In my area, and in my experience, more than a few drivers show road rage tendencies toward cyclists.

It is mostly just intimidation but I have been hit with mirrors on 2 occasions and I'm 99% sure it was on purpose. This goes with throwing cans and who knows what else, threats, honks, people getting out of cars to approach cyclists threateningly... It may or may not have to do with riding style, lane position or whatever, but I am hoping to keep the conversation away from these aspects.

My proposal: Have police in plain clothes and on "regular" bikes riding streets being shadowed by either patrol cars or motorcycles a street over or something. Cyclist officer is on a 40/45 mph multilane road, I suggest this as it seems to be were most incidents occur (in some instances these are the slowest/least traveled roads available) among other reasons. Cyclist officer could radio to motorized cop to pull over and ticket/arrest any offenders. This would hopefully be more as a campaign on this exact subject of road rage against cyclists rather than looking for expired tags and what not, but not sure how that would work out.

Put the story on the news and papers along with some quick education of cyclist right to roads and lanes. Do you think it would help curb such behavior? Anyone know of any areas that are or have tried this? I am considering this as a serious local proposal, so help me out. Thanks.

My proposal: Have police in plain clothes and on "regular" bikes riding streets being shadowed by either patrol cars or motorcycles a street over or something.


I actuially hope that gilded ponies would descend from the heavens to clear my paths.

Hoping on cops is equally foolish.

It may or may not have to do with riding style, lane position or whatever but I am hoping to keep the conversation away from these aspects.

Location: Austin

My proposal: Have police in plain clothes and on "regular" bikes riding streets being shadowed by either patrol cars or motorcycles a street over or something. Cyclist officer is on a 40/45 mph multilane road, I suggest this as it seems to be were most incidents occur (in some instances these are the slowest/least traveled roads available) among other reasons. Cyclist officer could radio to motorized cop to pull over any offenders. This would hopefully be more as a campaign on this exact subject of road rage against cyclists rather than looking for expired tags and what not, but not sure how that would work out.

So today we want the police on our side. What a refreshing change.

I want the cops on the side of public safety. Other than being of little to no direct help, I haven't had any issues with them.

DevilsGT2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=68685) Yes, I am in Austin (actually just very near, so it would not actually be Austin police). What of it? And it's not that the quoted subjects aren't valid, but they have been beaten to death and was hoping for maybe a change of conversation.

Does anyone have anything productive to add?

could make for an interesting sting operation. the officers would need to ride their bikes to the letter of the law to obtain good results.

I've often thought that bike cops only patrolling bike paths was kind of a wasted opportunity. I think it's a good idea, to be honest, but good luck getting the cops to agree.

Yes, actually getting cops on the street will be the hard part. That and making sure they are interpreting the laws accurately.

I have already implemented a less than perfect campaign to hopefully help, but I need a better understanding of how the system works. We need reporting of incidents which, from talking with groups of cyclists, basically never happens. They might report once, but the lack of any attempt at help stops any future effort.

Squeaky wheels get grease. Mayor or direct to the police? Council meetings? (rhetorical at this stage) I am going to speak with a family friend who ran for mayor and is a lawyer and cyclist (though I think he sticks to shoulders of HWY's mostly) for some pointers.

This seems to be an excellent idea. Possibly more effective to present the concept as a way to tag reckless and aggressive drivers in general. Plain clothes motorcyclist would work, too, probably tagging the same jerks.

I know there's lots of emphasis on educating the public and on educating cyclists. Educating the police would be possibly more effective in the long run.

My personal experience is that cops don't like cyclists, and wouldn't really be willing to help. Their idea of cyclists safety is keeping your bike on a trail, or better yet, in the garage, or better yet, in the garBage.

Of 3 close calls in the last 3 years, 2 were with the same police lt. from my own city, and at least one was on purpose.

My personal experience is that cops don't like cyclists, and wouldn't really be willing to help. Their idea of cyclists safety is keeping your bike on a trail, or better yet, in the garage, or better yet, in the garBage.

Of 3 close calls in the last 3 years, 2 were with the same police lt. from my own city, and at least one was on purpose.

I would say my experience is not that cops don't like cyclists, many just don't know the law as it concerns bicycles.
Most cops I contact about dangerous drivers first questions are always about what was I doing wrong. Where was I riding, was I in the (non-existant) bike lane, etc. Just for the record in Wisconsin we have a 3 foot passing law for bikes and it doesn't matter where you are in the lane, the passing car is supposed to give you at least 3 feet. It's almost never enforced, even with video evidence of an usafe pass.
My first goal is to get the police to understand the bicycle related laws, then I can start hoping for sting operations.

