Bicycle Board Members,
Thanks to Derek, gunnar, Greg Good, Chip Wamsley, Bill Reger-Nash and Don Spencer for helping me improve the draft message that I wrote on the preliminary WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan. Thanks also to Gary Rodosta for discussing graphics with me.
Below is the message that I sent to Kim Broughton, BikeWV today.
Her response: thanks Frank. I'm buried right now. Feel free to lead this effort. Hope all is well. Kim
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:44 -0500 From: Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net To: Kimberly Jo kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com References: 9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov 4AE740C8.8050400@verizon.net 9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b@mail.gmail.com 4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5@WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov
Kim,
What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll be ready when the plan is released. Even better if we could provide our input before it's released and when it may be more flexible. Following are some of my thoughts.
The plan that we saw is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they do not recognize bicyclists' equal right to the roads.
In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. WE SHOULD VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE PROHIBITING BICYCLES FROM USING THE ROADWAY WHEN A BIKE LANE OR SIDE PATH IS PRESENT.
The legislation change proposals contained in the plan's Appendix A, particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway. We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-5 with the changes proposed in the plan.)
Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea. Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway.
*PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA* Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the roadway is unsafe.
*EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA* Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway. Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea:
1. *Debris *- Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass, dead animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean.
2. *Dangerous descents* - The cross grade of shoulders is usually designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills.
3. *Crashes at crossings* - Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"?
*"Right hooks"* - When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic, not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicyclists.
*"Left hooks"* - When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles.
*"Drive out" collisions* - The most common cause of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection or drive way: failure to yield to the cyclist. One reason these occur is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on the phone. The sight line from the motorist to the bicyclist when the bicyclist is far to the right or on the shoulder is often shorter or obscured by vegetation, parked cars, etc. The plan does not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings.
4. *Dangerous merges* - Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe merging from the shoulder.
*STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA* Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons:
1. *Discourages cyclists from taking safest path* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked.
2. *Confuses motorists* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify: " Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading "BICYCLE LANE ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC", the plan does not recognize the turn movements that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane.
3. *Increases hostility towards road cyclists* - Striping shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training will cover cyclists' right to the road.
*FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD* The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states: "Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway".
*If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced* - Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway reveals that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than cyclist safety.
My understanding is that all states put language such as that in 17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.)
This is probably enough for now. We should also prepare responses to other aspects of the plan. For example, the plan needs to accommodate bicycling in our state's cities. Accommodating bicycles in our cities presents the greatest opportunities for alleviating traffic congestion, reducing obesity and generally improving the quality of life as well as improving the character of our cities. We are aware that approximately half of all trips are within 3-5 miles: a distance that most people could easily travel by bicycle if encouraged and enabled by our transportation system. Many of our cities' key routes are controlled by the WVDOH. If the WVDOH developed the bicycle plan in collaboration with knowledgeable representatives from each of our cities, our plan could capture these opportunities as well as make WV a bicycle friendly state.
Frank Gmeindl LCI #1703 /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
*§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. *(as contained in draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)* *
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. _except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. _
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. _Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. _
(c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided _paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles _adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
_(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway._
On 11/4/2009 8:47 AM, Robinson, Bill C wrote:
*Kim -- *
*Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I've told you that it is: simply a draft "starting point". We've already done one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously without management "buy-in" we can't promise anything. To release this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the interest of fairness to the citizens, we don't want to "piecemeal" drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to view it at the same time.*
*As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle community and all the interested citizens, but we're not at that point right now and receiving comments on a "rough" draft document that may change significantly won't be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I'll contact you when we are ready for public comment.*
*Bill*
*William C. Robinson***
*State Trail Coordinator*
*Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program *
*WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator*
*Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board*
*West Virginia Department of Transportation*
*Division of Highways*
*Program Planning and Administration Division*
*1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East*
*Building 5, Room 863*
*Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430*
*(304)558-9615 Fax -- (304)558-3783*
*bill.c.robinson@wv.gov mailto:bill.c.robinson@wv.gov*
*_"_**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard,*
*often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in*
*order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is*
*marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962 *
*From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM *To:* Robinson, Bill C *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list. Thanks!
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Stanevich, Ron L* <Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov mailto:Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@verizon.net mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net> Cc: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>
Frank / Kim
Thanks for your responses last week.
I've attached a draft copy of the WVDOH's Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don't think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing).
In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I'm told that has been the direction given from our management.
