Bikes are not cars, so we need to separate them

It should go without saying, but bikes are not cars. Though they’re often used for a similar purpose, it’s clear that they are not the same type of vehicle. Yet in the eyes of the law, they are indeed considered the same.

According to the state law of Massachusetts, people riding on bikes “shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth.” So, according to the law of the land, bikes are entitled to the same privileges and penalties as motorists, and can travel (generally) where cars do.

For years, the prevailing line of thought is that bikes should be treated as cars. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) historically “endorsed vehicular cycling—the idea that people biking are safest when they behave like motor vehicles and share infrastructure designed for cars and trucks.”

But cyclists constantly face hypocritical legal and political challenges that seek to strip them of their ability to travel safely and efficiently like any other. And, of course, the main danger to cyclists is cars.

The duality of treatment

In 2023, Massachusetts passed a new law that required drivers to leave at least four feet of space when passing cyclists and other “vulnerable groups.” Massachusetts is one of numerous states that now mandate drivers leave some distance when passing cyclists. 

The problem with this law is that it contradicts the aforementioned state law that affords cyclists the same rights to the road as any other driver. According to NBC Boston, the law “will also allow drivers to cross double yellow lines if needed” to get around cyclists. 

This counteracts the very purpose of solid yellow lines, which any driver should know explicitly means no passing. Passing a car over solid yellow lines simply because they’re going a bit too slow for your liking is illegal – but it’s apparently fine to do so if it’s a cyclist in your way. 

So, under Massachusetts law, which is it? Are cyclists considered vehicles, given the same rights as any other driver, which would make the new four-foot law illegal? Or are they not considered vehicles, meaning the new four-foot law is fine, but cyclists now do not need to follow the rules of the road?

Resident Mike Woods claimed that “we can’t make everyone follow the rules, so we have to have self responsibility.” This defeatist line of thinking is what puts these nonsensical laws in place instead of any infrastructure changes and prohibits actual effective policy.

Another disparity in treatment is with parking. According to Massachusetts law, a bike cannot be parked on a street or road where it will inhibit traffic. Besides the problem of theft, people are seemingly prohibited from parking a bicycle due to the numerous laws and regulations around bike racks, locks, clearances, etc. – it never seems possible to simply stick your bike in an on-street parking spot like a car. The US should move away from on-street parking, but if it is going to stay, bicycles should be allowed to park in the same spots as cars, given that the law proclaims they are equal.

The importance of bike lanes

These laws are not effective in protecting cyclists in any real capacity. A 2012 study from Accident Analysis & Prevention analyzed if drivers were following Maryland’s three-foot passing law – it’s no surprise to find out that oftentimes, they weren’t.

The researchers found that 17% of passes in standard lanes were three feet or less, and this number rose to 23% in lanes with sharrows. This further reinforces the fact that sharrows are dangerous and not a substitute for real infrastructure. 

In their study, the researchers also found that on streets with bike lanes, a total of zero passes were made that were three feet or less. Close passes obviously increase the chance of an accident, but simply being too close to a cyclist can also cause adverse effects. For a car passing by at 40 mph three feet from a cyclist, about three pounds of lateral force is exerted, “which may divert that cyclist from his or her course, increasing risk for a collision with traffic or parked vehicles.”

Real infrastructure can prevent many of the risks associated with riding along with traffic. Research has proven what has seemed clear from the start – that separated infrastructure, such as bike lanes and cycle tracks, are safer than riding next to traffic and encourages more people to bike.

As we’ve stated before, it makes no sense for cars and bikes to travel together. That’s why we have sidewalks, because it would be unbelievably dangerous to walk in the middle of a stroad. Why are bicycles considered any different? As a different form of transportation, they should be separate.

Consider if trains didn’t have dedicated railroads and instead rode right alongside cars in the middle of the road. Would you feel safe driving a car next to a machine weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds and whizzing past you at a greater speed? It’s asinine to consider this as an option, so trains and cars are separated – but scale this down to a car and a bike, and suddenly people need to be convinced they can’t travel together.

Bike lanes are beneficial for businesses, as studies around the world have shown. After a bike lane was added along a road in Salt Lake City, sales increased by 8.79%, bike use increased by 30%, and nearly ⅔ of businesses were supportive of the changes, anecdotally citing more sales.

And the common sentiment that shrinking the road to add bike lanes will slow down emergency vehicles holds no merit. A 2024 study of Cedar Rapids, Iowa identified that road diets had virtually no impact on emergency response travel time, and over half of surveyed first responders in the area noted that their response times were about the same before and after the conversion.

