Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Education, yes. In Denmark, children are given bicycling lessons at school starting in the third grade. They are then required to take a proficiency test in the 9th grade. Practicality at school, crazy right?
Cyclists (and people in general) act in their own best interest, if it's safest for them to ride in the center of the lane, they will do so. If it's safest for them to cross in the crosswalk, they will do so. If it's safest for them to ride on the sidewalk, they will do so. The challenge is creating infrastructure that makes it safe and practical for cyclists to act in a predictable manner.
Why do cyclists disobey traffic laws? Many (if not most) street lights in suburban areas will not change for a cyclist, so we're forced to either pick our moment and run the red, or make our way onto the sidewalk and cross in the crosswalk before re-entering the street. Cyclists get used to running reds (because we're forced to), so many times we don't notice that we've come across an intersection with a "light will turn for bike" symbol painted.
With regard to stop signs, when you're walking up to a street with good sight lines in both directions and no traffic near, do you stop before crossing? Probably not. You look both ways, and continue into the street without stopping. Bicycles approach stop sign intersections the same way, we slow, look both ways, and if it is safe to proceed we do so. Momentum is what makes cycling efficient, so if the cyclist doesn't need to come to a complete stop, we won't. Rolling stops for bicycles was first made legal in Idaho in the 70's, they still treat stop signs as yield signs for bicycles today. The idea of Idaho stops is best explained by this video:
I'm sorry, but this is basically what I'm talking about. So you think it's ok for cyclists to just disobey traffic laws if it's in their best interest? HUH? If it's in my best interest to drive 20 mph past the speed limit to get to work on time, should I do that as well? Or just blow a red light for the same reason?
Listen, when I was a kid, they taught us that cyclists have to follow traffic laws as cars would. If you are going to cross on a pedestrian crosswalk, you are supposed to get OFF the bike and walk your bike across. I have yet to see a SINGLE person do this.
You are saying it's ok for a cyclist to ride on the sidewalk if it's safe. But depending on local ordinance, it's against the law to do so (San Francisco doesn't allow it). Again, as a motorist, should I start speeding as long as I think it's safe?
Now, where I do agree with some of you is that the infrastructure here seems really lacking. I experience that when I am walking. The Bay Area seems to want to encourage people to get out of their cars, but makes it pretty difficult to do so at times. But that doesn't mean you should go around breaking traffic laws as long as it is "safe" to do so, or because you want to be "efficient" and not lose momentum. That's ridiculous. Complain to the politicians, advocate for change to the infrastructure. But as long as the infrastructure is what it is, cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians need to follow the traffic rules, and should be cited if they do not. Plain and simple.
I find her observations and analysis of the urban trends we see today to be fascinating, and surprisingly realistic. Lets note a few things about our region for discussion:
-Street parking is being curtailed, and wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and parklets are being introduced
-Millenials drive quite a bit less than the baby-boomers dying off, and many choose car-free lifestyles
-Of all the metro areas in the U.S., the bay probably has the best weather for bicycling
-BART's Oakland airport connector will be complete next year
-BART's Warm Springs/South Fremont extension is on track to be completed by 2015
-BART's Berryessa extension is on track to be completed by 2017
-The Livermore extension is being studied, and we now have people on the BART board who support extension to Hercules
-With any luck, BART will connect to Caltrain in San Jose sometime around 2023. The agencies will likely merge at this point, and Caltrain service will increase to BART frequency.
-Silicon Valley will have a fantastic Bus Rapid Transit system start service along El Camino in 2018
-Marin county will have an alternative to private automobiles come 2016, when SMART links Santa Rosa with the Larkspur ferry.
-Even our farthest-flung suburbs will be getting regional rail service in the near future, eBART is coming to Brentwood
We know it's happening, but do you think the transition is taking place as fast as Karen claims it is? What obstacles will we face as a region during this transition? Do you agree with her assessment that the conflict between car-driving baby-boomers and millenial cyclists is or will be 'intense'?
BART. Oh, BART. It is overextended and built when something else, invariably cheaper, might make more sense. The OIC already had a bus service from BART that was cheaper to have in place than the BART connector and is almost as fast as BART is expected to be. Also, BART may never (and, from a cost-benefit perspective, should never) extend under downtown SJ to Diridon and Santa Clara stations. That project alone is projected to cost 2.5 billion and the expected ridership numbers are underwhelming, especially given the price tag.
