In San Francisco, an ordinance co-sponsored by city supervisors John Avalos, Jane Kim and Eric Mar appears poised to pass. This ordinance will change stop sign violations by cyclists to the the lowest priority of the police department. Functionally, this will create a similar situation to the Idaho Stop law, but within the city boundaries only. In the state of California (unlike some other states) an actual change in the law would have to take place at the state level.
At this time, 6 of the 11 supervisors support the ordinance. Those currently in favor are Avalos, Breed, Campos, Kim, Mar and Wiener. According to KQED, supervisors Christensen, Cohen and Farrell are currently undecided
Supervisor Malia Cohen has not yet taken a position on the issue, said aide Yoyo Chan. “We are still continuing to hear from all perspectives,” Chan said in an email.
— “Majority of S.F. Supervisors Back ‘Idaho Stop’ Proposal for Cyclists” KQED.
That is the majority required to move the ordinance along to the mayor. However, support of Mayor Ed Lee is still unclear, and it would take a vote of 9 supervisors to override his veto should it occur.
This shift has come about in no small part due to a recent “stop in” demonstration on the famous Wiggle of San Francisco.
At the state level, there was another change. Governor Jerry Brown has signed a law creating a means to allow cyclists and pedestrians that have received a traffic citation to have their fines reduced by attending traffic school. These diversion programs would be set up and run by the local jurisdictions. This is similar to the system already in place for motor vehicle moving violations. As the BikingInLA blog points out, the provides more than just a reduction in fines. Instead, it creates a unique opportunity to educate. And there are certainly enough folks out there that could do with a little bit of that.
Ed Lee photo credit: By Mayor_Ed_Lee.jpg: Nancy Pelosi derivative work: Tktru (Mayor_Ed_Lee.jpg) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Just a short, simple observation for you today. I’ve noticed a good thing, and a bad thing, about the “hands free” or “no texting while driving” laws enacted across the country.
Fewer distracted drivers on the road, looking at where they are going instead of LOLing the latest selfie from their bestie.
An increase in the number of people parked in the bike lane, having pulled over to LOL the latest selfie from their bestie.
… You win some, you lose some.
Lawyers are a highly educated bunch – right? I mean, when they make a statement of law they know what they are talking about (goes the common wisdom). So boy was I excited when I read the following, written by a Nebraska Attorney:
Bicyclists always have the right of way […in Bellevue, Nebraska]
Really? Someone from Nebraska – tell me it’s true! Keep reading →
Ooops… Looks like there were some inaccuracies in my original story. I’ve taken the content offline while I do more research.
Ah bicycle helmets. The topic that I just can’t leave alone. While I try to remain non-judgmental to the choices of others, and personally can take it or leave it, I still remain decidedly against helmet laws.
Bicycles are a very convenient form of transportation. This can be especially true if you are a young male in a juvenile detention center out with a group to take a cycling proficiency test. That is precisely the advantage two teenagers took in Eccles, UK – escaping a detention on a pair of mountain bikes. It is suspected that the boys – aged 13 and 14 – rode the 7 miles to a local train station. Neither the boys nor the bikes have been reported recovered.
It is an interesting look into the nature of the strained relationship between cyclists and motorists that some of the most vehement, hate-filled arguments between the groups will take place in the comments of articles posted online on local newspapers websites. It seems that whenever an article about a cyclist getting hit by a car and seriously injured or killed is put up, those that believe cyclists shouldn’t be on the road come out in force to voice their outrage at the situation. In almost all cases, this ends up with statements about how the cyclist just shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place, and ties in many generalizations and stereotypes about how all cyclists are reckless and cyclists never follow the rules of the road.
