|
Steven G. Goodridge
 Cyclists and pedestrians have a legal right to access every
destination reachable by public roads. This means that they deserve
safe accommodation on every road and across every intersection.
Non-motorized travel must not be prohibited except where
controlled-access expressways provide service that is completely
redundant to safe and efficient routes for non-motorized users.
Accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians must be provided via safe,
lawful and courteous behavior by other road users and by appropriate
engineering of roadways.
Anyone who has spent much time bicycling or walking in America
knows how it feels to be treated as a trespasser on our streets. As
the popularity of motoring has grown, so has the belief among some
Citizens that there is no room to safely or affordably accommodate
non-motorized travel on public roads - at least, not on the important
roads. Motorists give us helpful advice: "Roads are meant for
cars, not bicycles." During road widening projects, we sometimes
hear that "there aren't enough pedestrians here to warrant
sidewalks or pedestrian signals" or that "we don't want to
encourage pedestrians to walk here - it's too dangerous." As
traffic congestion worsens, competition over road space grows bitter.
"Go join a gym!" the commuting cyclist may hear from a
passing car. "Get off the road!" is the standard line from
pickup drivers. Even town planners, roadway engineers, and elected
officials have sometimes sought to encourage "people getting
exercise" (as if that were the only reason people might not
drive) to stick to residential areas and stay away from those roads
that actually go anywhere.
One of the things that walking or cycling affords us is the time to
question ourselves. If a vocal segment of the population believes that
non-motorized travel on important roadways is obsolete, hazardous, and
rude, does that make cycling and walking irresponsible? When city
planners build "multi-use paths" and sidewalks in some
places, does that make it a crime to bike or walk in other places? If
one cannot drive a car, or cannot afford a car, does this make one
less of a human being? If one owns a car but chooses to travel without
it, is doing so a sin, or simply crazy? Just what are the rights of
those who travel under their own power?
To answer these questions, we might start with the first official
document of the United States, drafted over one hundred years before
the development of the automobile. In the Declaration of Independence,
Thomas Jefferson expressed the ideals of liberty and equality that
would shape our government and public policy:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed."
Jefferson did not imply that all men are physically equal.
Certainly some are stronger or richer than others. What we believe he
meant is that government should treat all persons as equals without
bias or discrimination. This has interesting implications for
differences in travel mode. Furthermore, "liberty and the pursuit
of happiness" are established not just as legal rights, but as
"unalienable Rights" to be given special respect when
shaping our laws. Lastly, Jefferson clearly states that government's
primary charge is to preserve these rights, and that when acting to do
so must have the consent of those it affects.
 Constitutional law, which encompasses legal opinions that derive
from principles defined in the US Constitution, allows us to relate
the concept of liberty to transportation policy. In American
Jurisprudence we read: "Personal liberty largely consists of the
Right to locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so
far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the
welfare of all other Citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon
the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by
horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege
which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right
which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore,
under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public
highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an
orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing
another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in
his safe conduct." - American Jurisprudence 1st, Constitutional
Law, Section 329, p. 1135.
Courts have found that the "The right of the Citizen to travel
upon the public highways …. includes the right, in so doing, to use
the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing
modes of travel…." (Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs.
Danforth, Mississippi.) "Ordinary and usual conveyances of the
day" is subject to interpretation, but given that walking and
cycling are existing modes of travel used for about ten percent of
trips in the United States (and outnumber motor vehicle trips
world-wide) and Americans purchase about fifteen million bicycles each
year, we can only assume that human-powered travel is included.
The Right to locomotion has sometimes been used, unsuccessfully, as
a defense in cases where motorists have been charged with driving a
motor vehicle without a license. The argument that "travel equals
driving" sounds compelling, but because incompetent or reckless
operation of a motor vehicle is dangerous to others, states can
regulate motor vehicle operation as a privilege. The courts strongly
support this:
In City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987): "Mr. Wisden's
assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use
of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and
federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws
governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was
promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads.
It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability
to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental
right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the
statutory licensing procedures."
