You are hereThe solution to the "crackdown".
The solution to the "crackdown".
My wife pointed out that I was being incredibly harsh in my criticism of the APD's methods for dealing with the rampant cycling anarchy pervading the Austin traffic scene of late, and upon further introspection I realized that she was right. If I was going to be such a dick about it, I needed to come up with a solution...
Here's my solution: We don't need better cops, we need better bikers. When you're running that red you need to be on point! Be prepared to come to a halt if a cop car lurches out from an alleyway or glides into view at the last second. If you're going to split lanes be smart about it, look a long way ahead, and if you're coming up on a cop car merge into the proper lane and be like Mike. Either that, or be a freaking NINJA. If they end up tagging you anyway, show up in court and face the ticket. They caught you breaking their rules, you chose to play the game, you're taking your chances. When their eyes are on us we need to bike like the good lord intended. Don't be stupid, be cool, and don't get caught! Let me put it this way:
"I see a motherfucking cop I don't dodge him, but I'm smart, lay low, creep a while, and when I see a punk pass, I smile"
I think Easy E really knew what was up.
Personally I have only had a couple of run ins with the cops while on my bike. Both these times were during goup pub crawls and we were going the wrong way on a one way street. I'm not saying that each time a cop stops a cyclist that it's legit. But reducing your level of attention can help reduce the level of bullshit that could follow being tagged. Watching out for cops while flying down Guadalupe help me spot two other cars doing stupid shit.
I hate those stupid stones that they put at the corner of Guadalupe (S 1st) & Ceaser Chavez. I would like to see a launch ramp in front of that.
Casey
How about we agree on this: we don't agree.
Don't bitch and whine and moan about people doing the opposite thing that you do. They are everywhere. Do you bitch and whine and moan because some people smoke/don't smoke based on your preference? How about shaving their legs/not shaving their legs? Growing a beard? Eating meat/not eating meat? Do you spend every waking moment of your life whining on and on about how unfair it is that everyone doesn't do it your way?
I promise you that I don't do all the same things you do and you know what? I don't give a shit. What I DO give a shit about is everyone always having to have some fucking argument about something having to do with bikes. Just ride your bike the way you are capable of. If you are uncapable of sustaining riding in "dangerous" manner, the road will teach you that lesson. If you continue with this unnecessarily dangerous shit, the road will kill you. Survival of the fittest. I don't want to see anyone die, but I also don't want to see one more asshole that doesn't have any skills pretend to be a messenger by doing stupid, dangerous shit downtown.
The argument that cars don't run RED lights is bullshit and not a single person here or anywhere else can prove one way or the other. I promise you that.
In closing, I would like to say this:
Either support the community or shut the fuck up and drive a car. If you're just going to moan about bikes "doing the wrong thing" then join the fat assholes in cars. If not, understand that we are all different and use all your energy to get something good accomplished. Like assault with a deadly weapon charges for people that run down cyclists in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday in broad daylight because they are drunk and fucked up on Vicodin. Or at least get me a new wheel out of it.
Now go ride your bikes.
Brian
p.s. Calling Jason an asshole makes you a much bigger asshole. Jason maybe a bit of crank, but so are a lot of us. Aside from that, he's a ridiculously nice person.
"There are too many factors you have to take into account that you have no control over...The most important factor you can keep in your own hands is yourself. I always placed the greatest emphasis on that."
- Eddy Merckx
would love to see an 'outsiders' perspective (ie: cyclist from Dallas or Houston or even outside this state) on this issue we have here that seems to be heating up more and more...
sidenote: I can't comment on houston although I lived in that area for almost 10 years. I rode a bike a handful of times on those city streets and after fearing for my life one-two many times and on bike lanes that went absolutely nowhere, i resorted to hording myself around in a car like everyone else...
see some of you at the Roadie Ride tonight. Blinkies everyone!
