Losing momentum: An excuse not to stop, not a reason

Dionette Cherney (Right.) who was hit by a cyclist while crossing a San Francisco street has died from her injuries.

That makes me both sad and extremely angry.

This unfortunate lady’s death was totally unnecessary; it was rush hour, she was crossing in a crosswalk with a green light, and now she is dead because a cyclist decided not to stop but to push through the crowd of pedestrians.

This not stopping by cyclists has to stop; it is total bullshit. It is a stupid habit many bike riders have, and there is no logical reason for it.

I am not being critical of the cyclist who rolls S-L-O-W-L-Y through a deserted intersection on a residential street. I am talking of the failure to yield to pedestrians, or to other vehicles that arrived first at busy stop signs and red lights.

If anyone wants to argue that in both instances cyclists are breaking the law I will have to plead no contest. However, the big difference is that the latter is rude and anti-social; it pisses people off, and in this case someone has died because of it. 

Forget that 811 pedestrians were hit by cars in San Francisco last year, while only 18 were hit by a bicycle; that is not the point. Unless a pedestrian steps directly into the path of a speeding cyclist, no one should get killed or seriously injured by a bicycle.

Nearly every complaint I hear about cyclists revolves around the fact that cyclists hate to stop; or in many cases, even hate to slow down.

The reason; they will lose their precious momentum. Are they that fucking lazy that they can’t slow or stop and make the effort start again?

All it takes is get out of the saddle give a few hard pumps on the pedals and you are back up to speed again. The ones with the potential to do serious damage are the ones who have reached a level of fitness that stopping and starting again should not even be an issue.

I witness this bullshit behavior almost on a daily basis; riding on a local bike path. I see cyclists buzz past pedestrians without warning or any attempt to slow down; in many cases there are small children around who are totally unpredictable and extremely vulnerable.

There are a couple of places where the path crosses a street and you can hear cars approaching and if they are close you can even see them. Why anyone would ride a bicycle from a bike path onto a road with a car approacing is beyond my comprehension.

Yet I see cyclists not even attempt to stop but rather make a hard left, ride towards the oncoming traffic, forcing the car to swerve towards the center of the road. They then continue riding until the road is clear and do a U-turn to double back to the path.

If a car approaches in the far lane from the opposite direction, they pull the same maneuver and make a hard left into the near lane without stopping. In most cases the car will stop because the driver has no idea what this idiot is about to do. The cyclist then turns in front of the car without so much a hand signal, or thank you wave.

All this just to avoid losing that little bit of precious momentum. All types of cyclists, across the board; even people on cruiser bikes, wearing street clothes and no helmet, and not traveling at any great speed. But already they have learned that momentum must be maintained at all costs. It is a habit these cyclists have formed; probably at the same time they first learned to ride a bike.

It is a habit born out of laziness; what other reason can there be. Like all habits it can be broken, but only if there is a willingness to change on the of part the individual. If a person is riding a bike to stay in shape, stopping and starting again is increasing your rate of effort; it is a form of interval training.

Resist the urge to keep moving at all cost and embrace stopping and starting as part of your exercise regime.

If nothing else by stopping when a cyclist is supposed to stop takes away the biggest complaint both motorists and pedestrians have against us all. Yes, all of us; I'm sure I get less respect on the road because of the poor habits of others. As I have said before; stop handing them the stick to beat us with.

Slowing down or stopping when it is called for, and the resulting loss of momentum is not your enemy, it is a ticket to increased strength and fitness and greater respect from others with whom we are obliged to share the road

                         

Driving Around Cyclists for Dummies

I got an email from a regular reader, Keay Edwards; he said,

“I thought you might be interested in AAA's stance on California's proposed law requiring a three foot passing distance of cyclists by motor vehicles. 

I was surprised to discover that my auto insurance company was lobbying against the proposed law and asked them why." 

Here is their response: 

Thank you for your comments relative to AAA's position on SB 910.

