Urban Cycling Developments

[KevinFromTexas]

How are they going to tax bicycle repairs? Most people can do the work themselves. Bicycles are easy enough to work on that having it done is pretty much pointless.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

For example: is a bicyclist liable for ANY of the damages incurred by a third party resulting from an emergency maneuver a car driver had to make to avoid hitting that bicyclist?

Of course they do. And if the police didn't go after the bicyclist you can bet the person in the car would take legal action.

And I think it's silly for people to think that bicyclists don't pay for the infrastructure. Like really? Do bicyclists just not pay taxes at all? I guess being inside a car driving around in a cage looking out through a window at someone on a bicycle getting around seemingly free, that they must assume that person isn't paying anything. This argument's been made before, but bicyclists do drive. Not all of them don't own cars, some do, and even if they don't, they still pay taxes on the streets regardless whether or not they drive on them.

If we're going to separate out bicycle infrastructure cost and put that burden solely on bicyclists, can we also assume that any infrastructure for cars would be transferred from bicyclists solely to drivers?

That idea is no good either way, and in places where bicycle use keeps pace or even outpaces that of automobiles, where will the funding come from for the infrastructure for automobiles? The same is true of places where bicycle use is low. If the tax burden was solely put on bicyclists, it would be extreme since there would be fewer people to carry the load.

You can make this argument in other areas, too, such as school funding. Hey, I have no kids, nor do I want them, why should I pay for a school?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Even with handsfree devices, the use of an MP3 player in both ears could hinder one's hearing whilst riding which would be dangerous also.

I'm guilty of this, too, but I don't think it makes much difference. As long as someone checks behind them to make sure it's clear before they cross a few lanes of traffic to get over, then I see no problem with it. I've listened to music the whole time I've been riding ever since I could ride a bike, and it's never been a problem. The times when I've had issues with cars, listening to or not listening to music wouldn't have made any difference, such as when it was incidences with cars that were ahead of me and I could see them.

Being concerned about listening to music while riding and what kind of situation/danger that might put you in with a car sounds to me like it's someone who rides in the middle of the street not paying attention anyway.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Bicyclists should remember:

"Never for nothing,
And the kicks for a fee..."

One always likes to think that he or she is clever because her or she is taking advantage of facilites someone else is paying for. So, regardless of the idealism of the bicycle crowd, in the big cities at least, bicycle riders need to pay for at least some of the costs of operating (including policing) and constructing the dedicated facilities they demand. Likewise, bicyclists need to share the cost liabilities that arise as the result of pedestrian-bike, and, bicycle-vehicle acccidents. Riding a bicycle does not render a rider immune from the possible consequences of his or her actions. For example: is a bicyclist liable for ANY of the damages incurred by a third party resulting from an emergency maneuver a car driver had to make to avoid hitting that bicyclist?

Idealism aside, there is "no such thing, as a free lunch."

If bicyclists aren't spending on cars, they're probably spending that money somewhere else, and paying taxes on that.

Meanwhile, the bicyclist isn't creating a lot of cost for anyone...very small infrastructure required, no need to protect foreign oil sources, very little pollution for manufacture, etc.

It would be fair to argue that bicyclists deserve a tax rebate for saving us all a lot of money!

[gtbassett]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Bicyclists should remember:

"Never for nothing,
And the kicks for a fee..."

One always likes to think that he or she is clever because her or she is taking advantage of facilites someone else is paying for. So, regardless of the idealism of the bicycle crowd, in the big cities at least, bicycle riders need to pay for at least some of the costs of operating (including policing) and constructing the dedicated facilities they demand. Likewise, bicyclists need to share the cost liabilities that arise as the result of pedestrian-bike, and, bicycle-vehicle acccidents. Riding a bicycle does not render a rider immune from the possible consequences of his or her actions. For example: is a bicyclist liable for ANY of the damages incurred by a third party resulting from an emergency maneuver a car driver had to make to avoid hitting that bicyclist?

