L.A. Times: A tax on bikes? Hit the road, some cyclists say (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bike-tax-northwest-20130307,0,1525758.story)
QuoteOn the road to a new bicycle tax in Washington state -- more on that in a second -- a legislator, by his own admission, said a rather silly thing to a Tacoma bike shop owner last week.
Quote"If I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration," state Rep. Ed Orcutt wrote in a Feb. 25 email to that owner, Dale Carlson, who shared it with the Los Angeles Times. "That means the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride."
Why not? I'm in favor of licensing them.
license should be in stick form, applied vigorously through front spokes of any bicyclist who runs a four-way stop.
Why not? Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes. Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?
No offense but I think that would be stupid to have to have a license for a bicycle. Just another way the government is tryng to control you. Maybe Michell Obama is wrong. We should stop exercising because we are pollutinng the air when we do. Let's ban basketball, football, baseball and any other sport. Maybe we should have an oxygen task, a penny for every time we breathe because every time we exhale were polluting the air. GIVE ME A BREAK!
We've already discussed this ad nauseam and there's no point in going through the motions again.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Why not? Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes. Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?
Exactly. Bike owners not only freeload on the existing infastructure, but demand special infastructure that other's cannot use.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 08, 2013, 05:23:48 PM
special infastructure that other's cannot use.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjerryandcorrine.com%2FBicycle%2Fprohibited.jpg&hash=6da7a2e0f8a9bc29481954e97062b70b878894ac)
Umm, and????
Any roadway is paid for by roadway users, via the gas tax.
A bike lane, which no one but a bike user can use, is currently paid for, also, by the gas tax.
Which is, of course, bad public policy. Tax bikes and free up more money for more roadways. Its all about fairness.
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2013, 05:37:57 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 08, 2013, 05:23:48 PM
special infastructure that other's cannot use.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjerryandcorrine.com%2FBicycle%2Fprohibited.jpg&hash=6da7a2e0f8a9bc29481954e97062b70b878894ac)
But then those freeways were paid for by motor fuel taxes, which pedestrians and bicycles do not pay. Not much different from not allowing someone on a toll road if they didn't pay a toll. (Of course, this ignores that the reason that sign was posted was more likely not about taxes, but because of the safety issue that having bikes and peds around 70+ MPH traffic causes.)
I would be okay with a bike sales tax if the funds raised by it went to a dedicated fund for building biking facilities. Not if it went to a general fund or even just a transportation fund though. It's not like it would even be all that onerous, since honestly, how often do you need to purchase a new bike?
Ah, the old lie about roads paying for themselves. Call me when you're done.
As a homeowner, I am required by my municipality to pay directly for sidewalk repair or replacement adjacent to my property, as well as snow removal. Yet, pedestrians are allowed to use my "foot highway" for free. I am considering setting up a toll system (open tolling, of course.) I now need to work out the method of putting transponders on my primary user group, which would be elementary school students on their way to and from classes. I am considering using a pricing structure similar to the OH and PA turnpikes, where they will pay by weight class. This whole childhood obesity thing might really pay handsome dividends for me!
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2013, 05:52:42 PM
Ah, the old lie about roads paying for themselves. Call me when you're done.
Ah yes, the old lie about roads not being paid for by road users. We're talking freeways and tollways, not the street in front of your goat's house.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 08, 2013, 05:48:29 PM
Any roadway is paid for by roadway users, via the gas tax.
A bike lane, which no one but a bike user can use, is currently paid for, also, by the gas tax.
In most states, property taxes pay for the local streets. Bike owners pay property taxes too. Freeways are mostly payed for with gas taxes, and oddly enough most of the time bikes can't use them.
The Head of the NYC Transportation Dept a few years back had a proposal to have bicycle riders 18+ get a Bicyclist License and Plates for there bicycle(S). for a yearly renewal fee for both the license and the plates. The cost was not stated and both bicyclists and Transportation Alternatives vetoed the plan in front of Mayor Bloomberg and the city council.
Hold it right there. You see how stupid this is?! Hell, Alanland does and doesn't seem to mind taxing cyclists. Give me a break. A pedal-power cycle does not emit CO2. Cars and motorized bikes do.
Vote against this. Don't bring any of that shit to Montana!
Tax-hungry states like NY and CA will look for any source of revenue they can devise. What would be next, in-line skate registration?
Quote from: kkt on March 08, 2013, 07:01:54 PMIn most states, property taxes pay for the local streets.
This is not generally the only source of revenue, though--in most states, a fraction of the state gas tax is diverted to cities and counties for road purposes. I am actually not sure there is any part of the street network in the typical city for which all construction and maintenance services are paid for
solely by property taxes. Roads inside subdivisions, for example, typically don't get snow removal, but they typically get sand seals or concrete repair at least once a decade, and I think at least part of the funding for that ultimately comes from the state gas tax.
QuoteBike owners pay property taxes too. Freeways are mostly paid for with gas taxes, and oddly enough most of the time bikes can't use them.
This is true, but they are also not directly exposed to the fuel tax since they don't burn fuel on the freeways (though they do pay indirectly since the fuel tax others pay is an included cost in goods and services they buy). This is one of the reasons a fuel tax for freeway construction is less problematic than, say, a sales tax increment.
About the original story: what is a legislator from Kalama, Washington (I-5 corridor, east of the Cascades, in a state where left-wing orientation supposedly matches rainfall intensity) doing pushing the idea that bicycling is carbon-intense transportation?
The ultimate expression of this tendency of thought was a calculation, done years ago by someone posting to alt.planning.urban or misc.transport.urban-transit, that bicyclists have an "effective fuel economy" of about 50 MPG once the indirect effects of fuel consumption in the food distribution system are taken into account. (The basic idea was this: each bicycle trip corresponds to an added increment of fuel consumption for trucks to bring food from the farm to the distribution center, and then from the distribution center to the supermarket. The focus on increments was an attempt to evade the problem of joint costs, which makes this calculation nonsensical.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2013, 10:59:28 PM
This is not generally the only source of revenue, though--in most states, a fraction of the state gas tax is diverted to cities and counties for road purposes.
