Joggers, walkers, cyclists also have right to roads
Sunday, April 2, 2006
By JOHN CICHOWSKI
It might be a shock to some misguided fools with driver's licenses to learn that New Jersey's roads were not made for only one four-letter purpose: CARS. When designing our concrete pathways, state and federal transportation departments also left room for folks who like walking, running or riding bicycles.
As annoying as this might seem to some, I'm told it was done intentionally, probably to accommodate the 57 million people who pedal occasionally and the 17 million who regularly walk or jog for fitness. If these folks voted as a bloc, they could carry every election, which may be why most states grant cyclists the same rights as drivers, and require cyclists and motorists to yield to pedestrians.
I was reminded of these facts by Suzanne Van Housen, Bette Bigonzi, Bryan Anderson, and Mike and Anne Kruimer.
Suzanne is often run off the street by cars, and pelted with snowballs, milkshakes -- even eggplant -- as she jogs 10 miles daily through Hawthorne, Ridgewood, Midland Park, Glen Rock and Fair Lawn. "Drivers yell at me to get off the road," she said. "You'd think that this wouldn't happen in an affluent area."
Bette, a cyclist, spent several days on crutches in 1994 after her bike was sideswiped by a car in Clifton. Police investigated, but never found the driver. What troubled the Montclair woman even more, though, is the general attitude of motorists who "don't think we have a right to ride."
Bryan, a Vietnam War veteran from Hanover, fled to Iowa a few years ago, not long after a bearded fool in a pickup truck knocked him off his bike after overtaking him on a one-lane bridge in Hillsborough. He tumbled onto the truck's windshield, breaking his cheekbone and collarbone and badly bruising his hip. The driver backed up, but he didn't get out of his truck.
"Instead, he came at me again while I was lying on the ground," said Bryan. "Next thing I knew, I'm looking up into his radiator."
Luckily, other cars appeared and the trucker fled. He wasn't found, although police interviewed at least one suspect.
"It was road rage," said Bryan, 59. "Some guy -- maybe he was drunk -- saw a sitting duck with a yellow helmet and couldn't resist."
Bryan recovered completely. Anne Kruimer wasn't so lucky. The mother of two remains paralyzed from the waist down after a car rammed her while making a turn about four miles from Anne's Edison home. "The woman got between me and my wife," said Mike Kruimer, Anne's husband and cycling companion. "She lost sight of her. She didn't realize how fast bikes can move."
Motorists have been underestimating cyclists since 1896, the year that the nation's first car crash was recorded in New York City. The victim that time was a cyclist, too. Since 1932, some 50,000 cyclists have been killed in traffic accidents in the United States, according to the National Transportation Safety Administration. As roads got crowded, the rate of cycling deaths among all traffic fatalities grew from 1.3 percent in 1932 to 2 percent now. More than 41,000 were injured and 725 were killed in 2004, but the death rate has plummeted 27.8 percent from the 1975 peak of 1,003.
Computed as a percentage of population, cycling fatalities in New Jersey rank 19th lowest among the 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
Still, 16 of the Garden State's 459 traffic fatalities were cyclists last year, the same figure as 2004, according to preliminary figures compiled by the state Office of Highway Traffic Safety. The most deadly counties were Atlantic, three deaths, and Bergen, Monmouth and Ocean, two each.
But hoofing it is 10 times more dangerous. Traffic accidents claimed 157 pedestrians in 2005, compared with 155 in 2004, 147 in 2003 and 177 in 2002. The worst hours last year were from 3 p.m. to midnight when 81 were killed. The deadliest counties were Bergen, with 20, Essex, 19, and Atlantic, 15.
Police blame arrogance for much of the carnage. "Motorists don't want to share the road with other motorists," said Lt. Vincent DeRienzo, who heads the traffic safety division of the Bergen County Police. "So, why would they want to share it with cyclists or pedestrians?"
Besides recognizing that bicyclists have a right to use nearly every New Jersey road except interstates and toll roads, drivers should understand some basic rules, according to the state DOT and cycling organizations:
Cyclists are safest riding with traffic, not against it.
