And what about the viewpoint that bike lanes show drivers that cyclists do have a right to the road?
I have no problem admitting that bike lanes help make clear to the neanderthals that still think bikes belong on sidewalks than in fact they have a rightful place on the road. The problem with that is that it also gives them the idea that the "rightful place" is in the bike lane (see the judge's words in the opening post for an example). So it really doesn't solve anything, it just moves the problem a few feet.
Here is another thought, how many judges in this country last year ruled in favor of cyclists without even mentioning bike lanes? Seems like we are making a judgment call on the opinion of 1 Judge here which might, um, be a bit emotional so to speak as opposed to reasonable.
I think the judge's ruling exemplifies generally accepted notions about cyclist rights in our culture. The other thread about the CHP officer who said that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars is another example. You may believe these are isolated examples and are safe for cycling advocates to ignore. Except, you already said, "I would submit to you the average driver would believe that the bicycles shouldn't be in the road anyway", indicating you recognize the prevalence of this attitude.
Of course, I don't know how much influence the mere existence of bike lanes has on reinforcing and perpetuating the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. But the fact that a judge would state in a legal decision that the reason "special lanes" are provided for bikes is for the safety of cyclists and to keep them from impeding motor traffic indicates to me that the influence is significant.
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.
I have no problem admitting that bike lanes help make clear to the neanderthals that still think bikes belong on sidewalks than in fact they have a rightful place on the road. The problem with that is that it also gives them the idea that the "rightful place" is in the bike lane (see the judge's words in the opening post for an example). So it really doesn't solve anything, it just moves the problem a few feet.
I think the judge's ruling exemplifies generally accepted notions about cyclist rights in our culture. The other thread about the CHP officer who said that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars is another example. You may believe these are isolated examples and are safe for cycling advocates to ignore. Except, you already said, "I would submit to you the average driver would believe that the bicycles shouldn't be in the road anyway", indicating you recognize the prevalence of this attitude.
Of course, I don't know how much influence the mere existence of bike lanes has on reinforcing and perpetuating the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. But the fact that a judge would state in a legal decision that the reason "special lanes" are provided for bikes is for the safety of cyclists and to keep them from impeding motor traffic indicates to me that the influence is significant.
And I would argue that someone should set the judge straight except for the fact that uh, oops, apparently there is a law in New York stating that cyclists should use bike lanes, therefore giving the judge a leg to stand on if he is brought to task on it.
I think You and I agree 80% on things. It is just my opinion that Bike Lanes are not any more harmful to us than cyclists riding on sidewalks who probably do us more harm in terms of drivers thinking where we should ride and we will never be able to stop them laws or no. Heck, we can't even teach all children in this country legal or illegal to read or get them healthcare.
brokenrobot
Interesting defense. Everybody else is doing it so why can't we? As my dad use to ask "If everybody jumped off the bridge does that mean you have to?"
You're purposely misconstruing what I've said. My argument, restated simply, for the simple: Critical Mass has no provable, statistically significant negative effect on traffic flow in New York City. Charging participants with interfering with traffic flow is therefore nonsense. It's like trying to cure a flood caused by a broken water main by taping cotton balls over your eyes to staunch your weeping.
Helmet Head
Paul - we certainly agree about mandatory bike lane laws.
Where we seem to disagree is on the admittedly nebulous issue of how much the mere existence of bike lanes, independent of the mandatory bike lane laws, promotes and reinforces the notion that cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way of cars.
My position is that bike lanes have advantages, like promoting/reinforcing the notion that bikes belong on streets, not on sidewalks -- and disadvantages, like promoting/reinforcing the notion that cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way of cars, but that the disadvantages (of which there are many more beyond the one just mentioned) overwhelm the advantages (of which there are hardly any beyond the one just mentioned).
It's a basic cost/benefit analysis, the detailed discussion of which belongs in the bike lane sticky thread, not here.
Bruce Rosar
... what about the viewpoint that bike lanes show drivers that cyclists do have a right to the road? What about the viewpoint that signs (or billboards) with "Cyclists do have a right to the road" written on them would be more effective?