Though then there are states like Virginia, where nearly all public streets and roads are maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation. As others and I have mentioned before (so pardon the redundancy), two Virginia counties maintain their own secondary road networks (Arlington and Henrico), and most Virginia cities (independent of any county) and towns (part of a surrounding county) maintain their streets and roads, though they get funding from VDOT to maintain their "urban system."
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2013, 10:59:28 PM
About the original story: what is a legislator from Kalama, Washington (I-5 corridor, east of the Cascades, in a state where left-wing orientation supposedly matches rainfall intensity) doing pushing the idea that bicycling is carbon-intense transportation?
He's a Repub troll.
QuoteAbout the original story: what is a legislator from Kalama, Washington (I-5 corridor, east of the Cascades, in a state where left-wing orientation supposedly matches rainfall intensity) doing pushing the idea that bicycling is carbon-intense transportation?
Parts of western Washington, particularly around Longview/Kelso and Chehalis/Centralia are pretty Republican
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2013, 10:59:28 PM
About the original story: what is a legislator from Kalama, Washington (I-5 corridor, east of the Cascades, in a state where left-wing orientation supposedly matches rainfall intensity) doing pushing the idea that bicycling is carbon-intense transportation?
The liberal/conservative divide is not strictly along the Cascades. Plenty of conservatives in the rural parts of western Washington. And of course plenty of wackos everywhere. And you mean "west of the Cascades".
In Portland, Oregon - the city does not receive property tax revenues to fund city streets - it is all gas tax revenue handed down by the state. Multnomah County spends very little if anything from property tax revenues.
However, in Washington County there is a voter approved tax levy, so that county does use property tax dollars for targeted street projects - where almost always, bike lanes are part of the project.
As for the "conservative/liberal" divide, for Oregon - the liberal counties are Multnomah, Washington, Benton and Lane Counties. Of course these four counties combined have 44.5% of Oregon's total population. There are several counties that have almost a 50/50 split - counties like Clackamas, Marion, Polk, Deschutes, Lincoln and Hood River. And everyone else - definitely Republican. That would include Yamhill, and Linn Counties in the Willamette Valley, most of the coastal counties, virtually everyone out east (except Deschutes County), everyone south of Eugene...
I fail to see how a registration fee for bikes is any different than a registration fee for cars.
Why has nobody mentioned taxing skateboards, roller blades, tricycles, Big Wheels, ice skates, running shoes, jump ropes, chin-up bars, Wii games, tennis racquets, garden hoes, or bottles of personal lubricant? Doesn't the purchase of these items promote greater emmision of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere just as the purchase of a bicycle does?
Maybe a more reasonable approach would be to legislate a legal minimum psi for bicycle tires (maybe 40 psi for knobbies and 95 psi for smoothies). After all, underinflation leads to a more difficult ride and therefore more carbon dioxide exhaled. Plus, overinflation increases the likelihood of a blowout, which then requires the cyclist to take a break from his/her ride until the flat is fixed–which involves one of two things: (1) walking the bike the rest of the way, at a more normal breathing rate, or (2) fixing the flat at the side of the road, allowing his/her breathing to return to a more normal rate before continuing on.
As for a tax on bikes paying for the roads.....
Just think about how much money is spent repairing pavement that's been damaged by the incessant pounding of bicycle traffic–especially training wheels, which are not pneumatic tires. Then there's the wintertime plowing, pre-treating, and salting of sidewalks to keep them clear for bicycle traffic (because we all know they don't belong on the street); the installation, regular maintenance, and eventual replacement of bicycle racks at government buildings and parks; and the list goes on! How have we let this outrage go on for so long?
^^ Actually, the idea of licensing would be more for enforcement purposes than maintenance. You could then ticket bicyclists who illegally (and dangerously) run red lights and stop signs easier. Shoot, you could turn the red light cameras on them with a visible license plate on the bike.
Licensing bicyclist... where do you start? If age 18, do you stop all 17 year-old-looking cyclists? Licensing because of enforcement possibilities? Have you driven a car on ANY roadway lately? I'm willing to bet most are licensed. Has that helped? Enforce the existing vehicle code when a cyclists breaks the law. It is that simple. Enforce the existing vehicle code when a motorist passes to close, harasses, or anything else detrimental to the health and safety of the cyclist. Roadways aren't paid for entirely by "gas taxes" in the first place. How much ACTUAL revenue would be generated by licensing? There are still extra costs associated with it after all.
Simply put, guy in WA is an idiot trying to make a name for himself, nothing more.
Quote from: deanej on March 09, 2013, 12:08:00 PM
I fail to see how a registration fee for bikes is any different than a registration fee for cars.
The registration fee on cars pays for a nationwide title system, so a stolen car has some chance of being tracked down. Is there going to be a nationwide title system for stolen bikes with ownership listed so that it's harder to dispose of a stolen one? If not, I don't see what bicyclists get out of it.
It seems logical at first to tax cyclists for bicycle infrastructure the same way motorists are taxed for car infrastructure... until you realize that the capital and maintenance costs of bicycle infrastructure are very minimal compared to those of car infrastructure. Usually the former is part of the latter and thus has practically no marginal cost.
The other thing to realize is that car taxes supporting car infrastructure is a logic usually only in place for state-maintained highways. Local streets used mostly by locals are typically maintained from local property tax revenue. Since bicycling is almost always a fairly local mode of transportation (chances are you never ride your bike too far from home), it isn't in any way odd to have that money also come from property taxes.
And after all, sidewalks are maintained with property taxes and no one is talking about a pedestrian tax. Really, you're just looking at another "creative" scheme to raise tax revenue in a way that might be more politically palatable by imposing it only on a small group of citizens, so most people won't have to pay it and thus have no personal reason to oppose it.
Another thing to realize is that bike infrastructure (especially the cheap-as-fuck repainting of a wide outside lane into a normal width lane with bike lane) usually helps motorists at least as much as it helps cyclists, since the cyclists are no longer slowing down motorists who are continuing straight.
As for more expensive projects like overpasses, consider this: a major highway has a few at-grade intersections through a mid-sized town. Local residents don't have much trouble crossing the highway by car, bike, or foot, due to traffic lights, but the highway frequently gets congested. If you replace the intersections with interchanges, who benefits the most? If you said locals crossing the highway, you're an idiot.
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2013, 10:08:08 PM
Quote from: deanej on March 09, 2013, 12:08:00 PM
I fail to see how a registration fee for bikes is any different than a registration fee for cars.