BART is a mass transit system meant for crush loads, not for inter-county commuters. Square peg, round hole.
SMART won't extend to Larkspur terminal for a while, certainly after 2016. As an aside, even when it does, it'll be a long 1,000 ft walk from the station to the ferry terminal. Grand Central it is not. I think the response from the public will, as a result, be lower than is hoped for. I don't expect the "build it and they will come" philosophy to work for this project. Numbers may be similar to ACE, which are nice and improving but not overwhelming.
I'd love to see more PT projects, but I think the future isn't as rosy as your post paints it.
She mentions conflict at #29. Believe me, I wish all baby-boomers were peace & love hippies, that would be me if I was born in that era. As someone who rides a bicycle daily in car-centric Mountain View though, I can tell you, there is conflict. I face at least one incident of what I would consider to be abuse at least every other day. When someone makes it a point to roll down their window and yell obscenities at me for no reason other than existing, it's nearly always a male over age 50. I certainly don't discredit the accomplishments of the previous generation, but it's only now that these ideas and lifestyles are becoming mainstream.
Maybe the problem is car-driving males over 50. Do you use bike lanes, ketch? Do the areas where you cycle have bike lanes, and if so, do you think bike lanes help? I knew quite a few professionals who took the bus to work from Berkeley to SF every day of their career. (before BART) None of those commuters wanted to hassle the toll booth and traffic on the bridge. I think all generations have been living car free or semi-car-free lifestyles to some extent since that trans-Bay commute developed. The thing to look at now, is how to make it better, and how to expand bike lane systems into more communities and build a public awareness of bike commuters and of the need to share the roads with them. Maybe navigating a street with bicycle traffic should be part of the driving exam to get your license.
I'm sorry, but this is basically what I'm talking about. So you think it's ok for cyclists to just disobey traffic laws if it's in their best interest? HUH? If it's in my best interest to drive 20 mph past the speed limit to get to work on time, should I do that as well? Or just blow a red light for the same reason?
A better analogy would be driving 10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway, or rolling to a "stop" around 3mph at a stop sign when no cross traffic is present. Drivers do these kinds of minorly illegal things all the time, because they (correctly) perceive that it is not dangerous to do so. Drivers generally do not run red lights, because it is not safe and they know it.
Quote:
Listen, when I was a kid, they taught us that cyclists have to follow traffic laws as cars would. If you are going to cross on a pedestrian crosswalk, you are supposed to get OFF the bike and walk your bike across. I have yet to see a SINGLE person do this.
I'll do this as soon as you pass a law that says drivers have to turn off their car, get out, push a button, and get back in and proceed every time they reach an intersection.
Frankly, if motorists had the same attitude towards traffic laws as the bicyclists I encounter on a daily basis, it would be complete 3rd world like chaos on the streets.
From the bicyclist perspective, this basically is a third world country.
New York's Borough of Manhattan below 96th Street would be the closest thing, and many, many people still drive there. Look around at the garages in midtown or downtown during the daytime. Absolutely full of cars.
Most of the cars present in Manhattan below 96th during the daytime are not owned or driven by Manhattanites.
A better analogy would be driving 10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway, or rolling to a "stop" around 3mph at a stop sign when no cross traffic is present. Drivers do these kinds of minorly illegal things all the time, because they (correctly) perceive that it is not dangerous to do so. Drivers generally do not run red lights, because it is not safe and they know it.
I'll do this as soon as you pass a law that says drivers have to turn off their car, get out, push a button, and get back in and proceed every time they reach an intersection.
This is why we have traffic laws. As a society, we are basically codifying our standards of "safe" into our laws, because subjective standards of "safe" can differ greatly. I may be a skilled driver and think it's safe to go 20 over the speed limit. Objectively, the situation may be considered safe to do so. Guess what, I'm still breaking the law. Cyclists may "think" it's safe to ride on the sidewalk. San Francisco's laws say otherwise.
Your second statement is so ridiculous it doesn't justify a response.
When I lived with my brother until last year, we shared one car. It wasn't practical economically to own two cars. Plus with a one-car garage, we would have one car blocking the driveway then.