They may ride in auto traffic lanes or on shoulders, but are urged to leave suitable clearance from curbing to avoid debris.
They may make left turns with traffic at busy intersections.
Cyclists and pedestrians acknowledged, however, that they often create their own hazards.
"Some cyclists also think they own the road," said Bryan "What annoys me most is seeing cyclists flying through red lights or riding three abreast."
Mike Kruimer offered one more tip: Since traffic injuries are normally covered by car insurance carriers -- not health insurers -- under New Jersey's limited, no-fault auto liability plans, cyclists should buy personal injury policies that adequately cover catastrophic injuries. Insurance covered only $100,000 of Anne's injuries, said her husband.
Regardless of the hazards, bikers and hikers are here to stay. New Jersey is building hiking trails and bike lanes, and more than 20 million cycles are sold annually in the United States. One of them, a recumbent tandem cycle, belongs to the Kruimers, who cycled the East Coast Greenway together in 2004. The 2,600-mile trip from Maine to Florida took 53 days.
From my perspective, that article doesn't sound very positive and almost makes it sound as though you are taking an unnecessary risk by trying to use the roads even though you have a right to them. They fail to mention that if you add up all the cyclists fatalities since 1932 (per their statistic) it is only slightly higher than the number of fataltities per year in automobile accidents.
I did like reading the article stating clearly that we have the right to ride in auto traffic lanes and should not ride up against the curb. I just wish they wouldn't tout bike lanes as proof that bikes "are here to stay," but we've discussed that enough in other threads :)
DCCommuter
04-06-06, 08:45 AM
It's very rare to see an article outside of the cycling press that actually advocates riding in traffic. It's much more common to see articles that advocate riding apart from traffic, with "safety tips" like "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles." The middle paragraph with the statistics on cycling fatalities could have used some balancing statistics on automotive fatalities to give perspective, but overall a good article.
I can hardly wait for the letters to the editor!
I-Like-To-Bike
04-06-06, 08:59 AM
It's much more common to see articles that advocate riding apart from traffic, with "safety tips" like "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles." ...I can hardly wait for the letters to the editor!
Do you think that "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles" are NOT valid "safety tips?" What would you suggest as an alternative?
joejack951
04-06-06, 09:59 AM
Do you think that "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles" are NOT valid "safety tips?" What would you suggest as an alternative?
There are very few roads that I know of where staying as far to the right as possible is the safest way to cycle. Actually, the only time I could see that being applicable would be on a freeway where bikes are allowed. Cautioning to always stay as far right as possible is bad advice in general.
DCCommuter
04-06-06, 09:26 PM
Do you think that "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles" are NOT valid "safety tips?" What would you suggest as an alternative?
They're not safety tips if you're going to ride with traffic. If you're going to ride with traffic, ride with traffic. They're safety tips for riding alongside or apart from traffic. Most "safety tips" in the mainstream press boil down to "stay the hell out of traffic."
The problem with safety tips that boil down to "stay the hell out of traffic" is that the vast majority of people reading an ordinary newspaper article are going to be non-cyclists, and it just reinforces the notion that cyclists have no business in traffic.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-07-06, 07:39 AM
Most "safety tips" in the mainstream press boil down to "stay the hell out of traffic."
The problem with safety tips that boil down to "stay the hell out of traffic" is that the vast majority of people reading an ordinary newspaper article are going to be non-cyclists, and it just reinforces the notion that cyclists have no business in traffic.
It seems that it is YOU who reads the tips and boils downthe meaning to fit your own agenda. The tips don't boil down to "stay the hell out of traffic," except for those who read hysterical buzzword rhetoric into any/every bit of advice that doesn't say (boil down to) "take the lane or die in the death zone/deathtrap."
sbhikes
04-07-06, 09:57 AM
The article is positive in that it puts forth positive information to people who might otherwise have incomplete knowledge of the laws as they apply to cyclists. But it is so full of scary stories that it also reinforces the negatives that people already have in their mind about how dangerous cycling is, plus it has the requisite stuff in there about scofflaw cyclists running the lights and all. They can never write an article without slipping that in, can they?
The fact is, none of us with whatever lane positioning notion we subscribe to has many options when faced with the kinds of road-rage described in that article.