Our official position is not a straight oppose, it is an 'oppose unless amended'. We don't take issue with the 3 foot distance rule when it can be safely accomplished. The problem is how to address situations when a 3 foot distance cannot be maintained or met.

Current language in the bill would require the vehicle to slow to 15 mph of the speed of the bicycle to pass. But this is problematic for several reasons, as pointed out in the bill analysis. Law enforcement has issues with this approach as well because it can cause a drastic decrease in speed differentials between the vehicle passing the bicycle and other vehicles on the road depending on the posted speed limit.

Not only can this cause rear-end collisions, it can create a more dangerous situation for the cyclists. It is the differences in speed that is the number one cause of car crashes. Another suggested approach is to require the car to enter into the opposite lane of traffic (cross a double line) in order to give the cyclists the 3 foot distance. This is something being explored as well as a number of other ideas.

While we can all agree on the concept and goal SB 910, crafting workable legislation usually requires addressing a number of details and issues that arise throughout the process as the concept is flushed out and enforceability is addressed.

The author of the bill, Senator Lowenthal, is committed to working with all interested parties, including law enforcement, AAA and the bicycle coalition sponsors of the bill to find the most appropriate and safest way to address situations, when the general rule to allow a 3 foot distance cannot be met due to road design. We have to determine what the law should be in those circumstances and there is some disagreement on that level.

Thank you again for allowing us to explain our position on the bill.
Best Regards,
Crista B. (AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah.)

Thank you Keay for forwarding this; here is my take:

Why all the fuss over an issue that should be common sense. Would you pass any vehicle giving less than 3 foot of space? You would give a stray dog at least 3 feet when passing.

Let’s say there is a large object, a refrigerator for example, lying at the side of the road protruding 3 feet into your lane. Would you continue driving at 55 or 60mph and miss it by less than three feet?

Most sensible people would slow, and if they couldn’t go into the opposing lane, they would squeeze by carefully at a slow speed. The 3 foot passing law is calling for what people should do anyway if they were using common sense.

Let me offer another simple scenario: You are driving on any two lane highway or street; a vehicle is waiting to make a left turn. (Right turn in the UK.) The driver cannot make the turn because there is opposing traffic; he stops and waits with his turn signal on.

Other traffic stops and stacks up behind, waiting for the driver to make his turn. There is no danger, no one runs into the rear of anyone; eventually there is a break in opposing traffic, the vehicle makes its turn and everyone goes on their merry way.

And yet to read Crista B’s explanation above, a vehicle slowing because it is not safe to pass a cyclist presents a danger to other road users. I would suggest if a vehicle runs into the rear of another, they were driving too fast for the road conditions, or they were following too close. This is driving 101.

Maybe I should write a “Driving around cyclists for Dummies” book. In it I would say, “If you see a cyclists ahead give him/her plenty of room as you pass. If you can’t go into the opposing lane because there are cars coming the other way, slow down and wait for a break in opposing traffic.”

You only need a small break because a cyclist is about 7 foot long and 3 foot wide, usually traveling at 15 to 20mph; it is not like trying to pass an 18 wheel semi. And you don’t have to go completely over to the opposite lane but at least straddle the center line.

If I am that cyclist quite honestly I have no objections if you squeeze by with less than 3 feet, as long as you do so carefully at slow speed. If you bump me at 5mph over the speed I am doing it would probably not be too serious; but clip me at 55 or 60 and it might be fatal.

This 3 foot passing law is getting way too complicated for the average person to understand. Crista B for the AAA asks:

When the general rule to allow a 3 foot distance cannot be met due to road design. We have to determine what the law should be in those circumstances.

This situation is no different than a stop sign where cross traffic doesn’t stop. You stop, and then proceed when it is safe to do so. Legislators are not asked, “What do I do when it is not safe to proceed?” The answer is simple; you wait until it is safe. Give a cyclist 3 feet; if you can’t do that safely, then wait until you can.

No need to change the wording; if you slow down and pass a cyclist carefully no one is going to take a yard stick and argue over the exact 3 feet.