But there are good cops out there. I just finished taping a segment for a local police department's cable show about the 3 foot passing law we have in Wisconsin. I also have other projects in the works with this department, so there's always hope.
Good luck with your idea and keep us up to date
Bikesafer (www.bikesafer.blogspot.com)
Jeff

My personal experience is that cops don't like cyclists, and wouldn't really be willing to help. Their idea of cyclists safety is keeping your bike on a trail, or better yet, in the garage, or better yet, in the garBage.

Of 3 close calls in the last 3 years, 2 were with the same police lt. from my own city, and at least one was on purpose.


Sure it was.

maddyfish, you have a violence-prone police lieutenant in your town trying to hurt you?
it would be safest to move elsewhere if that's the case as it's not worth the risk.

My personal experience is that cops don't like cyclists, and wouldn't really be willing to help. Their idea of cyclists safety is keeping your bike on a trail, or better yet, in the garage, or better yet, in the garBage.

Of 3 close calls in the last 3 years, 2 were with the same police lt. from my own city, and at least one was on purpose.

My personal experience is that cops are just mindless thugs, not to be trusted at all.

My personal experience is that cops are just mindless thugs, not to be trusted at all.

Lots of people think that, until they need one.

I have a lot of respect for the police, if only because they can make my life miserable if I don't ;) They do a tough, thankless job, for very little money, and while not perfect, in my experience, manage to maintain a fairly professional demeanour in the face of some pretty severe provocation. (YMMV, natch). I think we should cut them a little slack, and maybe they'll do the same for us.

In most important ways, your average police officer is very similar to the average poster here.

Tdister's suggestion, and variations thereof, could not only make a positive difference for cycling safety and advocacy, but also provide cops with a little fun and exercise.

Lots of people think that, until they need one.

I have a lot of respect for the police, if only because they can make my life miserable if I don't ;) They do a tough, thankless job, for very little money, and while not perfect, in my experience, manage to maintain a fairly professional demeanour in the face of some pretty severe provocation. (YMMV, natch). I think we should cut them a little slack, and maybe they'll do the same for us.

Ditto. Frankly every time I have ever been stopped, it has been a very professional situation, and indeed I was clearly in the wrong.

However apparently things are not always so positive with some situations... as exemplified by the events in this thread... http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6542078&postcount=1

So I am not exactly ready to brand every cop as "good," but certainly it is a tough job.

You might consider something to educate the police, cyclists, and motorists. The League of Illinois Bicyclists is getting good police participation in a program to train officers on bicycling issues. http://bikelib.org/enforcement/index.htm

The program includes Traffic Violation Warnings officers give to both cyclists and motorists. http://bikelib.org/enforcement/policebikepamphlet2007.pdf

Austin has several active advocacy groups that might be able to work with police on a similar program.

It seems like a good idea.

I would prefer an unmarked car as the backup, and on the same street, close enough to render assistance if needed. I don't favor the idea of pulling an aggressive driver over when he's a mile down the road. The overall impression on the bad actors (and witnesses in other cars) will be strongest if the traffic stop happens almost immediately.

Also, it'd be preferable to keep the cyclist officer out of the stop. Let him ride on, and have the officer in the unmarked car issue the tickets and address the infraction. The officer on the bike will be vulnerable enough as it is! Why expose him to future retribution from the worst of the offenders?

It's a great idea, but LE will not go for it as the only way to enforce an ordinance or ticket someone is to actually pull them over. Noone will voluntarily stop for an unmarked bike cop.

The best way is for marked LE on bikes to actually pull over motorists and issue tracked warnings for close calls and tickets for accidents.

On another note, I thought Austin was bike friendly?

I've often thought that bike cops only patrolling bike paths was kind of a wasted opportunity. I think it's a good idea, to be honest, but good luck getting the cops to agree.

We've got them all over our Downtown, here. (Here being Columbus, Ohio.) As well as a group from Parks and Recreation policing the MUPs, and people from the Chamber of Commerce, all on bikes.

I thought Austin was bike friendly?

All the times I've cycled there it seemed so. Drivers overall were much more laid back then anywhere else I've spent time - speed limits were generally followed (in city, rural is different). It did seem though that many cyclists still ride on the sidewalk and some of the sidewalks were in terrible condition. In my many trips up/down Lamar I never once encountered another cyclist on the road.

Al

It's a great idea, but LE will not go for it as the only way to enforce an ordinance or ticket someone is to actually pull them over. Noone will voluntarily stop for an unmarked bike cop.

The best way is for marked LE on bikes to actually pull over motorists and issue tracked warnings for close calls and tickets for accidents.

On another note, I thought Austin was bike friendly?

Didn't read the OP did you... the idea is for unmarked cops on bikes as decoys; marked cops on motorcycles do the actual "pulling over."

Austin is supposed to be generally bike friendly, the area just outside of Austin may not be quite as friendly... even Lance had run-ins with locals who tend to feel if you ain't in a pickup truck and wearing levis, you ain't sh!t. Texas attitude... I was raised in Texas, I know the attitude.

