We should become French.
I wish I had a solution. Right now cycling is fighting a working retreat just to keep bikes from being banned in most places by hysterical drivers. The idea of some harmonious solution coming along is not very likely.
I do know that threads that cascade into anti-cyclist hate-fests are not part of the solution.
Bare-bones, I would like everyone in the world to read Forresters’ chapter on how bike laws came to be. Its appalling what happened.
Beyond that, small steps towards a solution would be:
-
Rewrite the unbelievably backwards bicycle laws. These laws are contradictory and poorly written. Assert that a cyclist has the right to the lane first, then must be over to the right if conditions permit and the lane is wide enough to share. Not the fucking reverse. In addition, remove the archaic mandatory bike-lane/path laws. Make certain that when the law says the cyclist has the same responsibility and right as a car, it means it. By making the laws clear and simple, you might have a chance of getting cyclists to obey them more effectively. More radically, consider adoption of the proposed 'Idaho/Utah bike laws that allow cyclists to treat stops as yields and red lights as stop signs at their own risk . This law decriminalizes an all too common behavior, puts the onus squarely on the cyclist, and recognizes that the cyclist has many observational advantages over an auto. (link to the unpassed law)
-
If you must build bike lanes. Design them properly, and elliminate as many potential design problems as possible. No more lanes to nowhere, avoid the dooring zone, etc. Bikeways, etc. should only be considered when they reduce travel time or are faster than roads, they should not be built out of fear or wholely imaginary ‘safety concerns’.
-
End the killer car culture. Start actual vigorous prosecution of drivers who kill pedestrians and cyclists because of poor driver behavior instead of letting them off scott free if they aren’t drunk. Drive home to drivers the idea that they are driving a potential killing machine and that not everyone they might run into is driving a similar machine. If you kill a human being with your car and it was your fault, for example, you should not be allowed to operate an auto ever again.
-
Once enforcement of vehicles has made drivers appreciate they are driving dangerous machines, start prosecuting bad biking. Make certain it is actually pursuing dangerous, illegal behavior and not merely an anti-cyclist ticket-fest like all present day ‘cyclist control’ programs end up being.
-
During all this, increase education, especially to police (who very often do not know the laws pertaining to bikes). Make certain that drivers are actually asked questions about driving around cyclists on their permit tests.
That would be a start.
From Forrester’s ‘Effective Cycling’ first printed 1984.
Forrester had you pegged decades ago, projection-boy.
So long as cyclists are required to have mandatory liability insurance as auto drivers are. If you want to be treated equally with auto drivers, then you should be subject to the same insurance laws.
OK. So what will it be based on? Potential for damage, or do you just want cyclists to be forced to pay money so there won’t be as many cyclists?
Potential for damage, of course. I want more than your promise to assume the risk if your mangled velocipede is crushed under my suspension and causes me to lose control and drive into a telephone pole. Or if your helmetted noggin smashes through my windsheild. Other than that, you are free to play in traffic whenever you please.
It isn’t reasonable, of course. I never said it is. Some have, but I do not speak for them.
Of course it’s unreasonable to ride with the sole intent of interfering with traffic, like Critical Mass. However, taking the lane is a different matter; like I explained many times, on most roads it’s the safest way to ride. And forcing cars to make a lane change is hardly “tangling up traffic” - lane changes are a normal part of car driving.
I’ll concede and say that many current bike lanes in the US are dangerous, but not all. Dedicated bikeways are either equally dangerous (because they have many intersections with roads), or don’t go anywhere (if built in a place where they don’t have to cross roads).
No more irritating or dangerous than other incidents drivers face every day - construction, long traffic lights, slow trucks, speeding cars, cars that cut you off, etc.
Sorry, no ponies. I think some changes that make things better for everyone are:
[ul]
[li]Wide outside lanes. The main reason cyclists take the lane because the lane is not wide enough to safely share with cars. If the outside lane is built wider, I could ride closer to the edge of the road and cars could share the same lane without endangering me. [/li][li]Make sure there are no obstructions at the edge of the road, so cyclists riding near the edge of the road are visible from car drivers coming out of side streets and parking lots.[/li][li]Bicycle lanes can be a safe alternative on major roads with few intersections. But only if designed properly. They need their own traffic lights. At intersections they need to be to the left of the right-turn lane. And they need to be wide enough that cars can almost straddle the dividing line and still not endanger someone riding a wide bicycle, like an adult tricycle.[/li][li]Install video sensors at traffic lights instead of induction loops. This will also benefit motorcycle riders.[/li][/ul]
And I wouldn’t be opposed to mandatory insurance for cyclists.
