What is a “Culver” and how did they get a city?

Long time JustAnotherCyclist blogger friend BikingInLA posted a rather interesting tweet tonight:

The Culver City Chamber of Commerce might as well just tell bicyclists to take their business somewhere else. http://t.co/ezzhWOKZ6z #bikLA
3/29/13 8:17 PM

So of course I checked out the link. While disappointed, I was unfortunately not surprised by the comments of Chamber of Commerce President Steve Rose. The crux of his argument is, basically, that cyclists are being granted rights without corresponding responsibilities. Here it is in his words:

Here are a few points I would like to ask about bicyclist’s responsibility:

  • Insurance in case of an accident. Is my uninsured motorist insurance going to be raised because of bicyclists’ rights?
  • Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. Are all bicyclists?
  • Why can a bicyclist ride in the street and then on the sidewalk and then back on to pedestrian walkways?
  • Bicyclists should not only have lights on the front and rear of their bikes, but lights that can be seen from a legal distance.
  • Should bicyclists be allowed to straddle the white line and then stop in front of vehicles at a red light?
  • Why do bicyclists not stop at stop signs, as vehicles legally must do?
  • How do we tax bicyclists for maintenance of the right of way, as motor vehicle owners have to do?

 

Oh boy… I don’t see a single point of any value here. But in fairness, let’s look at each one individually.

Insurance in case of an accident. Is my uninsured motorist insurance going to be raised because of bicyclists’ rights?

Two big flaws with this question. One, it assumes that all cyclists are uninsured. In fact, cyclists are often covered by a myrid of policies – homeowner’s insurance and even auto insurance carried by the cyclist. Yes Mr. Rose, many cyclists are also licensed motorists too. Second, the amount of damage a cyclist can do, in the vast majority of cases of collisions with automobiles, is financially insignificant. Insurance rates are based on risk. The financial risk of property damage caused by a cyclist just isn’t that large.

Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. Are all bicyclists?

No they are not. But this question has no relevance either. Debates about cycling helmets aside, Mr. Rose seems to be indicating that an arbitrary number of laws is what is required to entitle cyclists to access to the highway infrastructure.

Why can a bicyclist ride in the street and then on the sidewalk and then back on to pedestrian walkways?

Well, in fact this is the exact issue that the campaign Mr. Rose is opposing intends to address.

Bicyclists should not only have lights on the front and rear of their bikes, but lights that can be seen from a legal distance.

The legal requirements for lighting and reflectors are clearly laid out in the California Vehicle Code. Unless Mr. Rose has more specific complaints, this feels like a straw man argument in a way far more obvious than the rest of his points.

Should bicyclists be allowed to straddle the white line and then stop in front of vehicles at a red light?

This is, in fact, required by state law (As far right as practical). In addition, again, this is one of the issues that the campaign Mr. Rose is opposing intends to address.

Why do bicyclists not stop at stop signs, as vehicles legally must do?

Such a tired argument. First, his statement implies that cyclists never stop at stop signs. It further implies that motorists do stop at stop signs (ever hear of a California Stop?) The argument itself is fundamentally flawed, implying that only those groups that follow the laws as a whole are entitled to rights on the road. By the same argument, I (as a cyclist) could counter that motorists should be denied rights to the road due to the statistically significant number of motorists that ignore posted speed limits.

How do we tax bicyclists for maintenance of the right of way, as motor vehicle owners have to do?

And last but not least, the mythical road tax argument. Learn the facts, Mr. Rose. We already tax bicyclists for maintenance of the right of way. Again, not only are the vast majority of cyclists also licensed owners of legally registered vehicles, the vast majority of the monies used to maintain our roads come from taxes collected from the general population, regardless of how much or how little they use the roadways.

 

I’ll leave you with this parting thought to consider Mr. Rose. As the president of the Chamber of Commerce, I would think that your primary interest (in that role) would be to foster business in your community. I would encourage you to look at the financial impact directly attributable to cycling as a lifestyle and/or recreation choice. In addition, I would further encourage you to look into the commercial impact created by behavior changes induced by cycling. There have been a number of studies demonstrating how cyclists are more likely to stop at, and patronize, urban business compared to the population of motorists driving by the same establishments. As President of the Chamber of Commerce, you may best serve your community by evaluating the economice impact of increased cycling as opposed to the emotional reaction your “questions” demonstrate.