Bicycle Safety and Licenses

Brian Huntley wrote:

Sheldon Brown wrote:

And by the way, what about the breathtakingly cynical hypocrisy of using
the name "Patriot Act" for a law that has NOTHING to do with patriotism?


Isn't PATRIOT some bizarre Orwellian/Stalinesque acronym in this case?


Never heard that, but it reminds me that "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
was going to be "Operation Iraqi Liberation", until someone realized
what the acronym would be.

Dave Lehnen

Dave Lehnen wrote:

Never heard that, but it reminds me that "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
was going to be "Operation Iraqi Liberation", until someone realized
what the acronym would be.

:-) Terrific! I move we begin using that immediately!

- Frank Krygowski

Arthur Harris wrote:

No, I'm not in favor of licensing, but I am in favor of enforcement.
"Dustoyevsky" was minimizing the impact of cyclist misbehavior.

"Tom Paterson" in the real world. The "impact" is much, much less when
less than 300 lbs. is compared to minimum ten times that, cyclist v.
auto.

I've seen a few chain reaction MV collisions, very very few, over the
fifty years or so I've been out and aware. I doubt cyclists caused any
of them, again just by a numbers (cars v. bikes) comparison.

FWIW, I've posted in this ng recently (a "messenger" thread) pretty
strongly disparaging cyclists who break traffic laws, specifically on
the point of "bad public relations" thus engendered with MV operators,
who IME do take out their anger on law abiders (for example, "me",
riding solo) when opportunity presents. From time to time, in your
newspaper as well as mine, you will see the sentiment expressed that
since bicyclists are such a lawless bunch, they deserve whatever
"happens" to them out on the street. This behavior might fall in the
"asshole" category I mentioned earlier, but that makes little
difference when someone is threatening or actually running into you out
on the street. --TP

On 15 Jul 2005 20:11:08 -0700, wrote:

FWIW, I've posted in this ng recently (a "messenger" thread) pretty
strongly disparaging cyclists who break traffic laws, specifically on
the point of "bad public relations" thus engendered with MV operators,
who IME do take out their anger on law abiders (for example, "me",
riding solo) when opportunity presents. From time to time, in your
newspaper as well as mine, you will see the sentiment expressed that
since bicyclists are such a lawless bunch, they deserve whatever
"happens" to them out on the street. This behavior might fall in the
"asshole" category I mentioned earlier, but that makes little
difference when someone is threatening or actually running into you out
on the street. --TP

The problem, of course, is that as with any other activity, merely
attempting to deal with the misbehavior by increasing the number of
ways in which it is proscripted has little, no, or sometimes
*negative* effect on the most flagrant offenders. Absent fair and
rational enforcement, a regulation is without value or consequence;
misapplied, it's often worse than the behavior it purports to curb.
Given the small percentage of the population of the US that actually
rides a bike on a regular basis, I do not believe that there is any
need for or benefit to be derived from additional restrictions on
cycling; indeed, we need to promote the activity instead, by every
means practical. The more people we can get out there riding, the
sooner we will be able to take cycling out of the "specialty group"
status and move it to the mainstream...and if that can be done, a lot
of the criticisms of *normal* cycling necessities will vanish. Sadly,
if that occurs, we probably *will* see some move made to enact a form
of cyclist registration system, since as the cycling population grows,
so too will the number and manner of interactions that generate issues
for law enforcement. At that point, though, the entire dynamic will
have changed, and we won't be operating under the same conditions that
we are now. I can't say whether licenses will make more sense at that
point, but perhaps we shall see. As fuel prices continue to climb, I
have to think that there will gradually be less reliance on
automobiles and more on alternate forms of transport like bikes.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

That's why I said American common law and not English common law. See
e.g. Mahoney v. Ashton, 4 H. & McH. 295 Md.Gen. 1799 (rejecting
Somerset). There is an overlap between the two, but it is not
complete. -- Jay Beattie.

Werehatrack wrote:
The more people we can get out there riding, the
sooner we will be able to take cycling out of the "specialty group"
status and move it to the mainstream...and if that can be done, a lot
of the criticisms of *normal* cycling necessities will vanish. Sadly,
if that occurs, we probably *will* see some move made to enact a form
of cyclist registration system, since as the cycling population grows,
so too will the number and manner of interactions that generate issues
for law enforcement.

If cycling in America were to grow tremendously, I think we'd see
somewhat better enforcement of cycling laws, but I don't think we'd see
a license or bike registration requirement. I can't think of a reason
those would make more sense, in terms of benefits vs. detriments. In
fact, it's easier to check for licenses when you have ten cyclists in a
town, versus 10,000.

Any readers from the bike-centric northern European countries? Do you
have license and registration requirements there?

- Frank Krygowski

Werehatrack wrote:

Given the small percentage of the population of the US that actually
rides a bike on a regular basis, I do not believe that there is any
need for or benefit to be derived from additional restrictions on
cycling; indeed, we need to promote the activity instead, by every
means practical. The more people we can get out there riding, the
sooner we will be able to take cycling out of the "specialty group"
status and move it to the mainstream...and if that can be done, a lot
of the criticisms of *normal* cycling necessities will vanish.

Which will happen only when cars, and driving them, become really
unafford(sorry)able to the $5/hr working class. Some say that's coming
pretty soon; something I hope I and my children never see.

