This past Wednesday around 8 o'clock, a shrill screech broke the morning silence. It's the kind of sound a car makes when drivers are day dreaming one moment and regain consciousness the next, whereupon they slam on their brakes to avoid certain catastrophe. This time it was too little too late.
The all-too-familiar squeal was followed by the sound of a crumpled bicycle slamming to the ground. Then came the quiet thud of the bicyclist as he smashed onto the pavement (after a brief moment of impromptu flight courtesy of the driver's front bumper). You could tell it hurt when he hit.
Still, the fellow on the ground was lucky. His helmet-free head missed the asphalt. He sat up, stood up and wobbled to the curb where he sat back down. His bike was bent and so was he. advertisement
The driver did what she could to help, which was next to nothing. After consoling the injured man (an Arizona State University student), she handed him a slip of paper, presumably containing her name and telephone number, and drove away.
After she left, the Fire Department and Southwest Ambulance arrived. Proximity had a lot to do with the quick response of each. The accident had occurred two blocks south of Tempe's downtown fire station and three blocks north of St. Luke's emergency room. If you're going to get run over by a car, this is the place to do it.
Who was at fault? In this particular case, although no ticket was issued (since there was no one around to issue one) it appeared to be the driver. Stop signs at 10th Street and Ash Avenue favored the guy on the bicycle. That said, my sympathies also extend to the driver, who, like so many other drivers, is forced to navigate the maze of bicyclists who routinely converge on ASU.
They break every traffic law imaginable. Some run stop signs and traffic lights. Others ride on the wrong side of the street. The rest jay-bike, regardless of risk.
The closer you get to the ASU campus the more out of control the situation becomes. Irresponsible drivers are traveling at speeds too high for the crowded conditions on the ground. Last week, another bicyclist got creamed at College Avenue and Broadway Road, a place where they're routinely flattened like pancakes.
Frankly, given the magnitude of the mess, it's surprising so few bike riders are killed or permanently paralyzed, regardless of who's at fault.
Meanwhile, problem pedestrians also persist. It's amazing how many people not only stand on the edge of the curb, but stand in the actual street, be it in the gutter or a bike lane, waiting for a light to change green so they can cross.
How often have you, as a driver, made a legal right-hand turn and come within inches of clipping one of these road hazards?
The prospect of running one over, while unfortunate for them, isn't my primary concern. It's the inconvenience it will cause me.
Let's say you accidentally slam into one of them. Obviously, you've got to stop and render aid. That will take time. Then once they show up with sirens blaring, you're going to have to explain to all manner of officialdom why some hapless fool is wedged under your right front tire. There will be forms to complete and accusations to refute. Again, more time wasted (and you did nothing wrong).
Worse, if someone ends up dead, you'll need to hire an attorney, because innocence is an expensive proposition to prove. After all, it was the driver's fault, don't ya know?
As someone who drives in and around Tiny Town's downtown several times each day, allow me to assert that the arterial and neighborhood streets surrounding ASU are comparatively dangerous and becoming more so.
For the benefit of the overly sensitive professionals who design such things, that fact has nothing to do with how the bulk of these streets were either engineered or built. To paraphrase late-night comedian David Letterman, the best design can't compensate for stupid human traffic tricks.
Nope. The real root of the problem is too many thoughtless people (drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians) in too big a hurry in too small a space. It's a recipe for continued injury and death. Who will be next?
Dan Durrenberger is a 32-year resident of the East Valley who lives in Tempe and works in Mesa. He can be reached at
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Obviously two things need to happen... the students et. al. need to learn that they should stop for stopsigns and ride on the proper side of the road. That is 1/2 the problem.
The other 1/2 is that drivers need to learn that they need to slow down and look twice... especially if "irresponsible drivers are traveling at speeds too high..." and if you are making "a legal right-hand turn and come within inches of clipping" someone...
Perhaps those drivers need to recognize that they ARE responsible for the 3000 pound metal boxes they pilot.
recursive
Worse, if someone ends up dead, you'll need to hire an attorney, because innocence is an expensive proposition to prove. After all, it was the driver's fault, don't ya know?
If he kills someone, he's concerned that he'll have to pay for an attorney? This is a joke, isn't it?
noisebeam
Sure there are quite a few students in the area who don't follow road laws, dont cycled predictably. I have issue with them when I cycle thru the area.
But one of the things (of several) that got me was the example where the driver presumably had a stop sign, hit a cyclist and the best they could do was leave a note a drive away. No one around to issue a ticket? Huh, shouldn't the driver wait for the police? What a crappy example.
Let's say you accidentally slam into one of them. Obviously, you've got to stop and render aid. That will take time. Then once they show up with sirens blaring, you're going to have to explain to all manner of officialdom why some hapless fool is wedged under your right front tire. There will be forms to complete and accusations to refute. Again, more time wasted (and you did nothing wrong).
