WILD BILL

Needed: More Bicycle Sense in Driver’s Manuals

By Bill Schneider, 4-13-06

It’s spring again, voila! I’m cured of cabin fever, out on the roads on my bicycle. And I’m hardly alone. We’re well into the annual resurgence of interest in cycling, commonly suppressed during winter months. With the spring swell of bicycles on the roads comes, regrettably, the annual wave of conflicts with motorists—and more regrettably, those near-death experiences for road bikers.

This is hardly a new problem, but let’s do something about it this year. A great place to start would be a few common sense additions to our driver’s manuals.

I decided to write this column last week while I was out with two biking buddies having a wonderful springtime ride when a driver’s education car zipped by, uncomfortably close, going 50+ mph. A youthful driver—with approval of his instructor I can only assume—nervously squeezed between an oncoming vehicle and us without even slowing down.

A driver’s ed vehicle! How bad can it get? That prompted me to take a look at the Montana Driver’s Manual (which I admit not reading for many, many years), and there I found part of the problem.

The manual accurately reflects the laws as they relate to bicycles, but it—if not all state driver’s manuals—was clearly not written by somebody who regularly rides his or her bicycle on paved roadways. It’s not so much what’s on those pages, but what’s not there. The manual implies that bicyclists are hazards and impediments to motorized traffic. Most advice in the driver’s manual is directed at bicyclists, not motorists. There’s also the prevalent assumption that most people on bicycles are kids who don’t have driver’s licenses, which might be half-true on city streets and sidewalks, but not remotely close to true out on the highways. I’m only guessing on this one, but I suspect the manual was written long ago—long before “The Lance Effect”—when most bicycles were ridden on low-speed streets, not high-speed highways.

I could nitpick, but I’ll concentrate on the most hazardous situation out on the road—motorists overtaking cyclists on a high-speed roadway. After years watching near head-ons when motorists speed between me and oncoming eighteen-wheelers at 60 mph or more, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Montana manual tell motorists “do not share a lane with a pedestrian or bicyclist” and advise drivers to slow down and wait for a oncoming vehicle to pass “so you can give extra room to the cyclist.” Not bad, and much better than some state manuals, but it would be better to say, “cross the centerline and move into the left lane before passing a bicyclist.”

Perhaps the manual should suggest that motorists view bicycles in the same light they view baby strollers to make the advice would stick. What motorist would try to slip through in the same lane at 60+ mph between oncoming traffic and somebody pushing a stroller?

After looking at Montana’s manual, I checked Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. All manuals make the same mistake—addressing educational messages at bicyclists instead of drivers. Content varies widely, but you’d think states would strive for consistency. Every state is a nation, I guess, not just Wyoming.

All state manuals instruct cyclists to ride as far to the right as possible, but experienced road cyclists commonly ride approximately where the passenger side wheel hits the road rather than closely straddling the right edge. This is safer for two reasons. It avoids hitting an abrupt edge, which could cause a cyclist to suddenly swerve or fall into the traffic lane. And second, it forces the approaching motorist to cross the centerline to pass. In situations with oncoming vehicles or poor visibility, the driver must slow down and wait for a passing opportunity—no different than coming up behind Farmer Jones on his tractor.

While doing this, I frequently notice intolerance among motorists for having to slow down and wait for a safe passing opportunity, but this doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request to foster a safer environment among valid users on our roadways. In Europe, this courtesy has long ago become engrained in the culture.

So, motor vehicle departments, save a few lives by aggressively promoting the concept of sharing the road, but not sharing the lane.

Of the New West states, Utah has by far the best manual. It actually has a section entitled “Sharing the road with Bicyclists.” Wow! Imagine that! “Drivers must treat bicycle riders the same as drivers of other vehicles, “the Utah manual states. “Bicyclists are not out of place on the roadway. They are part of traffic and share the road with other drivers.”

The Utah book also addresses the key safety issue I outlined above. “Pass a bicycle in the same manner you would a car,” the manual stresses. “Do not pass a bicycle in the same lane.”

Let’s hear it for Utah!

