|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Tom Keats wrote:
In article , Bill Baka writes: Lately my urban riding style has been just that. I enjoy riding to various urban communities and neighbourhoods, and then walking around them, savouring all the good stuff they have to offer. When I'm done, I mount up again and ride off to the next. I enjoy the best of both cycling and peripatetic worlds. Why drag the bike with you?? It seems kind of silly to ride it there and then have to walk it. Done right, it's not a matter of "drag". Push the bike along with one hand on the saddle. It's easy enough to steer around once you get the hang of it. I just put my hand on the steering stem and with a minimum of effort can change the direction. Sort of extra work is all. It's kinda like walking down the street with your hand in the back pocket of yer wife's or girlfiend's [sic] jeans which so reveal her coltish curvatures. (Nod, nod, wink, wink.) Well, which one? Wife or girlfriend? If you drove a car to those places, you'd have to park it and probably have to feed a parking meter. "Nevermore", said Bill. A bike, you get to take along with you, when you know how to comfortably do so. And then you don't have to walk back to where you parked it. Walk in a circle, big one, but that is the essence. cheers again, Tom Bill |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Tom Sherman wrote:
Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In the real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a majority (motorists). Can you apply your reasoning to peds with a straight face? Are you in favor of a system under which peds must signal, keep to one lane, wear helmets, stop at stop signs, pull over and stop for lights and sirens, etc? From a public safety standpoint, is a cyclist more like a motorist or more like a ped? Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it. That doesn't wash. We got most of the traffic rules we have now because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and endanger public safety. Cyclists and peds have done no such thing, and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. If even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you? Chalo |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Tom Sherman wrote:
Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In the real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a majority (motorists). Can you apply your reasoning to peds with a straight face? Are you in favor of a system under which peds must signal, keep to one lane, wear helmets, stop at stop signs, pull over and stop for lights and sirens, etc? From a public safety standpoint, is a cyclist more like a motorist or more like a ped? Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it. That doesn't wash. We got most of the traffic rules we have now because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and endanger public safety. Cyclists and peds have done no such thing, and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. If even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you? Chalo |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote: Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it. That doesn't wash. We got most of the traffic rules we have now because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and endanger public safety. Cyclists and peds have done no such thing, and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. If even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you? This may be an obscure reference to some. An article explaining Idaho's (unique) stop & red light policies for cyclists: http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=6346 "The concept is a simple one that allows bicyclists to keep their momentum without ever taking the right-of-way from motorists: basically, stop signs are treated a yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs. Bicycles can legally blow through stop signs as long as it isn't another driver's turn." Of course there's the "vehicular POV: http://bikelaws.org/laws/Idaho.pdf "Idaho permits bicycle drivers to treat stop signs as yield signs. Some think this is a good. However, it is inconsistent with the important principle that cyclists are drivers who should follow standard traffic laws." I guess that "important principle" was on the other tablets Moses carried down. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
On Jun 1, 7:54*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Chalo wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it. That doesn't wash. *We got most of the traffic rules we have now because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and endanger public safety. *Cyclists and peds have done no such thing, and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. *If even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you? This may be an obscure reference to some. An article explaining Idaho's (unique) stop & red light policies for cyclists: http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=6346 "The concept is a simple one that allows bicyclists to keep their momentum without ever taking the right-of-way from motorists: basically, stop signs are treated a yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs. Bicycles can legally blow through stop signs as long as it isn't another driver's turn." Of course there's the "vehicular POV: http://bikelaws.org/laws/Idaho.pdf "Idaho permits bicycle drivers to treat stop signs as yield signs. Some think this is a good. However, it is inconsistent with the important principle that cyclists are drivers who should follow standard traffic laws." I guess that "important principle" was on the other tablets Moses carried down. In reading the text of the law, it's not quite accurate to say that stop lights are treated as stop signs. The stop light law essentially allows a slow rolling right turn on red (or its mirror image for one- ways) but doesn't seem to allow proceeding straight through. And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs; but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to Idaho's law. Pretty mild objection, I'd say. IMO, local cyclists and motorists are treated pretty much the same regarding stop signs. It's pretty unusual for either to make a legal stop if nobody will be affected. (I live across from a stop sign and get to watch this a lot.) And IMO motorists should be held to a higher standard, just as crane operators in factories are held to high standards. Motorist mistakes kill. But it does NOT follow that cyclists should be able to do anything they want. For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street is a significant danger to me when I'm riding. - Frank Krygowski |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Frank Krygowski wrote:
