How to handle lawbreaking cyclists (Austin, Howe: live, cost, dangerous)

[bmantx512]

Originally Posted by Weatherguy

You're welcome to open threads to discuss these other issues. In the meantime, you should either stick with the topic I initiated or go elsewhere.

OK, sticking to the topic. There are a 100+ things that effect my life more than cyclists on the road. And it's pretty apparent that these types of threads are really bait topics.

Angry motorists who were ever delayed for 30 seconds on the road by a cyclist will get their pitchforks out and rage away. The cyclist killing a pedestrian in Central Park is sad. But the ratio of cars killing cyclists, to cyclists hurting pedestrians is light years apart.

I had fantastic riding experiences all over Austin and never saw the kind of over the top law breaking crap you read on internet message boards. Nor was I once threatened by a car. Sorry but I'm not buying.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by bmantx512

But the ratio of cars killing cyclists, to cyclists hurting pedestrians is light years apart.

Are you saying that as long as pedestrians don't get hurt, then cyclists shouldn't be expected to follow traffic laws? Because that was the OP's question - not some kind of equivalency deflection.

[Trainwreck20]

I think the OPs question is based in a grossly overstated prevalence of cyclist issues. There is no real issue. You seemingly cannot answer the OP unless you accept their assumption. It is false. Lets have a discussion about how to fix the smell of tangerines that is plaguing this city! And don't go off-topic saying there isn't any smell!

I see jaywalkers, I can't see a license on their rear end, how am I ever going to deal with this major issue? Jaywalker's die all the time due to their arrogance. We need to permit and register these folks that use the sidewalks, too!

[capcat]

At one time, I thought bicyclists' disregard for traffic rules was a problem, But, no more. Now, it is cars running red lights. Is there anything more consistent than that in Austin, TX in the past couple of months? Seems increasingly to be the rule, rather than the exception these days. Not a passage through an intersection goes by without that happening, with each and every one, on my way to work. Every day. Sometimes, crazy, jaw-dropping infractions.

[verybadgnome]

There have been crackdowns targeted at cyclists:

47 tickets handed out on ‘Bike to UT Day’ | KXAN.com

And of course there have been APD crackdowns on jaywalking in the recent past.

A lot of progress can happen at the federal level, e.g. making systems like those in new Volvos mandatory in all new cars sold:

Technology of the Year: Volvo Pedestrian And Cyclist Detection with Full Auto Brake

[Dog_Gone]

Originally Posted by Weatherguy

This is not intended to say cyclists are any worse than 4-wheel vehicle traffic violations. The difference is that cyclists are much more prone to injury due to not being protected by a vehicular structure. And that should be a concern for us all, since we have friends, loved ones, and co-workers who are cyclists.

Anyway, not a day goes by that I don't see a cyclist blazing through stop signs and red lights in Austin. This not only endangers their lives but also those of others. Today, a cyclist went through a 4-way stop sign in my neighborhood, causing the 4 cars trying to get through the intersection to become confused and out of sync.

Honking horns at cyclists seems to result in their providing the finger close to 100 percent of the time, and sometimes laughter on the part of the cyclist. So, is there anything that can be done? They can't be identified because they are not required to have a license plate. Trying to stop them is probably not a good idea, as you don't know who they are or what they are capable of (same goes for drivers). There's really no way to report them. I've never seen a cyclist stopped by police, but it would be interesting to know how many tickets police issue to cyclists in a month.

Any ideas on how to constructively handle this problem? It is not my intention for this thread to be a drive vs cyclist thread. The purpose of this thread is to brainstorm ideas to solve this problem.

The obvious solution to me is for us to bring back more police neighborhood substations. I don’t see police anymore in the neighborhoods. Get out and interact with the public. Not just at sanctioned events, but every day in the same neighborhoods.
This behavior happens when out sourcing and decentralization becomes the priority. Cost savings is usually the mantra used, and the sheep follow blindly. It is very sad.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Weatherguy

You're welcome to open threads to discuss these other issues. In the meantime, you should either stick with the topic I initiated or go elsewhere.