Uh, OK. An unlikely scenario, but I have no problem with it. There are more than a few details that need hammering out, however.
Please understand my concerns: Mandatory Bike Insurance is usually proposed by folks who want to use it as a club to get bikes off the roads, and they genuinely have no real interest in seeing cyclists getting insurance.
Manuy’s the time I’ve been almost run down by these morons-they just crash through the woods at breakneck speed. Of course, the fact that wheeled vehicles are banned from this forest park doesn’t mean anything…wonder who is liable if a cyclist kills someone?
Wait now. I had no problem with some of your post but this is ridiculous. Why should they not have to stop? As a pedestrian, I have to jump out of crosswalks already to avoid cyclists barging through stop signs with no regard for anyone’s safety, I see no reason that they should be exempt from stopping completely. “Putting the onus on the cyclist” is not going to make someone feel better when they crush you to a paste because you didn’t stop at a red light. Oh, you don’t want to lose your momentum? Tough shit.
Personally, I have no problems with bikes on the road, assuming they obey the laws- I grew up in a rural area where people rode bikes, obeyed traffic laws, and it was no problem. Then I moved to this godforsaken city where I’d guess that fewer than one in ten of the pigfucking scofflaws actually stops at stop signs, goes the right way on one-way streets, and isn’t weaving in and out of traffic. I’d like to see a licensing/insurance requirement for bikes that’s similar to cars, and have them subject to the same enforcement of traffic laws that cars see. I think a lot of them pull the crap they do because they’re largely ignored by the police.
I’m not sure why you say bikes should have the same rights and responsibilities as cars, then in the same post propose they shouldn’t have to stop at lights, which is not only incredibly dangerous, but the first thing I hear pedestrians and motorists mention when they’re complaining about cyclists being dangerous and frightening. Also, why do you oppose insurance requirements for bikes if you want them to be treated like cars? Cars need to be insured, registered and licensed, why not bicycles?
It seems to me like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You want the same rights as cars (and the ability to run red lights, which is something that even the most unrepentent speeders I know won’t do), but NONE of the responsibilities.
I have no desire to poll my friends who are (or admittedly were, save for the occasional mountain bike or neighborhood noodle) recreational cyclists. All of us drive a lot more than bicycle. I surmise that not a single one would agree with your proposed changes in the law. I have only one friend who is a hardcore bicycle commuter. He probably rides his bike 90% of the time on a round trip commute of about 20 miles. He was born in Russia, and a very aggressive driver. I am quite confident he doesn’t support your proposals.
I doubt the two hardcore triathaloners I know would support your proposed change in law. The female is a gnarley Ironman regionally ranked triathaloner. I doubt that she supports your ideas because she commutes by car. I’ll ask her if I see her anytime soon.
Our two cross town arteries have bike lanes. They seem pretty safe to me. I know that people have been killed on both arteries. It is rare but highly publicized. Of course, we are lucky enough to have a crosstown dedicated bike lane that traverses about 2/3 of the town. Most of the people I know that commute do not take it because it goes far enough out of the way to add a considerable distance to their commute.
I know one guy who would support your proposal. He is a hardcore cyclist who doesn’t have a drivers license as far as I know. He lost his leg in a horrific accident where 5 riders were hit by a drunk driver on the 101, the major 4 lane freeway that comes through this town. He still rides his bike everywhere with only one leg. That section of highway is open to cyclists as it is the only pass in the vicinity. It is very dangerous, and I’ve only done it twice. One time was when I did the aforementioned ride from Canada to Mexico. I’d never do it these days because it’s batshit insane, and only to be partaken by impetuous youths.
We have recently put 5 million dollar dedicated bike lane that goes about a mile or so. I’ve never seen a bicyclist on it, although I would take it if I were commuting between Carpinteria and Santa Barbara. Here is a local website’s survey on bike path usage. Even though it is underutilized, I still support it. My friend who rides the most recreationally thought that it was a complete waste of money.
