Flame War
PREFACE
Sara wrote her piece for Oregon Cycling, and I idly posted it to a dozen friends, bike-publications, and bike-groups. Jason Meggs of Berkeley Critical Mass reposted it to a slew of local officials and state-wide bike-organizations, and it touched off a debate over questions of whether and when cyclists ought to obey traffic laws: hundreds of e-mails - many of the more obnoxious ones repeated between 2 and 40 times - over the next 7 days (one fellow received 250 posts in 5 minutes and a couple of the California list-serves had to shut down for a few days) when the debate ended as abruptly as it began.
The combatants in this war are two widely represented factions in the cycling community: Critical Mass riders - the unorganized legion of cyclists in 200 cities worldwide who ride in protest once a month during Friday rush-hour to demonstrate the viability and virtue of cycling, and a group who style themselves Vehicularists due to their adherence to the notion that bicycles are vehicles and deserve the same status, consideration, and responsibilities of any other vehicle. They practice a training formula that they teach to cyclists all over the world to ensure a high standard of cyclist safety and predictability. Vehicularism was developed by John Forester in the early 70's and is explained in all its particulars in his frequently revised manual entitled Effective Cycling.
I believe this debate is of signal significance and that it prophetically and clearly lays out the future of urban cycling by virtue of its detailed consideration of the central issues. It is also a gripping battle between passionate antagonists, tempered only by a few unaligned fence-sitters and interested parties I dub the "Gandhians" from the consistent wisdom and temperance of their contributions. There are furious skirmishes, touching armistices, and a clearly decisive victory.
Quotes from previous posts have been pruned. All times are Pacific Standard. Thanks to all contributors.
DRAMATIS PERSONAE:
Massers Vehicularists Gandhians
Sara Stout Philip Wright Derek
Jason Meggs Herb Kutscha j.a.b.
Mike Smith Jim Baross Ted Lemon
Nicole Morrow John Forester Jym Dyer
Mark Motyka William Volk Doug Faunt
Janice Rothstein Avery Burdett Paul
Matthew Dockrey Hugh Smith Ken Kifer
Ted Lemon Wade Eide Trevor Bourget
Julie Peter Rosenfeld Bill
Jon Winston David Thistlethwaite Dick Janson
Sean Worsey Ken Kifer
Sean Brennan Brian Watkins
Josh Sutcliffe Other
Frank Perrotta
Karl Anderson Terence Geoghegan
Rob Bregoff P.M.Summer
Eric Black J.R.
Scott Richie Michael Klett
Joe Speakes LACritMass
Luigi P.
CONTENTS:
|
Wednesday 1 Sara - a spark 2 Jason - kindling 3 Philip - gasoline 4 Terence flames Sara 5 Mike rebuts Philip 6 Nicole sets Philip straight 7 Herb flames Mike 8 Herb flames Nicole 9 Mark refutes Philip 10 Mark refutes Herb 11 Derek rebuts both sides 12 Nicole settles Herb's hash 13 Sean tells Herb what for 14 j.a.b. ups the ante 15 Herb ridicules j.a.b. 16 Ted trumps Herb 17 Gerry doubts, Jason doesn't 18 Jym waves the flag 19 Jim deplores disorder
Thursday 20 Derek flings a dart 21 Julie takes sides 22 Jon takes a swipe at Herb 23 Jon recovers his reason 24 Jon takes another swipe 25 Philip stands firm 26 Philip answers Jon 27 Ted takes Philip to task 28 Janice offers a paradox 29 Philip yields to Ted 30 Philip takes on Mike 31 Doug waxes philosophical 32 Jon refutes Philip 33 Jason builds his case 34 Philip yields to Jason (!) 35 Philip flames Jon 36 Jon yields to Philip 37 John bodyslams Jason (!) 38 Julie takes a dig at Herb 39 Matthew challenges John 40 Bill takes John's side 41 Ted rebuts John 42 Sean defends Jason 43 John Vance strikes home 44 Hugh offers an analogy 45 Sean Brennan ridicules it
Friday 46 Avery supports John 47 Josh gets passionate 48 Mike gets on Hugh 49 Jon calls Hugh's bluff 50 Sean does, too 51 Matthew makes a point 52 Mike makes one, too 53 Jon harries John 54 Derek flames all Vehicularists 55 Hugh wavers (!) 56 Josh defends John (!) 57 Josh ridicules Jared 58 Mike conciliates 59 Wade flames all Massers 60 Frank advocates survival 61 Peter demands evidence 62 Mark tweaks Avery 63 Karl chastises John 64 Josh engages Wade 65 Mark tweaks Wade 66 David backs Hugh 67 Rob sticks it to Jared 68 Jon holds his ground 69 John Vance parries Derek 70 Wade questions Mike |
71 Jym rebuts Philip 72 Jym rebuts Jared 73 Philip conciliates 74 Paul takes Avery down a notch 75 Rob scorches David 76 John Vance turns the tables 77 Mark rallies the troops 78 John squelches Karl 79 John states his case 80 Janice makes a distinction 81 Hugh advocates corking
Saturday 82 Wade twits Josh 83 Mark lectures John 84 j.a.b. espouses disobedience 85 Karl isn't having any 86 John slams the Massers 87 Rob exorcises John
Sunday 88 j.a.b. cools Rob's jets 89 Eric puts John on the spot 90 Jason states his case 91 Jon takes John to task 92 Rob puts j.a.b. in his place
Monday 93 John tackles Eric 94 John nails Jason 95 Rob despairs of getting through to John 96 Jon despairs of getting through to John 97 Joe gets down to cases 98 Joe refutes John 99 Scott flames John 100 Steve flames Critical Mass 101 John stands up to Rob 102 John stands up to Jon 103 John even stands up to Scott 104 Scott isn't having any 105 Scott quibbles 106 Monty intervenes 107 John Vance rebuts Joe 108 Eric begs clarification 109 Wade flips the metaphor 110 Ken deplores anarchy 111 Rob sets Wade straight 112 Ted twits Ken 113 Avery twists Wade's knife 114 Trevor encourages Joe 115 John enlightens Eric
Tuesday 116 P.M. makes a remark 117 Brian (mostly) defends John 118 Wade explores cultural differences 119 Mike recommends 120 Bill calms the waters 121 Ted reiterates 122 John Vance hyperbolizes 123 Jym rebuts John 124 John Vance proposes a strategy 125 Dick reconciles 126 Scott belittles John Vance 127 Jym quibbles 128 Sean disagrees 129 J.R. offers good advice
Wednesday 130 Michael offers his 2 cents 131 John gets in his last licks 132 LACritMass quotes CVC
Epilog 133 Luigi flames motorists 134 God lays down the law |
FLAME WAR
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
1 Sara Stout <diputs@hotmail.com> 12:22 p.m., Portland
Critical Mass is a monthly bike ride held in over 100 cities worldwide. In Portland, we meet on the last Friday of every month in Waterfront Park under the Burnside bridge. From there we ride through the evening traffic to various destinations around town. Sometimes there are just a handful of us. Other times there are as many as 150.
I rode with the first Portland Critical Mass in September of 1993, and have participated in almost every one since. The vast majority of cyclists who have ridden with us have been courteous and law-abiding. Occasionally I have seen individuals breaking the law. Often cyclists and sometimes traffic police are unaware of bicycle law. Other times the laws are difficult to interpret, since they are primarily designed for cars. On very few occasions, I've seen inconsiderate or dangerous riders at Critical Mass. This minority, however, has brought negative press and unwarranted police attention to riders who are doing their best to obey the law.
Of the 50 or so rides I've been on, about half were shadowed by police, usually 8 or 10 bicycle patrol men and women, 2 or 3 squad cars and sometimes a paddy wagon. Critical Mass rides have been monitored at a great expense to Portland tax-payers. In December 1993, for example, the city spent $2620.95 on a ride with only 15 participants. Riders have been cited for every imaginable offense, anything from unsignaled turns to ringing a bell. More than half of the time the officers do not show up in court, and the charges are dropped.
On Friday, Nov. 27th, I was one of 18 riders arrested. We had ridden to Pioneer Square to visit the Christmas tree, followed by 3 or 4 police cars, 2 vans and six or seven police bikes. Officers watched as about seventy-five riders filtered through traffic on S.W. Broadway, passing cars on the right and left. We circled the square a few times and headed back north on S.W. 12th. By this point, I had witnessed various traffic infractions, an illegal left turn, a few stragglers at the back of the ride going through a yellow or red light to stay with the group. I feel it was unfortunate that riders failed to obey the law 100%, but I thought our ride was peaceful. The drivers had not expressed frustration, despite tons of car traffic, and the tenor of the ride was friendly.
At S.W. Stark, the group headed east and at S.W. 5th made a right turn onto the bus mall. Because I know that riding in a restricted lane is against the law and because I was tired of riding, I dismounted my bike and walked onto the sidewalk. I was promptly arrested by one of the officers following the ride. I was hand-cuffed and loaded into a squad car with my bike in the trunk. 17 other riders were subsequently arrested. Some of us were released at 4:30 a.m. the next morning - the rest not until 9 a.m. We spent that night, half the time in hand-cuffs, being ferried from precinct to precinct via Tri-Met bus and paddy wagon, repeatedly photographed, fingerprinted, interviewed, and isolated in various cells. Our bikes were confiscated as evidence and only released a week later, after extensive phone-calling and pressure from lawyers. We were all charged with disorderly conduct. At our arraignment in December, the prosecution issued no complaint against us. For the next two years, however, the D.A. reserves the right to reactivate the charge for any reason. I am relieved that we are not currently facing more punishment, but it is unnerving that the threat still remains.
During my time in jail and over the past month, I've thought about what I might have done to offend society to the point where I am denied my personal freedom for eight hours, and my primary transportation is taken away for a week. I would like to apologize to anybody who was offended or inconvienienced by the bicycle presence on the down-town streets that evening. In my defense I'd like to say that my intent was not to block traffic, but to exercise my right to cycle legally at any time, with any number of other cyclists, and to visit the Christmas tree lighting at Pioneer Square.
After much thought, my opinion remains that the punishment my fellow Critical Massers and I endured was discriminatory. Automobiles travel in large groups everyday. When there is a traffic jam, motorists are not usually arrested for blocking traffic. They are not often jailed for traffic infractions either.
Last week in the Oregonian, I read about LaNeesha Manning, an 11-year-old girl who was crossing N.E. 15th at Prescott on her way home from school. As she entered the crosswalk she was struck and run over by a driver who admits that she was taking a right turn onto 15th while looking for traffic on her left. The driver accelerated into the crosswalk and pinned the girl under her car. LaNeesha suffered a skull fracture, a broken collar-bone, a broken shoulder, an injured back and a severely burned knee. She is lucky to be alive. The driver was not cited. Her vehicle was not confiscated.
When a truck driver blew through a stop sign on S.E. 37th and Taylor last summer, he inadvertantly killed Matthew Schekel, a 27-year-old cyclist. The driver was cited for careless driving and fined $400. Killing someone accidentally but unlawfully with a gun is usually a manslaughter offense. What is the difference if the accident is with a car? Driving a motor vehicle needs to be recognized for the dangerous choice it is.
I do not necessarily wish jail time on anyone. However, I do encourage people to examine their transportation choices. Automobile accidents are the leading cause of accidental death nationwide, leaving 524 dead in Oregon in 1997. Advertising everywhere alerts us to the luxury and convenience of automobile use. We need to be equally conscious of the dangers and consequences.
I also encourage city officials to examine their approach toward Critical Mass Rides, and traffic violations in general. I'm sure our night in jail cost the tax-payers thousands of dollars. Is this really how we want to spend our valuable resources? If so, I'd like to see dangerous driving practices discouraged by giving out penalties commensurate with those we received.
2 Jason Meggs <jmeggs@lmi.net> 1:56, Berkeley
To: city_council <armstrong@ci.berkeley.ca.us>, attorney@ci.berkeley.ca.us, breland@ci.berkeley.ca.us, commdev@ci.berkeley.ca.us, dean@ci.berkeley.ca.us, hogan@ci.berkeley.ca.us, housing@ci.berkeley.ca.us, maio@ci.berkeley.ca.us, olds@ci.berkeley.ca.us, planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us, publicworks@ci.berkeley.ca.us, shirek@ci.berkeley.ca.us, spring@ci.berkeley.ca.us, woolley@ci.berkeley.ca.us, worthington@ci.berkeley.ca.us, police@ci.berkeley.ca.us, prc@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Cc: BFBC-Talk <bfbc-talk@stat.berkeley.edu>, SFCM list <sf-critical-mass@cycling.org>, SF Bike List <sfbike@cycling.org>, svbc@cycling.org, fred nemo <diputs@hotmail.com>, critical mass <critical-mass@boutell.com>, California Bicycle Coalition <cbc@cycling.org>, CABO Forum <caboforum@cycling.org>
Subject: from Sara (fwd)
I was very moved by the above writing. The woman who wrote it is clearly a caring and fair person and it illustrates the absurdity of the treatment of bicyclists such as at Critical Mass rides throughout this country, especially in the Bay Area. It illustrates the terrible imbalance of our priorities when roadway safety continues to be ignored. This is especially pertinent on the morning following the passage of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan by the Berkeley City Council. I was unable to attend that event, although I've worked on the plan for years, because of the scheduling of a Police Review Commission complaint for a young woman who was falsely arrested at Berkeley Critical Mass last June...
...The five officers present at our complaint hearings were awarded with overtime pay, while we can continue to expect false citations; false arrests; harassment; discrimination; taxation without representation; a world poisoned by noise and air pollution; congestion; automobile-induced alienation, illness, and outright ecocide; and of course, ongoing dangerous conditions on the roadways and the everyday tragedies which result from those conditions. Hopefully the Berkeley Bike Plan will be rigorously implemented and without delay.
February 12 will be our 72nd ride.
3 Philip Wright <paw@calweb.com> 3:18, California
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everybody to dot all their i's
and cross all their t's when riding in any organized group. Yes, it may be
unfair that we are more at risk of being cited and jailed for violating the
same laws that motorists do, but we can't afford to give anybody any
ammunition against us. We have to be squeaky clean at least until some
serious changes come down. Please, when you are a representative of the
bicycling community, represent us well. People notice those red lights
that get violated by the stragglers trying to keep up with the pack. Then
when we go to complain about the abuse we take, they say "it's your own
damn fault, ignoring the traffic laws..." We throw away our hopes of
sympathy from the motorists. Your behaviour is noticed. It affects
everybody. Thanks for listening.
-Philip
4 TG <bldrnnr@west.net> 4:31, Ventura, California
(...)
>I would like to apologize to anybody who was
>offended or inconvienienced by the bicycle presence on the down-town
>streets that evening.
...And your solution is to APOLOGIZE? You should sue these assholes.
You have witnesses, right? The cops are clearly committing felonies, right?
(...)
Get up off your knees.
Terence Geoghegan
5 Mike Smith <Mgsmith@exch.hpl.hp.com> 4:35, California
To: 'Philip Wright'
Accepting unjust laws only perpetuates them. The reason we have all those
traffic lights and stop signs is not to increase safety. They were
instituted specifically to increase the flow of automobile traffic. If you
are not well versed on this subject, check out books like "Down the Asphalt
Path : The Automobile and the American City" by Clay McShane, a
great transportation history book. The problem is that traffic flow has
been facilitated so much that it is now destroying our communities, our
environment, and tens of thousands of people every year. Accepting this
system will only perpetuate the problems. Our job isn't to be good little
campers and hope that the powers that be will fix the problems. The only
way things change is by fighting the system and sometimes that means not
accepting the laws. Imagine the world if Gandhi and Martin Luther King played it safe and dotted
all their i's and crossed all their t's. Of course I'm not advocating anything that isn't safe.
Mike Smith
6 Nicole McMorrow <nmcmorrow@jps.net> 4:52, East Bay Area
right - behaving like good little boys and girls may get us a pat on the
head and a lollipop from uncle willie. but it ain't gonna facilitate real
change.
these traffic systems have been designed and timed to facilitate the flow of
MOTORIZED VEHICLES. they do not facilitate the flow of pedestrian or
bicycle traffic; rather they impede its progress (both literally and
figuratively). i don't think that cyclists should have to exhibit
above-average obedience to traffic laws to assist in our demand for safer
and less congested streets.
if you feel that obeying these laws is important in your struggle for
cyclists' rights, that's great. but please don't lecture people on this
list about it.
- nicole
7 Herb Kutscha <herb@jupiter.com> 5:41, Bay Area
To: Mike Smith
What kind of civil disobedience are you advocating? I have to ride among the
drivers that you anger. Why do you think you have the right to endanger me with
your actions?
8 Herb Kutscha, 5:47
To: Nicole McMorrow
How does ignoring traffic laws "facilitate real change"? For that matter, how
would obeying traffic laws get us a pat on the head and a lollipop from uncle
willie?
If you feel that disobeying these laws is important in your struggle for
cyclists' rights, that's great, but please don't endanger the people on this
list doing it.
9 Mark Motyka <mark@mathleague.com> 5:53, East Bay Area
To: Philip Wright
Philip Wright wrote:
> I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everybody to dot all their i's
> and cross all their t's when riding in any organized group.
Fair enough. Critical Mass is not an organized group. When you're riding
with the Goody-Two-Shoes cycling club, then you can dot your i's and
cross your t's, and maybe even lick the windshields of those cars clean,
'cause you wanna be on their good side.
> Yes, it may be
> unfair that we are more at risk of being cited and jailed for violating the
> same laws that motorists do, but we can't afford to give anybody any
> ammunition against us.
Yeah, they already have 2000 pounds of steel ammunition to use against us.
> We have to be squeaky clean at least until some
> serious changes come down.
I'm glad Rosa Parks didn't suffer from this mentality.
> Please, when you are a representative of the
> bicycling community, represent us well.
Don't try to claim me as any "representative" of the cycling community
when I ride in Critical Mass. I'm not going to claim any elitist as a
member of the vehicular cycling community when they drive their mt. bike
on their SUV 400 miles to single track on sensitive parkland.
> People notice those red lights
> that get violated by the stragglers trying to keep up with the pack.
That's why people "cork" to keep everyone safely together. No apologies.
> Then
> when we go to complain about the abuse we take, they say "it's your own
> damn fault, ignoring the traffic laws..." We throw away our hopes of
> sympathy from the motorists. Your behaviour is noticed. It affects
> everybody. Thanks for listening. -Philip
Hey, I ride to survive, and I respect the "laws of traffic", and not the
"traffic" laws to do so. Cyclists deserve better PERIOD! The traffic
laws are designed for cars, and not for equal or safe access. If it's
not this "law-abiding" excuse, then it will be some other reason to
disenfranchise cyclists. I see cars break laws every day, and no excuses
are brought up against holding back yet another 200 billion dollars in
sprawl-inducing, pollution-generating superhighway funds every year.
Critical Mass: have fun and push back!
Peace,
Mark
10 Mark Motyka, 6:06
To: Herb Kutscha
> How does ignoring traffic laws "facilitate real change"? For that matter, how
> would obeying traffic laws get us a pat on the head and a lollipop from uncle willie?
> If you feel that disobeying these laws is important in your struggle for
> cyclists' rights, that's great, but please don't endanger the people on this
> list doing it.
Touching sentiment, really. 'Snif. Not speaking for Nicole, but as I
said earlier, I obey the "laws of traffic" to survive, not always the
traffic laws, or I'd probably be a dead cyclist by now. In those "laws
of traffic", I don't endanger any other cyclists because I respect their
right-of-way. Safely respecting right-of-way and obeying traffic laws
are often 2 different things. If you have a problem with aggressive
motorists, go find some car driver's email list and lecture them. If
they don't have the brains to the point where they scapegoat all
cyclists for the actions of a few, that's not my problem. It's easy for
cyclists to get nowhere when we're all fighting each other, instead of
fighting traffic laws that are biased in favor of speeding cars over safety.
Peace,
Mark
11 hwn <hwn@echo-on.net> 6:30, Toronto
>People notice those red lights
>that get violated by the stragglers trying to keep up with the pack. Then
>when we go to complain about the abuse we take, they say "it's your own
>damn fault, ignoring the traffic laws..." We throw away our hopes of
>sympathy from the motorists. Your behaviour is noticed. It affects
>everybody. Thanks for listening. -Philip
There is some validity to what Philip has to say. We have found in
Toronto that it screws up traffic even worse if you do stop for the
lights and then wait for everyone else to catch up.
We have done this many times and when the police show up, they are
confused and go away.
derek
www.hideousewhitenoise.com
12 Nicole McMorrow, 6:32
To: Herb Kutscha
>How does ignoring traffic laws "facilitate real change"? For that matter, how
>would obeying traffic laws get us a pat on the head and a lollipop from uncle
>willie?
okay, let me simplify my message for old herb here: by playing nice with
willie, the supes, and dpt will get us small, token gestures, like a signed
"Bicycle Route," or the promise to "study" streets for future traffic
calming. but when it comes to significant changes on our streets, there is
no effort made by this city to do it. look at the results of the parking
and traffic commission meeting in july for an example. we got nothing.
>What kind of civil disobedience are you advocating? I have to ride among
> the drivers that you anger. Why do you think you have the right to endanger
> me with your actions?
oh, i see. CYCLISTS are the cause of motorists' anger and the road rage
phenomenon. gee, i thought it was the result of the anti-social, alienating
environment that motorists put themselves in. thanks for setting me
straight on that, herb.
>If you feel that disobeying these laws is important in your struggle for
>cyclists' rights, that's great, but please don't endanger the people on this
>list doing it.
i don't endanger anyone when i ride my bicycle.
and you've missed my point. i am not necessarily advocating either
strict obedience to the traffic laws, nor blatant disobedience of such. i
AM pointing out that didactic, whining posts about how we should all behave
are tiring and futile. we cyclists are a varied group of people with often
divergent opinions and beliefs. don't try to get everyone to sing from the
same hymnal (pardon the religious reference).
- nicole
13 Sean P Worsey <SEANPW@prodigy.net> 6:36, California
To: Herb Kutscha
>What kind of civil disobedience are you advocating? I have to ride among the
>drivers that you anger. Why do you think you have the right to endanger me with
>your actions?
Those drivers are endangering you, not cyclists who engage in
civil-disobedience (or more often obedience). You seem to be arguing that
angry drivers have some kind of right to endanger people when they feel
inconvenienced! BTW, I almost always ride legally to the extent safety
allows me to. I find that a certain number of drivers out there feel angry
and inconvenienced just by our presence, not because we are riding legally
or not!
It's time to stop being so apologetic all the time.
14 j.a.b.<Norbuworld@aol.com> 6:44, San Francisco
To: herb@jupiter.com
So, it's 1950 something and Martin Luther King says "Let's sit in at the lunch
counter." What do you say? " I don't want to anger these stupid racist white
people because I gotta work on their farm" ?
Nonviolent change brought about by civil disobedience doesn't always follow
every law (e.g., Whites Only) Lots of these laws are written by the folks that
want to protect THEIR rights, not the rights of ALL people.
Non-harming, non-arming acts are sometimes necessary, whether they are "legal"
or not.....just a thought,
j.a.b.
15 Herb Kutscha, 7:01
To: Norbuworld@aol.com
Marty is fighting for the right to sit at the lunch counter. Are you fighting for
the right to break traffic laws?
16 Ted Lemon <mellon@hoffman.vix.com> 7:46, East Coast
To: Herb Kutscha
> Marty is fighting for the right to sit at the lunch counter. Are you
> fighting for the right to break traffic laws?
A good point. I personally like the idea of civil obedience - when
you have a mass of thousands, obeying the law is actually far more
disruptive than breaking it, and this is a *good* thing. They can't
arrest you! There's nothing more frustrating for a cop trying to incite
a riot than a bunch of people who won't break the law!
_MelloN_
17 From: Jason Meggs, 9:27
To: Gerry Gras <gerry_gras@mentorg.com>
Subject: Re: What's going on here?
Gerry Gras wrote:
> I'm sending this to the people that I know have been involved in this
> "from Sara" discussion. I'm leaving the lists out of this, I expect most
> subscribers have heard more than they want to.
> I'd like to make a few points - First and foremost, if I read the email "To:"
> lists correctly, some members of the Berkeley City government may have
> heard stuff that negated to some extent the benefit of Jason Meggs' email.
> If I were living in Berkeley, I would be a little more worried now.
> Sometimes civil disobedience works, sometimes it doesn't. I think
> it requires a certain set of conditions to work, which may not
> exist yet for bicyclists (except possibly for Critical Mass).
> NOTE: Don't assume that I am opposed to civil disobedience per se,
> I was one of 7000 arrested in D.C on May 3, 1971, where I estimate
> about 90% were illegally arrested.
> One thing I keep thinking about is our vulnerability. I believe
> that angry motorists are more dangerous motorists. I heard that
> 2 bicyclists died in S.F. after the tumultuous Critical Mass ride.
> One could argue whether that is statistically significant, but I
> do not believe that it was a coincidence.
> - Therefore actions on the part of bicyclists that do anger drivers
> do endanger other bicyclists.
> - I do think that bicyclists are treated as second class citizens,
> by people and by the legal system. But what is the best way of
> getting justice? I don't know, but a lot of public hostile
> infighting among bicyclists is not the way.
> - I sometimes think that cars are dinosaurs and our descendents
> may hate us for our wastefulness with automobiles. I would like
> to find a way to constructively improve things for all non drivers.
> Gerry
Thanks for the time-out on this epic posting spree.
I've been quite amazed by it myself.
I actually wish the City Council had heard some of the good rebuttals of
the first post. Kind of funny how the "disobey" people are so
considerate. I wasn't sure how to take that first post about dotting
"i"'s. I won't take up a lot of time on it here, but on the one hand I
appreciated having someone respond and know that we enjoy some real
clarity--and some real clout--here in the Bay Area and we've seen a lot of
injustice, and that inspires us to a new level which some people just
don't get. It was great to hear all the responses. I know that for some
people, certain types of approaches are inconceivable to them for a
variety of reasons, some dishonorable but some are not dishonorable.