Idealism aside, there is "no such thing, as a free lunch."

You do realize that automobile use has been subsidized by the government for over a half a century, yet I don't hear you bitching to car users about paying the real cost of using their automobiles. Bicycles are such a tiny burden on infrastructure etc. that they do pay their fair share through taxes that everybody pays. It's not like we bicycle riders get some special tax return or something.

We get it, you hate bicyclists. And bicyclists are liable the same as car drivers, after all we are legally vehicles that share the road. Of course many car drivers don't respect the fact that we have a right to be on the road and drive in such a manner to convey their opinion, so this is why bicyclists have been advocating for dedicated lanes etc. to ensure safety to bicyclists and also to not inhibit drivers by slowing down traffic. But I forgot, we're a bunch of freeloaders who are just a burden on you automobile users. Just fucking forget that it's actually the other way around and car users are a bunch of freeloaders on the rest of us.

[awholeparade]

I've never had a license, much less a car, and I've always paid the same taxes as anyone else. How can I opt-out of paying the same taxes as a driver, and pay a much smaller tax for being a cyclist? What is wrong with people?!

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

So, regardless of the idealism of the bicycle crowd, in the big cities at least, bicycle riders need to pay for at least some of the costs of operating (including policing) and constructing the dedicated facilities they demand.

Is it your intention to have forumers believe cyclists who pay into the general tax fund are somehow not paying for "at least some" of those general costs already? Or that cyclists don't currently help fund motorists' exclusive nationwide system of freeways and expressways, or the emergency room costs resulting from tens of thousands of bloody automobile accidents every year, or the bloody foreign oil wars and occupations that have burned through $30,000,000,000 in general tax funds only to lower motorists' personal gas bills? Lay out your argument showing cyclists are a drain on the treasury but motorists pay their full costs. This should be amusing.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

How are they going to tax bicycle repairs? Most people can do the work themselves. Bicycles are easy enough to work on that having it done is pretty much pointless.



Of course they do. And if the police didn't go after the bicyclist you can bet the person in the car would take legal action.

And I think it's silly for people to think that bicyclists don't pay for the infrastructure. Like really? Do bicyclists just not pay taxes at all? I guess being inside a car driving around in a cage looking out through a window at someone on a bicycle getting around seemingly free, that they must assume that person isn't paying anything. This argument's been made before, but bicyclists do drive. Not all of them don't own cars, some do, and even if they don't, they still pay taxes on the streets regardless whether or not they drive on them.

If we're going to separate out bicycle infrastructure cost and put that burden solely on bicyclists, can we also assume that any infrastructure for cars would be transferred from bicyclists solely to drivers?

That idea is no good either way, and in places where bicycle use keeps pace or even outpaces that of automobiles, where will the funding come from for the infrastructure for automobiles? The same is true of places where bicycle use is low. If the tax burden was solely put on bicyclists, it would be extreme since there would be fewer people to carry the load.

You can make this argument in other areas, too, such as school funding. Hey, I have no kids, nor do I want them, why should I pay for a school?

If I isolate a portion of the width of a downtown road, solely for bicyclists, then should sidewalks be solely for pedestrians, as cars or motocycles cannot use them?

And, sir, the issue, in part, is USE. If X numbers of users travel an average of Y distance per square meter of dedicated bicycle space, then should not the bicyclists who use it, pay an increment over and above their city sales and income taxes, to use it?

In addition, as bicyclists can operate at enough speed to themselves have significant energy E=mv2, over and above that of a person running, then should not the bicyclist be responsible for that increment of extra energy in the same fashion that a motorcyclist or a auto driver is via their requirement to have insurance? Why should'nt bicyclists HAVE to have insurance?

Why not demand that bicycles be licensed with the county, state, or province?

The only user of public space that has the right NOT to increment of use taxes is the pedestrian, as he or she does not use ANY vehicle, as this is locomotion "au natural"

The issue of public education is a non sequitor, as driving a car, motorcycle or riding a bike is a qualified privilege, not a legal right.