If you hit someone your first thought should be that it might inconvenience you. You obviously have to render aid. Yeah, that's a big waste of time. It would be much simpler if you could drive right over the cyclist. Gosh, he's not much more than a speedbump now anyway. Put him out of his misery. You should be on your merry way, but noooo... you've got to stop and render aid. And really what can you do for a fellow human being but stop and call 911? And all that the time wasted while the 'hapless fool' is nursing his pathetic broken collarbone and thoughtlessly bleeding all over the road. Your taxes go to clean that up. And cyclists don't pay taxes. Everyone knows that.
And you have to stop and talk to the police and explain yourself. I mean please... a busy guy-on-the-go like yourself... you should be free to toddle of to your next destination unfettered and unburdened by the fact that you just hit someone with your car.
Idiot. A complete waste of breath and space... doing nothing more than contributing to the heat death of the universe.
AndrewP
Often corners are radiused to allow cars to turn easier (& faster). This makes it harder for pedestrians to get across the street in the small gaps in the traffic. Abolish the traffic signs, lane markings and curbs to force everyone look out for everbody else without assuming that they have the right of way.
konageezer
When I was reading this, it was in the voice of Joe Friday from Dragnet.
This is the city. Los Angeles, California. Every day, millions of people go to work. Some go by car, some by minivan, some by SUV. A few scofflaws go by bicycle. And when they do, I go to work. I carry a badge.
It was Wednesday, September 21. It was cool in Los Angeles. We were working the day watch out of traffic division. Around 8 o'clock, a shrill screech broke the morning silence…
oboeguy
What a tool. The writer doesn't know how good they have it over there. I invite the writer to follow one of us who commutes to Midtown NYC. :D Seriously, what was the point of the article aside from contradicting oneself in writing it, as well as look like a fool?
galen_52657
his email addy is at the bottom of the article. I have flamed him already (without being rude). Care to join me?
Helmet Head
Umm... not to defend him, but is he really that far off the mark? The dude is being honest, you gotta give him at least that much.
But beyond that, the implication that in most bike/car collisions the cyclist did something wrong is quite accurate. And, frankly, when one of these Darwin Award contestants flies off the sidewalk in front of a right turner from his right while the driver is looking left (after already checking for peds, not speeding cyclists, on the sidewalk to the right), of course it's an inconvenience when the collision happens.
In the particular collision he writes about, he notes that the motorist was probably at fault, but he doesn't know to consider whether the cyclist was properly positioned to be visible - judging by how most cyclists ride, especially around campuses, he probably wasn't riding where motorists tend to be looking.
Whether we like it or not, most drivers see it as their primary responsibility to not hit another vehicle, or not to hit a pedestrian who is legally crossing or traveling in the street. In particular, at best, it is a secondary responsibility for them to look for cyclists obeying neither the vehicular nor the ped rules of the road. And when a cyclist crosses an intersection riding "off to the side" he is not obeying the rules of the road.
Cromulent
I don't think the issue is that there was an accident. I think the issue is this knob is too 'busy' to be bothered with the accident if one should occur. He might miss his tee time should he stop, offer assistance, and (gasp) be asked by the police to explain the accident.
You should have the right to run over everyone and everything in your way... right?
Nicodemus
The problem is that traffic demands in that area are not being met by city planners. It's sad enough that leaders can't wake up and stop worhipping the internal combustion engine at the expense of all else - now you have a place where there's actually *demand* for bike lanes, and they still don't wake up.
The author of that article is a tool. He, like far too many others, totally misses the big picture.
Dragnet... :lol:
Nicodemus
In the particular collision he writes about, he notes that the motorist was probably at fault, but he doesn't know to consider whether the cyclist was properly positioned to be visible - judging by how most cyclists ride, especially around campuses, he probably wasn't riding where motorists tend to be looking.
Whether we like it or not, most drivers see it as their primary responsibility to not hit another vehicle, or not to hit a pedestrian who is legally crossing or traveling in the street. In particular, at best, it is a secondary responsibility for them to look for cyclists obeying neither the vehicular nor the ped rules of the road. And when a cyclist crosses an intersection riding "off to the side" he is not obeying the rules of the road.
Where in that article was there any mention of the cyclist being in any particular part of the lane? Hi, Jack!
galen_52657
Umm... not to defend him, but is he really that far off the mark? The dude is being honest, you gotta give him at least that much.
But beyond that, the implication that in most bike/car collisions the cyclist did something wrong is quite accurate. And, frankly, when one of these Darwin Award contestants flies off the sidewalk in front of a right turner from his right while the driver is looking left (after already checking for peds, not speeding cyclists, on the sidewalk to the right), of course it's an inconvenience when the collision happens.
In the particular collision he writes about, he notes that the motorist was probably at fault, but he doesn't know to consider whether the cyclist was properly positioned to be visible - judging by how most cyclists ride, especially around campuses, he probably wasn't riding where motorists tend to be looking.
