CTCDC Says “No”: No Bicyclists Allowed on Committee, No Bike Boxes, No Removal of Bike-Sensitive Signals
Posted By biccontrol on January 26, 2010
Last Thursday, January 21, the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) met at the Caltrans office in Old Town to make decisions that would effect the well-being of road users throughout California. There were four main issues at hand affecting bicyclists
(1) Bicyclist representation on CTCDC
(2) A proposal to remove bike signal detection and signal timing at intersections
(3) Bike Box experiment proposal for San Luis Obispo
(4) New guidelines for bicyclists through construction zones.
CTCDC said “No” to each of the above issues, with the exception of Issue 4, which pertained to the acceptance of new guidelines that would allow bicyclists to more safely ride on roads through construction zones. According to Kathy Keehan, Executive Director of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition (SDCBC), this proposal passed easily.
Issue 1–request for bicyclist representation on CTCDC–was defeated. CTCDC voted against the idea to include representatives of bicycling organizations on the committee. As of today, CTCDC is composed of eight members; two from the Auto Club (AAA), one from California Highway Patrol, one from Caltrans, and two representing cities and two representing counties. While CTCDC’s “No Cyclists Allowed” vote was frustrating, this particular issue is not dead. Jim Baross of the SDCBC plans to meet with California Senator Christine Kehoe and ask her to introduce legislation that will require CTCDC to allow a bicycling representative on the committee. Baross is concerned that this legislation will inspire other groups–such as accessible society representatives, pro-pedestrian representatives, electric vehicle representatives, alternative-transportation representatives, truckers, etc.–to join CTCDC, as well. However, the more representatives we have who are knowledgeable on facilitating sustainable transportation and livable streets, the better.
Only one of CTCDC’s “No”s will actually benefit cyclists. On the CTCDC agenda was a proposal to change the guidelines to allow even less time for cyclists to get through timed intersections. That proposal–Issue 2–was defeated.
In November 2009, CTCDC adopted guidelines that require signal detectors in California intersections to trip for cyclists and to stay “green” long enough for a cyclist to ride through the intersection. Signal detectors that did not recognize cyclists as legitimate road users often put cyclists’ lives at risk. However, at the meeting last Thursday, a CTCDC committee-member who represented cities, proposed that California do away with the new standards set in November and go back to the “old auto-centric way of doing things.” Fortunately, that proposal was defeated. As Baross put it, this issue was pitting bicyclists’ safety and ability to travel against motorists’ level of service/convenience/delay.
Issue 3–request to experiment with a Bike Box in San Luis Obispo–was a defeat for cyclists. San Luis Obispo wants to follow the footsteps of bike-friendly cities such as Portland and Seattle, who already have Bike Boxes throughout their cities. New York City, one of the fastest growing cities for bicycling, has also installed a number of Bike Boxes throughout Manhattan and Brooklyn. Unfortunately, a relatively small group of cyclists in California have been standing in front and blocking the development of Bike Boxes. Baross, who represented CBAC and CABO but not SDCBC on this particular issue, presented a case against Bike Boxes. Instead, he proposed a Sharrow and a Bike May Use Full Lane sign in place of the Bike Box. While Sharrows and BMUFL signs are desirable forms of infrastructure, generally speaking, they do not achieve the same objective as that of a Bike Box:
Bike boxes work best at intersections with a high volume of bicyclists. They improve cyclists’ visibility. They reduce delay for cyclists by providing space for “jumping the queue” of waiting vehicles. They allow a left-turning bicyclist to reach a better position for making a safe turn. They allow bicyclists to reduce exposure to vehicle tailpipe emissions, and are also thought to elevate the “status” of bicyclists relative to motor vehicles.
Overall, the results of last Thursday’s CTCDC meeting are mixed. What bicyclists can look forward to is Senator Kehoe proposing legislation that will put both cyclists and Livable Streets experts on CTCDC. If California is serious about satisfying the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act, it must allow cyclists, livable streets experts, and other sustainable transportation experts in on the the decision-making process and not relegate them to the sidelines.
