Response to House Bill 214

While I want to see House Bill 214 as an improvement in the crusade for bicycle safety in Maryland, I’m afraid this is just a reincarnation of the problems with current laws governing bicycles on the roadways.  Ultimately, House Bill 214 perpetuates the unclear, even conflicting, provisions for motorist’s obligations when negotiating a road occupied by cyclists, and the lack of strong language describing the legal penalties for infringing on cyclists fails to discourage highway marginalization of cyclists.

The main problem is that the proposed revisions of HB 214 are still heavily qualified, and this qualification continues to tip in favor of motorists.  Section 21-1205a mostly doesn’t address what is “practicable and safe” in the absence of the special exemptions, such as obstructions like stopped vehicles or other road hazards.

For instance, cyclists  understand and appreciate the 3-foot passing standard as a minimum for safe operation of bikes and motor vehicles because of the unpredictable nature of and at times quick reactions necessitated of cyclists by road obstructions.  (For my part, I consider gravel or sandy patches of road unsafe, signal, check clearance, and move left when approaching them.) 

But a pothole or a spread of glass or other sharp debris that would require altering course and would cause cyclists to be concerned for punctures and direction control (especially at speed) often goes unseen by motorists.  I think particularly of the narrow shoulder on Dares Beach Rd (MD  402, both West- but mostly Eastbound).  On the stretch closest to Rt. 4 (from the Elk’s Lodge), the shoulder coming out the the circle is pitifully inadequate for cyclists and motorists both to exercise the 3-feet-when-passing rule as a best practice.  There is often scree or gravel from recent construction projects, weather runoff, or simply bits of junk that require evasive action.  Even without such debris, the shoulder itself comes down to roughly 1.5-2 feet in width.  For this reason, I often take the lane coming out of the circle to discourage sensible motorists from squeezing past.

As opposed to the cyclist, a motorist with little or no actual experience (apart from whatever youthful flirtation with the bicycle he or she may have had, however many years gone) often assumes the cyclist has obligations to maintain straight and consistent heading while operating the bicycle in the roadway.  In fact, the old statutes imply this and HB 214 explicitly legislates this exception to the rule:

(2)  (I)  When overtaking a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter, pass safely at a distance of not less than 3 feet, unless, at the time:
[(i)]  1.The bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider fails to operate the vehicle in conformance with § 21–1205(a) of this subtitle (“Riding to right side of roadway”) or § 21–1205.1(b) of this subtitle (“Roadway with bike lane [or shoulder]  paved to smooth surface”);OR
[(ii)]  2.  A passing clearance of less than 3 feet is caused solely by the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider failing to maintain a steady course [; or
(iii)  The highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least 3 feet]

The emphasis in the bolded and underlined sections above are my own, though the language comes directly from a PDF of the proposed Bill.  But problems persist.  First, section 2.(i) above merely re-inscribes the current ambiguity in the law.  (Read ambiguity here as legal disavowal of the public responsibility to protect ALL road users.)  Translation: Don’t pass within three feet of a cyclist!  UNLESS he or she rides further away from the edge of the road than you deem appropriate for his or her safety.  The assumption in this subsection is that the cyclist is failing in his or her responsibility to determine what is “practicable and safe.”  Essentially, this section tacitly encourages motorists to make decisions regarding cyclists’ safety.