Idaho’s book has some good sections, such as suggesting overtaking cyclists “may require waiting for a break in oncoming traffic.” Wyoming probably has the worst manual among New West states. It goes so far as to insist bicycles “must share the same lane” with motor vehicles. Idaho and Utah tell motorists to give bicycles three feet clearance, which is not enough, particularly in fast-moving traffic. New Mexico says five feet; much better, but Arizona, ouch, says two to four feet. Arizona also warns motorists that “at high speeds, your vehicle may cause a gust of wind that could knock a bicyclist to the ground,” but says nothing about moving to the left lane to avoid this. (Hope that’s not part of the state’s program to encourage more people to ride bicycles.) Colorado immediately follows its short and woefully insufficient bicycle section with the organ donation section.

The point is, we could prevent conflict, death and injury, and promote the use of bicycles by improving these manuals.

There’s also the overriding problem of people not remembering many details in the drivers manuals, not just information about bicycles. You know, the reason we all dread taking drivers tests because we can’t remember whether we should signal 100 or 200 feet before we turn. That’s a bigger problem, but sticking to bicycles for now, many motorists are undoubtedly unaware of or purposely don’t follow the limited useful advice currently in driver’s manuals. And as my recent incident indicates, perhaps some driver’s education instructors need to be educated, too. Worst of all, though, are the motorists who get their jollies by purposely making high-speed passes with less than three feet clearance or blast their horns just to watch cyclist’s react. A stronger share-the-road-not-the-lane message could do wonders to curb this inappropriate, extremely hazardous behavior.

Whenever I write about cycling, I receive comments from scorned motorists berating bad bicyclist behavior. And it’s true. Some cyclists make mistakes, but no different that some motorists rolling through stop signs or not signaling. If a motorist sees another driver driving erratically, he or she doesn’t paint all motorists with the same brush, but seeing one bicyclist riding erratically sometimes brings on scorn for all cyclists.

In conclusion, I suggest states convene a small, volunteer panel of experienced road cyclists to collaborate in the drafting of new sections for driver’s manuals directed at motorists. In addition to key safety information, emphasize the ethics of safely sharing the road. Let’s do this before people die instead of as a reaction in the aftermath of a fatal accident.

Footnote: I’m doing my part by sending a link to this article to the Department of Motor Vehicles in New West states. Hopefully, some of them will read it and realize the shortcomings of their driver’s manuals and take the above suggestion. If you’d like to chime in, here are the e-mail addresses: Arizona (), Colorado (), Idaho (), Montana (), New Mexico (), and Utah (). Then, there’s Wyoming, always a cowboy, it seems, always striving to stand alone among its peers. Wyoming seems to have a policy against listing e-mails on agency websites, but if desperate, you can call them at (307) 777-4375.
[End of article]

"drivers ed vehicle" -- I trust you contacted the offending school and taught them that drivers should only pass when it's safe to do so.

"Colorado immediately follows its short and woefully insufficient bicycle section with the organ donation section." -- Bill, CDOT publishes a Bicycling Safety Manual, a whole separate book. It's an excellent resource. I think it should be required reading for all motorists and cyclists. On the CDOT bicycle page you can instructions for getting a copy of this manual (and state bicycle map) mailed to you.

"sharing the same lane" is the preferred practice for bicyclists. Where do you want us to ride? On the sidewalk so we'll be out of your way when you drive? I know some of the cycling advocates in Utah who are responsible for the three-foot passing law there -- this law implicitly recognizes the practice of taking the lane, instead of cowering in the trash-strewn gutters.

"...we could prevent conflict, death and injury..." Things can be better but it's not all that bad. I think there were something like six cyclist deaths last year in the state of Colorado, and 2005 was a bad year.

Bicycles just don't work on high-speed roads, and you can't blame the drivers for that. They are completely different forms of traffic. Bicycles are low speed and fragile, and belong on sidewalks. If a bicycle collides with a pedestrian, someone gets a bruise. If a bicycle collides with a car, someone dies. No amount of blame game is going to change the fact that a bike doing 15 on a road with a 45-60 limit is a pretty dumb idea that disrupts the flow of traffic.

Seriously, what are you doing on a 50+ road in a bike? That's pretty selfish and myopic if you expect traffic to slow to 15 to accomodate you.

It'd be nice if there was better support and infrastructure for bicycles, but combining them with vehicles is simply a bad idea in every way.

Seems to me folks like nd are the ones being selfish. In addition to excellent recreational tools, bicycles are a legitimate form of transportation. Time to pull our heads out of the Leave-It-to-Beaver era. These are the same people who fuss and swerve to get around me when I'm only driving the speed "limit", simply in order to get to the next red light first. Time to get with the program folks. The end of cheap oil is here. Slow down, go easy on the accelerator, and for crying out loud, if you can't participate, at least give some respect to others who choose something other than an suv to get from a to b. Better infrastructure would be nice, but it's no substitute for courtiousness and respect. Let alone foresight and common sense.