Helmet Head
What about the viewpoint that signs (or billboards) with "Cyclists do have a right to the road" written on them would be more effective?
And much cheaper. We just had a one mile stretch of road widened to allow for bike lanes. The project was $18 million dollars. That would buy a lot of billboards!
dobber
You're purposely misconstruing what I've said. My argument, restated simply, for the simple: Critical Mass has no provable, statistically significant negative effect on traffic flow in New York City. Charging participants with interfering with traffic flow is therefore nonsense. It's like trying to cure a flood caused by a broken water main by taping cotton balls over your eyes to staunch your weeping.
No, you're making up excuses for bad, unproductive behavior.
chipcom
No, you're making up excuses for bad, unproductive behavior.
Indeed, statistics have no relevance on the case at hand - the cyclists were cited based on their behavior and the conditions at the time, not based on statistics. Statistics indicate the Big Macs cause obesity, therefore everyone who has ever eaten a Big Mac should be declared obese? I think not.
chipcom
Of course, I don't know how much influence the mere existence of bike lanes has on reinforcing and perpetuating the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars.
Bicycles DO have a legal and practical obligation to stay out of the way of faster traffic unless there is a safety reason to do otherwise. The only people that dispute this are the minority of cyclists who take an extreme position. I ride the roads, I beleive in my right to the roads, I take the lane and impede traffic if I need to, but if I don't need to I stay the F out of the way of other traffic. Do you sanction impeding other traffic just for the heck of it? Are you claiming that these CM riders were blocking other traffic due to safety reasons? Are you a witness to the circumstances that both prosecution and defense overlooked calling to testify?
nycm'er
I had a 15 hour day, sorry I didn't get to keep up with the thread.
What I find disturbing is that so many people are willing to excuse cyclists breaking the law, yet scream bloody murder when a motorist breaks the law and gets away with it. If you want the law to be enforced, you should be willing to obey it yourself. If you feel the law is wrong, by all means protest...but if in the course of the protest you break the law and get busted, take the consequences of your actions like an adult. You say you need and want better...but your definition of better seems to be that you want the laws enforced on motorists, but bicycles should be exempt from those same laws...sorry pal, it don't work that way.
I find that the law that is broken by cars soooo many more times than by cyclists, then enforced on cyclists to what seems a higher degree. I want laws enforced on motorists, and I guess (gulp) on bikes, but so far we have the NYPD enforcing made up laws on bikers and I hardly ever see cars pulled over for moving violations. Keep in mind Chip, I was arrested and had not broken a law, (to review, I rode one block, waited at the light, and was pinched) and was never given an order to disperse.
My line, "Have you ridden here", is figure out if other posters know the game here, nearly every speeds, everyone U-turns and breaks countless other laws, Which does NOT excuse bikers from breaking laws, but maybe, since the stakes are so much higher due to tonnage, pollution and general inconvenience of cars in an urban setting, the cars, which far out number bikes, should be catching a little hell for it. Instead, you have cars that kill 500+ peds in NYC being allowed to run amok and bikes and bikers, are being singled out and fined.
And Chip, I am taking it like an adult, I'm fighting them in court, (been 8 times) and the DA/Cops won't bring it to trial.
brokenrobot
Indeed, statistics have no relevance on the case at hand - the cyclists were cited based on their behavior and the conditions at the time, not based on statistics.
Were you there? How many other masses in NYC have you observed? I thought as much - so what, then, is your basis for judgement in the case at hand? I've observed cyclist arrests at roughly a dozen masses, and participated regularly for years prior to the beginning of the crackdown (though I rarely ride CM now) - I suspect I have more basis for judging the effects Critical Mass has on traffic flow in New York than many posters here on both sides of the issue. I would be very suprised if the cyclists were cited for cause in this case; in every case I've observed, all evidence is that the cyclists were cited based on a political decision to penalize Critical Mass riders regardless of their effect (or lack of effect) on traffic flow, not on any actual effect they had. Traffic for the most part was at a standstill, as it usually is during rush hour.