The registration fee on cars pays for a nationwide title system, so a stolen car has some chance of being tracked down. Is there going to be a nationwide title system for stolen bikes with ownership listed so that it's harder to dispose of a stolen one? If not, I don't see what bicyclists get out of it.
That would be a good idea, though I always assumed that car registration was just a creative way to tax people.
Quote from: NE2 on March 09, 2013, 11:55:47 PM
Another thing to realize is that bike infrastructure (especially the cheap-as-fuck repainting of a wide outside lane into a normal width lane with bike lane) usually helps motorists at least as much as it helps cyclists, since the cyclists are no longer slowing down motorists who are continuing straight.
As for more expensive projects like overpasses, consider this: a major highway has a few at-grade intersections through a mid-sized town. Local residents don't have much trouble crossing the highway by car, bike, or foot, due to traffic lights, but the highway frequently gets congested. If you replace the intersections with interchanges, who benefits the most? If you said locals crossing the highway, you're an idiot.
As a local, I would much prefer to cross at an overpass. At least then you don't have to wait at a traffic light that's red 90% of the time and usually has a long wait, and it's easier/safer for pedestrians, who no longer have to wait five minutes for the walk cycle.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Why not? Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes. Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?
This. Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes. Stop making car users pay for transit. Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it. It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2013, 10:59:28 PM
About the original story: what is a legislator from Kalama, Washington (I-5 corridor, east of the Cascades, in a state where left-wing orientation supposedly matches rainfall intensity) doing pushing the idea that bicycling is carbon-intense transportation?
He's a Repub troll.
No, he is throwing their same tired talking points back in their faces. The anti-carbon religious wackos are the trolls.
Quote from: deanej on March 10, 2013, 11:57:03 AMThat [registration for bicycles to enable tracking down in case of theft] would be a good idea, though I always assumed that car registration was just a creative way to tax people.
Registration has been used in the past as a means to fund improvement and extension of the highway system, though it is not particularly well-suited for that purpose and it is generally better to use a mechanism that is more directly related to actual use. (In Britain the entirety of the tax for road use was put on the vehicle license in 1920, but even then this was widely and correctly seen as a second-best solution compared to charging tax on motor fuel. The excuse given for not doing so was that, at the time, there were differential tax rates for fuel because of imperial preference, which created the possibility of fraud through mixing chemically similar fuels taxed at different rates.) Nowadays, I think in most US states--Kansas being one exception--it is the norm to have a registration system where the cost to keep the registration current just barely suffices to pay the administrative overhead associated with running the system.
It is already possible to have bicycles marked inconspicuously so that if they are stolen and later recovered by the police, the owners can be tracked down and reunited with their bicycles. I have never heard of anyone getting a stolen bicycle back in this way, however. The reason for this is that police resource for property crimes tends to follow the highest-value items. Even a used car in poor repair is easily worth several thousands of dollars; in contrast, it is hard to find a bicycle worth that much (an ordinary hybrid bicycle, which is usually what you want for urban commuting and leisure cycling, costs about $200). There is also a public-interest consideration if the thieves are caught. Is the public better served by locking up a bicycle thief for a year, at a cost of approximately $30,000 for room, board, and three squares, just to spare a few dozen people the inconvenience of losing $200 each? It is comparable to (though less extreme than) prosecuting someone for stealing a loaf of bread.
Quote from: Landshark on March 10, 2013, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Why not? Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes. Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?
This. Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes. Stop making car users pay for transit. Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it. It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.
The streets of New York, San Francisco, and older parts of many other cities were built for pedestrians, horses, bicycles, and perhaps the occasional streetcar. Should we kick the cars out?
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 10, 2013, 04:17:25 PM
The reason for this is that police resource for property crimes tends to follow the highest-value items. Even a used car in poor repair is easily worth several thousands of dollars; in contrast, it is hard to find a bicycle worth that much (an ordinary hybrid bicycle, which is usually what you want for urban commuting and leisure cycling, costs about $200). There is also a public-interest consideration if the thieves are caught. Is the public better served by locking up a bicycle thief for a year, at a cost of approximately $30,000 for room, board, and three squares, just to spare a few dozen people the inconvenience of losing $200 each? It is comparable to (though less extreme than) prosecuting someone for stealing a loaf of bread.
My bicycle costs $1400. It was my primary transportation for over a year between the point I sold my car and bought my motorcycle. I still ride the bicycle often. I would think that theft is still theft. Or... would you rather your primary mode of transport was stolen and have the police not care? Most bicycles cost far more than $200 and even then that isn't the issue. It isn't closely comparable to stealing a loaf of bread (unless you count the fact that both are involving theft). So yes, it is in the public's interest to prosecute thieves regardless of what is stolen.
As to costs of bicycling infrastructure? I don't have to ride on a bike path nor a road with a bike lane. Bike lanes are involving paint. Freeways involve a bit more. I-405 over Sepulveda Pass has just one lane being added at the cost of over $1B. Are the users paying for that?
Quote from: sdmichael on March 10, 2013, 08:39:35 PM
My bicycle costs $1400. It was my primary transportation for over a year between the point I sold my car and bought my motorcycle. I still ride the bicycle often. I would think that theft is still theft. Or... would you rather your primary mode of transport was stolen and have the police not care? Most bicycles cost far more than $200 and even then that isn't the issue. It isn't closely comparable to stealing a loaf of bread (unless you count the fact that both are involving theft). So yes, it is in the public's interest to prosecute thieves regardless of what is stolen.
As to costs of bicycling infrastructure? I don't have to ride on a bike path nor a road with a bike lane. Bike lanes are involving paint. Freeways involve a bit more. I-405 over Sepulveda Pass has just one lane being added at the cost of over $1B. Are the users paying for that?
Here in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. we are completing a new toll road linking two counties.
Along much of the toll road, a brand-new bike trail was built.
Taxes levied on bike rides have not paid a dime toward the design, engineering or construction of the trail (since there are none).
Quote from: kkt on March 10, 2013, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: Landshark on March 10, 2013, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Why not? Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes. Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?
This. Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes. Stop making car users pay for transit. Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it. It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.
The streets of New York, San Francisco, and older parts of many other cities were built for pedestrians, horses, bicycles, and perhaps the occasional streetcar. Should we kick the cars out?
