residential roads are officially set to 25 mph. Where residences and business’ are mixed the speed limit will fluctuate between 25 mph to 35 mph.
When signage indicates that the speed limit has increased to 35 mph from 25 mph, this is not a license to speed freely through. You are still charged to operate your vehicle with due care.
It is not reasonable or prudent to assume that there are no pedestrians present in a business zone. Especially if the business zone is adjacent or abuts to a residential zone.
Speeding, so much as one mile over the speed limit, has a citation code.
If you can’t stop your vehicle in time to avoid striking a pedestrian, you are traveling too fast for road conditions.
The person who killed the mother in Nicholasville should have, had they actually stopped and rendered aid, been charged with speeding and reckless driving.
189.390 (2) Driving too fast for traffic conditions is a crime.189.338 (1B) Failure to yield right of way to pedestrian
Every intersection, whether clearly marked or not, is a pedestrian crossing and you are required to approach these at a prudent speed.
KRS 189.00 has defined intersections as follows:
When operating a motor vehicle in urban zones, it is always best practice to operate a few miles below the posted speed limit.
If it is dark out or if conditions prevent you from having clear visibility, it is always best practice to reduce your speed. You should travel at a speed which allows you to react quickly should something suddenly appear before you.
It goes without saying that drinking and driving do not mix. Buzzed driving is drunk driving. Distracted driving and drowsy driving are as bad as drunk driving.
I believe that if people drove their autos with as much care as is actually required to operate them, not only would we have fewer collisions but we would have fewer people eager to drive. Driving is hard work and requires your full attention. Your brain needs to be focused on the task at hand.
Watch video here. Officer Grimes interview and the description below is on the second video in the link.
You can see the 25 mph speed limit behind the reporter. Note the drivers they catch on film speeding through at 35 mph.
The myth that you can operate 10 mph over the speed limit before the police will do anything is just that, a myth. Where this myth gains momentum and becomes established as reality, is when our law enforcement takes a winking attitude towards people who speed.
Kentucky’s statutes clearly charge drivers to operate at speeds which are prudent for the conditions they are in.
KRS 189.390 Speed
(2) An operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall not drive at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the traffic and for the condition and use of the highway.
Part 1
Driving on rural roads.
“Shall not drive at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent,”
What does that mean?
From an engineering perspective operating at speeds for which the road was designed for, which is only a small part of this statute.
How does it apply to a driver operating on a clear day with high visibility on a rural back road?
Let’s assume a straight stretch of road, out in the middle of nowhere. No side streets, no business’, or residences with traffic pulling in or merging out.
It means you can operate at or near the posted speed limit as long as doing so does not interfere with the established rights of those already lawfully present on the highway.
Now let’s add a residence.
It means you operate at a speed which gives you sufficient braking distance should a pet or child suddenly dart out into the road. There is reasonable expectation that someone could be checking their mailbox or crossing the road to visit their neighbor, when residences are present.
I’d also add that we are still assuming a perfectly flat and straight road.
Now let’s add a curve in the road.
It means you operate at a speed which gives you sufficient braking distance should a vehicle, pedestrian, pet, fallen log, or a wild animal present itself on the road.
The lesson here is never ever operate as though the road ahead of you is clear when you are not able to see what is actually ahead of you. You do not have a reasonable expectation that there won’t be anything around a curve in the road.
Engineering standards require you to slow down even for gentle curves with some visibility ahead. You can not operate with the assumption that your vehicle is going to maintain contact with the pavement as you take a turn at speed.
We are going to go back to assuming a straight road without any potential conflicts from the side of a road.
You are required to operate your vehicle at a speed which allows you sufficient braking distance should you encounter another vehicle or object over the crest of a hill.
You should never operate at a speed which causes you to “catch air.” When your tires are not in contact with the ground you do not have any control over your vehicle.
“Gribler said that, “in hindsight,” Oliver should not have been speeding through Bloomingdale into the sun and over a blind hill…”
The mother of the injured boy had this to say.
“I was almost physically ill,” she said. “All along I’d been telling my boys to keep faith, there will be a reprimand, he’ll suffer, he’ll be punished, and I just felt such failure. How am I supposed to help my boys keep their faith when there is no repercussion?
You can never ever assume that there isn’t something on the other side of the hill.
Summary of part 1
All things being perfect you still can not operate faster than the posted speed nor can you operate at a speed which interferes with anyone who is already lawfully present on the road.
You are still required to operate at a speed which allows you sufficient reaction time and braking distance to avoid a collision.
This falls under reasonable and prudent operation of a vehicle.
PETA activists who drive imprudently are hypocrites.
Next week we will look at dense urban areas and discuss this tragic story.
Don’t you hate it when people start off writing with an opening like that? I know I do. I write this salutation to warn you that what you are about to read will (hopefully) blow your mind. I wrote it quickly and without proofreading. So excuse my deplorable punctuation and grammar. Which has always been deplorable but had the benefit of proofreading. This needs to be said and it needs to be said now.
If you have been reading my blog from the beginning you will, hopefully, have noticed a theme.
