Who owns the road?
Apr. 18th, 2007 02:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dwivianI've been meaning to write this for a while, and I'm about six strong posts behind, so I figured I'd better get started....
Quite a while back I was in a discussion about various kinds of vehicles, and what were legal on which road types (learned far too much about what a rural road is compared to an urban collector). We got into a discussion of what made it right to select or restrict vehicles from certain roads, and I came to a point that got lost, I think. So, I'm bringing it here for further interest and so people can expand or refute it to mutual benefit.
I, strangely enough, am fond of rules. If I know the rules, I know what is acceptable, what is reasonable, what is right. My father often told me I'd be "dead right" one day, because of it. Thing is, rules are my guidelines so I don't screw up too badly, and without them I'm entirely lost (and prone to be a recluse/hermit), so I don't see me changing any. What I *AM* changing is my attempts to make sure everyone else follows those rules, as if I were the enforcement authority. I'm bad about pushing others out of convenient violations into compliance, making them mad at me (and not so much with the rules, for some reason).
Why do I say this? Because I made the comment (paraphrased) "after a fashion, car drivers, as taxpayers, DO own the road." And, well, this is true, because they pay the fuel surcharges, taxes, and licensing fees. These are the rules, and following them SHOULD, in my mind, convey rights and responsibilities.
Here is where the debate can begin.
My position is that the government has the obligation to determine access rights to common resources. One such resource is "the road", and thus the state makes rules on who can use it, and under what circumstances. Low speed vehicles (like golf carts) can be reasonably restricted from some roads because driving them on these conduits makes the roadway unsafe for other drivers. It may not seem fair to the guy with the $50k golfcart that can get up to 50mph, but where the general safety is concerned, the rules make sense.
Restricting two wheeled vehicles is likewise reasonable, if circumstances warrant. The <50cc scooters are restricted from the Interstate Highway System because they have a maximum safe speed, for instance. But, these scooters don't require plates or permits, and that bothers me. Seem odd to you? Let me explain....
My preference is that any user of the road should be licensed and should pay some general recurring access fee to cover maintainence. For kids riding bikes in neighborhoods, I'd grant a light restriction exemption since they're really not users, but once they leave their neighborhoods and get on the feeder and collector roads they should have proven that they have the necessary training (even if they refuse to use it) to be there. I'd want this to be a license that costs, which will annoy people that claim the poor will be discriminated against by my policy, and that's true. If they don't want this license, they can ride down the sidewalks (if they do so safely), and walk through intersections in the crosswalks. But, if they want to be treated like a vehicle-in-traffic, there should be a user license fee. And, if they go against the law, they should pay fines and lose their rights, just as car drivers do.
I have been passed by people on bikes and light scooters as they weave through heavy traffic in violation of safety and traffic law. I've had to swerve to get around two bikes next to each other blocking a single lane in violation of safety and traffic law. I've read about (but not experienced) the mass violations of the rules that happen on certain Fridays where hoardes of bikes clog up the roads, and it irritates me a lot. I want people to prove they are going to follow the guidelines and laws for our roads before getting out there, and when I watch a cyclist flout the fact that they don't care.... ::grump::
This, in no way, excuses me from sharing the road. But I've paid my fees so that I do own the road, and should be able to expect it to be available and maintained. I shouldn't have to worry that someone is going to slam into me from the side when they lose their balance (it's happened), nor should I get stuck behind someone that won't yield as the law requires (yeah, that too).
Now, likewise, if the two-wheel driver is being safe, and following the rules, I don't get annoyed or frustrated with them. Any driver that swerves over to run a bike off the road should get six points on their license (3 for reckless driving, 3 for road rage/failure to pass/whatever) and a hefty fine, on the FIRST offense. Do it again, and you should go without a license for six months. I've been on two wheels before, and I want to be just as safe there as I am in my car, and jerks should be off the road no matter how many wheels they like to push around.
So, yes, I'm a fan of bike lanes, for safety. I am also a fan of rebates to bikes for being fuel efficient (though two-stroke <50cc engines are never going to pass EPA guidelines for the Clean Air Act, inherent in their design, so they're out of luck). I want equal access for all people that pay for the road, and I want SAFE access.