And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs; but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to Idaho's law. Pretty mild objection, I'd say. Yes, but the site home page says: "Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should define the bicycle as a vehicle. This seems to make sense, because a bicycle is actually a vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." " They're clearly dyed-in-the-wool vehicular cyclists. I've already explained my reservations about that. The objection that Jym Dyer and I (at least) have is this notion of VC as a panacea, or even a "best practice". IMO, local cyclists and motorists are treated pretty much the same regarding stop signs. It's pretty unusual for either to make a legal stop if nobody will be affected. (I live across from a stop sign and get to watch this a lot.) The context of this thread is a crackdown. I'm not sure if you're describing behavior or treatment. And IMO motorists should be held to a higher standard, just as crane operators in factories are held to high standards. Motorist mistakes kill. Obviously. But it does NOT follow that cyclists should be able to do anything they want. Nobody said that. Nor should pedestrians, but the "don'ts" list is short, and the penalties are trivial. I think reds as stops and stops as yields is a pretty good baseline for bikes. I'd go further, but that's me. For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street is a significant danger to me when I'm riding. I've heard that before, but I don't get it. I don't out ride my lights. Besides, it's kind of a redundant system, even given you can't see the unlit rider, they should be able to see you from 100's of feet away. I don't see the problem unless you're both unlit, no ambient light, and one or both riding fast. In any case, unlit riders and particularly wrong-way riders are generally not willful scofflaws, they often believe wrong way is the right way and don't think lights are required. If they're traveling at walking speed, as they most often are, they may be (functionally, if not legally) right on both counts. If I can jog against traffic without lights perfectly legally, I don't see the difference with riding at jogging speed. If you want to cycle fast, you have to have powerful enough lights, ditto for driving. The big difference is biking it's your neck mainly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes in part: IMO, local cyclists and motorists are treated pretty much the same regarding stop signs. It's pretty unusual for either to make a legal stop if nobody will be affected. (I live across from a stop sign and get to watch this a lot.) So far in our local police "crackdown," officers are merely handing out "information" tickets. Later on, it'll be the real thing. It'll be interesting to see if they ticket cyclists for not coming to a full, foot-down stop at stop signs. And IMO motorists should be held to a higher standard, just as crane operators in factories are held to high standards. Motorist mistakes kill. Then maybe MV regs and bicycle regs should be separate. Same roads, different vehicles, different regulations. Realistically, I think most legislatures currently have bigger fish to fry than updating traffic legislation which has heretofore been deemed "good enough for now." But it does NOT follow that cyclists should be able to do anything they want. For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street is a significant danger to me when I'm riding. Without enforcement, traffic legislation is only good for resolving the matter after the fact, if that lightless wrong-way rider hits ya. On the other hand, heavy-handed (cycling regulations) enforcement only serves to scare ridership off the streets. What we really need is to inculcate a culture where street/road users are considerate to each other during their brief, fleeting encounters. That doesn't happen with rote, mummery adherence to the letter of the law. It doesn't even happen with stern lectures, such as the officers handing out these "information" tickets seem to enjoy giving. I guess we all have to "grow" it within our own respective attitudes. Let the law enforcement go after those few who are unwilling to do so, and leave the rider with no mandatory bell[*] on his bike alone. cheers, Tom [*] I have a bell ~and~ a horn. Not out of obedience to the law. I just like playin' with 'em. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Tom Keats wrote:
Then maybe MV regs and bicycle regs should be separate. Same roads, different vehicles, different regulations. Heretic! Problem is, most of the "advocates" have bought into "vehicular cycling" dogma. VC isn't without its good points, but it strays into irrationality with the "same rules, same roads" mantra, and the reflexive opposition to traffic segregation. I'm all for equality, but physics is physics. What we really need is to inculcate a culture where street/road users are considerate to each other during their brief, fleeting encounters. I'm sure virtually every social problem could be solved by cooperation, courtesy and empathy. The problem is, culturally, we've been moving in the opposite direction, especially in the US. Behaving out of individual self-interest is considered natural, rational and even progressive (see Ayn Rand). Acting out of social consciousness, altruism or even courtesy is regarded as meddlesome, inefficient and misguided. We reap what we sow. Not to abuse this topic with a rant, but this Darwinian ethic has reached its inevitable result in both our current economic crisis and our increasingly hostile roads. Greed is not good. Pursuing self-interest exclusively may (sometimes) increase material wealth and individual freedom, but the consequences may range from unpleasant to lethal. Those few societies that have dramatically reversed the decline of walking and cycling have done so with policies of accommodating the needs, and protecting the safety, of vulnerable travelers. Those of us hanging on to the Darwinian approach have seen continuing decline. "Crackdowns" on "scofflaw" cyclists (or pedestrians), even if successful, will only have us marching in a more orderly fashion towards (figurative) extinction. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