So why do some motorists view cyclists in such a negative light? Are cyclists out there, running rampant across our roads, looking for every opportunity to thumb their noses in the face of drivers and their “rules of the road?” Well clearly there are cyclists that do break the laws. For many different reasons – which I will go into shortly – cyclists have been known to roll past stop signs without stopping, or creep through red lights before they turn green. So there, I’ve admitted it right? I’ve clearly acknowledged the motorists point of view that cyclists are a bunch of law breakers. Not so fast… The motorist’s argument suffers from two flawed assumptions. First, by talking about what “cyclists” do the statement implies that all cyclists do the same things and for the same reason. Any reasonable person would see this as a falsehood. Secondly, the motorist making this argument states that cyclists don’t belong on the road because they are all lawbreakers. However, this argument only works if motorists are not lawbreakers. In fact on almost any trip down an interstate highway you will see numerous motorists breaking the speed limit. Should we perhaps argue that the freeways should be shut down – cars banned – until motorists stop being “a bunch of lawbreakers?” I’ve also noticed that, especially at the suburban 4-way stops that I may be likely to roll through on my bike, a fair number of motorists don’t come to complete stops either. The term “California Stop” refers to cars – not bicycles.
Once we acknowledge that folks operating both bikes and cars can and do routinely break the law, where does that leave us? At this point many of the anti-cyclist crowd will begin to cite unequal punishments for cyclists. The first of these arguments is often along the lines of “cyclists don’t need a license, so there is no punishment for them.” I bring this argument up first because it is the weakest. In no state does the application of traffic fines or other punishments require the violator to have a license. For example, in my home state of California I can receive the exact same fine for rolling through a stop sign on my bicycle as I can for driving through it in my car. Furthermore, because I actually am a licensed driver, moving violations on my bicycle actually are recorded as any other traffic infraction – resulting in increased auto insurance rates and potential license suspension or revocation.
The more educated of our anti-cyclist debaters, however, will cite that police just don’t seem to stop cyclists that roll through stop signs or stop lights with the same vigilance they would with cars. While I have no actual numbers, my own personal experience as both a cyclist and a motorist would be to agree with this statement. Unfortunately the common human reaction is one of “if I can’t get away with it, why should anyone else.” However, if we actually consider the job of the police officers we will see that this apparent lack of enforcement is probably not some sort of preferential treatment, but rather just common sense.
Our police officers obviously can not catch all crimes. Instead, they have to make decisions about how best to use their time and limited resources to do the greatest good for society as a whole. As an extreme example, if an officer sees a person jaywalking, while a fist fight has started across the street, no one would claim preferential treatment for law breaking pedestrians if the officer did not take the time to ticked the jay walker and instead dealt with the assault situation. This is just common sense.
Even more so, it is about the actual damage potential to society. Argue the fairness of it all you like, it is simply far less dangerous to society for a bicycle to be ridden through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop than it is for an automobile. The potential for damage caused by a bicycle hitting something or someone is just far less.
When I think about these arguments, however, there is one fact that occurs to me that I believe might be fundamental to the differences between the sides – and hopefully key to bridging that gap. The vast majority of cyclists on the road also drive cars. This means that many cyclists see both sides of the issue, know what effect a cyclist can have on a driver as they share traffic lanes, and thus would hopefully have a more rounded and balanced viewpoint. The reverse, however, can not be said. The vast majority of motorists do not ride bicycles on the roadways. They are not aware of some of the issues faced by cyclists trying to find safe space on the road. Perhaps if we can increase that understanding and awareness all of those comments following the online news posts would be more about identifying dangerous intersections and pushing for improvements as opposed to the continued “cars rule, and if you bike you’re a fool” mantra.
Apparently for some simply stealing a guys bike isn’t enough. Instead of stopping there, let’s beat him unconscious too. At least that’s what a SacBee article is reporting.
That actually raises an interesting point that has always bothered me. Historically we’ve had much higher legal penalties for stealing primary transportation – first horses and now cars. These penalties have been (and are) higher than the simple financial value of the stolen property. Why? A big reason is that stealing someone’s primary transportation can leave a person stranded in a way that can potentially be dangerous for them. Well, what about those of us that use bikes as our primary transportation? What happens when I am 30, 40, 50 miles or more from home and get my bike stolen? Where’s my “Grand Theft Bicycle” statute?
All that aside, I wish this cyclist a speedy recovery. I’m still feeling the mental effects of the theft of my bike, and I didn’t have the added insult of a physical assault to go along with it.