I am a cyclist and an automobile driver. I do not support your proposals. I feel that you are on the radical fringe of bicycle rights supporters. I suggest that you form a lobbying group, PETB (People for the Ethical Treatment of Bicyclists) to advance your cause.
I’ve been following the thread but avoiding posting to it until now.
I started cycling while I spent a few months in Cologne, Germany, which was a wonderful place to ride a bike.
-
There were bike paths on all major roads, most often on road edge of the sidewalk. There were dedicated bike crosswalks (crossrides?) next to pedestrian crosswalks. Bikes don’t have to worry about getting creamed by cars, pedestrians are trained not to wander into the paths.
-
On smaller roads, bikes are allowed to ride in the road – since these are small roads traffic isn’t really a problem and cars can generally pass in the opposite lane.
3). It was incredibly easy to take bikes onto the buses and subways. Many of my coworkers with long commutes would bike to the subway station, ride the subway, and then get off and bike the rest of the way to work.
It’s a catch 22: with such a small number of cyclists on the road, no one will ever get used to them or give amenities to them. But until cycling conditions get safer, few people will ever want to cycle.
Of course, I can’t afford a car, so I ride my bike everywhere I have to go.
Reread that. The law specifically states that a stop sign may be treated as a yeild. That means a yeild. It doesn’t say bikes never have to stop. They still must yield (i.e. stop) to pedestrians and to other cars. Big difference in what you are complaining about.
I have no opposition to insurance. I do oppose licensing and registration since it serves no purpose whatsoever except to discourage people from cycling. I have never heard a decent arguement as to what benefit L&R will give beyond ‘cars do it’. This ignores the fact that while bikes are vehicles, vehicles are not all cars. You are essentially complaining that I want the benefits of car-dom, but I do not, I want the benefits of vehicle-dom.
And like I said, the stop as yield law is a consideration, not a requirement.
You do realize that what you consider to be some kind of radical change in the law actually results in the same conditions. They would just be better written so that the cyclists has a better defined right to decide when to take the lane.
I’ve had people on this very forum and elsewhere quote part of the traffic law to me that with casual or sloppy reading would lead one to believe that bikes must stay as far to the right under all conditions and may never take the lane. It happens again and again, and even police officers are mistaken about it.
The laws are badly written, they need to be re-written for the perspective of cyclists, and not by drivers writing the law to get cyclists out of the way of motorists, then having to weld exceptions on because they could get their asses sued to hell and back (Read Forester: Effective Cycling).
As for bike lanes, I have yet to see one that doesn’t have at least one dangerous design flaw. Even without defects they can result in an increase in Left Hook accidents. I’m still fairly agnostic about bike lanes.
My opinions aren’t really that radical. They are actually just part of the tenets behind Vehicular Cycling (I don’t completely agree with all of their principles). Look that term up some time.
OK, but why? Is it because it sucks if a bike loses momentum? In which case, should semi trucks be afforded the same courtesy? Is it because cyclists have good visibility? In which case, should SUVs and convertibles be afforded the same courtesy? Is it because everyone does it anyway? In which case, should speed limit laws be repealed, since no one follows them? Hell, why not replace stop signs with yield signs for all?
Ostensibly, licensing and registration bicycles would be for the same reasons that people are required to license and register their car. So they can be tested, tracked (via license and license plate, not via Big Brother means), held responsible if there’s an infraction, etc. Why should bikes be exempt from licensing and registration? There ARE legitimate reasons beyond your persecution complex, that they’re only a means to decrease the number of cyclists.
My problem is that you haven’t defined the benefits of “vehicle-dom,” besides a feeling I get that it means whatever you want it to mean. Licensing? No, that’s for cars, not vehicles. Right of way? Of course, we’re vehicles! Obey stop signs? Negotiable, but again, that’s not a prerogative of vehicles, only cars. Ability to ride without passing a test or having insurance? Why not, we’re only vehicles, not cars!
It DOES seem to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Partially, yes. The cyclists’ momentum is provided by his own sweat, not the pressing of the acceleration pedal.