——-
Previous CTCDC-related entry at Bic Control: Tomorrow Morning: Huge Turning Point for California Traffic Control.
Previous CTCDC-related BikeSD entry: Make Your Voices Heard on January 21st For Long Overdue Improvements.
This entry was originally published on Bic Control.
Comments
35 Responses to “CTCDC Says “No”: No Bicyclists Allowed on Committee, No Bike Boxes, No Removal of Bike-Sensitive Signals”
Join in the discussion
Good report. It is troubling that a vocal minority, adhering to an unappreciated theoretical ideal, has the influence to sway policies away from what is good for the majority of cyclists in an effort to reach their unattainable utopia. I guess what is more troubling is that there is not a vocal majority. Bike boxes may not be the “ideal” but they help us get there. None of us ride with training wheels, but we probably started out with a pair.
I didn’t know that Jim Barross was a vehicular cyclist. I guess he’s the same age as Forrester, and apparently stuck in that paradigm.
No bicyclists (other than the representatives from San Luis Obispo) spoke on behalf of bike boxes. Where were all the bike box advocates?
I thought about standing up and saying that bike boxes are indeed popular with a lot of cyclists who want to see California imitate the Portland or Copenhagen model. But then it didn’t seem like popularity would really sway the day because what the committee cared most about was the legal issue with bike boxes.
The main reason the committee rejected the bike box proposal was that these treatments are apparently illegal or unenforceable in California at this point, given that cyclists are treated as having all of the rights and responsibilities as vehicle drivers. There seems to be no way to enforce vehicles staying behind one limit line, while cyclists get to move ahead to a different limit line.
Long Beach has new(ish) bike boxes, and apparently vehicles intrude on these boxes all the time. However, no tickets have been issued for this violation (according to the Long Beach engineer who spoke at the meeting) and I’d guess it’s because of this legal issue.
So it seems there would need to be a change in the Vehicle Code to allow bicycles to be treated differently than vehicles for this purpose. Maybe that’s where the advocacy should start.
I also thought Jim was pretty convincing about sharrows, both in their being more appropriate for this intersection in San Luis Obispo and in their already being approved for use in California (and about to be approved for use on streets without onstreet parking). His message was, “let’s experiment with the innovations we know are coming, rather than jumping ahead to something that hasn’t been fully vetted” (major paraphrase).
I’m a big fan of sharrows and want to see them particularly on Nobel between Regents and I-5. Areas of the center city where there’s no room for a bike lane would also benefit greatly from them. The more experimentation that can be done with them the better, to convince our conservative San Diego traffic engineers that they’re okay to try here too.
I do like Sharrows ~ they seem to work very well in the dense traffic enviroment of SF.
[...] car-centric Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) gave a big, fat screw you to cyclists at a meeting in San Diego last week, refusing to allow cyclists to be represented on the committee. [...]
Editor’s Note: Comment has been edited for length
Bike boxes and bike lanes encourage segragation, sharrows encourage integration. One might protest that since bike boxes are in the street that they encourage integration, but they’re really more like crosswalks (which, appropriately, segregate pedestrians from drivers, including bicyclists) in that they encourage bicyclists to use separate space to filter forward past stopped cars and stop in front of them, especially when coupled with separately timed signals.
I don’t have too much of an issue with bike boxes… not nearly as much as I do with bike lanes and cycle tracks, as long as the legal issues can be resolved.
But it sounds like we can all rally around sharrows, especially those that are really out in the lane, and not in door zones. Maybe that’s where the focus should be.
With regard to the 14 experimental bike boxes in Portland:
“So far, it appears the benefits of the 14-foot-long boxes might just be in commuters’ heads. A preliminary analysis of 918 hours of video shot at 12 boxes failed to show a significant reduction in conflicts between cars and bicycles, according to the study by PSU’s Center for Transportation Studies.”
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/01/are_portlands_bike_boxes_worki.html
Thanks for the constructive comments everyone.
I haven’t seen the San Luis Obispo intersection and so I can’t say if a Sharrow and a BMUFL sign, in that situation, would better serve cyclists than a Bike Box.