-Jessica
bike nerd fo' life, yo
Mike, you really need to lay off your continual usage of this "junior anarchist" epithet. You don't like this type of cyclist. Fine. I get it. But it's a continuing use of an ad hominem and you're a better rhetorician than that. It only makes your reasoned points seem petty and crotchety.
Personally, my feeling is that the best any of us — cyclist and motorist alike — can hope for is us that those of us on bikes simply behave like reasoned, rational individuals and bike defensively. The reality is that riding a bicycle is not riding a car, and cyclists are NEVER going to behave exactly like law-abiding motorists. It's foolish to expect that of them.
That means cyclists will break laws both for rational reasons — like transitioning onto the sidewalk in areas where fast-moving traffic poses a hazard, like Lamar south of Barton Springs in the pre-bike lane era — and irrational — like running a red light when there's no oncoming traffic present. Why do we do that so regularly? Because, for whatever reason, sitting uselessly at a red when you're on a bicycle is several times more irratating and inexplicable when you're on a bike than it is when you're in a car. Don't ask me why. But anybody who's done it, ever, will probably understand. Cyclists will break some laws on the entirely fair grounds that they're human beings who aren't encased in two tons of steel and thus behave differently. They will break others because, well, that's just the way of the world.
And my feeling is that that's okay, as long as you use common sense and behave in a way that won't surprise, catch off-guard or otherwise endanger other travellers, be they in automobiles, on bikes or on foot. If you have to take a sidewalk somewhere, give pedestrians the widest berth you can and give them a sound cue so they know there's a cyclist passing. If you run a red, make damn sure there's no cars there. Basically, I think we'll all be fine — and the anti-bike folks won't have petty excuses to hide behind when it comes time to argue for parking in the bike line — if we just ride in a way that doesn't constantly throw people for a loop and put them on edge.
That, and for God's sake don't ride with a chip on your shoulder. Cops are decent folk, for the most part, and more to the point, biking shouldn't be a holy war. It should be having fun or getting to work or the market or your friends or whatever. I appreciate a good "fuck the Man!" and as much as anybody else but being contrarian for contrarian's sake is lame.
That's my take, at least.
like transitioning onto the sidewalk in areas where fast-moving traffic poses a hazard, like Lamar south of Barton Springs in the pre-bike lane eraThat's actually legal. It's only in some specific areas down-town and on campus where it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. (Now, right or wrong, safe or dangerous, those are different matters.)
Because, for whatever reason, sitting uselessly at a red when you're on a bicycle is several times more irratating and inexplicable when you're on a bike than it is when you're in a car. Don't ask me why.I think you nailed it right there. I can't explain why, but it just is. Maybe it's because you were just pedaling hard, and now you're not? Perhaps because you have to stand where you were sitting previously? Perhaps you feel even more vulnerable than normal, not moving? Perhaps it's the exhaust of the car next to you?
Also consider that while that might be an irrational reason to run a red light/stop sign, there's plenty of rational (when it's safe) reasons -- it gets you there faster, it saves valuable momentum, if it's the exercise keeping you warm, it helps keep you warm, it reduces the chances of you getting rear-ended (like poor Anthony Mungioli, stopped at a stop sign and run over from behind by somebody who didn't see him.) (Of course, there's rational reasons to stop too -- you're obeying the law, you won't get a ticket, it's arguably safer, you might need a breather or a chance to cool off or get a drink, it's less likely to piss off motorists, that girl in the car next to you is checking out your bum, etc.)
Also, going back to M1EK's assertion that both cars and bikes roll through stop signs and run freshly changed lights, but bikes go through lights that have been red for a while a lot more often, I agree. However, in the eyes of the law, they're all illegal, and the penalty is the same (though running a stop sign has a somewhat lower penalty than running a red light.) If you're going to claim that cyclists shouldn't run stop signs/red lights because it's illegal, that's fine, but you should get on the motorists too for breaking exactly the same laws. The law doesn't care how you broke the law -- the penalty is the same.
