New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | July 15, 2008 12:59 PM

Although bicycles are viewed as vehicles by the law, treating cyclists and motorists the same is absurd in its asymmetry. Motorists who misbehave can do a lot more damage than a cyclist who misbehaves and the law should recognize this. Motorists should be held to a higher standard.

Posted by: anon | July 15, 2008 1:22 PM

Great article.

The country really has two options right now, especially considering that automobiles represent 70% of our oil consumption.

Option 1 (preferred by 95% of Americans): Create a massive national plan to encourage bicycling and walking in our towns and cities by actually incorporating it into the infrastructure, education and policy, requiring traffic calming, ending illegal driving, building legitimately safe crosswalks, creating 15-20 mph speeds on designated bicycle routes (that's really the only way to get large numbers of people, most of whom love riding, onto their bikes), and investing in mass transit. Over 40% trips in this country are a couple miles or less, yet the percentage of trips made by bicycle or on foot is tiny. In other countries (i.e. those with strong currencies because they are not $15,000,000,000,000+ in debt due to oil consumption), that figure is much much higher.

Option 2 (preferred by Exxon Mobil and the ultra-rich): Keep the status quo. A very small number of people will choose transportation options other than the automobile. We'll continue to send $800 billion per year overseas to buy foreign oil to power our cars until the dollar is worth almost nothing and automobile use and maintenance consumes over 50% of the average American's household income instead of the current 20%. Obesity rates will continue to increase as fewer and fewer people feel comfortable walking or biking anywhere outside their backyards, nobody will attend their local PTA meetings, and our environment will be destroyed.

This funny quote, from an academic, provides an interesting perspective on what 20th century planning has done to us: "The typical American devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours a week, or 4 hours a day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This includes the time spent behind the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the hours of work to pay for it and to pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, tickets, and taxes. Thus it takes this American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles (in the course of a year). Three and a half miles take him (or her) one hour. In countries that do not have a transportation industry, people travel at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage that they can go wherever they want and aren't restricted to asphalt roads."

Posted by: James | July 15, 2008 1:42 PM

Why do you have to be a "cycling advocate" to think that letting a motorist off with a verbal warning after striking a cyclist is insane? Do cops in this city not know the law, or do they simply choose not to enforce it? How can they expect anybody to behave when they know there are no consequences to their actions?

I would really like to hear from law enforcement as to why a verbal warning is sufficient when a motor vehicle strikes a cyclist. I can't imagine that they would issues a verbal warning if two cars were in an accident. Why is this any different? What is with the reluctance in this town to enforce any laws? I really don't understand it.

I really hope Chief Louis-Lewis walks the walk of that talk he talks. Because I likes what I hears.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | July 15, 2008 2:54 PM

Dangerous to drive a bike in traffic. Accidents with cars would be greatly reduced if THE BIKES STAYED ON THE SIDEWALK WHERE THEY BELONG.

Posted by: Stephen | July 15, 2008 2:56 PM

"Option 1 (preferred by 95% of Americans) ... "

ANON: That's obviously a made up number (and as innaccurate as the rest of your post's statistics and suppositions.) Not even close to 95% of Americans are consciously aware of bicyles/ bicyle issues, traffic conditions, et all.

You sound like the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

Educated arguements and programs that are reconciled with the fact that car-centric transportation modes are deeply engrained in this country are the path to non-auto transportation enlightenment- sentiments echoed by Alycia above in her dealings with the police-woman she dealt with.

Alycia/Ethan- Congrats to you both on the work you put into this issue, helping bring it to broader light in New Haven.

While I feel remiss in not being as active as yourselves, I hope that the sight of myself dressed in business attire, riding my bike past cars stuck in traffic will turn a couple of people onto the benefits of bicycles as another option of transportation.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 15, 2008 2:59 PM

"There are some really creative things we can do. It also means writing more tickets sometimes, and more warnings. I don't care if an officer writes a hundred tickets or a hundred warnings, if it changes behavior. We're going to look at driving behavior and see if we can change it."

Tickets and warnings are a great start. I would suggest searching offenders' vehicles after that. The police can even start cracking down on load mufflers and the sound of cheap plastic rattling to the sound of extremely loud bass for noise violations. How about tinted driver and passenger windows as well? The list can go on and on. Then, watch as traffic violations and crime plummet. And watch as our quality of life increases dramatically. I like the bigger picture - it accomplishes more.

Lewis, we are counting on you.

Posted by: anon | July 15, 2008 3:04 PM

Great ideas, Fairhavener!