People who don't wish to make waves may also be heavily integrated into
the system and feel that it works to some degree, at least enough to keep
trying "on the inside". In general, people such as that (if intelligent
and of integrity) are important for civil disobedience having a real
effect.
As to the issue of deaths being precipitated by the (orchestrated)
Critical Mass blow-out, that is possible as there was a lot of fear and
frustration in the air and a sense that the power structure was working to
misinform the public, precipitate violence, and crush us--which I view as
the "oh my god we didn't dot our i's" fear--but overall I think that
Critical Mass has gained us much more respect than ever before and at one
point (prior to the blow-out) I reflected and realized that I was not
encountering as many violent and hostile personalities on the roads. This
reflection was precipitated by my realizing that pretty much every
motorist I asked had heard of or seen our little Berkeley mass. We had
entered their consciousness.
But there are The People in their cars--and then there are the special
interests and their government which put people in cars. While police are
snarling threats under their breath behind us, and the corporate news
media is announcing how horrible we are, car drivers everywhere we go are
honking support and cheering.
SF Critical Mass was becoming such a profound and broad-based, huge event
that although incredibly tame, it was truly building community and truly
allowing people to organize and outreach for change. That's when the
police stopped facilitating and the violent crackdown occurred. There's
no question in my mind that the attack was an attack on what the people
want, to make sure we keep being enslaved by what we don't want.
So, civil disobedience is necessary to precipitate change in many cases,
but Critical Mass wasn't civil disobedience in San Francisco at that time!
Last night during my complaint -- this part involving an officer who ran
into me from behind when I stopped at a stop sign and then ordered me to
"never do that" -- it was clear that they had twisted things to their
advantage yet again. Suddenly obeying traffic signals was the purview of
scofflaws. How dare I hit an officer by stopping at a stop sign!
Keep up the pressure,
--Jason
18 Jym Dyer <jym@igc.org> 9:19, California
Subject: Blaming Cyclists First (was: from Sara)
> We have to be squeaky clean at least until some serious
> changes come down. Please, when you are a representative
> of the bicycling community, represent us well.
=o= No motorist feels compelled to represent "the motoring
community" well. This is because of the self-evident fact
that each motorist is an individual human being and behaving
as such.
=o= No cyclist should accept a lower recognition of their
individuality, nor should anyone be nagging us to accept such a
thing. I demand improved bicycle amenities *and* I demand full
access to the roads (which we cyclists subsidize *more* than any
motorist does) *and* I demand full recognition as a human being.
=o= All of that, and not one bit less.
<_Jym_>
19 Jim Baross, Jr. <jbaross@mail.cts.com> 10:01, San Diego
To: Nicole McMorrow
Interesting hornet's nest of high emotion seems to have been raised... road
rage in typeface?
Try this.
Civil disobedience to make a point, to help cause a change for the better
w/o damaging innocent others seems reasonable when other means haven't been
successful in a reasonable amount of time. I may participate with such an
event/movement.
Breaking or ignoring traffic laws, at least the behavior I see on a daily
basis - by bicycle riders, pedestrians, or motorists - serves to make the
traffic environment more dangerous, less organized ... puts me, a fairly
vulnerable road user bicyclist, in danger from collisions or at least
delays/confusion from the perpetrator's actions - lack of consideration....
wrong direction riding, running stop signs or signals, failure to yield,
cutting to the front of queues - not taking turns, bicycling in the dark
without lights - any number of things are not political or moral
statements for change. They are just inconsiderate and/or ignorant.
I help make things change... daily mostly by showing and teaching how
bicyclists can make and take our place in the traffic mix as the most
efficient, best mode choice for most trips by people willing to share the
public space - even when we must share with other people who insist on
owning/using gas-guzzling noxious fume producing noise-polluting
all-weather lazy-boys with surround sound on wheels.
I don't want sloppy bicyclists on the road any more than I want sloppy
motorists out there.
End of rant.
Jim Baross, Jr.
Chair, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
"Cyclists should expect and demand
safe accommodation on our public roads,
just as does every other user. Nothing more
is expected. Nothing less is acceptable."
Jack R. Taylor
"Cyclists fare best when they act and
are treated as drivers of vehicles."
John Forester
Thursday, January 14
20 Derek, 7:19 a.m.
>No motorist feels compelled to represent "the motoring
>community" well. This is because of the self-evident fact
>that each motorist is an individual human being and behaving
>as such.
Also with so many government and private sectors working for the
betterment of car driving everywhere, why would a motorist have to say
anything.
derek
21 julie <julie@saber.net> 8:05, California
>right - behaving like good little boys and girls may get us a pat on the
>head and a lollipop from uncle willie. but it ain't gonna facilitate real
>change.
Seems to me like every movement for change pisses those off that don't want
change. It's part of life, and always part of any revolution, no matter how
small or insignifigant.
If Earth First! wasn't up in Humboldt pissing off loggers and getting the
attention of the media, we wouldn't even have the lame-assed Headwaters deal
that's in the works now-we'd have NOTHING
22 jon winston <jon@reproman.com> 8:36, California
To: Herb Kutscha
Your beef is with the angry drivers, sir. Please don't blame the victim.
Jon
23 jon winston, 8:43
To: Herb Kutscha
Let's face it. Waiting for a red light when there are no cars coming is
just plain stupid. (Here in the SF Urban setting, at least) That's why
everyone does it. When a lot of folks disobey a law it's usually because
there is something wrong with the law not the violators. It's time we
changed the law so that bikes could treat red lights as stop signs and
stop signs as a yield. Check out Title 49 of the Idaho traffic code.
Bikes are different. The law should treat them differently.
BTW, when was the last time anyone on these lists (in N. Calif) saw a
ped get a ticket for running a ped light? Why aren't cars drivers
incensed at peds for thinking themselves above the law?
Jon
24 jon winston, 8:55
To: Herb Kutscha
Marty is fighting to sit at the lunch counter and is breaking laws and
angering people to do it.
I am fighting to ride my bike in the public street as safely and
expeditiously as I can. I don't care what the law says.
Jon
25 From: Philip Wright, 10:40
Well, I'm not even going to TRY to respond to the flurry of posts I set
off. It'd take me all day. To those who responded in a hot-headed manner,
rest assured I promptly dumped your mail in the trash bin.
I'll try to sum up and respond to the major respectable points from this
thread:
1. I'm not blaming the cyclist for a motorist's rage. However, just
because road rage is completely unacceptable behaviour in our society, that
doesn't make it any wiser to encourage a hostile response. If you're dead,
you can't vote better bicycle advocates into office.
2. Yes, I think it sucks to wait for a red light to change. If it is STUCK
on red, I'll eventually run it... that's legal. If it's stuck on red EVERY
DAY, I'm going to start making phone calls and writing letters to get it
fixed. However, if I simply lack the patience to wait for my turn, I
deserve a ticket. Oh... and the same goes for when I'm riding my bicycle
and not driving my truck.
3. I'm not against pissing people off. If I have the right-of-way, and
somebody gets pissed off because I don't give up my right-of-way, too bad
for them. However, I'm not going to start running stop signs or riding
down the street in the wrong direction just to piss people off. What does
that solve?
4. "Bikes are different. The law should treat them differently." Say, wait
a minute, we ARE treated differently. Wasn't that the whole problem in the
first place?
5. Yes, Rosa Parks did a great thing--I agree. She broke a law that needed
to be broken. Now, will somebody please explain to me why stop signs need
to be ignored? And red lights? (BEFORE you answer this, see #2 above.) I
have never heard of a minority that wanted BETTER treatment than the majority.
6. If individual motorists aren't viewed as representatives of the entire
motorized community, then bicyclists "shouldn't" be either. I AGREE! The
problem is, we ARE representatives. We are a minority. A large group sees
a single member of a minority behaving in a certain way, and the entire
minority gets stereotyped. That is how things work!
The two short notes below summed up EXACTLY the point I was trying to make:
If we obey the law, and STILL get victimized, we have EVERY RIGHT to scream
and yell and demand changes! However, if we're breaking traffic laws left
and right, nobody is going to give a sh*t if we get killed. Oh HEY!
That's right! NOBODY GIVES A SH*T WHEN WE GET KILLED! Gee, I WONDER WHY...
Ride safely. Do what you think is right. But whether you obey all or none
of the traffic laws, THINK about the consequences. Keep the discussion
going... it's obviously an important topic, as we seem to be rather divided
on the issue. "If we don't hang together, we will most assuredly hang
separately."
Also, I realize I don't know everything. But if you find yourself
dismissing everything I say without even giving it a second thought, then
perhaps your mind is just as closed as the anti-bike motorists out there.
I'M NOT HERE TO WIN; I'm here to make you think.
Over and out.
Philip <http://fly.to/crow>
"Only after the last tree has been cut down,
the last river poisoned and the last fish caught--
only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."
-Cree Indian prophecy
26 Philip Wright, 10:07
To: jon@reproman.com
I can also get around town very safely and much more quickly if I just
break some of the laws.
On my bicycle.
And in my truck.
And on my motorcycle.
However I'm not about to start breaking the laws on any kind of vehicle.
If everybody followed the same rules, everybody would be a lot safer -
motorists and cyclists alike.
27 Ted Lemon, 11:23
To: Philip Wright
>I have never heard of a minority that wanted BETTER treatment than the
> majority.
Philip, I won't respond at length to such a large distribution list,
but since you bring this up, here's my rationale: when I want to ride
my bicycle from San Francisco to Redwood City, I have to go through
about 30 stop signs on the way. If I drive, I have to go through
about three. Why? Because in a car, I can take Highway 101 or
280. On a bicycle, I have to take surface streets. I've timed it:
in my car, obeying the law, following the route I take on my bicycle,
it takes me nearly two hours to get from San Francisco to Redwood
City!
So don't talk to me about wanting BETTER treatment. Give me a
24-foot-wide limited-access highway that I can realistically use on my
bicycle, with entrances and exits instead of controlled intersections,
running the length of the Peninsula from San Jose to San Francisco
(since other people have different needs), and I'll consider your
theory that I should stop at every stop sign between San Francisco and
Redwood City if I choose to ride on the surface streets instead.
_MelloN_
28 Janice Rothstein <gata@shell.infinex.com> 11:25, San Francisco
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, jon winston wrote:
> BTW, when was the last time anyone on these lists (in N. Calif) saw a
> ped get a ticket for running a ped light? Why aren't cars drivers
> incensed at peds for thinking themselves above the law?
Hmmm, for all I know, maybe this *was* the last time: me, 1979,
crossing Market Street. A snarly motorcycle cop did a huge u-turn in the
middle of Market, at Laguna (no traffic, early evening), and screamed at
my friend and me "Ay, ladies, know what traffic lights are for?" Having
recently moved here from NYC, I had never heard of a jaywalking ticket. I
threw it away. A year later, upon trying to take $12.00 worth of vitamins
from the Church and Market Pay'N'Save, the arresting officers (I kid you
not -- I was hauled to Mission Station) found there was a warrant out for
my arrest for the jaywalking ticket. The ladies I shared a cell with at
850 Bryant that night were momentarily amused.
Janice
29 Philip Wright, 11:50
To: Ted Lemon
>So don't talk to me about wanting BETTER treatment. Give me a
>24-foot-wide limited-access highway that I can realistically use on my
>bicycle, with entrances and exits instead of controlled intersections,
>running the length of the Peninsula from San Jose to San Francisco
>(since other people have different needs), and I'll consider your
>theory that I should stop at every stop sign between San Francisco and
>Redwood City...
Very good point. In that case, you're being denied reasonable
accomodations. I hadn't considered that situation, as I've never been in
it, and I'm sure there are plenty of similar instances across the country.
But in other cases where it's a matter of laziness or over-inflated bicycle
pride, I think it's inconsiderate and harmful.
Thank you for your argument. You've changed some of my views, and I
respect that. I was getting tired of hearing that I was wrong, with no
good reasoning as to _why_ I was wrong. Bike safe, blow those signs, and
if you get busted, I hope it serves to change things for the better! (But
if you live in MY neighbourhood, you'd better stop, 'cuz there ain't no
good excuses for illegal riding around here!)
30 Philip Wright, 11:00
To: Mike Smith
>Accepting unjust laws only perpetuates them. The reason we have all those
>traffic lights and stop signs is not to increase safety. They were
>instituted specifically to increase the flow of automobile traffic.
Maybe you've never been in a country where traffic laws are about as solid
as jello, but I can tell you first hand that without all the laws we have
to "increase the flow of automobile traffic", riding your bicycle in
traffic would be about as safe as bungee jumping with a nylon rope.
31 Doug Faunt <faunt@netcom.com> 12:49, Bay Area
To: Janice Rothstein
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, jon winston wrote:
> BTW, when was the last time anyone on these lists (in N. Calif) saw a
> ped get a ticket for running a ped light? Why aren't cars drivers
> incensed at peds for think themselves above the law?
>> Hmmm, for all I know, maybe this *was* the last time: me, 1979,
>> crossing Market Street. A snarly motorcycle cop did a huge u-turn in the...
I got one in Oakland a few years back, and was in court with a couple
of other people who also got them. The judge and cop both admitted
that I got the ticket for arguing with the cop instead of for what I
actually did, but I had to pay anyway.
Given the prevalence of red-light running by operators of deadly
weapons, it's probably safer to cross against the light, since when
you do that, you're alert for the motorists who are likely to kill
you, rather than just assuming they'll respect your right of way.
And that's why motorists don't much care about them, since most peds
(but not all) defer slavishly to automobiles when in the street.
Motorists think this is appropriate.
73, doug
32 Jon Winston, 12:49
To: Philip Wright
So. Is this the type of opinion that is prevelant on the CBC list? Do
most CBC listers drive trucks? Are these the people who are representing
us in Sacramento?
Bravo for you if you wish to obey all traffic laws to the letter. But
don't assume for a minute that it will make you any safer. Those laws
were not put there for cyclist safety. Cyclists had no place in the
formulation of these rules (with the exception of the 21200.X laws) You
have the same chance of becoming a hood ornament in either case. I don't know what you have been fighting for but you have your head in
the sand if you don't think bikes and cars are different. Bikes travel
at a different speed, their impact on collision is rarely, if ever
lethal, they take up less space on the roadway, they can maneuver in a
smaller space. They are different! Laws should be legislated with these
facts in mind Bikes should have the right of way at all times, just like
pedestrians. They should be subject to some but not all traffic signals.
If this were the policy I would be in full favor of ticketing cyclists
who break laws that are of consequence. (i.e. riding on the sidewalk,
riding on the wrong side of the street, not signalling turns, etc.) If
this were the policy, cyclists would respect the law and drivers would
respect cyclists.
This may not be the prevailing opinion on the CBC list, but it is here on
the streets of San Francisco. Let's end the flame wars and start to do
some lobbying we can all be proud of.
Jon
33 Jason Meggs, 1:54 p.m.
To: Ted Lemon
Subject: Divergence
The issue of discrimination against bicyclists has prompted a discussion
of whether bicyclists should obey all traffic laws. This yet evolving
discussion has a long history in many forums and I would like to submit
the following information from a web site on the issue:
http://xinet.com/bike/stops.html
Stops should be Yields for Cyclists
One of the ways that motorists, police and the legal system have been
prejudiced against cyclists is in their continued insistence that cyclists
stringently follow traffic laws such as stop signs and red lights. These
laws are important for autos to follow but not for cyclists. Indeed, there
are times where it is very unsafe to obey these laws. This aspect of the
recent backlashes in Tucson, Seattle, Berkeley, and most remarkably in San
Francisco amplify how upsetting the whole thing is - because it shows how
fully the police and the courts don't understand and don't appreciate us,
who are doing something good and helpful for everyone.
Here are some reasons why the laws should be changed:
Stop signs should be yield signs for bicycles. This is already the case in
some places, such a Idaho and Montana (see below). Why not California?
Reasons why cyclists should be treated differently:
1) Bicyclists have better awareness of surroundings
(better field of vision, higher than cars,
no windows/stereo/cell phone obstructing hearing)
Yes, cyclists can have one ear covered with an
earphone but that is nowhere near as dangerous.
2) Bicyclists can avoid accidents better
(sharper turning radius, much less width, less
speed and weight to manage, can become flush with
the side of the road almost instantly)
3) Bicycles are much safer to the public
(much less momentum, and much more forgiving
physical structure so much less lethal)
4) Bicyclists have to expend their own energy
to start and stop--it's a courtesy
to let them pass just as it is to yield to
someone carrying something heavy or bulky
5) Most bicyclists go through stop signs at a similar
speed as most motorists, but due to
the straightaway speed difference, it may seem like
the motorist is "stopping" while the cyclist isn't.
6) Cyclists should be able to avoid the pollution
of stopped cars as much as possible. We are breathing
harder and are not the ones polluting. We deserve
to be spared from this harmful imposition. Pollution
tends to be highest at stops.
7) Cyclists waiting in traffic can cause more problems
for all--not only by blocking turns (which often
elicits prejudicial anger from motorists) but
there is a significantly increased chance of being
rear-ended for the cyclist.
8) Cyclists on average run stop signs anyways, and
in general it's accepted--just like
jaywalking. Only the intolerant find a problem.
9) Cyclists don't pollute like cars do and have not been
properly accomodated for--this is due in large part to
corruption such as monopoly practices and short-sighted
planning. Cycling helps everyone yet is discouraged.
Give cyclists right of way to help correct this unfairness.
10) Cyclists are the ones who have the most to
lose when running a sign. Let them
decide when to do it.
There's no question that motorists *must* stop. The way many take stop
signs today is very dangerous, with so many swinging around corners for
those lightning fast right turns without sufficiently looking, e.g.
rush-hour violators who sometimes don't even slow for stop signs when
crossing bike routes in Berkeley. Cars are very deadly. Bicycles are
relatively non-hazardous and are discouraged by motor vehicles--they
should be given every encouragement possible. The main opposing argument that I have agreed with is that some cyclists
will run stop signs carelessly. This is a symptom of other things,
however--such as the lack of sound training for cyclists. I'm much more
concerned about the motorists being careless, which happens more often in
my experience.
Here's some feedback I received:
"Traffic control devices are installed at great public expense for one
reason only: cars kill. Every time a bicyclist or pedestrian is made to
stop, they are being forced to cater yet again to the motorist's
tremendous impact on society."
"Most stop signs are not for safety. The purpose is to discourage and/or
slow down cars in neighborhood/residial streets. The goal is actually
made worse by forcing stopping for bicyclists: it discourages bicycling
and encourages car use because of increased time and energy it takes for
bicyclists. It's easier for potential bike riders to step on the gas pedal
(cough cough) than to pump the bicycle pedals after stopping.
In fact, almost all 4-way stops are in this category. There rarely is a
visiblity problem, which is the only other reason for a 4-way stop."
Here's the law from Idaho:
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS.
(1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching
a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before
entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or
stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in
the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to
constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that
a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the
right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed
through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle
approaching a steady red traffic-control signal shall stop before
entering the intersection, except that a person after slowing to a
reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may
cautiously make a right-hand turn without stopping or may cautiously
make a left-hand turn onto a one-way highway without stopping.
Quotable quotes
"When cars obey the following laws of nature:
(1) Not to tear apart the earth (strip mining);
(2) Not to pollute the earth;
(3) Not to destroy the homes of wild creatures
(freeways/thruways/expressways);
(4) Not to smother the land in a dead crust;
Then, and only then, shall I consider following the "laws" for bicycles,
which are ill-conceived and generally derived to keep automobiles from
killing people, not to regulate bicycle traffic appropriately."
"It's more likely to be rear-ended by a motorist expecting you not to
stop than to be t-boned by a motorist not expecting you to run the sign."
"Stopping at intersections makes me breathe more pollution. I will
disobey all signs to avoid that harm."
"If they can't make it legal in my city, they can damn well pass a
resolution making it the lowest-priority traffic enforcement issue."
"Riding a bike is a skill, a true art form, and no live-by-the-book,
ride-by-the-numbers strategy will ever encompass what a cyclist needs to
know to survive, let alone to flourish. No wonder they call us
'Anarchists'. Rules fail, life experience prevails. But more important
than petty political name calling, most serious accidents occur in the
first three months of riding, before life experience in the art of
maneuvering through traffic is gained. People who have run stops all their
lives say it's safer. What we need is an educational program teaching
bicycling skills in the schools, starting with kindergarten, not more
police crackdowns. Save that tactic for those who risk lives: reckless
motorists! There are plenty of them out there."
"Complaining about cyclists going thru red lights is like complaining
about queue-jumping in a bank where there's an armed robbery going on" -
Bob Davis
"At Critical Mass and other big group rides, bicycles should be
considered one cohesive unit, like a train--and be allowed to stick
together through red lights and stop signs once the "head" has passed
through. Just as a beehive is considered a "superorganism", so should a
Critical Mass or bike parade be considered a "supervehicle. Such a
procession can be made legal at the local level under the California
Vehicle Code".
A reply to the above "superorganism" allusion: If a truck pulling
several trailers comes to a stop sign, the "organism" stops once. What if
we were all to hang onto the same rope? We'd be the same as one vehicle.
34 Philip Wright, 3:17
To: Jason Meggs
I stand enlightened.
My mind is opened to change when clear arguments challenge my standing
beliefs. But to those of you who are still telling me to "stop being
stubborn" and to "get my head out of the sand" without providing any real
reasons as to WHY I'm wrong, please stop. It's not getting anybody
anywhere. Thanks... -Philip
p.s. This doesn't mean I agree with everybody. There are countless situations where the best thing to do at a stop sign is to stop. But I can see that there are other valid
counter-opinions.
35 Philip Wright, 3:18
To: jon@reproman.com
At 12:49 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Jon Winston wrote:
>So. Is this the type of opinion that is prevelant on the CBC list? Do
>most CBC listers drive trucks? Are these the people who are representing
>us in Sacramento?
I don't speak for anybody but myself. I drive a truck when I cannot
reasonably transport my equipment on a bicycle.
>I don't know what you have been fighting for but you have your head in
>the sand if you don't think bikes and cars are different.
I never said they're the same. Obviously they're different. From the
assumptions, generalizations and mis-statements you've made here, I have no
reason to continue this portion of the thread or this message. I mainly
wanted to say that I speak for myself, so please don't think for a second
that my opinion represents the general opinion of the cyclists of
Sacramento.
36 jon winston, 3:47
To: Philip Wright
I thought that was a rather sporting little flame war! Sorry if I
ruffled any feathers. It was only meant to be rhetorical but I might
have let the baiting get out of hand.
I hope we all learned from this. Especially those in a position to do
some lobbying at the state level. I'm convinced there is a lot of
unvoiced support for a change in the CVC in the urban areas of the
state. I know there are a lot of other issues on the front burner but
this is fundamental to the way we are seen by the public and lawmakers.
Jon
37 John Forester <forester@johnforester.com> 7:42, Lemon Grove, California
To: Jason Meggs
So here goes Jason Meggs with a blast directed to all and sundry
expressing his opinion that cyclists should not obey stop signs and traffic
signals. Well, everyone can have an opinion, but there is a difference
between having a rational opinion and having a biased or irrational
opinion. Jason either doesn't understand the logic of such traffic control
devices, or he chooses to dismiss it as being contrary to his agenda.
There is a very good argument that America has too many stop signs,
that many of them should be made into yield signs for all traffic. Since that
rational suggestion is not within the purview of Jason's rant, I won't
discuss that here. Stop signs and traffic signals are established to make more efficient
the movement of traffic. If we didn't have such controls, urban traffic, in
particular, would become a slow moving traffic jam that would prevent users
from getting home at night. With such controls, traffic moves much faster
and people get home at night. Is this a bad thing? No, I think that it is a
good thing. Jason claims "that motorists, police and the legal system [are]
prejudiced against cyclists [by] their continued insistence that cyclists
stringently follow traffic laws such as stop signs and red lights." Jason
even claims that at times it is very unsafe to obey stop signs or traffic
signals. He continues with "This aspect of the recent backlashes in Tucson,
Seattle, Berkeley, and most remarkably in San Francisco amplify how
upsetting the whole thing is -- because it shows how fully the police and
the courts don't understand and don't appreciate us, who are doing
something good and helpful for everyone."
Well, listen to that! Jason organizes local groups, or sympathizes with
distant groups, of bicycle riders who go out and make the existing traffic
conditions much worse, creating traffic jams where traffic was at least
bearable before, precisely by disobeying those laws about stop signs and
traffic signals, and then he complains when the public response is
hostile! Distressing, isn't it, Jason, that the public whom you discommode
in traffic fails to understand the purity of your motives, that you think
that you are working for a better world tomorrow on an ends-justifies-the-
means policy. The public are convinced by your actions and your rhetoric
that you are demonstrating that cyclists and motorists cannot share the
streets. Of course, the public is only too ready to believe that more
strongly, because they believe it anyway, so you are simply inflating to
dangerous proportions the prejudice against which you rail. How can
somebody be so naive? Only by prejudiced belief in the irrational.
Well, why shouldn't cyclists obey these controls. Jason's first group
of arguments is that they won't get hit by motor traffic because they can see
and dodge it. Sure. But what happens when a motorist crossing with the
green light finds that he has to dodge around a cyclist crossing on the
red? Who does he hit? Just another motorist while trying to dodge the
cyclist? What happens if he says that since the cyclist was crossing on the
red the motorist has no duty to avoid him? Today, that motorist can be
jailed or made to pay lots of damages. No wonder that motorists hate
cyclists who cross on the red. However, if the law were that cyclists were
allowed to cross on the red, then the law would also have to be that they
did so at their own risk. Not so funny is that, is it?