The proportional amount of (red light running) by cyclists is huge compared to motorists. Everybody sees a bunch of cars running freshly changed lights, but the proportion is roughly the same as cyclists (call this Nc for cyclists and Nb for bikes). Then, there's the proportion of people who run 'non-fresh' lights and stop-signs. Call this Sc and Sb.
The problem is that although Nb is roughly equal to Nc, Sb is about a thousand times greater than Sc, and, in fact, Sb is huge even in isolation (>50% at some intersections I see).
Nb+Sb is thus much much much greater than Nc+Sc.
Meaning that the generalization "cyclists don't obey traffic lights" is true, as long as you view it as "they disobey traffic lights much more often than do motorists".
It's not far from that to "cyclists don't obey the law", which is a true generalization given that minor speeding is a far lesser offense than blowing red lights and stop signs.
And from "cyclists don't obey the law" you get "cyclists shouldn't be riding in the road".
By the way, on the "fresh red" issue, motorists are now getting tickets for running those 'orange' lights at some intersections around town. None of them are bragging about going to court and beating those tickets (if it indeed happens), nor is anybody defending their choice to run those lights as somehow moral and just. (Should I be allowed to run red lights because I drive a Prius, which pollutes less than two average cars and ten average SUVs?)
If Nb is approximately equal to Nc, and assuming that `Sb = 1000 * Sc' (which I would dispute, but I might go for 100), you can't claim that Nb+Nc is `much much much greater' than Nc+Sc unless Nc is much greater than Nb.
Your arguments generally seem to boil down to this: S(b-or-c) is worse than N(b-or-c) (I've seen you argue this elsewhere, and you're right if S(b-or-c) is done without making sure it's safe first), so we can discount N(b-or-c), and since Sb >> Sc, bikers are juvenile anarchists. And you wonder why more cyclists don't flock to your cause?
> And from "cyclists don't obey the law" you get "cyclists shouldn't be
> riding in the road".
Of course, you just said that Nc is approximately equal to Nb. Well, I imagine you realize this, but Nc, like Nb, is equal to `not obeying the law'. Also, you seem very fond of talking about `minor speeding'. Well, like Nc and Nb, minor speeding is equal to `not obeying the law'. That speed limit sign? That's a traffic control device. So perhaps the cars shouldn't be driving in the road either? After all, many motorists disobey the law! (And the statistics pretty clearly show that this leads to many deaths!)
In any event, I don't recall anybody claiming that cars run red lights/stop signs as often as or more often than bikes -- so you can stop arguing against that position. However, it does seem that progress has been made -- you don't seem to be claiming that Sc is zero any more. Especially at night out in the boonies when there's almost zero traffic, you'll find that Sc is at least 20% or so. (Still, granted, not as high as Sb -- especially under the same conditions.)
In any event, back to `minor speeding' -- well, in the eyes of many, when a cyclist runs a stop sign/red light after making sure that there's no impact to courtesy or safety -- that's `minor stop-sign/light running'. NOBODY is defending the `right' of cyclists to ignore traffic control devices when doing so causes or risks an accident, and few at most are defending that `right' when it causes other people to be delayed. Sure, they risk a ticket. They risk an accident, injury or death if they do it when it's not safe. But so does the motorist who engages in `minor speeding' or breaks the law in another way.
(Though there is certainly support to change the law to match the law in Idaho, which permits cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs. There's advantages and disadvantages to such a law, though any impact on safety should be minimal.)
Either way, cyclists run stop signs and red lights. So do motorists, though less often. Both groups generally make sure it can be done safely first. If this wasn't the case, red light/stop sign running would be the #1 cause of fatal accidents -- instead, speeding and alcohol/drugs are pretty close to neck-and-neck for the #1 spot.
And I don't know what you're talking about when you say that motorists are `now' getting tickets for running fresh reds -- they've been getting them for as long as people have gotten tickets for running red lights. (And even red light cameras aren't new!) And yes, people do brag about going to court and beating it, and many lawyers offer their services to help them beat it.