On Jun 1, 3:04*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs; but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to Idaho's law. *Pretty mild objection, I'd say. Yes, but the site home page says: "Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should define the bicycle as a vehicle. *This seems to make sense, because a bicycle is actually a vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." " They're clearly dyed-in-the-wool vehicular cyclists. Apparently they are VCs according to your particular definition. Both you and Jim Dyer need to realize that there are differences of opinion among those who consider themselves VCs. Example question: Does John Forester (author of _Effective Cycling_ and originator of most of VC's concepts) believe bicycles should be considered vehicles? .. .. .. .. Answer: No. I've already explained my reservations about that. The objection that Jym Dyer and I (at least) have is this notion of VC as a panacea, or even a "best practice". We'd have to have a mutually accepted definition of VC before I know what differences in opinion we may have. But for myself: I ride separate bike trails when they are going where I want to go and not too dangerous. I find them aesthetically pleasant and good for recreation, and sometimes (rarely) good short cuts. But the notion that we should have them everywhere - currently pushed as one of the alternatives to VC - is daffy. I find bike lanes to be worse than useless. I find barrier separated sidepaths worse than bike lanes. And I find that almost all advocates for those facilities to be starry-eyed nincompoops who can't visualize simple traffic interactions. That's why they advocate door zone bike lanes, barriers that prevent cyclists from turning left, bike trails that cross major streets fifteen feet into a turning motorist's inattention zone, etc. The context of this thread is a crackdown. I'm not sure if you're describing behavior or treatment. I think crackdowns on inconsequential things (like "no foot down" at stop signs) are foolish. OTOH, I'd like to see cyclists forced to ride on the right side of the street and use lights at night. And anyone dumb enough to run a red light when a cop is within eyeshot deserves _some_ sort of penalty! For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street is a significant danger to me when I'm riding. I've heard that before, but I don't get it. I don't out ride my lights. Besides, it's kind of a redundant system, even given you can't see the unlit rider, they should be able to see you from 100's of feet away. I don't see the problem unless you're both unlit, no ambient light, and one or both riding fast. Well, admittedly I've had more problems - or near problems - on the one-block shortcut bike path near my home. But with a wrong-way rider, the closing speed is greater than my speed closing on a stationary hazard, so outrunning my lights is really not my fault. My lighting system is chosen to work with proper road behavior. Also, when somebody's dim enough to ride that way, there's no way you can predict what they will do at the last second. In any case, unlit riders and particularly wrong-way riders are generally not willful scofflaws, they often believe wrong way is the right way and don't think lights are required. If they're traveling at walking speed, as they most often are, they may be (functionally, if not legally) right on both counts. If I can jog against traffic without lights perfectly legally, I don't see the difference with riding at jogging speed. The difference is easy to understand. A jogger can leap sideways, even over a curb or ditch,to avoid a crash. An oncoming cyclist can't. And again, someone dim enough to ride that way probably has zero avoidance knowledge and skill. Wrong way riding is illegal for many, many good reasons. This shouldn't need discussion. - Frank Krygowski |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:04 pm, Peter Cole wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs; but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to Idaho's law. Pretty mild objection, I'd say. Yes, but the site home page says: "Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should define the bicycle as a vehicle. This seems to make sense, because a bicycle is actually a vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." " They're clearly dyed-in-the-wool vehicular cyclists. Apparently they are VCs according to your particular definition. Both you and Jim Dyer need to realize that there are differences of opinion among those who consider themselves VCs. Example question: Does John Forester (author of _Effective Cycling_ and originator of most of VC's concepts) believe bicycles should be considered vehicles? . . . . Answer: No. I've just read (3 time) Forester's section: "Drivers: motorists and cyclists" in "Bicycle Transportation", and it strikes me as a bunch of confusing hair splitting. Hard to say what he thinks or what practical implications it has. I've already explained my reservations about that. The objection that Jym Dyer and I (at least) have is this notion of VC as a panacea, or even a "best practice". We'd have to have a mutually accepted definition of VC before I know