They have in some European cities. It was tried to an extent along some streets in the US such as State Street in Chicago. The experiment there was a massive failure. The only North American cities it might work well in are Downtown Manhattan, New York; Central Boston; and a few other areas. Most US and Canadian cities were surveyed with fairly wide streets, typically one chain (66 feet) or more in width. On those streets, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians can coexist.
To be frank, many (the vast majority except a few critical mass twits), but not all, bicyclists are also car drivers and do pay taxes via sales and property taxes (local roads and street) as well as the motor vehicle fuel taxes (state roads and freeways). When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other. But, as for taxes, they pretty much already pay these via other means (there's a sales tax anyway when they bought the bike - I know, I paid one when I bought one). I want the licensing to weed out the assholes who give the majority of us law-abiding bicyclists a bad name.
Quote from: sdmichael on March 10, 2013, 08:39:35 PMMy bicycle costs $1400. It was my primary transportation for over a year between the point I sold my car and bought my motorcycle. I still ride the bicycle often. I would think that theft is still theft.
If you are riding on a bicycle costing $1400, then you have spent almost half again as much on bicycle purchases as I did in the more than ten years I was a daily cycle commuter.
QuoteOr... would you rather your primary mode of transport was stolen and have the police not care? Most bicycles cost far more than $200 and even then that isn't the issue. It isn't closely comparable to stealing a loaf of bread (unless you count the fact that both are involving theft). So yes, it is in the public's interest to prosecute thieves regardless of what is stolen.
I know whereof I speak. I owned a total of four bicycles: two were stolen, and one was destroyed in an accident. I purchased all four brand-new, and each cost in the neighborhood of $200 (though of course I paid in local currency--generally around £140). I reported only one of the stolen cycles and gave up after two visits to the police property room to see if it had been recovered--as far as I know, my report of the theft is still on file, but in almost eight years I have never been told the cycle has been recovered.
This was in a country of 50 million where the prison population was around 70,000. Compare that to the USA, where we have about 1 million prisoners out of a population of 300 million. Rather lopsided, isn't it? The way I see it, you can pay to self-insure and just replace a cycle every time it gets stolen (which is what I did), you can throw money out of the window and have an insurance company assume the risk, or you can press to have people sent to prison for petty larceny (which is what theft of a bicycle costing $200 new essentially amounts to) and then pay a fortune in taxes to build prisons and hire judges, prosecutors, police property detectives, etc. It is a reasonably straightforward cost-benefit calculation and bicycle theft is one of those cases where prevention yields an almost infinitely higher rate of return than cure.
I won't deny that I entertained fantasies of homicide in the event I ever caught up with the person or people who stole my bicycles, but on the other hand I was already making out like a bandit because the purchase price of a bicycle was less than half the £300 I would have paid annually for the next best alternative (a bus pass). Plus I was in the fortunate position of never having to choose between eating and replacing a stolen bicycle.
QuoteAs to costs of bicycling infrastructure? I don't have to ride on a bike path nor a road with a bike lane. Bike lanes are involving paint. Freeways involve a bit more. I-405 over Sepulveda Pass has just one lane being added at the cost of over $1B. Are the users paying for that?
It's more than just paint--some cycle tracks are significant investments, requiring considerable planning, design, and engineering effort. And even the painted-on tracks typically require some engineering analysis to assess their safety and suitability. Plus, in some congested urban locales, motorists are not unreasonable to complain that cyclist use of the street reduces its utility for them.
In a nutshell, this is what I believe:
* Cyclists deserve some form of preferential treatment in infrastructure provision.
* Preferential treatment is in fact provided, though not to nearly the extent that many motorists believe (I am agnostic as to whether the extent of preference is more or less than that which would be socially justified).
* Calls for greater or heavier enforcement--against Lycra-lout cyclists, against bicycle thieves, etc.--are more often expressions of sublimated frustration rather than good public policy.
As to whether the "users" pay for additional lanes on the 405 over the Sepulveda Pass--yes, absolutely. It is when it comes to indirect costs that the accounting gets fuzzy.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 10, 2013, 11:28:33 PM
And even the painted-on tracks typically require some engineering analysis to assess their safety and suitability.
Which rarely actually happens.
Quote from: Landshark on March 10, 2013, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Why not? Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes. Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?
This. Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes. Stop making car users pay for transit. Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it. It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.
I don't care about bike lanes. I've never asked for more bike lanes. The streets that end up getting bike lanes typically were plenty wide enough for safe cycling without the extra paint anyway. I'm perfectly content cycling on the streets the way they are. Why should I have to pay more because someone else wants them? And, yes, I have a car, so I am already paying in.
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2013, 10:12:38 PM
When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other
So my five-year-old son should be required to carry a license with him when we ride our bikes to the park or down to the corner store?
I am not for taxing or licensing bikes or their riders. I do, however, feel it would be a great idea for a bike to have a VIN plate, as well as an etched serial number in multiple places, (including a hidden one or two.)
This would help with the theft rate; as well as seeing more stolen bikes returned to their rightful owners.
I have a sticker on my bike from registering it with the River Forest, Illinois, police department back in 2000.
A fat lot of good it would do me in 2013 in Wichita, Kansas, I'm sure. :nod:
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2013, 01:13:20 PM
I have a sticker on my bike from registering it with the River Forest, Illinois, police department back in 2000.
A fat lot of good it would do me in 2013 in Wichita, Kansas, I'm sure. :nod:
It might do some good if the thief rode it from Wichita to River Forest! :nod:
Quote from: djsinco on March 11, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2013, 01:13:20 PM
I have a sticker on my bike from registering it with the River Forest, Illinois, police department back in 2000.
A fat lot of good it would do me in 2013 in Wichita, Kansas, I'm sure. :nod:
It might do some good if the thief rode it from Wichita to River Forest! :nod:
Doubt it. Cf https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8957.msg208595#msg208595 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8957.msg208595#msg208595)
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2013, 11:18:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2013, 10:12:38 PM
When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other
So my five-year-old son should be required to carry a license with him when we ride our bikes to the park or down to the corner store?
No, it would be a plate for the bike, not a card for the rider, and it would only be on adult-sized bicycles only. It's maddening as a driver and a pedestrian when these folks who are adults ride with complete impunity.