Something else I wish I hadn't seen:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-05-20/pols_feature4.html

(Opinion/rhetoric dept.):
This stupidity is the result of pie-in-the-sky thinking about
"bike-only lanes", where certain "planners" tried to take away street
(curbside) parking from residents along what was once perhaps the best
bike route in Austin, speaking as a 20-year resident. "Restriping", had
not residents gone up in arms, would have resulted in a wacky
"alternate parking" scheme, where the two traffic lanes plus two bike
lanes would have swerved from side to side of the street, with "tough
s***" for some and homefront street parking for others. IOW, an attempt
to hijack what could be regarded as property rights in the name of...
progress??? Fixing something that wasn't broken?

BTW, the article mentions "50mph" traffic. This road roughly parallels
a creek bed; it twists and turns irregularly, and has several stop
signs and two stop lights along the way. I don't have a speed gun but
I've just never seen traffic speed per se as a problem on this street,
and sincerely doubt the veracity of those who claim that 50mph traffic
is a regular occurrence.

Also noted: in taking count a couple of times, there were more traffic
islands on the route than cars parked at the curb. The trees (growing
crepe myrtles *on purpose*???) are already beginning to branch out into
the bike path at eye/head level.

Short but sweet: no, bike-only lanes are not "the answer", esp. when
residents and the driving public see their turf taken away to establish
them.

They could have "fixed" it with one solid paint stripe and one dashed
line paint stripe on each side of the road. --TP

wrote:
While riding around the past several days I've noticed some amazingly
unsafe riding by what I assume are not serious cyclists. I saw a rider
ride through a red light into a busy intersection while several cars
stayed stopped at a green to keep from hitting him. I saw riders
riding down the wrong way on a one way street against traffic. I
routinely saw riders blast off the sidewalk through the intersection
without looking or stopping. Further, these where the majority of the
cyclists I saw while riding through my neighborhood.

All of this made me think that bicycle safety statistics have almost no
meaning to the serious cyclist. After all what does the accident rate
of this group have to do withj the way I ride ? Alligator hunting is
probably as relevant.

It also made me think about why drivers get so angry with cyclists. And
once again, these drivers' anger spill over to safe cyclists. How do
people feel about licenses to ride a bike ?


If you look at a classic study like the "Cross study" on John Forester's
site:

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

You'll see that in terms of causing bike/M-V collisions by failure to
stop/yield at controlled intersections, the fault of M-V operators and
cyclists is nearly equal, and it's not a large source of collisions
(about 16% for total of both types). This is typical, with cyclist fault
and motorist fault roughly equal across the board in all types of crashes.

Bike/M-V collision is only one type of crash, and not the dominant one
either. I know lots of people hurt in bike crashes, only a few involved
a M-V. The "Moritz" study hosted on Ken Kifer's site summarizes this:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

For serious crashes, M-V involvement is 24%, simple falls 38%.

The FARS database summarizes fatality information for cyclists:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalReport.cfm?stateid=0&year=2003&title=People&t itle2=Pedalcyclists

Shows deaths from "failure to obey" (stop signs, signals, cops) at 8.2%
in 2003, out of the 622 fatalities that year, 51 individuals. Not a
*huge* problem.

They give a breakdown by colliding vehicle. They provide no category for
bikes (bike-bike collision) nor does the pedestrian report. I don't
think it's very significant.

The risk of M-V collision is often perceived as much greater than it is,
both in absolute terms or relative to other hazards. The culpability
of misdemeanoring cyclists is even more greatly exaggerated. In terms of
all collisions, the Moritz study shows that cyclists are roughly as
likely to run into stationary objects or each other as collide with
M-V's. Many law-abiding cyclists are terrible in the skills department
and crash a lot.

If you're worried about safety (yours), the best thing to do is improve
your own skills. If you're worried about others, put it in perspective.
If you're worried about "public relations" put that in perspective, too.
Licensing bikes is a really dumb idea from a number of perspectives, but
the bottom line is that it's a non-solution to a non-problem.

In article
.com,
wrote:

[...]


It also made me think about why drivers get so angry with cyclists. And
once again, these drivers' anger spill over to safe cyclists. How do
people feel about licenses to ride a bike ?

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Mandatory helmet laws. Bicycle ghettos. Ughhh.

You want to do something? Remember that automobile drivers are
frustrated. Whenever you have a chance exchange a smile and a
greeting. When an automobile driver says something harsh, either
ignore him or say something soft. Many is the a time a harsh word
on the road came to a moment of understanding. Notice how many
automobile drivers are well disposed toward bicycle riders.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Werehatrack wrote:

On 14 Jul 2005 13:46:12 -0700, "Art Harris" wrote:

mcahill wrote:
How do people feel about licenses to ride a bike ?

I don't think it's practical or necessary. What's needed is
enforcement. When scofflaw cyclists start getting traffic tickets,
they'll think twice about running red lights.

OTOH, what we *really* need IMO is more cops *riding* bikes in their
jobs. Houston has a fairly large bike squad which patrols primarily
in the downtown area and a few others. Not too surprisingly, the fact
that a good number of Houston cops are on bikes seems to have made the
force as a whole more reality-driven on the subject of traffic law
enforcement against both cyclists, and motor vehicle drivers who
ignore bikes.

Amen.

--
Michael Press