Regardless of whether or not it would, California still needs to do more experiments on Bike Boxes. We only have one city that has any–that being Long Beach, right? For experiment purposes, I don’t mind if the California Vehicle Code goes unchanged so that we may study experiment Bike Boxes in California. Even if drivers in Long Beach are stopping in the Bike Boxes, that’s data we ought to be collecting. Before we go about changing the Vehicle Code we need to do more research. Portland is still studying Bike Boxes. Their sample size is much larger than all of California’s–they have nearly a dozen Bike Boxes throughout the city. I’m not sure how many Long Beach has, but as a state, we need many more, located throughout California cities, to adequately study how California motorists/cyclists behave around Bike Boxes. San Luis Obispo just wanted to experiment and I think they should have been allowed to.
What we need right now is more experiment Bike Boxes in a variety of different California cities and intersection situations. Once they’re there, we need to study them just as Portland is doing right now.
Serge, thanks for the comment and for providing a pertinent link to actual research. I read the link to the news article and the full (power point) report in their entirety. The results of the study you linked are inconclusive, preliminary, and only the first of a series. Let’s not jump to conclusions. Besides that, the report only samples 6 hours out 918 hours of total footage. You can do the math; that sample size is far less than 1%.
Without jumping to conclusions, we can learn something from the preliminary results of the study. The 14th paragraph of the article on the preliminary results reads as follows:
‘Researchers saw ['serious conflict'] declines at three intersections, with Southwest Broadway and Southwest Taylor Street showing the most improvement…’
So, some intersections have been benefiting from the Bike Boxes. We need to study why it is that some intersections, but not others, benefit from Bike Boxes.
Serge, I disagree w/ your following assertion: ‘Bike boxes…encourage segragation…[Bike Boxes are] really more like crosswalks (which, appropriately, segregate pedestrians from drivers, including bicyclists) in that they encourage bicyclists to use separate space to filter forward past stopped cars and stop in front of them, especially when coupled with separately timed signals.’
Serge, I’m not sure what type of Bike Boxes you’re referring to here. Are you referring to the Bike Boxes in the Portland study? Where have you ridden a Bike Box?
The Bike Box I rode in NYC actually reaffirmed the importance of proper lane positioning. This NYC box was 3 lanes wide (unlike the Portland boxes) and it allowed a cyclist to position themselves in the lane which best served their intended destination. That’s not segregation, it’s integration; a new type of integration which, based on my experience, allows for cyclists to more conveniently integrate into a lane of their choice when at a stop light.
Here are two pics of the Bike Box I’m referring to, documented and photographed myself:
http://tinypic.com/r/24629eq/6
http://tinypic.com/r/2e4an7p/6
I’ll conclude this comment with one important point about the preliminary results of the Portland study: According to the study, 83% of bicyclists surveyed for the study believe that bike boxes make for a better environment for bicycling. That’s huge! Now, what if 83% of bicyclists start to ride more often and longer distance as a result of the perceived enhancement of their urban environment? What if new people start to take up cycling as a result of the new infrastructure? As we know from Peter Jacobsen’s landmark study ‘Safety In Numbers,’ more bicyclists on the roads actually makes roads safer for all cyclists on the road. If Bike Boxes get more people out of their 3,000lb metal boxes and onto bikes, then that would certainly be a success… Unless of course, you believe bicycling should only be for the elite members of society. I certainly hope you don’t think that.
Serge,
Let me offer you some advice. Read up about Auston’s Bike Coalation director. Read up how he was ousted because he was so into VC. I tell you what, it’s not VC that I don’t like, it’s the VC’ers. Riders do NOT want VC in entirety. They want a blend of both. You can advocate and pound on the table all you like, but, you’re wrong. Your part of a vocal minority, but you do NOT speak for the masses, and contrarty to your political focused attention matter: you are not father to the majority, are not smarter than the majority and you further push away other cyclist.
William
It would be nice to stick to the issues and refrain from character attacks.