Whether we like it or not, most drivers see it as their primary responsibility to not hit another vehicle, or not to hit a pedestrian who is legally crossing or traveling in the street. In particular, at best, it is a secondary responsibility for them to look for cyclists obeying neither the vehicular nor the ped rules of the road. And when a cyclist crosses an intersection riding "off to the side" he is not obeying the rules of the road.
Look, I ride VC and think it's the safest way to ride, BUT......
The guy in the article is all over the map. IF you drive in an area of known pedestrian/slow moving vehicles AND you fail to adjust your speed and driving habits accordingly, you are KNOWINGLY oparating your vehicle in and unsafe manor.
This guy thinks he owns the road and can run over anybody any time he likes.
noisebeam
Umm... not to defend him, but is he really that far off the mark? The dude is being honest, you gotta give him at least that much.
Look, its clear a lot of cyclist and especially cyclist in the university area do not follow the rules.
But what I really don't like is the tone of the article and the purpose/message of it.
If the writer (a regular editorialist for the newspaper) really cared to make the roads safer they could have instead noted the issues (rule breaking, not predicable riding, motorists not paying attention, not following rules) and list what cyclist should do.
Instead it is a blanket slam on cyclist, with the tone and message that it is OK to hit them (well unless you dont like a nusiance).
There was no effort made to distiguish legal cyclists either. There is already so much dislike for cyclist and misperception of the laws (for instance if it is OK for cyclist to ride on the road)
A better article would have noted that many roads are high speed high density traffic resulting in students riding on the sidewalk thinking its safer and then explained this created the dangerous situation at intersections, etc. If all the students at ASU actually cycled on the roads there it I am fairy sure all cyclists would fare better.
Al
Meanwhile, problem pedestrians also persist. It's amazing how many people not only stand on the edge of the curb, but stand in the actual street, be it in the gutter or a bike lane, waiting for a light to change green so they can cross.
How often have you, as a driver, made a legal right-hand turn and come within inches of clipping one of these road hazards?
let me get this straight....people standing on the "edge of the curb....or a bike lane" waiting for the light the change are at fault if they get hit? hmm...interesting. So now a "legal righthand turn" involves driving in the bike lane an on the edge of teh curb? What if, god forbid, a bicycle is in the bike lane (riding along legally, is it suddenly the bicycles fault if the driver decides to turn right without checking for bicycle traffic?...shouldnt be, any more than if a car in the right lane decides to make a left turn and cuts across traffic to do so. The writer seems to automatically assume that the driver has a right to the bike lane and the edge of the curb when making a right turn? What next? the guy wasnt pressed up against the building, so I ran him ove as I was just utilizing my right to drive on 1/3 of the sidewalk if needed" This guy is an *****, killing someone sucks because you have to get an attorney to prove your innocence? Give me a break. I do however agree with his assessment that the problem is too many people in too big of a hurry...
cc_rider
The obvious answer is to ban all cars from the roads in question. No cars, no problem. :rolleyes:
recursive
The obvious answer is to ban all cars from the roads in question. No cars, no problem. :rolleyes:
I agree absolutely. The only problem with it is that you'll never get enough support to pass something like that. If only people could be convinced it was for their own good.
Helmet Head
So now a "legal righthand turn" involves driving in the bike lane an on the edge of teh curb?
In fact, at least in CA, right turning motorists are required to drive their vehicles in the bike lane in such a situation.
What if, god forbid, a bicycle is in the bike lane...
Well, if he's stopped, waiting to go straight, he's stopped in the wrong place. He should be off to the left with the rest of the through traffic waiting to go straight.
If he's moving, to make the right turn, he should be moving about the same speed as a motor vehicle making a 90 degree right turn.
There was no effort made to distiguish legal cyclists either. There is already so much dislike for cyclist and misperception of the laws
Of course. Look at how much confusion there is among cyclists who have every incentive to understand this stuff. Of course non-cyclists are going to understand even less. The whole message of cyclo-segregationism is so convoluted and contradictory, nobody can make any sense of it. "Cyclists should have their own space". "Same roads, same rights, same rules". WTF?
How do you have YOUR OWN SPACE AND have the "same roads, same rights, same rules"? It's nuts.
So this guys is confused. I'm surprised he's not more confused. I can't blame him.
This editorial is the product of years of cyclo-segregationist bike advocacy yammering for "our own space", bike lanes, etc. etc. Congratulations.
Careful what you wish for...
Helmet Head
The obvious answer is to ban all cars from the roads in question. No cars, no problem.
I agree absolutely.
Here you have two cyclists in a row promoting cyclo-segregationism, and they aren't even shy about it.