Quote from: Brandon on March 11, 2013, 05:22:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2013, 11:18:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2013, 10:12:38 PM
When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other
So my five-year-old son should be required to carry a license with him when we ride our bikes to the park or down to the corner store?
No, it would be a plate for the bike, not a card for the rider, and it would only be on adult-sized bicycles only. It's maddening as a driver and a pedestrian when these folks who are adults ride with complete impunity.
This is exactly the same argument I have with my brother who is an avid cyclist and let me preface this by saying that as long as a cyclist obeys the rules of the road, I have no issue with them in sharing the road.
That being said, they should have the bike plated and registered so that when a cyclist decides to be a moron and blow a red light or stop sign, they get the equivalent of a red light ticket, maybe not as much as a car but still a ticket.
My question though is what to do with a cyclist who does not pay the ticket? I would assume that the majority of cyclists have a driver's license too. Perhaps points against their license for failing to pay?
And think of it this way. Those tickets for cyclists could pay a portion for things such as bike lanes and converting old abandoned railroad lines to bike trails.
Okay, here's the point - our "car dollars" (gas tax, license/reg fees, etc.) are going to maintain the PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, not just the concrete from curb to curb. That means car dollars subsidize sidewalks. Why? Because people walking in the street is more dangerous than walking on the sidewalk. That means car dollars subsidize bike lanes. Why? Because telling bikes where to stay and telling cars where to expect the bikes is a lot safer than having bicyclists and cars both try to judge for themselves. Etc., etc., etc., etc. For what it's worth, there are enough other things tugging at your "transportation dollars" (in most states, the revenue is not 100% dedicated to the infrastructure) that you ought to be complaining about that first before complaining about an uneven distribution of transportation dollars.
Finally, as another FWIW, the costs to construct and maintain non-road user rights of way are minimal compared to overall project costs. And the damage done per car, or especially per truck, is more than an entire years' worth of peds and bikes.
Quote from: Steve on March 11, 2013, 10:05:52 PM
Okay, here's the point - our "car dollars" (gas tax, license/reg fees, etc.) are going to maintain the PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, not just the concrete from curb to curb. That means car dollars subsidize sidewalks. Why? Because people walking in the street is more dangerous than walking on the sidewalk. That means car dollars subsidize bike lanes. Why? Because telling bikes where to stay and telling cars where to expect the bikes is a lot safer than having bicyclists and cars both try to judge for themselves. Etc., etc., etc., etc. For what it's worth, there are enough other things tugging at your "transportation dollars" (in most states, the revenue is not 100% dedicated to the infrastructure) that you ought to be complaining about that first before complaining about an uneven distribution of transportation dollars.
Finally, as another FWIW, the costs to construct and maintain non-road user rights of way are minimal compared to overall project costs. And the damage done per car, or especially per truck, is more than an entire years' worth of peds and bikes.
All of the above is correct.
And I don't mind enhancing the highway network to make it more usable for bikes and pedestrians, and you give some very good reasons for doing so (especially when we can reduce or even eliminate dangerous interaction between motorized traffic and non-motorized traffic).
When the Woodrow Wilson Bridge was reconstructed, a very nice bike and pedestrian trail was built, that now connects U.S. 1 and Va. 400 with National Harbor and Md. 414, and the marginal cost was quite low, even though a new bike and pedestrian overpass had to be built on Rosalie Island over the freeway at the Maryland end of the crossing. Before that trail was opened, I saw more than one person (illegally) walking on the (very narrow) old WWB shoulders to get across the Potomac River from Virginia to Maryland or vice versa.
What I
do mind is advocates for the bicycle community making assertions that they are entitled to disproportionately huge shares of the (limited) pot of money for tax-funded (or even toll-funded) highway improvements for reasons of moral superiority.
That I do not appreciate.
And asking bike purchasers to make a (modest) tax payment to help fund some of those improvements is not such a bad thing either.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 11, 2013, 07:13:47 PM
They should have the bike plated and registered so that when a cyclist decides to be a moron and blow a red light or stop sign, they get the equivalent of a red light ticket, maybe not as much as a car but still a ticket.
My question though is what to do with a cyclist who does not pay the ticket? I would assume that the majority of cyclists have a driver's license too. Perhaps points against their license for failing to pay?
And think of it this way. Those tickets for cyclists could pay a portion for things such as bike lanes and converting old abandoned railroad lines to bike trails.
Why can a police officer not write a traffic ticket to a cyclist as it is? It's not necessary to have a license plate and registration to get a ticket, or else everyone would just throw away their cars' license plates and registrations. If the cyclist refuses to pay the ticket, then a warrant is issued. Isn't that the way things work, or am I missing something?
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2013, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 11, 2013, 07:13:47 PM
They should have the bike plated and registered so that when a cyclist decides to be a moron and blow a red light or stop sign, they get the equivalent of a red light ticket, maybe not as much as a car but still a ticket.
My question though is what to do with a cyclist who does not pay the ticket? I would assume that the majority of cyclists have a driver's license too. Perhaps points against their license for failing to pay?
And think of it this way. Those tickets for cyclists could pay a portion for things such as bike lanes and converting old abandoned railroad lines to bike trails.
Why can a police officer not write a traffic ticket to a cyclist as it is? It's not necessary to have a license plate and registration to get a ticket, or else everyone would just throw away their cars' license plates and registrations. If the cyclist refuses to pay the ticket, then a warrant is issued. Isn't that the way things work, or am I missing something?
In the case of a red light ticket, the vehicle or in this case bike, would be issued the ticket. Not always is the person driving the car nor the bike going to be the registered owner. For example, I work for a limo company where I do not own any of the vehicles however, I can determine which driver was the one who got the offense by cross referencing it with the schedule. Also, there is not always going to be a cop to give cyclists a ticket when warranted hence the plates for the bikes so that the cyclist can get a ticket.
Huh? I've been pulled over in Illinois for running a red light in my (then) girlfriend's car. The officer let me go without a ticket, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have written it out to the vehicle if a ticket had been issued. I've been pulled over in Kansas while driving my (then) fiancée's car, and the ticket had my name on it, not hers.
Unless you're talking about red light cameras. If so, then I had no idea you were, since Brandon is the only one who's even brought them up on this thread, back on Page 2.