Section 2.(ii) seems to me fairly reasonable, since it places responsibility on cyclists to exercise the same due caution for others using the roadways, who are entitled to assume other users will maintain straight and consistent direction.  There are still disparities, however, such as the reasonable ability for cyclists to determine clearance behind when other road users possess greater speed.  Take, for example, the disposition of space on Plum Point Rd. (MD 263) heading westward from Tobacco Rd: just past the bridge over the small run, the road rises and turns right before dipping down once more into a slight but blind stretch, all before the long climb towards the intersection of 261 and 263.  Moreover, the road abuts a steep wooded hill, from which sticks, blown leaves, and limbs regularly fall into the roadway.  Suppose, then, I’m cycling on this road and notice an obstruction ahead.  There’s an oncoming car, but it’s near the top of the hill, and I have ample time to come around the fallen limb and return to the safe and practicable right hand side.  I turn my head, see the only following vehicle has not yet reached Tobacco Rd, indicate movement left (which, by the way is good practice, not law, since riding on Plum Point Rd entitles cyclists use of the full lane, being a road whose speed limit is less than 50mph, per Section 21-1205.1.a.1.), and “take the lane.”  Imagine, then, the motorist hadn’t seen me, despite rearward lights and high-visibility clothing - let’s not say he was texting, but perhaps he’s just distracted.  He might be running late for an appointment or nearing his home after a long workday.  He accelerates to 50mph.  He’s close to his destination and can still salvage his afternoon with a little extra speed here.  He gains the hill and eases into the turn; he knows the road well and is confident of his ability - too late, he sees my flashing light, and the car ahead, and the nowhere to go.  He slams on his brakes, but not soon enough.  He collides with me as I’m riding center-lane.  In the fallout, if I’m lucky to be alive and articulate, the police show up in response to the motorist’s call for emergency services - he’s really quite distraught here, and not because of his car.  I’m lucky to be alive and all, but of all things, the police cite me!  Little old me, abiding by the law - even exceeding the requirements of the law.  Strange, right?  But it happens, more often than one would like to think.  The point of this extreme example is to show that “failing to maintain a steady course” can occur under the conditions of both prudence and practicability and still turn out dangerously.  Section 2.ii simply leaves the cyclist out to dry.

Finally, section iii above, perhaps the worst of all, remains horribly ambiguous in its failure to stipulate that, conditions being “not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least 3 feet” motorists are forbidden to execute the pass.  The grammar here gets tricky, but it consists in the exemption offered in the predicate of the main clause of 21-1209.2.I: “…pass safely at a distance of not less than 3 feet, unless, at the time:…The highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least 3 feet].”  Read one way, this would appear to forbid the pass when the road doesn’t allow enough room for it.  To a prudent person, it would seem this way.  But the strict proposition of these clauses logically only require that a motorist must execute a pass of no less than three feet when the road is wide enough.  Translation:  Don’t pass within three feet of a cyclist!  Unless the road isn’t wide enough for you to pass with three feet; in which case, pass with less at your discretion. 

Further subclauses exist which would appear to offer further exclusions on the motorist’s prerogative, but these, too, are illusory.  Proposed amendments 1 and 2 to the section read as follows:

1.  Shall pass at a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions; and
2. May not endanger, impede, or interfere with the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter, or any other traffic using the highway.

But what are the protections that these clauses offer?  Instead of using this as an opportunity to enact clear and objective legislation, the sponsors of this bill have - unwittingly, I’m sure - kicked the can down the road by failing to advocate for a more stringent and universal 3-foot minimum.  These addenda to section 21-1209 simply split the same hair still further: but they don’t root out the decrepit follicle:  the legalized fluidity of interpretations regarding safety, prudence, and reasonable action.

Ultimately, the standards for prudent operation of vehicles and bicycles contain exclusive clauses which are fundamentally at odds with one another.  This leads to conflicting accounts and interpretations of bike-motorist incidents, when the “as safe and practicable” standard assumes flexibility and adaptation to road conditions that generally do not apply to four-wheeled motor vehicles, since their standard of “due care” (asserted but not outlined in Section 21-504). 

The problem seems to me that no one is willing to articulate the unstated assumptions that continue to govern this entire conversation: cars are simply given an unwarranted but favorable bias when discussions of right of access arise.  Why?  Because most people who encounter this idea are motorists, not cyclists.  When articles appear about bikes vs. cars, the vast majority of the audience drive rather than ride.  In his book, Bicycling & The Law: Your Rights As A Cyclist, attorney-cyclist Bob Mionske discusses this predilection to sympathize with drivers.  The bias is so pervasive that even in ostensibly objective journalism and public records show a linguistic pattern of demonizing cyclists as the nuisance rather than the constitutionally protected road users.  (For real, Mionske even discusses citizens’ rights to determine their mode of travel and its relevance to the US Constitution.)