I am first and foremost a proponent of everyone getting along and sharing that which has been entrusted to the public for public use. I paid attention in Kindergarten when we were taught to respect each other and share. I hope you did too.
I am not, as some less than emotionally stable people will insist, against infrastructure. What I am against is the flawed logic that all of cyclings problems can be resolved with infrastructure alone.
In fact I believe that it is this bicycle infra. only cult which has lead to the deaths of many cyclists and the culture of removing the blame from motorists for their bad driving habits. Because “if they’d only had a bike lane none of this would have happened” is specious logic.
At the end of this blog I will present solutions to these problems.
Where the article in TreeHugger fails is in…
RAPE CULTURE
Blaming cyclists for the injuries they sustain due to careless drivers is rape culture. As this, hot off the press and the straw which broke this blogger’s back, article in TreeHugger accurately portrays. Where they fail is in the conclusion.
The article in TreeHugger promotes rape culture. Blaming infra. or the lack thereof but not fully placing the onus on the perpetrator of the attack is rape culture.
Blaming a cyclist for the actions of a careless driver are ingrained in us, not by those who want to see cyclists as expected and respected, but rather by those who have made it their personal mission to create a smear campaign against those of us who are actively trying to require motorists to be held accountable for their actions.
I often hear “If they had a bike lane this wouldn’t have happened,” as though we can just engineer all of societal ills out of public roads.
I believe that everyone has a right to use the public roads and that they should be treated with equal status when on the roads. I also believe that good bicycle infra is an essential component of encouraging cycling. I don’t believe that it’s the only component to promoting cycling.
I myself was arrested for legally and safely cycling on a public road. I wasn’t not using the shoulder to be “Cute” or “Prove a point” as the zealots claim. No! I was a new, in every way, cyclist who took up cycling as a means to provide for her children.
I, as a poor hardworking single mom, got shafted by both “Motorists are king of the road” car culture and “Special snowflake syndrome” bike culture. Not to be confused with responsible motorists and responsible bicycle advocates.
I still struggle to get people to take my story seriously because some people have chosen to latch onto the idea that this was a stunt by VC.
Where the article in Tree Hugger fails is in…
RELIGIOUS FANATICISM
Religious fanaticism is the antithesis to religion.
You can not believe in an all loving God. A God whom you believe created everything on earth and pronounced it good while shitting on those who question its existence. Nor can you follow such a God and believe that he has chosen you, above all others, as especially blessed, giving you special leave to shit on anyone who doesn’t believe in this same God, exactly as you believe in it.
Enter bicycle specific infra. only zealots.
Every problem which plagues cyclists can not all fit into a bike lane. The bike lane is not Jesus resurrected, come to save cyclists from the sinfulness of motorkind.
Bike lanes, like religion, can be good and helpful.
And like religion, they can also be bad. Very, very bad, and that which was created to solve problems can in and of itself create a plethora of new problems, as this article shows. Link here. Especially if the bike lane is engineered using the very common practice of “get cyclists the hell off the road and out of our way!” car culture engineering.
Anyone who questions the safety and viability of a bike lane is immediately shouted down by the “Infra. only zealots.” A rather cultish group of people who troll twitter and call anyone who asks for better forethought in bicycle infrastructure a “Cunt,” as in… “You must be a VC! Because only a VC would ever question a bike lane you cunt.”
I was so angry when a twitter user did just that because I was trying to promote bike infra which would accommodate wider bicycles for people with special needs.
John jumped in mid conversation and started slamming me with slurs then immediately blocked me. So I switched to my other account to find his offensive tweet and snap a picture.
Where the article in TreeHugger fails is in…
JIM CROW
Our European friends may not be familiar with “Jim Crow” laws and it is this lack of familiarity which will lead them to question our aversion to words like “separated infra.” Because as we know here in the United States and especially the South, “Separate but Equal,” is anything but. Andy Clarke was himself a infra only leader and used his political power to try and establish mandatory cycle lane laws in Washington state. A state where cycling is given the advantage of infra succeeding or failing by the comfort with which cyclists feel when using it. And calling a cyclist a VC (Vehicular Cyclist) has, in the world of cycling, been given the emotional weight of calling a person of color the “N” word. It is a word which was once and briefly used to describe the facts of a person’s skin color but then rapidly became a way to dehumanize and humiliate a class of people. Much in the same way that overly zealous followers of infra only “Guru’s” will preach to their follows that all VC are ANTI-INFRA! For an interesting read about the opinion of just such a Guru, click the blue link.
When in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I consider myself a connoisseur of infra. I understand how to operate in traffic and I want the best infra possible. I don’t want crumbs from the “Car Culture” table and I don’t believe that we are being given a feast when someone paints a shitty little lane into the gutter. Or worse between two 12 foot wide lanes. I know better.
This is a bike lane. We don’t currently have a word to describe this crap as opposed to good infra. So anyone complaining about this, without first asking what they are referring to, is slammed as VC. Here in Oregon state laws says I’m obligated to use this lane and if ticketed, I have to go to the trouble of proving I had good reason not to be in it.
