Looks like the Austin Police Department is again focusing on ticketing cyclist for traffic violations. Just don’t call it a crackdown.
Bike Noob reported on four club riders getting tickets for failing to completely stop at a stop light when turning right.
The officer told the group he was issuing citations because of the grief the Austin Police Department has been getting over cyclists breaking traffic laws. Letters to the editor in the newspaper seem to be getting more vociferous lately over cyclists, but I don’t think it’s any different here than in any other city.
Jason at ATXBS reported that another cyclists was ticketed downtown for running a red light:
i was recently given a ticket by a downtown bike cop for running a red light at 3rd/lavaca. the officer wouldn’t give me a warning for my first offense, stating that the chief “wants us to give tickets out” and that “there’s been a lot of accidents” he even went so far as to ask me if i rode CM, later stating that they’re going after corkers because it’s a misdemeanor. he didn’t know what a corker was, though. he also didn’t know the fine schedule for the ticket he was writing.
Finally, Eileen Schaubert forward me this notice in the latest Downtown Austin Alliance newsletter under the heading “APD announces the Downtown Quality of Life Enhancement Initiative”:
The Austin Police Department’s North Bureau unveiled its plans for the 2nd Downtown Quality of Life Enhancement Initiative begins Friday, August 14, 2009 will run through Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
he initiative will again focus on consistent enforcement relating to crimes and behaviors that affect public safety and detract from the enjoyment of the downtown area. The public should expect to see a greater police presence which is intended to foster a safer environment by deterring crime while soliciting the cooperation of the public in keeping the entertainment district friendly for residents and visitors. . .
. . . The public is reminded that they can assist in deterring crime in the entertainment district by securing their belongings out of sight in parked cars, remaining alert, and obeying motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian regulations.
The official response from APD every time one of these crackdowns initiatives occurs is that there is no crackdown, no targeting of cyclists. This appears to fly in the face of what officers are telling cyclists or what they are telling reporters on camera.
In fairness, I did a public records request to APD earlier this summer for any written or electronic communication to officers regarding the enforcement of bicycle traffic laws, and there were no written instructions to officers to target cyclists in previous initiatives. It appears these orders are being given verbally (although an officer earlier this summer said an e-mail had gone out to officers.) I guess we’re are back to the unverifiable double speak.
On the fine paying side of things, the situation may be improving. ATXBS also reported on a meeting with Municipal Court staff regarding some of the fines that seem to punish cyclist more than motorist for the same offense. It looks like the fines are going to be levelized down to the motorist level, and more importantly that citations from bicycle traffic violations should NOT appear as points against your license for insurance purposes. If they do, the Municipal Court is supposed to correct that.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Can Chris Riley or the council do anything? I’m all for people stopping at reds and being safe at stop signs, but tickets for yielding at right on reds is pretty harsh.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I’m wondering if this isn’t connected to the whole right-wing authoritarian craziness and hatred of liberals dealio. It seems like everybody who’s ever seen a Fox News show in their lives is completely losing their minds.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
You don’t like getting ticketed for breaking the law? The answer is simple: DON’T BREAK THE LAW.
Whether it’s riding a bike or driving a car, just about everyone who gets a ticket has a good reason why they don’t think they should have gotten the ticket. If you get a ticket, HTFU and deal with it.
(And searching for “right-wing authoritarian” conspiracies is not the answer.)
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Lets see, there are dozens of dedicated traffic units that spend all day doing nothing but writing tickets to drivers. They don’t answer calls, they don’t help people, all they do is run traffic.
And you’re whining because a couple bike riders who broke laws were ticketed by bicycle riding officers?
Your indignation is laughable. Grow up.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
@doohickie… get serious, until we actually have equal/full enforcement, then dubious silly laws will stay on the books. Idaho stop law is sensible, but “texas” doesn’t care.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
@laughable… reckless bicycling rarely injures anyone but the cyclist. Reckless driving kills. Cars and bicycle are not equal.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
@Matt, so the only laws the police should enforce are the ones involving “reckless” behavior?