A true development in the transportation code would specify the guaranteed protections for cyclists without regard for the special circumstances that invariably emerge but which also allow our cultures disposition for automobiles to exercise such a systemic choke-hold over the right of way.  The proviso “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe” is so utterly subjective that it resists any kind of standard enforcement.  (And the legal criterion of the reasonable and prudent person doesn’t offer any rigorous alternative, since the definition of “reasonable and prudent” means something very different to a person whose assumptions about safety, purpose, and rights of access are more likely to include only those premises of motorized vehicles.)  Instead of such ethereal standards of prudence and safety, why not simply mandate a zero-pass law unless three feet of space exist between motorists and cyclists?  Sure, it would be inconvenient for motorists at times.  But so is getting stuck behind a school bus.  Except that nobody villainizes school children, buzzes school buses, or tailgates while blowing their horns.  Or if they do, steep penalties and a shared cultural mindset stigmatize and punish this behavior.

Why can't it be the same for cyclists?


***I should point out that, while both my wife and mother think I would have made a decent lawyer, I actually have no legal training.  My thoughts above shouldn't be taken as basis for behavior that is justified by the law.  However, if these thoughts should one day help to create safe spaces for cyclists and other road users, then more the better.  Until that time, these remarks are just my way of advocating for road equity.***

Seeing Through the Smoke

I wish I could say that this title had something profound and abstract behind it. The image of peering through a haze of smoke, trying to find your way, can be a powerful one. But no. Today, I just want to write about a frightening experience I had with the pellet stove.

I woke up just as I've done every day this week: sore and tentative from the surgery. This morning I had greater mobility earlier than in days prior simply because my body is healing from the invasive procedure. I woke and came downstairs, not thinking anything of the pellet stove because - come on, in 10 years the thing hasn't given us any problems apart from the occasional difficult start. 

Today was another matter.

I came downstairs, breakfasted, fed and walked the dog, read a little (one of the minor advantages to sick leave is the ability to indulge - today it's Sky's the Limit) before coming back upstairs. But when I reached the bedroom, the place was shrouded in a thick smoke. Shrouded, not engulfed. Instantly I knew something was wrong with the stove. Perhaps the fan had shut off, since the automatic temperature feature would kill the stove if it went out. But no. The stove was full. I discovered this when I cracked open the front door: pellets lay shouldering in the burn tray. But these were barely more than ash. What could have caused the volume of smoke that I was choking on even now?  I felt the hopper - the reservoir where fresh pellets are gravity-fed into the auger vestibule, which "corkscrews" the pellets forward to a drop off, where a second auger corkscrews them forward. Their final destination is the burn tray, where they ignite by direct contact with other smoldering fuel.

The hopper lid was hot to the touch, which it shouldn't have been. Separated as it was by a narrow feeding chamber, it should have been warm, but not hot. Gingerly I lifted the lid to find thick, dark smoke pooled in the chamber. But that was it. Once I opened the lid, the inrush of air fed fresh oxygen to the thing, and the pellets went up. 

Now, by "went up" I don't mean they ignited in a swift WOOSH, as does gasoline-accelerated fuels. It was a polite incineration, no more than a little "puff", followed by a humble, happy little blaze.

By now I was very worried. The surgery prevented me from taking any swift action. I couldn't run or shout without pain - I could barely speak above a whisper without feeling the tension and soreness.  The problem was that pellet fuel produces A LOT of heat, especially the premium fuel we prefer to use I our house. It's dense and efficient for heating large spaces - at least compared to softer wood pellets. In a few short moments, the flame would spread, and the hopper - which remained almost half full - would be a veritable furnace. In a few short minutes the entire hopper would be aflame, and it would probably take with it most of the wall behind, the slanted knotty pine ceiling, and start working on the roof before we could tai professional assistance.