Posted by: Cheri | July 15, 2008 3:09 PM

It would be great if the N.H.P.D. really do actively start pursuing traffic violations, and I hope they start soon!
This issue has come up so often at the Independent, and with such a growing bike/pedestrian community, it seems foolish to let the current state of traffic/motorist violations continue unchecked, as it unfortunately has been for so long. Hopefully, we'll see some changes soon, but there's a lot of work to do...changing many bad driving habits.

Posted by: James | July 15, 2008 3:55 PM

Alphonse Credenza, if you are not going to read and learn when new information is provided to you, maybe it would be best to keep quiet. Regardless of how you feel, local laws require most cyclists to ride in the street. In most cases, riding on the sidewalk is prohibited. This was discussed in a previous article and statute was posted for all to read. You were part of this discussion. There is no point in going over this again. To continue making ignorant statements once you have been informed is a waste of everybody's time.

Posted by: anon | July 15, 2008 5:00 PM

"Not even close to 95% of Americans are consciously aware of bicyles/ bicyle issues, traffic conditions, et all."

I wasn't claiming that, Stephen. Not even close to 95% of Americans are consciously aware of any one specific idea, especially anything having to do with bicycles. But I think the evidence (Pew surveys, etc.) has shown that the vast majority of them would like to end our reliance on foreign oil, live in a walkable area and be able to walk down their street without getting killed.

I'm just making the point that if you did a deliberative poll on the issue, 95% probably wouldn't want Exxon Mobil to completely run national policy, as it is currently doing, until we fall $30 trillion into debt (currently about $15 trillion and rapidly growing) and sell off all of our railroads and collapsed bridges to China for scrap metal so that the wealthiest 20% of the country can buy "hybrid" "green" SUVs. And just wait to see what people think when oil hits $300 per barrel in a year or so, as is widely predicted. Things have changed very rapidly, and our country has been incredibly slow to adjust.

I have nothing against automobiles being ingrained into every molecule of our culture, I'm just saying that people are now coming to terms with the consequences of how we have accommodated them and what it means in terms of expenditures. Driving at 40mph through your town is fun, guzzling gas by going for an SUV joyride at 90mph down the highway is even more fun, but how does it affect the lives of everyone around you? The "let's make an educated argument and form a committee" class has realized the extent of the problem for many years, but it doesn't always affect them (they typically are well invested in oil stocks and Dubai real estate, which is where the money we are all using to fill up our tanks each day is going, and live in places like Westville, Branford or Manhattan with a couple of SUVs in their garage).

We're only now beginning to realize this and it is going to take a lot of work to fix the problem. Locally, we can start fixing it by giving families better transportation options that save money. Doing that means making the roads a lot safer. Communities need to organize and do this on their own (which is quite difficult when people can't even cross the street on foot without risking death by motorbike or driver-on-cellphone), but they also need to push for policy changes at the state level so that some public resources come back to their communities, instead of become increasingly concentrated in the hands of ExxonMobil.

Gallup Poll, June 12, 2008: In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?
14% Satisfied, 84% Dissatisfied

"Oil reached a record above $133 a barrel this week, nearly five times as expensive as it was five years ago. >>>>> All this has led to a vast transfer of wealth from American drivers to domestic and foreign oil producers.

-- NY Times, May 24, 2008

"Home to only 4 percent of the world's population, the nation slurps up about a quarter of the planet's oil -- and Americans' daily use is nearly twice the combined consumption of the Chinese and Indians."

-- NY Times, July 6, 2008

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | July 15, 2008 5:13 PM

" In most cases, riding on the sidewalk is prohibited."

You fail to persuade. Riding a bike in traffic is not more conducive to one's health than riding unlawfully on the sidewalk.

A heavy mass (1.5 tons or more) impacting an unarmored bicyclist at 30 mph (or faster) seems to me to be significantly more dangerous than riding off into the bushes. It doesn't to you?

Why don't you bike riders have any sense?

Posted by: pedro | July 15, 2008 5:57 PM

Alphonse, you kind of miss the fact that if bike riders were to all switch to the sidewalk, THEY WOULD BE TICKETED FOR DOING SO. It's ILLEGAL to ride your bike on the sidewalk, even when doing so for saftey's sake.
It's not the bicyclists fault for having to follow the law!

While sometimes the condescending attitude of enthusiastic cycling advocates can blur the extremely valid points they have, I don't think hyou can just ignore the fact that bikes have ALWAYS had the same rights as motor vehicles have had since the dawn of paved public roads.