Well, cars not using a turn signal doesn’t seem too reckless, so I guess that one’s out. So much for registration stickers and inspection stickers, those are out. Excessive fumes/exhaust isn’t reckless, so that’s gone. No more inspections for overweight semi-trucks since those aren’t reckless. I guess some speeding should be okay, as long as they aren’t being reckless about it. Rolling through a stop sign, isn’t reckless as long as you look, so we won’t worry about that anymore.
As far as the cyclist is concerned, he only ran a red light, which is reckless, but not vehicular reckless, so that’s out too.
My point is this: It is the law, don’t whine when you’re cited for breaking it. Don’t like the citation, fortunately we live in a land where you can challenge it in court, and if the judge agrees with you, he’ll dismiss it. It’s your constitutional right.
The notion that there is some “crackdown” means that police have routinely ignored enforcing laws that cyclists have been breaking. Sounds like the community has had plenty of breaks and warnings prior to the small number of citations handed out recently.
Full disclosure: I am a cyclist and strongly believe in promoting cycling as an alternative to traditional vehicular-centric transportation. But I strongly believe in the rule of law.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 1:41 am
@Matt
“[R]eckless bicycling rarely injures anyone but the cyclist.”
It seems you’re thinking only of car-bike collisions. Bike-bike and bike-pedestrian collisions can cause injury and even death. Even if you have no love for cars, please consider the safety of others who choose to bike or walk.
Also, car-bike collisions often result in damage to the car involved. Is that not a consideration in your calculus?
“Reckless driving kills.”
As a percentage of total crashes, not often. According to NHTSA:
“More than 6 million police-reported motor vehicle crashes occurred in the United States in 2007. Nearly 30 percent of those crashes (1.71 million) resulted in an injury, and fewer than 1 percent (37,248) resulted in a death.”
(source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx, select “Crashes”)
“Cars and bicycle[s] are not equal.”
What do you mean by that? My subcompact is not “equal” to a Hummer, but the same traffic regulations apply to the operation of both.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 8:51 am
I’m glad to hear that fines are going to be levelized down to the motorist level that citations from bicycle traffic violations won’t appear as points against my license. But I’m all for ticketing the hell out of anyone who doesn’t obey traffic laws, including cyclists. It’s maddening to know that I will be in a world of legal/insurance hurt if some idiot cyclist blows a stop sign or red light and rides into my path. If word gets around that cyclists are being targeted/ticketed for being irresponsible on the road, then perhaps we’ll see an improvement in behavior.
Yes, it is maddening to sit and wait at a stoplight on your bike when it is 102 out, particularly when no other cars seem to be around (I’m looking at you, looooooong light on 32nd at Duval), but too fricking bad. I wouldn’t turn left at a red light in my car, so I’m not going to do that on my bike. Same thing goes for coming to a complete stop before making a right on red. Follow the law, you won’t get a ticket.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The key here is to make sure APD cracks down on all unsafe vehicular driving. We get upset when we here about enforcement targeted at bicyclists. But there is no way we logically can get mad about a statement from APD if they include motorists in the verbage.
Also, there’s a difference between ticketing someone for an offense and following a bicyclist for a mile to see how many citations they can rack up on them. That may be legal, but it smacks of harasssment, and I seriously doubt they would do the same for motorists.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Rob,
My biggest issue is the double speak here. There is a pattern of officers communicating that cyclists are being targeted yet there are denials of this from top brass. Why the duplicity? I also believe safer streets come as much from education as enforcement but the focus is currently more on the punishment side.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Yeah, that’s what gets me. If there’s a crackdown, fine, whatever. Sometimes traffic gets out of hand and you have to step up enforcement. But why the duplicity? Have we just gotten to the point as a culture where government officials routinely lie about everything?