Another of Jason's arguments is that cyclists have little ability to
cause injuries and damage to others. Is that so? Talk to the motorist who has had
a cyclist come through his windshield, or who has had to hit something else
in his effort to preserve the cyclist. No wonder the public hates cyclists
who disobey stop signs and traffic signals.
Jason then argues that because cyclists have to use their own energy to
restart after a stop, they shouldn't be required to stop, or even, by that
logic, to slow down. Well consider the driver of an 18 wheeler with a
20-ton load, who has to shift up through 10 speeds or so just to get up to
city speeds, let alone highway speeds. And, for that matter, consider the
energy in the form of fuel for restarting that monster. Therefore, by
Jason's logic, the drivers of the heaviest vehicles should never be
required to stop or even slow down. What do you say to that, Jason?
And cyclists should not be required to wait when everyone else is
waiting, because they have to breathe all that polluted air. Well, everyone else is
waiting so that each direction takes its turn. Cyclists overtaking a crowd
of waiting motorists are going, by the nature of the case, to cross a
stream of traffic that is not waiting for them. Which do you want, Jason,
to wait where it is safe (except for all that pollution) or to cross when
and where it is dangerous just to avoid the danger of breathing the air? Is
that a good gamble, Jason? How long do you expect to live running risks
like that?
And, somewhere to the last, Jason argues that it is better for
motorists that cyclists disobey stop signs and traffic signals. "Cyclists waiting in
traffic can cause more problems for all--not only by blocking turns
(which often elicits prejudicial anger from motorists) but there is a
significantly increased chance of being rear-ended for the cyclist." So,
Jason, you say that a cyclist preventing a car behind from turning right on
red elicits much more anger from motorists than does a motorist in the same
position? Well, that's probably true, because the motorists can see that
the cyclist is narrow enough that the motorist could safely pass him, if
only the cyclist moved to the side of the lane. What's the matter, Jason,
don't you know enough to get to the left side of the curb lane when waiting
at a traffic signal, just to be polite? If you act like a road hog, what
other reaction can you expect?
Jason believes that society is being terribly unfair to cyclists,
because society has not properly accommodated bicycle traffic, monopoly practices
and short-sighted planning being the culprits that he mentions. There is
much to be said for this, but the answer is to properly accommodate bicycle
traffic, on the basis not of making it exempt from the laws, but by making
society recognize that cyclists should obey the normal traffic laws. If
society recognized that, then we would have better physical accommodations.
Instead of that, what Jason's arguments and practices do is to convince
society that there is no point whatever in having cyclists obey the traffic
laws, so the best thing to do is to get rid of them, or at least ensure
that they don't delay or endanger motorists by making them legally inferior
and discriminating against them. In other words, Jason's behavior and
rhetoric are calculated to make things worse rather than better. The pity
is that Jason and those who partake of the same holier-than-though,
anti-motoring ideology get much publicity that does exactly the opposite of
what is most desirable.
Certainly I am sneering at Jason, making fun of his foolishness. Is
that nasty? Well, it is what such irrational concepts require. If I could have
made Jason look more like a fool than I have, I would have been pleased to
have done so, because that is what this foolishness deserves. It deserves
to be hooted out of rational conversation instead of being passed along as
holy writ by the anti-motoring crowd.
John Forester
7585 Church St., Lemon Grove, CA 91945
38 julie, 8:16
To: Herb Kutscha
>Marty is fighting for the right to sit at the lunch counter. Are you
>fighting for the right to break traffic laws?
I'd be happy for the right to ride on the damn street without being harassed
by automobile drivers who don't recognize that right. Is that too much to
ask?
39 M. Dockrey <gfish@u.washington.edu> 8:23, Seattle
To: John Forester
> Stop signs and traffic signals are established to make more efficient the
> movement of traffic. If we didn't have such controls, urban traffic, in
> particular, would become a slow moving traffic jam that would prevent users
> from getting home at night. With such controls, traffic moves much faster
> and people get home at night. Is this a bad thing?
Exactly -- traffic controls such as stop signs and traffic lights are
there because cars are so big and ponderous that they can't help but
create traffic jams otherwise. They would not be needed if there weren't
all these big dangerous vehicles driving around.
> However, if the law were that cyclists were allowed to cross on the red,
> then the law would also have to be that they did so at their own risk.
> Not so funny is that, is it?
If I went around shooting in a city, I would be arrested, even if I was
veyrveryvery careful not to hit anyone. Why? Because it is an inherently
dangerous activity.
Cars are always at fault because the driver made the conscious choice to
drive that car. They are the ones who are putting their convenience over
public saftey. Damn right the motorist who hits a ped or cyclist should be
fined and jailed. There is no reason that someone who just happens to be
driving a polluting, two-ton bullet should have more right to a section of
road than I do.
> Another of Jason's arguments is that cyclists have little ability to cause
> injuries and damage to others. Is that so? Talk to the motorist who has had
> a cyclist come through his windshield
Again, their own fault for driving in the first place. Don't look for
sympathy for me if I come headfirst through your windshield.
> Jason, you say that a cyclist preventing a car behind from turning right on
> red elicits much more anger from motorists than does a motorist in the same
> position?
Hell yes. If you don't know this for the solid fact that it is, I have to
ponder how much experience you've had with riding on busy roads.
> What's the matter, Jason, don't you know enough to get to the left
> side of the curb lane when waiting at a traffic signal, just to be polite?
> If you act like a road hog, what other reaction can you expect?
Cyclists are (at least here in WA state) required to ride as far right as
possible. Which means sometimes blocking right turn lanes. And frankly, I
don't want cars trying to inch past me anyway. How often do you see people
bumping cars when they parallel park? I could do without that happening to
my legs.
Cars are really intimidating to those not protected by a big steel cage.
This is because cars are dangerous weapons. I expect to be protected from
cars the same way I expect to be protected from guns.
> Jason's behavior and
> rhetoric are calculated to make things worse rather than better. The pity
> is that Jason and those who partake of the same holier-than-though,
> anti-motoring ideology get much publicity that does exactly the opposite of
> what is most desirable.
Sorry, people have been working towards changing the laws forever. Some
good things have been done, but not much. The only way to get things to
change is to get in people's faces and force them to confront the issues.
No one questions their right to private motorized transportation, nor will
they until people slap them around a little.
> Certainly I am sneering at Jason, making fun of his foolishness. Is that
> nasty? Well, it is what such irrational concepts require.
I think you need a life.
Matthew Dockrey
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gfish
40 William Volk <bvolk@inetworld.net> 8:24, California
To: om@5medicines.com,
Scott comments on John's "vehicular cycling" message with:
>what a friggin arsehole you must be, john forrester
Well, count me in on the "friggin arsehole" club. I'm sick and tired of
cyclists who lack the energy to stop for red lights and at least slow down
and look around at stop signs. So you chased me down at 40 km/hr... and
passed me by running a red light. I'm SO IMPRESSED. NOT.
Bill "cyclists fare best when they act as, and are treated as, legitimate
users of the road" Volk
41 Ted Lemon, 8:25
To: John Forester
> Well, everyone can have an opinion, but there is a difference
> between having a rational opinion and having a biased or irrational
> opinion. Jason either doesn't understand the logic of such traffic
> control devices, or he chooses to dismiss it as being contrary to
> his agenda.
John, I think everybody ought to read your book (Effective Cycling).
I certainly follow a lot of the advice you give in it. I would encourage
the Berkeley city council people into whose mailboxes you just flamed
to read the book too, and add it to their local school curriculum. But
that doesn't mean that people whose opinions differ with yours are
irrational. To the contrary, I think Jason is quite rational, and I tend
to agree with him as well as with you. Scary, isn't it?
> Jason organizes local groups, or sympathizes with distant groups, of
> bicycle riders who go out and make the existing traffic conditions
> much worse, creating traffic jams where traffic was at least
> bearable before, precisely by disobeying those laws about stop signs
> and traffic signals, and then he complains when the public response
> is hostile!
I don't think that's an accurate characterization either of what Jason
said or what actually goes on. In general, Critical Mass gets called
a bunch of scofflaws if we cork intersections in order to move quickly
out of the way. But having ridden in multi-thousand person Critical
Mass crowds, I can tell you from personal experience that when the
mass stops at every light and stop sign, it causes a lot more chaos,
because it fragments into dozens of slow-moving block-long masses.
Even so, I've never personally witnessed anybody at Critical Mass
getting upset about anything - it's a parade, and even the motorists
who are stopped in traffic tend to like it. Traffic jams in downtown
San Francisco getting onto the Bay Bridge are a routine occurrance -
it's only on the last Friday of every month that Critical Mass is
blamed for causing them.
>What happens if he says that since the cyclist was crossing on the red
> the motorist has no duty to avoid him? Today, that motorist can be
> jailed or made to pay lots of damages.
If a bicyclist running a red light causes an accident, it's the
bicyclist's fault, not the motorist's. That's the case in Idaho,
where the law is as Jason would have it, and it's the case in
California. It's possible that the tort system would let the motorist
down, but wouldn't be the bicyclist's fault. And as I'm sure you
know, a bicyclist running a red light isn't the same thing as those
red-light-runners in their SUVs that you see on TV - we don't speed
through the intersection at 50mph after the light has changed. We
stop, look both ways, listen, look again, and *then* go, if we're sure
there's nobody coming. We're not suicidal, you know. As a result,
your hypothetical injured and liable motorist is a vanishingly
unlikely person - I've certainly never heard of or met one.
> Talk to the motorist who has had a cyclist come through his
> windshield, or who has had to hit something else in his effort to
> preserve the cyclist. No wonder the public hates cyclists who
> disobey stop signs and traffic signals.
I've never met any of these people. Have you? I once met a taxi
driver who hated bicyclists with a passion. Why did this come up? He
was angry because a bicyclist passed him legally when we were stuck in
traffic. He was angry that the bicyclist could move when he couldn't.
Awww...
> Jason then argues that because cyclists have to use their own energy
> to restart after a stop, they shouldn't be required to stop, or
> even, by that logic, to slow down. Well consider the driver of an 18
> wheeler with a 20-ton load, who has to shift up through 10 speeds or
> so just to get up to city speeds, let alone highway speeds.
Drivers of 18-wheelers have a luxury cyclists don't: access to
freeways. So yes, it's a hardship for them to get from the freeway
exit to their loading or unloading point, but they don't have very far
to go. A bicyclist going more than a few miles will hit many more
stop signs than the driver of an 18-wheeler going the same distance,
and will thus have to stop and start many more times. Oh, and have
you noticed that drivers of 18-wheelers tend not to actually come to
full stops at stop signs anyway?
> There is much to be said for this, but the answer is to properly
> accommodate bicycle traffic, on the basis not of making it exempt
> from the laws, but by making society recognize that cyclists should
> obey the normal traffic laws. If society recognized that, then we
> would have better physical accommodations.
If society recognized that we had to obey traffic laws, we'd have
better accomodations? Where do you get that? We have lousy
accomodations because there aren't as many of us as there are drivers.
If we want better accomodations, we need to work together, and we need
to convince more people, including drivers, that we need these things.
Maybe obeying traffic laws is the way to go, but this is far from
being obvious, and claiming that somebody who doesn't agree is
irrational is just name-calling.
> Certainly I am sneering at Jason, making fun of his foolishness.
Jason's a great guy. So are you. Why don't you treat him with
respect, instead of sneering at him? You're allowed to disagree with
him. He's allowed to disagree with you. Is this nonsense really
necessary?
MelloN_
42 Sean P Worsey, 10:08
John Forester wrote:
> Well, listen to that! Jason organizes local groups, or sympathizes with
>distant groups, of bicycle riders who go out and make the existing traffic
>conditions much worse, creating traffic jams where traffic was at least
>bearable before, precisely by disobeying those laws about stop signs and
>traffic signals, and then he complains when the public response is
>hostile!
Mr. Forester, pardon me for saying so, but you do not know what you are
talking about! Jason Meggs' activism here in the Bay Area has done and is
continuing to do wonders for those of us who transport ourselves on bikes!
Because of Jason and many other committed bicycle activists like him, we are
very likely going to have bicycle and pedestrian access on the Bay Bridge
for the first time. I can't think of anyone who worked harder on this issue
than Jason Meggs.
Moreover, since the now-famous July '97 SF Critical Mass ride (Critical
Mass being, I presume, one of those groups that Jason sympathizes with),
things in my opinion have gotten better and not worse for cyclists. I ride
in the City everyday, and motorists, by and large, are much more aware of us
today than they were say a year and a half ago.
My $.02
Sean Worsey
43 John Vance <jvance@swcp.com> 10:49, Albuquerque
To: John Forester
>> Certainly I am sneering at Jason, making fun of his foolishness.
>Jason's a great guy. So are you. Why don't you treat him with
>respect, instead of sneering at him? You're allowed to disagree with
>him. He's allowed to disagree with you. Is this nonsense really
>necessary?
Because this nonsense about cyclists not having to obey traffic control
devices gets people killed. Heck, I nearly plowed into a cyclist who
was running a stoplight the other day. She never even looked in my
direction.
Did I mention that I was _riding my bike_? Did I mention that I could
have broken my neck? If you feel that the traffic law is too onerous
for you to follow, then I don't wan't you on the road. Not on a bike,
and not in a car. Stay home, for my safety.
John Vance
44 Hugh Smith, 1:54 p.m., San Jose
To: John Vance
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that all car drivers had stopped
driving, and started riding bicycles. They were all over the place! And
none of them saw fit to obey any of the rules.
What kind of situation would that be?
Hugh Smith
45 Sean Patrick Brennan <sean@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> 2:23, San Francisco
To: hmsmith@concentric.net
>What kind of situation would that be?
Smog free.
Duh.
Sean Brennan
Friday, January 15
46 Avery Burdett <ab833@freenet.carleton.ca> 6:14, Ottawa, Ontario
To: chainguard@cycling.org
Hugh Smith writes:
>Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that all car drivers had stopped
>driving, and started riding bicycles. They were all over the place! And none
>of them saw fit to obey any of the rules.
>What kind of situation would that be?
During the summer on Sundays we have that situation here when about 40km's or
so of parkways are closed to motorized traffic and left to cyclists, in-line
skaters, dogs, and joggers among others. When these restrictions are in
effect, those parkways are the most anarchic and dangerous places to cycle
in the city. Club cyclists stay well away.
Ironically, the presence of motorists on city streets actually forces most
folks to abide by the rules of the road.
I suggest folks who don't like John Forester's ideas, respond to them.
Cluttering my mailbox with abuse just confirms that John must be on to
something.
Avery Burdett
47 Josh Sutcliffe <josh_sutcliffe@yahoo.com> 7:55, New York City
To: chainguard@cyclery.org
THIS IS STUPID. HELLO? HELLO? Mr. Forester (et al)
do you REALLY think that anyone is advocating a disregard for all rules?
A discussion of the common sense (or lack thereof) of the rules we as
cyclists break or adhere to shouldn't be filled with all of this abuse.
Maybe if we would all take into consideration the difference in the
places we live and ride (we seem to have people writing in from San
Francisco, England, various suburbs. I, for one, am in NYC), we
would understand that different riding styles apply.
After riding in complete accordance with the law in Chicago (apologies
to all who have heard my rant before), I realized that car drivers
treated me with no more respect than they would my more daring
messenger friends. In fact, they had more opportunity to treat me
like shit because I was stopped either next to or in front of them.
I quickly got tired of being rear-ended or doored on purpose just to
display what a responsible cyclist I was. Maybe this doesn't happen
to you, John et al, but I think others may know what I'm talking
about. So I run lights (after LOOKING to make sure no one is going to
be INCONVENIENCED in the slightest) and stop signs. And you know
what? I have been a much happier (and safer) rider since. Now let's
get a few things CLEAR:
1. First priority: My safety. I ride in a manner that I believe to be
the safest. This means that I am riding within the law a good 85% -
90% of the time.
2. Second priority: The safety of others. Yes, even those in their
speeding little death machines. Also, given different circumstances,
priority 1 and 2 change places. Seeing as how crashing on a bicycle
SUCKS, I will venture to guess that most cyclists feel the same way.
3. Re the stupid cyclists out there: There are a LOT of stupid people
out there. By default, some will be on bikes. But you know what?
Far more are in cars. So for every stupid cyclist out there (who
annoy the crap out of me), just think: they could be in a car.
4. Re breaking the law: Bikes vs. Cars. While if a car gets caught
running a stop sign or light they (might) get a ticket. Or speeding.
Recently (especially in NYC) if you run a light or stop sign on a
bicycle, while the "offense" frequently goes unnoticed, you get a
ticket. Sounds fair until you think about double parking. And
Speeding as long as the car is under 10 mph over. And rolling stops.
And blocking the crosswalk. And if you get caught on a bicycle near a
Critical Mass, look out. That stop sign you treated as a yield will
send you to JAIL. Remove your shoe laces!
5. What bothers me most about this whole discussion: there seems to be
an underlying sentiment that those who break the law deserve what they
get. Car drivers already feel that they have the right to punish us
for disregarding the law. I was once on a talk radio show re Road
Rage (I was trying to push cycling as a solution, of course), the host
actually said, "yeah, but you guys [bikers] bend our antennas and
stuff when we do things to you..." WHEN WE DO THINGS TO YOU? I
realized I was trying to gain the respect of people who were just as
belligerent if not more so than the cyclist "causing all the problems".
This analogy came to me. It's like trying to get the respect of a
pimp by showing off your celibacy.
As humans there are laws we almost all seem to disregard. Of course
this changes from city to city. I am living in NYC. Cars here speed
past officers at 60 mph down 2nd ave. Cops witness cyclists and car
drivers alike running lights and signs without a second thought. John
et al, I would like to see you TRY to stick to the laws. Actually,
strike that. I don't want to see another cyclist killed.
I'll be going to a street memorial for a messenger who was killed a
couple of days ago by an illegally oversized truck. The messenger was
riding within all of the laws that are supposed to keep us safe.
Strangly, nothing is being done to the driver; no one cares except for
other cyclists. Hmm. Maybe we should try to stick together a little
more, please?
Josh
48 Mike Smith, 8:43
To: 'Hugh Smith'
Please stick to the arguments at hand. No one is advocating not
obeying any rules so I don't know why you are discussing that idea.
The point being argued is whether cyclists should obey every traffic law
when the laws were merely created to facilitate increased automobile
traffic.
49 Jon Winston, 9:06
To: Hugh Smith
Heaven, Nirvana, Valhalla. Sigh.
Jon
> Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that all car drivers had stopped
> driving, and started riding bicycles...
> What kind of situation would that be?
50 Sean P Worsey, 9:57
To: Hugh Smith
>>Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that all car drivers had stopped
>>driving, and started riding bicycles...
>>What kind of situation would that be?
If this were the case, I see two possible outcomes:
1. It would be just like it is now, with substantially less death and
injury; and/or
2. It would be like Golden Gate Park during Sunday closure to cars . . .
joyfull!
SPW
51 M. Dockrey, 10:03
To: Jared The Great <JoyusGeek@usa.net>
> I don't think Citical Mass helps any, and if anything makes matters worse.
> The guy who can't get to the hospital to see his dying wife because 3,000
> cyclists are breaking every traffic law there is, is going to hate cyclists
> with a passion for life. If it is simply 3,000 people legally riding
> though a city and there just happens to be a lot of them I think that is fine.
I don't know about other cities, but Seattle Mass has repeatedly
vaporized off the streets within 5 seconds when ambulences come by. I love
it -- it is a truly beautiful sight. I have *never* seen cars come anywhere close
to this efficiency. Bikes just don't need as stringent traffic laws as cars do.
Would someone spend their life hating cars because of this? (Well, *I*
would, but I already pretty much do.)
Matthew Dockrey
52 Mike Smith, 10:05
Jared's comments are a prime example of someone trying to make a point
without knowing the facts. Critical Mass has been happening in San
Francisco for over 6 years now. There have been many instances where
emergency vehicles have had to get by. In each case the bicyclists just
melted away allowing the vehicles to pass. On several occasions, though, it
took a while for the emergency vehicles to pass us by due to automobile
traffic unrelated to Critical Mass. Cars are the problem, not bikes and not
Critical Mass.
Jared's comments are really like John Forester's: uninformed. Critical Mass
in San Francisco has generated an incredible surge in bike riding in San
Francisco and has helped foster a large number of bicycling infrastructure
improvements. If you really want to discuss the merits of Critical Mass,
please experience it a few times first.
Mike
53 Jon Winston, 10:26
To: John Forester
I was waiting for Mr. Forester to jump into this.
I'm not going to take your post apart piece by piece. That's already
been done very well. I'm even going to go so far as to say I respect
your opinion even though I think it's flawed.
At the heart of your whole ideology (and that is what it has become) is
the notion that since bikes are legitimate users of the road they should
simply "be traffic", taking their place in the mix with all the cars and
trucks. Arguably it's a good way to start.
The problem is that you carry it too far. In your world cyclists would
wait their turn behind cars at the traffic light. They would obey all
laws to the letter. (Let's not even bring up the notion of bike lanes
which you hate. That's a matter for a future flame war)
The fact is that bikes and cars are *different* just like pedestrians
and cars are different. As I said yesterday, we have different sizes,
weights, forces of impact, and abilities to manuever. Everyone, car
drivers who split the lane with us, cyclists, and the bike cop who gave
me a ticket last week, knows this. Why then should we be treated as the
same under the law?
John, you live in Lemon Grove. I don't know where that is but it
sounds suburban. Here in San Francisco it's a jungle. Bikers get by not
by obeying, as Mark Motyka said, the traffic law but the law of traffic. To
survive we have to get by on our wilyness. We run lights to get ahead of
the flow of traffic and because it's just plain smart. This has led us to
become outlaws. Its not good PR. We need to change the laws to
accomodate the differences between cars and bikes so we can be
understood on the road, in the courts and by the politicians.
Enough for now.
Jon
PS Please be nice to Jason. He's a wacky guy but he's done a lot for
cyclists in the Bay area. I thought your treatment of him was a cheap
shot. I counted more than ten others with the same opinion yesterday,
not counting Philip Wright who at least partially came around on this,
proving he has an open mind.
John Forester wrote:
> So here goes Jason Meggs with a blast directed to all and sundry expressing
> his opinion that cyclists should not obey stop signs and traffic signals.
very big snip
54 Derek, 10:15
To: Josh Sutcliffe
>I'll be going to a street memorial for a messenger who was killed a
>couple of days ago by an illegally oversized truck. The messenger was
>riding within all of the laws that are supposed to keep us safe.
>Strangly, nothing is being done to the driver; no one cares except for
>other cyclists. Hmm. Maybe we should try to stick together a little
>more, please?
>Josh
I am sorry to hear about the death of the messenger in SF. But if you
think that you are going to change the minds of these arrogant, navel-
gazing assholes at Chainguard, please do yourselves a favour and walk
away. These people are so in love with their ideas of vehicular cycling
that they cannot and will not grasp the real big picture. Basically cars
kill, cars are the blight of the world, they are the worst thing for all
of us. Chainguard and the rest of them all believe that we can get along
with the vehicles, by acting like them. When you point out the fact that
a lot of cyclists' accidents, at least the cases that I am aware of, are not the
fault of the cyclist, the response is the same. They deserved it
because they didn't take an Effective Cycling Course, or the Canadian
version, CanBike
derek
55 Hugh Smith, 10:20
To: Mike Smith
Mike,
You make a good point. I was exaggerating to make mine.
I sometimes break a few rules myself. I have to admit to feeling silly
stopping at T intersections. But I have begun doing so, because the one
that I cross most often (Foothill Expressway southbound and San Antonio Road
in Los Altos, CA) has a large contingent of right-turning cars a half mile
or so further down, at El Monte. Traffic is heavy enough that I catch up to
cars here that have passed me at San Antonio. I have found that I get
better co-operation in my attempts to thread thru the right turners if I
have stopped at the T further back.
One rule I "break" (if indeed it is that) is when a signal doesn't see me,
and I am either the only one around, or it is safe to run the light. There
is no way to get out of my housing area at 4:30 in the morning without doing
this, unless a car happens by to trip the light for me. Another that I
often break is when a left turn signal doesn't see me. What I do is, I go
straight thru the intersection (but in the left turn lane), and then wait
for the light to turn green for opposing traffic. Then I take a sharp left
and go with that green light. Technically, I haven't run a red light. But
I have entered the intersection from the wrong lane, at the very least.
Bending the rules, I call this. I once did this at the Sunnyvale/Cupertino
City line (Tantau and Homestead), right in front of a cop. I saw him, and
decided to test things. (I suppose I was testing the sign that Cupertino
has at all their City limits that shows a picture of a bicycle and says "We
share the road.") The cop wagged his finger at me as he passed me, but he
was grinning. All he said was "Be careful." I nodded, and that was it.
So far as red lights while going straight are concerned, I used to grumble
while waiting at them. But then I told myself, that if it takes me more
effort to stop and then start again, so what? I am riding for the exercise,
so why should I complain if I am getting more of it? Now, I tell myself
that if I am upset at a red light, I must not be riding hard enough between
the lights, or I would welcome the short rest, and the opportunity to take a
sip of water. So, when I see that a light has been green for awhile, I bust
my butt trying to get thru it, but if it does turn yellow before I get
there, I welcome the break. I am now 55 years old, and, believe me, this
gets easier to do every year.
I alternate my riding between recumbents and upright bikes. I find that I
am more laid back psychologically as well as physically on a 'bent. I also
find that traffic treats me better when I am on the 'bent, although for the
most part, I have few complaints when I am riding my wedgie. I think that
most drivers react better to recumbents for two reasons. One, they are a
curiosity. Two, my laid back posture is contagious. The leaning forward
posture of a rider on an upright road bike is a rather aggressive stance,
and is met, I think, in kind by drivers. I find that it's wise for me to be
aware of this, and take it into account before making a decision to bend a
rule. I don't think of this as being goody two shoes, but merely as being
courteous. And I demand courtesy in return, and most often, get it. Body
language, and making my intentions known with no uncertainty helps a lot
here. As Forester and others have said: act like the driver of a vehicle,
and expect to be treated like one. After all, we are just that: drivers of
vehicles. It shouldn't matter whether the vehicle I am driving is powered
by hydrocarbons I have eaten, or poured into a tank.