I've been pulled over in a rental car, and let me tell ya, Alamo ain't paying the fine.
I think it is a little precocious to argue that bicyclists should be made to undergo compulsory registration, licensing, and insurance to put them within reach of automated enforcement methods, when there is not even consensus across all fifty states that such methods should be used.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 12, 2013, 05:20:30 PM
precocious
If you say it loud enough.
( anyone? anyone? )
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2013, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 11, 2013, 07:13:47 PM
They should have the bike plated and registered so that when a cyclist decides to be a moron and blow a red light or stop sign, they get the equivalent of a red light ticket, maybe not as much as a car but still a ticket.
My question though is what to do with a cyclist who does not pay the ticket? I would assume that the majority of cyclists have a driver's license too. Perhaps points against their license for failing to pay?
And think of it this way. Those tickets for cyclists could pay a portion for things such as bike lanes and converting old abandoned railroad lines to bike trails.
Why can a police officer not write a traffic ticket to a cyclist as it is? It's not necessary to have a license plate and registration to get a ticket, or else everyone would just throw away their cars' license plates and registrations. If the cyclist refuses to pay the ticket, then a warrant is issued. Isn't that the way things work, or am I missing something?
I have only (personally) seen officers from one police agency ever stop a bicycle rider and issue the person a ticket. That agency was the U.S. Capitol Police, which was once (and may still be) pretty aggressive at going after bicycle couriers who violate District of Columbia traffic laws near and on the U.S. Capitol complex.
There are not as many bike couriers in D.C. as there once were (presumably thanks to FAX machines and the Internet), though I still see them from time to time, and more than a few of them appear to ride their bikes Kamikaze-style (apparently this is a tradition among many D.C. couriers), not paying any attention to pedestrians in marked crosswalks, traffic signals, STOP signs and other traffic control devices. That certainly makes them fair game for the Capitol Police (and any other police in D.C.).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2013, 05:46:18 PM
I have only (personally) seen officers from one police agency ever stop a bicycle rider and issue the person a ticket. That agency was the U.S. Capitol Police, which was once (and may still be) pretty aggressive at going after bicycle couriers who violate District of Columbia traffic laws near and on the U.S. Capitol complex.
No registration or license plate needed. Bingo. If other agencies don't ticket cyclists, it's not because bikes aren't registered, but rather because it's not seen as necessary.
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2013, 06:26:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2013, 05:46:18 PM
I have only (personally) seen officers from one police agency ever stop a bicycle rider and issue the person a ticket. That agency was the U.S. Capitol Police, which was once (and may still be) pretty aggressive at going after bicycle couriers who violate District of Columbia traffic laws near and on the U.S. Capitol complex.
No registration or license plate needed. Bingo. If other agencies don't ticket cyclists, it's not because bikes aren't registered, but rather because it's not seen as necessary.
Also, the U.S. Capitol Police have plenty of sworn officers, and some of them don't seem to have enough to do. Police traffic enforcement around the U.S. Capitol is probably as strict as can be found anywhere in D.C. (but I am not including the numerous automated speed and red light cameras all over D.C. when I say that).
In Colorado, it is not uncommon for bicyclists to receive speeding tickets. There are also stop signs in some cases where a bike path crosses a sidewalk or street, and there is a good ($$$) reason they put those signs there.
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Huh? I've been pulled over in Illinois for running a red light in my (then) girlfriend's car. The officer let me go without a ticket, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have written it out to the vehicle if a ticket had been issued. I've been pulled over in Kansas while driving my (then) fiancée's car, and the ticket had my name on it, not hers.
Unless you're talking about red light cameras. If so, then I had no idea you were, since Brandon is the only one who's even brought them up on this thread, back on Page 2.
I am talking about red light cameras. They should be enforced on cyclists too.
And stop sign cameras too, then, apparently.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 11, 2013, 07:13:47 PM
They should have the bike plated and registered so that when a cyclist decides to be a moron and blow a red light or stop sign, they get the equivalent of a red light ticket,
I, for one, certainly hope our nation doesn't get to the point of being so authoritarian and anal-retentive that there are cameras set up to catch cyclists not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
Given how many motorists bitch about red light cameras enforcing stopping *behind the stop line* before turning on red, methinks we have a case of bigotry.
Not at all NE2. Simply put is if a cyclist wants to have the equality of a motorist, good. That also means that THEY get the same kind of enforcement with those cameras.
KP, certainly in urban settings where there is a higher volume of motorists with cyclists, I would want stop sign cameras too. Believe me. There are a lot of motorists who blow those signs too that need to be ticketed for driving like a moron.
Cyclists are, technically, subject to all the same rules as cars... but in most cases the rules are simply not enforced upon them.
I don't really mind this, since there is a question of whose safety is or isn't violated - a driver running a red light can kill someone, but a cyclist running a red light isn't going to hurt anyone but himself. It would be blatant revenue enhancement to start ticketing cyclists for running red lights and stop signs. Although ticketing them for riding on the sidewalk wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, as that is a safety concern.
As for the assertion that cyclists are obnoxious, in my experience that varies with where you are. They are very obnoxious in New York City, but so are drivers and pedestrians, so it's just an extension of the general local attitude.
I recently witnessed someone in Brooklyn on a motorcycle decide to ride on the sidewalk to bypass a traffic jam. People here will do what they gotta do to get around!
On the other hand, the couple cyclists I encountered in Key West were insanely courteous and followed all the rules. Signaled with their hands before turning and everything. Of course, that is also a place where no one speeds and pedestrians always cross only at the corner and only when they have the walk signal, so again, it's the local attitude.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 13, 2013, 08:53:27 PM
I don't really mind this, since there is a question of whose safety is or isn't violated - a driver running a red light can kill someone, but a cyclist running a red light isn't going to hurt anyone but himself. It would be blatant revenue enhancement to start ticketing cyclists for running red lights and stop signs. Although ticketing them for riding on the sidewalk wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, as that is a safety concern.