For a company employing 5000 people, over 50 acres of parking are required, and vast amounts of land and infrastructure are needed to get the people there in their single-occupant vehicles.

And the cyclists are the ones who are selfish and myopic?

There's no need for personal attacks; I own a bicycle and support developing better biking infrastructure.

I would certainly like to be able to ride my bike more, but no, doing 15-20 or whatever on a 55 mph road and expecting traffic to slow down to you is inconviencing a large number of people for a single person's benefit. I'm sorry if you take offense, but that's just the facts-- it's hard to combine fast and slow traffic within the same lane and expect things to be smooth.

This is also a great personal risk to anyone riding a bike. The fatality rate of bicycles is many times greater than a car. Expecting them to flow like traffic doesn't help this.

I agree-- we should lessen use of motor vehicles and promote human-powered transportation. But putting bikes on the roads is simply the wrong way to accomplish that. It disrupts traffic and gets bikers killed. If you don't care about disrupting traffic, I imagine you're at least concerned with the personal risks presented here.

So yeah, putting bicycles on sidewalks disrupts pedestrian traffic to a lesser degree than it disrupts vehicular traffic, and minimizes fatality risk to all parties involved.

And no, it's not an ideal solution either. The ideal solution is spending the money to improve instructure for better pedestrian and bike access, and improving mass transit, and I for one will happily pay higher taxes to accomplish that.

But suggesting that you either have to love riding in traffic, accepting a grave personal safety risk, and disrupting other traffic, or you are therefore a neoconservative Hummer H2 driver who eats babies is a false choice fallacy.

The risk presented by riding a bike in traffic is, imo, unacceptable. The detrimental impact on other traffic, especially under a "no-pass" proposal in the original article, seems again less than ideal to me.

And that in no way changes the fact we need better bicycle infrastucture. You may not care if your actions negatively impact other people-- it seems you have a lot of hatred for anyone in a car-- but bikers deserve a safer solution than the fatality rates currently seen in riding with traffic.

Oh wait, I forgot this is another binary issue, and you can only have one of two party-sactioned opinions. My apologies.

Alright, I'll quit accusing people of eating babies if I can be allowed something other than a black and white viewpoint. (Wait, I didn't say...oh. never mind.)

Speaking of a binary approach....I agree that there are certain roadways where only experienced cyclists should ride, and perhaps some where bicycles are inappropriate. In my experience, fear tends to reenforce these unwritten rules. Nevertheless, bicycles DO NOT belong on sidewalks. Cars are more dangerous to cyclists in this situation (i.e. the numerous "crossings" that area required) than when they are traveling out in the open in the roadway. And it isn't just high-speed highways where the kind of behavior Bill describes takes place. In my experience, the 25-35 mph roads are just as, if not more dangerous, because (regardless of personal politics or choice of automobile) a substantial number of motorists don't get it. Sorry to cost you a few precious seconds, but really, what's your hurry? Is this really such a disruption? I own 2 automobiles, but I detest our auto-centric culture. And I really resent having my choice of transportation being dictated by those who can only see one way of doing things. It's getting to be a crowded world, so until we stop having so many babies, we're going to have to learn to be little more tolerant of others. If that means arriving at our destination 30 seconds later, it seems to me a reasonable compromise. No, I'm pretty sure the auto-only viewpoint is the selfish viewpoint here.

It's not "binary" -- it's all users sharing the road. I fail to see how an occasional 5 second delay inconveniences any motorist greater than, say, sitting at a traffic light for 90 seconds; or waiting behind a car waiting to make a left turn from the narrow blacktop into his house; or sitting in the queue of cars lined up at the four-way-stop.

When you're driving on the rural highway, who is it that most often gets in the way? I'm willing to bet that it's other cars and trucks who are the ones who delay and "inconvenience" you the most, whether because they're turning, slowing, going slow, tripping a signal light, or just being there. Bicyclists' impact on your rate of travel is negligible compared to what other motor vehicles do, but it's the cyclists that you berate as "selfish and myopic."

The fatality rate per hour of activity for cyclists is about the same as that for motorists; even for distance traveled the risk isn't an order of magnitude greater or anything like that. Riding on the sidewalk, incidentally, increases your risk of collision by about 17 times over riding on the road, though admittedly you're more likely to receive disabling injuries rather than death on the sidewalk over the road.