And the wider point that is trying to be made here is that our downtown streetways need to be changed to be safe for bicyclists, pedestrians AND automobiles! It can be done! It won't make your commute longer!

Posted by: James | July 15, 2008 7:40 PM

Alphonse, I don't need to persuade. I'm not arguing as to whether or not it's a good idea; it's a matter of law. Feel free to disregard the law as has been pointed out to you in the past. You continue to argue the point despite having been presented with the statute that addresses this issue. You continue to bray on like a stubborn jackass. Then again, a law that it not enforced is hardly worth addressing. Go ahead and mow down cyclists who have the gall to ride on your streets. Apparently you can hit a cyclist in New Haven and not get in trouble.

PS. I haven't ridden a bicycle in ten years. Like I said, you don't need to be an advocate to know right from wrong.

Posted by: Walt | July 15, 2008 8:16 PM

Just made cross-Town trip in Hamden

Stupid adult bike rider made LEFT on RED from Davis St. into Htfd. Turnpike.

Unbelieveably, kid biker actually stopped at red light on Woodin St while a jerk adult motorcyclist sped past him illegally,

Unfortunately neither adult was hurt or arrested.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | July 15, 2008 10:23 PM

As a former avid biker, it's interesting to watch all these comments from bike enthusiasts who claim to have the right of way and same rights to the road as automobiles. You don't by law or by taking.

When I was a kid, it was big deal to take a bike safety class - learn hand signals, turn from your lane into the same lane, ride with traffic etc.

To read some of these posts, these bikers now want their own lanes, feel free to block traffic at intersections, and expect to change lanes without risks.

Just this week, one of these bike enthusiasts pulled up between cars in the center and center/left lane at Church and Elm. He then proceeded to cut off the car growing straight and turn onto Church.

For all the fanfare about ticketing drivers and advocacy for special treatment with bike lanes and heavy law enforcement - should the city not ticket bikers who violate the same laws? Running red lights, making turns without giving notice, not riding in the lanes, riding against traffic?

There also needs to be some degree of common sense which is missing from many of these posts - like riding on super busy streets. I would ride out of my way not to ride on a busy street for free of being hit. Bikes are not cars - they're pedestrians on two self powered wheels. Some level of common sense should prevail. I'm not sure I see much.

Posted by: Steve Ross | July 16, 2008 9:42 AM

Alphonse et al,

Riding the street is safer than on the sidewalk, never mind the legality of the issue. The most obvious reason is that you're seen by motorists while you're in the street. In my experience, crossing a street from sidewalk to sidewalk is the riskiest of gambles. Have you ridden a bike in New Haven or another city, Alphonse?

"There also needs to be some degree of common sense which is missing from many of these posts - like riding on super busy streets. I would ride out of my way not to ride on a busy street for free of being hit."

Gary, as an avid cyclist, I'm surprised that you'd assume this tack. Your decisions do not equate "common sense," simply because they seem right to you. Should people not ride bikes in New York because there is more traffic there? I find that the busier streets often have the most room on the right and the least potholes (barring Whitney!), two very rational reasons to ride on both Elm and lower Church.

That said, I do see much of your point. I've been making a concerted effort to use hand signals (I can't believe how effective they are downtown!) and would like to see some sort of class offered to city cyclists. I think many of these issues will be ironed out as we phase into a more bike-friendly city, specifically from discussions like this one.

Incidentally, I know four cyclists who've been ticketed in recent months -- all were riding on the sidewalk.

Posted by: David Streever | July 16, 2008 9:44 AM

Gary, your comments go a bit farther than I would, but there is a good point.

Their is no investment in education. The only people who educate children in cycling are us--the bike advocates. Cities, states, and parents should be making this investment, but instead it's us. Out of 9 cycling advocates at a bike jamboree last year, tell me how many had children? 1. And she'd already trained them 20 years ago in proper cycling & they ride safely & smartly. The money from the event came from the bike community: donations at Bike To Work breakfasts & other funds. If we have a bike community self-policing, that's admirable at least.

We also self-educate, spending money to go to courses on how to ride a bike.

Tell me how many drivers would make that choice if licenses weren't required. Tell me how many drivers would volunteer their time to teach children about road safety. You can't really deny that we're trying at least, though you may wish to, based on the behavior of a few cyclists you've observed. Keep in mind that when a cyclist screws up, they usually kill only themselves. I think it's fair that we ask motorists who risk killing many more to be self-policing, and if they refuse to, then we need to ask the city & the police to be involved.