I also want the rules followed.
Quite a while back I was in a discussion about various kinds of vehicles, and what were legal on which road types (learned far too much about what a rural road is compared to an urban collector). We got into a discussion of what made it right to select or restrict vehicles from certain roads, and I came to a point that got lost, I think. So, I'm bringing it here for further interest and so people can expand or refute it to mutual benefit.
I, strangely enough, am fond of rules. If I know the rules, I know what is acceptable, what is reasonable, what is right. My father often told me I'd be "dead right" one day, because of it. Thing is, rules are my guidelines so I don't screw up too badly, and without them I'm entirely lost (and prone to be a recluse/hermit), so I don't see me changing any. What I *AM* changing is my attempts to make sure everyone else follows those rules, as if I were the enforcement authority. I'm bad about pushing others out of convenient violations into compliance, making them mad at me (and not so much with the rules, for some reason).
Why do I say this? Because I made the comment (paraphrased) "after a fashion, car drivers, as taxpayers, DO own the road." And, well, this is true, because they pay the fuel surcharges, taxes, and licensing fees. These are the rules, and following them SHOULD, in my mind, convey rights and responsibilities.
Here is where the debate can begin.
My position is that the government has the obligation to determine access rights to common resources. One such resource is "the road", and thus the state makes rules on who can use it, and under what circumstances. Low speed vehicles (like golf carts) can be reasonably restricted from some roads because driving them on these conduits makes the roadway unsafe for other drivers. It may not seem fair to the guy with the $50k golfcart that can get up to 50mph, but where the general safety is concerned, the rules make sense.
Restricting two wheeled vehicles is likewise reasonable, if circumstances warrant. The <50cc scooters are restricted from the Interstate Highway System because they have a maximum safe speed, for instance. But, these scooters don't require plates or permits, and that bothers me. Seem odd to you? Let me explain....
My preference is that any user of the road should be licensed and should pay some general recurring access fee to cover maintainence. For kids riding bikes in neighborhoods, I'd grant a light restriction exemption since they're really not users, but once they leave their neighborhoods and get on the feeder and collector roads they should have proven that they have the necessary training (even if they refuse to use it) to be there. I'd want this to be a license that costs, which will annoy people that claim the poor will be discriminated against by my policy, and that's true. If they don't want this license, they can ride down the sidewalks (if they do so safely), and walk through intersections in the crosswalks. But, if they want to be treated like a vehicle-in-traffic, there should be a user license fee. And, if they go against the law, they should pay fines and lose their rights, just as car drivers do.
I have been passed by people on bikes and light scooters as they weave through heavy traffic in violation of safety and traffic law. I've had to swerve to get around two bikes next to each other blocking a single lane in violation of safety and traffic law. I've read about (but not experienced) the mass violations of the rules that happen on certain Fridays where hoardes of bikes clog up the roads, and it irritates me a lot. I want people to prove they are going to follow the guidelines and laws for our roads before getting out there, and when I watch a cyclist flout the fact that they don't care.... ::grump::
This, in no way, excuses me from sharing the road. But I've paid my fees so that I do own the road, and should be able to expect it to be available and maintained. I shouldn't have to worry that someone is going to slam into me from the side when they lose their balance (it's happened), nor should I get stuck behind someone that won't yield as the law requires (yeah, that too).
Now, likewise, if the two-wheel driver is being safe, and following the rules, I don't get annoyed or frustrated with them. Any driver that swerves over to run a bike off the road should get six points on their license (3 for reckless driving, 3 for road rage/failure to pass/whatever) and a hefty fine, on the FIRST offense. Do it again, and you should go without a license for six months. I've been on two wheels before, and I want to be just as safe there as I am in my car, and jerks should be off the road no matter how many wheels they like to push around.
So, yes, I'm a fan of bike lanes, for safety. I am also a fan of rebates to bikes for being fuel efficient (though two-stroke <50cc engines are never going to pass EPA guidelines for the Clean Air Act, inherent in their design, so they're out of luck). I want equal access for all people that pay for the road, and I want SAFE access.
I also want the rules followed.