With this kind of wrong-heading thinking about the alleged inherent incompatibility of cycling and motoring so prevalent among cyclists, why would this kind of editorial from a non-cyclist even raise an eyebrow?
sbhikes
That's a really lame editorial. Not even worth arguing about.
dan828
If they really do have a problem with a bunch of lawbreaking cyclists, then the city just likely isn't serious about enforcing it's laws in reguards to bikes. Now the town I live in is very bike friendly, has a campus that is closed to car traffic, and students are actively encouraged to use bikes. But, the city and campus police have dedicated officers that also actively enforce the law when it comes to cycling. I've seen people running stop sign after stop sign through the downtown area then act totally and completely shocked when a bike officer pulls them over and cites them. Many can't believe that the cop is serious and begin laughing (for a very short period of time).
The thing is, with this type of enforcement, you just don't see people doing all of the stupid stuff. A new student moves to town, gets cited after doing something stupid and then ends up forking over some much needed cash to the city or university for his stupidity, and he pays better attention from then on.
Santaria
The dude is a tool.
A sampling of any college area would show that the pedestrians typically have the right-of-way. To somehow imply that they should stay the hell out of his way is immature and shows he's not willing to be responsible for his actions.
On the campus I attend, the pedestrians are guaranteed the right-of-way by an active police force on a private campus that will slam you for even trying to assert your right to drive there. Bikes and peds prevail - if your driving, your stupid - as the layout of the campus doesn't lend itself to the car well (its an 1860s campus that's just been expanded on, creating non-connecting roads that run through the central region).
Helmet Head
Look, I ride VC and think it's the safest way to ride, BUT......
The guy in the article is all over the map. IF you drive in an area of known pedestrian/slow moving vehicles AND you fail to adjust your speed and driving habits accordingly, you are KNOWINGLY oparating your vehicle in and unsafe manor.
This guy thinks he owns the road and can run over anybody any time he likes.
I think you're exaggerating what he said, which he already exaggerated to emphasize his point.
Underlying the editorial is the implicit assumption... that cyclists and motoring are fundamentally incompatible. While the problem is compounded by irresponsible cyclists and motorists making blatant errors, it exists in the absence of blatant error: cyclists should simply not be mixed with 4,000 lbs vehicles! While anyone who chooses to ride his bicycle in traffic is not necessarily doing anything illegal, he is not only taking unreasonable risk with his life and limb, but he's also interfering with the legitimate use of the roadway for motorists, for whom obviously the roads are primarily intended. If you keep this assumption in mind, and reread the editorial, I think you will find that it follows, with a pinch of insensitivity to spice it up, quite logically, from this assumption.
Yet this assumption (read it again - I worded it carefully) is often the exact same one underlying the constant clammer for bike lanes and other segregated cycling facilities by cycling "advocates", including many bike forum members.
Can we blame someone who applies simple logic to the same assumptions promoted by bicycling advocates?
genec
How do you have YOUR OWN SPACE AND have the "same roads, same rights, same rules"? It's nuts.
And yet we have multi-laned freeways, multi-laned surface streets, even multi-laned turns and these all seem to work fine...
Perhaps it is not the idea of the "lanes" that is the root of the problem... but the simply the idea that "those bicycles" do not belong on "my road."
lilHinault
Tempe's a rough town, I lived out there for a bit and remember reading in the paper how a student from out of town, living in an apartment in Tempe, had some serious 2nd thoughts about the place when he opened his door in the morning and there was a murder victem leaned against it. Crime rate VERY high. Traffic VERY gonzo.
genec
If they really do have a problem with a bunch of lawbreaking cyclists, then the city just likely isn't serious about enforcing it's laws in reguards to bikes. Now the town I live in is very bike friendly, has a campus that is closed to car traffic, and students are actively encouraged to use bikes. But, the city and campus police have dedicated officers that also actively enforce the law when it comes to cycling. I've seen people running stop sign after stop sign through the downtown area then act totally and completely shocked when a bike officer pulls them over and cites them. Many can't believe that the cop is serious and begin laughing (for a very short period of time).
The thing is, with this type of enforcement, you just don't see people doing all of the stupid stuff. A new student moves to town, gets cited after doing something stupid and then ends up forking over some much needed cash to the city or university for his stupidity, and he pays better attention from then on.
Hey, what a concept... same roads, same rules. Now we're talking.
cc_rider
Here you have two cyclists in a row promoting cyclo-segregationism, and they aren't even shy about it.
With this kind of wrong-heading thinking about the alleged inherent incompatibility of cycling and motoring so prevalent among cyclists, why would this kind of editorial from a non-cyclist even raise an eyebrow?
Since you seem to have missed my sarcastic smiley, you also missed the point of my post.
Even though the author admits that drivers are sometimes to blame for traffic accidents, I find his attitude that bicycles and pedestrians are "road hazards" and his concern for human life limited to the "inconvenience it will cause me" to be appalling. And his lumping of all cyclist into one bag of lawbreakers to be "wrong-headed" and dangerous. I suspect that if he passed 100 cyclists riding in a safe and legal manner that he wouldn't notice a one of them, but if he saw one doing something stupid that he would be screaming about all of us cyclists for weeks. He might even decide "to teach some cyclists a lesson" if given the opportunity, regardless of the "inconvenience."