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
You all should note that Mike Martinez has been getting quite a lot of feedback on his facebook status updates about the 3-foot passing rule from angry motorists using cyclist lawbreaking as a reason to oppose this legislation. Those of you juvenile anarchists who think your lawbreaking doesn’t hurt every cyclist out there ought to think again.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Um, are we really going to pretend it wouldn’t be something else?
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
No; it’s not pretending. It’s a damn good counter-argument to the “require 3 feet when passing bicyclists” law Martinez and Riley are trying to get done.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Wait a minute y’all, I think I’ve read the script for this conversation before. Someone else disagree with M1EK so he can mention that one time a cyclist ran a red and freaked him out, and then say something else about anarchists. That’s when it REALLY gets good.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
No, the script this time is the “one time back in the day I watched a couple fellow commissioners on the UTC vote against bike infrastructure, using cyclist lawbreaking as their justification” – since that’s what’s maybe in danger of happening at City Council with the 3-foot passing rule.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The other script is “I almost wrecked my car and another dude’s car to avoid killing one of you juvenile anarchists”, by the way. If I was freaked out every time one of you guys ran a red light, I’d never be able to leave the house.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Aaaand, right after I wrote that comment, I see the new top article here, with this quote:
Gosh, who could have predicted this?
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Yes, well the logic is stunning. It’s like “I saw someone running a red light therefor we should not have speed limits.” I totally see the connection.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
No, it’s not stunning at all. You’re asking motorists to accept an additional rule they must obey for the sake of cyclists – while the juvenile anarchist flavor of cyclist apparently isn’t willing to obey existing rules which are supposed to apply to all traffic.
Look, they’re wrong on the merits, but just burying your head in the sand and stubbornly refusing to even understand their perspective is not only sad, it’s counter-productive.
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I understand their perspective, Mike, I just think they are wrong. I hardly hear the outrage when a pedestrian breaks the law crossing the street when the light is red. This is a similar violation of the law, yet it does not produce the same us vs. them mentality. Asking for additional protections from 2 tons of steel seems reasonable to me. Bikes and pedestrians are not cars, and to continue to pretend they are is setting ourselves up for defeat. Of course, I’ve offered real solutions, not just criticisms, Mike. What’s your solution?
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Do you really think that it will be possible to keep all bicyclists from running red lights ever for twenty years so councilmembers will never have possibly witnessed it as a political strategy?
I mean, even if we started now?
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I wish people would take bicycling seriously. It seems like few people really do. Especially the city – they grudgingly implement a few bicycle-oriented initiatives that manage to squeak their way in. Because they – and most people on the road – consider people who ride bicycles to be an eccentric minority and don’t really believe it can ever be really feasible for ‘normal’ people. And many – like M1EK – have a distaste for the kind of culture that encompasses much of cycling. Juvenile anarchists flying through stop signs.
But think of what lies on the other end of those bike-riding hooligans. Macho Muscle Dude in his big truck that his parents bought him, gunning it down every side street and barely slowing for stop signs, speeding on I-35 and ripping it around all the little cars. Or Speed Demon Dude in his shiny Mustang, playing the same game but with more horsepower and just as much a sense of entitlement to the road. And there are just as many, if not more of them, then there are of wacky anti-establishment types on brightly colored fixies.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter because nobody really believes in cycling. Not the general population and certainly not the government. The majority believe the road is made for cars and very little is going to change that.
It would just be nice to have some support.
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Christine,
M1EK believed in cycling so much he spent 5 years on the UTC fighting for it. M1EK only stopped biking to work because the reactive arthritis forced the issue.
http://bicycleaustin.info/people.html
Elliott,
Pedestrians haven’t fought long and hard for the right to be treated as vehicular traffic. They are and always have been a much more limited special case than have cyclists.
Michael,
There’s a big difference between “5% of cyclists run red lights and stop signs” and today’s “50% do it, and most of them indignantly insist they ought to be applauded for doing so”.
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Wow, that’s a lotta assume.
