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 cer