He correctly identifies the problem as "too many thoughtless people (drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians) in too big a hurry in too small a space." Although he does not propose a solution, it is pretty clear where his sympathies lie.
Many motorists want bikes off of "their" roads. Many pedestrians want bikes off of "their" sidewalks and paths. We need to be prepared to take back what is "ours".
Assertive sharing.
noisebeam
That's a really lame editorial. Not even worth arguing about.
It may be lame, it may not be worth arguing about on this forum, but it is very important to me as it directly affects the attitudes of the drivers I share the road with on a daily basis. I don't ride to the ASU campus much (except mainly to go to my favorite LBS or a resturant/bar (Four Peaks!), but the editorial does allude also the the problem existing on arterials outside of campus, which I do commute on daily.
Al
Helmet Head
How do you have YOUR OWN SPACE AND have the "same roads, same rights, same rules"? It's nuts.
And yet we have multi-laned freeways, multi-laned surface streets, even multi-laned turns and these all seem to work fine...
Perhaps it is not the idea of the "lanes" that is the root of the problem... but the simply the idea that "those bicycles" do not belong on "my road."
Gene, if a "bike lane" was just a narrow lane with dashed lines that all road users had equal access to, your argument would make same sense.
But bike lanes are, by definition, for the preferred if not exclusive use of cyclists. That's very different from a freeway lane. And it's also very different from the occasional very carefully placed truck or bus lane.
The concept of cyclists needing their own space, promoted by many cycling advocates and advocacy groups, applies on all kinds of streets in all kinds of situations. It is based on the premise, that, ideally, cyclists would be completely segregated from motor vehicles, and, the closer we can get to the ideal, the better. It's cyclo-segregationism, and it forms the basis for the idea that cyclists do not belong on "my" road.
noisebeam
If they really do have a problem with a bunch of lawbreaking cyclists, then the city just likely isn't serious about enforcing it's laws in reguards to bikes. Now the town I live in is very bike friendly, has a campus that is closed to car traffic, and students are actively encouraged to use bikes. But, the city and campus police have dedicated officers that also actively enforce the law when it comes to cycling. I've seen people running stop sign after stop sign through the downtown area then act totally and completely shocked when a bike officer pulls them over and cites them. Many can't believe that the cop is serious and begin laughing (for a very short period of time).
The thing is, with this type of enforcement, you just don't see people doing all of the stupid stuff. A new student moves to town, gets cited after doing something stupid and then ends up forking over some much needed cash to the city or university for his stupidity, and he pays better attention from then on.
Well campus is quite huge and while there is the central academic part which only has a few minor roads thru it, 'campus' itself extends quite a bit beyond, to dorms, student housing, bars, cafes, etc. There are some multilane 45mph roads thru 'extended campus'
My experience as a driver and cyclist thru this area is that yes there are law breaking cyclists, but really not a majority, maybe 20% at most. Most obey lights/stops on the higher speed busier roads. The vast majority ride on the sidewalk which is legal, but not wise, but very understandable, who wants to negotiate with multilane 45mph traffic when riding 1/2-1/4mi to class or a friends place? Rarely do I see anyone wheel bike across a sidewalk. I do see the occasional way OOC cyclist when driving or cycling in area and it is not a good image. But it is far from a cycling/pedestrian chaos area - in fact motorists rule in the majority with high speed driving and narrow lanes - compared to most campuses I've been too ASU (except for central academic campus) is quite autocentric.
Al
noisebeam
Even though the author admits that drivers are sometimes to blame for traffic accidents, I find his attitude that bicycles and pedestrians are "road hazards" and his concern for human life limited to the "inconvenience it will cause me" to be appalling. And his lumping of all cyclist into one bag of lawbreakers to be "wrong-headed" and dangerous. I suspect that if he passed 100 cyclists riding in a safe and legal manner that he wouldn't notice a one of them, but if he saw one doing something stupid that he would be screaming about all of us cyclists for weeks. He might even decide "to teach some cyclists a lesson" if given the opportunity, regardless of the "inconvenience."
He correctly identifies the problem as "too many thoughtless people (drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians) in too big a hurry in too small a space." Although he does not propose a solution, it is pretty clear where his sympathies lie.
Many motorists want bikes off of "their" roads. Many pedestrians want bikes off of "their" sidewalks and paths. We need to be prepared to take back what is "ours".
Assertive sharing.
cc rider, you captured very well my feelings about this editorial and why I posted it. Taken as a whole it only works to degrade the image of cyclists in readers (drivers I share the road with) minds. Not a good thing for me.