As for your Prius, the only way it pollutes `less than ten average SUVs' is if you creatively define pollution and exclude CO2. Which actually seems to be pretty popular with certain automakers -- can't imagine why. And yes, cyclists emit CO2 as well -- but far less than your Prius.
But if anybody is arguing that cyclists should be permitted to run red lights, I imagine that their reasoning isn't related to pollution output. (And similarly, the reasoning behind the Idaho law regarding stop signs isn't related to pollution output either.)
But if you like, I give you permission to run red lights and stop signs in your Prius, just like many do on their bikes. Please do make sure you can do so safely first, of course, and I'd prefer that you make sure that you aren't inconveniencing anybody else when you do so -- same as I ask from the cyclists. And of course, you do so at your own risk -- you may get a ticket, and if you don't check properly you could cause an accident. But when cyclists do it, they have the same restrictions -- and they apply to you in your Prius (or Hummer, or whatever) too. (You really don't need my permission for this, but if it makes you feel better, fine with me.)
And best of all, if I hear that you're running red lights and stop signs in your Prius when doing so won't cause an accident, I won't start saying that Priuses don't belong on the streets. (Though others might ...)
First, a bunch of variables without observed or calculated data does not make a strong argument. Second, this statement doesn't really make sense:
"It's not far from that to "cyclists don't obey the law", which is a true generalization given that minor speeding is a far lesser offense than blowing red lights and stop signs"
What does ranking crimes have to do with cyclists obeying or not obeying the law?
I actually agree with some of the things you say. Like encouraging cyclists to go to court because the cops won't show up on a public site that cops probably read: not a great idea. And most of the arguments coming from the other side aren't particularly strong either. I'm mostly picking on you because of the "juvenile anarchists" ad hominem that other guy pointed out and the Nb Nc bs.
http://theybar.blogspot.com
"Same rights, same responsibilities" doesn't work if you shirk your responsibilities to behave predictably (by waiting for red lights). This will eventually bite you in the ass as somebody says "but, they made such a great case why we should treat cyclists differently than motorists!" as they ban you from a roadway you really need to ride on.
And, no, it's not against the law to bike on the sidewalk, outside a few well-known spots, so bad example there.
Great advice, all around!
I was riding up south first sunday night after a long weekend of riding. I was coming down a hill and at the bottom was a red light. I rolled up to the light, cleared it, and went thru it. coming up the hill on the other side of the light I noticed a car was right behind me. I did a quick look back and kept riding. Then I looked back again and noticed that it was a police car and the lights on. I pulled over on the next street, turned my lights off and took my bag off. The cop came out and was asking me questions on where i was coming from, what i had been doing, etc. and then he was telling me about how there was a robbery and i matched the description. White male, long hair, dark clothes, bag. I showed him thru my bag and told him it was only stuff for biking.
He also said that i didnt have any lights on the bike, but i did and turned them on again for him. he looked my bike over and was checking out my spoke cards. He spent a while looking at the Hangover Rover one hahahaha. But anyways he told me that he saw me blow thru that red light and i told him how i made sure there wasnt any cars coming and that i wasnt putting anyone in danger. he just said that if bikes wanted to be considered an equal on the road that we will have to fallow the rules of the road.
After a second cop came and they figured out that i wasnt the person they were looking for they let me go and that was it. no ticket, nothing.
interesting night
Who are we hurting by running a red light? Eazy E said FUCK THE POLICE to. I have to agree with Eazy E. They dont like us because we are rebellious in their eyes. Ticketing innocent bikers shows just how much closer we have gotten to becoming a police state. Who am i endangering by riding my bike? no one but myself. Cars kill people not bikes. Kinda common sense but hey 90% of the cops in this country dont even know the the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold. FUCK COPS.
... generally aren't bad guys. They're just normal guys doing a tough job. And in general, I don't think they dislike cyclists. (Of course, there's always the occasional exception.) The few I've personally dealt with have generally been professional and reasonable. If the cops do have a bias, it's probably more against young people rather than against cyclists.