What Mr. C. Anderson consistently fails to grasp is that in America, our shitty by blow bike lanes, a bastardization of auto culture, are further made unbearable by “Mandatory Use” laws. And it is those laws which I hate above all else.
SUMMARY
He almost had it right.
A vehicular cyclist isn’t repulsive. A vehicular cyclist is one of the most educated cyclists on the road. And as @Rightlegpegged once asked “Have you even read the Uniform Manual on Bicycle Infra or attended a city council meeting?”
Have you even. Much like, you’re so stupid but I’ll condescend to acknowledge you.
The answer is yes. In fact, the greater majority of VC I know are passionate advocates for good bicycle infra, as they themselves are cyclists who cycle for transportation. They, like me, cycle in spite of a lack of infra. So let’s give them the respect they deserve.
Have you even talked to a VC about their concerns?
HOW DO WE SOLVE THIS?
We need to immediately stop slurring anyone who is using VC cycling principles for their safety.
We need to create a safe place where people can share their concerns about infra without immediately resorting to name calling.
Repeal all mandatory bike lane use laws.
Make it a penalty against the officer for not ticketing a motorist who causes injury to a cyclist.
Stop encouraging people to cycle on the edge of a road by shaming them into thinking they are being VC if they occupy a whole lane.
Mandatory cycling education across the board and on every level.
And I feel this is super important. Create policy mandating cycling infra be made with the same specification on the user’s safety as is given to auto infra engineering.
Lower speed limits.
Re-visit past tort law and educate law enforcement that the onus is on the driver to operate with care around pedestrians and cyclists.
Ban auto ads from television and social media. Like cigarettes they have a huge impact on public health and shape the culture of speed makes right and entitlement.
We can do all of this and still promote good infra.
I also would like to see sharrows in low speed residential areas. This is a place where bike lanes don’t make sense at all.
While I’m working to end car culture, be so kind as to support me. Instead of talking about me behind my back, giving me the cold shoulder, or making fun of me ask me about what I would do to make cycling better for all.
Criminalizing walking on the sidewalk is the next push in auto culture. Criminalizing texting while walking in pedestrian zones.
Let me plainly state that my problem with the article in TreeHugger is that it blames a lack of infra on the careless actions of a motorist. That is rape culture.
As a person who commutes solely by bicycle, I am shocked by the inundation of auto ads on T.V. and in my social media news feed.
Maybe it is because I live a auto free life that I notice the frequency of the ads?
I’ve spent a great deal of time educating myself on safety and laws which govern our use of public space. I even have some nifty certifications to show for all that time spent.
Though this isn’t anything new, since the inception of the automobile the death toll has been catastrophic. Americans have recognized the dangers of high auto speeds. It’s a universal knowledge that speed kills. Yet it is often the last reason cited in traffic collision reports. There was a time when people tried to mandate the use of governors to effectively reduce the operating speeds of motor vehicles. Auto manufacturers were understandably alarmed.
Higher awareness about the inherent dangers of speed meant less product sold. Or maybe it was that fewer people would crash and destroy their auto thus requiring the purchase of a new auto?
Either way a slick propaganda campaign was implemented and people were convinced that this was an end to their personal freedom. Never mind the freedom of everyone else.
Companies, such as AAA, which today are known for their emphasis on safety were behind the push to force pedestrians and bicycles off the road.
AAA and other auto clubs turned first to the younger generation, financing safety education programs in the public schools that were designed to teach children that streets are for cars, not for kids. “The Invention of Jaywalking.”
The product, and the financial gains to be had from it, were the driving force behind the movement to all but eliminate the competition.
Once the landscape had been cleared of obstacles, figuratively and literally, the motor manufacturers were free to irresponsibly sell product.
The advertisements were focused on economy, durability, and reliance.
They emphasised the manliness of auto owners and their ability to “Wow” the ladies. One advert emphasised their auto as being so easy “Women and children can safely use it.”, another calls their auto the “Boss of the Road” and “So simple that a boy of 15 can run it.”
Motor ads were not responsible in the advertisement of their products. They had one mission in mind, to sell as many autos as possible. No matter the cost to human lives.
That cost was excessive. Upto 55,000 people were killed per year by autos. That’s an epidemic!
When faced with a health crisis of these proportions, we take action. Yet we have largely overlooked the consummate dangers to public health by turning a blind eye to auto ads.
We banned ads for cigarettes, as public awareness grew over the dangers of smoking to the public. Big tobacco companies were pushing their product on unsuspecting consumers.
By banning ads for cigarettes public health interests, like W.H.O., have effectively reduced the incidence of smoking. This is an important beginning step to eliminating an expensive and destructive bad habit. The costs of which affect the user individually and the public as a whole. We acknowledged the health risks to the users of tobacco products as well as to those who were subjected to secondhand smoke.
The auto isn’t any different.
The auto is the most dangerous form of transportation available in modern day.
The health impacts are mind boggling. Pollution, cancer causing agents, socio economic suffering, legal systems which punish the poor through a pay to play ticket scheme, the death of our children outside and inside autos, and increased health risks through lack of exercise. It’s all too much to put into one story.