Riding on low-traffic, high speed, narrow rural roads at night without lights carries the greatest risk of death for cyclists.

You have a valid point regarding the sidewalk crossing issue. Yes, statistically the majority of bicycle fatalities occur on slower-speed arterial etc roads, but I could not find any data quantifying the relative risk between road types / speed etc.

In terms of the subject at hand, vehicle causing injury/death in overtaking bicycle, the data indicated that was most likely to occur on two-lane rural roads in poor visibility. The speed limits on these types of roads is usually 55mph.

The severity of the impact on other traffic depends on the relative speed difference. If you slow down a 55mph road to 15mph, this turns a 15 minute drive into an hour-long one. Emergency vehicles? Disabled? People who live beyond biking range? Suddenly, perhaps, it doesn't seem quite as fun as ruining someone in a Hummer's day.

I just can't see a solution that doesn't have a lot of negative impacts other than developing infrastructure specifically for bicycles.

Fifteen minutes becomes an hour? What are you smoking on the way to work? Or are you trying to commute through the Tour d'France? Or both?

Emergency vehicles: Bicyclists do what the other vehicles are supposed to do -- pull over to get out of the way.

Extending your commute to an hour: Huh? If traffic is at a crawl on your highway, it's because of all the other cars. If all of those drivers took bikes instead, you'd have plenty more road space -- cars take up 10 times the space on the road that a bike does.

Disabled: How is a bicyclist's presence impeding a disabled driver?

Ruining a driver's day: Are you implying that slowing a driver for five seconds ruins his day?

I'm about to drive my car to the airport for a flight so I won't see further responses until tomorrow.

Thanks for your comments, everybody. This is a touchy subject, but an important one. It's fairly clear that neither motor vehicles or bicycles are going away and they will both use our roadways, so we need to peacefully co-exist. However, I do agree that we should address the issue and not the person in these debates....Bill Schneider

As a driver safety instructor for drivers over age 50, I hear of cyclists as a hazard from the majority of every class. As a cyclist I try to have an objective conversation with them covering many of the points you address. Your conclusion to address the issue through driver's manual may be part of the solution but the Montana driver's manual-I give every participant a copy-is of very limited distribution. How many even see one between driver education as a teen and a few thousand in a driver safety program? The newest edition(2005) is of poor print quality and the font is too small to be easily read. Educating drivers and cyclists to share the road or the lane will take much more outreach than revising the driver's manual. Thanks for addressing the problem.

I was a driving instructor for many years at a commercial driving school in NJ. National Safety Council instructor as well. I also did some Bicycle racing here in NJ, and started my own sponsored team along with a buddy for a couple of years.

So I speak from both sides of the issue.

The point about bikes and cars not mixing is only partially correct. Mixing traffic of widely different speeds is the problem, which also applies to putting bikes on sidewalks, since they can go 10-20 times faster than pedestrians. Cars only go 2-5 times faster than bikes, if within typical speed limits in most areas. Grouping bikes with cars makes more sense than with pedestrians. So far as a bike-pedestrian collision causing only bruises, that is wrong. 170-250 pounds of bike and rider hitting a pedestrian can cause a lot worse than bruises for both people. Severe cuts and broken bones are common, and many have died in such collisions.

The older folks complaining about bikes should consider how they feel when crossing the street, and cars will not wait for them if they can not finish crossing before the light changes. How many of us have heard of older folks getting hit by impatient drivers, or stuck in the middle of an intersection waiting for a second change of the light to finish crossing? There was a news story recently about a cop that ticked an elderly woman for blocking traffic because she took too long to cross at a light.

I am going to add more to this on my own web site, (see my email address for site name), including a comparison of the users of cars and guns and the responsibility each should have, and which has the most.

The public roads are just that - public - and no one has a superior right to them. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists have equal rights to use the public way provided they observe the laws regulating their various modes of transport.

Yet motorists complain when cyclists 'impede' traffic. To my mind, if a motorist can't figure out how to pass something as small and slow as a bicycist, and perform that maneuver safely, perhaps he shouldn't be driving a car in the first place.

Equally, the cyclist who blows through redlights and stop signs or rides the wrong way against traffic should be stopped and ticketed.