Nevertheless I've been "befriended" some of the employees in Planning and they've given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that's what I'm doing.
If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it's not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals.
Frank... concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway/.
Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles.
Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I'll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel.
/Ron Stanevich, PE/
/Specifications Engineer/
/West Virginia Division Of Highways/
/Contract Administration/
/1900 Kanawha Blvd East/
/Bldg 5, RM 722/
/304.558.9556/
*From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM *To:* Stanevich, Ron L *Cc:* Kimberly Jo *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
Ron,
Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:)
The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway.
WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway.
Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application."
I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator
"The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed."
Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail.
The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response.
I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out.
Frank Gmeindl League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board
On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote:
Mr. Gmeindle
I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue.
I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders.
I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you.
Thanks
Ron Stanevich WVDOH
Message sent from my Blackberry!
-- Kimberly Broughton Creative Crosswalks, LLC kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com 304.483.1685
Nice lettter Frank,
You're doing the 99 44/100% of the work, and I thank you.
The part after this is confusing to me- *If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced
*Not sure what you're trying to say exactly and why. Have you chatted w/ others regarding this section? Perhaps I just need some coffee...
I have replied to you and the bikeboard, took off the others.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.netwrote:
Bicycle Board Members,
Thanks to Derek, gunnar, Greg Good, Chip Wamsley, Bill Reger-Nash and Don Spencer for helping me improve the draft message that I wrote on the preliminary WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan. Thanks also to Gary Rodosta for discussing graphics with me.
Below is the message that I sent to Kim Broughton, BikeWV today.
Her response: thanks Frank. I'm buried right now. Feel free to lead this effort. Hope all is well. Kim
Frank *Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles*
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:44 -0500 From: Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net fgmeindl@verizon.net To: Kimberly Jo kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com References: 9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov 4AE740C8.8050400@verizon.net 4AE740C8.8050400@verizon.net 9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b@mail.gmail.combf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b@mail.gmail.com 4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5@WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5@WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov
Kim,
What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll be ready when the plan is released. Even better if we could provide our input before it's released and when it may be more flexible. Following are some of my thoughts.
The plan that we saw is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they do not recognize bicyclists' equal right to the roads.
In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. WE SHOULD VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE PROHIBITING BICYCLES FROM USING THE ROADWAY WHEN A BIKE LANE OR SIDE PATH IS PRESENT.
The legislation change proposals contained in the plan's Appendix A, particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway. We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-5 with the changes proposed in the plan.)
Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea. Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway.
*PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA* Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the roadway is unsafe.
*EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA* Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway. Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea:
- *Debris *- Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass, dead
animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean.
- *Dangerous descents* - The cross grade of shoulders is usually
designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills.
- *Crashes at crossings* - Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where
motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"?
*"Right hooks"* - When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic, not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicyclists.
*"Left hooks"* - When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles.
*"Drive out" collisions* - The most common cause of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection or drive way: failure to yield to the cyclist. One reason these occur is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on the phone. The sight line from the motorist to the bicyclist when the bicyclist is far to the right or on the shoulder is often shorter or obscured by vegetation, parked cars, etc. The plan does not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings.
- *Dangerous merges* - Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from
the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe merging from the shoulder.
*STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA* Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons:
- *Discourages cyclists from taking safest path* - Striping the shoulders
as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked.
- *Confuses motorists* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be
expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify: " Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading “BICYCLE LANE ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC”, the plan does not recognize the turn movements that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane.
- *Increases hostility towards road cyclists* - Striping shoulders as
bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training will cover cyclists' right to the road.
*FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD* The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states: "Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway".
*If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced* - Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway reveals that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than cyclist safety.
My understanding is that all states put language such as that in 17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.)
This is probably enough for now. We should also prepare responses to other aspects of the plan. For example, the plan needs to accommodate bicycling in our state's cities. Accommodating bicycles in our cities presents the greatest opportunities for alleviating traffic congestion, reducing obesity and generally improving the quality of life as well as improving the character of our cities. We are aware that approximately half of all trips are within 3-5 miles: a distance that most people could easily travel by bicycle if encouraged and enabled by our transportation system. Many of our cities' key routes are controlled by the WVDOH. If the WVDOH developed the bicycle plan in collaboration with knowledgeable representatives from each of our cities, our plan could capture these opportunities as well as make WV a bicycle friendly state.