what differences in opinion we may have. I think Forester's oft-cited quote pretty much sums it up. But for myself: I ride separate bike trails when they are going where I want to go and not too dangerous. I find them aesthetically pleasant and good for recreation, and sometimes (rarely) good short cuts. But the notion that we should have them everywhere - currently pushed as one of the alternatives to VC - is daffy. I find bike lanes to be worse than useless. I find barrier separated sidepaths worse than bike lanes. And I find that almost all advocates for those facilities to be starry-eyed nincompoops who can't visualize simple traffic interactions. That's why they advocate door zone bike lanes, barriers that prevent cyclists from turning left, bike trails that cross major streets fifteen feet into a turning motorist's inattention zone, etc. Again, my remarks were qualified for urban environments, particularly dense urban environments. In this interview: http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebik...a/forester.htm Forester doesn't really differentiate. He does say: "Cycling according to the bike-safety commands is not safe, and bike lanes or bike paths next to the road cannot make such cycling safe. That is because the bike-safety commands and the bikeways that embody them contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles." I disagree vehemently with this. I think the cities of Copenhagen and Amsterdam are on my side. Obviously you can design dangerous segregated facilities, but just as obviously (by examples) you can design good ones, you just have to drop this "universal driver law" idea. I don't have cyclist inferiority complex, I have cyclist superiority complex. In dense urban settings, bicycles are the better mode and infrastructure should reflect that. Forester started out as a fighter against mandatory sidepath laws. That's fine, but he's an ideologue against segregated traffic. That's not so fine. He's barking up the wrong tree and has made a lot of converts. His goals are simply educating cyclists until they all cycle his way. My goals are to completely rearrange priorities and infrastructure, particularly in dense areas to facilitate and promote utility cycling, including changing laws in ways biased in favor of cyclists (convenience and safety). It's not a pipe dream, it's been done elsewhere. We have an easier job because the experiments have already been conducted. Forester is a voice from the past. Following his advice will take cycling in this country to virtual extinction. From what I gather, Forester started out opposing Dutch-style approaches to cycling here in the US in the 70's. Well, Boston doesn't look anything like Amsterdam, maybe it could. The context of this thread is a crackdown. I'm not sure if you're describing behavior or treatment. I think crackdowns on inconsequential things (like "no foot down" at stop signs) are foolish. OTOH, I'd like to see cyclists forced to ride on the right side of the street and use lights at night. And anyone dumb enough to run a red light when a cop is within eyeshot deserves _some_ sort of penalty! I've already stated my opinion. What especially baffles me is advocacy organizations requesting crackdown on cyclists. I've never heard of pedestrians urging crackdowns on jaywalking. If there's a "cyclist inferiority complex" I think it's among "advocates". For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street is a significant danger to me when I'm riding. I've heard that before, but I don't get it. I don't out ride my lights. Besides, it's kind of a redundant system, even given you can't see the unlit rider, they should be able to see you from 100's of feet away. I don't see the problem unless you're both unlit, no ambient light, and one or both riding fast. Well, admittedly I've had more problems - or near problems - on the one-block shortcut bike path near my home. But with a wrong-way rider, the closing speed is greater than my speed closing on a stationary hazard, so outrunning my lights is really not my fault. My lighting system is chosen to work with proper road behavior. I think a light should be chosen to work with reality, but maybe that's just me. Also, when somebody's dim enough to ride that way, there's no way you can predict what they will do at the last second. When I encounter a wrong way rider (and I have many times) I just go further out into the street and give them a wide berth. I don't regard it as much of a hazard. In any case, unlit riders and particularly wrong-way riders are generally not willful scofflaws, they often believe wrong way is the right way and don't think lights are required. If they're traveling at walking speed, as they most often are, they may be (functionally, if not legally) right on both counts. If I can jog against traffic without lights perfectly legally, I don't see the difference with riding at jogging speed. The difference is easy to understand. A jogger can leap sideways, even over a curb or ditch,to avoid a crash. An oncoming cyclist can't. And again, someone dim enough to ride that way probably has zero avoidance knowledge and skill. I think the "dim" cyclist is probably just ignorant. Many were taught to ride against traffic. I assume they're at least as interested in avoiding a collision as I am. I just make it clear which direction I'm going to zig, so we don't go the same way. Worst case, I stop. Wrong way riding is illegal for many, many good reasons. This shouldn't need discussion. No, but the degree of threat it represents and the best way to deal with it do. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scofflaw | Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] | UK | 2 | February 22nd 09 11:04 PM |
Paris: Police Crackdown on Bad Cycling after Velib Success | Artemisia[_2_] | General | 11 | September 3rd 07 02:04 AM |
Paris: Police Crackdown on Bad Cycling after Velib Success | Artemisia[_2_] | UK | 10 | September 2nd 07 11:39 PM |
Crackdown on cyclists | wafflycat | UK | 3 | August 7th 07 09:05 AM |
Cambridge Police crackdown | Tony Raven | UK | 40 | November 8th 06 03:00 AM |