Excellent followup comment from BicControl. Thanks for digging into the Portland report. Serge also contributed productively to the discussion.
And I agree with John Brooking.
John and Larry, I agree with you. And while on surface it would seem a character attack, actually, it’s in defense of the attack on the general cyclist. It’d be nice if people quit posting on the internet under the guise of speaking for a larger group when they actually speak only for themselves.
I have no issues with one person advocating for thier personal beliefs. None at all! And it’s easy to see that some statistics are easy to veiw from different angles and draw different conclusions, and that is essentially where discussions come in. We all have what we feel is right, and I believe somewhere in the middle is what works best 95% of the time.
What I have issue with is a prolific vocal small group or singular person speaking as if they represent a larger group, and dominating any conversation as such. This is wrong, and someone needs to call it out.
The biggest problem in San Diego is that cyclist are not represented in true fashion for who they are, but there are people who would state they represent us all, and do not have people’s true interest at heart. Period.
John Brooking is a Vehicular Cyclist from Maine.
http://www.mainebrook.com/john/blog/2008/12/history-and-my-current-opinion-on-bike.html
“John Brooking is a Vehicular Cyclist”
And therefore you can ignore him, is your point? Throwing labels around is not helpful to the debate.
“I have no issues with one person advocating for thier personal beliefs. None at all! ”
And I believe that is what I am doing.
“What I have issue with is a prolific vocal small group or singular person speaking as if they represent a larger group”
Obviously I’m not speaking for you. I’m well aware that I’m not speaking for bicyclists who prefer their own road space. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t say what I think would work best (defined as some combination of safety and equality) in the long term, balancing lots of different factors. I hope we can agree it’s not a simple question.
William,
The problem comes with the labelling. First, you attempted to label Jim Baross a “vehicular cyclist”, implying that we should therefore write off his opinion as outdated and inflexible (not to mention being ageist). Now you label John Brooking a “vehicular cyclist.” If you read his whole blog post that you linked to, he actually has a pretty middle-of-the-road position, and sees infrastructure as having a place if done appropriately.
Serge said he actually doesn’t have a problem with bike boxes, and he also suggested that sharrows may be one treatment on which most everyone can agree. I’d call that an attempt to reach out and find middle ground.
I’ll say it again, if people want something like bike boxes, then they need to speak up for them. And do so not just in online forums but at actual meetings of organizations, government panels, elected representatives, etc.
For instance, SDCBC currently has five open “at-large” board positions. Nominations take place in April and May, and the vote of the membership takes place at a meeting in June. Who’s up for running for one of those positions, either through board nomination in April, or nomination from the floor in May? (I’m tempted to volunteer myself, but I’m already on one non-profit board that keeps me busy enough.)
SDCBC currently has no position on bike boxes, but is obviously the organization in San Diego with the political contacts to try to get something done. Maybe a caucus of new board members working with Serge and other like-minded current board members could adopt a position in favor and begin working on ways to fix the legal issues around bike boxes in California, or work around those issues through the FHWA, or whatever approach is deemed best.
-Larry
Soooo, everybody get that out of their systems? Or should we start moderating this thread?
Personal attacks and references to ongoing conflicts from other venues= bad. Constructive conversation and respectful disagreement = good.
John, it’s my opinion, this is a website about San Diego ~ and the article was about the lack of support for bike boxes. Vehicular cyclist have been known to be against bike boxes. You posted in defense of someone ~ it’s important that people understand your perspective in relationship to that. Not that you should be ignored, but it should be clear on what your stand point is.
Larry,
I’ve read about your efforts with Anza Borrego, and I can see you’re very dedicated to what you do, and thus your reservations about stepping upto yet more responsibility.
Falling back to Forrester ~ “That is, the only argument that can be made for them is that most people like them, when it is well known that most people have thoroughly erroneous ideas about traffic bicycling.” ~ quoting John Forrester.
This is not an attempt at open discussion. This is a statement. Vehicular Cyclist propose something that does not fit with current or future cycling in San Diego. Starting with the 4 foot out from door zone concept moving on to the “we don’t need bike lanes” ideal. It is unfortunate that they are so vocal, and others are silent.