Frank Gmeindl LCI #1703 *Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles*
*§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. *(as contained in draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)* *
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. *except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. *
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. *Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. *
(c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided *paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles *adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
*(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway.* On 11/4/2009 8:47 AM, Robinson, Bill C wrote:
*Kim – *
*Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I’ve told you that it is: simply a draft “starting point”. We’ve already done one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously without management “buy-in” we can’t promise anything. To release this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the interest of fairness to the citizens, we don’t want to “piecemeal” drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to view it at the same time.
*As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle community and all the interested citizens, but we’re not at that point right now and receiving comments on a “rough” draft document that may change significantly won’t be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I’ll contact you when we are ready for public comment.*
*Bill*
*William C. Robinson***
*State Trail Coordinator*
*Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program *
*WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator*
*Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board*
*West Virginia Department of Transportation*
*Division of Highways*
*Program Planning and Administration Division*
*1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East*
*Building 5, Room 863*
*Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430*
*(304)558-9615 Fax – (304)558-3783*
*bill.c.robinson@wv.gov*
*"**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard,*
*often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in*
*order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is*
*marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962 *
*From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.comkimberlyjoshi@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM *To:* Robinson, Bill C *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list. Thanks!
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Stanevich, Ron L* Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders To: Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net Cc: Kim Broughton kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com
Frank / Kim
Thanks for your responses last week.
I’ve attached a draft copy of the WVDOH’s Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don’t think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing).
In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I’m told that has been the direction given from our management.
Nevertheless I’ve been “befriended” some of the employees in Planning and they’ve given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that’s what I’m doing.
If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it’s not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals.
Frank… concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that *Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway*.
Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles.
Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I’ll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel.
*Ron Stanevich, PE*
*Specifications Engineer*
*West Virginia Division Of Highways*
*Contract Administration*
*1900 Kanawha Blvd East*
*Bldg 5, RM 722*
*304.558.9556*
*From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM *To:* Stanevich, Ron L *Cc:* Kimberly Jo *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
Ron,
Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:)
The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway.
WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway.
Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application."
I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator
"The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed."
Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail.
The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response.
I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out.
Frank Gmeindl League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board
On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote:
Mr. Gmeindle
I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue.
I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders.
I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you.
Thanks
Ron Stanevich WVDOH
Message sent from my Blackberry!
-- Kimberly Broughton Creative Crosswalks, LLC kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com 304.483.1685
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
gunnar,
I owe you a coffee! Yes, I see the confusion.
Would it be better to simply state that making it unlawful for cyclists to ride on the road when bike lanes and bike paths are present is the same as making it unlawful for cyclists to choose a safe route when the bike lane or bike path is unsafe?
First, please understand that if implemented, the WVDOH plan would make it unlawful to ride on the road if a bike lane or side path were present. I am trying to make the point that if cycling on bike lanes and on side paths were really better than cycling on the roadway, cyclists wouldn't need to be forced by law to ride on them. But, after reading your message and thinking about it more, my point may not be valid. After all, using a helmet has been proven to reduce head damage when a cyclist crashes but many cyclists don't wear helmets; talking on a cell phone while driving has been shown to increase the chance of a crash by a factor of 4 but people talk on the cell phone while driving, etc., etc. The difference between these examples and riding on shoulders and bike lanes is that there is substantive empirical evidence that bikes lanes and bike paths significantly increase crashes at traffic crossings. And, anyone, such as you that has completed the LAB Road I or Traffic Skills 101 or Morgantown's Confident City Cycling class also understands why cycling on bike lanes and bike paths increases the frequency of crashes with motor vehicles at crossings, e.g. right hooks, left crosses and drive out due to cyclists being where motorists aren't looking and/or where cyclists can't be seen.
Would it be better to simply state that forcing cyclists to ride on shoulders, bike lanes and bike paths is forcing them to crash more with motor vehicles at crossings?
Thank you so much for the feedback! You name the time and place for the coffee. I think I need some too!
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
On 11/20/2009 5:55 PM, Gunnar Shogren wrote:
Nice lettter Frank,
You're doing the 99 44/100% of the work, and I thank you.
The part after this is confusing to me- *If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced
*Not sure what you're trying to say exactly and why. Have you chatted w/ others regarding this section? Perhaps I just need some coffee...