Again, its about the attidude it conveys I find disturbing, even if some of the facts are correct.
Your point about not noticing good cylists is a good one, we blend into traffic smoothly and don't cause those sudden scares, those 'where the hell did he come from' moments.
Al
genec
Gene, if a "bike lane" was just a narrow lane with dashed lines that all road users had equal access to, your argument would make same sense.
But bike lanes are, by definition, for the preferred if not exclusive use of cyclists. That's very different from a freeway lane. And it's also very different from the occasional very carefully placed truck or bus lane.
The concept of cyclists needing their own space, promoted by many cycling advocates and advocacy groups, applies on all kinds of streets in all kinds of situations. It is based on the premise, that, ideally, cyclists would be completely segregated from motor vehicles, and, the closer we can get to the ideal, the better. It's cyclo-segregationism, and it forms the basis for the idea that cyclists do not belong on "my" road.
Hmmm sounds like a bike lane design solution to me... you pose a simple solution, which I have heard before, which in reality seems quite reasonable.
I have no problem with it, and as I have said before the problem with MOST BL is simply poor design.
Helmet Head
The problem with any BL is the B.
its about the attidude it conveys I find disturbing
I agree the attitude is disturbing, I'm just not surprised by it, and trying to bring attention to much of the cause of the prevalence in our culture of the kind of disturbing attitude exemplified by this editorial: cyclo-segregationism.
As long as we cyclists are promoting cyclo-segregationism ourselves, it's a bit odd to complain about other ways in which cycle-segregationism manifests itself in our culture, like in this editorial.
Helmet Head
Gene, if a "bike lane" was just a narrow lane with dashed lines that all road users had equal access to, your argument would make same sense.
Hmmm sounds like a bike lane design solution to me..
Gene, I put "bike lane" in quotes intentionally - because if it were designed like that, it wouldn't be a bike lane. And for it to work, it would be important for no one to think of it as a bike lane. I think that would be really tough, because many people think of unmarked shoulders as bike lanes already, and, when they do, they're just as debilitating to our war against cyclo-segregationism and treatment of cyclists as 2nd class users of the roadway as are marked bike lanes.
noisebeam
Here are my observations for this specific area:
Roads with BL on them around campus tend to be 25mph or so and relatively low volume traffic, or more dense but slow easy to negotiate traffic. Because these roads suit cyclists there are more of them and with the lower speed of cars they can 'bend' the rules with much less consequence of a real accident. Wrong way cycling, stop sign running, etc. are more common with slow traffic, good sightlines and very wide pavement space. There are also roads like this with no BL, but easy and common to cycle on.
Roads without BL in the campus area tend to be 45mph multilane with narrow outside lanes. Here cyclists stick to the sidewalk instead of negotiating/taking their space in the lane. Here the accident prone areas are sidewalk to x-walk transitions, etc. Here cyclists 'jay walk' to cross these roads to avoid them.
Now adovacy efforts are for more BLs, but unfortunately the results always seem to address theses slower roads that already are used by cyclists because, well they are easy to cycle on. Adding BLs (on these types of roads) just compounds the problem of wrong way cycling and cycle chaos. Meanwhile, folks are still cycling on the sidewalk on the main arterials (that take one somewhere outside of campus) because of the narrow outside lanes.
So advocating for BL gets the wrong results of putting them on the 'easy' streets while the ones that need wide outside lanes continue to be ignored.
There is no other city I've lived in nor visited where so many cyclists use the sidewalks. I'd estimate that only 1 in 100 cyclists use the road if the speed limit is over 25mph.
Al
noisebeam
I think that would be really tough, because many people think of unmarked shoulders as bike lanes already, and, when they do, they're just as debilitating to our war against cyclo-segregationism and treatment of cyclists as 2nd class users of the roadway as are marked bike lanes.
Well, here we strongly disagree. I dont' like BLs one bit as we've discussed in past and share your views here. But I find WOL to be vastly prefered over narrow outside lanes and I even recall in the past you agreed that WOLs have a place and can be useful. The bottom line is a WOL gives me the control of when to let cars pass/share lane, they empower me to decide how I want to ride on any stretch of road, when to take the full lane and when to move over to let vehicles pass in same lane.
Al
genec
Gene, I put "bike lane" in quotes intentionally - because if it were designed like that, it wouldn't be a bike lane. And for it to work, it would be important for no one to think of it as a bike lane. I think that would be really tough, because many people think of unmarked shoulders as bike lanes already, and, when they do, they're just as debilitating to our war against cyclo-segregationism and treatment of cyclists as 2nd class users of the roadway as are marked bike lanes.
And I have told you I use BL the same as I do mountain grade passing lanes... so if in fact the dashed lane on the side was just the "designated slow lane... " then perhaps we would have a very workable solution.