[gtbassett]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

If I isolate a portion of the width of a downtown road, solely for bicyclists, then should sidewalks be solely for pedestrians, as cars or motocycles cannot use them?

Sidewalks are for pedestrians... Cars and motorcycles cannot use them...

And, sir, the issue, in part, is USE. If X numbers of users travel an average of Y distance per square meter of dedicated bicycle space, then should not the bicyclists who use it, pay an increment over and above their city sales and income taxes, to use it?

Please bring this issue up once automobile users are actually paying the full burden of infrastructure and cost to use their cars. Until then, it's complete bullshit attacking of bicyclists while favoring automobiles, which already happens too much.

In addition, as bicyclists can operate at enough speed to themselves have significant energy E=mv2, over and above that of a person running, then should not the bicyclist be responsible for that increment of extra energy in the same fashion that a motorcyclist or a auto driver is via their requirement to have insurance? Why shouldn't bicyclists HAVE to have insurance?

Why not demand that bicycles be licensed with the county, state, or province?

Now the concept of licensed bicycles is not something I'm completely against, it would make it easier to track stolen bikes and also probably require more education to the rider about proper use and following traffic laws. But on the other hand, where do you draw the line, what about the 5 year old kid who's just learning to ride his bike without training wheels? Do you force him to go take a license test or something like that? It's hard to implement that type of law because bicycles are toys for kids, yet still serve as incredibly efficient transportation devices for adults.

On the subject of insurance lets face it, any damage incurred in a traffic accident of car vs bicycle, the vast majority of damage will be going towards the bicycle and bicyclist, not the car. To put it simply, bicycles do not inflict enough harm and damage to really warrant mandatory insurance. Also, this concept of mandatory insurance for bicyclists would be a direct political target against poorer people who already suffer from an increased proportional burden of their wealth going to things like transportation, insurance, health care etc.

[Nick.]

Originally Posted by gtbassett

Now the concept of licensed bicycles is not something I'm completely against, it would make it easier to track stolen bikes and also probably require more education to the rider about proper use and following traffic laws. But on the other hand, where do you draw the line, what about the 5 year old kid who's just learning to ride his bike without training wheels? Do you force him to go take a license test or something like that? It's hard to implement that type of law because bicycles are toys for kids, yet still serve as incredibly efficient transportation devices for adults.

its hell of easy dog, if you ride on the road you need a license

[KevinFromTexas]

Meh. It's not like bicycles can do any real damage to cars. About the only time they cause damage is between them and pedestrians or with motorcycles. But in any case the person would likely still be caught since they'd probably be laying on the street/sidewalk unconscious with broken bones. It's not like they can hobble away very easily.

Given that fact, it's in the bicyclist's best interest to not ride a bike like a dumbass since it's their life on the line, and they'll likely be the only one to pay for it in more ways than one if they do screw up.

[M II A II R II K]

Bikers, beware the door zone


Read More: http://www.grist.org/biking/2011-09-...-the-door-zone

City bicyclists know the dangers of the door zone: In this three feet of road closest to parked cars, it's not uncommon for careless drivers to swing their doors open without looking. The ensuing collision of metal, glass, and flesh can be disastrous, and since most bike lanes are nestled up against parked cars, the door zone also effectively cuts many bike lanes in half. There are a number of better ways to design bike lanes, but redesigning a street costs money -- something most cities are short on these days. In bike-centric cities like San Francisco, the door zone can be a big problem. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) notes that dooring is the second most common cause of injury while biking, so the agency set out to do something about it. Their economical solution involved painting a few lines to alert riders to the extent of the door zone.