Onto the subject of cutting off discussion; the presence of adament and aggresive internet keyboard cowboys has dissuaded many new cyclist from coming forth for cycling or to participate. I’ve heard this, in person, time and time again. While I’m sure that some may be looking for a credential check, a quick poll of normal, average cyclist, agree that most internet discussion consist of some people telling them (not teaching) how to ride, and that if they don’t, they risk death due to thier own fault.
I’ll say it again, Vehicular Cyclist are a strong voice for a very small group of people who do not represent the whole. Thier on line banter, constant posting creates an image of a larger group than they are, and as such, garner more “ear” than they deserve. When a larger group says they don’t support some of the ideals of Vehicular Cycling; the approach is “I know better than the populace”.
“But bicycle drivers still have the task that is all-important to them, which is preserving cyclists’ right to operate as drivers of vehicles, no matter what most cyclists choose to do and against governmental policy.” This quote, directly from the VC mailing list on google.-
I’m attacking a wrong message, and not, per se, a person.
The SDCBC is a very effective and well established organization. They have accomplished much in 2009, and have very ambitoius and well founded goals in 2010. I intend to help them. But, I’m not bring in SDCBC into this debate, other than some of the board members who want to advocate thier VC ideals as what should be SDCBC’s ideals. There is some commonality to be sure, but there are also severe divergences, and I don’t wish us to waiste time as Auston did working around extremist with a VC agenda.
Bic Control, yes, when a bicyclist is first to arrive at a red light, a bike box might encourage better positioning. I’m not sure. But when cars are already stopped, it is my understanding that bike boxes encourage cyclists to ride up to the front of the queue and “cut” in front of the first vehicle in line. I know a lot of bicyclists already do this (using a crosswalk as bike box), but is that behavior we want to encourage through engineering?
The best known results are mixed at best. I agree more experimenting is needed to be sure, but it’s pretty clear that bike boxes are no big safety breakthrough. At best they’re probably close to a wash in terms of actual safety. What they do convey is “special status” for bicyclists. Whether that’s ultimately good or bad for bicyclists and advocacy, and whether that’s even an appropriate purpose for a traffic control to fulfill, is what the debate is probably ultimately about.
But I remain on the fence about bike boxes, as I was with sharrows for a long time (of which I’m now a strong proponent). The legal issues need to be worked out, and then we need to see if bike boxes actually encourage appropriate behavior for both motorists as well as bicyclists at intersections.
Okay, so I’ve edited this thread to remove what some participants felt were personal attacks. There is still some “passionate” language, but I believe that it is in keeping with the significance of the conversation.
It is not typical BikeSD policy to edit comments in this way, and it would be great if I didn’t have to do it again.
William, you quoted John Forester without comment, “That is, the only argument that can be made for [bike boxes] is that most people like them, when it is well known that most people have thoroughly erroneous ideas about traffic bicycling.”
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that “most people have thoroughly erroneous ideas about traffic bicycling”? What do you think are some widely held thoughts about traffic bicycling that are or are not erroneous?
You also wrote: “Vehicular Cyclist propose something that does not fit with current or future cycling in San Diego. ” You follow that with references to VC ideas like riding outside of door zones and bike lanes not being a need of bicyclists. Are these examples of what you think vehicular cyclists propose that “does not fit with current or future cycling in San Diego.”? Or is there something else?
You also provide this quote: “But bicycle drivers still have the task that is all-important to them, which is preserving cyclists’ right to operate as drivers of vehicles, no matter what most cyclists choose to do and against governmental policy.” Do you disagree with the statement that preserving our right to operate as drivers of vehicles is all-important? This is ultimately what is currently at stake in an astonishing number of cases across the country, including Andrew Woolley’s case in San Diego.
The most effective way to increase the general public’s and law enforcement’s understanding of cyclists’ rights is to increase the number of people on bicycles. Posters on bus stops don’t do anything. Riding a bicycle does. Knowing someone who rides a bicycle does something real.