I have replied to you and the bikeboard, took off the others.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@verizon.net mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net> wrote:
Bicycle Board Members, Thanks to Derek, gunnar, Greg Good, Chip Wamsley, Bill Reger-Nash and Don Spencer for helping me improve the draft message that I wrote on the preliminary WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan. Thanks also to Gary Rodosta for discussing graphics with me. Below is the message that I sent to Kim Broughton, BikeWV today. Her response: thanks Frank. I'm buried right now. Feel free to lead this effort. Hope all is well. Kim Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:44 -0500 From: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@verizon.net> <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net> To: Kimberly Jo <kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com> <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com> References: <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <mailto:9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <4AE740C8.8050400@verizon.net> <mailto:4AE740C8.8050400@verizon.net> <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <mailto:9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b@mail.gmail.com> <mailto:bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b@mail.gmail.com> <4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5@WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov> <mailto:4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5@WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov> Kim, What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll be ready when the plan is released. Even better if we could provide our input before it's released and when it may be more flexible. Following are some of my thoughts. The plan that we saw is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they do not recognize bicyclists' equal right to the roads. In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. WE SHOULD VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE PROHIBITING BICYCLES FROM USING THE ROADWAY WHEN A BIKE LANE OR SIDE PATH IS PRESENT. The legislation change proposals contained in the plan's Appendix A, particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway. We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-5 with the changes proposed in the plan.) Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea. Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway. *PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA* Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the roadway is unsafe. *EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA* Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway. Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea: 1. *Debris *- Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass, dead animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean. 2. *Dangerous descents* - The cross grade of shoulders is usually designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills. 3. *Crashes at crossings* - Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"? *"Right hooks"* - When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic, not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicyclists. *"Left hooks"* - When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles. *"Drive out" collisions* - The most common cause of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection or drive way: failure to yield to the cyclist. One reason these occur is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on the phone. The sight line from the motorist to the bicyclist when the bicyclist is far to the right or on the shoulder is often shorter or obscured by vegetation, parked cars, etc. The plan does not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings. 4. *Dangerous merges* - Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe merging from the shoulder. *STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA* Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons: 1. *Discourages cyclists from taking safest path* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked. 2. *Confuses motorists* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify: " Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading “BICYCLE LANE ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC”, the plan does not recognize the turn movements that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane. 3. *Increases hostility towards road cyclists* - Striping shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training will cover cyclists' right to the road. *FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD* The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states: "Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway". *If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced* - Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway reveals that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than cyclist safety. My understanding is that all states put language such as that in 17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.) This is probably enough for now. We should also prepare responses to other aspects of the plan. For example, the plan needs to accommodate bicycling in our state's cities. Accommodating bicycles in our cities presents the greatest opportunities for alleviating traffic congestion, reducing obesity and generally improving the quality of life as well as improving the character of our cities. We are aware that approximately half of all trips are within 3-5 miles: a distance that most people could easily travel by bicycle if encouraged and enabled by our transportation system. Many of our cities' key routes are controlled by the WVDOH. If the WVDOH developed the bicycle plan in collaboration with knowledgeable representatives from each of our cities, our plan could capture these opportunities as well as make WV a bicycle friendly state. Frank Gmeindl LCI #1703 /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ *§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. *(as contained in draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)* * (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. _except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. _ (b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. _Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. _ (c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided _paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles _adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway. _(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway._ On 11/4/2009 8:47 AM, Robinson, Bill C wrote:*Kim – * * * *Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I’ve told you that it is: simply a draft “starting point”. We’ve already done one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously without management “buy-in” we can’t promise anything. To release this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the interest of fairness to the citizens, we don’t want to “piecemeal” drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to view it at the same time.* * * *As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle community and all the interested citizens, but we’re not at that point right now and receiving comments on a “rough” draft document that may change significantly won’t be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I’ll contact you when we are ready for public comment.* * * *Bill* *William C. Robinson*** *State Trail Coordinator* *Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program * *WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator* *Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board* * * *West Virginia Department of Transportation* *Division of Highways* *Program Planning and Administration Division* *1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East* *Building 5, Room 863* *Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430* *(304)558-9615 Fax – (304)558-3783* *bill.c.robinson@wv.gov <mailto:bill.c.robinson@wv.gov>* *_"_**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard,* *often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in* *order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is* *marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962 * * * * * * * * * *From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM *To:* Robinson, Bill C *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list. Thanks! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Stanevich, Ron L* <Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov <mailto:Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov>> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>> Cc: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>> Frank / Kim Thanks for your responses last week. I’ve attached a draft copy of the WVDOH’s Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don’t think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing). In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I’m told that has been the direction given from our management. Nevertheless I’ve been “befriended” some of the employees in Planning and they’ve given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that’s what I’m doing. If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it’s not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals. Frank… concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway/. Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles. Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I’ll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel. /Ron Stanevich, PE/ /Specifications Engineer/ /West Virginia Division Of Highways/ /Contract Administration/ /1900 Kanawha Blvd East/ /Bldg 5, RM 722/ /304.558.9556/ *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM *To:* Stanevich, Ron L *Cc:* Kimberly Jo *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Ron, Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:) The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway. WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway. Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application." I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed." Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail. The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out. Frank Gmeindl League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote: Mr. Gmeindle I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue. I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders. I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you. Thanks Ron Stanevich WVDOH Message sent from my Blackberry! -- Kimberly Broughton Creative Crosswalks, LLC kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com> 304.483.1685_______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
All:
There needs to be room for all types of bikers and all types of places to ride, including "outs" such as shoulders , so cyclists themselves can choose (not be designated) where to ride. We need a network, including the road system. I understand the problems with intersections and agree. Safety is a huge issue. Education too.
