A nationally rated cycling instructor of the League of American Bicyclists recently wrote a letter to a local publication about the bicycling laws in Washington. He did this in response to comments left on an account of cyclists’ experiences riding through a highway construction delay. He was appalled by how little readers knew about bicycle laws and wanted to enlighten them.
First, he debunked the myth that, by law, bicyclists must ride as far to the right as practical. This, he pointed out, was not the law in any state. He explained how cyclists were only required to ride as far to the right as is safe. Then, he gave pot holes and glass on the road as examples of why a cyclist might need to move left into the center of the lane.
Later, he addressed a comment claiming that cyclists had to get out of the road if five or more vehicles were behind them. Bicycles, he told them, were not subject to this law. They can ride in the center of the lane when it is unsafe to ride farther to the right, and are only required to move to the right when it is safe.
It’s unclear why the author expected the same ignorant commenters to be more receptive to the law if he spelled it out for them.
The first commenter started out by saying: “Well, you certainly have an agenda, don’t you?” and then went on to tell a story about cyclists he encountered who had either an “anemic” flashing red light or no lights at all. This had nothing to do with bicycling laws, but it was an opening to blame cyclists for the problems they face on the road.
After this opening comment, it got better.
It began with the typical argument about cyclists not paying their fair share to use the road.
“ketchupkounty writes:
Another reason that bicycles should be paying road taxes.
A yearly-purchased license to assist paying for the road they are using.
On a public road on a bike? Get a license plate. Nothing wrong with user fees.
When a bicycle-owner is in a motor vehicle, they are in a licensed vehicle. When they ride their bike on the same road, they should still be paying for use of the public road.”
How many times are we going to hear this? The money for roads comes primarily from general taxes which everyone pays, regardless of whether they use the roads or not. There doesn’t seem to be any way to get this message across to people who don’t want bicycles on the road.
A creative pro-bicycle commenter tried to show how ludicrous the “cyclists don’t pay fees to use the roads” argument was:
“billdsd writes:
One other thing ketchupkounty, do pedestrians have to pay to use the road? What about equestrians? Young children on bicycles?
You are seriously delusional about what your registration fees are for. They are not the basis of the right to use the road, and they never have been.
You’re just want to punish bicyclists for daring to inconvenience you. It’s time to grow up.”
As I wrote in a post about “Runners In The Road,” drivers are willing to accept runners in the road, and in parts of the country, they accept equestrians, as well. Why not bicycles?
One of my favorite comments came from someone who is too stupid to be allowed to drive a car.
“dardena writes:
Why is broken glass, or potholes dangerious? Would not you, as the responsible bicyclist, not just slow down or walk your bicycle untill it was safe to ride?
Better yet, if you, as the responsible bicyclist decide a stretch of highway too dangerious to ride “as far to the right” as possible, why ride at all?
Is this just another case of “too stupid to quit”?
Terry”
Terry can’t figure out why glass and potholes are dangerious [sic] for bicycles. He/she suggests slowing down to ride through glass and potholes or walking your bike through glass as an alternative to taking the lane.
Terry hasn’t figured out that cars shouldn’t drive through glass or potholes either. Both can damage a car. But, this is too much for Terry to grasp. No wonder cars hit bikes.
After being informed about the bicycle laws, some of the commenters wanted to take up arms to change the laws, rather than sharing the road.
“Ruthless writes:
I urge everyone who is concerned about the safety of the bikers to contact your law makers.
Now that the editor has given us the information and showed us how stupid these laws are we must take action and get them changed.
Really how in the world did they get these laws in affect. I believe that the bike makers must be spending lots of money and time to keep these sad and outdated laws in affect.
A bike can get in the middle of the lane to stop people from passing him? This has to change.
The following RCW shows how uneducated and on the take our lawmakers are. The laws they sneak in…”
Ruthless decides to blame bike makers for the laws. When was the last time you saw a bike maker involved in drafting laws? Bicycle advocates are the ones involved in promoting pro-cycling laws. This just shows how little drivers know about bicycles and cycling.