Imagine the cyclist is a refrigerator or some other large object in the road.  Just slow down and go around while being careful not to bump into it.

                        

New York City "Don't be a Jerk" Campaign

New York City Department of Transport launches its "Don't be a Jerk" campaign with a series of 30 second videos. Aimed at cyclists who disregard the rules of the road, it uses celebrities to make the point in a lighthearted manner.

Above chef Mario Batali rides the wrong way in a bike lane

Comedian John Leguizamo rides on the sidewalk until a pre-teen tells him he can’t ride there if he is over 12 years old.

Above supermodel Paulina Porizova runs red lights and fails to yield to pedestrians. It would be nice to see "Don't be a Jerk" spread to other places.

                        

Stopping

In my last article I mentioned that I usually never run red lights even if there is no other traffic present.

I find I rarely have to wait long for a light to change, and I am never in that much of a hurry to warrant running a light.

In most states, including my State of South Carolina, it is legal for a bicycle to proceed through a red light if the road is clear after you have waited for two minutes.

If it were early Sunday morning and the road was deserted, I would probably not sit there for two minutes, but if there is no one there to actually time me or even witness this technically illegal act, it is the same as a tree falling in the forest; did it even happen?

Which brings me to stop signs; I never blow through stop signs without slowing. If it is a busy intersection and there is other traffic present, I will make a complete foot down stop, and wait my turn before proceeding.

Often on quiet residential streets there can be a stop sign on every block; once again I slow down, and if there are no other vehicles present, I will proceed without unclipping and putting my foot to the ground. I am not suggesting you do the same, I am simply saying, "This is what I am comfortable doing."

If a police officer pulled me over, I would have to admit that technically I did break the law. I would point out the impracticality of unclipping at every intersection, state that I took every precaution, and plead with him not to give me a ticket.

I agree with most cyclists that having the same stop sign rule for autos and bicycles needs to change, but until that actually happens strictly speaking I am breaking the law. If I did get a ticket it would be unfortunate, but that is a risk I take. There would be little point in fighting it.

I believe it is not the cyclists treating stop signs in the manner I have just described that irk the motorist; it is those that blow through at speed, without so much as a token slowing down. Often ahead of a car already stopped or just pulling away.

As well as being illegal, this kind of behavior is just plain rude and antisocial. Even if the law is changed in the future allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, it will not be a license to blow through ahead of another vehicle that was already waiting.

Yield means waiting for those who were there first.

 

An article in The Gothamist tells of New York delivery girl, Krista Ciminera (Above.) who was ticketed for running a stop sign at a deserted intersection; in her own words:

“I saw a police car heading north on Union Avenue and North 12th, and I believe the cop saw me and did a U-turn to follow right behind me, waiting for me to do something illegal.

I made a right onto Roebling and approached the intersection at North 9th, looked both ways while braking, saw that it was clear, and proceeded. As soon as I went past the stop sign, I heard sirens behind me and knew that it was a cop car.

I pulled over and a cop got out asking me, "Do you know why we pulled you over?" to which I always reply, "No," even though I knew it was because of the stop sign, which he then confirmed.”

Tough luck Krista, but my question is this; if you knew the cop was following you, and you knew he was waiting for you to do something illegal, why then did you do something illegal? Why did you not come to a complete foot down stop?

No person in their right mind would roll through a stop sign in a car if they knew a police car was following them. Don’t do it on a bicycle.

You are thumbing your nose at the cop and saying, “Make my day, write me a ticket.” He will probably oblige.

You can bet if I’m approaching a stop sign, and I know a police car is behind me, or I see one sitting close by, I will come to a complete, foot down stop.

In New York City, knowing what is happening there at this time I would probably do it anyway, just in case.

Addendum: 4/13/11

I received an email from Krista Ciminera in which she stated she didn’t know the police car was following her. In telling her story to the Gothamist she had only surmised after the fact that a police cruiser she had seen earlier had done a U-turn and had followed her. This explains her actions; she told me had she known the cop was following her she definitely would have made a complete stop.