Cycling’s risks

In recent years, data has been showing that bicycle and pedestrian fatalities are increasing. In fact, in 2022, pedestrian deaths are the highest they’ve been in 40 years, and bicyclist fatalities are the highest they’ve been since 1975.

According to the researchers of the Maryland three-foot rule, cyclists are “12 times more likely to be killed compared to motorists per kilometer traveled in the US.”

Despite many American cities making strides in expanding bike infrastructure, on the whole it’s still too little. Car-centric infrastructure still dominates American living, and with this comes greater risks for anyone not inside of a car. 

A list of resources provided by PeopleForBikes showcases the dangers cyclists face, and conversely, the things that make them safer. For example, up to 77% of cars on American roads are found to be speeding. Further, less than a quarter of drivers in a study from Portland were found to fully stop at stop signs. 

What makes cycling safer is no surprise. Cycle tracks (completely separated bike paths) are associated with the lowest risk of cycling in Canada, and in New York City, protected bike lanes led to an average 40% decrease in injuries for all road users. This includes not only cyclists but pedestrians and, yes, drivers.

Only 0.5% of Americans regularly cycle to work, which is a pitiful amount. But this low percentage does not mean we should look at cycling in America as a lost cause because “nobody wants to do it.” Instead, we should frame it as “what’s preventing people from doing it?”

Research from NACTO has shown that “there is a clear correlation between an increase in the number of cyclists on city streets, growth in the city’s bike lane network, and an improved safety rate for riders.” According to a study they conducted of seven American cities, in every case, the risk for individual cyclists decreased as more people rode.

The need for a network

So how can we get more people to ride bikes? Safety, and especially the need for a complete bicycle network, is paramount and one of the single most important things to get people riding.

Professor Jennifer Dill from Portland State University found in her research that people “interested but concerned” in biking (about 60% of the population, according to her study) felt much more comfortable with bike lanes. While over 80% said they would feel willing to ride on a street with a bike lane, fewer than 5% said the same about a street without one.

According to NACTO, a 2015 study in Calgary found that ridership nearly doubled in just three months after the city built a bike network. The story is similar in the US – adding a protected bike lane on a street in various cities led to an increase in ridership of up to 171% on that street. 

The key here, though, is not bike lanes – it’s bike networks. And in the eyes of the League of American Bicyclists, “The United States is 40 years behind when it comes to developing bike networks.”

Even the best biking cities in the country are not complete in terms of a biking network. Think of it in terms of roads or cars – would you feel inclined to drive your car along a road if you knew that the road would suddenly end? Imagine if the roads were only a few hundred feet long and then they suddenly vanished. Of course you wouldn’t want to drive along that route, not until the road was finished.

That’s exactly what riding an incomplete bike network feels like. This type of vanishing lane is not uncommon – take, for example, a recently completed “bike lane” in Los Angeles that is only about 150 feet long and does not connect to any other bike lanes.

Not only did this so-called bike lane take a year and a half to build and nearly $2 million dollars, but the property owner of a nearby LGBT center was forced to “foot the bill” for the lane’s construction. Despite the location offering a wealth of interesting places for patrons to go to, like a nearby 7-Eleven and donut shop, there are no bicycle facilities beyond this “bike lane.”

The LAB notes that “there may be nothing more frustrating for a bike rider or bike advocate than a bike lane to nowhere—one that ends in a dangerous roadway, one that disappears at an intimidating intersection, or one that only exists for a block or two. When a bike lane does not connect to other bicycle infrastructure, or does not connect to destinations, it often fails to provide a useful place to ride.”

Planning for the future

The LAB advises that cities should plan for networks, not for single lanes, and to think in the “context of a connected future.” They suggest that networks should be defined around popular destinations like grocery stores or parks, and that these places can serve as the beginnings of a connected network.

The intersection in Los Angeles near the 7-Eleven would be a perfect place for the city to expand the network and provide an interconnected experience for riders. A single lane half the length of a football field isn’t going to encourage anyone to ride anytime soon.

Despite the LAB’s attempts to compare the bike networks of various cities, they admit that it is difficult because there is a “lack of developed norms and standards for bicycle networks. Key guidance, such as the AASHTO Bike Guide, has yet to catch up to the needs of communities, engineers, and planners.” 

The adage that “paint is not infrastructure” holds true, and it’s long past time that we change our mentality about biking. It’s not just a recreational activity or a sport but a viable method of transportation that we need to facilitate.

And bikes are certainly not cars. They need to be in their own, dedicated space, preferably cycle paths, so that conflicts between bikes and other forms of travel are minimized. We have no problem with highways or sidewalks – why are bike lanes any different?