I live in the area often called Silicon Valley. It really is not a bad
place to ride a bike. In fact, it has been called by some "Bicycle Heaven."
(This from Chris Wiscovitch at The Bicycle Outfitter). An early settler
called the area "The Valley of the Heart's Delight." I think that, from a
cyclist's viewpoint, his words were rather prophetic.
Thanks to the past and continuing efforts of people like John Forester,
Ellen Fletcher, and Jim Stallman, to name a very few of many, bicycle
facilities here are excellent, and the motoring public treats us as well as the
pedalling public treats them.
I would like to suggest that Forester's "cyclist's inferiority complex" is
more pervasive among us than we realize. And I would like to also suggest
the we all take a look at ourselves to see if we don't have a touch of the
disease ourselves, before we consider breaking laws that make all traffic
move more efficiently than it otherwise would.
Sorry, Mike, if I haven't stuck to "the arguments at hand", but I don't
consider this an argument. A forum is more like it.
Hugh Smith
56 Josh Sutcliffe, 10:56
To: Derek
> I am sorry to hear about the death of the messenger in SF.
Actually, I'm in NYC. Check out the memorial at www.transalt.org
> But if you think that you are going to change the minds of these
> arrogant, navel-gazing assholes at Chainguard...
I'm not losing sleep or getting indigestion. And from what I
know about Forester's book, it sounds like an excellent guide to safer
cycling for the situation as is. The debate lies in will the situation
change (it will) and if so, how? I'll guess that change will happen, but
NOT because of a change in the way Joe Biker rides his velocipede.
This whole discussion is about the individual cyclist staying alive.
I can't afford to waste time and energy caring about what drivers think
of me. This does not mean I am discourteous or rude or dangerous.
There is more to consider than a cyclist's actions in an accident when
fairly allocating "blame". Why would a cyclist do suicidal
maneuvers? I don't think it's because they feel superior to cars,
seeing as how most anti-car people I know ride very respectfully. I
believe it is the cyclist adapting to his/her surroundings. When
faced with speeding non-attentive car-drivers armed only with a
self-propelled 25-30lb piece of metal, many people will develop a
kamikaze attitude. I think these riders would gain a LOT from reading
John Forester's book. HOWEVER, if they get hit, it isn't fair to say
that they deserved it. I don't think it is wise for our cycling
community to develop a "leave behind the stragglers" mentality. Not
stopping at a light is "wrong" if you are not paying attention to your
surroundings. I do NOT think, however, it is a crime punishable by
death. There are too many distractions anyway. It's too easy to make
mistakes on our streets without dire consequences. How can we
liberate our fellow human beings from having to concentrate on staying
alive every second they are outside - whether they are walking or
biking or *gasp* in a car? Answer:
REMOVE THE CAR from the picture.
Whew.
Josh Sutcliffe
57 Josh Sutcliffe, 11:36
To: Jared
> I am talking about the man who promised his 8-year-old daughter he would
> be home for Dinner but can't because of Critical Mass. Those people will
> hate cyclists for life.
I know that when I was visiting dying ________ in the hospital I was
pissed at the traffic jam caused by all those evil cyclists doing
their Critical Mass thing. Because of them, my ___________ died
before I could say goodbye.
Oh wait - my __________ died on THURSDAY, not FRIDAY. Where did that
blasted traffic jam come from, if not from Critical Mass? Ah, screw
it. I'll hate bikers anyway. I mean, what's the sense in hating the
cars who cause SEVERE traffic jams EVERY DAY, not to mention
accidents, or 42,000 or so deaths every year in this country when I
can take it out on the relatively defenseless biker?
Need I continue?
Josh
58 Mike Smith, 11:34
To: Hugh Smith
I think to make any progress, we have to agree on a few things including:
* e-mail sucks for making a point when compared to face to face
conversations
* We ride in very different situations. I know that many of the
"obeying all traffic laws is inappropriate" side ride in San Francisco where
safety is made worse by traffic laws (any people on the "other side" live
and ride in SF every day?)
* We ride for very different reasons. Many of the "inappropriate"
side ride every day as their primary form of transportation. Others ride
recreationally.
I hope that we (including myself) can keep this in mind when postulating
arguments and/or making attacks.
I sincerely hope that future events like BikeSummer (August 1999 in San
Francisco, more details will follow soon) will better facilitate moving
forward with these issues.
Mike
59 Wade Eide <eide@videotron.ca> 12:02 p.m., Montreal
It would seem that in the utopia that Meggs, Richie, Dockrey, Lemon,
Worsey, McMorrow and others dream about there are no motor vehicles, no
stop signs, no red lights, no rules of the road. This utopia is a place
too much for that. From reports that I have read, there are cities in
China and other Asian countries where the traffic chaos resulting from
non-existent or unenforced rules would seem to be the norm. The
descriptions I read talk of thousands of cyclists (and a few motorized
vehicles) converging en masse on the intersections. Doesn't sound very
safe or efficient.
In the real world where I live, I have had two very close calls and one
relatively serious accident involving another vehicle. Only one of those
close calls involved a motor vehicle. And that was my own fault, because
in passing a slow moving car to its left, I failed to take the left-hand
lane. That didn't give me enough margin of error to allow for the driver
to do something unexpected, like veer to his left. Which he did. In
veering part way into the left lane, I then forced a driver approaching
from behind in that lane to make an emergency stop.
The other close call involved two kids on bikes approaching from the
other direction suddenly turning in front of me, making a left turn
without yielding to oncoming traffic - me.
The accident also involved a kid on a bike - and on a multi-use path. He
passed me at high speed on my right just as I was preparing to move into
the left lane to pass a group of skaters stopped in the lane ahead. In
moving left to go around them, he cut into me and we both went down hard
on the pavement. Let me assure you, being in an accident with another
cyclist is no fun. I've still got the scars to prove it.
I won't even mention the number of times I've had to stop suddenly when
entering an intersection to let a red-light runner pass (always a
cyclist) or have come face-to-face with another cyclist riding against
traffic. Nor will I mention the many times that, as a pedestrian, I've
been buzzed by sidewalk-riding cyclists.
I normally ride about 7000 km per year, almost all of those on normal
streets and roads. I have had very few conflicts with the traffic that I
share the road with. That is because the vast majority of us understand
traffic principles and follow the laws and the rules of the road. Apart
from a couple of thankfully not serious incidents involving an error in
judgement - mine or another's - the times that I have had conflicts were
almost always because the other person was not following the rules. And,
I'm sorry to say, almost all of those people were cyclists.
I probably don't think any more highly of motorized vehicles than the
aforementioned group of correspondents, and in my utopia there would be
a lot more cyclists than motorists. But we would all follow the same
rules of the road that we should be following today. How else could we
all get along with mutual respect in a civilized, democratic society?
Wade Eide
60 frank j. perrotta <yojiino@earthlink.net> 12:25, San Francisco
josh, i pretty much agree with you and your instinct for survival which
is the same as mine. put simply i will do anything to survive while on
the streets of san francisco. i was the victim of a hit and run caused
by a truck driver. i promised myself that i would do all i could to
never see that happen again especially since the police had a name and
refused to go after the person registered to the vehicle that caused
great injury to me physically and mentally.
rule no. 1: do what you need to survive. for me, riding in san
francisco, it seems to boil down to stay as far away from cars as
possible without being arrested.
for the past 6 months since the accident i have done just that and have
been riding more aggressively just as everyone else seems to be doing on
these streets.
+ Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that all car
drivers had stopped driving, and started riding bicycles.
+ They were all over the place!
+ And none of them saw fit to obey any of the rules.
+ What kind of situation would that be?
i suppose that if this did happen then it would turn out the same as with
car drivers. i mean that rules would be created by and for the situation
most common (unfortunately today that is for cars). i would drive the
same way as i do now. to survive and then to get where i need to be.
it seems that everyone has different agendas when they are on the road.
some are taking a leisurely ride for the pleasures of the city while some
are rushing to make up for being an hour late, and knowing that parking a
large vehicle in the city will take another hour if there are any spaces;
with many other agendas in between. i know that i myself ride
differently depending on my agenda. some bicyclists would be pleased with
the rules, others would not follow any of them and many others in between.
to surviving
frank
Josh Sutcliffe wrote:
> THIS IS STUPID. HELLO? Mr. Forester (et al) do you REALLY
> think that anyone is advocating a disregard for all rules?
61 Peter Rosenfeld <prosenfe@atl.lmco.com> 12:41, Camden, New Jersey
Derek writes:
>>I'll be going to a street memorial for a messenger who was killed a
>>couple of days ago by an illegally oversized truck. The messenger was
>>riding within all of the laws that are supposed to keep us safe.
> >When you point out the fact that a lot of cyclists' accidents,
> >at least the cases that I am aware of, are not the
> >fault of the cyclist, their response is the same. They deserved it
> >because they didn't take an Effective Cycling Course, or the canadian
> >version, CanBike
I get upset with these cases where the killing is called an "accident" and
nothing then happens. The more common event I hear about is where the driver
says something like "I didn't see them". To me, to claim you are driving in
such a manner that you kill someone because you "didn't see them" [ assuming
daylight, for instance] is an admission of dangerous negligent driving.
Bicyclists should certainly stick together in these incidents.
I believe the USA is too autocentric. I want to get more people bicycling. One
of the ways to get more people to bicycle is to to teach them techniques that
will make bicycling faster and safer. The vehicular cycling approach is a safe
and efficient approach to transportational and recreational bicycling. It has
been shown to reduce the incident of accidents by 80 percent. This makes
vehicular bicycling safer than driving a car. It might be worth your while to
look at the evidence supporting these claims. I can certainly tell you that
with 30-some years of bicycling in many of the major cities of the US
(including both LA and SF) these techniques work.
Since many people state that they don't bicycle due to their fear of traffic,
vehicular cycling instruction should be a good way of helping these folk out.
And it's something that can be done today, without the need to wait for changes
in laws or facilities.
Many of the approaches I've been hearing in this discussion, such as running red
lights, and those advocated by people who push bicycle facilities, actually make
bicycling more dangerous. Why would we want to push such approaches? While these
approaches may have political advantages for various agendas, making bicycling
more dangerous doesn't seem like a good approach to my agenda, which is getting
more people to bicycle.
As one becomes a better cyclist it is less likely you will be at fault in a
crash and more likely the other vehicle will be. So, given that the people you
know are experienced bicyclists, your observations would match what I would
expect. And most of the people I know of on this list don't play "blame the
victim". They just point out, in discussions about how to reduce accidents, that
learning good cycling techniques can help avoid many accidents, even when the
other driver is at fault.
If you have data contrary to vehicular cycling showing that red light running or
other techniques make bicycling safer and more efficient, I'd be very interested
in hearing them. Just be aware that a few members of this list don't suffer
foolish unsupported approaches to bicycling. I'm not one of them. But I can
easily understand how a few decades of hearing the same trash over and over
again would make someone a little testy.
Good riding,
-Peter R.
(speaking for himself and not the chainguard list)
62 Mark Motyka, 12:45
To: Avery Burdett
> Ironically, the presence of motorists on city streets actually forces most
> folks to abide by the rules of the road.
The rules of the road are tailored for motorists, not for everyone else.
> I suggest folks who don't like John Forester's ideas, respond to them.
> Cluttering my mailbox with abuse, just confirms that John must be on to
> something.
Hmmm...I've read quite a number of good responses so far. This is pretty
funny logic. Affirmation by dissent? Works the other way around, too:
the fact that Mr. Forester feels compelled to respond just confirms that
others might be on to something.
-Mark
63 Karl Anderson <kra@pobox.com> 1:53, Portland
> Well, listen to that! Jason organizes local groups, or sympathizes with
> distant groups, of bicycle riders who go out and make the existing traffic
> conditions much worse, creating traffic jams where traffic was at least
> bearable before, [...]
Mr. Forester, I had assumed from your books and your work as an expert
witness that you would be averse to spouting misleading disinformation
simply to goad your audience towards supporting your views. Surely you
realize that this behavior would reflect on the reputation of your
other statements as well.
This is why the above excerpt disturbs me. I have followed eyewitness
and media accounts of Critical Mass rides for years, and while I have
seen rabid statements from newspapers and drivers that claim that
these rides caused jams in otherwise bearable traffic, these
statements have always been contradicted by numerous dissenting
statements, both by the cyclists involved and by uninvolved parties.
Officer Hendricks of the Portland police recently claimed that Critical
Mass caused a jam and blocked an emergency vehicle. He publicly
retracted this false statement a few days later. I am sure that you
will either do the same, or produce some evidence to back your similar
claims.
64 Josh Sutcliffe, 1:41
Wade Eide wrote:
> It would seem that in the utopia that Meggs, Richie, Dockrey, Lemon,
> Worsey, McMorrow and others dream about there are no motor vehicles, no
> stop signs no red lights, no rules of the road.
No cars - yes. Stop signs and red lights are fine. I don't recall
anyone stating that "no rules of the road" would be utopia. I think
(if I may be so bold) that any reference to "utopia" was pretty much
geared to the "no cars" part.
>I value my life and safety a bit
> too much for that. From reports that I have read, there are cities in
> China and other Asian countries where the traffic chaos resulting from
> non-existent or unenforced rules would seem to be the norm.
Yes - there streets are jammed with cars as well as bicycles as well
as pedestrians as well as oxen, sheep, chickens and a lot of spit.
>The descriptions I read talk of thousands of cyclists (and a few motorized
> vehicles) converging en masse on the intersections. Doesn't sound very
> safe or efficient.
It's not. Even without cars it would suck. But let's get to that
point before we decide how to re-engineer our street laws for our
utopian car-free existance.
> ...One of those
> close calls involved a motor vehicle. And that was my own fault, because
> in passing a slow moving car to its left, I failed to take the left-hand
> lane. That didn't give me enough margin of error to allow for the driver
> to do something unexpected, like veer to his left.
So you're blaming yourself because you overestimated a drivers
intelligence? I can't resist another analogy: is it your fault for
getting electrocuted because you happened to touch someone at the
exact same time they were sticking a fork in a toaster? I mean, hey,
you should have realized that this was a possibility...
> The other close call involved two kids on bikes approaching from the
> other direction suddenly turning in front of me, making a left turn
> without yielding to oncoming traffic - me.
Lucky for you he wasn't in a car.
> The accident also involved a kid on a bike - and on a multi-use path.
Last year in Chicago a woman was killed on the multi-use path - BY A
CAR GOING 45 mph. The driver thought he was on Lakeshore Drive. Even
after he ran into Moon Pae, who was rollerblading. I guess it was her
fault, since she didn't consider the possibility that a car would be
driven where it wasn't supposed to.
> ...Apart
> from a couple of thankfully not serious incidents involving an error in
> judgement - mine or another's - the times that I have had conflicts were
> almost always because the other person was not following the rules. And,
> I'm sorry to say, almost all of those people were cyclists.
Man, I wish I was so lucky. I bet the 42,000 Americans killed by cars
wish they were "buzzed" by a cyclist instead.
> ...But we would all follow the same
> rules of the road that we should be following today. How else could we
> all get along with mutual respect in a civilized, democratic society?
>Wade Eide, Montreal
Well, it sounds like Montreal is a very civilized city. The drivers
are nice and never bother you. I, for one, am envious.
Josh
65 Mark Motyka, 2:18
To: Wade Eide
> From reports that I have read,
Car and Driver? Automotive Weekly?
> there are cities in
> China and other Asian countries where the traffic chaos resulting from
> non-existent or unenforced rules would seem to be the norm...
See the video "Return of the Scorcher" by Ted White for more
information.
-Mark
66 David Thistlethwaite <thistled@cadvision.com> 1:47
To: Hugh Smith
Suppose that all car drivers stopped driving cars
and started cycling.
I would be willing to bet that the number of
people killed in crashes would still be very large.
Yes there is less energy involved in bicycle
collisions but there is also less protection.
An oversized truck/car/SUV did not kill a
cyclist/pedestrian, a person did.
Although the vehicle is different the people are not.
It's a people problem. The focus needs to be on
the people not vehicle.
Do not misunderstand, I also feel that cars do
more harm to society than good, but if you are going to
try and solve a problem you had better understand its
nature first.
67 Rob <rbregoff@pacbell.net> 1:58, San Francisco
To: Jared The Great
Since there will also be 10,000 rude car drivers blocking his way, he'll
probably wish he was on a bicycle. You know, his poor wife's life could
have been saved (after she and her children were hit by a
red-light-running driver), but her ambulance was caught in a traffic jam
caused by commuters from the suburbs who were just too selfish and
self-important to take the bus. I guess her blood is on their hands....('sob...)
Now could all you bozos just go away, eh?
R
68 jon winston, 1:53
To: <Jonathan.A.Wiener@williams.edu>
I agree with your sentiment. We should all get along. The problem is that
we are not all on one ride. Some of us, the vehicularists, are riding in
the suburbs on Sundays wearing lycra. (Not that there is anything wrong
with that!)
I count myself in the camp that uses the bike as everyday transportation
because it's better than driving. Most of us ride in all weather, on city
streets and in practical everyday clothes. Because of what we go through `
every day we think of ourselves as marginalized by the thousands of cars
we have to deal with on the anarchic streets. We tend to hate cars. They
are oblivious to us and they endanger our lives every day. We pass
hundreds of stop signs and lights every day.
I GUARANTEE that if bikers from the first camp spent a week in San
Francisco riding like we do, they would quickly adopt our habits of
*carefully* running red lights and stop signs.
I'm just about done with this thread. It's the most wide-ranging thread
in terms of how much territory it's covered. I'm hoping it has an effect
on the CBC. I really want to see legislation enacted to create laws that
make sense for urban cyclists. I know I'm not alone.
Jon
One Less Car wrote:
> I am an eighteen-year-old college student from a San Francisco/San Jose
> suburb. I do not live in the Bay Area currently, but I want to help as
> much as I can. That is why I joined this list. Discussion and dissidence
> are great, but please let us not tear each other apart. I am looking out my
> window as I write this. The enemy is there, 30 feet away. Let's not spend
> our time ripping each other when we are all on the same side.
69 John Vance, 2:42
Derek writes:
>>The messenger was riding within all of the laws
>> that are supposed to keep us safe.
>>Strangly, nothing is being done to the driver;
>> no one cares except for other cyclists.
The driver should be up on manslaughter charges.
> > >I am sorry to hear about the death of the messenger in SF. But if you
> > >think that you are going to change the minds of these arrogant, navel-
> > >gazing assholes at Chainguard...
Now be fair, Derek. While there are a couple of "navel-gazing assholes"
in CG, most of us treated you pretty reasonably, even though the purpose
of CG is _not_ to debate Vehicular Cycling.
> > >Please do yourselves a favour and walk
> > >away. These people are so in love with their ideas of vehicular cycling
> > >that they cannot and will not grasp the real big picture.
Of about 100,000 car/bike collisions per year in the US, 80,000 could be
prevented by cyclist training. Cyclists aren't trained because our
car-dominated culture doesn't want cyclists to know how easy it is to
ride safely in heavy urban traffic. They want us all scared out of our
wits about cycling. They want us driving instead. If that isn't big
picture, I don't know what is.
> > >Basically cars
> > >kill, cars are the blight of the world, they are the worst thing for all
> > >of us. Chainguard and the rest of them all believe that we can get along
> > >with the vehicles, by acting like them.
Sure, cars kill and are the blight of the world. But they're on our
streets, and they'll be there for the next twenty or thirty years, at
least. How do we deal with them in the meantime? Me, I'm not going to
wait until they're all gone. I'm going to use techniques that I've
learned from 15 years of long-distance commuting in heavy, fast urban
traffic - techniques that are essentially the same as those expressed in
_Effective Cycling_. I'm going to bend every ear I can promoting
Effective Cycling, because I _know_ from personal experience how much
safer and convenient it makes cycling. The more people realize just how
safe and useful cycling is, the faster they'll get out of their cars and
onto bikes, and the quicker cars will disappear.
John Vance
70 Wade Eide, 3:10
To: Mike Smith
> * We ride in very different situations. I know that many of the
> "obeying all traffic laws is inappropriate" side ride in San Francisco where
> safety is made worse by traffic laws (any people on the "other side" live
> and ride in SF every day?)
> * We ride for very different reasons. Many of the "inappropriate"
> side ride every day as their primary form of transportation. Others ride
> recreationally.
Mr. Smith,
I'm very sorry to hear that SF got saddled with traffic laws that are
inappropriate. Could you tell the list members what those inappropriate
laws are?
Here in Quebec, the Highway Security Code has 6 articles that
discriminate against cyclists, mainly because they were written by
people who do not understand vehicular cycling principles. Each of the 6
articles apply only to cyclists. The most offensive article has as its
purpose to force cyclists off the road and onto bike paths. All of the
other laws that apply to all road users are, in my opinion, perfectly
appropriate and should be followed by everyone.
Are you suggesting that there should be one set of rules for
transportation cyclists and another for recreational cyclists?
Wade Eide
71 jym@igc.org, 3:50
> 4. "Bikes are different. The law should treat them
> differently." Say, wait a minute, we ARE treated differently.
> Wasn't that the whole problem in the first place?
=o= That's an argument based on semantics, not on substance. If
you read it with an intent to understand, it becomes clear that
what's being advocated is that the law treat us APPROPRIATELY.
=o= For example: the law currently and appropriately differs by
not requiring emission control equipment on bicycles.
> 2. Yes, I think it sucks to wait for a red light to change.
> . . . if I simply lack the patience to wait for my turn, I
> deserve a ticket. Oh... and the same goes for when I'm riding
> my bicycle and not driving my truck.
=o= What one "deserves" depends in large part on the intent of
the law. Generally red lights are used (rather than STOP or
YIELD signs, or no signs at all) because motorized traffic is
travelling at high speed and is in need of control there. This
may or may not be an appropriate restriction for cycling.
=o= For the record, I always stop at red lights and usually stay
stopped. I will on occasion proceed through a red light --
with all due caution for myself and others involved, including
pedestrians -- for safety reasons (don't presume a lack of
patience!). My most specific safety reason is to flee further
interaction with motorists who've demonstrated a lack of concern
for my life and limb.
> 5. Yes, Rosa Parks did a great thing--I agree. She broke a
> law that needed to be broken. Now, will somebody please
> explain to me why stop signs need to be ignored? And red
> lights? (BEFORE you answer this, see #2 above.) I have never
> heard of a minority that wanted BETTER treatment than the
> majority.
=o= I don't believe that anyone's advocated ignoring STOP signs
and red lights. One proposal I have seen is based on the Idaho
municipality that allows bikes to treat STOP signs as YIELD
signs and to treat red lights as STOP signs.
=o= The "BETTER treatment" comment is similarly a red herring.
The transportation infrastructure is so thoroughly designed to
accommodate cars and only cars, subsidizing them at every turn
and sacrificing the safety and health of the rest of us at
every opportunity, that I can't believe that anyone would even
dream of suggesting that such minor amenities is "better"
treatment.
> 6. If individual motorists aren't viewed as representatives of
> the entire motorized community, then bicyclists "shouldn't"
> be either. I AGREE! The problem is, we ARE representatives.
> We are a minority. A large group sees a single member of a
> minority behaving in a certain way, and the entire minority
> gets stereotyped. That is how things work!
=o= No, that is how things are broken. If, as you acknowledge,
this is stereotyping, why accept it? Why not fight it at every
turn, rather than nagging and lecturing us to conform to it?
<_Jym_>
72 Jym Dyer, 4:11
Subject: The Appropriateness of STOP Signs
> Urban stop signs are obviously required equipment.
=o= Why? There are laws governing what should happen at
intersections without STOP signs, in fact they're very much
the same as the laws governing what should happen at
intersections *with* STOP signs:
o Pedestrians in the crosswalks have the right of way.
o One yields to other vehicles or bicycles in the order
that they arrive.
o When vehicles or bicycles arrive at the same time,
yield to the one on the right.
Of course, in practice we find that practically nobody obeys
these laws. Many have no idea what to do if they reach an
intersection without STOP signs.
=o= The real purpose of STOP signs is to slow down motorists,
who would otherwise barrel right through the intersection at
speeds well above the speed limit.
=o= To say that STOP signs are "obviously required" is to
acknowledge that the laws governing intersections and speed
limits are not being followed by motorists.
<_Jym_>
73 Philip Wright, 5:43
>=o= That's an argument based on semantics, not on substance. If
>you read it with an intent to understand, it becomes clear that
>what's being advocated is that the law treat us APPROPRIATELY.
>=o= For example: the law currently and appropriately differs by
>not requiring emission control equipment on bicycles.
Point taken. (Note: I did read it with intent to understand, but was
trying to argue one of the possible effects of our actions. Much like when
I said "that's the way things work" and you replied "no that's how they are
broken". Obviously, I didn't mean "work" as the opposite of "malfunction".)
>=o= What one "deserves" depends in large part on the intent of
>the law. Generally red lights are used (rather than STOP or
>YIELD signs, or no signs at all) because motorized traffic is
>travelling at high speed and is in need of control there. This
>may or may not be an appropriate restriction for cycling.
Red lights are also used to improve the traffic flow. Ever notice that
when a light goes out, and has to be treated as a stop sign, it takes much
longer to drive through the intersection? I concede, however, that with a
different design of the road and intersection, a stop light or stop sign
might have been completely unnecessary. (i.e. perhaps replace it with a
roundabout. With bicycle traffic, roundabouts work very well, in my
experience.) But a traffic light exists for more reasons than the speed of
approaching vehicles.
>=o= For the record, I always stop at red lights and usually stay
>stopped. I will on occasion proceed through a red light --
>with all due caution for myself and others involved, including
>pedestrians -- for safety reasons (don't presume a lack of
>patience!).