For safety stuff:
All of you are way off base in assuming this inherent level of danger.

I don't have the time to get the statistics, but all of you have google (or at least the time to waste on the internet). Cyclists are safest in the road, as traffic, and the number one risk factor is their level of competence (including sobriety)

I'm a cyclist, and now that I know how to ride, I can't tell you how many times a day I see a negligent driver but am in no personal danger: contrasted to when I first came here & thought I was an inch from dying every 5 minutes.

Much of the danger is self-perceived. With education, practice, and training, a rider is much, much safer.

That being said,
Alphonse,

That's great. Let's get everyone on the sidewalk. When they get hit, this article is still relevant, however, your opinion, no longer is. Your argument is a logical fallacy: it assumes an incorrect dichotomy. The reality is that you aren't doing anything to change it, and the country is shifting away from your point of view, and anyone who wastes time arguing with you is silly. You don't have a point & nothing will ever come from your bluster, so enjoy talking it up here.

As for Anon's statistics: I'm glad they care so much about bikes. But yea, seriously, made-up statistics (or "the evidence makes me think that my statistics are true") do kind of destroy your arguments. Drop the numbers. The reality is you are mostly right already, so they just make the argument seem insecure. No one can argue that our oil dependency is expensive and asinine--just stand your ground on that & drop the 95% figures.

Logical fallacies are great for arguing, but actually hashing things out takes a lot more time than most of you apparently have. If any of you really care, at all, show up at some meetings. ECC meetings, city hall meetings, aldermen meetings.

The reality is you're a bunch of anonymous people posting logical fallacies on the internet, but I honestly have no idea why. Is it vanity? there isn't much fame on an internet message board. Anyway, good luck with it. The rest of us show up at meetings, vote, and affect change in our communities.

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 16, 2008 9:45 AM

Okay, Alphonse; you have a point. The danger inherent in a "heavy mass (1.5 tons or more) impacting an unarmored bicyclist at 30 mph (or faster) seems . . . to be significantly more dangerous than riding off into the bushes."

The obvious solution? Get the heavy masses off the road. Immediately pass legislation restricting the size, weight, and top-speed of every automobile sold in the United States. No more SUVs, sports cars, or heavy trucks for private passenger use.

Sounds draconian, you say? Impossible, perhaps? Well there's a reasonable alternative: require drivers to obey the letter of traffic law and reform transportation infrastructure so as to make a variety of options safe and feasible. That's going to mean that we need to stop seeing driving anywhere one wants, as fast as one wants, as an inalienable right and rather, as a privilege accompanied by responsibilities. It means we need to recognize the awesome danger presented by irresponsible driving and take steps against it.

Yes, it does also mean that every individual needs to take responsibility for his or her own actions and choices, including cyclists and "people on bikes." I'll draw a somewhat snobby distinction between the two. A 'cyclist' rides safely and responsibly, communicates with other road users, and knows and follows applicable traffic law. The second category includes those riding the wrong way down the street, in the dark, with no lights, chatting away on cell phones. It includes those riding irresponsibly along the sidewalk, emerging from curb cuts into traffic without warning. It includes the kids riding with no brakes on their bicycles, dragging their feet to slow themselves at intersections. And yes, this behavior should be addressed as well and ticketed where appropriate.

Changing this behavior is often a matter of education and showing people the safe and responsible way to behave. You'll find that this a major goal of the cycling advocates in this area.

Posted by: anon | July 16, 2008 10:27 AM

I agree Steve! People need to learn to share the road. It's hard the way some roads are designed (i.e. for moving traffic through our neighborhoods as quickly as possible), but people still need to try.

Everyone should keep in mind that if they do have the misfortune of hitting someone (say, a blind/disabled person or child who does not know better -- children and seniors represent 70% of traffic deaths), the laws of physics dictate that if they hit them at 20mph, the person has a 95% chance of survival. If they hit them at 30%, that chance drops to 50% and at 40mph, the chance is 15%. So while you are driving, even if you think you are driving safely, try to stay in the 20-25mph range and you may save someone's life! Even going a couple miles an hour over 20mph can make a life or death difference.

Posted by: David Streever | July 16, 2008 12:07 PM

Forgotten credit:
Matthew Feiner @ the Devil's Gear supported the Jamboree in question heavily.

Sorry for obvious errors (their for there) but I use the latest version of Opera, and the Comments box doesn't clear the floats, so I am typing in a box that is invisible to me: it's somewhere beneath the sign in area, and I have to press "tab" to get to it & type.