No, because a truck is large and will be moving faster. It has much greater momentum than the fastest, heaviest bicycle. It has a far greater potential for mayhem.
Not just good visibility, but the ability to hear much, much, much more than a driver can. Hearing is almost, if not a more crucial part of a cyclists awareness than his height.
No, because these vehicles still have blind spots, and even a convertible will have engine sounds reducing local awareness. Perhaps very tall, convertible SUVs running on electric motors can have equal potential for awareness on the level of a cyclist, but will worry about that level of specialization later.
Actually, we have revised our national speed limits in the past. Is flexibility in driving laws only allowed for cars?
Because cars are large machines with a lot of kinetic energy when they move. Cars accidents kill 40,000 Americans each year. Road laws were written so that cars would not slam into each other and kill even more. How many people have cyclists killed? Last one I can remember was back in 2006 and was so odd that it made the scroll on CNN.
Because bikes, despite the hysteric claims on this thread, cause nowhere near the death and damage cars do. Ergo, the regulation is still needed for them. Wheras with biking it is little more than a costly, punitive, move. Haven’t we gotten to the point where we can solve problems without adding more government beauracracy?
The situation is bad to the point that all ‘efforts’ to license bicyclist (usually some cranky politician) have been laughed out by DMVs wherever they are proposed. They don’t want to deal with it, and there’s NO benefit for them or the police. Just cost!
Sorry, but there aren’t. All the talk of a ‘need’ to test, regulate and license bikes is a smokescreen for anti-bike sentiments. I call them like I see them , and that is always what they are about.
Vehicle-dom is very well defined, thank you. And I did not define it. Tractors, Buggies, and in some states horses are all defined as vehicles and do not require L&R.
You are harping irrelevantly on two things: Licensing, and the optional stop sign law. Not once have you address my previous major points about road safety. If you want to talk about licensing and all that you need to start addressing those issues. You can’t start blathering about adding excessive, unneeded and unwanted bloat to our bureaucracy when you won’t even address the horrific failings of the present system.
In other words, you can’t complain about me and the cake when I haven’t even seen a fucking cake.
Erm, except that I never said what you’re accusing me of saying. So tell me, do you always go around with a martyr complex (‘ghettoization’? :rolleyes: ), or do you save it for the SDMB?
I think it comes down to whether we as a society consider bicycles to be a preferred alternative to cars, and want to encourage their use. Bicycles do not use imported oil, or any other fossil fuels. Bicycles produce no pollution. Bicycles take up less road space, and far less parking space. Less need for parking means buildings can be closer together, which means reduced average travel time for everybody. Bicycles allow you to fit some exercise into your busy day, which means better health. So do we want to encourage this, or make it harder than it already is by requiring licensing and registration?
Oh please, it was a fully encompassed checlist. Here’s the litany I gave:
Check, You did that several times.
Check. You declared basic cycling to be ‘unsafe’ without any evidence. Post 112 would appear to be the first time you invoked ‘safety’ . More flagrantly unsupported ‘safety’ claims made in posts 127, 134 and 138. This was pointed out to you several times.
Check. Starting with post 116. Restated in 125, and brought to the forefront in 153, 156, etc.
In post 167 you state “Bicycles should probably only be allowed in bike lanes.”, which sounds a lot like segregated resources. But hey, for arguement’s sake I’ll give you this one.
Continuing in post 167 you state “They should not be allowed at all on roads that have a certain speed limit or greater”. Which sure sounds like further restrictions to me. We’ve already covered the fake safety issue you invented, and was finally brought down with the Forester quote.
So, martyr complex? I guess if your definition of martyr complex is ‘calls people on the stupid shit they say’, I guess you would be right. In your own mind at least.
Actually that’s how I’ve always interpreted the current laws. In almost every state the law says a bicycle must be as far right as is practicable. Which means if it’s not practicable to share the lane, you don’t have to. If experience tells you that riding close to the curb results in cars passing you dangerously, then that’s obviously not a practicable place for you to be; you need to move to the center of the lane.
I ride that way 99% of the time, and the only exceptions are the two or thee spots in town where the lane is actually wide enough to share with a car. So far I’ve never been hit from behind or pulled over by the police.