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
You’re right, Michael. You did a lot of assuming when you assumed that there’d be no difference from today’s sorry state of affairs until we could stop precisely 100.00% of cyclists from behaving like idiots.
It doesn’t take a radical change – if we got to the point where a similar % of cyclists blew through red lights and stop signs as cars, we could actually SAY that without being laughed at, which would be a big help. Today, of course, those few who insist that lawbreaking is roughly similar are immediately refuted by a TV camera set up on Shoal Creek Blvd, for instance, and are thereafter ignored.
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Wait … did the Shoal Creek piece KVUE did (that is what you’re talking about M1EK, right?) look at cars at all?
I seem to recall that all they did was count offending cyclists?
If all they counted were cyclists, how can that refute anything that compares offense rates between motorists and cyclists?
This is the story (two articles, but really one story) I’m referring to –
http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/062209kvue_cycling_stop_signs-cb.1741aeda.html
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/062309kvue_cyclist_stop_signs_folo-cb.1c799ab4.html
… are you referring to something else?
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Scratch that. I’d forgotten that there was another informal study of sorts that you’re aware of that did look at both –
http://austinontwowheels.org/2009/06/24/cyclists-and-stop-signs-will-someone-come-up-with-a-constructive-solution/#comment-3602
… though that one didn’t involve any TV camera that I’m aware of. Certainly, KVUE’s one or two stories didn’t seem to mention how often motorists offended — only cyclists.
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Doug, you’re like a frigging Vulcan sometimes, and not in a good way either.
Anybody who can claim with a straight face at this point that they’re not sure cyclists blow through a lot more red lights and stop signs, in proportion to their numbers, than do motorists, has lost the right to be taken seriously.
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Well, looking at the informal study I just linked to (I do believe you’ve referred to it in the past as well) –
Cyclists broke the law 100% of the time.
Motorists broke the law 70% of the time.
Granted, the sample sizes were small and the survey done unscientifically, possibly leading to large errors, but I think they’ve got the general trends down correctly.
Which group is the law-abiding one again? I’m having a hard time finding it, perhaps you can help?
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
OK, Mike, you’ve shook your fist at those meddling kids who are causing all the problems. I ask again, what is your solution?
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 1:15 am
If the problem is lack of support from the driving public for things
like the safe passing law, the solution is to improve cyclists’
standing with them. The negative impression that drivers have of
cyclists in Austin is rooted in the correct perception that many if
not most cyclists regularly commit major traffic law violations
without consequences.
I can’t see any way to change that impression without changing the
culture of impunity that seems to dominate cycling in Austin. It’s
not something that can happen overnight, and in the end it comes down
to attitude adjustments on an individual level. But I can think of a
couple ways to move the process along:
* Cycling advocates/leaders/representatives need to take stronger and more visible stances against violating traffic regulations. Those who condone running red lights and blowing stop signs should be marginalized.
* Increase legitimate ticketing of cyclists, even for minor violations. I don’t mean a zero-tolerance scenario where cops have no discretion. I mean a more consistent law enforcement effort which will, over time, convince most cyclists that waiting for the green light is less of a hassle than risking a citation.
I’m not terribly concerned with convincing the “anarchist” minority. I
think there’s a core of otherwise responsible adults who, out of
ignorance or conformity, have become habituated to committing
violations they would never consider while operating a motor
vehicle, and they just need to be nudged back into cycling more
responsibly. And that might be enough to change things.
I recognize that cyclists are too often mistreated under the law and
by other road users, and none of the preceding is meant to minimize
those problems. But using the public roadways implies rights as well as responsibilities. For the most part, motorists in Austin understand
that bargain. Maybe someday the majority of cyclists will too.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 8:43 am
“Cyclists broke the law 100% of the time.
Motorists broke the law 70% of the time.”
Doug, this is disingenuous. The proper framing is that 5% of motorists ‘didn’t slow way down’; while something like 50% of cyclists didn’t. Most police won’t write you a ticket for a ‘rolling stop’ whether you’re driving or biking.