Not too much more can be said, which has not already been said, about the history and nature of the auto.
The automobile is a weapon or a tool. It mainly depends on the ability and intent of the user.
There was a time when the auto filled a need as a personal mobility device. With the expanding use of public transportation and alternate means of travel it is a product whose time has come and gone.
With denser urban areas becoming the norm, revivals in public transit, and auto for hire schemes such as Lyft and Uber; there really isn’t a need for personal autos. Not even for long distance trips. Rent a car and be done with it.
One would think that we’d be over the car kick by now. Except we aren’t.
Part of the reason, I believe, is because of persuasive auto ads. These ads are designed to create a sense of urgent need and a feeling of superiority when on the road.
You know how people are warned about the dangers of distracted driving by Public Service Announcements? Well none of that matters in Auto Ads.
Gas prices are dropping and Auto Ads are increasing. Along with these increases are deaths. Your loved ones are being destroyed by auto culture and you’re ok with it. Not because you’re ok with your loved one being killed, but because you are brainwashed by auto ads to believe you need that product which is killing your loved ones.
Remember cigarette ads on T.V.?
Neither do I. Yet there was a time when they were sold via television ads. So many ads telling people how sexy smoking was, how invigorating, how tasty! Smoking was increasing and so were the illnesses associated with it.
Through the efforts of activists who genuinely cared about the well being of the American people, over the profits of cigarette manufacturers, a ban on television ads were put into place.
In 1964, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) agreed that advertisers had a responsibility to warn the public of the health hazards of cigarette smoking. In 1969, after the surgeon general of the United States released an official report linking cigarette smoking to low birth weight, Congress yielded to pressure from the public health sector and signed the Cigarette Smoking Act. Via History Channel
This is exactly what we need for auto ads.
We need a full out ban on ads which promote products rated by the CDC as the number one killer of our children.
Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the U.S. More than 33,000 people died from motor vehicle crashes in 2013 alone.1 Via CDC
They call it “Unintentional Injuries” but Motor Vehicle collisions are what the majority of them are. When you drive distracted, drowsy, buzzed, high, or like you own the road. It isn’t unintentional.
Driving is not a passive act. It is hard work and you are required to keep your wits about you while you are doing it.
With the huge flux of auto ads telling us that driving is fun, easy, desirable, sleek, sexy, and your ticket to freedom. Is it any wonder that people “feel” like they “need” to drive?
These are all catch phrases that were used to push cigarette ads and yet we were able to fight “the man” and have them kicked off of television and radio.
So why aren’t we doing that for auto ads?
#BanAutoAds
So the next time you see an auto ad pop up in your news feed, be sure and let them know what you find disturbing about it and add the hashtag #BanAutoAds. Your children’s lives depend on it.
You have options on how to get to work and people are fighting to make those options easier and more accessible to you. Help them.
Don’t wait around for special infra as some people will tell you to do. Take an education course such as Cycling Savvy and learn what real freedom actually feels like.
You can safely travel by walking, cycling, public transport, and auto rentals to get you where you need to go.
Douglas Bruce Ford, Jr. is a Canadian businessperson and politician in Toronto, Ontario. Ford was Toronto City Councillor for Ward 2 Etobicoke North in Toronto from 2010 to 2014 at the same time that his brother, Rob Ford, was mayor of Toronto. Wikipedia
Robert Bruce “Rob” Ford is a Canadian politician and businessperson who is a Toronto City Councillor. He was the 64th Mayor of Toronto, serving from 2010 to 2014. Prior to being mayor, Ford was a city councillor. Wikipedia
Car centric societies have no business engineering bicycle specific infrastructure. They aren’t qualified. You can not live your entire life driving a car and think that your engineering degree makes you fit to design bicycle specific infrastructure. You can’t do it. It’s like hiring someone who only walks, and has never driven, to design the roads you drive on. You would consider them unqualified, no matter how extensive their engineering knowledge or how many framed bits of expensive paper they have hanging on their wall.
You have to feel bicycling.
Local cycling advocate Tyler P. wants to ride his bicycle. He has a job, he goes to school, he shops, pays taxes, and is an all around responsible person.
He is a first class citizen being treated with second class status.
Because he rides a bicycle.
Toronto a.k.a. ‘Car’onto thanks to politicians like the “Ford’s” is vastly lopsided in its engineering practices. These engineering policies affect the entire province of Ontario, including the city of St. Catharines in the Niagara region.
Tyler P. has been actively reaching out to the local administration in the Niagara region and asking them for
Legally it’s “Shall” but that’s a whole ‘nother blog.
These are temporary signs that he is asking to be placed until the new construction is complete.
As it stands now. There is a 1.2 meter sidewalk and the city of St. Catharines is asking cyclist to dismount and walk their bicycles across a bridge.
Looks like someone wanted to be cute and put a little blue hat on the cyclist.
It’s a long walk.
All bridge photo’s courtesy of Tyler P.
Bicycling for transportation is fun. It’s also healthy, good for the environment, and easy on the wallet. The number one response from cyclists when asked why they enjoy cycling is “FREEDOM.”