What is needed are more articles detailing the negative consequences of driving and juxtapositioning that with the positives of cycling. How about how sluggish and fat you might get driving vs how fit and healthy you feel cycling? How about discussing how the traffic jams while driving fray the nerves vs how refreshed, energized and relaxed you feel after a pleasant ride in on the bike (because there are no traffic jams when you're riding a bike--you just slip on by)?
ItsJustMe
04-07-06, 01:47 PM
Do you think that "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles" are NOT valid "safety tips?" What would you suggest as an alternative?
As far to the right as possible is not the same as as far as practicable. I ride in the right tire track, which I think is the safest place, even though I COULD ride on the 4 inches between the white line and the gravel shoulder.
"Yielding to bigger and faster vehicles" to me means that whenever any vehicle other than another bike is coming towards me, I need to get off the road. No, sorry. That's not very safe. My bike does poorly in loose gravel shoulders, and after windstorms on my route often the shoulders are littered with fallen branches and such, riding into them would be pretty dangerous.
It could also be taken to mean that any vehicle larger than you always has the right-of-way (you must yield to them). Also very wrong, and trying to follow it would lead to confusion at intersections, which is always dangerous.
I think both of those statements are pretty unsafe.
As for alternatives, "towards the right side of the road, as is practicable given the conditions of the road and the situation" is good for the first.
As for an "alternative" to "yield to bigger and faster vehicles" I don't think one is necessary because there's not much sense in the statement. I suppose you could state the obvious, such as "your best course of action is to act like a vehicle so that other drivers can tell what you're going to do. But remember that regardless of what vehicle you're driving, there are always raging morons out there that think that you deserve to die for keeping them 5 seconds farther away from their cappucino. Watch out for these guys even if you're driving a car."
cruentus
04-08-06, 07:21 AM
A couple of days before this article appeared in the paper, I had an interesting experience with a cager.
I'm not a bike commuter, I own two cars, but I try not to use the cars for every little trip. About 10 days ago, I had to go to the post office, super market, and Home Despot, to pick up a few items. The entire round trip was about 7 miles. It was a beautiful day, so I thought that I'd get some exercise and do my little bit in saving the environment -- as usual, no good deed goes unpunished.
I strapped my Arkel utility bags to my gas-pipe beater Schwinn -- yes, I know that the bags are worth 15 times the value of the bike -- and I was off.
I needed to make a left turn at the intersection where the super market is located. The intersection has three lanes -- a thru lane, a left turn lane(with separate signal) and a right turn lane. The safest way to get across such an intersection is to take up the left turn lane and wait for the signal, which is legal for a cyclist to do, and that's what I did.
I proceeded to take up the left turn lane, keeping as far right as practical, when a sixty-ish women driving a Toyota Camry festooned with American flag decals went ballistic. She leaned on the horn and and let loose with a barrage of obscenities telling me to "get the f*** off the road you idiot". Please note, I was not blocking the left turn lane, she had plenty of room to get past me when the light turned green. She seemed to be outraged that I would even dare to ride my bike on the road instead of the side walk.
I responded to granny by telling her to, "shut your face". She replied with more horn blowing and obscenities. When the left turn signal went green, I proceeded to make the left turn. Granny pulled in front of me and slammed on her brakes. I had to swerve around to avoid hitting her car. She then pulled away and flipped me the bird.
I try to be nice and understanding with most people, but sometimes it's all I can do to stop myself from stabbing them in the eye with a bic pen. Had I laid a finger on the desiccated old hag, I'd still be in jail now. I ask you, where is the justice?
BTW, have any of you noticed that people who plaster their cars with American flags tend to be the most boorish creeps on the road?
scarry
04-08-06, 01:04 PM
Your comments are out of line and you are coming off as a troll.
I'm sure there is a bike hater forum that would welcome you comments but this is not it.
The rule is "far right as practicable" with many exceptions.
And the basic rule of the road is that faster vehicles MUST yield to slower vehicles.
Do you think that "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles" are NOT valid "safety tips?" What would you suggest as an alternative?
trackhub
04-08-06, 05:48 PM
BTW, have any of you noticed that people who plaster their cars with American flags tend to be the most boorish creeps on the road?