Posted by: Michael | July 16, 2008 12:33 PM

I noticed several near-incidents (both with pedestrians and bicycles) in East Rock recently. Because the city began allowing right turns on red not too long ago, I see many cars making a right turn without looking to the right for a pedestrian (even if the pedestrian has the walk signal) or paying attention to a bicyclist coming from the left. The streets in New Haven are just too narrow to accomodate this; drivers have to pull way out to see down the road.

Posted by: anon | July 16, 2008 3:31 PM

Michael,

Citywide and statewide traffic policy and design is completely unsafe and has been for decades. As a society, we have just come to accept 45,000 deaths (130 per day) and millions of injuries per year though. What you point out about turning danger can fairly easily be corrected through redesigned intersections, if there is the political will to accomplish it. The entire system needs to be changed, otherwise people will keep dying. I know the traffic engineers in the city and state don't like to hear that what they've been doing for their entire lives is killing people (they will give you some lame, easy-to-overcome argument about fire engines that wide, insanely-designed streets are needed, even though all available scientific evidence on traffic safety is to the contrary), but we all have to make that clear and begin radically changing the entire system.

The alternative: sit back, relax and accept more deaths and injuries each day, and accept the fact that very few people will choose to get out of their cars as a result.

Posted by: DingDong | July 16, 2008 10:54 PM

William,

Alphonse actually doesn't even have a point: "The danger inherent in a "heavy mass (1.5 tons or more) impacting an unarmored bicyclist at 30 mph (or faster) seems . . . to be significantly more dangerous than riding off into the bushes."

The danger of riding on sidewalks is not of running into the bushes but it is the fact that sidewalks end -- at every cross-street. As a result, you can't really ride JUST on sidewalks since you have to cross the road at every intersection.

The problem with the sidewalks is that you are much less visible. On the road, drivers see you and won't hit you (most of the time). Coming off the sidewalk and onto the road, you're invisible to drivers and will get a hit a lot.

Posted by: KAM B | July 17, 2008 3:00 AM

These biker advocates need to get another hobby. Most motorist in the city get verbal warnings for accidents. Why should cyclists get different treatment?

Posted by: Cheri | July 17, 2008 11:21 AM

I think it's time for all of us to admit that we all make mistakes, and we're all careless sometimes, cyclists included.

I've biked on the sidewalk, I've biked through a few red lights in my time, too. I guess the difference with cycling is that you are very likely to look around you to make sure you don't get hit when biking the wrong way down streets, running lights, etc.

I've personally become much more law abiding in recent years, as I'm aware that I cannot blame motorists for bad behavior if I'm not minding the laws of the road either. I do think cyclists should get their own verbal warnings and tickets when they screw up. I guess the biggest issue though, is the anger coming from motorists who think bikes are in the way, and who seem to believe that bikes don't belong on the road, as well as the very important fact that motorists who screw up can and do kill people, so there are some big differences when we debate the car versus bike issues. I'm very tired of being nearly hit by cars, and being screamed at by motorists...it's incredibly unnerving when your trying to bike on a busy street and someone is screaming/beeping their horns, all because they won't wait a few damn seconds longer to get where they're going. We cyclists are the underdogs of the streets, and I think we're trying to become more mainstream, but habits and attitudes on both sides need to change before that can happen.

Posted by: David Streever | July 17, 2008 12:26 PM

Kam B,
You can call it a hobby, but we've already won. Good luck next round.

Do some research next time: or, just search for accidents on this site. You'll see standard practice is a ticket in car vs car, esp. when a car rear-ends another car. I had a hard time finding instances where a ticket wasn't issued.

I'm glad you know better, but you are too late. The city has listened & responded.

Posted by: Mr. Ride-a-bike-ster-pants | July 17, 2008 8:12 PM

I must admit, I used to get annoyed at folks riding bikes on the busy roads thinking to myself, why don't they use the sidewalk??? Whoops! I know the traffic laws , but I would quickly forget the laws for cars and bikes (share the road) when driving in a rush, or driving in a bad mood. Maybe more educational commercials and "Share the road" bumpa stickas could help.

Posted by: I like boys in bike shorts | July 18, 2008 10:00 AM

First, the comment above is funny. And I agree--we need more signs, stickers, PSA's, to help everyone understand and abide by the rules that are already in place.

Secondly, why is everyone arguing about this? This couple is advocating for safer roads: for those on bikes, pedestrians AND motorists. Its so clear that they are correct, and its clear that they are trying to increase awareness. That's a good thing. And, by the way, I'm really happy that this couple wasn't hurt!