Entrapment.

I think that using an undercover bike cop is overkill and, frankly, not really necessary. All you need is: (1) an unmarked patrol car to cruise appropriate areas at appropriate times; (2) a media campaign to inform drivers that biker harassment is wrong and to encourage bikers to report it by cell phone (with license number and car description); and (3) a policy of following up on cell phone reports ASAP). I'm not even really concerned with the number of tickets issued - pulling someone over and giving them a warning (at least for a first offense) would be a decent deterrent.

And this could be done as part of a larger anti-road rage campaign, even.

Entrapment.

Entrapment is when you actually encourage the crime... these guys are only out to ride, and the reaction of the motorist is what gets the cop called.

To make it entrapment, you'd have to wear a provocative T shirt or flip off a motorist.

Entrapment is when you actually encourage the crime...

Just to play devils advocate.... Where does cycling in the gutter in a narrow lane fall if the crime is passing to closely?

Al

Just to play devils advocate.... Where does cycling in the gutter in a narrow lane fall if the crime is passing to closely?

Al
If there's no tangible law (i.e. 3 feet), then it's entrapment. If there is a tangible law, then it's not. ;)

If you have a video camera (e.g. an helmet cam), and you catch a ragin cager in the act, can you bring the video to the police to have them file a criminal charge?

If there's no tangible law (i.e. 3 feet), then it's entrapment. If there is a tangible law, then it's not. ;)

Every US state has a law requiring safe distance when passing.

Al

Every US state has a law requiring safe distance when passing.
Tangible. i.e. "3 feet" "10 feet". Objectively measurable.

If you have a video camera (e.g. an helmet cam), and you catch a ragin cager in the act, can you bring the video to the police to have them file a criminal charge?

I don't have the link handy ... maybe someone else can point you there ... but do you recall the post regarding the snow plow and the cyclist with forward and rear facing cameras?

Tangible. i.e. "3 feet" "10 feet". Objectively measurable.

I agree ... I would rather have a fixed minimum distance with the "safe distance when passing" language that would kick in if extraordinary circumstances were applicable.

Every US state has a law requiring safe distance when passing.

Al

Define "safe distance." In CA, if they didn't hit you, it was "safe enough."

I don't have the link handy ... maybe someone else can point you there ... but do you recall the post regarding the snow plow and the cyclist with forward and rear facing cameras?

oh yea I remember that one... different situation though...

did anything come out of it?

invisible, genec:

I was not asking which is a preferred law for cyclists - that is a totally different discussion. Read post #28.

Al

Al, I know my initial post was joking, but what's your take?

IF (big, hypothetical "if") a place really enforced a tangible reasonable passing distance, to the point where close passes were very rare for anyone, would you still take the lane if it was probably too narrow for the car behind you to pass legally?

(I'm also meaning in the absence of other factors that would cause one to take the lane, like a door zone, an intersection with a right turn, on a steep downhill, for example)

Just curious.

invisible, genec:

I was not asking which is a preferred law for cyclists - that is a totally different discussion. Read post #28.

Al

my bad.

oh yea I remember that one... different situation though...

did anything come out of it?

Good question ... the last time I went to the blog, the local municipality -- I recall it was a very COLD place -- was still pushing the paper around without any action.

EDIT: On the above person's blog -- if my memory is correct -- there was another situation where the offender was ticketed as a result of his video.

IF (big, hypothetical "if") a place really enforced a tangible reasonable passing distance, to the point where close passes were very rare for anyone, would you still take the lane if it was probably too narrow for the car behind you to pass legally?

Absolutely. For reasons:

1. It is courteous to the rear approaching driver to give a clear unambiguous signal that they will have to change lanes (at least partly) to pass. The sooner they know the sooner they can prepare resulting in a smoother merge with less delay to them. This does not mean that if the driver does not merge early that I will stay in centerish position. Depending on conditions and if the driver ends up behind me and slowed and is respectful (i.e. not tailgating or honking) I will move over to make it easier to pass. As it is today if I am centerish in a narrow lane and a solo driver (no one on their tail) approaches and starts to merge left, I'll sometimes move right too as they pass.

2. Close passes (and clipping resulting from, oops, closer than I meant) would still occur (you said rare, not eliminated) Considering that all close passes are not due to uncaring, negligence or are intentional, no matter how good enforcement is passing drivers will make judgment errors. These errors will/may increase if the cyclist is far right and motorist does not notice them as readily. The extra space on right gives some evasion room.

3. In a narrow lane traveling at normal speed I will want to be at least ~3' from curb anyway, which for practical purposes for other drivers not much different than centerish (~5' from curb)

Al

If you have a video camera (e.g. an helmet cam), and you catch a ragin cager in the act, can you bring the video to the police to have them file a criminal charge?

