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 (mvdinfo@azdot.gov), Colorado (mvadmin@spike.dor.state.co.us), Idaho (comments@itd.idaho.gov), Montana (mvd@mt.gov), New Mexico (poffice@state.nm.us), and Utah (dmv@utah.gov). 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.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.