I AM staying on topic. The topic is what to do about the "problem" of lawbreaking cyclists. And I'm staying on topic by stating that there is no such problem.

That's not to say there are no lawbreaking cyclists. But as noted, every single law on the books is being broken by someone every day, we don't go around saying "Austin has a problem".

"Problem" implies that it is both widespread and has a material effect on a large number of people. It doesn't. If that were the case, if your initial claim that a large number of cyclists were endangering themselves (your only concern, of course), we'd see that in the traffic fatalities. Instead, every cyclist fatality I can recall has been due to, not their lawbreaking, but that of others. Even if half of cyclists were lawbreakers, we'd expect them to be the majority of fatalities (due to their out of proportion risk).

[Komeht]

I'll own it. I run stops signs, regularly, on my cycle. Rolling stops are a perfectly natural way to ride. Cyclists at speed expend little energy and effort because of momentum. Having to start from a dead stop requires a lot of effort. So almost all cyclists do exactly as I do, as they approach an intersection, they slow down, look for traffic, if there's traffic, we stop, if there isn't we go having preserved a little momentum. Our slow speed and great visibility makes this both perfectly safe and perfectly reasonable thing to do.

But. . but . . .but. . .it's illegal. Yeah, it is. So is driving 31 in a 30 - but which one of you never creeps above the speed limit? Hell, which one of you never speeds anytime you drive? Very very few.

Dangerous? Not in the least. My concern for my own skin regulates the risks I'm willing to take, and a collision with a car is not one of them.

Annoying to drivers? Maybe, so what. The problem is a bad law.

How do we fix it? Easy, change the law. Implement Idaho Stops.

[vimeo]4140910[/vimeo]
Bicycles, Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop on Vimeo

But. .but. . .but - that's not fair to have different laws? That's ridiculous - lots of times different laws apply to different actors. A row boat and a ship don't operate under same maritime rules for obvious reasons. Same for hang gliders, airplanes and helicopters, each of which share the same sky but operate under different regulations for obvious reasons.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I AM staying on topic. The topic is what to do about the "problem" of lawbreaking cyclists. And I'm staying on topic by stating that there is no such problem.

That's not to say there are no lawbreaking cyclists. But as noted, every single law on the books is being broken by someone every day, we don't go around saying "Austin has a problem".

"Problem" implies that it is both widespread and has a material effect on a large number of people. It doesn't. If that were the case, if your initial claim that a large number of cyclists were endangering themselves (your only concern, of course), we'd see that in the traffic fatalities. Instead, every cyclist fatality I can recall has been due to, not their lawbreaking, but that of others. Even if half of cyclists were lawbreakers, we'd expect them to be the majority of fatalities (due to their out of proportion risk).

Oh, heck, of course we do! You just haven't been paying attention to the numerous threads regarding traffic problems in Austin and elsewhere because it's not your activity that's being put in the spotlight.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

A row boat and a ship don't operate under same maritime rules for obvious reasons. Same for hang gliders, airplanes and helicopters, each of which share the same sky but operate under different regulations for obvious reasons.

As a qualified USN Officer Of the Deck, and an Airline Transport Pilot rating holder, I can state pretty authoritatively that you couldn't be more wrong on both counts. All vessels operate under the same maritime rules. The question is, who gives way to whom? That is based on ability to maneuver - a powered vessel, of any size, gives way to a sailboat, and they both give way to a oar or paddle powered vessel. But everybody operates under the same set of maritime rules. (OBTW - from personal experience, not a good idea to insist on the ROW in your 33' sailboat over a 200,000 ton container ship or a 1,100 ft. aircraft carrier)

Hang gliding - like sport parachuting - is governed by the same Federal Aviation Regulations as powered flight. They are numerous restrictions on where either forms of unpowered flight may occur. They are designed to keep unpowered and powered flight segregated - by NOT sharing the same sky. There is no possible way cyclists would accept similar restrictions, so the analogy is flawed from the beginning.

Cyclists seem to want it both ways - respect the laws that benefit us (like the 3 ft bubble) while ignoring the ones that cause them any inconvenience.