To pretend that this 10-fold difference in flat-out willful complete absolute flouting of stop signs and red lights has no relevance is dishonest and unproductive.
Elliott, my solution starts like Nate’s: Stop defending lawbreaking cyclists; stop tolerating them; stop pretending that speeding by motorists is an excuse; stop defending lawbreaking by cyclists; stop rationalizing lawbreaking by cyclists; stop excusing lawbreaking by cyclists by pretending that it has no negative impacts; stop defending lawbreaking cyclists; and stop defending lawbreaking cyclists.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
And by the way, I’m just taking as a given the original figure that 5% of motorists didn’t slow way down for the stop sign on Shoal Creek. In all my years commuting there, probably 2000 round-trips on most of its length by bike and 50 by car, I never, not even one time saw a motorist do that.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Mike,
I don’t think I’ve every defended someone breaking the law. I have offered alternative solutions which include either a real, comprehensive education campaigns or changing the law to recognize bicycles are different from cars. You are obviously passionate about this issue. Why not take that energy and channel it into on-the-ground solutions instead of comment thread arguments? Why not work with the City, ACA, LOBV, and sites like mine to really change the situation instead of just online hand wringing?
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
elliott,
I paid my dues, and now I have other obligations. That doesn’t free me from the right (and responsibility) to make sure people aren’t doing bad things (the red-light runners themselves) or spreading false information (like Doug).
BTW, advocating changing this law is, in fact, defending those who break it now, in my book. And I have not seen any evidence of (1) you advocating such an education campaign or (2) it being likely to make any difference – I believe most cyclists know full well they’re supposed to stop.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Well, Mike if you are going to so veraciously attack people who hold an opposing view point, I think you have an obligation to do something positive about it or shut up. Obligations? You find the time to slam people on dozens of websites in this community every day, but can’t seem to find the time to put something positive into the universe. I have a family too, yet I run campaigns, create non-profits, serve on boards, build bikes, and write this site. I am always ready to work with others to make our community better.
As for advocating education, we promote the Traffic 101 class through the calendar including today’s post, and you commented quite prolifically (in fact 14 times) on the last post I did about this where I specifically called for more education as part of a greater safety program. I offered up this site to be part of such a program.
Saying that I want to change the law is openly encouraging people to break the law is disingenuous at best. I respect and admire your passion, Mike, and most of the time I agree with you. I just wish it would be used for positive action. Until I see that, I’m afraid I’m going to have to do what most leaders in this community have already done. Ignore your rants as background noise.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Which false information have I spread, Mike? Be specific. I’m sorry that you feel that I’m looking at the wrong information, but perhaps I see it differently. But by all means, since I’m spreading `false information’ — point out what information is false, and correct it. This is not the first time you’ve made this accusation, and I’d prefer that you either back it up or cut it out.
As for cars slowing down and bikes not slowing down, even that’s not a completely apples to apples comparison because cars generally travel faster than bikes. The cars may be going 30 mph and the bikes 10 mph — but then a cars slows to 10 mph for the stop sign and bike stays at 10 mph — so the car slowed, and the bike didn’t (Both broke the law, however.) I’m not saying this is a typical example, but I doubt it’s uncommon.
If somebody really wanted to study this and do it right, they’d 1) look at a number of different intersections at different times of day, and 2) they’d estimate the speeds that each vehicle approached at and slowed down to (a radar gun might help here, though if it was visible that would affect the results) and write each down, and 3) they’d also try to keep track of if there was any traffic that needed yielding to for each vehicle. It would take many hours to do properly.
And if such a study was done, I don’t doubt that it should show that cyclists run stop signs more often than cars. However, I also imagine that cars would do it a lot as well, and while cars may slow down for the stop signs, often they slow down to bike speeds (5-15 mph). And third, the motorists were often exceeding the speed limit before they neared the stop sign — but the cyclists typically weren’t.