Good for you. I'm not saying I've never run a light--sometimes the lights
don't know I'm there, and I'm not going to wait for a car to come "save"
me. Or sometimes I am uncomfortable with my surroundings at night. Your
reasons seem to be oriented more towards self-preservation rather than
impatience.
>=o= I don't believe that anyone's advocated ignoring STOP signs
>and red lights. One proposal I have seen is based on the Idaho
>municipality that allows bikes to treat STOP signs as YIELD
>signs and to treat red lights as STOP signs.
That would be wonderful! As long as we have consistent behavior, and the
motorists expect us to treat the stop signs as yield signs, I'll be 100% on
your side. The problem, as I see it, is the inconsistency, and the view
that motorists have of us. I'm not saying we need to bend over for them,
but we do need them on our side. They have more votes than we do.
>=o= The "BETTER treatment" comment is similarly a red herring.
>The transportation infrastructure is so thoroughly designed to
>accommodate cars and only cars, subsidizing them at every turn
>and sacrificing the safety and health of the rest of us at
>every opportunity, that I can't believe that anyone would even
>dream of suggesting that such minor amenities is "better"
>treatment.
Ok, I'll give you that. It depends on your viewpoint of what constitutes
"better" treatment. You took a different meaning than I intended, and now
my original viewpoint sounds stupid to me. :) Good argument.
>=o= No, that is how things are broken. If, as you acknowledge,
>this is stereotyping, why accept it? Why not fight it at every
>turn, rather than nagging and lecturing us to conform to it?
I'm not nagging you to conform to it. I'm asking you to consider the
reality that your actions are being generalized to the entire cycling
public. It's not fair, I agree. We should fight it, I agree. But that is
still THE WAY THINGS WORK...uh..er...THE WAY THINGS "HAPPEN".
Have a good weekend, ride safely!
-Philip
74 Paul <paulw@enet.com>, 5:46, Bay Area
Subject: Sins of Forester
Avery Burdett said:
> I suggest folks who don't like John Forester's ideas, respond to them.
> Cluttering my mailbox with abuse, just confirms that John must be on to
> something.
Avery,
May I remind you, in this case, it was JOHN FORESTER who started
the abuse, and did so in a response to ALL in a large list.
While I believe Jason was wrong to have cross-posted to such
a large list, especially the Berkeley officials, he made some very
good points. While John has a valid difference of opinion, he
could have made his points much better had he not gone on
such a personal attack, meanwhile exposing all the dirty
laundry to the Berkeley officials.
I have lost a lot of the respect I formerly had for John by his
mean-spirited, juvenile personal attack on Jason.
Paul
P.S. Yes, I am guilty of perpetuating the cross-posting madness,
but at least I trimmed the list.
75 Rob, 7:39
To: David Thistlethwaite
Excuse me, but I believe you're drowning in your own deluded notions.
Can everyone who's not on the SFBC list please stop posting to it now, I
knackered from deleting.
Oh, and can we just tear down the Bay Bridge to keep all those suburban
yobos out of the city?
David Thistlethwaite wrote:
> Suppose that all car drivers stopped
> driving cars and started cycling. > I would be willing to bet that the number of
> people killed in crashes would still be very large.
76 John Vance, 8:49
To: Rob
>Oh, and can we just tear down the Bay Bridge to keep all those suburban
>yobos out of the city?
NO!
Because if I'm ever in SF again, I intend to ride it!
John Vance
(who generally follows laws that apply to all drivers, but ignores those
that apply only to bicyclists)
77 Mark Motyka, 8:03
To: Jared
Jarhead The Meek wrote:
> I don't think Critical Mass helps any, and if anything makes matters worse.
> The guy who can't get to the hospital to see his dying wife because 3,000
> cyclists are breaking every traffic law there is, is going to hate cyclists
> with a passion for life. If it is simply 3,000 people legally riding
> though a city and just there just happens to be a lot of them I think that
> is fine.
Yeah, those 3000 people should be there in 3000 cars, and the guy
wouldn't make it through the gridlock until the time the funeral is
over. Or, he could turn onto the next sidestreet, and take a different
route. Same logic goes for 4th of July parades, Thanksgiving Day
parades, and the gridlock of 100,000 football fans decending on a
stadium. I hate football fans because my dad died, and I was caught in
the post-game gridlock before he passed on. Outlaw them all.
The SFPD forced the issue, and conducted a year-long guinea pig
experiment with Critical Mass, using the policy that people obey all the
traffic laws and ride together. The result was, as people had long
predicted, far worse gridlock than when moderate-sized groups
facilitated their own rides with corking. Corking also adds a level of
safety for participants. The delays for motorists are much greater when
everyone stops and starts, because it severely slows down the flow.
Better to wait for a light cycle or two, and have the group pass through
the city faster. Also, the constant stop-start resulted in a great deal
of mixing of lots of bikes with auto traffic, creating a much more
dangerous and confusing situation for every one.
In reality, I know many people who have learned good urban riding
skills, found solidarity with other cyclists, and overcome their fear of
suburban cycling to the point where they have given up their cars. All
inspired by Critical Mass. Not by John Forester.
-Mark
"I hear you can fry an egg on the servers at cycling.org right now."
78 John Forester, 8:32
To: Karl Anderson
We have the statements of those who participate in Critical Mass in San
Francisco boasting that they block signalized intersections so that their
riders can go through on the red while the other traffic, that has the
green, is therefore unable to move.
Karl Anderson wrote:
>John Forester writes:
>> ...Jason organizes local groups, or sympathizes with
>> distant groups, of bicycle riders who go out and make the existing traffic
>> conditions much worse, creating traffic jams where traffic was at least
>> bearable before, [...]
>Mr. Forester, I had assumed from your books and your work as an expert
>witness that you would be averse to spouting misleading disinformation
>simply to goad your audience towards supporting your views.
79 John Forester, 10:25
Subject: The Cycling Debate
One contributor argued that "many of the "obeying all traffic laws is
inappropriate" side ride in San Francisco where safety is made worse by
traffic laws ... "Many of the 'inappropriate' side ride every day as their
primary form of transportation. Others ride recreationally."
Another put the issue quite well: "John, you live in Lemon Grove. I don't
know where that is but it sounds suburban. Here in San Francisco it's a
jungle. Bikers get by not by obeying, as Mark Motyka said, the traffic law
but the law of traffic. To survive we have to get by on our wilyness. We
run lights to get ahead of the flow of traffic and because it's just plain
smart. This has led us to become outlaws. Its not good PR. We need to
change the laws to accomodate the differences between cars and bikes so we
can be understood on the road, in the courts and by the polititians."
I suggest that there are two misconceptions here. The first is because in
California the traffic laws are uniform throughout the state. Which traffic
laws endanger cyclists? Come on, tell us. You may argue that the conditions
in San Francisco require different traffic laws than in the rest of the
state. Well then, which traffic laws are safe in the rest of California but
dangerous in San Francisco? The second misconception is that those who want
to defy some of the present traffic laws understand San Francisco's
conditions because they ride there for transportation, while those on the
other side ride elsewhere and for recreation. For myself, I am 69 years old
and I have been a transportational cyclist for most of my life, in a wide
range of cities, yet I choose to obey the rules for drivers of vehicles.
Somebody else puts the political argument that disobeying traffic laws is
the better way to get better physical facilities. "If society recognized that we had to
obey traffic laws, we'd have better accomodations? Where do
you get that? We have lousy accomodations because there aren't as many of
us as there are drivers. If we want better accomodations, we need to work
together, and we need to convince more people, including drivers, that we
need these things. Maybe obeying traffic laws is the way to go, but this is
far from being obvious, and claiming that somebody who doesn't agree is
irrational is just name-calling."
The principal reasons for obeying the rules for drivers of vehicles are
the immediate operational ones of safety and efficiency. I have seen no
valid argument yet that disobeying any particular rules for drivers of
vehicles improves the safety of cyclists. It is true that one can gain a
short-term time advantage, at some cost in safety, by disobeying certain
rules, but one must also consider the result if all drivers acted in that
way. If they did so, traffic would become both more dangerous and slower.
It is necessary that substantially all obey the rules for the system to
work. However that's not the political argument. As I see it, American
motorists, being the general public, have for decades believed that they
can discriminate against cyclists by shoving them off onto inferior
facilities and by enacting and enforcing special discriminatory laws
against cyclists. That system is now, while not the traffic law, the
planning law that creates facilities. My position is that the public should
recognize that cyclists are drivers of vehicles who are entitled to use the
roads on the same terms as other drivers of vehicles. If the public so
recognized our rights, then the public would find it desirable to provide
better streets for cycling, because that will be the only way in which the
motoring public can avoid being delayed by cyclists. Those who plan and
practice disobeying the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles merely
encourage the general public to think of cyclists as even more undesirable
road users who should not be allowed to use the roads. Those who have
different opinions apparently have not made a cogent political argument
that their actions contribute to the goal that I have stated; at least I
have not seen such an argument.
What we get in terms of this argument is like the following: "Ted took the
words right out of my mouth. I couldn't explain it any better. Yet, I
still have a couple more things to add. For one, we have enough enemies.
We don't need any more. We are just a small number fighting for the
impossible which is to somehow get the majority (drivers) who already
know that they are wrong to admit that they are wrong and to help us change
the system. Attacking someone won't get us anywhere." This isn't a very
helpful argument. It is quite obvious to vehicular cyclists that the
general public is wrong about cycling, thinking that cycling is best done
by incompetent people restricted to special facilities instead of by
competent cyclists on the normal roads. However, it also seems obvious that
the arguments that cyclists should be disobeying the traffic laws simply
encourage the error of the general public rather than doing anything to
correct it.
Of course, we have the usual utterly confused contributions. "Cyclists are
(at least here in WA state) required to ride as far right as possible.
Which means sometimes blocking right turn lanes. And frankly, I don't want
cars trying to inch past me anyway. How often do you see people bumping
cars when they parallel park? I could do without that happening to my
legs." The side-of-the-road restriction is not one of the rules for drivers
of vehicles; it is one of the laws that discriminates against cyclists
merely because they are cyclists, a prime example of the attitude of the
general public that I described above. Clearly, this cyclist believes that
he is required to stay on the right-hand side of right-turning cars.
However, that law came about because the general motoring public believed
that cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles. What is the best
way to get rid of a rule that is based on the idea that cyclists should not
operate as drivers of vehicles. Clearly, advocating that cyclists should
not operate as drivers of vehicles, and the "San Francisco" crowd does,
merely strengthens the public's anti-cyclist attitude. While demonstrating
that cyclists who operate as drivers of vehicles have lower accident rates
and make cooperative road users may not be sufficient, surely it is a basic
requirement to correct the public prejudice.
Then we have the absurd faction, calling cars dangerous weapons from which
we should be protected as from guns. They simply make the problem worse.
The following looks like a reasonable argument, but it lacks substance.
"At the heart of your whole ideology (and that is what it has become) is
the notion that since bikes are legitimate users of the road they should
simply "be traffic", taking thier place in the mix with all the cars and
trucks. Arguably its a good way to start. The problem is that you carry it
too far. In your world cyclists would wait their turn behind cars at the
traffic light. They would obey all laws to the letter." Since when? If
there is clear space to move up alongside the waiting cars, it is lawful to
do so. If there isn't space, then you can't move up, whether or not you
want to disobey the law.
The same writer goes on with "The fact is that bikes and cars are
*different* just like pedestrians and cars are different. As I said
yesterday, we have different sizes, weights, forces of impact, and
abilities to manuever. Everyone, car drivers who split the lane with us,
cyclists, and the bike cop who gave me a ticket last week, knows this. Why
then should we be treated as the same under the law?" The first thing
is that cyclists are far more similar to motorists than to pedestrians. So
cyclists should be treated as drivers of vehicles. But that doesn't mean
that the laws for motorists and cyclists are identical, because they
aren't. Motorists are prohibited from following too closely, while cyclists
are not so prohibited, because being tailgated by a motor vehicle poses a
hazard to the driver in front but really doesn't if the driver behind is a
cyclist or a horseman instead. That is a useful distinction. So also is the
distinction between motor racing, which is prohibited, and bicycle racing,
which isn't. Which other distinctions do you think are justified by the
different physical characteristics?
We could have a useful discussion, if we applied facts, reason, and
thought to it.
John Forester
80 Janice Rothstein, 12:18 a.m.
> An oversized truck/car/SUV did not kill a
> cyclist/pedestrian, a person did.
Reminds me of that parody of nra supporters: guns don't kill
people, people kill people. And before anyone flames me with some
cocamamie post about how people will kill if they really want to,
even if they don't have access to a gun, try applying that to schoolyard
shootings, for one. Guns make killing so much easier and more impersonal
than say stabbing or strangling. So do motorized vehicles.
For the 5 millionth time: cars/trucks/buses are huge machines.
Bicycles are not. Duhh-uhh!!
Janice
81 Hugh Smith, 1:37
To: Karl Anderson
Subject: Divergence, or maybe Convergence?
All,
John Forester writes:
"We could have a useful discussion, if we applied facts, reason, and
thought to it."
In that spirit:
I read Jason's original article. He writes, in part:
"At Critical Mass and other big group rides, bicycles should be considered
one cohesive unit, like a train--and be allowed to stick together through red lights and stop signs once the "head" has passed through. Just as a beehive is considered a "superorganism", so should a Critical Mass or bike parade be considered a "supervehicle. Such a procession can be made legal at the local level under the California Vehicle Code".
This is a problem in the town of Woodside. Noontime rides go thru town, and
they don't like to have each bike have to stop at the stop sign. Woodside
fights them.
I would like to address this. I can't see it being a good idea to do this
through red lights, but stop signs, yes. Under certain conditions. When I
was going to school in the army, we marched to school from the barracks.
About 500 of us. Several soldiers in the front were designated as "road
guards." At an intersection, they would fall out of the formation, and one
on each side of the marching column would face traffic, holding a hand out
in a command for cars to stop. When the column was thru the intersection,
the road guards would fall in at the rear, and new ones would handle the
next intersection. The column was not even required to stop at the
intersection. It was the job of the road guards to run ahead and stop
traffic before the column arrived. Presidential excursions into traffic use
a similar approach, with motorcycle police replacing the road guards.
I do not propose that the peloton, or Jason's supervehicle not be required to
stop. They should all stop once. The whole group, with the leaders at the
stop line. Then two of the front riders would fall out and hold traffic
back while the rest of the column went thru the stop sign as a unit. The
"road guards" would then fall in at the end. Granted, if the group
considers this a race, the leaders would no longer be in the winning
position. However, to be considered as a group, the "supervehicle" should
be required to act as a group. And pelotons at a track do this, so that the
leaders can fall back and take a break in the slipstream.
To facilitate the flow of automotive traffic, some limit, either in time or
number of cyclists should be set. And the signal that the "supervehicle's"
caboose has passed would be when the road guards fall back into the end of
the line.
This would grant group riders some extra freedom, with requirements being
placed on the group to organize the road guard cadre so that this freedom be
exercised. And I think that this is a reasonable requirement. In order to
be considered as a group, the group should be able to organize this safety
measure.
Something along these lines, anyway. Ideas?
And it should NOT be done at a local level, but adopted statewide. Can't
have Woodside cyclists developing a cyclist's inferiority complex just
because their mass isn't critical.....
Respectfully,
Hugh Smith
Saturday, January 16
82 Wade Eide, 10:18
To: Josh Sutcliffe
> Well, it sounds like Montreal is a very civilized city. The drivers
> are nice and never bother you. I, for one, am envious.
Josh,
I know that you meant that to be ironic, but it's actually closer to the
truth than you think. Not all drivers here are models of niceness, but
I've become pretty skilled at forcing even those that aren't to respect
my rights to the road. And yes, it is very rare indeed that a driver
will bother me.
There is no need to envy me. Pick up a copy of "Effective Cycling" or
take a course, and you too can enjoy safe, effective cycling. And have
fun doing it!
Wade Eide
83 Mark Motyka, 12:38 p.m.
To: John Forester
> We have the statements of those who participate in Critical Mass in San
> Francisco boasting that they block signalized intersections so that their
> riders can go through on the red while the other traffic, that has the
> green, is therefore unable to move.
Must be selective myopia or something. You only read half the post. Read
it again. Funny how you are such an expert on something you don't know
jack about. Again: overall traffic flow is best for bikes AND cars
during a Critical Mass event when cyclists and/or police facilitate. You
should come observe, before drawing any conclusions. Here it is again:
>The SFPD forced the issue, and conducted a year-long guinea pig
>experiment with Critical Mass, using the policy that people obey all the
>traffic laws and ride together. The result was, as people had long
>predicted, far worse gridlock than when moderate-sized groups
>facilitated thier own rides with corking. Corking also adds a level of
>safety for participants. The delays for motorists are much greater when
>everyone stops and starts, because it severely slows down the flow.
>Better to wait for a light cycle or two, and have the group pass through
>the city faster. Also, the constant stop-start resulted in a great deal
>of mixing of lots of bikes with auto traffic, creating a much more
>dangerous and confusing situation for every one.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the 90% or so of supportive motorists
waving and smiling and enjoying the spectacle of 500 cyclists happily
pedaling down the street, while they're stopped for a light cycle or
two. This service is provided free-of-charge.
-Mark
84 j.a.b., 1:09
To: Mark Motyka
Subject: CM: It's a PROTEST, not a RIDE
I think it's important to remember that Critical Mass is a PROTEST,
not a RIDE.
People lock themselves in the Dean's Office (1960's Columbia Univ.), chain
themselves to trees, occupy Alcatraz, lay down on train tracks when nuclear
weapons are being moved, burn their draft cards, and boycott stuff made in
South Africa and China....it's not about being polite! It's about making a
point. It's about drawing attention to the issue. People (like us, for example) can argue until the end of time about whether
more harm or good is done to The Cause by such protests. I wonder how long
the Vietnam War would have lasted if 18-year-olds had just kept lining up and
going; how long segregation would have lasted without boycotts, marches, and
sit-ins; how long any injustice would have been perpetuated without dissent?
Sure, it isn't always pretty. Sure, people get upset (remember the
construction workers fighting with the antiwar demonstrators in the 60's?).
Trying to blend in and go with the flow doesn't always work. The funny thing
is that often times The Status (Quo) Seekers benefit from the actions of the
Lunatic Fringe!
Study any movement for social change is this century and you will find the
Trickle Down Effect benefiting the very people who wrung their hands and said
"Oh, no! They're just making it hard on the rest of us! Let's not upset
anybody!"
Just a thought. Just my opinion. Hey, let's all lighten up a bit, what'dya say?
Cheers
j.a.b., part of "The San Francisco Crowd"
85 Karl Anderson, 1:30
To: John Forester
> We have the statements of those who participate in Critical Mass in San
> Francisco boasting that they block signalized intersections so that their
> riders can go through on the red while the other traffic, that has the
> green, is therefore unable to move.
I remind you that your claim was that the "organized or sympathized"
groups (which you now name as Critical Mass) "make the existing
traffic conditions much worse, creating traffic jams where traffic was
at least bearable before".
Perhaps you are merely intending that by mentioning the fact that
Critical Mass corks intersections, the reader will make a leap of
faith and assume that traffic jams are created and traffic is made much
worse. Surely few believe that traffic was bearable before (most
surely those who participate in Critical Mass!).
Discerning readers, however, will not blindly make that leap without,
as I said before, some evidence (or even a reasonable and reliable
link between the two), which you have yet to provide.
Instead, we have conflicting evidence. Funeral processions and
large trucks slowly maneuvering into a loading zone often block roads
and intersections for minutes at a time, but drivers don't fume and
rant about them.
We even have the abovementioned statement by Officer Hendricks of
Portland, who said that Critical Mass did not cause a traffic jam.
This statement referred to the very ride which Sara Stout, (in the post
which many used to ignite this flame war, does anyone remember?) said
that groups of cyclists went through yellow and red lights.
Let me make that clear. A police officer, in a statement to the
media, absolved CM of any responsibility for causing traffic jams,
even though intersections with signals were momentarily blocked by the
ride.
I haven't seen any statements that would fit your loaded term of
"boasting" about snarling traffic, but I'll pass on that.
86 John Forester, 9:07
To: Jason Meggs
S. Dodge asked me: "Did you realize you sent your message to the entire
Berkeley, California, City Council, Mayor and city departments? I don't
think that being witness to our flame war is going to endear them to our cause.
Please check recipient list for relevance before cross-posting. Some of us
actually have to ride in Berkeley."
Of course I realized that I sent my message to practically the entire
Berkeley city government. I did so because that was where the original
message, one that I think is utterly foolish, was sent. Don't you people
realize that when you send off to government such foolish and dangerous
messages as you have done, those of us who understand how foolish and
dangerous your message is are obliged, simply to protect their own
interests in safe and useful cycling transportation, to reply to the same
government? You want government to see only your foolishness, and are
unwilling to put your message up to the test of debate and thoughtful
analysis. That is another message that government should receive, so I send
it to the same parties again. I lived and cycled in Berkeley from 1940 to
1958; I love the place. However, I am not willing to let cycling in
Berkeley go down the drain without an effort to prevent it, and I am certainly
completely unwilling for messages as foolish as yours have been
to be set before the governments of other cities and the state just because
you have bamboozled the Berkeley City Council with your unfounded
rhetoric.
87 Rob, 12:52 a.m.
To: John Forester
So John, using that logic, we should send all of your inconsequential drivel
and out-of-touch opinions to every podunk politico in Orange Grove [sic], wherever
that is?
Would you please take your bushel of hostility somewhere else. I'm tired of
deleting pages and pages of postings from bored suburban Sunday cyclists who are
obviously completely out-of-touch with the perils of daily cycle commuting, and
have so much denial about the damage the private automobile causes. Please
unsubscribe from the San Francisco lists, and take all your little buddies with you.
We all know Jason here. He's a tireless and courageous cycling advocate. You
just show your ignorance by flaming him. You sound like the kind of guy who spends
his time off picketing family planning clinics.
BEGONE! You have no power here!!!
R
John Forester wrote:
> ....I am
> certainly completely unwilling for messages as foolish as yours have been
> to be set before the governments of other cities and the state just because
> you have bamboozled the Berkeley City Council with your unfounded
> rhetoric.
Sunday, January 17
88 j.a.b., 7:06 a.m.
To: rbregoff
Whoa! Hold on there, BIG FELLA!
Although there is MUCH that I don't agree with regarding Mr. Forester's recent
postings, telling him to GET OFF the list because there is disagreement with
his viewpoint seems to fly in the face of the very FREEDOM we advocate.
Certainly, I would counsel Mr.Forester to adopt a more "Elder Statesman"
approach in his writings:
"Dear Mr. Forester, putting people down with as much GUSTO as you sometimes
do doesn't seem exactly CRICKET, old bean! Too many years in the States,
perhaps?"
However, anyone who has read his book ("EFFECTIVE CYCLING") knows that this
chap has spent a lifetime advocating for the rights of cyclists. Because many
of us now disagree regarding the methods for such advocacy doesn't mean we
don't have room for the opinions expressed.
Just my opinion, but PURGES make me just a tad bit nervous!
Cycling equals freedom to me. Curtailing that freedom, whether ON THE ROAD or
IN THE MIND, seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Love, Peace, & Critical Mass,
j.a.b.
89 Eric Thomas Black <limbo@well.com> 12:26 p.m., California
To: John Forester
> ...those of us who understand how foolish and
>dangerous your message is are obliged, simply to protect their own
>interests in safe and useful cycling transportation, to reply to the same
>government.
I fail to see how a reference to an existing law in Idaho is "foolish
and dangerous".
Eric Thomas Black http://www.well.com/user/limbo
90 Jason Meggs, 3:37
Subject: Thanks
At first I was astonished and amazed at the evolving online public
hearing and debate which stemmed from my original post. Much can be
learned from the dynamic by which it unfolded, and one wonders if this
debate will ever end.
I have purposefully avoided responding to numerous points with which I
disagree. Please do not take my silence to mean consent. Oftentimes,
others responded before I would have had a chance to. In many cases, I
avoided responding in hopes of avoiding fanning the flames of this, "the
mother of all flame wars". The most egregious misconception - the
notion that bicycles are anywhere near as dangerous and lethal as cars -
I respond to in the attachment at bottom.
As astonishing as this explosive debate has been, the reasons for it are
clear. We have much reason to be so vocal.
Change in California for bicyclists has been exceedingly slow. The
Berkeley Bike Plan took more than seven years! We still receive less
than 0.035% of the State Highway Budget (the BLA (sic))!
Bicycle/Pedestrian deaths make up 25% of traffic fatalities in the Bay
Area yet supposedly make up 11% of all trips despite the fact that
bicycling, as the Effective Cycling advocates have pointed out, can and
should be safer than driving a car! Alameda County still has no bicycle
coordinator. Indeed, the 9-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(sic) has no bicycle coordinator! The MTC does not model bicycle usage!
The MTC "borrows" from what little funds there are for bicycle projects
(of which there are many) in order to build more sprawling freeways! Our
society's short-sighted and forced dependency upon the automobile is so
caustic and so damaging and such a drain on our lives in so many ways
that it is difficult to think of anything that said dependency does not
oppressively affect.
On a daily basis, the urban cyclist has to deal with many life-threatening
situations directly caused by motorists who are truly out of control. In
addition the urban cyclist must put up with an infrastructure that was
clearly designed in hopes of forcing us off the roads. That infrastructure
is heavily subsidized and severely suffered for by the cyclist. This
discrimination against bicyclists leads many to seek ways that they can
bring some joy and reason to their daily lives, and to seek innovative
ways to help effect positive change. The widespread phenomenon of running
stops, and the phenomenon of Critical Mass, are two such means of
effecting change at least on the personal level if not on a broader level.