The most effective way to increase the number of people on bicycles is to raise gas prices. Hopefully our government will not impose the will of the cycling minority on the general public by artificially raising gas prices because that would make us Soviet. So I’ll consider that beyond the scope of the argument.
The next most effective way to increase the number of people riding bicycles is to make them think that bicycles are a welcome addition to the city’s transportation grid. The average person who doesn’t ride a bike now, but would like to, is mostly worried about safety. I say this based on numerous personal conversations with co-workers, family, friends, and random acquaintances. Not a scientific study.
The most effective way to make people feel safe riding a bicycle is to paint some lines on the road that tell them they have a safe place to ride. We can all discuss whether or not bike lanes or boxes or anything like that are actually safer, but they “feel” safer to most beginning cyclists. The quote that says the benefits of the bike boxes are all in commuters heads proves the point, contrary to the intention of the speaker. That’s exactly why we need things like bike boxes. Because its all in the cyclist’s head! They like them. They feel safer. Thus they ride more.
The best way to make cycling safe for all is to get more cyclists on the road. Bike lanes and bike boxes may not do that on their own, but they encourage it and support a growing culture of bicycle acceptance.
Since when did science really matter, anyway?
I like the way you think and explain yourself, aj. Very reasonable and logical.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether bike lanes (I’m leaving bike boxes out of this because the jury is still out on that) encourage bicycling — really getting people out of cars and onto bikes — to any significant degree.
But even if they did encourage some bicycling by some small degree, at what cost, and is it worth it?
And by “cost” I don’t mean the cost of the facilities themselves, I mean the cost of encouraging bad behavior (on the part of motorists as well as bicyclists), reinforcing knuckle-dragging notions about bicycling in traffic (like bikes should stay to the right of cars, even through bikes at intersections with right turning cars, which is exactly what bike lanes dictate at all intersections without dedicate right turn lanes), including encouraging behavior that leads to crashes and even deaths.
While I want to see more bicyclists out there, I also want to see bicyclists accepted much better as drivers (by motorists, law enforcement and cyclists). If bike lanes help at all with the first initiative, it’s not very much, but they definitely hinder the latter by a lot. I
Wouldn’t you rather make progress on getting more people accepting bicyclists as drivers with education, sharrows, fewer bike lanes and maybe bike boxes, and find other actual effective ways to encourage more bicycling. In fact, getting more people to accept bicyclists as drivers might encourage more bicycling in and of itself.
Its a chicken/egg situation I suppose, depending on what one reads and how one skews statistics. I, personally, believe that to achieve any real acceptance within society, a minority group must reach a “critical mass” of voice/participation. Therefore, I think the primary objective of bicycle advocacy, at its relative infancy, should be to increase that voice and participation. The objective of the civil rights movement, at the start, was not to protect minorities from going to jail. The objective was to reach out and bring common people over to a new world view. Change doesn’t come from a few loud people. Change comes from thousands of relatively quiet people changing their perspective. We have got to protect the rights of all people, cyclists included. But we have to have a real voice to actually accomplish that goal.
I agree with you in general, but I’m not sure I follow the civil rights example. Whether it’s woman rights, civil rights for African Americans, or gay rights, there has always been a lot of focus on establishing legal rights very early in the process. Women achieved equal legal status (right to vote) decades before cultural shifts occurred and glass ceilings were broken.
There is still all too much racism remaining in our society, but at least legally we’ve gotten rid of all the explicit race based bias. It was be very difficult to make progress while blacks and white still had to use separate water fountains. I doubt anyone suggested creating more black/white segregated facilities to bring attention to the plight of blacks and to reach a critical mass of voice and participation as a strategic civil rights initiative. Yet that is the effect of creating more segregated cycle facilities, at least with respect to achieving equal driver rights and treatment.
Many people are going to remain uncomfortable with gays long after their legal rights to marry are established.