Consider the other advantages... you are driving down Miramar Road at 50 MPH+ looking for a particular address, and there is no way you can even come close to reading the signs at that speed... dare you slow down to say 25MPH to read those signs, or to make that sudden turn, when and if you find the "Left Handed Monkey Wrench Store?" Put in Slo Lanz (patent pending... trademark applied for) and now you have a lane for the gawkers, mopeds, the Segways and yes, even cyclists... some place where slower traffic can comfortably travel while still allowing the crush of 50MPH traffic to flow at it's ridiculous hurried rate.
It's a concept whose time has come.
John E
On a street with low speed limits, say 30mph/50kph, narrow outside lanes are fine. On faster streets, I want sharably wide outside lanes, with or without bike lane or fog line demarcation. On fast streets, I also want traffic calming at intersections, which implies traffic controls and/or tight-radius curves at merges and diverges.
I agree with Serge that we, as cyclists, must be predictable and lawful and that some ASU students need to be educated in proper cycling technique (EC course, anyone?). I also concur with some of the others that the writer of the editorial needs a bit of educating, himself.
John E
... many people think of unmarked shoulders as bike lanes already, and, when they do, they're just as debilitating to our war against cyclo-segregationism and treatment of cyclists as 2nd class users of the roadway as are marked bike lanes. On a 55mph/90kph rural two-laner, if the unmarked shoulder is in good condition, that is precisely where I do ride my bike. How does this differ from one's use of a sharably wide outside lane? I know you don't agree, but to me, it is all about speed. I'll take the lane with the best of them on a 30mph/50kph street, such as south Highway 101 through downtown Encinitas, but why do so on a fast road if one does not need to? Where do you position yourself on I-5 between Genesee and Roselle? In that beautiful, wide, well-maintained segregated SHOULDER, I assume!
Keith99
And I have told you I use BL the same as I do mountain grade passing lanes... so if in fact the dashed lane on the side was just the "designated slow lane... " then perhaps we would have a very workable solution.
Consider the other advantages... you are driving down Miramar Road at 50 MPH+ looking for a particular address, and there is no way you can even come close to reading the signs at that speed... dare you slow down to say 25MPH to read those signs, or to make that sudden turn, when and if you find the "Left Handed Monkey Wrench Store?" Put in Slo Lanz (patent pending... trademark applied for) and now you have a lane for the gawkers, mopeds, the Segways and yes, even cyclists... some place where slower traffic can comfortably travel while still allowing the crush of 50MPH traffic to flow at it's ridiculous hurried rate.
It's a concept whose time has come.
Don't like this at all. OK it is personal but using the right hand lane in this manner is exactly what resulted in me getting hit from behind by a car. Him not me looking. Fortunatly he was a bit below 25, probably below 20 so it was just a tap and my rear wheel gave up it's life to save mine. But once encouraged in the far right side of the street we will have people going 25 and faster and looking mainly to the side. Not to mention those who will use it as a passing lane (as already happens with the area on the right that is for parking far too often).
JASON R. TOMSIC
I think the writer of the article (or their significant other) was the culprit and the article itself a, sort of, "confessional"/ excuse. "It wasn't my fault! We all know cyclists are careless and crazy! And yet I feel bad, so I'm writing this crap, 'cause it's what I do."
Helmet Head
I think that would be really tough, because many people think of unmarked shoulders as bike lanes already, and, when they do, they're just as debilitating to our war against cyclo-segregationism and treatment of cyclists as 2nd class users of the roadway as are marked bike lanes.
Well, here we strongly disagree. I dont' like BLs one bit as we've discussed in past and share your views here. But I find WOL to be vastly prefered over narrow outside lanes and I even recall in the past you agreed that WOLs have a place and can be useful. The bottom line is a WOL gives me the control of when to let cars pass/share lane, they empower me to decide how I want to ride on any stretch of road, when to take the full lane and when to move over to let vehicles pass in same lane.
Sorry! "Unmarked shoulder" was a poor choice of words... what I meant was a shoulder (marked as a shoulder), but unmarked as a bike lane.
My point is that many people treat shoulders - any space separated from the vehicular roadway by a stripe - as a bike lane, even though it is not explicitly marked as a bike lane.
A WOL is something else again.
trackhub
Excellent work on the Dragnet / Joe Friday reference. Uh,,are you sure the reference isn't a little too old for a lot of the members here? :D :D
After consoling the injured man (an Arizona State University student), she handed him a slip of paper, presumably containing her name and telephone number, and drove away.
Hate to bring this up but here goes: In MA, you may not leave the scene of any accident involving personal injury, until you have been cleared to do so by police. This is regardless of how minor you may think the injury is. This is true if you hit a bicyclist, a pedestrian, or another motor vehicle. What's the law in Arizona?
As for the guy who wrote the Ed. letter, you must remember that we live in a society / culture where people get into fist fights over parking spaces at shopping malls, and turn murderous because they don't get enough ketchup on their fast food burgers. Thus, no one should be shocked that such attitudes exist.
patc
And yet we have multi-laned freeways, multi-laned surface streets, even multi-laned turns and these all seem to work fine...