A very broad array of cyclists run stop signs and stop lights. If the
issue of whether this should be legal were ever brought to a vote I think
I know which side would win, by a landslide. A much smaller array of
cyclists participate in Critical Mass, primarily because of the harsh
repression which it has suffered from the police - no doubt driven by the
forces which would enslave us all in automobiles.
I'd like to say for the record that I have been enjoying abiding by rules,
even when they clearly make no sense. As a "wacky guy", I like to find
humor in everyday life, and obeying rules which make no sense is funny to
me. It's also less stressful because I don't have to worry that the
battalions of police which flood Berkeley's streets will pull me over at
every turn. I also know that those cyclists who believe that obeying
every rule betters our lot (clearly a form of cyclist inferiority complex)
will be happy if I submit to these automobile-inspired and
automobilist-flouted rules.
I obey the law many times despite the fact that the bicycle is the tool
of speed in the city. Even when not in a rush, I find myself racing
because conditions are so harsh. It is easy to fall into cutting every
corner and racing from each place to the next as quickly as possible in
order to get out of this harsh situation. I knew this principle of
comfort stemming from speed long before I was a bicycle messenger (at
which point my paycheck required such speed). I'm no longer a bicycle
messenger (that career ended when I was injured by a wrong-way-riding
cyclist). The best reason I know of for obeying the rules is relaxation
- trying to enjoy my city and the outdoors, rather than avoid it. I like
the idea of relaxing at a stop light rather than racing from one point to
another. Unfortunately, in the past few months, two of the three times I
was hit by cars, it was because I had dutifully stopped! (The third
time, it was because a tow-truck driver felt I shouldn't be in the road
riding with traffic). The police do nothing - won't even take a report -
in these incidents. In addition, at a Berkeley Critical Mass ride, I was
struck by one of approximately ten bicycle police surrounding me. These
officers (who frequently break traffic laws illegally in everyday
patrols) were running the stop sign when I chose to stop. This officer
still maintains that I broke the law by stopping at a stop sign!!!
Obviously this is leading up to dealing with the contentions from one of
the established philosophies of cycling methodology.
Without delving into the personal attacks which are begging a decisive
counter, I hope that Mr. John Forester (before he joins us all in
politely leaving this particular forum) will consider that his philosophy
is not in whole being attacked (nor do I believe that it was the original
intention of any of those advocating for relaxing the stopping rules for
bicyclists in California, to attack Mr. Forester).
It must be mentioned that bicycles are not legally considered vehicles
under the California Vehicle Code, which some would argue was a shrewd
choice that benefits bicyclists. But clearly the bicycle is a vehicular
mode and I will discuss it as such.
There has been a very clear accusation that we who believe that the laws
need to be changed are working against bicycling and against the stature
and security of the bicycle as a vehicular mode.
Speaking for myself, when I advocate that the City Council strive for
equity in transportation spending and in police enforcement, I am not
asking that the bicycle be reduced in its stature as a vehicular mode.
When I ask the City Council to support the provision of full access to
all city streets and freeways I am not maligning the bicycle or reducing
its stature as a vehicular mode (and there are two primary highways in
Berkeley where we are prohibited, in addition to freeways).
When I ride across the Bay Bridge and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, both
of which the California Highway Patrol claims are prohibited to cyclists,
and despite the fact that I am at times arrested or cited for using those
public bridges, it is not because I think that the bicycle should be
reduced in its stature as a vehicular mode.
When I advocate that bicycle boulevards (bicycle priority streets) be
provided in order to bring more citizens into the world of bicycling it is
not because I wish that bicycles be treated in any lesser manner, but
rather that the wide range of needs of bicyclists be respected and
provided for. A major survey was undertaken in Berkeley and it was found
that the number one reason why people aren't bicycling more is due to fear
of the automobile, and although I am a hardened cyclist who believes that
bicycling can be taught and can be safe, I can appreciate their concern.
The idea that there are people who wish to cycle but feel they can not
elicits compassion rather than condescension from me. The experience of
an elderly person trying to bicycle for the first time is not uncommon in
Berkeley and brings with it a wide range of issues. Such a person is
attempting to overcome years of living in an automobile culture which
condescends cruely to those who do not drive. Not being capable of the
speed and dexterity of a lifetime cyclist completely changes such a
person's feeling of confidence and the comfort of separation from
high-speed-differential encounters. Knowing that the slightest accident
has the potential to break brittle bones and cripple also affects such a
valiant new cyclist. Proper facilities, not just proper training, are
necessary to facilitate a shift towards more cycling as a vehicular mode.
As I have been cycling throughout this country for more than 27 years,
with the bicycle as my primary mode of transportation, I understand that
bicycling is a skill that can be taught and that there are methods of
riding which are very beneficial.
That is one of the many reasons why I joined with other advocates to push
for the strongest language in the Berkeley Bicycle Plan that bicycling
would be taught in our schools, and also why I will assist in efforts to
see that that Plan is implemented. I have little doubt that Effective
Cycling techniques will be employed in such training.
When I outfit my bicycle with a frame the size of a motor vehicle, and
wait my turn in queue at stop signs and lights, and park in standard
motorcar parking spots, it is not because I think that the bicycle is
anything less than a worthy vehicular mode. Quite the contrary.
All of this, I hope, will allay to some extent the shrill fears that have
been voiced, assuming those fears were sincere. In case anyone actually
believed so, let me say that there is not an army of suicidal cyclists
hell-bent on removing the bicycle from the ranks of vehicular modes.
There are, however, thousands upon thousands of people frustrated with
the extent to which city life - which has the potential of being so
superb in so many ways - has been destroyed by the near total domination
of the automobile. They are aware that said domination did not come
about democratically or fairly but rather was forced upon the public by
special interests and outright corruption. Every aspect of life has been
damaged by this forced dependence, a tragedy beyond telling. The great
majority of our resources and time as a society have been poured into
constructing this prison system: automobile dependency. The noise and
pollution, the destruction of public space, the destruction of our
planet's ecosystem, the fiscal drain across the board, and the severe
imbalance of power and subsequent erosion of democracy which have
resulted from that forced dependency, all call for radical change at the
earliest opportunity.
I am increasingly weary of advocates who are so entrenched in their own
narrowly-scoped positions that they will not recognize the public's very
real issues. There is a vibrant and broad-based movement for better
cities, better conditions for cyclists, and increased respect for
cyclists which is flourishing against all odds. To disregard this is to
work against the stature and security of cycling as a vehicular mode.
Where some have claimed that asking for sensible change will detriment
bicyclists, I charge in turn that opposing those who are asking for change
will detriment all to a far greater exent.
Jason Meggs
[Please respond to this post to me personally as I will not entertain any
more protracted debunking of specious arguments and cheap personal
attacks in this forum].
David Thistlethwaite wrote:
> Suppose that all car drivers stopped driving cars
> and started cycling.
> I would be willing to bet that the number of
> people killed in crashes would still be very large.
Oh my goodness! How can you possibly claim this!?
Did you know that when a car increases in speed from 20 to 30 MPH, the
chances of killing a pedestrian or bicyclist in a collision go up from 5%
to 50%? TEN TIMES!
I'd much rather be hit by a 15 MPH cyclist (high average speed in the
city) of soft flesh and a bit of metal than hit by a huge lethal
steamrollering thing going at least twice as fast (low average speed in
the city). What do you think happens every day on football fields across
the country? And those people *want* to hit each other! Name anyone who
goes out and runs head-first into oncoming cars on a daily basis!
I had hoped to have only one response to some of the other major posts I
disagree with but this really could not stand.
Picture all the cars you see suddenly transforming into bicycles. The
driver suddenly takes up a tiny fraction of the space. The room for
maneuvering is suddenly increased by an order of magnitude. The speeds
are diminished by a factor of 2-5. The momentum is diminished by a factor
of 40-100. [This does not address the issue of big-rig trucks, which are
especially lethal].
I know that the data compiled by the CHP (coming directly from police
reports, if you can actually get them to take one) tends to indicate that
bicyclists are at fault in many cases, and often are injured in crashes
involving only themselves. There may be some truth to that despite the
bias of the police (which has been well-documented in many hundreds of
cases and which is truly horrifying). To the extent that these statistics
are true I call for education as the primary answer -- it has been
reported that the majority of serious crashes involving bicyclists occur
in the first three months of learning to ride, before street smarts and
physical ability kick in. That is one more reason why this system of
automobile dependence/domination is at fault. We have driver's education.
Where is the bicyclists' education?
Surely in a world where everyone traveled by bicycle, such training would
be standard.
91 Jon Winston, 3:28
Eminent bike guru and writer John Forester wrote:
> One contributor argued that "many of the obeying all traffic laws is
> inappropriate" side ride in San Francisco where safety is made worse by
> traffic laws ... "Many of the 'inappropriate' side ride every day as their
> primary form of transportation. Others ride recreationally."
--------------
Not traffic laws in general, red lights in particular. It is *sometimes*
safer to run the light *when safe and after stopping* so you can get
ahead of traffic so it won't try to pass you after each light.
--------------
> I suggest that there are two misconceptions here. The first is because in
> California the traffic laws are uniform throughout the state. Which traffic
> laws endanger cyclists?
-----------------
An argument could be made for different laws in different parts of the
state but that's not the argument I was making. Idaho's Title 49, which
codifies how cyclists may treat stop signs and red lights is uniform all
over the state as it should be in California. I was simply stating that
In the urban environment of San Francisco, it has become obvious that
the law as it stands does not work.
------------------
>The second misconception is that those who want
> to defy some of the present traffic laws understand San Francisco's
> conditions because they ride there for transportation, while those on the
> other side ride elsewhere and for recreation. For myself, I am 69 years old
> and I have been a transportational cyclist for most of my life, in a wide
> range of cities, yet I choose to obey the rules for drivers of vehicles.
-------------------
You may be a transportation cyclist but, unlike most, you still live in
the suburbs where the stop lights and signs are fewer and farther in
between. An I'll bet the cops are enforcing these laws more vigorously
in your neck of the woods. My statement was a generalization (mea culpa)
but it's true that most transportation cyclists live in urban areas.
-------------------
> Somebody else puts the political argument that disobeying traffic laws is
> the better way to get better physical facilities. "If society recognized
> that we had to obey traffic laws, we'd have better accomodations?
-------------------
You're taking this out of context. The person who made that comment was
talking about Critical Mass, not everyday cycling. She was of the
opinion that Critical Mass is a protest and running red light at
Critical Mass is an act of civil disobediance. Myself, I feel that
"corking" or blocking an intersection to allow CM to pass quickly and
without mixing with cars is a simple safety measure. It has been tacitly
endorsed by the police since they have stopped following our rides in San
Francisco.
> ....As I see it, American
> motorists, being the general public, have for decades believed that they
> can discriminate against cyclists by shoving them off onto inferior
> facilities and by enacting and enforcing special discriminatory laws
> against cyclists... ....Those who plan and
> practice disobeying the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles merely
> encourage the general public to think of cyclists as even more undesirable
> road users who should not be allowed to use the roads. Those who have
> different opinions apparently have not made a cogent political argument
> that their actions contribute to the goal that I have stated; at least I
> have not seen such an argument.
------------------------
OK, here goes. I view car drivers as undesireable road users. I would
like to "shove them off into inferior facilities and by enacting and
enforcing special discriminatory laws" against drivers.
Here in San Francisco it is enshrined in our city charter that we are a
"Transit First" city. That means that when any kind of project is
planned steps have to be taken to make that project transit (and I would
add bike) accessible. Cars have second shrift. Of course in practice
this has not been the case until the Critical Mass rides of 1997. We now
have a strong bike constituency in this town. Next week the first
traffic lane in history will be *removed* to make room for a bike lane
in a street where it is now less than safe to bike whether or not one
obeys the rules. The idea is not to *coexist* with traffic but to
*replace* it. The more the public is delayed by cyclists and transit the
better! We are at a point in history where this departure must be made!
> Then we have the absurd faction, calling cars dangerous weapons from which
> we should be protected as from guns. They simply make the problem worse.
--------------
Cars are responsible for 50,000 deaths per year. That's one Viet Nam war
every year. (And that doesn't count oil wars) Its time to end the
carnage.
--------------
> .... The first thing
> is that cyclists are far more similar to motorists than to pedestrians. So
> cyclists should be treated as drivers of vehicles. But that doesn't mean
> that the laws for motorists and cyclists are identical, because they
> aren't.
---------
Well, how about red lights and stops signs? Because of their
difference in weight and velocity, they should, as in Idaho, be allowed
to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs.
---------
> We could have a useful discussion, if we applied facts, reason, and thought to it.
---------
Yes, and let's leave our vehicularist ideologies at the door! It makes
for a more open mind. Its been a pleasure arguing with you, John.
Jon
92 Rob Bregoff, 1:10 a.m.
To: j.a.b.
Whoa yourself.
Mr. Forester commenced this whole affair with a very smug little attack on
someone he doesn't know, pontificated on cycling in a place with conditions he's
unfamiliar with, and unneccesarily distributed his immature comments to folks on
all the lists who are reading this posting. One wonders what he was trying to
prove, and why.
I received hundreds of e-mails from people all over the world trying to tell us
how we should be behaving in San Francisco, even though most have never cycled
here, or in any other urban setting. If people want to have a relevant discussion on
a San Francisco list, perhaps they should aproach the list members with inquiries
rather than insults.
I don't think anyone here is trying to tell Mr. Forrester how to run his life
in Lemon Grove, so why is he so intent on inflicting his opinions on a San
Francisco list, and insulting someone who is a friend to many, and one of the most
tireless and effective cycling advocates in the Bay Area?
I would venture that most people on these lists welcome diverse opinions,
and would find tales of experiences of other cyclists in other parts of the world
interesting, but it seems we're infested with a swarm of armchair experts spewing
the "Jane, you ignorant slut..." style of repartee. This is a waste of time and
bandwith.
There are cyclists from all over the world on the SF lists, and we share
many experiences, but I'm certainly not going to tell our friends in Melbourne that
they're riding on the wrong side of the road, or insulting them for doing so.
So my invitation stands: if you're looking for a place to argue, please do it
elsewhere.
That's all from me.
> Whoa! Hold on there, BIG FELLA!
> Although there is MUCH that I don't agree with regarding Mr. Forester's recent
> postings, telling him to GET OFF the list because there is disagreement with
> his viewpoint seems to fly in the face of the very FREEDOM we advocate.
Monday, January 18
93 John Forester, 10:04 a.m.
To: Eric Thomas Black
Eric Thomas Black wrote:
>I fail to see how a reference to an existing law in Idaho is "foolish
>and dangerous".
I was careful in my first posting to exclude discussion of the question
of whether most American stop signs would be better replaced by yield signs,
as being outside of Jason's original rant. That question is the subject of
your statement. So let's discuss that question without bothering to
introduce anti-motoring ranting and the like.
A great many American traffic engineers believe that many of America's
stop signs could be well replaced by yield signs. I can't support this
statement with a survey report, but the opinion is widespread, and there is
an official movement to survey stop signs to see which ones should be
changed to yield signs. Other nations have many fewer stop signs and appear
to operate as well as we do. As I have reported, I cycled 1500 miles in
England, including much cycling in big cities, and saw only two stop signs
during that time. Both of those stop signs were at places where very old,
narrow alleys, with buildings close on each side, debouched onto main
roads. Anything but a dead stop followed by a creeping exit would be
dangerous at those places. As I have repeatedly written, in "Effective
Cycling" and in "Bicycle Transportation" and elsewhere, most American
drivers, both motorists and cyclists, recognize the situation and treat
many stop signs as yield signs. What I criticize is the discriminatory
attitude on the part of motorists that asserts that cyclists are to be held
to the letter of the law, in this one particular respect, while motorists
are not. In that, I probably agree with some of the opinions of Jason and
his ilk, and have always agreed, in fact I was probably the first person in
America to make this argument. However, this is an argument for changing
the signs, not for declaring different law for cyclists and motorists. I
strongly disagree with the attitude expressed by Jason and his ilk that the
law should be generally different for cyclists and for motorists, and for
the attitude expressed by the behavior of many general public cyclists that
the traffic laws should not, or do not, apply to cyclists.
In this discussion, it is important to remember that the purpose of stop
signs is not safety, but to preserve the right-of-way of traffic on
specific streets, in order that all traffic may move more efficiently. In
that respect, there has been some favorable mention of traffic in China and
in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park on Sundays, when motor vehicles are
excluded. From the description of Chinese traffic, largely bicycle, it is
obvious that it is terribly inefficient in terms of the human input. If the
Chinese followed the same kinds of traffic laws as we do, in a road system
planned as ours is, it is obvious that the speed of bicycle transportation
would increase, thus increasing the efficiency in terms of human input.
Certainly in SF's Golden Gate Park, where I know the situation, that is
true. Western Wheelers used to run (maybe still do) a century ride from
Palo Alto up through San Francisco and across the Golden Gate Bridge and
return. Those with experience all recognize that the most dangerous part of
that ride is the traverse of car-free Golden Gate Park. In the same vein,
whenever in transportation seminars I discuss the supposedly bike-friendly
university cities, I ask who recognizes the greatest cycling dangers in
those cities, the answer, by those with actual experience, is: "The crazy
cyclists there."
Those who argue that accidents to cyclists that do not involve a motor
vehicle are only minor and incidental need to study the statistics. The
only study that I know that addressed this question directly is Kaplan's
study of League of American Wheelmen cyclists. In this he split injuries
into lesser and serious categories, and split them for the different types
of accident to cyclists. The proportion of serious injuries to all injuries
in each category are as follows: Falls, 24%; Moving motor vehicle, 38%,
Bike-Bike collision, 20%; Dog or other animal collision, 34%; Stationary
motor vehicle, 14%; Railroad crossing, 22%; Bike-Ped collision, 18%, All
others, 37%, Average for all types, 24%. From this analysis, the
probability that you will incur serious injury from a car-bike collision is
only 1.58 times the probability that you would incur serious injury from
any cycling accident. This ratio is statistically significant, but
considering the small size of the ratio, and the fact that car-bike
collisions constitute only about 1/8 of all cycling accidents (for the
American population), the argument that car-bike collisions are so serious
a problem that they overwhelm all the other problems of cycling safety
cannot be supported. Any bicycle-safety program, to be valid, must address
all the significant types of accident to cyclists.
John Forester
94 John Forester, 12:42 p.m.
To: Jason Meggs
Subject: Environmentalism, Cyclists, and the Great Cycling Debate
There's much good in Jason's position statement, and the errors in it
can be reasonably discussed. I see no reason to terminate such an important
discussion when it can be continued reasonably.
Jason is worried about the slowness of change in governmental cycling
policy, citing the 7 years it took to get the Berkeley Bike Plan
implemented. Well, so am I, and I have been working on that change for over
25 years. I will suggest that one reason why Berkeley has taken so long to
implement a bicycle plan is that Berkeley doesn't need the kind of bicycle
plan that the California and National bicycle planning programs specify.
Those programs specify largely bikeways of one sort or another, but
Berkeley doesn't need many bikeways at all. The programs are built
backwards, for the convenience of motorists, instead of from the needs of
cyclists. While Jason complains about what he calls the corruption that
forced automobilism upon an unwilling citizenry, he fails to note that the
true corruption is not that (I'll discuss that later) but the actions of
the motoring establishment in forcing governmental cycling programs to be
produced for the convenience of motorists without regard to the rights or
needs of cyclists. Jason clearly understands from his own experience that
the vehicular style of cycling is the key to successful city cycling
(except for the only-too-human [and eminently bike-messenger's] desire to
go, when the law requires waiting, when going is convenient, and not
obviously dangerous, to gain a few seconds). However, Jason fails to
recognize that the government-specified cycling programs are based on the
denial of the vehicular-cycling technique, on the officially-stated
assumption that 95% of American cyclists will never learn it, so that the
programs are designed to clear the "motor-traffic" lanes of these hordes of
incompetent cyclists.
Jason complains that governmentally-specified bicycle programs receive
very little of the transportation budget, and that 25% of the highway
deaths are incurred by pedestrians and cyclists, rather than by motorists.
That would be a valid concern were it true that the
governmentally-specified bicycle programs were rationally aimed at reducing
the accidents incurred by bicyclists. Jason knows, many of us know, that
the most effective way to reduce accidents to cyclists is to increase the
level of cycling skill to that possessed by old-time club cyclists who ride
in the vehicular manner. Yet government refuses to spend any significant
amount of money in its bicycle programs to accomplish that objective, while
clearly that objective should receive the majority of the funds because it
is the most effective treatment for the cyclist accident rate that is
known. Why won't government take what is obviously the most reasonable
course? There are two reasons. The first is that the motoring
establishment, which has defined the governmental bicycle programs over the
objections of cyclists for more than 25 years, wants to be sure that any
transportation funds spent on bicycle programs are devoted to clearing
bicycles from the "motor-traffic" lanes. The second is just a result of the
first. The motoring establishment has spent so many decades, and so many
dollars, convincing the public of the cyclist-inferiority superstition,
that "The cyclist who rides in traffic will either delay the cars, which is
Sin, or will be squashed, which is Death, and the Wages of Sin is Death,"
that now the public believes that the all-important safety skill of
cyclists must be to stay the hell out of the way of cars, right over to the
side of the road at all costs. Except for that misconception on the part of
the public, even the public (instead of only competent cyclists) would
understand the corruption that the motoring establishment has forced into
the programs that are supposedly for cyclists' safety and convenience.
What we see, then, is a cycling advocate who understands the value and
importance of the vehicular method of cycling, and of the rights of
cyclists as drivers of vehicles that allow that method of cycling,
advocating by extremely public methods the adoption of governmental cycling
programs that are diametrically opposed to what he knows would be best for
cyclists. The enormous question is: "Why does Jason behave in such a
paradoxical fashion?"
The obvious answer is that Jason's prime motivation is not the welfare of
cyclists but opposition to motoring. Here is Jason's latest on this subject:
"On a daily basis, the urban cyclist has to deal with many
life-threatening situations directly caused by motorists who are truly out
of control. In addition the urban cyclist must put up with an
infrastructure that was clearly designed in hopes of forcing us off the
roads. That infrastructure is heavily subsidized and severely suffered for
by the cyclist. ... There are, however, thousands upon thousands of people
frustrated with the extent to which city life - which has the potential of
being so superb in so many ways - has been destroyed by the near total
domination of the automobile. They are aware that said domination did not
come about democratically or fairly but rather was forced upon the public
by special interests and outright corruption. Every aspect of life has
been damaged by this forced dependence, a tragedy beyond telling. The
great majority of our resources and time as a society have been poured into
constructing this prison system: automobile dependency. The noise and
pollution, the destruction of public space, the destruction of our planet's
ecosystem, the fiscal drain across the board, and the severe imbalance of
power and subsequent erosion of democracy which have resulted from that
forced dependency, all call for radical change at the earliest opportunity."
Jason argues that motoring is an unmitigated evil that "was forced upon
the public [obviously, an unwilling citizenry] by special interests and
outright corruption." He is out to redress this evil. Arguing against that
opinion is not my prime purpose here; arguing against the result of that
opinion is. However, I point out that there is no power on earth that could
have persuaded the world's citizenry to desire motorization against the
wishes of those same citizens. The world's citizens have decided, on
balance, that they like motorization. True, the majority cannot yet afford
motorization, but those societies that have become able to afford it have
adopted it as far as their economies allow. Motorization obviously has a
very strong appeal. True, there are many disadvantages to motorization to
go along with the advantages, and the balance may shift more toward the
disadvantages in the future, but it is obvious that up to the present time
the world's citizens, to say nothing of those of the industrial nations,
have decided that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Given that
belief, it doesn't require special interests or corruption to produce
motorization. Sure, there have been both special interests and corruption,
but these are merely people taking advantage of what the public wants and
skimming a bit off the top. If the public didn't want it, there wouldn't be
anything to skim off.
My main point is that Jason advocates governmental cycling programs that
are actually biased in favor of motoring because he sees them as a means of
opposing motoring. Here is Jason's latest statement on this subject:
"When I advocate that bicycle boulevards (bicycle priority streets) be
provided in order to bring more citizens into the world of bicycling it is
not because I wish that bicycles be treated in any lesser manner, but
rather that the wide range of needs of bicyclists be respected and provided
for. A major survey was undertaken in Berkeley and it was found that the
number one reason why people aren't bicycling more is due to fear of the
automobile, and although I am a hardened cyclist who believes that
bicycling can be taught and can be safe, I can appreciate their concern.
"The idea that there are people who wish to cycle but feel they can not
elicits compassion rather than condescension from me. The experience of an
elderly person trying to bicycle for the first time is not uncommon in
Berkeley and brings with it a wide range of issues. Such a person is
attempting to overcome years of living in an automobile culture which
condescends cruely to those who do not drive. Not being capable of the
speed and dexterity of a lifetime cyclist completely changes such a
person's feeling of confidence and the comfort of separation from
high-speed-differential encounters. Knowing that the slightest accident
has the potential to break brittle bones and cripple also affects such a
valiant new cyclist. Proper facilities, not just proper training, are
necessary to facilitate a shift towards more cycling as a vehicular mode."
In this statement, Jason is clearly describing the typical American fear of
overtaking motor traffic, and the way that it is reduced by bikeways. Jason
advocates persuading people, incorrectly, that bikeways make cycling safe
for beginners (elderly, as in his example, or not) without further training,
even though, in his other guise, he knows that what would make cycling safe
for them is knowing how to do it properly. The only argument that even
pretends to justify so risking people's lives by lying to them is that
motoring is so evil that getting anyone away from motoring is worth the
risk to that person. I think that that argument is evil.
The proper way to change public policy about cycling is to encourage
proper vehicular-style cycling directly, largely by education of various
kinds, to provide roadway designs that facilitate vehicular-style cycling,
to provide facilities such as good parking and connections with public
transit that facilitate cycling transportation, and, underlying all of
this, to specifically adopt a public policy that cyclists, as drivers of
vehicles, are legitimate users of the public roadways. That is the program
that cyclists should be advocating.