Once the usual timeworn arguments were out of the way, things really became interesting. The discussion turned to methods of road wear measurement. The goal was to prove that bicycles cause more wear and tear on the roads than cars.
“Grog writes:
in response to Telia:
BTW Grog,
Consider how much the car rips up the road and a bicycle rips up the road. The car by far creates more maintenance costs for the roads. So the people paying more in gas tax because they drive more, are only helping to pay for their share of maintenance of the roads we all pay for.
Actually, that’s incorrect. Here are some average ground pressures exerted by type of vehicle:
Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)
Motorcycle: 240 kPa (35 psi)
Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)
Racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)Note that these pressures are what you’d see for tire pressure as well. This is because tire pressure changes the contact patch on the ground.
My mountain bike exerts more force per quare inch than my motorcycle, which exerts more force per square inch than my car.
As a result road bikes are more damaging to the surface they travel on than a car as the force is spread over a smaller surface. It just so happens that there are quite a few more trips made by cars and trucks so the wear from their tires is visible sooner.”
Did Grog consider the relative weight of the vehicles in question? Apparently not. If anything, this argument is evidence of how people see what they want to see, not what is factual.
Fortunately, someone came along to refute this claim.
“jputnam writes:
in response to Grog:
Road wear is driven by axle loading, not tire pressure.
A bicycle is not heavy enough to deform the pavement or sub-base — that’s the sort of loading that wears out a road by cracking the pavement and allowing water to seep through.
Wear increases as roughly the fourth power of axle weight. That is, 10 times the weight = 10,000 times the wear. (The Federal Highway Administration publishes far more detailed formulas than that, but it’s a good rule of thumb.)
For a road designed for truck traffic, both passenger cars and bicycles create minimal wear. (Except for passenger cars with studded tires, but that’s a different debate and they aren’t in season yet.)”
Still, Grog stuck to his guns on his claim about bicycles causing more road wear than cars:
“Grog writes:
@jputnam’s first post to me
That’s true and false, as the data you are referencing is related to commercial trucks and other vehicles large enough to wear the structure of the road and not just the surface.My understanding is that ground pressure (approximately tire pressure) and usage volume is the key factor in surface wear. Now bikes will tend to wear a different portion of the road and in a low enough volume that the surface generally needs to be restored before they would cause it anyway.
As for studded tires, I’m sure we’ll see some silly discussion about them soon enough.”
Common sense would tell us otherwise. If the weight of commercial vehicles causes damage to the structure of the road, then weight would also be a factor in determining surface damage to a road. But, if you want bicycles off of the road badly enough, you ignore this.
To understand more about road wear, I did some research. I found a paper written by Philip A. Viton, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning at Ohio State University.
The paper, “Understanding Road Wear and its Causes,” explains how road wear is measured.
“Damage is done by cumulative vehicle passages: the impact of vehicles going over the road and tearing it up
The force exerted on the road by a given vehicle is related to the vehicle’s weight (load) as transmitted through the vehicle’s axles
Clearly, different types of vehicles (and different weights) will do different amounts of damage. So we need some way of standardizing these impacts.
Engineering standard: ESAL = damage done by 18,000 lbs on a single axle. (18,000 lbs = 18 kips, kilo-pounds)”
Nowhere does he mention tire pressure or contact patches as related to road wear. The only place I was able to find any reference to these factors was in relation to reducing road wear produced by trucks hauling loads.
This type of anti-bicycle argument is problematic for cyclists because it is stated in a scientific manner. Most people are not in a position to determine whether it is true or false. But, because it looks like scientific certainty, some will take it at face value and perpetuate the falsehood that bicycles have been proven to cause more road wear than cars – and should, therefore, be penalized in some way for their use of the roads.
Anti-bicycle zealots will do anything to penalize cyclists, with the goal of getting them off of the road. Evidently, hurling insults was not enough. Ridiculing cyclists was not enough. Running cyclists off the road was not enough. It’s gotten to the point where pseudoscience is being tossed about in an attempt to “prove cyclists wrong.” Where will it end?