You can’t get that with a car, even if you made it 100% free in every aspect you would still be hemmed in, limited, and stuck in traffic. That is the nature of autos.
Car centric societies are jealous of the freedom which cycling brings and it’s why people blame cyclists for their traffic problems, try to pass laws restricting them, and gamers design infra which hems cyclists in on every side.
Why can’t he just ride in the lane?
Well he can. Legally in St. Catharines, and all of Canada, Tyler’s bicycle is a vehicle and he is legally allowed to occupy the full lane of travel. Which is why he is asking for the sign. Tyler knows what he can do. That’s not the problem. The problem is that people driving autos will make his life a living hell for exercising his rights. Because they are
Uneducated on the equal status of bicycles as vehicles.
Educated by auto ads that their auto is “like a family member,” and we all put our family before strangers.
Car culture breeds lazy, distracted, and passive driving.
Namely tyler doesn’t want to be harassed.
There is plenty of space for Tyler on the road. There is little space for pedestrians, Tyler and his bicycle.
There has been Twitter mention to the authorities in charge of this project to take into consideration the needs of the cyclist before after the construction is completed. As it stands now the bridge is being built to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists as an afterthought.
There is a real problem with bicycle infra that project engineers, city planners, and cycling advocates like to pretend doesn’t exist.
All transportation engineers put every measure into insuring that autos can operate at maximum speed with safety. They put very little of this same safety culture into bicycle design. Everyone assumes all cyclists are going to operate at super slow speed. I can tell you from experience that cyclists do not, and most will not, operate at the speeds for which you are designing their infra.
You create unsafe places for cyclists, pass laws mandating that cyclists must use these unsafe facilities, and then scratch your heads and conduct million dollar research studies to figure out why cyclists keep dying after all that effort.
Go ride your bike!
I’m talking to you transportation engineers.
In the meantime. Can we put a little lean on the people in charge of the Burgoyne bridge in St.Catharines, Ontario and get Tyler P. the help he needs in creating space for cycling?
Feb 19
Tyler P.
When it’s done it will have painted lanes at the edge
And on a highly trafficked bridge some paint on the road is completely unacceptable. If a cyclist can be harassed for safely controlling their lane. Then the city has a moral responsibility to create a protected space. Not just from auto’s but from the debris that they push into bike lanes. (It’s why I prefer to cycling in the travel lane. Those nice people in their autos keep them swept clean.)
Please contact the names listed and go to their FB page.
Nicely! Ask them to support cycling.
Do it for yourself, Do it for cycling, Do it for the environment, But above all!
Do it for Tyler!
Steady there. Once false move and it’s a head under a tire. #ForTyler
A cyclist who uses lights, signals, and behaves as a predictable part of traffic doesn’t require bicycle specific infrastructure, some people would argue.
I would agree with them up to a point.
My views of a better culture for people don’t jive with bicycle specific infra (short for infrastructure) in dense urban area’s. Instead, I see these areas as perfect for true greening and humanizing public space.
The problem, as near as I can tell, is our cultural immersion in Robert Moses and his vision for the cities of tomorrow. Huge concrete jungles where everyone has a specific space and directions on how to operate in that space.
I hear this theme repeated back in transportation engineering. One webinar going so far as to suggest that trucks, motorcycles, and personal autos should each have their own specific lane.
Well that makes everything better! Especially if you only ever intend to cycle forward. I hope there’s a 7-11 in the middle of the street.
It’s utter madness.
We don’t have space for each type of vehicle to have its own specific lane to operate in and we sure as hell shouldn’t confine people to “lane cages” in an attempt to regulate the mess that is humanity.
Looking back over the history of the rise of the DOT empire and their powerful influence over local governments; I begin to understand why cycling advocates have been wooed into this desire for bicycle specific infra in their neighborhoods. The propaganda is seductive.
I look over Streetsblog, People for Bikes, and League of American Cyclists literature and their love affair with bike lanes; I see people advocating for gilded cages.
You don’t need, nor should you want, a bike lane in dense urban areas. These are places where people should be free to mill around the neighborhood and shop. Pedal from one side of the street to the other as they run their errands. There should be trees, shrubs, food gardens, and benches to sit on in the middle of the road. Or at least on either side of a dedicated rail or tram line.
After speaking with the director of bicycle promotion in Japan, Mr. Hidetomo Okoshi, I left the North American Handmade Bicycle Show with a better vision of cycling and its future.
Mr. Okoshi explained to me that people in his country do not as a rule commute by auto to their jobs. Nor do they commute by bicycle. Instead they take the train and in their communities they get around by foot, bicycle, and auto. In that order of hierarchy. The people he explained do not travel far by bicycle. I asked him about bike lanes. He had an air of apprehension as he explained that Japanese do not need this as much as Americans because of their respect for each other. That is when the lightbulb hit.
Bike lanes do not create respect for cyclists anymore than sidewalks create respect for pedestrians. Communities which insist on bike lanes as a “friendly” way of incorporating cycling as a viable means of transportation aren’t doing anything to help the pedestrians in their communities. Bike lanes, by forcing cyclists off the usable portion of the roadway, enable motorists to speed and endanger both cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention themselves.
As was recently pointed out by Tim Cupery on my Facebook page who said:
it’s worth pointing out that edge-riding IS doing a favor to motorists, so they can continue to go the speed that they would prefer.
This is a key motive behind segregated infrastructure, and many cyclists think of themselves as second-class road users.
And he is right; Motorists do not slow down in the presence of bike lanes. If anything it only encourages them to speed.
How then are bike lanes heralded as a means of humanizing current infra? Because as I see it they aren’t. Instead I see places like downtown Louisville, Lexington, New York, and Portland as huge Robert Moses machines. Churning out the same style of precision engineering which treats people as machines or worse robots who are programmed to follow a specific flow.
Now some might get confused and understandably so, because bicycle infra when held up to car culture is confusing, over whether or not I support any infra at all!
The answer is YES!
But not the way you imagine it and not the way we are currently being sold.
My vision entails trains as mass transit over great distances and as high speed movement between fixed places. Walking and cycling as the normal means of transportation between shorter distances. Zoning which creates inclusive infrastructure and alleviates the homeless crisis, not exacerbate it. Neighborhoods where kids play on the street and tool around on their bicycles. E-assist pedal transport of heavy goods from a centralized location. More reliance on creative solutions and less dependence on the Moses era of thinking.
Bicycle highways which connect cities to each other are an excellent start to this vision. Zoning for the use of the areas around it to meet the needs of those cycling long distance is crucial.
But what do we do in the meantime?
We dismantle DOT or at the very least remove it from power as an oligarchy. Sorry that was a bit ambitious for step one. Let me start over.
We advocate for mandatory cycling education in all schools. Educating our children on how to operate their bicycles as a part of traffic.
We advocate for mandatory cycling education on all drivers licensing, re-licensing, and court appointed diversion programs.
(By following these first two steps we can effectively remove or at least significantly reduce cycling prejudice in one generation. Something to think about.)
We advocate for reduced speed limits in neighborhoods and dense urban areas including cities. 20 mph is plenty.
We advocate for mass transit and transitioning from Heavy Goods Vehicles a.k.a. tractor trailers to E-assist Heavy Goods Pedal Bikes.
We advocate for programs with local police to report bullying and dangerous motorist behavior.
We advocate for Greening our local communities with tree planting, food gardens, and shrubbery.
We advocate for repeal of mandatory bike lane use laws.
If we get this started we can all have nice things.
You can ride your bicycle through here. It’s lovely isn’t it?
Or we can continue to have this.
Let’s stick a bike lane in here and call it green infra!
Space is scarce without resorting to urban sprawl. Yet urban sprawl is exactly what layering bicycle culture over auto culture is creating. I hate #SneckDown as it 1. doesn’t actually change anything. 2. It’s a crappy way to “educate” people. 3. It is, in my own opinion, a throwback to Oliver Twist. “Please Sir! May I have some more?” We aren’t asking for our space, it is ours to begin with, we are demanding it back.
I call it “Cycling Without Apology.” And far too many of you cycle as though you are apologizing for being present on the road.
People who have much to gain from selling Bicycle Lanes shouldn’t be trusted as a source of unbiased opinion on the greatness of Bicycle specific infra.
I have some infra I’d like to sell you. It will make your life so much better.
This picture is a perfect example of gilded cages. It is a modern day version of separate but equal. Except that you aren’t treated as an equal. You are a bird in a cage and your freedom of movement is an illusion. Need to get to the shop in the middle of the other side of the street? Tough shit! Go down a block, make a U-turn, and then you will eventually reach your destination.
We will never move towards a society which unequivocally increases its modal share to bicycling unless we first remove all prejudice against and all special snowflake syndromes from cycling.
“Cycling without apology” and “Cyclists: Expected and Respected” should be mainstays of our advocacy language.
I don’t apologize for using road space which my taxes helped pay for. I am your equal on the road, respect me.
Any infra proposed which does not treat cyclists as either or both of those isn’t infra which is going to move our society forward nor will it increase modal share.
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.
I present to you exhibit A
A more misunderstood statute, I have never seen.
Depending on which extremist camp you are in or have a foot in. And you do have a foot in it; even if you think you don’t.
There are definitions to KRS 189. The purpose of the definitions; to clarify any word or phrase which is misunderstood. Let’s see how far we can understand the statute without having to refer to the definitions.
Let’s start with the title.
Vehicles to keep right:
Vehicle; This is any legally defined mode of travel which is not pedestrian. A train is a vehicle, a horse and buggy are a vehicle, a bicycle is a vehicle, a motorcycle is a vehicle, a car is a vehicle, a truck is a vehicle.
We need to take note that it specifically does not mention “motor”. This means that the statute applies to all vehicle types. Motorized or not.
Keep Right; We drive on the right hand side of the road. Some countries, such as England, drive on the left side of the road. They have a “Keep Left” law. Ours is keep right. Propel your vehicle, but do so on the right side of the road.
This is the beginning of the statute and should help us understand the body.
Now we move on to the body.
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right. (1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible,
The operator, this means you, of any vehicle. Do you see it? No matter your vehicle type, if you are the operator of a vehicle, you as the operator are incumbent to keep your vehicle on the right side of the highway.
Whenever possible.
Whenever possible? You mean that I don’t always have to operate on the right side of the highway?
You are required to operate your vehicle on the right side of the highway. Allowing for the ever changing dynamics of said highway you are only required to keep right when it is possible.
Why possible and not practicable?
What is PRACTICABLE?
Able to be done or put into practice successfully:
Any idea or project which can be brought to fruition or reality without any unreasonable demands.
What is POSSIBLE?
Able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something:
Capable of existing or happening ; feasible.
Definitions via Black’s Law Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary.
Practicable isn’t always possible depending on how the word is used. Possible has a higher demand on the operator then practicable.
The statute requires you to always operate on the right whenever possible.
By using “possible” they have created uniformity with the other statutes. It isn’t always practicable to operate on the right; like when there is a vehicle moving slower than you would like to go. But it is always possible to operate on the right. You can slow down and stay behind the vehicle until it is possible to change lanes and pass.
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken.
Unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions.
Simply stated, you can not overtake, pass, another vehicle if there is traffic or obstructions on the left side of the highway.
You are required to pass on the LEFT. This includes lanes as we will read further down the statute. i.e. Left Lane.
For a sufficient distance ahead. Sufficient distance is defined as 200 feet further down in the statute.
To permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle.
This is where you are legally allowed to overtake, pass, another vehicle. This is the exception to the rule. You may legally drive on the left for the purpose of overtaking or moving around an obstruction.
Obstruction: A thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage:the tractor hit an obstruction.
An obstruction is a stationary object. The word can not be used to mean bicycle. It can be used to mean a parked or stationary object; such as a car. A row of parked cars are an obstruction. A moving bicycle is not. See also KRS 189.390 (7) Impeding.
To be completed without interfering.
You have to be able to complete the maneuver without interfering. If you interfere with anything that is in front of or to the left of the highway then you have to keep right.
With the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken.
You can’t interfere with the operation of any vehicle approaching and you also can not interfere with any vehicle being overtaken. See also KRS 189.34o (8) Interfering.
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
The overtaking vehicle.
This is the person operating the vehicle, which is operating on the left side of the highway. You are in the act of overtaking.
Shall return to the proper traffic lane. (1) You have to go back to operating on the right. Remember this is a keep right statute or law. You are required to continue operating on the right.
What is SHALL?
As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.”.:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF Via Black’s Law Dictionary
Shall as explained in Black’s Law Dictionary can mean the more permissive “MAY” unless there is an impairment of public right. And in the case of KRS 189.300 you “SHALL” return to the right because if you don’t, you are impairing the “RIGHTS” of oncoming traffic.
Shall return to the proper traffic lane. (2)
Notice the word “LANE”? A highway is made up of lanes. These lanes are defined in the definitions. So in this case we are going to take a peek at our definitions for the chapter.
Definitions for KRS Chapter 189
Highway vs Roadway
(3) “Highway” means any public road, street, avenue, alley or boulevard, bridge, viaduct, or trestle and the approaches to them and includes private residential roads and parking lots covered by an agreement under KRS 61.362, off-street parking facilities offered for public use, whether publicly or privately owned, except for-hire parking facilities listed in KRS 189.700.
(10) “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. If a highway includes two
(2) or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” as used herein shall refer to any roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively.
In the definitions for the chapter the word Highway is used to collectively refer to all roadway types. It could be an avenue. It could be a boulevard. It could be an alley. It could be a bridge. This is a general word and it is used in this statute not to discriminate against vehicles but to INCLUDE all roadway types.
KRS 189.300 means that no matter the type of roadway, you are required to keep right.
Roadway:
a road or the part of a road used by vehicles.
Highway:
(especially North American English) a main road for travelling long distances, especially one connecting and going through cities and towns
Lane:
a section of a wide road, that is marked by painted white lines, to keep lines of traffic separate.
Whether it is a Highway or a Roadway you are required to keep right.
But in a LANE you shall occupy as much of that lane as possible. See KRS 189.340 (6) (a) Lanes.
This is a statute for drivers. This is not a statute for engineers. KRS has different chapters and definitions for engineering highways. This chapter is for everyone who drives. We can not apply engineering terms to the legal definition of how to operate a vehicle on the road. We are all drivers but we are not all engineers.
In this example the word lane is synonymous with roadway. See also; Lane Synonyms.
So this keep right statute also applies to laned highways but does it apply to lanes? We will explore this further down.
As soon as practicable.
There is the word practicable. We already showed that this word is not as imperative as the word possible. You can possibly return to the right, shoving the vehicle being overtaken further to the right, or forcing them to hit their brakes. But that wouldn’t be practicable. So once you have overtaken the vehicle and it is safe for you to move back to the right, then you move back to the right. Remember you can not interfere with the operation of the vehicle being overtaken.
And, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
200 hundred feet is a lot of room. But it can be deceptive when you have a vehicle coming towards you at the speed limit. So if you can see a vehicle approaching you be very cautious when overtaking.
Now! Are we in the proper frame of mind?
I sure hope so.
We have thus far concluded that this statue is for the purpose of defining our state as a uniform whole of the United States. In the United States we drive on the right.
We also do not interfere with any traffic on the left, nor with any traffic we are overtaking.
We are required to operate on the right but it isn’t always mandatory under certain exclusions. And as long as all of those exclusions are met, we can safely operate on the left but only for a brief amount of time.
We have also obtained a firm grasp of “Practicable” as used in the statute.
Extremist thinking is hurting cycling.
Before we proceed to the next paragraph of this statute, let’s revisit the title of this blog.
Extremist thinking. It is hurting cycling.
Camp A:
An extremist will tell you that it isn’t safe to operate in a lane. They will tell you that you have to operate on the shoulder. They will point to this law as proof.
Camp B:
An extremist will tell you that this law is designed to keep cyclists far right. They will tell you that this law mandates you to operate on the shoulder. They will point to this law as proof.
But what does the statute actually say?
Let’s proceed to the hotly contested “Keep Far Right Law.”
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle. (2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway
The operator of any vehicle. The operator is the person in control of the vehicle. Any vehicle means “ANY VEHICLE.” That’s right, this law applies to all vehicles equally.
Moving slowly.
This is a subjective term. In KRS 189.390 (7) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that will impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
A vehicle which is capable of operating at its top speed but at a speed which is less than the speed limit is not impeding. If it is a motor vehicle operating at less than its capable speed but under the speed limit it still isn’t impeding, if other conditions come into play, such as road conditions. i.e. inclement weather, other traffic upon the highway, approaching a hill, and any other variable.
Upon a highway.
This means any road type. The use of the word highway in this statute is to include all the variable road types. It is not used to include the shoulder.
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway
Shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable.
Do you recall Black’s Law Dictionary legal definition for “Shall” Do you recall that the word can be used synonymously with the permissive “May” as long as no one’s rights are being impaired? When you read the statute, does it say anywhere that it is your right to operate on the left? No. Does it say anywhere that it is your right to pass traffic moving slower than you? No.
Passing is not a right.
So it can be inferred that that the use of the word “shall” in this instance is synonymous with the more permissive “May.”
We can also further verify that this is indeed the correct definition when we see also that the word “Practicable” is used in the same sentence. It isn’t always practicable to be far right.
To the right-hand boundary of the highway.
This statute applies equally to all vehicle types. When we read KRS 189.340 we see that driving off the roadway is illegal and this statute applies to all vehicles. So we have to figure out what the boundary of the highway is, as it applies to this chapter. So we go back to the definitions.
KRS 189.010 (10) “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder.
So we drive as close to the right as practicable but we do not operate on the berm or shoulder.
189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.
Allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.
And that’s it folks. We are only required to operate as far right as is safe and which allows more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.
It only has to be reasonable because each vehicle is going to be a different type. What may be reasonable for a 3 ton wide load tractor trailer isn’t going to be reasonable for a twenty pound bicycle.
The statute applies to all vehicle types on all types of roads. It is intended to advise people on the basic principles of our highways, the safe use of our highways, and the courteous use of our highways.
This section of the statute does not mention lanes. The reason it does not mention lanes is because this portion of the statute does not apply to lanes. If there is a lane of traffic per KRS 189.340 (6) (a) that vehicle “SHALL” occupy as much of the lane as “Possible.” And in the use of both the words “shall” and “possible” and with the understanding that by not being fully in a lane interferes with the rights of other road users, this statute is imperative.
As a cyclist, as any road user, you are required to occupy a lane of travel and this statute has nothing to do with driving on the shoulder. It is only because of a lack of education on this subject that we have fools in both camps. Worse, we have fools on the public roads, police stations, and courtrooms.
The idea, that this law requires a cyclist to operate on the right third of a lane of travel,needs to be burned with fire!
It doesn’t even apply to two lane highways. As can be seen in KRS 189.310
189.310 Vehicles meeting other vehicles and animals. (1) Two (2) vehicles passing or about to pass each other in opposite directions shall have the right-of-way, and no other vehicle to the rear of those two (2) vehicles shall pass or attempt to pass either of those vehicles.
(2) Vehicles proceeding from opposite directions shall pass each other from the right, each giving to the other one-half (1/2) of the highway as nearly as possible.
(3) Every person operating a vehicle on a highway and approaching any animal being ridden or driven, shall exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent frightening the animal and to insure the safety of the person riding or driving it.
Get educated!
As a cyclist you should be educated on all the rules of the road. As a cyclist you should be educated on all the safe operations of movement on the road.
You have the right to be safe. Use it. Exercise your right.
This is where cyclists keep as far right as practicable. This is what it looks like. Memorize it. Use it!
Cherokee Schill | Insurance Agent & AI Ethics Researcher 