Yes, I have. I knew I was not alone in making this observation. On one of my own experiences, I was travelling east on Route 117, approaching Waltham. (MA) I stopped at the light, just having crossed the bridge over route 128. Traffic was light, as it was a Sunday. There are two lanes at this light, one for straight ahead and making a left turn into the Polaroid parking lot. The other lane is for right turn only, onto Stow street. These lanes are wide, and there is plenty of room here, even in heavy traffic hours. I'm waiting in the straight ahead lane, as that is my intended direction.
A horn goes off behind me. A nice, long blast. An engine, sounding rather tired, is gunned a few times. (a threatening gesture?) I look back and see a rather battered Olds cutlass, with two occupants, male in the passenger seat, female (was that a beehive hairdo?) driving.
They veer over into the right lane, and the woman tells me loudly "You're in the wrong lane!!" The man says something I can't quite make out, but it ends with "get off the road, ******!" Then they run the light, a cloud of oily smoke coming from the exhaust. You guessed it, there was a little american flag on the antenna, and two flag stickers in the rear window.
This was a mostly positive article. Nice that it was published before the annual harvest of anti-cyclist garbage that generally graces the newspapers, usually in the June-July time frame.
I also can't wait to see the the letters to the editor on this.
UmneyDurak
04-08-06, 06:33 PM
BTW, have any of you noticed that people who plaster their cars with American flags tend to be the most boorish creeps on the road?
Yes I have noticed. I also noticed the inverse relationtionship between number of stickers and intelligence level.
sbhikes
04-08-06, 07:14 PM
It's exactly times like when that lady was honking at you at the light that you should pull out your copy of the section of the law that states what you are doing is legal and recommended and politely hand it to her.
trackhub
04-09-06, 02:50 PM
You know, I have thought about doing this a few times over the years. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange the state's bicycling laws, (MA general laws, chapter 85, sec. 11B) into a brochure type of thing, print them, and keep them in a jersey pocket, just for this purpose. But, I think what would happen would be the printouts getting tossed right back at me, or perhaps a physical confrontation would ensue. American motorists, with some exceptions, simply don't want to hear any of it.
Yes I have noticed. I also noticed the inverse relationtionship between number of stickers and intelligence level
Or else, the more stickers and flags, the crappier the car.
Wonder how these characters would react to a cyclist wearing one of those American flag jerseys that Nashbar sold a few years ago?
Joke time: You know those magnetic ribbon stickers you see on so many vehicles? I've come to the scientific conclusion that the yellow ones must read "Can't Drive", and the red-white-blue ones read "Can't park".
cruentus
04-17-06, 06:27 AM
It's very rare to see an article outside of the cycling press that actually advocates riding in traffic. It's much more common to see articles that advocate riding apart from traffic, with "safety tips" like "stay as far to the right as possible" and "yield to bigger and faster vehicles." The middle paragraph with the statistics on cycling fatalities could have used some balancing statistics on automotive fatalities to give perspective, but overall a good article.
I can hardly wait for the letters to the editor!
Here the author writes about the reaction to the original article.
-------------------------------------------------
There's room on the road for everyone, except fools
Sunday, April 16, 2006
By JOHN CICHOWSKI
ROAD WARRIOR
If my mailbox is any judge, this column has stumbled on the three annoyances that provoke even more driver fear and anger than other drivers -- namely, bicyclists, walkers and runners.
"Motorists pay for building and maintenance of area roadways through ... fuel taxes," wrote one Englewood motorist whose name is withheld to avoid embarrassing him. "Joggers, walkers and cyclists pay nothing. What makes you think that they have any rights to the road?"
The occasion for this tirade was a column saying "Misguided Fools" might be shocked to learn our roads were designed for walkers, runners and cyclists, not just cars. As an example of unwarranted abuse, we cited jogger Suzanne Van Housen, whom drivers pelted with snowballs, ice cream and eggplant.
I'm not surprised that a Misguided Fool wants to limit road access by class, but this guy would push others into the slow lane, too. "Nike doesn't pay taxes for walking," he said. "Schwinn pays nothing for roads. Motorists pay everything, including wages that we Misguided Fools pay road designers."