A cyclist running a red light or stop sign can cause the driver to slam on their brakes and get rear ended which could cause major injury to the drivers as well. I have seen this happen too many times in Chicago. It's bad enough that at red light camera intersections the rear end accidents have gone up. Fortunately, there is a countdown to the light changing on the walk/don't walk signal to tell a driver this if they are paying attention.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 13, 2013, 08:53:27 PM
I don't really mind this, since there is a question of whose safety is or isn't violated - a driver running a red light can kill someone, but a cyclist running a red light isn't going to hurt anyone but himself.
fine, I want it written into law that if a cyclist runs a red light, and I make no effort whatsoever to avoid him, and I kill him, then I am not given charges of vehicular manslaughter.
As a motorist you have the responsibility of avoiding a crash even if you are not at fault.
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 01:03:46 PM
As a motorist you have the responsibility of avoiding a crash even if you are not at fault.
thus proving my point. why should cyclists be allowed to engage in reckless behavior, that causes me to have to take possibly drastic measures to avoid them?
Why should kids be allowed to chase balls into the street?
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 01:20:32 PM
Why should kids be allowed to chase balls into the street?
so you're arguing that law-breaking adult cyclists have an identical intellectual development as five-year-olds?
I'm arguing that you should avoid being a dick and hitting them.
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 01:36:47 PM
I'm arguing that you should avoid being a dick and hitting them.
and I'm arguing that they should stop being a dick and getting into situations where it is very, very close to
physically impossible to avoid them.
what is it about bicyclists that gives them an innate right to get themselves into near-miss situations where you would condemn a motor vehicle for following the exact same trajectory?
if I run a stop sign, and someone has to do a fantastic bit of evasive driving to avoid hitting me - you'd seriously assign the blame based on
what type of vehicle I'm operating?
Agent, I like to think that there are some responsible cyclists out there just like I am sure that some of them would like to think there are responsible drivers too. But to answer you question in the meantime, according to those cyclists here who shall remain nameless, yes a driver is at fault 100% of the time even if the driver is parked or at a dead stop and the cyclist runs in to the vehicle.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 14, 2013, 02:50:10 PM
Agent, I like to think that there are some responsible cyclists out there just like I am sure that some of them would like to think there are responsible drivers too. But to answer you question in the meantime, according to those cyclists here who shall remain nameless, yes a driver is at fault 100% of the time even if the driver is parked or at a dead stop and the cyclist runs in to the vehicle.
I have trouble believing that a car driver is at fault if s/he's stopped or legally parked and a cyclist runs into him/her. Do you have an example? Otherwise it really sounds like a straw man.
One would hope there's a difference between running a stop sign with no traffic present and running a stop sign with a car imminently approaching. Should the two not be enforced differently–for cars, bikes, donkey carts, etc.?
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2013, 05:33:58 PM
One would hope there's a difference between running a stop sign with no traffic present and running a stop sign with a car imminently approaching. Should the two not be enforced differently–for cars, bikes, donkey carts, etc.?
there's also a difference between the following:
a) slowing down enough to see that there is no traffic, rolling through the STOP sign, and then accelerating back to cruising speed
b) without slowing down, blowing through the STOP sign as though it did not exist, with no regard to possible traffic
there is a variant on b) when the bicyclist assumes that you will obey standard four-way-stop protocol, and actually come to a stop... so they use the break in traffic to blow right through. while this (if calculated correctly) does not produce a collision, it does alter the dynamic of the four-way-stop, and let's face it, if a car did that, not even NE2 would be praising that driver's cleverness.
b-variant is something I used to do as a kid, but don't do now that I'm a growed-up. I've seen cars do it too, though the more common variant is to tail the car in front of them through the intersection without stopping.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
there is a variant on b) when the bicyclist assumes that you will obey standard four-way-stop protocol, and actually come to a stop... so they use the break in traffic to blow right through. while this (if calculated correctly) does not produce a collision, it does alter the dynamic of the four-way-stop, and let's face it, if a car did that, not even NE2 would be praising that driver's cleverness.
I wouldn't praise a cyclist either for blowing through a stop sign. Both parties can be wrong.
But the question then becomes: would you praise anyone, ever?
I'd always praise the Grand High Alan, except when goat.
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 08:42:51 PM
I wouldn't praise a cyclist either for blowing through a stop sign. Both parties can be wrong.
no, in the case of anyone blowing through a four-way stop sign, precisely one party would be wrong.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2013, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 08:42:51 PM
I wouldn't praise a cyclist either for blowing through a stop sign. Both parties can be wrong.
no, in the case of anyone blowing through a four-way stop sign, precisely one party would be wrong.
No. If A blows through and B (who has waited his turn) notices this but goes anyway and hits A, both are in the wrong.
Even absent specific laws (which do exist), this is called the "last clear chance" rule and is a general legal doctrine.
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 09:10:59 PM
No. If A blows through and B (who has waited his turn) notices this but goes anyway and hits A, both are in the wrong.
but if I have insufficient time to notice this (say, I've already come to a full stop and started up again), then there's only so much I can do.
and anyone that counts on people to consistently go through evasive maneuvers to avoid them, and thus runs stop signs regularly, is a dick. yes, I will stop for you, but having to slam on the brakes and swerve to avoid your lawbreaking behavior does not make me the party in the wrong.
If you fail to avoid a crash when you could have, yes, you are in the wrong. That doesn't mean the other guy is not in the wrong too. How fucking hard is this to understand?
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2013, 10:05:00 PM
If you fail to avoid a crash when you could have, yes, you are in the wrong. That doesn't mean the other guy is not in the wrong too. How fucking hard is this to understand?
If you CAN avoid a crash, yes. If you are driving properly and someone else is driving improperly and you CAN'T avoid the crash, then they are at fault. I think we're clear now.
And yes, if bicycles run a red light, they SHOULD be ticketed. I can't say I always obey the rules of the road when I'm on the bike, but I do my best unless I'm really in a hurry. (Because technically, I could dismount and walk it across the intersection and remount.)
Quote from: Steve on March 14, 2013, 11:41:54 PM
Because technically, I could dismount and walk it across the intersection and remount.
Only legal if you wait for the walk signal. (If there's no ped signal you can only cross on green.) Though you could turn right, immediately U-turn by crossing midblock (if legal), and then turn right again.
This is getting into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type questions. Like can you turn right on don't walk (from a right-side sidewalk to a crossroad)?