In City of Bismarck v. Stuart (North Dakota 1996): "No court
has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a
citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree
that ... every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads
must have a valid operator's license.... The legislature has the
constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe
roads."
In State v. Davis (Missouri 1988): "The state of Missouri, by
making the licensing requirements in question, is not prohibiting
Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs or from
traveling throughout this land. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a
bicycle or horse…. He cannot, however, operate a motor vehicle on
the public highways without … a valid operator's license."
The courts make it clear that not only is the purpose of traffic
law and operator licensing to "increase the safety and efficiency
of our public roads" and "ensure safe drivers and safe
roads" but that walking and cycling are lawful activities
protected by and fulfilling the Right to locomotion.
In fact, one
might observe that the preservation of walking and cycling as safe and
viable alternative travel modes is essential if the states are to
maintain the ability to lawfully and effectively issue and revoke
driving privileges for the purpose of public safety.
Traffic law in every US state allows pedestrians to walk along and
across roadways, and allows cyclists to travel on roadways in travel
lanes as vehicle operators, with the exception of some
controlled-access freeways that are redundant to the local road
network. But traffic laws are needed to regulate how cyclists and
pedestrians should behave in order to maximize safety. Pedestrians and
cyclists pose little threat to motorists; most of the benefit goes to
the pedestrians and cyclists themselves. Cyclists who ride with
traffic and obey traffic signals fare better than those who do not.
Cyclists must be discouraged from operating on sidewalks, and must
yield at crosswalks, in order to protect both themselves and
pedestrians. Pedestrians are required to use sidewalks or walk facing
traffic in order to help protect themselves from vehicle traffic.
Efficiency is the other major benefit of traffic laws for
pedestrians and cyclists. Intersection controls and right-of-way laws
improve the ability of all users to share roadways effectively and
keep traffic moving smoothly. Some motorists have argued that
pedestrians and cyclists impede the efficient movement of traffic. But
pedestrians and cyclists are traffic. Any mode of traffic has some
effect on the movement of other traffic. (Whenever traffic conflicts
create unacceptably poor levels of service for a given roadway design,
the prudent course of action is to improve the roadway - not ban the
public from using the road. Adding roadway width or sidewalks is the
most common way to mitigate these conflicts to acceptable levels.) The
intent of traffic laws for pedestrians and cyclists is to limit their
impact to the level that is necessary for their own safe and efficient
movement as equal users in the eyes of the law.
Some motorists have argued that walking and cycling are inefficient
or obsolete modes, and should therefore not be accommodated on modern
roadways in the interest of increasing the efficiency of travel. There
are two major problems with this argument. First, what is efficiency?
Walking and cycling require less energy than motoring, create
insignificant levels of pollution, and are much less expensive and
time consuming than owning, maintaining, and operating a motor vehicle
for the purpose of making short trips. They also require less
expensive transportation facilities - per mile and per hour of travel
- than do automobiles, and do not require large areas of land set
aside for parking.
Second, walking and cycling are still practiced for
transportation in the United States, so they are not obsolete. The
percentage of the US population able and willing to afford and operate
motor vehicles is near its practical limit, which leaves millions of
Americans using other modes for transportation now and in the
foreseeable future. Cycling and walking serve a permanent niche of
road users who wish to travel independently anywhere they want to go.
Walking is often an unavoidable part of trips taken by motor vehicle,
especially in urban areas and activity centers. Furthermore, many
people simply prefer to cycle or walk, and having this choice is
important to their pursuit of happiness.
There are some roads, such as controlled-access freeways, where all
traffic that cannot attain fast motor vehicle speeds (bicycles,
mopeds, pedestrians, horses) is prohibited. This allows these roads to
be designed with features that are beneficial to high speed traffic
(such as high speed multi-lane on and off ramps) without having to
provide consideration for non-motorist travel. High speed freeways
improve convenience for motorists, but do they deny travel rights to
non-motorists? Not if alternative, safer, reasonably efficient routes
exist. Since controlled-access freeways do not provide local access to
homes, businesses, and other destinations, pedestrians and cyclists do
not need to use them in order to reach their destination of choice.
