At 05:07 PM 5/9/2012, Michael Smith wrote:
>On Wed, 9 May 2012 13:57:29 -0700
>martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > You did say 'step into the crosswalk'. That doesn't seem much of a stretch.
>
>Windshield Perspective. Drivers really want everybody else
>to obey the Vehicle Code -- naturally, since the Vehicle
>Code was written for the benefit of drivers. Peds need
>to stay in their ghettoes -- oops, I mean sidewalks --
>and wait patiently at intersections for the exiguous
>WALK signal, while three or four cars-only phases evolve
>their stately sarabande. Or rather carabande.
time to wathc Return of the Scorchers no? :)
I'm not sure about NYC, but when I took the League of American Bicyclist training which is based on the Uniform Vehicle Code for the nation, the UVC is built on the assumption that no road user is privileged due to the kind of vehicle they use - whether motorized or not. Rather, UVC is based on the principle, "First come, first served". If you're in the road way, in front of another road user, then you have the right of way and they must defer to you.
The codes were written based on ideas that were promulgated and institutionalized by the the Good Roads movement of the 1870s - 1920s - way before cars mattered or had even organized much of a lobby. By the time motor vehicles were around, bicyclists had organized enough to be able to deal with the auto industry - which wasn't organized enough at the time. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
(BTW, I'm a member of the spandex mafia and it heartens me to read the history of cycling politics where I learn that bicyclists have always been mocked for their clothes! They have also always been called snobs!)
The good roads movement was established by cyclists because they were being crowded out and cursed out by both pedestrians, horse riders, carriage drivers, trains. The horse riders and carriage drivers hated them b/c they felt the bikes scared their horses. The peds hated both. Bicyclists also had to organize in order to get better roads. They did so in both cities and rural areas. In rural areas, it was so that people had more options to get food, make deliveries, go to work, go to school, be sociable, etc.
In the cities, the struggle was primarily against the railroads and trolley companies which were trying to dominate transportation. Bicycles became a source of liberation and the organizing/solidarity around bicycling was a central focal point in fighting off companies that were trying to control the streets. If the trains and trolley companies had their way, nothing would have been built to suit a cyclists because, for every bicycle, that was one less fare paying customer. That's also how the rail companies felt about bicycles in rural areas.
Because of that organizing in the late 1800s, and because the bicycle lobby was sufficiently organized with the rise orf the automobile, the UVC actually reflects the assumption that the primary users of roads are NOT car drivers. Rather, the UVC assumes that users competing on the roads were peds, bicyclists, horse riders, motorized wheel chairs, carriages, horse/ox/mule drawn wagons, and farm equipment.
The idea that prevails is that no user is privileged by anything other than being in the road first.
In class, I remember asking about pedestrians. When I grew up, I was taught that peds always had the right of way no matter what. In other words, I was taught that, if I clipped a pedestrian, it was my fault no matter what the circs. Of course, that was memory of driver's ed and my parents' words when they were teaching me to drive. Maybe i misremember? in any event, I didn't get a clear answer except to repeat the Vehicular Cycling mantra: the traffic code is based on the principle of first come, first served - and NOT on the basis of the method of transportation.
BTW, I learned from a prominent attorney that if one is riding a bicycle at 15 mph on a road that has a 45 mph speed limit, one is not impeding traffic on a bike. The reason why is that the bike is understood to be going as fast as is reasonable. The impeding traffic aspect of the UVC was actually written for those vehicles that were disabled and needed to get off the road because traveling as less than the speed the machine is capable of. This law was uphold in a NC ruling a few years back and is used to fight of stupid "impeding" traffic tickets for those of us who take the lane on substandard width or multi-lane roads.
>--
>--
>
>Michael J. Smith
>mjs at smithbowen.net
>
>http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
>http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
>http://cars-suck.org
>
>When one does a foolish thing, it is right to
>do it handsomely.
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)