You are hereDaily Texan Opinion Piece says: Obey the law cyclists!
Daily Texan Opinion Piece says: Obey the law cyclists!
A regular columnist at the Daily Texan just published an Opinion piece this morning entitled "Cyclists Provoke Problems". It's actually pretty well written and has a number of interesting points to raise, though I believe the meat of it can be summed up in these two statements:
It would greatly serve the entire Austin community, especially the cyclists, if there were a great shift among cyclists towards obeying the law...
..It takes respect to get respect. If cyclists feel the law is not on their side, it is due to the fact they have formed a reputation of not being on the right side of the law. Until cyclists earn the respect of their peers, they can expect to find more campaigns against them, and possibly an escalation in severity of fines and violations for the sake of deterrence.
The author believes that we as a group of cyclists are being denied rights because as individuals many of our brethren choose to break the law when it comes to stop signs, red lights, lane splitting, and all the rest. Why can't the same be said for cars? Honestly I believe it's because of our seemingly-instinctual human tendency to excuse poor behavior from people who are like us, while damning those who are different.
Think about it, when you're driving down I-35 on the upper deck and traffic isn't shitty, typically everyone will be going 65-75 MPH, even though the speed limit is clearly marked as 55. Yet there's no outrage, because EVERYONE is doing it. When you're cruising on a city street and a driver makes an unsignalled lane change or turn (illegal), it doesn't seem to be as big a deal even though it's ILLEGAL. Cars drive the wrong way down our cities one-way streets (like Salado in West Campus) EVERY DAY because it saves them having to go a couple blocks out of there way, yet I don't see the opinion pieces raising an eyebrow to that behavior.
It's easy to pick out and remember an individual cyclist breaking the law because they're easily distinguished from the rest of traffic and very much in the minority, yet equally easy to forget that you didn't come to a complete stop in your car just a few blocks back, because there was no cross traffic and it wasn't a big deal.
I guess my point is that EVERYONE breaks the law in some form or other as long as it benefits them, doesn't impact others adversely, and they think they can get away from it. If that were enough reason to deny rights to an entire group of people then what the hell are cars doing on the streets?!? Get over it y'all, lets start passing laws that protect people and enforcing them when someone is adversely affected due to them being broken, rather than using poor behavior as an excuse to also do the wrong thing.
Y'all should know the law if you're commuting by bicycle. You're on the internet and it's easy enough to find with a Google search. If you choose to break this law be crafty and don't give people like the author of this opinion piece cause to be angry. Don't fuck up the flow of traffic, and don't be a dick about it. And if there's a cop around and you break the law anyway, don't get all butthurt when they give you a ticket. It's the LAW, that's their JOB. Our job as citizens is to not get caught.
Be safe out there y'all, and have fun playing in traffic.!
i talked to him a while back. believe it or not he's easy to talk to and he'll answer everything time permitting.
the dude logged close to 3,000 (seen his log and that was in may) bike miles since janurary. i've also seen him at some of the crits at the driveway.
i recommend you just stop him and ask your questions.
that's a little extreme, but pertinent to the running red light internet fights. What's a netfight w/o cut&paste video links?
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2009/07/running-red-lights.html
this one says it very well... Now I gotta get to work.
http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/07/the-myth-of-the.html
I see cars going the wrong way all the time down a one way street next to my house almost daily even...I'll ride how ever I want when ever I want and in this heat it's my better judgement over any laws...I don't turn my back on traffic like you communist types...I ride on any surface in any direction...your cars are hot and they are hard to breath around ,(If one of you pussies argues that with me I'll tape your face to one for a few minutes...5 minutes I think should do it.)
In the end I don't need anyone's approval... who's planet is this? I argue all visible answers to that one...WILLIAM KERN
Pretty funny how people think "cycling community" in Austin is pertaining to everyone who rides a bike. What if someone buys a bike today and runs a red light or stop sign or rides on the sidewalk? Are they apart of the "cycling community"? Sometimes I think they are talking about a certain group of cyclist.
I once received a ticket for running a red light. Officer said "all you cyclist are meeting with the chief and trying to pass laws, how do we work with you guys if yall keep doing this kinda thing breaking laws?" I said "I never met the chief and I bought my bike yesterday". Officer Mistric said nothing. Contested my ticket and he never showed up.