But in some areas, interstates are the only way to get from point A to
point B. In these places, bicycle traffic is often allowed even on
interstates in order to preserve the right to travel. These are
typically rural interstates with low traffic volumes, in which the
operation of a bicycle across on and off ramps can be done safely
without inconvenience to high speed traffic.
In practice, the Right to locomotion means that persons traveling
by non-motorized modes have a right to access every destination in
safety and with reasonable efficiency. This means that pedestrians and
cyclists must be accommodated on every road, at every intersection,
with only rare exceptions. Those exceptions must accompanied by
alternative access that is both safe and efficient. For instance, an
underpass might be provided for pedestrians and cyclists at a major
interchange. But in the vast majority of cases, the simplest and most
cost efficient approach is to enforce traffic laws while accommodating
cyclists in travel lanes and pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks.
To preserve their constitutional rights, pedestrian and cyclist
traffic must be accommodated by default when designing roadways, not
considered as an afterthought. Rather than having one network of
travel facilities for automobiles, another for human-powered vehicles,
and a third for pedestrians, the most practical approach is to have
one network - public roads - and accommodate all legal forms of travel
as safely and efficiently as possible on or along each link and across
each node. Expressways designed exclusively for motor travel are
useful for transportation efficiency, but are acceptable only if they
are completely redundant to the network of roads accessible by all.
Likewise, off-street greenways for non-motorized travel can be quite
pleasant, and sometimes provide useful shortcuts, but they have their
own significant disadvantages and must not be used as a substitute for
the right to travel on roadways. Roadways are the only facilities that
go everywhere, allow safe and efficient movement, and are open around
the clock.
Some have argued that the low number of cyclists and pedestrians
found on many roadways makes it unnecessary to design those roadways
with human-powered travel in mind. But it is primarily the number of
motor vehicles on a roadway, not the number of cyclists or
pedestrians, that determines the importance of designing the road to
minimize conflicts.
On streets with low volumes of traffic moving at
relatively low speeds, a motorist can share a narrow right-of-way with
a cyclist or pedestrian with minimal inconvenience or danger to either
party. Lateral movements can easily be made by the motorist, or
occasionally, the pedestrian. But as motor traffic volumes and speeds
increase, the presence of other vehicles makes it more difficult for
motorists to move laterally to pass cyclists and pedestrians within a
narrow right-of-way or between narrow lanes. Without room to pass, the
motorist must follow the cyclist at reduced speed waiting for a safe
opportunity to pass. Another all-too-common result is that the
overtaking vehicle operator violates the right-of-way of the overtaken
traffic or forces pedestrians to abandon the roadway. This is
inconvenient, unsafe, and unacceptable.
Since walking and cycling are
both legal and inevitable on virtually every roadway, it is essential
to design roadways with careful consideration given to how
non-motorized users affect other traffic and how other traffic will
affect them. Better facilities such as wide outside lanes and
sidewalks minimize these conflicts. The cost of better facilities
should be paid with funds raised from all Citizens, but a fair share
must be paid by motorists because it is the volume of motor vehicles,
and the preference of motorists to travel at high speed, that makes
the improvements necessary. When motor traffic volumes are high enough
to require facility improvements, the per-motorist cost of such
improvements is not unreasonable.
Another common argument for limiting human-powered mobility is that
many or most pedestrians and cyclists are walking for recreation -
they don't need to be using roadways important to motorists. There are
two problems with this argument. First, there is no hierarchy of trip
importance in government transportation policy or the Right to
locomotion. Many motoring trips on important roads are for
recreational purposes; for example, automobile traffic jams frequently
occur on holidays, long weekends, sunny days at the beach, and at
sporting events. "Sports cars" and "recreational
vehicles" consume considerable highway resources but are
completely legal. Discrimination against non-utilitarian pleasure
travel is not tolerated in a free country. Second, it would be
impossible to reliably determine which road users "need" or
"ought" to be using the roadway for "worthy"
purposes without stopping to interrogate each and every one. This
would constitute unreasonable search. We must conclude that
surrendering our freedom would be much more costly than safely
accommodating recreational human-powered travel on roadways.