There are 3 essentials for safe travel on our roads, regardless of our mode of travel: Engineering, education, and enforcement. We all need a road surface free of holes and obstructions. We all need sufficient education to understand and use the roads legally and safely. And finally, we need law enforcement to step in and deal with those individuals who refuse to obey the law.

When cyclists act as vehicles, it makes them predictable and makes traveling on the road much safer. This is the central tenet of the League of American Bicyclists Road1 course, and it's highly recommended for any cyclist regardless of skill level.

Hmmm, Well it would certainly seem on the face of the issue that bicycles on the sidewalk are most decidedly dangerous to both the pedestrian ( let's face it..who really pays attention to where one is walking? ) and the cyclist bear responsibility to situational awareness.

I live in rural Montana so do not really have to worry about sidewalks...we have none. But I do have to worry about cars, trucks and the like.

Mr Wagner and Mr White have hit it on the head...enough said.

Can't we all just get along?

In Montana, driver’s education instructors have teaching aids in addition to the state manual—mainly a PowerPoint presentation produced by the Office of Public Instruction (OPI). I viewed the program, and it’s excellent. It includes an entire section on “Strategies for Sharing the Road with Other Users,” primarily directed at bicyclists. It has good photos graphics that clearly show many key safety situations, particularly the lead photo, which properly shows a car waiting for oncoming traffic to clear before attempting to pass a group of road cyclists. This fresh, graphic-intensive approach is far superior to the driver’s manual, which is dull and text-intensive (made even worse with a too-small type on cheap paper) and reads like a patched-up, designed-by-committee technical report. The only minor shortcoming of the program might be an emphasis on motorist-bicyclist issues on city streets, although most of the key information also applies to high-speed situations on highways.

OPI also provides instructors with a Fact Sheet called “Sharing the Road with Bicycles.” This list of key points is right on the mark from start to finish, such as: “Use extra caution when passing a bicyclist. Move entirely into the left lane; on a two-lane road, don’t pass a bicycle if oncoming traffic is near.”

Fran Penner-Ray, who works on OPI’s Traffic Education Programs, tells me the PowerPoint presentation and Fact Sheet aren’t online but will be this fall. When they go up, I’ll post the link.....Bill Schneider

I very much agree with Wagner. I like your point that all have equal rights to using public roads.

The car/bike/ped problem is compounded by misuse and laziness. Most cyclists (excluding children) need to be treated as motorized vehicles. (I think children should ride on bicycles if they are w/o guardians. What do y'all think?) They need to obey motor vehicle laws . . . and they need to ride IN the lane not in the gutter. The city needs to do a better job of keeping bike lanes CLEAN. Cars/trucks need to get past the idea that bikes don't belong on streets. Many days I'm sitting in "traffic" (I'm from a big city, so I laugh at Missoula "traffic") watching the cyclists get to their destinations before I reach mine. So how is it that they are slowing me down? Oh, unless the many times I'm about to cross a street and a durned cyclist comes barreling out from a sidewalk w/o looking, and I have to stop and put my heart back into my chest. Or several other times in St. Louis when I nearly was run over on my bike by cars not paying attention, and he/she had to stop and deal with the fact that their lack of driving skills nearly cost them my life. Yeah, that slows 'em down, temporarily.

Stupid drivers and cyclists alike need to be penalized more frequently for their inconsiderate AND DANGEROUS behavior on public roads and sidewalks.

In Montana, bicyclists are considered "drivers" of "vehicles". As such, they are required to pull over if moving slower than other vehicles move on the roadway, once four or more vehicles pile up behind them, with no difference or bias than to a farm vehicle, for example. (see 61-8-311)

Bicyclists also have their own unique set of rules, including one at 61-8-333 governing bicycle turn procedures. Bikes are required when making right turns to approach and turn "as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway".

Probably the most broken law of the group is the requirement that bicycles turning left shall "approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway, the person shall make the turn as close as practicable to the curb or edge of the roadway on the far right side of the intersection".

Other bicycle rules are at 61-8-(601-609). Did you know bicyclists are encouraged to equip their bikes with a fluorescent orange flag visible from the rear and suspended not less than six feet above the roadway? That is also in statute, but I see very, very few of those.

I'm all for multi-modal transportation that includes bicycles, pedestrians, tricycles, mopeds, rickshaws, and many other private means for hire or otherwise. Still, we need to all be educated in the actual laws of each state, and be willing to obey them, or change them as need be, in order to "share the road".