John Forester
95 Rob Bregoff, 1:22
To: John Forester <forester@johnforester.com>
John:
Perhaps noticing and factoring in the difference in the behaviour of on-bike
activities might make your life easier. Cycling commuters, racers, weekend tourists,
children with training wheels, all behave differently.
Trying to simplify rules or ideas, and pontificate about "cycling in general",
is, for the most part, invalid. I would guess that most aware cycling advocates
recognise that different types of cyclists have vastly different needs, just as
different cycling conditions call for different behaviour.
I would also guess that all this mental masturbation is pretty much a waste of time,
as it hasn't much chance of influencing local policy or cyclists' actions, but
thanks for sharing anyway.
R
John Forester wrote:
> >Eric Thomas Black wrote:
> >I fail to see how a reference to an existing law i in Idaho is "foolish
> >and dangerous".
> I was careful in my first posting to exclude discussion of the question of
> whether most American stop signs would be better replaced by yield signs,
> as being outside of Jason's original rant. That question is the subject of
> your statement. So let's discuss that question without bothering to
> introduce anti-motoring ranting and the like.
96 Jon Winston, 1:57
To: John Forester
> >I fail to see how a reference to an existing law in in Idaho is "foolish
> >and dangerous".
Ok, I guess its about time someone posted the actual Idaho statute.
As you can see Mr. Forester, it has nothing to do with replacing stop
signs with yield signs. I guess this turns the rest of your post into a
red herring.
I think what the folks on the San Francisco lists are asking you to do
is to please think outside the box on this issue. We are asking for a
law that treats bicycles differently from cars. This does not seem to
compute in your vehicularist world. Please take a moment to read the law
carefully and without prejudice. (see post #33)
The fact is that very few people in San Francisco obey the stop sign and
red light laws as they stand. This is a fact of life that has caused bad
relations between drivers and cyclists, between police and cyclists and
between lawmakers and cyclists. When a whole class of the public
disobeys a law it is the law that is the problem, not the other way
around. If we want cyclists to have any respect for the rest of the law,
or the public to have respect for cyclists, then we must take a
different tack.
My last post was not an anti-car rant. It's simply another way of viewing
how bikes and cars can co-exist on the road. Treating bikes and cars as
equals clearly does not work in San Francisco. Its time to start
treating bikes as the superior, sustainable form of transportation that
they are by giving them priority over cars.
> A great many American traffic engineers believe that many of America's
> stop signs could be well replaced by yield signs. I can't support this
> statement with a survey report, but the opinion is widespread, and there is
Very large snip
97 Joe Speaks <jspeaks@igc.org> 1:57, San Francisco
Hey John,
I haven't been involved in the exchange so far because I believe everyone
is doing a good job of stating both sides of a rather complex argument that
runs a lot deeper in our political system than just bikes. As somebody
working closely with the DPT and City Hall to change a few things on the
streets, I am going to respond to your question:
You Write:
>California the traffic laws are uniform throughout the state. Which traffic
>laws endanger cyclists? Come, on tell us. You may argue that the conditions
>in San Francisco require different traffic laws than in the rest of the
>state. Well then, which traffic laws are safe in the rest of California but
>dangerous in San Francisco?
In S.F. we have a number of unsafe intersections that I have studied and
reasoned that the safest and often most considerate way to proceed is to
run the red. Let me explain a couple of them to you:
1) Howard at 9th - Howard is 4 lanes running one-way West. At 9th,
which is 4 lanes one-way North, the two right-most lanes of Howard are
right-turn lanes. The traffic is fast in both directions. A cyclist's
options are: stay as far right as possible and get sucked up by two lanes
of cars trying to turn right in front of you. "Take" the right lane and
dodge cars turning from the second right lane. The law would have me get
over and take the second right lane where it is also permitted to go
straight (I'm a fast rider and often do this despite the honks and dirty
looks and occasional aggressive driver). Or -- you can stay as far right
as possible and stop before the intersection so as not to get in anyone's
way, then when the 9th Street traffic breaks you cross illegally on the RED
so that you don't get in the way of any cars.
There are at least a dozen intersections in SF that are set up like this --
truly dangerous and hostile to bikes. There are dozens more that might not
be considered hostile, but are certainly dangerous as currently configured.
Often, a little analysis will show a thinking and safe-minded cyclist the
least confrontational way through is something that the design and law
never provided for.
2) Go before the Green -- any smart SF cyclist knows that if you wait 'til
the green light at most intersections, you'll have to race the car next to
you to see who wins the lane when it narrows again on the other side of the
intersection. If you don't race that car and decide to let it pass, then
the cars tailgating that first car don't let you into the lane either.
It's not that they're always being hostile, they just don't realize that
I'm trying to get over out of the door zone. The safe and considerate thing
to do is to take off about 5 seconds before the light turns green (on the
cross traffic's yellow) so you have time to establish yourself in the lane
and not confuse the driver you would otherwise be racing against. It helps
the cars know that they must go around you and you are safely out of the
door zone. But of course there's often traffic coming 5 seconds before the
light turns, so at intersections where a "race to the door zone" is
imminent, I find it safer and less confrontational to just go against the
red whenever the cross-traffic clears. (And with the rampant right-on-red
and left-on-red that is permitted at many city intersection, pedestrians
are often best to do the same.)
I could write on and on about many more instances, but I think you get the
point. My thinking as an urban cyclist -- I need to get home to my
beautiful girlfriend and friendly roommates. I need to get there as safe as
possible and without confusing or pissing off motorists. I often break the
law to fulfill this goal. It isn't worth risking my life just to set a good example.
So
That ought to to keep this flame going for a while,
Joe
98 Joe Speaks, 1:58
To: John Forester
A couple things I forgot that actually answer the questions you pose:
I think a main urban/suburban difference is the lane width. "California
Standard" lane width is wide enough for a car and a bike to ride
side-by-side without forcing the cyclist into the door zone or off the
road. Most of SF's streets are old and "sub-standard." Typical driving
behavior that seems benign in the standard lanes of the burbs, becomes
deadly in the sub-standard lanes of the city.
So lots of reasonable city riders realize that there are hazards to obeying
the laws in many cases. So we start paying a lot more attention to our own
safety, and only secondary attention to the law. (Blindly following the
rules got me in safety trouble in my early riding days when I just followed
the signals as if I was driving.) Heck, after trying to navigate some of
the worst intersections and streets, I even start to get resentful of the
engineers who seem to have so little regard for my safety. So I got
involved in trying to make the roads better-designed for cyclists. That's
when I started to realize that it wasn't necessarily the engineer, but a
policy-maker who is making a decision to get more cars per hour through a
certain intersection even at the risk of my personal safety. OK, now I'm
kinda pissed.
In general, reasonable people like me start to lose respect for the system
because it KNOWINGLY and intentionally doesn't provide for my interests and
risks my safety. I think you'll find both Dr. King and Mr. X were very clear that
such a system must be thrown out. Even Dr. King said it was no longer
appropriate to simply obey the law but that such a law must be "actively ignored."
Against this backdrop, it becomes commonplace for many of us to ignore
the law. And not apologize for it. We believe we're finding the most
reasonable solution to a problem forced upon us.
Now let's look at another on-street example of reconciling conflict.
Suppose we're out in the suburbs, on a two-lane road (one lane in each
direction) and there is a popular left turn off the road. With so many
people turning left, car traffic backs up waiting for the left turner.
Every day, hundreds of reasonable car drivers look at this situation and
choose to go around the left turner by dropping two wheels off the pavement
into the gravel shoulder. So what does the city generally do? Do they
assume that the street is perfectly engineered and decide that
"most drivers must be rude and anti-social" and therefore just step up
enforcement? Never. Usually they decide that if so many people are doing
it, there must be something wrong with the engineering at the site. Sure
enough, they go out and realize that they have not accommodated reasonable
people by adding a left turn lane or paving a wide enough area to pass by.
They make the change on the road. So why are the city officials looking at
all these cyclists ignoring the law and saying, "cyclists must be
anti-social and rude?" I think it's simply because they don't bike.
Now, if cyclists don't even disobey the laws that at best ignore them
and at worst endanger them, then nobody -- not a single engineer or policy
maker -- is even gonna notice that we're not happy. (I think you'll find
that similar reasoning was used for blacks to sit at lunch counters and
ride near the front of the bus. Re-read your criticism of law-breakers in
this context and I think you'll find it amazingly similar to criticisms of
those black trouble-makers in the 60's.)
Joe
99 scott richie <om@5medicines.com> 2:06, San Francisco
To: John Forester
you wrote: "However, this is an argument for changing the signs, not for
declaring different law for cyclists and motorists. I strongly disagree
with the attitude expressed by..."
your strong disagreement is totally MEANINGLESS because you state
ABSOLUTELY no reason for your OPINION that "this is an argument for
changing the signs, not for declaring different law for cyclists and
motorists"...
i'm sure you do strongly disagree, but so what???
try telling us WHYYYYYYYYYYY
oh. your opinion's good enough for me all by itself. who needs
reason(s)?
also, after making an important point about how in england you once saw
2 stop signs only in very blind alleys leading onto busy traffic, making
it dangerous. quote:
"Both of those stop signs were at places where very old,
narrow alleys, with buildings close on each side, debouched onto main
roads. Anything but a dead stop followed by a creeping exit would be
DANGEROUS [emphasis added] at those places."
then, Sir, you proceed in the very next paragraph to explain that
*efficiency*, not *safety* is the sole purpose of our stop sign
system...
can you even grasp a clue as to how illogical and downright
contradictory the points you are TRYING to make sound to an intelligent
person???
try again. (if you MUST)
finally you say,
" The only study that I know that addressed this question directly is Kaplan's
study of League of American Wheelmen cyclists..."
if you say so. right. how about letting us in on the sample size that were evaluated.
to be statistically significant (only study huh?) you'll need a large
enough group to study. not to mention you are trying to delude us with
your analysis. it looks like to me you are closer to TWICE as likely
(38%-20%) to sustain serious injury from ANY car accident than from a
bicycle collision; PLUS this study doesn't mention the OBVIOUS:
car/bicycle collisions PROBABLY occur much more frequently than
bicycle/bicycle collisions occur... but you have the statistics, right,
man???????
figures lie and liars figure.
we already have plenty of fog in SF thanks.
scott
100 Steve Templan The Saint <stemplan@yahoo.com> 3:40
To: Rob Bregoff
DANGER, John, you have spoken with dissent against the approved
political opinion here, namely "Bikes are good, cars are evil, bike
riders can do no evil, and Jason Meggs is god". You are a heretic and
will be excommunicated from this list.
You must remember that Critical Mass discussion is to include only
praise for Critical Mass. No dissenting opinions are allowed.
Rob believes he is the only one who knows the "perils of daily cycle
commuting", and as such is the only one entitled to an opinion here.
---Rob wrote:
> So John, using that logic, we should send all of your inconsequential drivel and
> out-of-touch opinions to every podunk politico in Orange Grove, wherever that is?
> ...BEGONE! You have no power here!!!
> R
> John Forester wrote:
> > ...Of course I realized that I sent my message to practically the entire
> > Berkeley city government. I did so because that was where the original
> > message, one that I think is utterly foolish, was sent.
101 John Forester, 3:30
To: Rob Bregoff
Subject: Should different cyclists follow different sets of rules?
Rob stated that different types of cyclists, "cycling commuters, racers,
weekend tourists, children with training wheels," exhibit different
behaviors. Well, so what? The point is that all drivers of vehicles, when
operating on the roadway, should follow the same rules. There has been no
valid argument demonstrating that it is justified for children on bicycles
with training wheels to operate according to different rules than do
cyclists who sometimes race but are now just cycling in town. For making
left turns, both have the lawful choice of making either vehicular or
pedestrian left turns. Both also have the right, generally, to ride on
sidewalks, but in that case both are equally bound to follow the rules for
pedestrians, as well as giving way to all pedestrians.
John Forester
102 John Forester, 3:35
To: jon winston
Subject: Idaho statute regarding stop signs and traffic signals
Note that the Idaho statute does not permit cyclists to treat traffic
signals as yield signs, except in those cases where motorists are also
permitted to make the movement through the red. The only difference between
what is permitted for motorists and for cyclists is that the motorist is
required to actually stop when turning right on red, while cyclists are
required to do no more than yield. That also applies to the permitted left
turn onto a one-way street. The statute says nothing about permitting
cyclists to go through red lights when motorists are prohibited to do so.
John Forester
103 John Forester, 4:13
To: Scott Richie
Subject: Cycling accident statistics
Scott, stop trying to play silly word games; it doesn't work. The English
system of stop signs is to place them only where a stop followed by a creep
is required for safety. If we did that, we would have a stop sign system
based on safety. However, that we don't. Our stop sign system has two
bases. The first, which is the only justifiable one that is allowed by
traffic engineers, is that we use stop signs to protect the right-of-way of
drivers over selected routes, so that traffic on those routes may move
faster than it could without such protection. The second use, not approved
by traffic engineers, is that of impeding traffic for the comfort of
residents, particularly those residents with political connections. The use
of stop signs for making dangerous intersections safe is far down the list,
being only a minute proportion of total stop signs.
Then you call me a statistical liar for using Kaplan's data. Kaplan's
sample size for this part of his study was 872 accidents, and it is the
best study of its kind that has been made. You also argue that it is
obvious that car-bike collisions occur must more frequently than do
bike-bike collisions. That is not so. Kaplan's study gives 17% for
bike-bike collisions and 18% for car-bike collisions. For the nation as a
whole, car-bike collisions constitute about 12% of total accidents to cyclists.
Furthermore, your argument about motorists and yield signs is absurd. If
most stop signs were changed to yield signs, to conform with the common
practice of both motorists and cyclists, then the behavior evinced by
motorists (and, of course, by cyclists) would become lawful, by definition.
What's the problem with that?
John Forester
104 scott richie, 5:50
To: John Forester
"Furthermore, your argument about motorists and yield signs is
absurd. If most stop signs were changed to yield signs, to conform
with the common practice of both motorists and cyclists, then the
behavior evinced by motorists (and, of course, by cyclists) would
become lawful, by definition. What's the problem with that?"
this:
change the signs to yield and the cars that complain about bikes who are
only yielding at the yield signs will speed right through them
themselves... (based on your own opinion AS WELL that they *currently*
are discriminating against bicyclists who behave identically to they.
change the signs and change human behavior: no. don't think so. change
the law and change human behavior: not real likely (see below*). change
human behavior and change human behavior: every time!!! the way to do
that is to do it, not to tell other people to do it...they will see you
are correct IF you are, and people who enjoy spending their lives being
correct, will for the most part emulate that behavior...that's the only
way anyone learns anything: by example. you set terrible examples
shooting your big fat (neglected obviously) ego into the bicycle
discussion in the ways i have read you do it...not just this time either.)
*btw, in case you hadn't noticed, people, (ALL PEOPLE) follow (obey)
just (as in 'only', not as in 'fair') the laws they like and agree
with...
what planet ARE you from???
the reason i don't murder, rape, or rob folks isn't bc of A law;
similarly to the reason i do or i do not completely/partly/not-at-all
STOP at the limit line.
now, please leave me (i DO have a quality life outside of cyberspace,
contrary to what you may like to think-- or must one be published or be
the FIRST one in America to say something or have naive friends in other
countries who gladly attempt to rescue him from his own foibles...to be
a quality person??) and the critical massers alone...unless you care to
truly join us. come to The City and try it.
if this doesn't make complete sense to everyone in the world. too bad. i
don't really care that much. fuck the mispellings and misgivings and the
misdemeanors. i don't care. i'm not going back to proofread it. (i'll let
my publisher friends do that.)
goodbye, mr. nobody
105 scott richie, 6:05
To: John Forester
John Forester wrote:
> Then you call me a statistical liar for using Kaplan's data*
no. look carefully. i INFERRED it was possible, given your vitriol
toward many CMers, that you were misusing these statistics. you can call
yourself a liar if you want to. i said "figures lie and liars figure", a
very well known quote among more well read persons.
i see you enjoy being quite literal when it suits you and quite sloppy
the rest of the time. check the archives for proof of this.
106 Sean Patrick Brennan, 6:15
Subject: Re: Political debate regarding cycling programs
The Argument Sketch
A man walks into an office.
Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment. Mr. Bakely's free,
but he's a little bit conciliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.
(He enters room 12.)
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS
TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.
(The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.)
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a
proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
(The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.)
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five
minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you... I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I-dbct-fd-tq! I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!
O: No you haven't!
M: Yes I have! If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
M: I've had enough of this!
O: No you haven't.
(door slam)
--- A rather relevant sketch from Monty Python
http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~sean/critical-mass
107 John Vance, 8:05
To: jon winston
Let me preface my comments with my credentials. I have been a regular
commuter for the past 15 years in Albuquerque NM. I typically ride on 6
lane arterial roads carrying 40,000 vehicles per day, with posted 35 -
45 mph speed limits. Most of these roads have 10 foot wide outside
lanes, substandard by anyone's measure. So, I know whereof I speak when
it comes to dealing with heavy, fast traffic on "cycling hostile" roads.
[JF asks where it is safer to run a red light than wait]
>>> A cyclist's options are: stay as far right as possible and get sucked
up by two lanes of cars trying to turn right in front of you. "Take" the
right lane and dodge cars turning from the second right lane.<<<
Both of these options are illegal, and for good reason. You do not go
straight from a right turn only lane, period. Read on for how I handle
this situation when I encounter it regularly...
>>>The law would have me get over and take the second right lane where it is also permitted to go straight (I'm a fast rider and often do this despite the honks and dirty
looks and occasional aggressive driver).<<<
Yep, exactly. Take the rightmost through lane. Get out there on the
_left_ side of that lane. Honks? Dirty looks? Fuck 'em. _You_ are
the one who is using the road correctly. The honkers are the ones who
are being rude and inconsiderate, so just ignore them.
>>>Or -- you can stay as far right as possible and stop before the intersection so as not to get in anyone's way, then when the 9th street traffic breaks you cross illegally on the
RED so that you don't get in the way of any cars.<<<
Well yeah, you could do that if you believed you didn't have as much
right to use the road as anyone else. And you'd reinforce that belief
in both yourself and anyone observing your actions.
>>>There are at least a dozen intersections in SF that are set up like
this -- truly dangerous and hostile to bikes. There are dozens more that might
not be considered hostile, but are certainly dangerous as currently
configured. Often, a little analysis will show a thinking and safe-minded cyclist
the least confrontational way through is something that the design and law
never provided for.<<<
There is nothing confrontational about using the roadway as you have a
right to do.
>>>2) Go before the Green -- any smart SF cyclist knows that if you wait
'til the green light at most intersections, you'll have to race the car next
to you to see who wins the lane when it narrows again on the other side of
the intersection.<<<
So instead of letting a car pull up beside you at the light, _take the
lane_ (or take your place in line) and hold the lane until the road
narrows again. In general, if a lane is narrow and occasionally widens
(i.e at intersections) you don't dart out to the road edge whenever it
widens. Hold a steady line, and ride like you _know_ that the lane
belongs to you.
>>>I could write on and on about many more instances, but I think you
get the point. My thinking as an urban cyclist -- I need to get home to my
beautiful girlfriend and friendly roommates. I need to get there as safe
as possible and without confusing or pissing off motorists. I often cars as
> equals clearly does not work in San Francisco. Its time to start
> treating bikes as the superior, sustainable form of transportation that
> they are by giving them priority over cars.
The current debate with the San Francisco CMers, much like a similar
debate with the Toronto Gang in the summer of 1998, brings to light a
rather disturbing anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian quality in the
mindset of those two groups.
Let me first of all state my own beliefs: I believe in democracy; I
believe in the equal treatment of all citizens under the law; I believe
in the right of access of all citizens to the public domain.
Most cyclists, I have found, are at the forefront in defending
democratic principles, in promoting egalitarianism and in fighting for
economic, social and ecological justice. That is why I find it strange
and unsettling that a relatively small but very vocal group of cyclists
go out in public and demand either the segregation of the public domain
(in the case of the bike lane advocates) or separate sets of rules and
laws depending on whether the citizen chooses a motorized or a human
powered personal vehicle. I suppose that we should not be surprised that
these people are very intolerant of dissenting opinions, as well.
I realize that these people are victims of their belief in their own
inferiority. (The cyclist inferiority complex is still alive after all
these years!) They believe that it is impossible for cyclists to assume
an equal place in the public domain of the street and therefore must be
confined to segregated facilities for their own protection. (Not
surprisingly, the motoring establishment tends to believe the same
thing.) They believe that because cyclists can never be equal to
motorists, that they must have some special status under the law.
Those of us who are vehicular cyclists do not feel like, nor do we
behave like, second-class citizens. We strongly reject segregationist
policies, be they instigated by the motoring majority or by fellow
cyclists. We know from experience that we can share the public road,
safely and effectively, with any of our fellow citizens, no matter what
their choice of mode of transportation. And we can do so precisely
because we share the same set of rules. We respect the equality of our
motoring brethren, even though they have been foolish enough to have
chosen a vastly inferior vehicle!
Wade Eide
110 Ken Kifer, 8:20, Midwest
Joe Speakes wrote (in part):
> In general, reasonable people like me start to lose respect for the system
> because it KNOWINGLY and intentionally doesn't provide for my interests and
> risks my safety...
> Against this backdrop, it becomes commonplace for many of us to ignore the
> law. And not apologize for it. We believe we're finding the most
> reasonable solution to a problem forced upon us. . . .
> Now, if cyclists don't even disobey the laws that at best ignore them and
> at worst endanger them, then nobody -- not a single engineer or policy
> maker -- is even gonna notice that we're not happy.
Ken Kifer replies:
I wrote an long answer to this kind of argument last year at
URL: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/obey.htm
When I was in Freshman English, back in the early 60's, my professor was
strongly anti-Thoreau because he felt the result of everyone doing
whatever they want to do was anarchy. However, I feel he misunderstood
Thoreau, Gandhi, and King, and never read Thoreau very carefully.
Thoreau says that if the problem is minor the best thing to do is to
obey the law and forget the injustice. However, if the injustice is
important, then one must act in such a fashion as to change the mind of
the state -- by deliberately committing an act that gets you sent to
jail. Gandhi, rather than pleading innocent, always plead guilty and
asked for either 1) the law to be dropped or 2) to be punished to the
full extent of the law.
One problem that we have nowadays is that we have a TV culture, and
people mistake the deliberate distortions of TV for the truth.
Critical Mass should be an excellent method of dealing with bad road
design and communicating to the engineers. You can organize your club
to send the message that unsafe roads and traffic situations shouldn't
be tolerated. Get yourselves into the paper by speaking at the scene of
the crime, by making web pages on the subject, and by emailing and
writing responsible officials. While these methods are slower, they
will win respect, and they will get you somewhere.
On the other hand, if all of you do whatever you want to do whenever you
feel like doing it, you will lose the respect of the public around you.
When that happens, you are hurting cycling rather than helping it.
My solution when I come upon an unsafe traffic situation? I am not
going to break the law, and I am not going to endanger other people, so
I get off and walk. I just wish that there were enough cyclists in my
area to draw attention to these things (I very seldom see anyone on a
bike, and then the person is usually on a sidewalk).
The problem of everyone doing what they want to do is especially bad in
traffic because traffic safety depends on being able to predict what the
other fellow is going to do. I work with international students, and
they have a lot of traffic accidents because driving behavior is
different from one country to another.
It's not just a question of our own personal safety. When someone
breaks a traffic law it can cause an accident between two other people
who were obeying the law.
Note: I am glad to see that we are finally starting to talk about these
things rather than engaging in personal attack.
111 Rob, 8:50
To: Wade Eide
Point taken, Wade, but based on this post it's obvious that you haven't got
the faintest idea what cycling conditions are like here.
A: A higher percentage of SF cyclists 'take the lane' than anywhere else I've
ever ridden, and I've ridden on four continents, so far.
B: Making the streets safe for anyone (children, tourists, commuters) on
bicycles makes the vehicular cycling attitude extremely unsafe here. Have
you been to New York City? Can you imagine a family with young children
cycling from their home to Central Park? It's much like that here, only
smaller and steeper.
C: The reason that most San Franciscans give for not wanting to bike-commute
downtown isn't the hills, it's the danger of riding on the mean streets.
Remember, we're dealing with a city that is 7 miles square with a Transit
First policy. This is a really tiny town, but it's flooded with tons of
unnecessary car traffic. Cycling safety, traffic policy, and public
transportation are really one issue here, and most cycling advocates are
activists an all those arenas.
Vehicular cycling is a fine philosophy for those of us who are able to ride
fast and hard and damn the honking, but it's unfeasable for the rest.
R
Wade Eide wrote:
> Jon Winston wrote:
> > (...) Treating bikes and cars as
> > equals clearly does not work in San Francisco...
> ...I find it strange
> and unsettling that a relatively small but very vocal group of cyclists
> go out in public and demand either the segregation of the public domain
> (in the case of the bike lane advocates) or separate sets of rules and
> laws depending on whether the citizen chooses a motorized or a human
> powered personal vehicle. I suppose that we should not be surprised that
> these people are very intolerant of dissenting opinions, as well.
> ...We know from experience that we can share the public road,
> safely and effectively, with any of our fellow citizens, no matter what
> their choice of mode of transportation. And we can do so precisely
> because we share the same set of rules.
112 Ted Lemon, 9:25
To: Ken Kifer
> My solution when I come upon an unsafe traffic situation? I am not
> going to break the law, and I am not going to endanger other people, so
> I get off and walk.
Unfortunately, at least according to the statistics I've seen, this
*increases* your chances of being hit by a car, so you are not doing
yourself any favours.
_MelloN_
113 Avery Burdett, 10:08
To: Wade Eide
So what you are saying Wade is they like it at the back of the bus, have
convinced themselves it's justified to be at the back of the bus, and want us
all at the back of the bus with them.