If you get a ticket for running a red light, you're not an innocent biker. You broke the law, deal with the consequences. (And fighting it in court is one perfectly valid way of dealing with them.) Don't pretend you're innocent. (Unless you are, of course -- but that means you must have not actually run the light.)
Bikes can kill people, it happens. They can also cause cars to try to avoid them, which can cause other (possibly fatal) accidents. It's rare, but it happens.
Cops generally do know the Constitution, and the laws in general. But they often don't know the specifics of the law, which tends to cause problems when they think they know it but run into people who know it better. Like many cyclists.
As for running red lights and stop signs, as I see it, if there's no traffic around, do it if you want. If there is traffic, wait your turn. But whatever you do, make sure you've checked everything out first and made that it's safe. And if you break the law, be aware that you might get caught and get a ticket. (And as far as I'm concerned, that all applies to cars *and* bikes.) And it's generally best to assume that if you can break the law, so can they -- so if it's a four way stop, don't assume that car will stop, so you don't have to ...
As for the crackdown, I've seen very little evidence of it. There's been a number of cases where I've seen cyclists run stop signs or red lights where the cop almost certainly saw them and the cop did nothing. In fact, I can only think of a handful of cases where I have seen somebody on a bicycle get a ticket -- and in general, they did in fact break the law. (Though there was that kid who got arrested for running a red light, not sure why or how that turned out.) From what I've seen, the cops in Austin have been remarkably cool when confronted with things like CM rides in the last few years. But if they see a drunk driver, hit and runs, stuff like that that's really dangerous -- they become quite uncool. Exactly as they probably should.
So, cut the cops some slack. Don't let them walk all over you -- assert your rights when appropriate (especially the right to remain silent), but give them the benefit of the doubt. For the most part, they're good people, and generally do want to do the right thing. (The problem is that you and they might not agree about what the right thing is.)
How about other cyclists, who have to deal with shit from motorists whenever they try to assert their right to the roadway, because juvenile anarchists like yourself don't think rights come with responsibilities?
To say nothing of the pedestrians injured by bikers disobeying traffic laws, and, even, potential car accidents caused by same (my near-miss on 24th years ago - would have been a head-on collision with another motorist caused by my attempt to avoid killing some 'innocent' jackass like you).
If we're discussing 24th St, a couple months ago I was heading south on Guadalupe, riding a bicycle and taking the full lane, when a north-bound car decided to make an illegal left turn onto 24th. I had to swerve left to miss him, and if there'd been heavier traffic, I could have been killed, or even caused another driver to swerve and kill someone.
What does this prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Drop the tired story about "this one time, this thing happened, which caused this other thing to almost happen, so I'm gonna keep rehashing it years later whenever it's even remotely 'relevant'".
Nearly EVERYBODY breaks the law at some point whether it's speeding, rolling a stop sign in a car, taking that illegal left because it's convenient, running a red on a bike, hell, even letting the grass in your yard grow too long. I really don't have any problem whatsoever with breaking the law in almost any form, as long as it's not adversely affecting someone else. The large majority of the times a cyclist runs a light or stop sign, there's no one there to affect. The few occasions that there are others at the intersection, typically a cyclist knows how to time their crossing to avoid impacting cross traffic. If a cyclist DOES perform a maneuver that holds up a car or causes a traffic snarl, then I agree that's fucked up and they shouldn't have done it. Calling an action wrong just because it's illegal is stupid.
Dougmc's right though, the cops aren't all bad, they're just doing their jobs. Their job is to catch us breaking the rules, and our job is to not get caught. Hopefully we can all aspire to do a better job than the cops. ;)
1. Red lights are the most important traffic control device we have. Minor speeding isn't even in the same galaxy of problem - neither is 'rolling' stops, which both cyclists and drivers do. Neither is 'running the orange', which both drivers and cyclists do.
