The Observation Deck

It has implications for Lakewood but I’ll put it here. At long last there is something to like about the Obama administration. Here it is, or should I say here he is (clicky)

Among other things it is recommended that transportation policy,,,,
· Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes (that would be your cars).
· Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.
· Go beyond minimum design standards.
· Collect data on walking and biking trips.
· Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.
· Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, SNOW REMOVAL)

Ray LaHood, as Transportation Secretary, is essentially saying, if you want federal DOT dollars, you better think more seriously about adding bike and pedestrian transportation considerations to the projects you propose. It’s about time. And it could foster a big competitive advantage for Lakewood.

I believe LaHood also weighed in on the total stupidity of allowing motorists to be distracted by their stupid effing dangerous cell phones. I will look into that.

The hope then is that communities (like Lakewood) adopt similar guidelines, and that these will be baked into new infrastructure proposals. It's a rather circuitous path--and comes far short of a mandate--but this is a crucial start. And when local city planners (like Lakewood’s) get with the program, they'll find a wealth of ideas out there, from folks who ride their bikes every day (like me). Or walk….

Forgive me for not knowing this, but are they getting federal money for the new interbelt bridge? I heard a while ago that there were plans to add a bike lane of bike underpass or something. Then I heard that it would require to much re engineering and they were scraping the idea.

Does this mean they are going to start requiring operator licenses and plates for bicyclists, and start citing those that violate traffic laws?

Do you ride a bike, Will?

I appreciate your point of view: You've certainly seen bikes roll through intersections, fail to use turn signals, etc. And if you've worked downtown you've probably seen messengers ride the wrong way down one way streets, etc.

But I expect that enforcement of traffic laws will continue to be about the same for bikes as cars. For cars, speeding is the rule, not the exception. Failure to use turn signals is common. Rolling through stop signs is de rigeur. Aggression toward the rest of traffic--whether it be other cars or bikes--is also pretty common. The other day I was following every traffic law as I pedaled down the street, and someone in a car threw a half full bottle of something at me. That person didn't get a ticket, either for littering or assault.

Sure, there are cyclists who ignore a lot of traffic laws. But people in cars have no room to talk.

We used to ride, but no longer do, in part because of age, but mostly because the roads here are not well maintained, and I would say even hazardous.

I must have misunderstood what you said. You seemed to say that bicyclists have a right to speak, while motorists do not, which is a ridiculous position. Some of us, in each group, observe the law, while others do not. All of us have the right to express our opinions.

My point would be that there is no mechanism for insuring that bicyclists know what the law is before they take to the streets and sidewalks.

But we already have laws on the books regarding the rules that bicyclists must follow and as I have heard before ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if a bicyclist is seen doing something illegal they can be ticketed, just as a pedestrian can also be ticketed for breaking the law.

I do have to agree with Mike I hear complaints from motorists regarding bicyclists and pedestrians when often times the drivers are the ones who think and act as if they are above the law. I can't even tell you how many times I or my children have nearly been hit by drivers acting like they are the only ones on the road. I also hold drivers to a higher standard because they are behind the wheel of a potentially deadly weapon. If a pedestrian or a bicycle hits a car they may do a little damage to the vehicle but they won't kill the driver. Cars driven by people kill pedestrians and bicyclists all the time.

Will,

asking "Does this mean they are going to start requiring operator licenses and plates for bicyclists, and start citing those that violate traffic laws?"

is a long way from saying, "Some of us, in each group, observe the law, while others do not."

The first statement seems to imply at least that that police don't enforce traffic laws against cyclists, if not that cyclists are more defiant of the law than people in cars.

In saying people who drive cars (and I am one of them) have no room to talk, I mean to imply that people who drive cars break laws without getting tickets, too, and therefore are in no position to criticize others for doing the same thing. There are plenty of euphemisms for that. The first that comes to mind comes from the bible: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Another comes from the kitchen: That's the pot calling the kettle black.

There's a non euphemism that describes the statement, too: It's baseless. Bicycles are already required to have licenses in Lakewood and Cleveland and several other communities, and police do enforce traffic laws regarding cyclists.

Will asks....

Does this mean they are going to start requiring operator licenses and plates for bicyclists, and start citing those that violate traffic laws?

As for requiring an operator's license, that's a good question. I don't pass my self off as an expert, but I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that requires bicyclists to have an operator's license. I'm not sure why they would. I do understand and agree that it seems foolish to permit untrained riders to ply the streets. But generally, unlike motorists, cyclists do not pose a danger to others when they are ridden on the street (even improperly), and many (most?) street riders already have a driver's license. Are you suggesting that younger riders obtain licenses, or be barred from the street?