This process seems too top down where a blanket decision is made about a best route. If conditions change, or the weather is foggy or icy, all vehicles make different route decisions. If an geographic area in the state wants a set of bike trails this should not preclude "through-riders" from using the roads.
We need lots of possibilities, not fewer or "only" routes. Recreational riders may make different choices than those training to race or those who commute. As vehicles, we should not be limited by interests who do not use bicycles.
Jenny
Jenny Selin 1224 Fairlawns Morgantown, WV 26505 USA
Phone:(304-598-9650) jselin@hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:02:04 -0500 From: fgmeindl@verizon.net To: gshogren@gmail.com CC: bikeboard@cheat.org Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] [Fwd: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders]
gunnar,
I owe you a coffee! Yes, I see the confusion.
Would it be better to simply state that making it unlawful for cyclists to ride on the road when bike lanes and bike paths are present is the same as making it unlawful for cyclists to choose a safe route when the bike lane or bike path is unsafe?
First, please understand that if implemented, the WVDOH plan would make it unlawful to ride on the road if a bike lane or side path were present. I am trying to make the point that if cycling on bike lanes and on side paths were really better than cycling on the roadway, cyclists wouldn't need to be forced by law to ride on them. But, after reading your message and thinking about it more, my point may not be valid. After all, using a helmet has been proven to reduce head damage when a cyclist crashes but many cyclists don't wear helmets; talking on a cell phone while driving has been shown to increase the chance of a crash by a factor of 4 but people talk on the cell phone while driving, etc., etc. The difference between these examples and riding on shoulders and bike lanes is that there is substantive empirical evidence that bikes lanes and bike paths significantly increase crashes at traffic crossings. And, anyone, such as you that has completed the LAB Road I or Traffic Skills 101 or Morgantown's Confident City Cycling class also understands why cycling on bike lanes and bike paths increases the frequency of crashes with motor vehicles at crossings, e.g. right hooks, left crosses and drive out due to cyclists being where motorists aren't looking and/or where cyclists can't be seen.
Would it be better to simply state that forcing cyclists to ride on shoulders, bike lanes and bike paths is forcing them to crash more with motor vehicles at crossings?
Thank you so much for the feedback! You name the time and place for the coffee. I think I need some too!
Frank
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
On 11/20/2009 5:55 PM, Gunnar Shogren wrote: Nice lettter Frank,
You're doing the 99 44/100% of the work, and I thank you.
The part after this is confusing to me-
If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced
Not sure what you're trying to say exactly and why.
Have you chatted w/ others regarding this section?
Perhaps I just need some coffee...
I have replied to you and the bikeboard, took off the others.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net wrote:
Bicycle Board Members,
Thanks to Derek, gunnar, Greg Good, Chip Wamsley, Bill Reger-Nash and Don Spencer for helping me improve the draft message that I wrote on the preliminary WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan. Thanks also to Gary Rodosta for discussing graphics with me.
Below is the message that I sent to Kim Broughton, BikeWV today.
Her response:
thanks Frank. I'm buried right now. Feel free to lead this effort. Hope all is well.