Another historical perspective to go with the book burning (metaphorically
speaking of course).
Wade Eide writes:
> The current debate with the San Francisco CMers, much like a similar
>debate with the Toronto Gang in the summer of 1998, brings to light a
>rather disturbing anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian quality in the
>mindset of those two groups...
Avery Burdett
114 Trevor Bourget <tbourget@qualcomm.com> 10:17, Poway, California
Joe, thanks for the reasoned statement of your situation. I
understand and sympathize with your approach as an individual
cyclist.
I want to point out, however, that doing this with a Critical Mass
ride is unnecessary and counter-productive. What you want to do in
a Critical Mass ride is to show all those cars that if they weren't
hogging up both right lanes and going too fast for your safety,
everybody would be able to share the road. You do this by getting
enough bicyclists to establish both lanes as yours and showing them
how bicyclists feel drivers should responsibly share. For example,
half the ride would go right and half would go straight; they would
watch and see what you're up to as you merge with each other. Doing
things solely to anger motorists only makes them less likely to respect
you and other cyclists they meet on the road, and thus the vicious
cycle continues; you have to meet again next month to vent your rage.
Secondly, I want to remind you that while it is may be your
personal responsibility to do what is safe and right even if that
conflicts with what is legal, it is also your civic duty to mention
to those in authority that this problem exists and hopefully
keep at it until the situation is changed.
It is my personal opinion that double free-right turn lanes ought to
be completely outlawed; they are unsafe for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and poorly skilled motorists (e.g. many elderly) alike. Perhaps
special signal light phases (e.g. a ped+bike phase before the
green, with sensors that actually work) are part of the answer.
Repeal of the "stay to the right" rule is also needed, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, we need to do this at the state level. San Francisco
can add bike lanes, and they can lower the speed limits, but the
vehicle code is uniform, and traffic engineering standards are
handed down from CalTrans, so if we want to invent special lights
(a merge left phase, for example) or require that the second right
turn lane must also allow straight-through traffic, your city
officials are powerless to directly implement those suggestions.
You can elicit their support in asking for help at a higher
level, but that might be twice the work or half the work, depending
on whether they're bike (and ped) sympathetic or efficiency-bound
motor cases.
Ride,
-- Trevor Bourget
115 John Forester, 1:20 a.m.
To: Eric Thomas Black
The proportions that I gave are the proportion of each class of accident that
produce serious injuries. Therefore, each class constitutes 100% of it. For
example, 24% of falls produce serious injuries, while 76% don't. Same for all
the other classes.
> This seems to add up to a lot more than 100%. Explain?
Tuesday, January 19
116 P.M. Summer <pmsummer@hotmail.com> 8:38 a.m., Dallas
>From Jared:
>I don't think Critical Mass helps any, and if anything makes matters worse.
Charity rides like the MS 150 and other century rides have much the same
negative effect in rural areas as Critical Mass rides do in urban ones.
Thank you for sharing the road with bicycles!
P.M. Summer
Bicycle Coordinator/Planner
City of Dallas, Texas
117 Brian Watkins <bwatkins@ix.netcom.com> 9:11, San Francisco
Rob wrote:
> John:
> Cycling commuters, racers, weekend tourists, children with training wheels,
> all behave differently. Trying to simplify rules or ideas, and pontificate about "cycling in
> general", is, for the most part, invalid.
Mr. Forester's analysis and advice have made me a much safer, somewhat more
efficient, and more confident cyclist in The City and elsewhere. I've read
only parts of his books and a few articles, but they've explained things I
need to know to make a bicycle my primary form of transportation in urban
areas.
Sometimes I don't follow his recommendations, as when in Los Angeles I tried
to ride responsibly, and I was screamed at by almost every motorist on the road
and was intimidated. The result of my cooperation with LA's friendly drivers
was being run off the road by a bus, so I think maybe it's best to trust
Forester in most situations. His work is very useful and most often exactly
correct.
-Brian
I sometimes do jump the light a bit on Market if there is no cross traffic--
just so that the car behind me doesn't try to run/nudge me over in the
intersection.
118 Wade Eide, 9:38
Rob wrote:
> Point taken, Wade, but based on this post it's obvious that you haven't got
> the faintest idea what cycling conditions are like here.
I really wish that I could afford to just jump on a plane with my bike
so that I could find out first hand what makes San Francisco different
from other cities that I have cycled in. And yes, I have been to New
York City. I found that my Effective Cycling skills worked admirably
well in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan. The only difference that I
noticed was among the other cyclists I saw. They tend to display an
incredible lack of maturity, even when compared to the cyclists of
Montreal. I felt that I was the only cyclist in New York during that
week who possessed any sort of vehicular cycling skills. Just as an
anecdote: There was a young boy standing on the sidewalk at an
intersection somewhere in Far Rockaway, Queens as I came to a stop for a
red light. Kid looks at the light, looks at me and says, "You don't have
to stop for a red light, Mister." I said, "Yes I do, Young Man." The kid
just looks at me like I was the dumbest white man he had ever seen!
Wade Eide
119 MikeSmith, 9:56
To: Brian Watkins
Let me also recommend "Urban Bikers' Tricks & Tips--Low Tech & No-Tech Ways
to Find, Ride, & Keep a Bicycle", by Dave Glowacz. I highly recommend it
over Forester's book for when it comes to urban biking. You can check out
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/book-reviews/0965172805/qid%3D907640646
/sr%3D1-4/002-8326911-7088243
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/book-reviews/0965172805/qid%3D90764064
6/sr%3D1-4/002-8326911-7088243> for details but please buy it from your
local book or bike store.
Mike
Rob wrote:
> John: Cycling commuters, racers, weekend tourists, children with
> training wheels, all behave differently.
...I think maybe it's best to trust Forester in
most situations. His work is very useful and most often exactly correct.
-Brian
120 Bill <bstender@earthlink.net> 11:13
To: John Forester
I've been out of town and haven't read all the points so please forgive me
if my point has already been stated.
The practical cyclist, like the practical citizen in any situation, will
break a law that is blocking them from exercising their will and not going
to impact anyone else.
Whether it's OK to break an inconsequential law is a separate layer of
philosophical discussion and regardless of the outcome of those endless
arguments, cyclists will still slide through the stop signs and the red
light because it just doesn't make any practical sense to sit there and wait
for the green, or come to a complete stop when no cars are coming.
Most motorists realize that it doesn't make sense for a cyclist to wait and
wouldn't do it themselves if they were on that bike. I hope this letter will
help those who indulge in righteous indignance for the lack of
connectedness they have slipped into, to take a moment to think of how well
things work when people look to find ways to help others make their way
rather than increase the competition and sanctions.
Yes, there will always be cyclists and motorists and pedestrians and stray
dogs who will cause another to lose their rightful momentum, maybe even
cause an accident. To force inordinate compliance for all cyclists because
of this fact is similar to suggesting that people should stay in their
homes because they might decide to mug or kill someone else. We just have
to deal with the reality, realize the *projection* behind assuming people
are out to cause trouble, and help those who would cause trouble understand
the personal advantages of a polite society. **Rules will never do it**
-bill
121 Ted Lemon, 11:25
To: John Vance
> Yep, exactly. Take the rightmost through lane. Get out there on the
> _left_ side of that lane. Honks? Dirty looks? Fuck 'em. _You_ are
> the one who is using the road correctly. The honkers are the ones who
> are being rude and inconsiderate, so just ignore them.
Either you have nerves of steel or Albuquerque motorists don't ever do
anything more than honk from a safe distance. I once had some guy in
a 2-ton pickup get *right* behind me in a situation like this with his
engine on idle so that I didn't hear it and then rev the engine as
loudly as he could. I nearly fell over, and if I'd had a heart
condition, I probably would have died right there. It's nice that
in Albuquerque you're able to proceed with the belief that people are
basically reasonable, but when I was commuting between San Francisco
and Redwood City on a regular basis, I saw a lot of evidence that I
should entertain no such expectation.
San Francisco drivers are really, truly the worst I have ever
encountered. I'm living in NYC right now, and although the people in
NYC who are reading this will probably scoff, I can say from personal
experience that drivers here are *unbelievably* polite and restrained
compared to Bay Area drivers. I think it's a terrible mistake to
assume, if you haven't ridden in the Bay Area recently, that traffic
is as you remember it from your last visit five or ten years ago.
These people would eat their own children if it would get them home
from work quicker. (Okay, maybe this last is an exaggeration, but
sometimes it doesn't feel that way.)
_MelloN_
122 John Vance, 12:22 p.m.
Ted Lemon wrote:
> ....I once had some guy in
> a 2-ton pickup get *right* behind me in a situation like this with his
> engine on idle so that I didn't hear it and then rev the engine as
> loudly as he could...
Heh. That's Albuquerquean for "Howdy, neighbor!" Did you check him for
NM plates?
In Albuquerque, you have three cycling choices:
1) Appeasement - stay in the gutter, bike lane, or on the sidewalk, and
run a fair risk of being unintentionally hit by one of the many bad
drivers.
2) Assertiveness - ride like you belong there, and run a high risk of
verbal abuse, beer-can chucking, long horn blasts, etc, but a very low
risk of encountering a real criminal behind the wheel who would do you
actual harm. That risk drops at rush hour, because such people don't like
witnesses.
3) Drive.
> San Francisco drivers are really, truly the worst I have ever
> encountered.
Have you ridden in Miami? A friend of mine was chased into a cul-de-sac,
cornered, and pistol-whipped there.
John Vance
123 Jym Dyer, 1:27
John Forester wrote:
> most American drivers, both motorists and cyclists, recognize
> the situation and treat many stop signs as yield signs. What
> I criticize is the discriminatory attitude on the part of
> motorists that asserts that cyclists are to be held to the
> letter of the law, in this one particular respect, while
> motorists are not. In that, I probably agree with some of the
> opinions of Jason and his ilk, and have always agreed.
=o= Well, I'm glad that you've noticed this as well, as this is
a point that I (one of Jason's ilk) have been trying to make for
years. Many of your Effective Cycling (R) disciples seem to
have overlooked this, because they're the ones I usually find
myself arguing with on this point.
> However, this is an argument for changing the signs, not for
> declaring different law for cyclists and motorists.
=o= I agree the signs should be changed, but until they are, we
still have to contend with them somehow. The current situation
with authorities in these parts is that they (1) look the other
way when motorists blow through STOP signs, even when they do so
unsafely, and (2) have occasional highly-publicized crackdowns
on cyclists who don't come to a full stop at STOP signs.
=o= An Idaho-like law may not be the ideal solution, but it does
bring the problem into sharper relief and deprives these unjust
authorities of a weapon against us.
> In this discussion, it is important to remember that the
> purpose of stop signs is not safety, but to preserve the
> right-of-way of traffic on specific streets, in order that all
> traffic may move more efficiently.
=o= I would argue that safety actually is a factor, but only
because many motorists wouldn't travel at safe speeds otherwise.
Lower speed limits on these specific streets, coupled with the
existing right-of-way laws at intersections, *should* suffice.
If we held motorists to a less sociopathic standard of behavior,
they *would* suffice.
> If the Chinese followed the same kinds of traffic laws as we
> do, in a road system planned as ours is, it is obvious that
> the speed of bicycle transportation would increase, thus
> increasing the efficiency in terms of human input.
=o= Some aspects of our road system would surely help, but even
better would be one planned with bikes in mind from the very
beginning. Let's face it, bikes are *rarely* even considered
when these roads are planned.
>...Those
> with experience all recognize that the most dangerous part of
> that ride is the traverse of car-free Golden Gate Park.
=o= I'm one of "those with experience;" I ride there all the
time. I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree about the safety
of car-free Golden Gate Park, because I find it much safer than
the San Francisco roads I share with cars. The bicycle accident
statistics bear me out.
> In the same vein, whenever in transportation seminars I
> discuss the supposedly bike-friendly university cities, I ask
> who recognizes the greatest cycling dangers in those cities,
> the answer, by those with actual experience, is: "The crazy
> cyclists there."
=o= University cities are a special case, because they're filled
with people who've abandoned the bike in their teenage years and
who suddenly take up riding it again. They still think of it as
a toy from their youth, and ride accordingly. I do think that
Effective Cycling (R) courses are very important in colleges.
=o= Even so, such a statement is but a matter of opinion, and
often reflective of misperception. Berkeley, a college town, is
filled with crazed amateur freshman cyclists, and while they're
annoying, they're much less dangerous than the many SUV drivers
plaguing that city.
<_Jym_>
124 John Vance, 1:40
To: Ted Lemon
To get SF traffic law changed to allow bicyclists to proceed on red, the
law must be changed at the State level, since California traffic law is
uniform. It is likely that CM doesn't have much political clout in
Sacramento, so you guys are going to need powerful support, like from
CALTRANS. I think I know how you can get it, by appealing to that
agency's pocketbook.
Currently, CALTRANS is spending not inconsiderable sums of money fixing
traffic loop detectors that do not detect bicycles. In San Jose, for
example, local cycling advocacy groups are helping CALTRANS identify which
loops need to be changed. As cyclists become more savvy in CA, more
groups will push for bicycle-friendly loop detectors, and more money will
be spent Statewide, taking funding away from CALTRANS' pet sprawl
projects.
However, if bicyclists did not have to wait for a green to go, then
CALTRANS would no longer have any moral or legal obligation to fix loop
detectors. They could tell people like Kevin Karplus to kiss off, and
leave the detectors set to pick up on automobiles and trucks only. They
could pocket the money they saved and apply it towards constructing more
SPUIs and striping more traffic lanes.
I think it's a win-win situation all the way around.
John Vance
125 Dick Janson <dickj@mail.tds.net> 2:44, California
John:
...Those with experience all recognize that the most dangerous part of
that ride is the traverse of car-free Golden Gate Park.
Jym:
=o= I'm one of "those with experience;" I ride there all the
time. I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree about the safety
of car-free Golden Gate Park, because I find it much safer than
the San Francisco roads I share with cars.
On this one, you could both be right, based on your experience.
John rides like a vehicle and expects others to be predictable.
When he is in GG Park, he doesn't find the predictability he is
used to. Jym rides by his wits and doesn't expect others or himself to be
predictable. When he gets to GG Park, the rules are the same but
the potential severity of an accident is less, and this makes
him feel more comfortable there.
Dick (not standing in the forest and can see the trees) Janson
126 scott richie, 3:18
John Vance wrote:
> To get SF traffic law changed to allow bicyclists to proceed on red,
-snip-
> However, if bicyclists did not have to wait for a green to go, then
> CALTRANS would no longer have any moral or legal obligation to fix loop
> detectors. They could tell people like Kevin Karplus to kiss off,
so close this time!
horseshoes and dancing...
but see, if we can go on RED after yielding to danger (i.e., anyone who
would get excited if we didn't yield and may try to run us over*), we
don't have to "kiss off", do we now? we can just GO. that's the (duh!)
point we are TRYING to get the less literate amongst us to "read".
*see, issues of safety and expedience ARE basically comingled, as is
everything in the universe, folks-- even us--here--NOW-assuming you are
still reading this and not glazing over
+ + +
hey. if this guy is right about car*trance supporting this change to the
Idaho standard, i think (most of us) CMers would be in agreement with
car*trance for the first time in history!!!
now THAT IS progress.
(besides, we're all waiting for the dingo to take the baby who runs
car*trance and swallow him...we have new government now and changes WILL
occur! we kicked lungren OUT!) :)
______________________________________________________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
holy tar in the road, dildo man, there is NO loop detector at this
signalled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ intersection!!! _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ what will we DOOOOOOOO?????? _ _ _ _
________________________________________________________________________
[anyone with graphic talent, feel free to design a .jpg to go with this
and i'll put it online!]
127 Jym Dyer, 4:30
> Jym rides by his wits and doesn't expect others or himself to
> be predictable.
=o= Actually, I also conduct myself as a vehicle and am very
predictable, even if I have to go out of my way to make it
clear what I'm about to do. While I insist that others act
predictably, my experience is that I cannot expect it, and
that's where wits come into play.
<_Jym_>
128 Sean P Worsey, 4:44
To: Dick Janson
>Those with experience all recognize that the most dangerous
> part of that ride is the traverse of car-free Golden Gate Park.
Jym:
>=o= I'm one of "those with experience;" I ride there all the
>time. I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree about the safety
>of car-free Golden Gate Park, because I find it much safer than
>the San Francisco roads I share with cars...
I have been riding (or lately walking, since my bike busted) through Golden
Gate Park at least four / five days a week for 3 years straight. There is
absolutely no doubt that Sunday closure is the safest and funnest time to
be in the park (at least the part of the park closed to cars) period.
Remember to stop and smell the dahlias! (you will still get where you're going
faster than any car driver!)
sean p. worsey
129 J.R. <jsr26@email.msn.com> 6:28, San Francisco
Subject: Motorist who didn't stop
>>> We caught up to him at the next light and told him that he'd hit
someone, and that by law, he must stop to confer with the cyclist. He
simply rolled up his window and took off when the light turned green. <<<
I had something similar happen but with a better ending. A woman ran a stop
sign and hit me, then said "you seem okay, I'm going to leave." I told her
I was filing a police report. She insisted it wasn't necessary. I had one
of the witnesses call the police. Of course, the S.F.P.D. tried to talk
me out of it also, but I insisted. Meanwhile, the woman came back
(actually, I think she was just circling around to see if I'd call the
P.D.). I ended up insisting on a police report, and on filing a claim with
her insurance company (which both the P.D. and the woman tried to talk me
out of doing).
The end result--I got $1,000, the woman's insurance rates went up and
(hopefully) she'll be more careful next time.
I hope you got the guy's license plate number and that the cyclist who was
hit filed a report. Even if the P.D. won't do anything, you can insist on a
police report and then get the motorist's insurance info off of it.
Wednesday, January 20
130 Michael Klett <mklett@hotmail.com> 11:04 a.m., San Francisco
Subject: Golden Gate Park
An important factor in the GGP chaos on JFK drive is that that is one of
the few places where kids (and some adults) can learn to ride a bike in
San Francisco. This is where people learn how to ride in a straight
line, shift gears without looking at the chain, and respond to
unexpected obstacles. It is not a place to expect to go 25 mph while
showing off your Dupont Lycra and cold-war-surplus titanium appendages.
I think it would be worthwhile to have other roadways (in parks and
elsewhere) around the city closed off regularly so that people can ride
or skate in a carfree area. It would cut down on the number of people
driving to GGP just to ride a bike.
Also.
I taught my daughter to ride at the Polo Field track. This is rarely
accessible due to the park's policy of locking up the whole field in
order to protect the over-herbicided and under-utilized soccer fields.
This is despite the approval of Rec & Park to open the track to
reconnect the official bike route that uses part of the track to
the Richmond and Sunset districts.
>On this one, you could both be right, based on your experience.
"Put me back on my bike" - Tom Simpson, 1967
131 John Forester, 12:34 p.m.
To: Ted Lemon
The proper course to take with regards to aggressive motorists is not to
give up your rights but to maintain your rights as drivers of vehicles and
then try to persuade government to support those rights by enforcement
against those who oppose them. As to motorists who rev their engines to
alarm you, or honk at you, just ignore them. It is against the law to sound
a horn for anything but an approaching danger; you might, with luck, find
yourself in a position in which a prosecution could be made. It is
reasonable to, as I have done, to remind such drivers that they are
actually convicting themselves of dangerous driving by so sounding their
horns, because the danger could exist (in this circumstance) only if the
motorist actually was sounding his horn according to the requirements of law.
John Forester
132 LACritMass@aol.com, 7:04
To: John Forester
> ...give up your rights but to maintain your rights as drivers of vehicles...
In California a bicycle is a human powered device, not a vehicle:
CVC 231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride,
propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears,
and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject
to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
EPILOG
Saturday, January 23
133 Luigi P. <Luweege@aol.com> 11:23 a.m., East Coast
Subject: Running Lights
Hi, All!
I have enjoyed (believe it or not) reading everyone's input on this
discussion. I would like to offer one cyclist's perspective as it relates to
running lights...
Here's the punchline: cars cheat by speeding. Bicyclists can cheat by running
lights.
Before you throw your guilt trip on me about "causing accidents," and the
categorical difference between the two offenses, let me tell you I don't
believe you. I've made loads of mistakes in my years of commuting, never can I
recall endangering someone's life. Yet when a motorist fails to yield to me
while pulling out of a driveway, they may be endangering my life. When a
motorist speeds (add extra points for those on cell phones) they are
endangering my life with their tons of steel. When I fail to yield at a light,
I may be endangering... my life, again! (I yield to traffic with right of way,
but not to the lights which give it to them.)
Sometimes I think that if my life is being endangered anyway, I should have a
say in how and how often. And I trust myself more than I do Joe Business Suit
on his cell phone numbly at the controls of his over-powered Mercedes.
If cars were endangered by bicycles, bicycles would be made illegal pretty
quickly, I think. The situation that exists for cyclists is that any accident
will injure the cyclist first. If the opposite were true, then bicycles would
get scapegoated, and painted as a major threat to cars (and the fact that
cars are threats to each other would be ignored).
But back to the subject: aside from the urban situations in which it's a good
idea to leave the light before it changes to get out of harm's way, I find it
perfectly acceptable to run lights just to get to where I'm going faster (and
more importantly, without wasting the energy of coming to a stop). It's just
cheating!
Before you call me a selfish bastard, tell me the last time you drove anywhere
without exceeding the speed limit--and please take responsibility for that
action, don't bring up "the flow of traffic." And if you insist on that, then
the last time you drove through empty streets, did you exceed the speed limit?
While commuting in LA in high school, I took to heart all the messages thrown
at me: "obey the law and the law will protect you!", "you are bound by the
same laws as cars!", "ride defensively!", and the like. In those days, I would
feel bad running a stop sign on an empty residential street. These messages
made it sound like there was a great truth to the traffic laws. The only great
truths are that Johnny Law gives out tickets, and that car drivers sneer at
you if you get in their way. And those are no reasons to abide by the laws,
when car drivers break those laws in their own ways, infringing on our rights
at the same time (which is more important).
If the above shocks you as irresponsible and criminally carefree, then I think
you are probably stuck in the car-centered value system we are imposed with,
the one I naively accepted as a high-schooler. This is the same worldview that
states that bicycles get in the way of cars, and that the roads are rightfully
the cars' since they are the majority. Motorists break the laws which are
convenient for them to break, and are shocked when we do the same. Even when
the laws are made and the lights are synchronized for THEM!
That's all,
-Luigi P.
Tuesday, January 19
134 HOLY LORD<bicycle_god@yahoo.com> 12:03 p.m., Heaven
Subject: HEAR YE, HEAR YE!!!
To: sf-critical-mass@cyclery.com, chainguard@cyclery.com
IT IS I, THE GREAT AND BENEVOLENT GOD OF ALL. SEEING AS HOW SOMEONE HAS ALREADY USED MY NAME FOR GOD@YAHOO.COM, I HAVE TO SPECIALIZE. BUT QUESTION ME NOT! I AM GOD, THE GOD. THE HEAD HONCHO. THE REAL DEAL. YOU CAN TELL BY THE WAY ALL OF MY WORDS ARE CAPITALIZED! NO, I'M NOT OWEN MEANY...
I HAVE COME TO ISSUE MY GREAT AND ALL ENCOMPASSING JUDGEMENT ON YOU ALL.
JOHN FORESTER - WHILE YOU HAVE DONE MUCH FOR CYCLING, YOU HAVED SINNED BY SENDING YOUR POSTS ALL OVER MY CREATION. AS A RESULT OF YOUR ACTIONS, PEOPLE HIT "REPLY ALL" AND CLOG MANY PEOPLE'S E'MAIL. IN ADDITION, THE WORDS YOU CHOSE TO REFLECT YOUR VIEW INITIATED FIERY TEMPERS. I THOUGHT I MADE YOU WISER THAN THAT! I, HOWEVER, IN ALL MY GLORY (WHICH IS EVERLASTING) SHALL FORGIVE YOU. I TRUST OTHERS WILL DO THE SAME.
FOR ALL WHO ACT RUDELY UPON THE PAVEMENT WHICH COVERS MY MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING EARTH (SORRY. THAT'S A SORE SPOT FOR ME), YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW... ER... SO? NO - SOW.
TRULY, TRULY I SAY TO YOU - INSIDE EVERY CAR THERE IS A HUMAN BEING DYING TO GET OUT. HELP THEM.
VERILY, VERILY I CONTINUE. WHEN YOU CUT DOWN A WEED FROM THE TOP, IT CONTINUES TO GROW. WHEN YOU CUT DOWN A WEED FROM THE MIDDLE, IT CONTINUES TO GROW. WHEN YOU PULL OUT THE WEED ENTIRELY FROM ITS FOUNDATION, THE WEED DIES. AS IT IS SO WITH TRANSPORTATION - CUT DOWN THE OFFENDING PEDESTRIANS (JAYWALKERS, ETC) THE SLAUGHTER IN THE STREETS WILL CONTINUE. CUT DOWN THE OFFENDING CYCLISTS, THE SLAUGHTER WILL CONTINUE. AH, BUT CUT DOWN THE AUTOMOBILE, THE ROOT IS REMOVED FROM THE FERTILE GROUND, AND THE SLAUGHTER WILL STOP.
MORAL OF THE PARABLE:
STOP HACKING AWAY AT THE MIDDLE OF THE WEED FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! I MEAN IT! MY BOY HAS BEEN BITCHING ABOUT THIS ALL WEEK! HELL, DO IT FOR MY SAKE - I'M THE ONE WHO HAS TO LISTEN TO HIM!
THANKS, ALL
YOUR LOVING GOD
PS: I DON'T EXIST.
SEND ALL PERSONAL RESPONSES TO MY SECRETARY AT:
josh_sutcliffe@yahoo.com