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 14, 2013, 02:50:10 PM
Agent, I like to think that there are some responsible cyclists out there just like I am sure that some of them would like to think there are responsible drivers too. But to answer you question in the meantime, according to those cyclists here who shall remain nameless, yes a driver is at fault 100% of the time even if the driver is parked or at a dead stop and the cyclist runs in to the vehicle.
Many years ago my Dad was pulling out of a business driveway and a bicyclist ran into him. The biker was on the sidewalk, and did not pay attention to the car which was already (legally) blocking the sidewalk waiting for a brake in traffic to leave. There were no citations issued. The bike rider was taken to the hospital for contusions and a broken collarbone. A police incident report was filed, citing the biker as at fault. In the end he (or his insurance) had to pay to repair the minor damage to my fathers car. So, not always is the car driver found at fault.
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2013, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 14, 2013, 02:50:10 PM
Agent, I like to think that there are some responsible cyclists out there just like I am sure that some of them would like to think there are responsible drivers too. But to answer you question in the meantime, according to those cyclists here who shall remain nameless, yes a driver is at fault 100% of the time even if the driver is parked or at a dead stop and the cyclist runs in to the vehicle.
I have trouble believing that a car driver is at fault if s/he's stopped or legally parked and a cyclist runs into him/her. Do you have an example? Otherwise it really sounds like a straw man.
KKT, I was being sarcastic if you missed that.
Quote from: djsinco on March 15, 2013, 02:49:25 AM
Many years ago my Dad was pulling out of a business driveway and a bicyclist ran into him. The biker was on the sidewalk, and did not pay attention to the car which was already (legally) blocking the sidewalk waiting for a brake in traffic to leave. There were no citations issued. The bike rider was taken to the hospital for contusions and a broken collarbone. A police incident report was filed, citing the biker as at fault. In the end he (or his insurance) had to pay to repair the minor damage to my fathers car. So, not always is the car driver found at fault.
This past week, I spent much of a morning on M Street, N.W. in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. (near the Key Bridge) during the morning commute period.
Even though it was a cold day (for March in D.C.), there were a lot of bikes out. I was literally taken-aback by how many bikes were (
illegally) using the sidewalk instead of the street, a bad thing, especially when there were people standing on that sidewalk waiting for the bus to come, and quite a few pedestrians out - some walking and some jogging (soldiers from the Army's Fort Myer like to jog across the Key Bridge and then around Georgetown - a fair number of students from the Georgetown University also jog).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2013, 05:33:58 PM
One would hope there's a difference between running a stop sign with no traffic present and running a stop sign with a car imminently approaching. Should the two not be enforced differently–for cars, bikes, donkey carts, etc.?
there's also a difference between the following:
a) slowing down enough to see that there is no traffic, rolling through the STOP sign, and then accelerating back to cruising speed
b) without slowing down, blowing through the STOP sign as though it did not exist, with no regard to possible traffic
(A) is usually my standard operating procedure for Stop signs. And if there is traffic, I will treat it as if I was in a car. I couldn't even imagine trying (B) at any of the intersections I traverse with stop signs.
I'm pretty consistent at obeying traffic signals, regardless of whether it looks like there is no other traffic. The one "corner" I sometimes cut, though, is making a Right-On-Red even if there is a sign not to if there's no other cars in sight.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on March 15, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
I couldn't even imagine trying (B) at any of the intersections I traverse with stop signs.
I once had near-disastrous results doing that when I was about seven or eight years old. I lived about two blocks from Cedar Road in New Lenox, IL; it is probably busier now than it was then, but it was still a fairly busy street even in the 1980s. Anyway, I always slowed or stopped at the Stop sign to check for traffic before riding across Cedar. There were so many times that I stopped or slowed yet no cars were coming, that (this was apparently logical to my childhood mind) one day I decided to not even look. I didn't even touch the brakes or turn my head–just rode straight across the road. I could swear a car came within three inches of me; for sure, it spun out in the middle of the road (did at least a 180° skid) and the driver used all sorts of colorful language at me. That's probably the closest to death I've ever come.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2013, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: djsinco on March 15, 2013, 02:49:25 AM
Many years ago my Dad was pulling out of a business driveway and a bicyclist ran into him. The biker was on the sidewalk, and did not pay attention to the car which was already (legally) blocking the sidewalk waiting for a brake in traffic to leave. There were no citations issued. The bike rider was taken to the hospital for contusions and a broken collarbone. A police incident report was filed, citing the biker as at fault. In the end he (or his insurance) had to pay to repair the minor damage to my fathers car. So, not always is the car driver found at fault.
This past week, I spent much of a morning on M Street, N.W. in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. (near the Key Bridge) during the morning commute period.
Even though it was a cold day (for March in D.C.), there were a lot of bikes out. I was literally taken-aback by how many bikes were (illegally) using the sidewalk instead of the street, a bad thing, especially when there were people standing on that sidewalk waiting for the bus to come, and quite a few pedestrians out - some walking and some jogging (soldiers from the Army's Fort Myer like to jog across the Key Bridge and then around Georgetown - a fair number of students from the Georgetown University also jog).
For most parts of DC, cycling on the sidewalk is perfectly legal.
Quote from: realjd on March 17, 2013, 12:06:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2013, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: djsinco on March 15, 2013, 02:49:25 AM
Many years ago my Dad was pulling out of a business driveway and a bicyclist ran into him. The biker was on the sidewalk, and did not pay attention to the car which was already (legally) blocking the sidewalk waiting for a brake in traffic to leave. There were no citations issued. The bike rider was taken to the hospital for contusions and a broken collarbone. A police incident report was filed, citing the biker as at fault. In the end he (or his insurance) had to pay to repair the minor damage to my fathers car. So, not always is the car driver found at fault.
This past week, I spent much of a morning on M Street, N.W. in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. (near the Key Bridge) during the morning commute period.
Even though it was a cold day (for March in D.C.), there were a lot of bikes out. I was literally taken-aback by how many bikes were (illegally) using the sidewalk instead of the street, a bad thing, especially when there were people standing on that sidewalk waiting for the bus to come, and quite a few pedestrians out - some walking and some jogging (soldiers from the Army's Fort Myer like to jog across the Key Bridge and then around Georgetown - a fair number of students from the Georgetown University also jog).
For most parts of DC, cycling on the sidewalk is perfectly legal.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Facts being changed in DC? Perish the thought!