- Streetsblog San Francisco says studies performed by the SFMTA show the added lines have increased the average distance from the curb cyclists ride from 10.3 feet to 10.9 feet. While that may not seem like a lot, it was enough that the number of cyclists riding in the door zone on Howard Street, one of the trial streets, dropped from 24 percent to 10 percent. Riders on Polk Street moved from an average 10 feet to 10.4 feet from the curb, and door zone cyclists dropped from 41 percent to 30 percent. The ideal option would be to give cyclists more of the road; cycle tracks do this while using parked cars to keep car traffic out of the bike lanes.

.....

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VERGMkMTOwQ" target="_blank">Video Link

[electricron]

Whereas I completely agree with you about the danger of door zones, I don't necessarily agree that the fault belongs to the door opener. In the example in the video above, I believe the fault lies with the biker, because the biker didn't allow sufficient room. There have been laws enacted in many States where drivers must give bikers a 3 feet buffer when passing, shouldn't the same 3 feet buffer exist between bikers and parked cars? Isn't the person exiting a parked car a pedestrian? Shouldn't a pedestrian have just as much right to space as the biker? Additionally, was the biker riding in a stripped bike lane?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by electricron

Whereas I completely agree with you about the danger of door zones, I don't necessarily agree that the fault belongs to the door opener.

California says othewise: any time any motorist or passenger opens any car door into any bicyclist, it is always and only the fault of the person who is "operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe fashion." Always. Every time. No exceptions. You open a car door and then a cyclist (or car or bus or garbage truck) hits that door, you are at fault. Imagine if it were not so.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by fflint

California says othewise: any time any motorist or passenger opens any car door into any bicyclist, it is always and only the fault of the person who is "operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe fashion." Always. Every time. No exceptions. You open a car door and then a cyclist (or car or bus or garbage truck) hits that door, you are at fault. Imagine if it were not so.

Really?

"No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic..." CA CVC 22517

"Bicyclists should ride far enough away from parked vehicles to avoid being hit by an opening door." California Department of Motor Vehicles Safety Tips for Bicyclists and Motorists (FFDL-37)

"When passing parked cars, stay toward the left portion of your lane. This way, you can avoid problems caused by doors opening, drivers getting out of cars, or people stepping from between cars. If oncoming traffic is present, it is usually best to remain in the center portion of the lane to maximize your space cushion." California Motorcycle Handbook

"Riding between rows of stopped or moving cars in the same lane can leave you vulnerable. A car could turn suddenly or change lanes, a door could open, or a hand could come out of a window." California Motorcycle Handbook

An interesting read about Door legal cases in oregon.
http://www.stc-law.com/bicyclecardoor.html
Frequently, the motorist is apologetic and completely willing to accept blame at the scene (in spite of the advice on many insurance identification cards "do not accept fault for the accident"), but by the time the motorist thinks about it and talks to an insurance adjuster or attorney, frequently their view of the accident changes. The revised version goes something like this: "I opened my car door with plenty of distance behind me for the approaching bicyclist to see it. If the bicyclist had been paying attention, he or she would have seen that my door was open and ridden around it. Since I only intended to have the door open long enough to get out of the car, the accident is mostly the fault of the bicyclist." Believe it or not, this argument is enough to inject a note of comparative negligence on the part of the bicyclist into the equation in most cases.
The percentage of comparative fault works a pro rata reduction in the amount of damages, so the effect is significant. Add the fact that most of the members of any jury will identify primarily with the motorist, not the bicycle rider, and you have a recipe for disappointment for an injured bicycle rider. Remember, under Oregon's system of comparative fault, if a jury decides that the motorist was partly at fault for opening the car door (less than 50%) but the bicyclist was mostly at fault (more than 50%) for failing to pay close enough attention and to make a reasonable effort to avoid striking the open door, then the bicyclist loses in court (even though the motorist violated the vehicle code by his or her own admission).