I guess it never occurred to him that pedestrians also drive cars and pay gas taxes that fund highways, as do truckers carrying Nike and Schwinn products. Even if they didn't, should motorists feel free to terrorize cyclists, joggers and walkers?
"I'll always allow for plenty of room for a kid on a bike," wrote our bighearted friend. "But, some trophy wife jogging down the middle of the street because she doesn't like the sidewalk, or middle-age gangs in their $500 outfits and $400 helmets blocking Route 9W? Give me a break!"
Ouch! I rarely devote space to mindless rants, but today's an exception because, based on the mail, this guy isn't alone in his fear, anger and confusion over the other Misguided Fools -- those who walk, cycle and jog.
"I come across mothers walking kids in strollers three abreast on the street because they don't want to walk on sidewalks," said Michael Weber. "Why have sidewalks if not ... to walk on them?"
Good question! Patti Rindge got this response from her Fair Lawn neighbors: Sidewalks and curbs were "difficult" to navigate.
Bad answer! Sidewalks are safe! Legal, too. State statute 39:4-34 says: "Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along ... an adjacent road."
What if there's no sidewalk?
"One of the wrong things I see is walkers walking against traffic," said Mahwah's John Pullin. "I feel like they'll walk into me."
John begged me to advise readers to walk and jog with traffic. No way! Research by the University of North Carolina in 1997 proved that was dead wrong. Of the 333 pedestrians struck in vehicle accidents studied by UNC, 257 were hit walking with traffic and 76 were hit going against traffic.
"By facing traffic, pedestrians have the ability to take evasive action more quickly," said Susan Kirinich of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Here's another reason to walk against traffic: The same statute -- 39:4-34 -- directs pedestrians to "walk only on the extreme left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing approaching traffic."
Not all the Misguided Fools are found behind the wheel, said reader Jim McDonough.
Many of them shop on Ridgewood's East Ridgewood Avenue, where they "run across the street without looking or caring," Jim reported. Fair Lawn High School students cross against lights and jaywalk with impunity on River Road, said trucker Bill Tjaden. In Rahway, pedestrian accidents provoked a ticket crackdown on drivers and walkers.
Of course, state law protects walkers. But with pedestrian fatalities reaching 157 last year, walkers shouldn't expect motorists always to yield. Although statute 39:4-35 directs drivers to yield to them at marked crossings and intersection crossings, statute 39:4-36 requires pedestrians elsewhere to yield to cars -- or face $100 fines and 15 days in jail. But that law also warns drivers to "exercise due care" for pedestrians.
Cyclists also have been spotted among the ranks of the misguided. "They ride in packs across the entire road" on Piermont Road, said Irene Hass of Demarest. And "they ride without lights or reflective strips on their clothing, making it impossible to see them until you're right upon them," said Teaneck's Sheila McKnight.
Indeed, the state Department of Transportation's Bicycle Manual suggests reflectors and retro-reflective clothing and lights at night. And statute 39:4-14.2e requires cyclists "to travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded."
Still, biking rules remain unclear to many veteran motorists like Ridgewood's Charles Katz, one of several who insisted our advice for cyclists to ride with traffic "doesn't make sense."
"You have a much better chance of getting out of the way of danger if you see the traffic in front of you," Charles claimed.
But that's not so, according to the same UNC research project. Of 3,000 cycle crashes studied, cyclists hit by vehicles facing traffic received more serious injuries than those traveling with it. "When bicyclists are hit by oncoming vehicles, crash forces are much more severe ... because they absorb most of the crash," said the NHTSA's Susan Kirinich.
So, who's more foolish in the end -- the people who use horsepower or foot power? Nobody's perfect, but this column sympathizes with the guys and gals in sneakers. Police do, too. They seldom ticket cyclists, walkers or runners -- even when they break the law by using streets instead of sidewalks.
Is that unfair? Probably, but the sneaker crowd doesn't cause as much damage as the motor crowd, especially the fools who pelt joggers with garbage. These losers fall into the unforgivable category of Misguided Fools.