What I do see in the cycling community is what apparently has been a problem in these other movements. The prejudices of the society at large are often ingrained in those who are discriminated against. Women reluctant to go against their husbands, fathers, and brothers; blacks not keen on “rocking the boat” (how many prior to Rosa Parks were resigned to live with segregation and not fight it?), gays hesitant to leave the closet… these are often reflections of the bias by the victims of the prejudices against themselves.
I cannot think of a more obvious example of this than bicyclists advocating for segregated facilities that restrict their movement rights and complicate their ability to engage in reasonable, safe and appropriate behavior in traffic. As is often the case, they don’t even realize the influence and role that the anti-bike bias plays in determining how they feel.
Good conversation. Thanks.
Serge,
As I stated a week ago, do not email me any more. It is now border line harassment. And you are, fittingly, on my spam filter now.
Bike lanes are acceptable, and in most cases very safe for most riders. Having bike lanes will not erode our rights. Bike lanes will not force us into riding into small places on the roads at all times. Bike lanes are not the end to “cycling freedom”. There are places where bike lanes are no wide enough, or over poorly paved surfaces, but those places are just like most other roads, some good, some bad. Labeling all bad is not accurate.
Again, in the context of what’s posted above “cycling is only safe if you do it our way, and we know best”. In accurate, untrue, divisive, exclusionary and not fit to what San Diego feels, wants and can do.
For every example you post a story too, we can counter point with a situation that contradicts that example. But there is no need for a tit for tat exchange, which seems to be favored by keyboard cowboys such as yourself.
Texas is by far the best example of the extreme version of VC that failed, and caused delay on decent bike support. One person stated “I know what’s best” and set back a city there for years.
It’s funny how you co-opt AJ’s ticket into how “we need VC”. No, we’re going to have cops, and judges who do stupid things. The fact you some how link your ability to ride in the middle of the street to issues such as civil rights. This indicates you somehow feel you are insufficient. I ride a bike, I’m perfectly fine with it, and no one has taken away my birthday, my testicles, my right to vote, or anything else. With in reason, I ride exactly where I need to be safe. This has not an inclining of a link to the rights of minorities. It is wrong to attempt to tag your issue to that. VC might be a “minority”, but cyclist are not.
It’s not that some of the tenants of VC are wrong, indeed, there are some good. But the wholesale philosophy, the extreme extent of which it is pushed on EVERYONE at any instances, and the “arranging deck chairs on the titanic” way that it is done is with out exception, dumb.
I’ll give you this Serge, you’ve again brought your debate to other places, and rallied your small group of sycophants from around the country. Great job, once again, trying to divide a group of people trying to be a community. Great job, really, at pushing away new people. You’re the reason that the people who are currently riding the streets EVERYDAY don’t join the bike coalition. But that suits you, as you wouldn’t want dissent against your opinion.
People like bike lanes. People like bike boxes. They are not inherently bad. They are only “bad” if cyclists are given no other option. Perhaps if the zealous dedication, the insane number of typing hours, were spent not on doing away with bike lanes and such, and were instead spent on ensuring that laws were passed or changed that allow safe bicycling outside of those painted lines, everyone would be a winner. When we don’t allow bike lanes in the first place, only a few people “win”, and in the long run, I’d say that victory is debatable.
Cyclists have rights NOW. We’re already ALLOWED to ride in the street. The law says so. Mistaking the uneducated opinion of some police officers for widespread conspiracy to strip cyclists of their rights is a bit paranoid.
I’ve actually had to fight this fight, in real life (not on internet forums) and I won. Right? I won! And got the attention of the City Council. One dumb cop and one dumb judge, and a whole network of people working to fix the situation. That doesn’t sound like persecution and “loss of rights.” We have rights.
Editor’s Note: Comment has been edited for clarity
AJ, I am involved with county, state and national organizations and efforts to fix the laws that unduly restrict bicyclist movement, but part of that effort is trying to gather support for such efforts within the cycling community. Most people have no idea the role the type of riding encouraged by bike lanes plays in causing conflicts in the streets and are so enamored with bike lanes that they don’t care that they’re required by law to ride in them. Many are resistant when those like myself point out the problems.
No one here is saying all bike lanes are bad or should not be allowed.