Certainly one big problem is that most riders are taught by someone who does not know what they're doing: their parents. It seems odd that parents send their kids to certified water safety instructors to learn to swim, but take on cycling instruction themselves.

As for “plates,” many municipalities require bikes to be registered and have a sticker with a unique identifier attached. That is a requirement that I am opposed to. The folks in charge justify it by saying that it helps return stolen bikes, but the stickers are easily removed, and these days there is a national registry that does a much better job, especially to the extent that they get the support of local police departments. The registration requirement can't be about the money because right now Lakewood charges a one-time fee of $2 and is considering eliminating even that. Will, why would you have me register my bikes? All four of them? In addition to my car? I see no good reason for it, not at all.

And as for citing those who violate traffic laws, I'm all for citing any user of the road, cyclist or motorist, who violates traffic laws. Period. Bring 'em on. Part of the problem I face when riding is a lack of respect from motorists and that stems in part I believe from other cyclists who abuse the rules of the road. By the way, additionally, I believe cyclists should be fined for using the sidewalks “when pedestrians are present” (as is the law here in Lakewood) and also for using earphones (not illegal yet to my knowledge).

But I also feel that the laws are much too lax for crashes between motorists and cyclists, when the motorist is at fault. It should NOT be possible to claim “I didn't see him” and get away with failure to yield and two points. The reason you didn't “see him” is because YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION and if you don't pay attention or let yourself be distracted and it leads to a cyclist or pedestrian being badly hurt or killed, you should lose your license and face steep fines. That's now the law in Oregon and Illinois, and other states are considering it. In England they check cell phone records after a crash that causes injury, and if you were on your phone, you are facing jail time.

The license tag on a car, or a motorcycle, is readily readable, and I think this should enable the police to issue a citation, by mail, perhaps, in cases where there is no immediate hazard, and a potentially high speed pursuit would cause such a hazard.

The licenses on bikes are not readable beyond a few feet; I think they should be for the same reasons.

Its been a few years, but I seem to recall that a drivers license authorizes you to drive a car, but you need a special license or endorsement to drive a motorcycle. If that makes sense, and I think it does, then it makes just as much sense to require a special license or endorsement to drive a bicycle.

Because I used to ride a bike, I am careful as a motorist to observe the rights of bicycle traffic. But in all honesty, I see few bikers who are careful to observe the rules of the road, and who thus put themselves in danger. Further, I think this mass of scofflaw bikers causes a reaction among most motorists, which makes them less courteous than they should be. Years ago I was driving along the valley parkway, and there was a bicyclist using the road. I don't begrudge him that. Auto traffic was backed up behind him for quite a ways, but he stood on his rights and never pulled off to let a couple of dozen people by him. I don't begrudge him doing that, even though it seemed discourteous to me. I was impressed, because motorists were being very careful to stay well clear of him when they finally had an opportunity to pass; I was one of them. Shortly down the road we came to a red light, and there were about ten cars stopped there. The bicyclist passed them all in the gutter, and ran the light, which is in my experience not uncommon behaviour. Needless to say, when the light finally changed, the motorists' good will had vanished, and they were less careful when they repassed him. That is hardly the only time I have seen similar behaviour, and I think it is a main reason why motorists generally don't respect bicyclists.

I've never seen a cyclist being cited, but I've seen many motorists, and a driver of a power wheel chair cited. That doesn't prove, of course that cyclists are never cited, but it makes me think it is rare. People seem to think that a cyclist cannot cause much damage, but when one gets into a situation where collision is threatened, I think most motorists will try to avoid the collision with the cyclist, and any emergency evasive maneuver like that has a potential of harming third parties. So where is the recourse there; people have been harmed, but the person who caused the harm may very well have no insurance (no license, recall, no financial responsibility requirement).

As to what citation should be laid, I would rather look at the facts of the case than have a "rule" that the motorist could never have failed to see the cyclist. Some cyclists have no lights; some are nearly invisible at night, some swerve all over the road, or cut in front of cars without warning. There are just too many variables and possibilities to warrant a rule that someone who has chosen a less safe vehicle is never a victim of circumstances, and that the other party must be harshly punished.

Even in countries where cycling is common and traffic laws are enforced, some cyclists do dumb things and are injured or killed, and some die when a motorist does a dumb thing, and some die when neither has done a dumb thing. A bicycle is inherently less safe than a car, because they have no inherent stability, their brakes are weak, and they provide no framework around you to protect you in a collision.

Perhaps a solution would be to build bikeways with out streets, but I don't think there is room for that in Lakewood. As it is, our paving is such that bicyclists will swerve to avoid holes, and sometimes when they do that, they are going to swerve into danger and be hurt or killed.