And you still haven’t pointed me to the law abiding group. Motorists speed, run stop signs, red lights. Cyclists rarely speed, but run stop signs and red lights often. Pedestrians jaywalk, cross against the light. Police run red lights, speed and park illegally for non-official purposes like lunch.
Actually, I think I’ve found the law-abiding group — firefighters. I’ve never seen a fire truck run a red light or speed without the lights on. I’ve never seen one illegally parked in front of Krispy Kreme, unless the Krispy Kreme was actually on fire. (Well, I have seen them parked illegally, but they were asking for donations for something. I don’t know if that counts or not — but it’s rare anyways.)
Perhaps we should stop making roadway improvements for everybody but the firefighters. They’re the real heroes here, protecting us against ourselves. If both a cyclist and a motorist run a stop sign and collide, often it’s the firemen that arrive first.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Doug, the false information you’re spreading is the contention that we don’t have enough proof to be able to say with any degree of certainty that cyclists disobey right-of-way control devices far more often and in far more serious ways than do motorists.
You spent seven paragraphs above rationalizing away reality. That’s not helpful; it makes cyclists think they can continue doing what they’re doing, because, after all, it doesn’t happen all that often, it’s not all that bad, what motorists do is worse, etc.
Elliott, your final paragraph paints you as a true hypocrite. In fact, I would never write you off as ‘background noise’. It’s truly reprehensible to insist that the only people who matter are the people who don’t have 8-5 day jobs they have to commute to in Westlake – so most of their public involvement must be, as you put it, on ‘dozens of websites every day’.
Does it somehow make it better for some of those self-same community leaders without day jobs (and usually without families) to bash people in person? Of course not (they do, by the way). Does it not count that I spent years and years working in person on the UTC, getting facilities built that you probably use today? Does it not count that Tommy Eden and I got an ordinance passed back then which now requires that essentially all major street reconstruction projects must include finishing sidewalks, and many must include bike facilities?
You went with some weak sh*t here. I can, and do, participate in policy debates while at my desk because that’s the only way I can manage it at this stage in my life — I just got done spending 2.5 months with my wife and then my premature baby in the hospital, but according to the slackerati, my voice doesn’t count because it comes over the intertubes.
Nice.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Actually, Mike, I have said no such thing. Pointing out that a specific news story didn’t look at something AT ALL and therefore doesn’t provide the proof you’re looking for is a far cry from saying that proof isn’t available. (It also doesn’t make me a vulcan, in a good way or not.)
Hell, the tiny, informal study I linked to recently provides reasonable proof that cyclists disobey a certain type of right-of-way control device more than cars. But sure, I’m saying there’s no evidence — as I point out some evidence. Uh-huh.
(As for `in more serious ways’, we can’t even agree about what ways are more serious, so I’m leaving that alone.)
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Doug, what I meant is that you try to so narrowly define what cyclists do as to render the conclusion completely meaningless — “a certain type of right-of-way control device” isn’t accurate. This is not an attempt to educate; this is not an attempt to clarify; you’re clearly doing this to try to discredit the (very true) generalization about lawbreaking.
In other words, if cyclists could speed, they doubtlessly would. In the cases where they are fundamentally capable of breaking ANY GIVEN TRAFFIC LAW, cyclists do so far more often and far more seriously than do motorists. It’s eminently reasonable to remove the dependent clause here as everybody gets the fact that a bike can’t go 75 in a 65.
And everybody serious on transportation knows that “running the orange” isn’t as serious a problem as running the middle of a red light. Running the very beginning of a red light is largely an efficiency issue – people on the other side aren’t going fast enough yet to be at risk of a collision. Still, though, red light cameras are now up in some trouble-spots around town to write motorists tickets for this infraction – so why the whining about cops ticketing cyclists for running the middle of a red light cycle – again, an action which motorists almost never do?
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Wow, Mike, I didn’t realize running your own business made you a slackerati. I guess that means Sam Walton, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet are the kings of slackerati. We all find different ways to provide for our families. I don’t begrudge you your decision.