Yes, cyclists have rights now, but these rights are limited by CVC 21202 and 21208 – the latter requiring use of bike lanes when present (except for the little-known and often ignored-by-law exceptions).
I’m very glad you won, but it was wrong you had to go through that process, and in your case there should have been no question that what you did was lawful. In many other cases it’s not nearly as clear.
Editor’s Note: Comment has been edited for length
I never said all bike lanes are “bad”, nor did I ever say they should not be allowed. My main concern about bike lanes is not the bike lanes themselves, but the support for them and, in particular, what that implies about their understanding (and lack thereof) of bicycle traffic safety. There are many legitimate concerns about bike lanes, which are explained here:
http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/faq#15
Of course we have rights. So did women, blacks and gays. Blacks had the right to drink water, just not from the same fountains. Women had the right to shop, just not to vote. Gays have the right to cohabitate and love each other, just not get married. All of these official manifestations of bias create and reinforce bias in the culture at large. And so it is with bicyclists today.
I also never said that there is a conspiracy to strip us of our rights. But, I will note that there does appear to be a high correlation between countries which have a lot of segregated cycle facilities and countries in which bicyclists are banned from riding on roads.
I never said all bike lanes are “bad”, nor did I ever say they should not be allowed. My main concern about bike lanes is not the bike lanes themselves, but the support for them and, in particular, what that implies about the understanding (and lack thereof) of bicycle traffic safety. There are many legitimate but not widely known and appreciated concerns about bike lanes, which are explained here:
http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/faq#15
Of course we have rights. So did women, blacks and gays. Blacks had the right to drink water, just not from the same fountains. Women had the right to shop, just not to vote. Gays have the right to cohabitate and love each other, just not get married. All of these official manifestations of bias create and reinforce bias in the culture at large. And so it is with bicyclists today.
The problem is never NO rights, it’s no EQUAL rights. Bicyclists are not treated equally with respect to movement rights on the road. There are reasonable rules for regulating the movement of slow moving vehicles, and in some states those are the laws that apply equally to bicyclists. But in most states, including California, the law goes beyond that, and creates undue restrictions that apply specifically to bicyclists, which allows biased officers and judges free reign to interpret those laws with their anti-bike bias, and puts the onus on the bicyclist to prove he is innocent. You should know this better than anyone. Nobody should have to go through what you did. By the way, is that officially resolved yet? I never heard a final official outcome beyond the letter from the city attorney.
I also never said that there is a conspiracy to strip us of our rights. But, I will note that there does appear to be a high correlation between countries which have a lot of segregated cycle facilities and countries in which bicyclists are banned from riding on roads.
[Editor's Note]: Okay folks, let’s call it–this thread has become unproductive. Thanks to all for the great conversation, even if it did get a little intense at times. We obviously have some very passionate opinions out there, and I’ll look forward to having this discussion in more appropriate and productive venues.
I suggest comments be for the stories themselves, and not for commenting on other’s comments. There are other places on the internet for those discussions, and they should not be brought here. So, let’s “move on”, if that’s possible for everyone.
That’s a good suggestion William, makes sense. Thanks.
And sorry Thomas for my part in this divergence, if you will.
Of course, the option that would be best for everyone would be a light that stays green long enough for a cyclist…only if a cyclist were present. This is theoretically possible as traffic signals are slowly getting transitioned to optical car/bike detection instead of induction loop based technology. I have no idea if the current technology does this; I suspect not since they’re integrated into older systems with induction loops (and as such the traffic computer wouldn’t have any provision for knowing the speed of a particular vehicle). I would love to be pleasantly surprised, though.
As technology gets better and cheaper perhaps we’ll see more of this. As usual, though, the biggest cost is of course the labor and integration/installation, not the technology itself.
It had been quite useful. many thanks for sharing. I am going to share it with my friends. Thank you
Assemblymember Atkins just introduced a bill to ensure that all users of the road are consulted by the CTCDC. AB 345 requires the CTCDC to work with groups representing all users of the road as defined in the complete streets act of 2008.