Perhaps it is not the idea of the "lanes" that is the root of the problem... but the simply the idea that "those bicycles" do not belong on "my road."
Apparently we're supposed to ban those, along with bus-lanes, taxi lanes, car-pool lanes, etc. Heck we're probably supposed to ban rail lines too because they're "segregated". And that whole side-walk idea, I mean how can you justify separating legal highway users like that!
:eek:
Helmet Head
Apparently we're supposed to ban those, along with bus-lanes, taxi lanes, car-pool lanes, etc. Heck we're probably supposed to ban rail lines too because they're "segregated". And that whole side-walk idea, I mean how can you justify separating legal highway users like that!
:eek:
I've addressed this argument countless times in this forum, and it is covered in the bike lane debate Wiki referenced in my signature.
The only aspect I don't remember actually writing about, is the reference to pedestrians.
There is no denying that sidewalks segregate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. The question should be whether that's a net benefit for pedestrians. I believe it is.
The difference for cyclists is that partial segregation, which is all that is practically available, not full segregation, is generally more problematic than good for cyclists. There are some exceptions - some very specific segregatory facilities provide solid benefits for cyclists, without any significant drawbacks. Freeway bike lanes come to mind, as well as dedicated bike paths that bypass heavy intersections.
But, for the most part, bicycle segregation causes more problems for cyclists than it solves. The same cannot be said for bus, truck and taxi lanes.
patc
But, for the most part, bicycle segregation causes more problems for cyclists than it solves. The same cannot be said for bus, truck and taxi lanes.
Repetition, attitude, and creating biased Wikis won't convince me any more now than it did the first time.
Please, no need to tell me that I "just don't understand" or whatnot. :rolleyes:
Bruce Rosar
Apparently we're supposed to ban ... bus-lanes, taxi lanes, car-pool lanes, etc. Special use and restricted use lanes both identify a wide variety of special uses, including (but not limited to) High Occupancy Vehicle use, public transit by bus use, public transit by taxi use, and public transit by tram use. Bicycles, on the other hand, are not a use; they're a type (aka class) of vehicle which can have many different uses (including public transit).
Bikelanes don't separate a person from others because of what they are accomplishing (i.e., what they're using the public highway for); BLs separate a person just because they are a member of a class/group/type (i.e., "bicyclist"). That's segregation.
... we're probably supposed to ban rail lines too because they're "segregated".A tram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar) (aka tramcar, trolley, or streetcar) is a railborne vehicle. Rail lines for public transit tram use (which are wholly or partly laid down in streets) separate vehicle operators based on the function (aka use) that each individual vehicle provides (public transit) and the ability of each individual vehicle to travel on that facilityrather than just on the class (aka type) of the vehicle. A privately owned tram wouldn't be allowed on the public transit facility (incorrect use), and a vehicle that isn't equipped to run on tracks wouldn't be allowed either.
... side-walk ... how can you justify separating legal highway users ...The historical record (http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~reshaffer/stretx.htm) shows the real reason sidewalks came about was not to avoid collisions, or to avoid having a class (type) of slower traffic (walkers) delaying heavy motor vehicles, but just because the roads weren't paved: On his arrival in Los Angeles in 1853 Harris Newmark found no formal sidewalks in the city. He later wrote that mud was from six inches to two feet deep in winter, with dust that thick in summer.
Sarah Bixby remembered the effect rain had on the unpaved soil:
"With its first wetting it became very slippery on top of a hard base, but as more water fell and it was kneaded by feet and wheels, it became first like well-chewed gum and then a black porridge. I have seen signs that warned against drowning in the bog in the business center of town. An inverted pair of boots sticking out of a pile of mud in front of the old Court House once suggested that a citizen had gone in head first and disappeared."
Board sidewalks became more common in the 1870s, and in 1880 the first cement sidewalk was put down on Main Street.
Nicodemus
Gene, if a "bike lane" was just a narrow lane with dashed lines that all road users had equal access to, your argument would make same sense.
But bike lanes are, by definition, for the preferred if not exclusive use of cyclists. That's very different from a freeway lane. And it's also very different from the occasional very carefully placed truck or bus lane.
The concept of cyclists needing their own space, promoted by many cycling advocates and advocacy groups, applies on all kinds of streets in all kinds of situations. It is based on the premise, that, ideally, cyclists would be completely segregated from motor vehicles, and, the closer we can get to the ideal, the better. It's cyclo-segregationism, and it forms the basis for the idea that cyclists do not belong on "my" road.
So what you're saying is that with more "cyclo-segregationism", this just feeds the disrespect of cyclists?
That would explain why drivers in countries with significant bicycle infrastructure hate cyclists, right? :rolleyes: