47 ms·

I don't think it's appropriate to consider bicycles as "first-class vehicles" in all situations, namely in the dangerous situations you list (speed limits >~25m

by gamache 13y ago

I don't think it's appropriate to consider bicycles as "first-class vehicles" in all situations, namely in the dangerous situations you list (speed limits >~25mph, multiple automobile lanes, etc.). Driving a motor vehicle on a road is a privilege. This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right. If this clashes with driving habits, driving habits need to yield.

dfc 13y ago
That is an interesting analysis, a right to do x trumps the privilege to do y. Is this the way the law treats circumstances like this? I am not disagreeing, genuinely curious about the argument ADDED: I did a little research and found other examples of privilege vs. right[1]. [1] http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm
colanderman 13y ago
> Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right. That's a bold claim. Citation?
- gamache 13y ago
  The actual language differs from state to state, but in general there is no attempt by the states to revoke certain individuals' right of riding a bicycle. (For example, being pulled over for drunk bicycling can get your driver's license suspended, but does not affect bicycling.) Corollary: When states declare that bicycles on public roads are subject to the same rules and responsibilities as cars (and most/all states do), sanctions on bicycling are not available as penalties.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sequoia 13y ago
  Not an explicitly enumerated right in the USA, but a "right" in the same way freedom to walk down the sidewalk is a "right": you're not endangering peoples' lives & it's not explicitly prohibited so you "have a right" to do it. If someone attempted to prevent you from walking down the sidewalk they would be denying you that "right." Driving a motor vehicle does endanger peoples' lives, so we (society) decided you don't have the "right" to do it, but you can be granted the privilege to do so pretty easily provided you have the $$ for administrative fees & can pass a test demonstrating basic competency. Your question is totally reasonable, but I think it's fair to say one has a "right" to bike on public roads (barring interstates) but not a "right" to drive on public roads as this requires a license & is subject to many strict regulations.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    What exception makes "barring interstates" okay but not "barring roads with a speed limit >X"? Not saying I necessarily disagree, just trying to understand your reasoning.
    - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
      There are places not accessible by roads with bike-accessible speed limits. Those are much more common than places not accessible except by interstate. (Incidentally, biking on the shoulder of the interstate is permissible in my state, with the occasional exception of some cities and bridges without shoulders.)
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I'm not sure I follow the thrust of your comment. I am interested in why sequoia asserts that it's correct (or at least permissible) to prohibit bicycles from interstates but a violation of rights to prohibit them from other roads. The fact that bicycles are not prohibited from all interstates seems somewhat orthogonal...
        sequoia 13y ago
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1], to which your home country is likely a signatory. [1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/I...
  - jgross206 13y ago
    your link doesnt work for me, here's a different one: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13
- curveship 13y ago
  NC General Statute 20-4.01 (49) defines a bicycle as a vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles: "bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle" source: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-4.01.pdf http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/...
- recursive 13y ago
  I don't know anything definitively one way or another, but it might be related to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...
drumdance 13y ago
There's a middle ground. In Boulder at least, a bicyclist can be ticketed for running a red light, going the wrong way on one-way etc.
- gamache 13y ago
  This is definitely true. Bicyclists on public roads have (most of) the same responsibilities as drivers, which means penalties for breaking the rules.
- untog 13y ago
  There needs to be more of this. As a relatively new biker in NYC (since the bike sharing program launched) I've been amazed at the suicidal tendencies of my (non-bike share) brethren. At a red light? Just pedal out into the middle of the road to see if you can cross anyway. Going the wrong way? Sure!
  - walshemj 13y ago
    You should see the nutters on fix wheeled bikes in London I have seen so many that blast through major junctions dodging between pedestrians. Try watching the junctions around Holbourn tube station and you will see several in a few minuets.
- kawsper 13y ago
  Is that not common? In Denmark where we have a lot of bikes, we have rules specifically written for bicyclists.
kylec 13y ago
And yet Seth Vidal is dead, and the driver remains alive. In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. In practice, however, riders have a lot more to lose in a collision with a car.
- baddox 13y ago
  > In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. Since you mentioned "an ideal world," I'm going to completely disagree. I think that bicycles and automobiles sharing roads is, at best, a manageable but extremely dangerous situation. Like it or not, bicycles and automobiles behave very differently, and require their surrounding vehicles to behave very differently. In an ideal world, there would be separate thoroughfares for automobiles and bicycles, and neither would be allowed on the other (like we already mostly have for pedestrians)
  - bagels 13y ago
    Excepting of course, the millions of intersections and driveways. You know, besides those.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Well, pedestrians already have separate thoroughfares and are not allowed on roads, right? What's the difference?
      - bagels 13y ago
        (like we already mostly have for pedestrians) If you're talking about sidewalks, it's barely separate, as in a city there are conflicting paths between the road and the sidewalk every dozen feet (every driveway or intersection).
        baddox 13y ago
        Crossing a street is a lot different than traveling with the flow of traffic in a lane.
Amadou 13y ago
> This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. If that was a sound argument, then one could say that the right to own a firearm is really just a privilege because most states require a license to own a firearm which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. Or similarly that the right to vote is just a privilege because you must register and there are a variety of reasons for the state to revoke it. Just because a right is regulated does not make it a privilege.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- opinali 13y ago
  Driving is legally defined as a privilege, just check your state's MVC guide.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Well, talk about moving the goal-posts, but you aren't the original poster so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The right to freedom of movement is not really a right if it does not include by all available means. For example, to say you have the right to walk from the east coast to the west coast but not the right to drive a car (or ride a train/bus/plane - all arguments that have been made post 9/11) means that you de facto do not have the right to travel from the east coast to the west coast because it is impractical for the vast majority of the population to walk it. I'm sure there are motor vehicle codes that have adopted the language of privilege rather than right if for no other reason than it makes it easier for them to claim that moral authority later on, but that doesn't make it true in the sense of natural law. Government does not grant people privileges because everything the government does comes from the people to begin with.
    - opinali 13y ago
      Driving depends on a huge amount of infrastructure which is provided or controlled by the government, everything from roads to refined fuel. As far as I know you actually can drive a car without a license, if you do that in your private property (e.g. suppose you own a farm or other big property with internal driveways), but not in any public roads. Yeah we pay for the roads, and oil infrastructure and other things with our taxes... it doesn't matter. Google [is driving a privilege], you'll find citations of court decisions, some people have tried to assert their "right to drive" without success.
baddox 13y ago
Do you think it's reasonable that bicyclists are free to travel on most roads without any education or licensing? Why is it that pedestrians are banned from traveling on roads, bicyclists are free to do so with no licensing whatsoever, and automobile drivers require a license?
- akgerber 13y ago
  Pedestrians are not banned from travelling on roads lacking sidewalks.

by gamache 13y ago

dfc 13y ago

That is an interesting analysis, a right to do x trumps the privilege to do y. Is this the way the law treats circumstances like this? I am not disagreeing, genuinely curious about the argument ADDED: I did a little research and found other examples of privilege vs. right[1]. [1] http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

colanderman 13y ago

> Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right. That's a bold claim. Citation?

gamache 13y ago
The actual language differs from state to state, but in general there is no attempt by the states to revoke certain individuals' right of riding a bicycle. (For example, being pulled over for drunk bicycling can get your driver's license suspended, but does not affect bicycling.) Corollary: When states declare that bicycles on public roads are subject to the same rules and responsibilities as cars (and most/all states do), sanctions on bicycling are not available as penalties.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sequoia 13y ago
Not an explicitly enumerated right in the USA, but a "right" in the same way freedom to walk down the sidewalk is a "right": you're not endangering peoples' lives & it's not explicitly prohibited so you "have a right" to do it. If someone attempted to prevent you from walking down the sidewalk they would be denying you that "right." Driving a motor vehicle does endanger peoples' lives, so we (society) decided you don't have the "right" to do it, but you can be granted the privilege to do so pretty easily provided you have the $$ for administrative fees & can pass a test demonstrating basic competency. Your question is totally reasonable, but I think it's fair to say one has a "right" to bike on public roads (barring interstates) but not a "right" to drive on public roads as this requires a license & is subject to many strict regulations.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  What exception makes "barring interstates" okay but not "barring roads with a speed limit >X"? Not saying I necessarily disagree, just trying to understand your reasoning.
  - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
    There are places not accessible by roads with bike-accessible speed limits. Those are much more common than places not accessible except by interstate. (Incidentally, biking on the shoulder of the interstate is permissible in my state, with the occasional exception of some cities and bridges without shoulders.)
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I'm not sure I follow the thrust of your comment. I am interested in why sequoia asserts that it's correct (or at least permissible) to prohibit bicycles from interstates but a violation of rights to prohibit them from other roads. The fact that bicycles are not prohibited from all interstates seems somewhat orthogonal...
      - sequoia 13y ago
aclevernickname 13y ago
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1], to which your home country is likely a signatory. [1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/I...
- jgross206 13y ago
  your link doesnt work for me, here's a different one: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13
curveship 13y ago
NC General Statute 20-4.01 (49) defines a bicycle as a vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles: "bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle" source: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-4.01.pdf http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/...
recursive 13y ago
I don't know anything definitively one way or another, but it might be related to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...

drumdance 13y ago

There's a middle ground. In Boulder at least, a bicyclist can be ticketed for running a red light, going the wrong way on one-way etc.

gamache 13y ago
This is definitely true. Bicyclists on public roads have (most of) the same responsibilities as drivers, which means penalties for breaking the rules.
untog 13y ago
There needs to be more of this. As a relatively new biker in NYC (since the bike sharing program launched) I've been amazed at the suicidal tendencies of my (non-bike share) brethren. At a red light? Just pedal out into the middle of the road to see if you can cross anyway. Going the wrong way? Sure!
- walshemj 13y ago
  You should see the nutters on fix wheeled bikes in London I have seen so many that blast through major junctions dodging between pedestrians. Try watching the junctions around Holbourn tube station and you will see several in a few minuets.
kawsper 13y ago
Is that not common? In Denmark where we have a lot of bikes, we have rules specifically written for bicyclists.

kylec 13y ago

And yet Seth Vidal is dead, and the driver remains alive. In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. In practice, however, riders have a lot more to lose in a collision with a car.

baddox 13y ago
> In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. Since you mentioned "an ideal world," I'm going to completely disagree. I think that bicycles and automobiles sharing roads is, at best, a manageable but extremely dangerous situation. Like it or not, bicycles and automobiles behave very differently, and require their surrounding vehicles to behave very differently. In an ideal world, there would be separate thoroughfares for automobiles and bicycles, and neither would be allowed on the other (like we already mostly have for pedestrians)
- bagels 13y ago
  Excepting of course, the millions of intersections and driveways. You know, besides those.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Well, pedestrians already have separate thoroughfares and are not allowed on roads, right? What's the difference?
    - bagels 13y ago
      (like we already mostly have for pedestrians) If you're talking about sidewalks, it's barely separate, as in a city there are conflicting paths between the road and the sidewalk every dozen feet (every driveway or intersection).
      - baddox 13y ago
        Crossing a street is a lot different than traveling with the flow of traffic in a lane.

Amadou 13y ago

> This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. If that was a sound argument, then one could say that the right to own a firearm is really just a privilege because most states require a license to own a firearm which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. Or similarly that the right to vote is just a privilege because you must register and there are a variety of reasons for the state to revoke it. Just because a right is regulated does not make it a privilege.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
opinali 13y ago
Driving is legally defined as a privilege, just check your state's MVC guide.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Well, talk about moving the goal-posts, but you aren't the original poster so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The right to freedom of movement is not really a right if it does not include by all available means. For example, to say you have the right to walk from the east coast to the west coast but not the right to drive a car (or ride a train/bus/plane - all arguments that have been made post 9/11) means that you de facto do not have the right to travel from the east coast to the west coast because it is impractical for the vast majority of the population to walk it. I'm sure there are motor vehicle codes that have adopted the language of privilege rather than right if for no other reason than it makes it easier for them to claim that moral authority later on, but that doesn't make it true in the sense of natural law. Government does not grant people privileges because everything the government does comes from the people to begin with.
  - opinali 13y ago
    Driving depends on a huge amount of infrastructure which is provided or controlled by the government, everything from roads to refined fuel. As far as I know you actually can drive a car without a license, if you do that in your private property (e.g. suppose you own a farm or other big property with internal driveways), but not in any public roads. Yeah we pay for the roads, and oil infrastructure and other things with our taxes... it doesn't matter. Google [is driving a privilege], you'll find citations of court decisions, some people have tried to assert their "right to drive" without success.

baddox 13y ago

Do you think it's reasonable that bicyclists are free to travel on most roads without any education or licensing? Why is it that pedestrians are banned from traveling on roads, bicyclists are free to do so with no licensing whatsoever, and automobile drivers require a license?

akgerber 13y ago
Pedestrians are not banned from travelling on roads lacking sidewalks.