My apologies if this argument has gotten personal. I know you have a premmie and continue to pray that you and your family get through this difficult time. I just think that fact that your time is so limited re-enforces the point I was making. If you only have a little time, make it count. Participate in the debate but not just to discredit or tear others down. Point out errors in logical or facts but then offer solutions. I know you’ve got great ideas but you are not sharing them. So I ask again, what is your solution to this problem?
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Elliott, my minimal contribution to a solution to this problem is to try to convince those who are enablers to stop enabling – and to remind people about times in history where I was present where similar stuff happened (for a different instance, the next time a Shoal Creek-like problem rears its head, you can be damn sure I’ll be all over it correcting the neighborhood reactionaries’ revisionist history and pointing out that consensus-based decision making screws minority or less-committed positions). This is the way I believe I can best make my time count given the constraints and my past role.
The ‘slackerati’ are those who somehow manage to spend all day down at City Council chambers and all night and weekend running their neighborhood associations — without any visible means of support. I should have been more clear that a guy starting a bike business from the ground up wasn’t really what I had in mind, more like the ‘leaders’ you spoke to who write off the contributions of anybody they don’t see in person (and, yes, I know who most of those folks are, and, no, they don’t have private sector jobs, not really).
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Of course `a certain type of traffic control device’ is accurate, because that’s all the study looked at. Even KVUE’s `study’ only looked at stop signs (and bikes — it ignored cars, which is why it’s useless for comparing bikes to cars.)
The best `very true generalization about lawbreaking’ one really can make is that people generally break laws when the odds of consequences times the severity of those consequences are lower than the benefits of breaking the law.
Motorists speed, roll through red lights/stop signs and neither is likely to cause an accident when done properly, and tickets are rare as well. Cyclists speed less, but perhaps run red lights more — but again, this rarely causes accidents and tickets are rarely given out.
But OK, stop signs and red lights. It seems to be red lights (mature ones especially) that you’re hung up on, so where’s the study done at a red light about who breaks the law there? If a good one was done, I imagine you’ll find considerable compliance with the law from both camps in most cases, especially if traffic is moderate to heavy. But if there is no other traffic, both camps will run that red light with impunity at any stage in the cycle. No traffic means low risk of accident or ticket for both groups.
As for the `cyclists would speed if they could’ strawman that you keep bringing up, um, so what? And motorists would run mature red lights if they could — and oh, yeah, they occasionally do (when traffic is light, when it’s safe, no cops around), just like cyclists occasionally speed — when they can. (Low speed limit? Down a hill? `Are you speeding?’ kiosk that gives your speed? Many, perhaps most cyclists speed!)
Ultimately, as I see it, when somebody says `cyclists don’t obey the law, so we shouldn’t make this bike lane/law/whatever’, it’s just a rationalization of the decision they’d already made. If cyclists did obey the law, 100% of the time, they’d just find another scapegoat (or the same scapegoat — it doesn’t need to be accurate.) They aren’t a member of that minority, so they see no need to benefit that minority.
`Many black people are criminals, so I shouldn’t build this community center in this black neighborhood’. It wouldn’t be P.C. to actually say this (overt discrimination based on color is frowned upon, after all), but I imagine a lot of politicians think this way.
Nobody goes `motorists don’t obey the law, so we shouldn’t build a new road/law/whatever’. But the number of tickets APD gives out suggests that motorists certainly do break the law in significant numbers. (Cyclists get tickets too — in smaller numbers, though there’s fewer of them too.)
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:13 am
Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize. Back to square one with you.
Again, if cyclists were physically capable of speeding, they doubtlessly would. In every situation where they are CAPABLE of breaking the law, they do so in far higher proportions than do motorists, and far more seriously.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:45 am
Mike,
This is not to defend law breaking or rationalize, but I think the psychology in our society is different between riding and driving. Most cyclists break traffic laws because they don’t think they’ll get caught or they are following the behavior they see from other cyclists. In fact, most of the time the police ignore this behavior (I’ve personally witnessed it often.) When you are a motorist, they are more punishments: ticket, higher insurance, higher risk of deadly accident, loss of license, imprisonment. Plus when you get a ticket, most people opt for defensive driving to get the ticket dismissed. This is additional education re-enforcing law abiding behavior.