The problem is not all cyclist or motorist know the law. Yeah you can go to a website and find out the laws, but not everyone does. Keep in mind there are motorist and cyclist who abuse the laws on the road. It goes both ways. I think the only way to help is for everyone to be familiar with laws. Add a few questions about cycling on the driver license test should help cyclist and motorist become more aware. Cycling in Austin is more common than ever. People will become familiar with the rules. It takes time.
ignorance to the law is no excuse. as brilliant as most people think they are, they remain ignorant or too lazy to research their own hobbies enough to stay in compliance with the law and keep themselves out of jail or tickets. unless you remain proactive about your interests, attend the city meetings with the chief, research...then complain about some of these cops, thats ignorance and causes folks to ignore your concerns.
i also contested a ticket and remember that conversation you mentioned. i'm not sure if i was riding with you that day. if mistric didn't show, you're lucky cuz he must have had other priorities. he shows for all of them "with notes". his records, including driving..., are flawless, and knowledge of traffic law is pretty detailed. ...and to top it off, you'll owe a court fee if you lose.
I think a billboard(s) about some of the more basic cycling laws in Austin placed at some of the intersections around town would help - I've certainly noticed the seatbelt and DWI notifications. We need media saturation in places other than print and the internet probably.
I'm guessing that most cyclists over 16 realize that bikes are supposed to stop at stop signs and red lights. And most cyclists who are still alive probably realize you're not supposed to dart out in front of moving cars.
Once you get past the basics such as that, I'm not sure what law would be important enough to point out on a billboard. Stay to the right? Well, most of the cyclists who don't know the laws regarding bicycles ride on the sidewalk anyways. Stay off the sidewalks downtown? It's not really a big problem.
The only reason the seatbelt and DWI billboards are at all effective is because they take one incredibly simple law -- wear your seatbelt or don't drive drunk -- and either 1) remind you that the police are watching you or 2) show you what happens when you do it anyways.
I guess in that vein, they could put up a picture of a cop giving a guy on a bike a ticket in front of a stop sign, with a big caption that says WE TICKET CYCLISTS TOO. Actually, that might be somewhat effective -- as effective as the DWI and seat-belt billboards are, anyways. Ideally, the cyclist would be the stereotypical hated cyclists -- probably a young hipster on a fixed gear, or a guy in full kit on a $4000 bike holding a helmet. Make sure they're white, so there's no charges of racial profiling.
But anything more detailed than that is likely to cause confusion -- even the basic laws regarding bicycles are a bit too complex to be covered effectively on a billboard, at least anything beyond `BIKES: SAME ROADS, SAME LAWS, SAME PENALTIES'. (And really, that's not quite accurate.)
I think a big problem with the argument this article is making really is that people remember negative events more easily than positive events. I could get pissed off about the guy who buzzed me or cut me off the other day - it's a lot easier to remember than than to remember the people who wave and are nice at intersections that suck for bikes. The person driving a car remembers the cyclist who was a dick, not the one who obeys traffic law at an intersection. One mentally provokes more of a response than the other. What we have here is a lot of extremism being pushed forward (by both cyclists and motorists) when in reality, most people fall towards the middle of the pack (like a gaussian curve). I think many of the drivers and cyclists in Austin really do obey the rules most of the time - in an average day I probably see about as many cars blow through a red at N. Loop and Lamar as I see cyclists blowing stop signs on Guadalupe. It doesn't make either of those actions okay, but it also means that people, regardless of their mode of transport, are willing to take safety shortcuts to get somewhere faster. If everyone wrote down and really tried to remember their positive or neutral as well as negative experiences with different vehicles on an average day, it would probably be a different story. Most cyclists don't commit infractions that really affect the flow of traffic anymore than a distracted driver who unknowningly cuts someone off when changing lanes or turning.
That was long, but seriously, lets remember the positive as well as the negative interactions we have on a regular basis, and try to be a positive influence on the traffic around us as well - wave, smile, use hand signals and be predictable to the vehicles around you. Blowing through a stop sign gains you maybe 5 extra seconds in the long run, and a commute isn't a race.