2. The same juvenile anarchists who run red lights and stop signs would obviously break speed limits if/when they could.
3. A cop observing that illegal left turn would often give the driver a ticket - and, here's what's important: nobody would think the driver anything but an asshole for fighting it in court or defending his behavior as somehow noble. You yourself gave advice on some cyclist trying to avoid getting a ticket for a similar offense, and getting pissed at the enforcement therein.
Funny you should mention this, I've actually been pulled over for speeding on my bicycle twice. Once on Grover, and once on East Oltorf of all places. They didn't give me a ticket, but a total of 3 cop cars did show up to deal with me for about 25 minutes until they decided I wasn't a threat to them. I pay my taxes, my mortgage, and I vote. I may be juvenile but I'm no anarchist.
P.S. HA HA I AM THE LAW
Part of me wants to say "nice job" for being able to go that fast (on Grover, anyways, I wouldn't think it'd be that hard to speed on Oltorf).
It's probably a good thing that most cyclists aren't capable of speeding on most roadways - even if you wanted to (barely) obey the speed limit, I never had nor wanted a speedometer, and I can't believe most of the non-spandex crowd are any different on that metric.
... back when I was 14, riding to school. There was one of those `Are you speeding?' radar things that told you your speed at the bottom of a hill. The limit was 25, and I saw the thing as a challenge, and this was before cycle computers became readily available. Cop clocked me doing 37. He was amused and impressed, and did not give me a ticket.
In any event, I'm not a member of the spandex crowd, but I like my speedometer. I like to know how far I went, how fast. I like to know how many hundreds of miles I rode this month. I like to know if I'm getting faster (it's an easy way to gauge my fitness) or not. And really, considering the things are $10, why not?
In any event, I'm tired of being told that cyclists would speed if they could, and how this is more evidence of the scofflaw cyclist. Perhaps it's true, perhaps not ... but it doesn't matter, because in general they can't. So it's moot.
How about other cyclists, who have to deal with shit from motorists whenever they try to assert their right to the roadway, because juvenile anarchists like yourself don't think rights come with responsibilities?Ah yes, the `we saw a cyclist run a red light, so we shouldn't put in a bike lane' argument. A 0.02% reduction in red light running will fix that right up.
What that argument really boils down to is that they don't want to put in a bike lane (usually because they don't ride bikes) and so it's a convenient excuse. But don't worry, even if that excuse went away completely, they'd just find something else. `Lance wannabees', `Spandex clad clowns', `slows me down' and `bikes belong on the sidewalk' are pretty popular too. (But my favorite? `The cyclists say they're saving the planet, saving gas! But they make me and everybody else hit our brakes, which wastes more gas than they would have used if they had driven a car!')
Cyclists do run red lights and stop signs. More often than cars. I won't deny it. But in general, it's done when it doesn't affect anybody in a car. If somebody's going to get mad about that, that just means they were looking for an excuse to get mad, and if that excuse wasn't there, they'd find another. (Now, when a cyclist runs a red light and cuts off a car, and then yells at the guy in the car for almost killing him, that guy makes everybody look bad. Fortunately, there aren't many of those guys (perhaps they don't live long?))
The other part of the `fallout' of cyclists running red lights/stop signs is that motorists don't know what a given cyclist is going to do. Is he going to run this red light or not? So they're a little more wary of you, and that's not always a bad thing. (But sometimes they'll get a little pissed at you if they're behind you and you *don't* run the right light. That one always amused me.)
The guys who used it as an excuse to vote against bike/ped facilities had an easier job doing so because the excuse was TRUE.
If the excuse weren't true, they wouldn't be able to hide behind it - and what's worse, they wouldn't be able to convince people who don't know anything about the issue.
You forget, I spent 5 years on the UTC fighting these battles. This is not hypothetical.
the problem with this discussion is it always assumes that a bike going thru a light is causing harm. i mean, honestly, i've been biking my whole life and well, i look both ways, and not *once* have i ever even come close to causing an accident by going through a red light.