                     

Education or Enforcement

There are two ways to apply cycling laws, education or enforcement. Going to school in the UK at least twice a year there would be a special lesson on the Highway Code.

A little Highway Code book would be given to us to take home and keep. It not only had all the rules and laws as applied to driving a car, it laid out those that applied to riding a bicycle and pedestrians.

It was drummed into us, when you cross the street, stop, look right, look left, look right again; (Traffic came from the right in the UK.) if the road is clear then cross.

This was war time Britain of the 1940s and due to petrol rationing there were few cars on the road, especially in the rural area I lived at the time. Never-the-less when we crossed the street we went through this ritual of look right, look left.

There were cycling proficiency tests too, where we would bring our bikes to school and the local police constable would come in and instruct us on how to ride our bike both safely and in compliance with the law.

The result was when I started cycling seriously in the 1950s, I never rode on the pavement, (Sidewalk.) I never rode through red lights, and my bike always had a front and rear light when riding after dark. As for riding a bike on the wrong side of the road, toward traffic, that would be so crazy it would not even be considered.

It was somewhat of a culture shock when I came to the US in 1979 and went for a ride with the local club. The first red light we came to I stopped and everyone else kept going.

It would not be unusual to find a cyclist riding towards me on my side of the road. This led to the quandary, do I pull out in the traffic lane and let him pass on the inside, or hold my course and hope he goes around me? I usually took the initiative and went for the first option.

I remember reading of a case in New Jersey where two cyclists riding at night without lights hit head on because one was on the wrong side. Their heads hit, neither was wearing a helmet; one died instantly, the other had serious head injuries.

Young kids on BMX bikes would jump from the sidewalk to the center of the road, and then wait for a gap in opposing traffic before hopping over to the opposite sidewalk. It was a free for all, with no rules being observed or enforced. Today, from what I read, it is no better in the UK; it seems the Highway Code is no longer taught in schools.

Stuff drummed into me as a kid has stayed with me to this day; so believe me I understand why some cyclists ride through red lights. It is what they have always done since they were a kid; no one said they shouldn't do it.

If I stop for a red light, even if there is no other traffic in sight, it is not because I am somehow better than the cyclist who just rides on through. It is because not to stop feels uncomfortable, and goes against a lifetime habit.

Getting in the habit of obeying traffic laws while riding a bike would be a good thing for all cyclists to do right now. I am reading of a ticket writing blitz going on in Brooklyn, New York; it will not surprise me if this happens in other cities in the US as cycling becomes more popular and more and more cyclists take to the streets.

The article in The Brooklyn Paper tells how critics are saying it is unfair to clamp down on cyclists in this manner. I am inclined to agree to a certain extent. It is unfair that a cyclist should pay the same $190 fine for running a red light that a motorist has to pay.

However, it is quite simple to avoid getting one of these tickets; don't run red lights. Also, whoever said life is fair? It is unfair that I am forced to take my shoes off at the airport, because one idiot tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoe.

One Brooklyn cyclist got three tickets; one for riding his bike on the sidewalk, another riding against the flow of traffic, and a third for mouthing off to the cop who was giving him the ticket. All three of these tickets could have been avoided, had this particular cyclist not become accustomed to riding his bike where ever and however he please.

Laws regarding cyclists running red lights and other infractions are in place everywhere right now, so too are fines set. Because the police have not enforced these laws in the past, it may seem unfair when they suddenly start issuing tickets.

There are ways to get people to follow the rules. You educate, preferably at an early age as happened with me, it then becomes a lifetime habit. Or you start fining people as a deterrent. 

I find obeying the law as I ride my bike, does not affect my cycling pleasure; it does not slow me down all that much either. And if my local law enforcement starts issuing tickets to cyclists, it will not affect me.

Those who get tickets will no doubt say how unfair it is, and how they’ve always ridden on the sidewalk or went through red lights. I may sympathize, but I doubt I will be offering to pay their fine.