As the charter member of the grumpy grownup brigade, your argument is nonsense - right-of-way devices are far more important than speed limits on limited-access-highways (not that cyclists wouldn't speed more often if they could - we both know they would).
And, no, you don't see drivers going the wrong way down one-way streets very often. And, no, you don't see drivers deciding to go through a red light after traffic clears. And, no, it's not just at UT (the kicker from KVUE was watching the brightly plumaged idiot racers over on SCB, remember?)
There's an obvious qualitative and quantitative difference between the lawbreaking of both groups - and the continuing refusal of most of the cycling community to recognize this is nothing but willful ignorance at its worst.
While YOU might not see cars perform these activities (and honestly without a severe visual impairment I don't see how you could miss it), please don't try to dictate my experiences to me.
The fact of the matter is I DO see drivers going the wrong way down one-way streets with surprising frequency in the West Campus area. I mentioned the street Salado because I have a friend that lives there and we love yelling "Wrong way!" to the NUMEROUS cars who traverse the street against the correct flow of traffic on any given evening.
Similarly, late at night when drivers think they can get away with it I DO see cars continuing through red lights once they've checked that it was clear. In fact I've nearly been clipped by a driver doing just that, who didn't see my bicycle headlight as I was hauling ass down a slight decline. Luckily I was able to swerve and avoid the collision, but if you can continue to dredge up your old cyclist near-miss story to support your your tired arguments, then I feel entitled to beat the dead horse with my experiences too, even if you choose to deny them happening.
Amelia says it best here: "Most cyclists don't commit infractions that really affect the flow of traffic anymore than a distracted driver who unknowingly cuts someone off when changing lanes or turning."
Yes when a cyclists runs a traffic control device and causes a car with the right-of-way to stop or adjust then it's a problem, but if a cyclist can time their move and make it through without issue, I don't see this as any worse than a driver slightly speeding on the highway or changing lanes without signaling. YES it's illegal, but it's not causing a safety problem.
Who knows, maybe someday I'll get old and crotchety and join the grumpy grownup brigade, stop having fun and spend my time dictating a very rigid set of rules to all the young whippersnappers on the internets. Until then I'll have fun running reds, having a blast riding my bike and being a member of the fun-loving grownup brigade. Just because you're an grownup doesn't mean you need to be so grumpy all the time Mike!
... but motorists run red lights and stop signs too.
... and cyclists don't go the wrong way down one-way roads very often either. (And if they do it on the sidewalk, I'm not sure it's even illegal, though it's probably not a good idea, and perhaps it is in fact illegal.)
... and if there's no traffic, one most certainly does see motorists going through long-red lights. (And cyclists do the same thing.)
The KVUE `kicker' would have been more informative if they'd also counted the motorists doing the same thing to compare against. But of course that wasn't what the story was about.
And yes, cyclists exceed speed limits. Not the 55 mph ones (not very often anyways), but 15 mph, 20 mph, 25 mph -- you betcha. And occasionally it leads to accidents, just like automobile speeding occasionally (but not very often) leads to accidents. But cyclist speeding isn't the norm like motorist speeding is, and you're probably right, that many cyclists would if they could. But they can't, so trying to hold that against them too is a pretty tired argument.
And sorry, you don't qualify as a charter member of the grumpy grownup brigade. Current, card-carrying member, sure, but the brigade existed long before you were born, and will continue long after you're gone.
As far as I remember, they did count the cars that came to a "rolling stop" vs. "complete stop" vs. "just went through" the stop signs on Shoal Creek. Big shock: not a single car did anything shy of a "rolling stop". (None of them breezed through after just looking, like >60% of cyclists there).
Jason, you can continue to wallow in the juvenile anarchy brigade pool for as long as you want. I spent 5 years on the UTC fighting for cyclists, and on more than one occasion, LOSING, and the people voting the wrong way expressed cyclist lawbreaking as a reason for their vote (and they were correct). Without that excuse, would they have still voted that way? We'll never know, but it was a damn handy excuse, since, once again, it was true.
Just yesterday, I posted this: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000606.html
but every time we have this 'discussion', I want to help less and less in this regard. And if the lawbreaking wears somebody like ME down, what do you think it does to somebody who didn't commute by bicycle for 10 years?