Kim
Frank
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:44 -0500
From: Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net
To: Kimberly Jo kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com
References:
9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov 4AE740C8.8050400@verizon.net 9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE@WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b@mail.gmail.com 4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5@WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov
Kim,
What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll be ready when the plan is released. Even better if we could provide our input before it's released and when it may be more flexible. Following are some of my thoughts.
The plan that we saw is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they do not recognize bicyclists' equal right to the roads.
In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. WE SHOULD VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE PROHIBITING BICYCLES FROM USING THE ROADWAY WHEN A BIKE LANE OR SIDE PATH IS PRESENT.
The legislation change proposals contained in the plan's Appendix A, particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway. We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-5 with the changes proposed in the plan.)
Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea. Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway.
PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA
Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the roadway is unsafe.
EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA
Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway. Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea:
1. Debris - Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass, dead animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean.
2. Dangerous descents - The cross grade of shoulders is usually designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills.
3. Crashes at crossings - Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"?
"Right hooks" - When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic, not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicyclists.
"Left hooks" - When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles.
"Drive out" collisions - The most common cause of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection or drive way: failure to yield to the cyclist. One reason these occur is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on the phone. The sight line from the motorist to the bicyclist when the bicyclist is far to the right or on the shoulder is often shorter or obscured by vegetation, parked cars, etc. The plan does not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings.
4. Dangerous merges - Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe merging from the shoulder.
STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA
Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons:
1. Discourages cyclists from taking safest path - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked.
2. Confuses motorists - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify: " Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading “BICYCLE LANE ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC”, the plan does not recognize the turn movements that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane.
3. Increases hostility towards road cyclists - Striping shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training will cover cyclists' right to the road.
FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD
The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states: "Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway".
If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced - Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway reveals that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than cyclist safety.
My understanding is that all states put language such as that in 17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.)
This is probably enough for now. We should also prepare responses to other aspects of the plan. For example, the plan needs to accommodate bicycling in our state's cities. Accommodating bicycles in our cities presents the greatest opportunities for alleviating traffic congestion, reducing obesity and generally improving the quality of life as well as improving the character of our cities. We are aware that approximately half of all trips are within 3-5 miles: a distance that most people could easily travel by bicycle if encouraged and enabled by our transportation system. Many of our cities' key routes are controlled by the WVDOH. If the WVDOH developed the bicycle plan in collaboration with knowledgeable representatives from each of our cities, our plan could capture these opportunities as well as make WV a bicycle friendly state.
Frank Gmeindl
LCI #1703
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (as contained in draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane.
(c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway.
On 11/4/2009 8:47 AM, Robinson, Bill C wrote:
Kim –
Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I’ve told you that it is: simply a draft “starting point”. We’ve already done one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously without management “buy-in” we can’t promise anything. To release this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the interest of fairness to the citizens, we don’t want to “piecemeal” drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to view it at the same time.
As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle community and all the interested citizens, but we’re not at that point right now and receiving comments on a “rough” draft document that may change significantly won’t be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I’ll contact you when we are ready for public comment.
Bill William C. Robinson State Trail Coordinator Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board
West Virginia Department of Transportation Division of Highways Program Planning and Administration Division 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East Building 5, Room 863 Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430 (304)558-9615 Fax – (304)558-3783 bill.c.robinson@wv.gov
"The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard, often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962
From: Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM
To: Robinson, Bill C
Subject: Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list.
Thanks!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stanevich, Ron L Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov
Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
To: Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@verizon.net
Cc: Kim Broughton kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com
Frank / Kim
Thanks for your responses last week.
I’ve attached a draft copy of the WVDOH’s Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don’t think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing).
In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I’m told that has been the direction given from our management.
Nevertheless I’ve been “befriended” some of the employees in Planning and they’ve given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that’s what I’m doing.
If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it’s not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals.
Frank… concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway.
Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles.
Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I’ll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel.
Ron Stanevich, PE Specifications Engineer West Virginia Division Of Highways Contract Administration 1900 Kanawha Blvd East Bldg 5, RM 722
304.558.9556
From: Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM
To: Stanevich, Ron L
Cc: Kimberly Jo
Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
Ron,
Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:)
The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway.
WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway.
Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application."
I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed." Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail.
The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response.
I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out.
Frank Gmeindl
League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703
Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board
On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote: Mr. Gmeindle
I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue.
I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders.
I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you.
Thanks
Ron Stanevich
WVDOH
Message sent from my Blackberry!
-
Frank Gmeindl -
Gunnar Shogren -
Jennifer Selin