The presence of cyclists has a zero-sum effect on rush-hour traffic flow in NYC. If you're in a car stopped in traffic and a cyclist passes alongside you in your lane, how has that cyclist impeded your progress? It's not the cyclist holding you up - it's the hundreds of cars stopped in front of you! It's not a question of statisitics - it's a question of simple logic.
webist
Convicted of disorderly conduct? Pay the fine, appeal and/or, if desired or necessary, use the initiative process to bring about changes in the law. What is the strength of your conviction if you aren't willing to be convicted?
chipcom
I had a 15 hour day, sorry I didn't get to keep up with the thread.
I find that the law that is broken by cars soooo many more times than by cyclists, then enforced on cyclists to what seems a higher degree. I want laws enforced on motorists, and I guess (gulp) on bikes, but so far we have the NYPD enforcing made up laws on bikers and I hardly ever see cars pulled over for moving violations. Keep in mind Chip, I was arrested and had not broken a law, (to review, I rode one block, waited at the light, and was pinched) and was never given an order to disperse.
My line, "Have you ridden here", is figure out if other posters know the game here, nearly every speeds, everyone U-turns and breaks countless other laws, Which does NOT excuse bikers from breaking laws, but maybe, since the stakes are so much higher due to tonnage, pollution and general inconvenience of cars in an urban setting, the cars, which far out number bikes, should be catching a little hell for it. Instead, you have cars that kill 500+ peds in NYC being allowed to run amok and bikes and bikers, are being singled out and fined.
And Chip, I am taking it like an adult, I'm fighting them in court, (been 8 times) and the DA/Cops won't bring it to trial.
You know, I do agree with you 100% concerning the inability of government and law enforcement to enforce traffic laws. Indeed, I think they even admit that our roads are out of control by trying to 'protect' us cyclists by getting us off the road. I think NYC has gotten pretty out of control concerning which laws it decides to enforce too...they seem to be picking the easy targets and even basing their targets on political viewpoints rather than any public safety concerns. I'm not condoning any of that and I sure as heck don't condone you getting busted for doing absolutely nothing. My point, beyond my disagreement with those who want to use this case to spook us to advance their own agendas, is that if we want the laws enforced, we have to obey them. The perception of the general public concerning cyclists that use the roads, not to mention CM, is that we are a bunch of loose cannons with no respect for them or the law. That, is our second biggest problem...the lack of enforcement of traffic laws being our biggest. Yet too many 'advocates' want to debate the possible implications of bike lanes rather than address the larger and much more important issues that would have the greatest impact on the safety of all cyclists. Good luck with your fight...I also have great respect for your doing so. :)
chipcom
Were you there? How many other masses in NYC have you observed? I thought as much - so what, then, is your basis for judgement in the case at hand? I've observed cyclist arrests at roughly a dozen masses, and participated regularly for years prior to the beginning of the crackdown (though I rarely ride CM now) - I suspect I have more basis for judging the effects Critical Mass has on traffic flow in New York than many posters here on both sides of the issue. I would be very suprised if the cyclists were cited for cause in this case; in every case I've observed, all evidence is that the cyclists were cited based on a political decision to penalize Critical Mass riders regardless of their effect (or lack of effect) on traffic flow, not on any actual effect they had. Traffic for the most part was at a standstill, as it usually is during rush hour.
The presence of cyclists has a zero-sum effect on rush-hour traffic flow in NYC. If you're in a car stopped in traffic and a cyclist passes alongside you in your lane, how has that cyclist impeded your progress? It's not the cyclist holding you up - it's the hundreds of cars stopped in front of you! It's not a question of statisitics - it's a question of simple logic.
Sorry dude, but logic has zip to do with proceedings in a court of law. :eek: It'd be nice if it did for a change.
chipcom
What is the strength of your conviction if you aren't willing to be convicted?
Is that a quote or your own phrase? I kinda like it, though I am not sure if I have the conviction to become a convict.