Here? How about here? Where did KVUE count the cars?
And make no mistake ... `rolling stop' = disregarding a `right of way device', that thing you think is more serious than disregarding a `speed limit'. And both are against the law, right? And quite often, those rolling stops are done at bike cruising speeds -- but hey, at least they slowed, right? 35 mph through a stop sign (especially with a speed limit of 25 mph) would indeed be excessive in most cases. 10 mph is much more reasonable. But hey, pointing all that out makes me `disingenuous', right?
I appreciate that you set people straight about where the funding for the roads comes from, I do. And your work on the UTC was/is appreciated. And of course everybody loves your I told you so's (though you seem to be not using that tag reliably lately.) But when you say that cars don't run stop signs or red lights (well, that they never run red lights that have been red for more than a few seconds, and they never do more than rolling stops through stop signs) I have to wonder what world you live in, because it bears little resemblance to the world I live in.
`juvenile anarchy brigade pool'. That's clever. Sounds like more fun than the `grumpy grownup brigade', anyways. Why is a cyclist rolling through a stop sign `juvenile anarchy', but a car doing the same thing not? You bring up the fact that cyclists would speed if they could, over and over -- I assume it's yet another qualifier for membership in the `juvenile anarchy brigade pool'? But why doesn't actual speeding from the motorists qualify them for membership? Or are the speeding, stop sign rolling motorists too busy with the `grumpy grownup brigade' to join any other brigades?
(To be fair, most motorists I know (including myself) aren't members of the `grumpy grownup brigade' either. They may be grownup, but for the most part they don't seem overly grumpy.)
You assume here that everyone who is a cyclist is breaking the law, not that those who do don't always harm people and the flow of traffic by said breaking of the law. For your information, I am the drag who stops at lights on critical mass and other rides and really does feel uncomfortable running stop lights or signs - that's why I don't do it. The problem isn't just that there is a group of cyclists breaking the law (and there is), but that the assumption is that all cyclists break the law (guilty until proven innocent), and we make this assumption because we remember negative experiences more than positive ones. If cyclists abiding the law was noticed more frequently, and maybe encouraged, then we'd all be more likely to obey the laws, as there is an instant gain of credibility. I stopped a couple months back at the stop sign at 40th and speedway (Hyde Park Baptist Church) like I always do, and someone in a car said "Thanks for stopping." A little patronizing from a certain point of view, but it gave me a boost - someone gives a damn I take the time to obey the law!
The problem with your attitude is that unless EVERYONE in the cycling community (from BMXers to fixies to roadies to avg joe commuters) obeys the law, NOONE gains any credibility. That's a near impossibility, given the breadth of people who cycle in Austin. To be honest, on a given day, I see a lot of cyclists really obeying laws - just being part of traffic and making their way to where ever they're going than I see people being douchebags to cars.
Most group rides I've been on are full of lots of motorists cheering us on and people cheering and hollering in a fun way - the average Austinite as I've seen them supports cyclists at least nominally and we need to build off of that to improve our image as an integral part of Austin, whether there are a few lawbreakers in the group or not. You claim lawbreaking wears you down, but you need to see that most of the people who ride don't want to get hit by a car or piss off anyone - we need to see that obeying basic traffic laws really will help our image in the long run and improve the cycling community's reputation so that we can make progress for cycling infrastructure in Austin. I guess what I'm trying to say is: it's not as bad as you claim, and you win more flies with honey than vinegar. One camera at SCB on a couple of mornings doesn't really do it for me - I ride 300-400 miles a month here, and most of what I see is positive. Maybe I should carry a camera around and record it.