When it comes to cycling, we have next to no education and haphazard enforcement at best. We’ve not made the commitment with cyclists the way we have with motorist. Some of this is because of cycling’s relatively small scale in the population mix and some of it is government picking battles. Again, the consequences of the motorist breaking the law are much higher and deadlier than the cyclist.
If we treated motorist the way we treat cyclists, our streets would be chaotic and full of law breaking motorist. Just visit most developing countries, and you’ll see motorist behaving the same way.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 10:32 am
Now we’re getting more constructive. I’d argue, then, that we shouldn’t be complaining about ‘crackdowns’; we should be welcoming them!
I recently came across and promptly lost again a summary of the one and only ‘protest ride’ I ever rode in here (the one trying to push the Council to un-stall the Pfluger Bridge). Many of us, myself included, spent a lot of that ride being good examples and haranguing those who were breaking laws in front of the motorists we were trying to win over for our cause.
But I have a very hard time believing, again, that cyclists don’t know they’re supposed to stop. Every time a ‘crackdown’ surfaces, you don’t see people claiming they didn’t know; just that they should somehow have been exempt from enforcement.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
`Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize.’ Yes, people generally make rational decisions when driving and riding. Just because you think they’re making the wrong decision, that doesn’t mean they’re not being rational. The `cyclists bad, motorists good’ screed certainly isn’t going to get you far in actually understanding why people do what they do.
`Back to square one with you.’ Sorry to disappoint you, dad, but I think I’ll pick my own square.
As for cyclists who don’t know they’re supposed to stop, why do you keep bringing this up? If any driving age (let’s exclude actual children) cyclists actually don’t know that, they’re a tiny minority. Concentrating on the corner cases (or the theoretical cases such as `cyclists would speed if they could!’) is a great way to make sure you don’t spend any effort on things that actually matter.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Mike,
Two things: I’ve not been complaining about the “crackdowns”, I’ve been critical of the fact that the police are clearly targeting cyclists but then denying there is any such program through their press office. I’d say again, issuing tickets is only part of the program. When it comes to motorists, the vast majority of drivers took a certified driver’s ed course to get a license and are offer more education when they get a ticket to have it dismissed. They are also tons of public service TV, print, and billboard ads every day. I consider my articles about this part of the education letting people know if you run stop signs and red lights, you could get ticketed.
Secondly, there are the signs & lights, and there are what people actually do. Since education and enforcement on this has been so light, people don’t see the need, don’t fear punishment, or as I said before are following others behavior. I myself witnessed Chief Acevedo fail to stop more than once at a stop sign on the Political Pedal. If the chief ain’t following the rules in the middle of one of the highest profile rides of the year, seems like we have a problem. I for one favor moving to the Idaho way, but as I said before, if we are going to keep the law, let’s get serious about it of ignore it. I guess I’m hoping for consistency.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Doug, your entire efforts here are an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect in the hopes that people will somehow be confused into thinking that, despite what their eyes clearly show them, cyclists don’t really break traffic laws much more often and much more seriously than do motorists.
And ‘rationalize’ is not the same thing as ‘being rational’. But you knew this too, of course.
When I can stop at the red light northbound on Speedway at 38th on my way to work in the morning, and during a light cycle stand about a 50/50 chance of observing a cyclist start from a dead stop on a stale red and go straight through, while in all the 10,000 times I’ve gone through that intersection I have yet to see a SINGLE motorist do it, well, I know reality – and you, my friend, are no friend of reality.
Elliott, you missed a great teaching moment with Acevado. I’d have said something. (And when I could still bike, I did ask other cyclists to stop running red lights and stop signs right after I observed them doing so).