So calmly - calm enough to surprise myself - I grabbed the cup I'd been using to shovel small doses of fuel in and started heaving pints at a time out. (Remember, I can't lift more than 10 lbs!) for a brief moment I considered shutting the entire stove down to stifle the air vacuum, which was helping feed the fire with its sustaining oxygen.  But I quickly reversed this decision when it became apparent that 1) the house and my face weren't going to melt away and 2) the possibility of serious smoke inhalation and damage would rise. I was already choking on smoke as I worked, the tears almost pouring from my eyes. 

 I tried to pile the pellets on some plastic, and I managed to empty the hopper mostly.  But soon I reached the hotter levels, where pellets weren't alight, but they were hot enough that they presented a real risk of ignition. (One or two of the. Even melted some of the carpet fibers, as I discovered later.) 

At this point, I was containing things.  I poured a bit of water from a bedside bottle onto the flames just to douse them, which I later learned is a bad idea. Then I picked up the phone and called my dad. I thought he was at work, but luckily he was in his bedroom office, directly below mine and Lydia's second floor studio. He hauled ass when I told him the situation, and we quickly shut down the danger. He brought a metal ash bucket for the hotter pellets we couldn't salvage, and I found an oscillating fan and cracked a few windows to start clearing the air.

Disaster averted, and not much loss. We have to replace the lower auger and then clean out the feeder chamber, but that's a $50 part we can do ourselves. It could have been much, much worse. And coming close on that mansion fire in Anne Arundel county, this plays on some community anxiety we've felt recently.  Just goes to show that, even when the routine has been safe and effective for over a decade, things can go awry. 

First Forays

Why we write?

Deep somewhere in the recesses of human consciousness, there's a fundamental need to frame our experiences - both great and small - as a coherent narrative.  We all feel like (and do!) have stories to tell.  And all of these discrete anecdotes string together and flow into a larger, more complex tale that we use to validate ourselves and shade our lives with meaning and value.  It's in the process of reflection required in order to write, to craft a meaningful story, that this coherency achieves its inner and outer forms.  By inner, I suppose I mean the framework for understanding the world that we both build and exist in at a given moment; by external, I mean such forms as the diary, journal, Facebook page, or blog.

I'm taking these first steps into the land of the digital diary as an attempt to satisfy both the inner need we all feel to fashion a legible tale of our own lives, but also to give form to a strong compulsion to write.  I've been away from academic work for the better part of two years, and my writing output has been essentially nil (apart from journalling) since I walked away from the University.  To say that I thought my literary ambitions were dead and gone would be an understatement.  I fairly cast them out when I quit teaching.  But in recent months, I've felt a deep urge to write again.

But write about what?

Nothing in particular, maybe; everything in general, I suppose.  Since being out of the academic universe I've had my horizons expanded considerably.  My relationship to the literature in which I formerly hoped to make my home and my salary has changed.  It's no longer the end-all I once fancied it.  I read now whatever I want to read, and that ranges from Anglo-Saxon homilies to sports memoir to paleontology.   I've adopted a lifestyle of rather intense physical fitness: cycling, running, and Triathlon races take up much of my calendar space, and preparing for these takes up even more.  And I'm on my way back into the sphere of education, with a view towards teaching or education administration.

So I suppose this will be a proving ground of sorts for me; a place first to scribe, then to share, and hopefully to refine my ideas about the three major subjects that are foremost in my thoughts: teaching (since I start again this Spring), endurance athletics (since this is a major fixture of my life), and reading (since this is a lifelong pursuit and a source of much pleasure).  These three fields, and especially the way they merge and flow into one another - and my constant attempts to balance these against the demands of time and energy - will, I imagine, constitute the bulk of the writing to follow.

Apart from the catharsis I hope to achieve, and the construction of some kind of record of my interests (it's too early, I suppose, to bandy around words like "legacy"), the following will be a rambling journey - a diary at times, diatribe at others, analysis at whiles, and perhaps even a bastard form of philosophy.  But whatever it may be, I certainly hope it is a record of my brief moment in the sun.