I wanna join the juvenile anarchy brigade! Are there dues? I'm pretty broke and most of my 'hard' earned dollars go to the fine citizens of Milwaukee and our local brew masters. This pool? Is there free swim? Where do I sign up? But, I don't do meetings without free cookies and coffee.
those are 10 minutes of my life I could have spent much more productively, given doug's imperviousness in the past to actual facts, but here they are; from this thread:
"
Hayduke,
I think the outrage is more directed at the blatant non-stops than the near stops. I think the general population would be a lot less angry about the situation if 95% of cyclists slowed down to one or two feet per second, but then proceeded through the stop. A fellow cyclist did a small traffic study on Shoal Creek yesterday afternoon and posted the results on the ACA listserve. He broke it out into northbound and southbound traffic, but I’ve combined the two to produce the following results, as I feel that distinguishing based on direction unnecessarily complicates the results:
Vehicle Stopped Rolled Didn’t Slow Total
Cars 25 (30%) 53 (65%) 4 (5%) 82
Bikes 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%) 12
In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t know how the individual who performed the study defined “Rollled.” As an LCI, I’m somewhat obligated to encourage lawful cycling so I can’t really recommend a roll instead of a full stop, but it would seem that slowing to 1 or 2 feet per second gives a cyclist a pretty good chance of observing the intersection while also somewhat demonstrating to motorists that he/she is making an effort. I really think it is the 50% of us who don’t come close who are hurting our efforts most, but that’s just my personal opinion. As a side note, the KVUE story found that 61% of cyclists didn’t slow at all. The percentages are not that far off (50 vs. 61), but KVUE reports that they observed 64 cyclists whereas the above study observed 12."
doug's imperviousness in the past to actual facts Which facts have I been impervious to? Be specific.
Sorry you wasted 10 minutes of your life, but arguing on the Internet can be time consuming if done properly, and I'm pretty sure you knew that coming into this. I was talking about KVUE's study, about how it would have been helpful if they'd counted cars at the same time that they counted bicycles. In any event, I've seen the figures you dug up, and they seem reasonable to me.
So, 70% of the cars disobeyed the right-of-way device and broke the law, and 100% of the bicycles. Doesn't really speak well for anybody, does it? Perhaps we should stop building any roads at all until everybody can get their act together, because nobody deserves any improvements! Everybody, motorists and cyclists, out of the `juvenile anarchy brigade pool' !
More seriously, it would also be useful to know what speed people slow to when they run through the stop sign. If a bike comes along at 10 mph and doesn't slow as it goes through the sign, is that worse than a car coming along at 30 mph that slows to 10 mph as it goes through the sign? The law says that both are breaking the law, but one slowed and one didn't -- and yet both went through the stop sign at the same speed. (Yes, this is a hypothetical situation. I'm not claiming it's typical.)
Of course, if I really want these figures, I'll have to stop talking about them on the Internet, and get out there and get them myself. Perhaps I'll do that some day, though it'll probably take longer than 10 minutes, and it's time I could do something more productive with. And not that it'll change anybody's mind, of course.
seems the one thing everyone has agreed on (more or less) throughout this whole argument on the internet is that:
1.) we need to stop or slow considerably at stop signs, most especially if anyone is going to see you do it.
2.) we really need to work on our PR if we want perks like the Idaho stop law to pass.
2a.) any idea how much high stop sign and stop light compliance will actually help us? Can we conduct before and after polls?
So let's actually do something about it - how do we ID high cyclist traffic (and thus high prob of accumulating bad PR) and positively encourage cyclists to obey the given signage (generally a stop sign). Can we use the cycling maps to ID intersections? Maybe some people who have been injured by blowing stop signs and/or motorists blowing through intersections (the other reason to stop at an intersection) to do a promo video or poster or something. Clearly this lawlessness, real or perceived is our largest problem in being taken seriously.
We need:
data on the 5-10 most important cycling major traffic intersections (can we get the cycling program to help us with this - do they already know which intersections are most important)
data from those intersections on what cyclists and motorists do at the intersection (stop, roll, don't slow, etc) and how many go through those intersections at a given time of day (peak times for both traffic populations)
then we need to instigate some type of measure to improve compliance with given signals and signs
then remeasure a couple months later and see if there is improvement.
I don't have any better ideas, personally - I'm a scientist, so this is how I think. Does anyone have any better ideas? I'm sick of arguing on the internet, we clearly have some sort of a problem if there can be a 77 comment discussion on A2W about this issue.
`Clearly this lawlessness, real or perceived is our largest problem in being taken seriously.'
It's not quite so clear. There are other possibilities --
Children ride bikes. Many (most?) adults rode bikes as children, and many think of it as one of the `childish' things that they put away when they became adults. To see an adult riding a bike is to see an adult acting childishly -- adults drive cars (or ride motorcycles, though to many that's childish too), children ride bikes. Children shouldn't be playing on the streets, that's where the adults do their serious business of driving.
And of course there's the issue that bikes tend to go slower than cars, and people in cars don't want to wait behind bikes, so some people would prefer that the bikes not be on the road. But of course if the bike goes faster than the car (usually because the bike can avoid the traffic that's slowing the car) then that's just plain not fair.
And then there's the belief that cyclists don't pay their way. This one is pretty easy to authoritatively disprove, but yet it keeps coming back. Related is the idea that cyclists don't have insurance. (There's truth to that -- many cyclists have no insurance at all to pay for damage they do to somebody's car, or even their own medical bills. But many do, as part of their homeowner's or renter's policies, at limits that are significantly higher than the pathetic auto insurance amounts required by Texas law. And of course, many motorists drive around without insurance too.)
And there's the riders in spandex on expensive bikes. People like to think of them as clown suits, totally ignoring the fact that it's practical.
And of course many see cycling as a sport, a game -- even though many people including yourself ride to get from point A to point B. Only children play games, and any adults that play sports are just being childish as well.
It's hard to pick any one reason. Personally, I don't think that even 100% cyclist compliance with the law would result in cyclists being taken seriously. And I would think that the only way to achieve this goal would be to put a cop at every corner to hand out tickets. Even with 100% compliance with the law -- we'd still be a bunch of freeloading Lance-wannabee children playing on the street, slowing them down.
As for the Idaho-stop law being a perk, cyclists and motorists already treat stop signs and red lights like the law is in effect (for bikes and cars) to a large degree, so I'm not sure it would be that much of a perk. Though it would be nice if the law actually agreed with what people do safely in practice.
As always! Seriously, the childishness is probably (definitely) a greater problem, and the best solution to that, and to the marginalization of bicycles in general is to just keep riding, and being practical and safe at the same time.
There is this recurring straw man argument I see a lot when I can stomach the comments on the Statesman and KVUE: "If cyclists want to be respected then they need licensing and insurance like everyone else" while ignoring that most of the cycling population already has a drivers license (and most who don't are illegal aliens, sadly) and many are already covered by an automotive policy. Those who aren't will find it basically impossible to procure bicycle insurance - I've talked to geico, allstate, state farm and asked if they'd consider a pilot bicycle insurance project in the Austin metro area - all have turned me down and said "just search for bicycle insurance on google and you can find it." While that is true, it's for residents of the UK, other EU nations and S. Korea that I've found bicycle insurance for, not the US.
I don't know what the solution is to our public image as a whole in Austin - I alternately don't think it's too bad and then think it's terrible after reading some BS comment (ie it must be bad if people actively claim to want to run us down). I just see a problem and want to break it down into its component parts so I can solve it, but I don't even really know what the problem is, or even if there is one, at times. Good response though.
...and I gotta say it's bullshit. I don't think this person spends enough time commuting or even joy riding on our city streets. While I use both 'lawful' and 'rogue' tactics when riding, I think this article leaves out the same and very dominant issue of the constant battle for entitlement vs. sharing of the road by cars, in general. I have plenty of really good encounters with motorists when maneuvering through traffic (I do my best to anticipate what they will do next and to communicate what I will do next), but I have had more bad and sometimes terrifying encounters with cars/trucks/buses who see me and mine as second-class citizens and don't seem to care about the laws themselves and are more concerned with making sure that I know that might makes right.
And it seems pretty myopic to use the UT campus (I work on campus) as an example of poor cycling habits. Everyone fails to follow any kind of order there. Peds pay no attention to crosswalks and just wander into the streets with no concern whatsoever, cyclists are all over the place, cars are constantly mucking things up, service golf carts everywhere, and the buses seem to be operated by meth addicts. I don't think this properly represents the way the city moves outside of the "40 Acres" in any fashion.
Top 10% My Ass! Avelar will have a promising job writing columns for The Statesman, no problem. Or punching up copy for KVUE.
~oneLescar
~ people always talk about my drinking, but never my thirst