Some motorists insist that they have a greater right to use roads
because they pay fuel taxes and registration fees. But travel on
public roads is free (with the exception of a few special-purpose toll
facilities). A variety of funding sources - including property taxes,
sales taxes, income taxes, and fuel taxes - are used to pay for road
construction, maintenance, traffic law enforcement and emergency
services. Government may distribute roadway costs among Citizens in
whatever way the electorate deems fair, for example placing the
greatest burden on those Citizens who travel the most, pollute the
most, require the most expensive facilities, create the greatest
danger to others, or do the most damage to roadways. But under no
circumstances does this cost distribution or the fuel efficiency of
one’s travel mode affect one’s legal right of way.
The most emotionally compelling argument for the prohibition of
human-powered traffic on roadways, one that leverages the fears of
many compassionate Citizens and policy makers, is the premise that
walking and cycling in the presence of automobile traffic is unsafe.
But this activity is quite safe with responsible, competent users on
properly designed facilities. The vast majority of collisions between
motor traffic and pedestrians and cyclists can be attributed to (a)
illegal or incompetent behavior by the motorist, and/or (b) illegal or
incompetent behavior by the cyclist or pedestrian, and/or (c)
inadequate facilities. Statistically, cycling on US roadways produces
fewer deaths per hour of exposure than travel in a personal motor
vehicle. Children living in downtown neighborhoods, where walking
makes up a greater percentage of trips, are usually less likely to
suffer automobile-related deaths than children living in suburbs.
Vulnerability does not necessarily result in fatalities because
competent roadway users compensate by using caution. The most
appropriate response to unacceptable levels of pedestrian and cyclist
crashes is to improve the competence of all road users and improve the
roadways to better facilitate safe sharing. After these efforts have
been exhausted, if human-powered access to some destinations is still
not acceptably safe then it is motoring that should be discouraged in
those places, not walking or cycling.
The safest facility improvements for pedestrians on high-volume
roadways tend to be segregated facilities such as sidewalks and
crosswalks. However, the same is usually not true for cyclists. The
operational characteristics of human-powered vehicles traveling at
typical cycling speeds are much more similar to motor vehicles than to
pedestrians. Attempts at encouraging cyclists to use sidewalks and
multi-use paths instead of vehicular travel lanes have typically
resulted in an increase in cyclist crashes while simultaneously
decreasing the convenience of cycling for transportation. Despite the
vulnerability of cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles,
strategies that increase the visibility and predictability of cyclists
operating on streets as vehicle operators have been shown to improve
both the safety and efficiency of cycling transportation in the US
better than segregation. And while off-street greenway paths can offer
useful short-cuts and pleasant recreational opportunities for
pedestrians and cyclists, they are not an adequate substitute for safe
accommodation on every roadway and every intersection for access to
every destination.
State, federal, and local government transportation policy affects
the safety and convenience of human-powered travel. These policies and
their execution are largely shaped by the often misinformed opinions
of the motoring majority and the interests of the transportation
industry. In recent years, the opinions of environmentalists on how
people ought to travel have been given increased weight. Government
programs and bureaucracies have formed to determine how to spend an
increasing amount of funding available for non-motorized modes. But
conspicuously absent are the voices of those who actually use
human-powered methods to travel - especially those who rely on them.
It is a mistake to assume that those responsible for building
and regulating our transportation infrastructure can or will best
serve the needs and desires of pedestrians and cyclists without the
direct involvement of such users. By default, government is more
likely to serve the interests of the motoring majority, and provide
for cyclists and pedestrians only what is easy to provide. For this
reason, those of us who travel by human power must do
our part to get what we want. We must do what we can to educate
ourselves in the principles of traffic science and the politics of
transportation policy. Many of us also drive cars, and appreciate the
importance of accommodating efficient motor travel. To defend our
rights to travel as we wish, we must draw upon all of our experiences
as motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians and actively speak out to our
elected officials, public servants, and society in general. Only then
will government policies affecting the Right to travel by human power
be applied with the consent of the governed.
Copyright 2001 by Steven Goodridge
This document may be freely copied and distributed
in whole or in part for any purpose.
|
The
Right to Travel by Human Power