In Texas, bikes riders follow the same laws as drivers of motor vehicles.
PASSING ON THE RIGHT
In Texas and many other states, you may pass on the right only when conditions permit you to do so safely, such as:
1. The road is clear of parked vehicles or other things and is wide enough for two or more lanes in each direction.
2. You are on a one-way road.
3. You may pass on a paved shoulder when the vehicle you are passing is slowing or stopped on the main travelled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn.
Do not pass on the right by driving off the paved portion of the highway.

BICYCLE TRAFFIC LAW
4. A bicyclist should always obey all traffic laws, signs, and signals. Never ride opposite the flow of traffic. Stop at all stop signs and stop at red lights.
5. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as possible to the right curb or edge of the roadway unless:
a. The person is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
b. The person is preparing for a left turn at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway.
c. There are unsafe conditions in the roadway such as fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, potholes, or debris.
d. The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

The Texas Driver's Handbook doesn't address vehicle occupants opening doors at all. In Texas, bike riders are expected to avoid dooring by giving parked cars a safe clearance.

[gtbassett]

Having been "doored" by inattentive motorists, I must say that it really sucks, and in many cases there is absolutely nothing you can you. I was riding in a straight line, relatively near the parking lanes because of passing traffic on a narrow two lane road, I'm just cruising along, and all of a sudden, I'm flipping over a mini van door, with my bike doing the summersault because I'm clipped in. After a moment of sitting on the ground my first thought is "Holy shit how did I not just hit my head?" followed by "Fuck my bike is severely damaged" followed by "Ow I fractured my foot." Being a, nice cheap motherfucker with health insurance, I accept the 500 bucks the guy offers me on the spot and limp home. I guess I could have sued him for thousands, but whatever, it was actually pretty fun in retrospect.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by electricron

Really?

Yep. Really. No cyclist is ever responsible for being doored by a motorist in California. You cited the only legally relevant statute when determining fault: "No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic..." CA CVC 22517. Dooring a bicyclist has been found by the courts to fall below the "reasonably safe" standard. A reasonably prudent person, the courts have determined, would make sure not to open a car door into moving traffic and cause a collision.

[awholeparade]

Yeah, I've NEVER heard of a cyclist being at fault for being doored, anywhere. Can people make up there mind with where we belong?! Do you want us to the right of the lane? Do you want us in bike lanes? If this is where you want us, then pay attention when you open your door.

[DTW]

sixteen miles of bike lanes soon ready for riding in corktown, mexicantown, southwest detroit

bike culture is shifting to a higher gear in detroit, where construction is underway on what will be the city's largest concentration of dedicated bicycle lanes.

The corktown-mexicantown-southwest detroit greenlink will connect the neighborhoods with more than 16 miles of bike lanes, and the civil engineering firm behind the project says construction should be completed by the middle of the month.

"linking corktown, mexicantown and southwest detroit will provide detroiters and visitors with convenient, safe access to three of the city's most historic and vibrant neighborhoods," scott clein, executive vice president of giffels-webster engineers, said in a released statement.

Giffels-webster worked with the greater corktown development corporation and the southwest detroit business association to design the greenlink and secure funding. The community foundation for southeast michigan previously awarded a grant to the sdba and the michigan department of transportation is covering 80 percent of the construction costs through its federally-funded enhancement activity program.


http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in..._lanes_co.html

{

Cool vid about biking in Detroit

Video Link

[fflint]

^Love the video, especially the extended shots of Detroit Critical Mass rolling through the cityscape. I'm heartened by Detroit's bike revival, which gets some press occasionally on the bike-related blogs ever since the Duquesne Cut opened. It's good to see 16 new miles of bike lane going in.


http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/06/29...cling-culture/

[fflint]

From the article DTW linked:

Originally Posted by mlive.com

The bike lane project is the first-phase of Detroit's non-motorized Transportation Master Plan, also designed by Giffels-Webster, which calls for more than 400 miles of bike lanes throughout the city. The plan incorporates principles of the "complete streets" movement, which aims to make roads accessible to all users, whether they be on foot, bike, wheelchair, moped, car or bus.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in..._lanes_co.html