Most of the time they don't do anything but get the drivers side, (which is usually that I swerved or was riding in the middle of the road and that they gave me six feet of clearance and then I swore at them), and then ask they me why I wasn't riding on the sand or gravel covered shoulder. Sometimes you get a good fair cop who knows the law and then you might get some enforcement.

As far as the snow plow, nothing more came of it other than what was mentioned in the velonews article. I'm still waiting to hear back from the City Attorney who agreed to look at it and tell me if he thought the evidence was good enough to ticket the driver even though he said he was standing by his assistant's descision not to ticket.
Check back on the blog and you'll see about this and other cases as well as other positive developments
Bikesafer (www.bikesafer.blogspot.com)
Jeff

invisible, genec:

I was not asking which is a preferred law for cyclists - that is a totally different discussion. Read post #28.

Al

I donno, would it still be entrapment in that case... That is an interesting question...

Entrapment usually involves setting up a crime that might not otherwise occur, such as telling someone you are interested in buying a large amount of illegal drugs and providing the monies up front... such that one is compelled to commit a crime that might not otherwise occur... IE they become a drug dealer because the opportunity was created.

If one is riding along a curbside and you are close passed (but not hit) is it even a crime... as I pointed out, in CA, if you are not hit, it wasn't a crime. Now, if the state has a 3 foot law, and also has a law saying one should not cross the double yellow to pass, and a situation is set up where there is only 2.5 feet available to pass a cyclist... That may be in the gray area of entrapment.

But if a cyclist is riding in what we would normally ascribe to as using good techniques... (such as following the examples of these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU4nKKq02BU) and they are harassed... I would call that pretty cut and dry. Book 'em Danno!

Frankly any cyclist tasked to do this should be keenly aware of cycling laws and best practices.

Most of the time they don't do anything but get the drivers side, (which is usually that I swerved or was riding in the middle of the road and that they gave me six feet of clearance and then I swore at them), and then ask they me why I wasn't riding on the sand or gravel covered shoulder. Sometimes you get a good fair cop who knows the law and then you might get some enforcement.


Jeff

But your videos should show that you did not swerve and were riding in a predictable manner... thus shutting down that argument from the cops.

But your videos should show that you did not swerve and were riding in a predictable manner... thus shutting down that argument from the cops.

Some times the police won't even look at the video.

It is mostly just intimidation but I have been hit with mirrors on 2 occasions and I'm 99% sure it was on purpose.

Either your town is full of expert drivers, or I'm thinking you're mistaken. People generally can't keep dings and scratches off their car, I doubt they'll be good enough to barely clip you on purpose.

Here's a way to make it a bit more palatable, even in bike unfriendly places:

Ask them to expand the program to ticket lawbreaking bike riders as well. Blown or rolled stop signs, sidewalk travel, travel the wrong way, sharing lanes/lanesplitting, no lights/bell/brake where required, etc.--all the things that drivers routinely complain about regarding bicyclists.

Propose it for a limited time span--like a week, a month, or certain days--with the intention of comparing tickets issued at the end of the enforcement period.

'Cause certainly there are more law breaking drivers out there than bicyclists, yes? And if not, it would certainly raise awareness about cycling safety. Win-win situation if you can introduce this...

That would be a horrible waste of policing resources. The problems we face as cyclists, quite frankly aren't that serious when we consider that only 800 people killed a year on a bike as compared to what happens to people driving cars.

The reality is that police have a tough job to do and unless you want to live in a police society with 10x the number of officers on the street, then police are not the answer to the problems we face.

That would be a horrible waste of policing resources. The problems we face as cyclists, quite frankly aren't that serious when we consider that only 800 people killed a year on a bike as compared to what happens to people driving cars.



Just wondering... what happens when the number of cyclists on the road doubles??? Will the death rate double too? What if cyclists represented 20% of the traffic out there vice less then 2%? Will we still be "complacent" with the number of cycling deaths per year?

Of course those are some what "loaded" questions... as we as a society do seem to be somewhat complacent with the 40,000 or so that die each year in auto accidents.

That would be a horrible waste of policing resources. The problems we face as cyclists, quite frankly aren't that serious when we consider that only 800 people killed a year on a bike as compared to what happens to people driving cars.

The reality is that police have a tough job to do and unless you want to live in a police society with 10x the number of officers on the street, then police are not the answer to the problems we face.

any more that checkpoints that the police put up periodically to catch anything from dui to expired registrations...
heck, I would be happy if they started ticketing drivers for speeding... it seems like a rare event to see a cop actually pull someone over...
also, I don't like the idea that increasing safety for cyclists (which actually could put more people on bikes...) is a waste of resources...

My personal experience is that cops are just mindless thugs, not to be trusted at all.

That's been my experience as well.