The one car per household model will predominate in SF city proper in the near future. I can't see the trend spreading to anywhere else in the Bay Area, even in Oakland or Berkeley. We need to expand BART a lot more in the East Bay to get more cars off the road. With the present infrastructure, we will not trend out to carless households. A few neighborhoods may become carless over time with improved transit: Mission, Tenderloin, North Beach. BART would have to run 24/7 and buses run more frequently as in NYC.
The only area in this country to trend out to the carless household is in Manhattan and parts of North Brooklyn of NYC.
This is why we have traffic laws. As a society, we are basically codifying our standards of "safe" into our laws, because subjective standards of "safe" can differ greatly. I may be a skilled driver and think it's safe to go 20 over the speed limit. Objectively, the situation may be considered safe to do so. Guess what, I'm still breaking the law. Cyclists may "think" it's safe to ride on the sidewalk. San Francisco's laws say otherwise.
Your second statement is so ridiculous it doesn't justify a response.
I clearly stated earlier that I live in Mountain View, not San Francisco. On El Camino Real (also known as state highway 82) the main thoroughfare through silicon valley, most cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk, because the speed of cars(40+mph), volume of cars, and lack of protected bike lane make it unsafe to ride in the road. I'd wager a good 70 percent of all goods and services available in silicon valley are along El Camino, yet it's a road made for cars only. Because of this, cyclists are forced to either ride on an unsafe route, or take the sidewalk.
In reference to your first point, cars speeding and running red lights is not the same as a bicycle rolling through a stop sign, or riding slowly on a suburban sidewalk. A cyclist is moving a 20lb frame at 10-20mph, with the ability to stop quickly or swerve. A motorist is operating a 4000lb killing machine, often at 10mph over the speed limit. When a cyclist makes a bad call, maybe he/she impedes vehicle traffic for a moment. When a motorist breaks the law, people die.
I clearly stated earlier that I live in Mountain View, not San Francisco. On El Camino Real (also known as state highway 82) the main thoroughfare through silicon valley, most cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk, because the speed of cars(40+mph), volume of cars, and lack of protected bike lane make it unsafe to ride in the road. I'd wager a good 70 percent of all goods and services available in silicon valley are along El Camino, yet it's a road made for cars only. Because of this, cyclists are forced to either ride on an unsafe route, or take the sidewalk.
In reference to your first point, cars speeding and running red lights is not the same as a bicycle rolling through a stop sign, or riding slowly on a suburban sidewalk. A cyclist is moving a 20lb frame at 10-20mph, with the ability to stop quickly or swerve. A motorist is operating a 4000lb killing machine, often at 10mph over the speed limit. When a cyclist makes a bad call, maybe he/she impedes vehicle traffic for a moment. When a motorist breaks the law, people die.
It's illegal in San Francisco, and I mentioned San Francisco because that was the city being discussed in the OP. If it's legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk in Mountain View, have at it.
If the law states that you shouldn't ride the bike on the sidewalk, then that law ostensibly exists to protect the safety of pedestrians. If you still decide to ride your bike on the sidewalk, then you are making a choice that your safety is more important than that of a pedestrian.
If it is indeed illegal to ride on the sidewalk in MV, then you need to get off the sidewalk. If you think that's dangerous, then either assume the risk or drive a car. But you can't trade a pedestrian's safety for your own. The fact that El Camino may not be "friendly" towards cyclists is not something that should be solved by blatant disobedience of traffic laws. Again, I'm going on the assumption that sidewalk riding is illegal. If it isn't, have at it. But this logic would then apply to San Francisco, where it is indeed illegal.
My point was not comparing the relative dangers of motorists and cyclists disobeying traffic laws. My point is that it doesn't make any sense for EITHER to break them, no matter if the driver or cyclist thinks it is "safe" to do so. My original complaint was that cyclists seem to just pick and choose whether to obey traffic laws or not based on mood or some subjective assessment of safety. Then they also choose whether they want to be treated like cars or like pedestrians. Most of the comments defending such behavior just goes to prove my point.
I'm all for improving cycling infrastructure here, whether it's through more dedicated bike lanes or whatever. I'm also for strict enforcement of traffic laws and ticketing cyclists AND motorists who are breaking the laws. But lack of infrastructure is no excuse for cyclists to just do whatever they want. If one thinks the infrastructure does not support safe cycling, then advocate for such a change through political processes. Until then, get off the bike and walk, drive, or take public transportation. Or obey the laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
