Rant about <stupid> cyclists

[marblejane]

philby85, thank you. I genuinely appreciate your civility and willingness to engage in a real debate on these issues. A lot of my frustration with these recent threads has been the black-and-white mindset of some participants, and the unwillingness to discuss facts.

I still think we disagree on the need for targeting cyclists for traffic enforcement, but I nonetheless appreciate your engagement in the discussion.

[philby85]

philby85, thank you. I genuinely appreciate your civility and willingness to engage in a real debate on these issues. A lot of my frustration with these recent threads has been the black-and-white mindset of some participants, and the unwillingness to discuss facts.

I still think we disagree on the need for targeting cyclists for traffic enforcement, but I nonetheless appreciate your engagement in the discussion.

Thanks :).

[fallstoclimb]

I know I should just let this thread go but I can't stop thinking about it, because bike advocacy is something I care a lot about, and if we can't get Mustachians on board do we even have a chance?

I think the cycling community is quick to react strongly to any criticism because we are constantly told and/or treated like we don't have any right to the road at all (a lot of drivers actually believe we should be on the sidewalk, which lawfully isn't true).  We're an oppressed minority, basically, and every time we get out on the road we are taking the risk of being killed by an inattentive or aggressive driver. 

Personally speaking, every action I take on the road is intended to keep me safer, because its scary out there.  The only illegal action I will do is slowly coast through stop signs after carefully checking traffic.  Cars never come to a full stop at these either, so I would be annoyed if ticketed but would accept it.

I think the cyclists who exhibit "bad behavior" are probably more found in cities (bike messengers, youths, etc).  In the suburb where I live, there's a very strong cycling community, mostly made up of recreational road and mountain bikers but also some commuters.   The cyclists who behave like idiots are very much a minority, and the groups I ride with would never stand for someone behaving that way on the road.  I almost never see any cyclist behave in an illegal or dangerous way.

Do you know what I do see, on just about any long ride?  A car tailgating me, laying on its horn and scaring me half to death as it passes too close.  The amount of aggressive drivers we have to deal with on a daily basis who PUT OUR LIVES IN DANGER is astounding (maybe there is less of this in Australia, I think America is particularly untolerant of being slowed down for even a second).  I'm a nice and charming 30 year old woman.  People like me.  And yet as soon as I get on a bike, I become an "other," a problem.

So, yeah, this is why it sucks to hear so much cyclist hating on a community forum that I thought had similar values to me.   Bikes over clown cars, and all.

[hybrid]

I dispute the following points that are made, repeatedly, WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. The cyclist population is more likely to break the law than other groups. Show me the evidence for this claim. NO ONE has demonstrated that cyclists somehow break the law more frequently than the general population. Instead, it devolves into an anecdotal bitch session about cyclists.

Yeah, sorry Jane, these are simply my observations. I am either completely making this up, deliberately biased against cyclists, or see so few cyclists over time that I haven't a proper sample size to reach a conclusion. You'll have to simply accept I am not making this up (or not). Since I am a cyclist I have no motivation to be biased against cyclists. And since I have been working in downtown Richmond for over thirteen years, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse on the biking community here. I have no way of proving my observations to you. Nevertheless, it is so all the same.

I will throw this point out, I think one of the reasons cyclists so blatantly flaunt the law in my area is because their size and maneuverability make it far easier (and tempting) to do so. A car cannot readily move against traffic or hop up on and off the sidewalk. With greater visibility, a cyclist can see if there is a cop around before blowing through a red light. Because bikes are so much more different than cars, I think a lot of cyclists quite simply adopt a different mindset when working the pedals. After all, most cyclists are also drivers.

[RetiredAt63]

Topic detour here - vehicle weight has a huge effect on road condition.  Here during the thaw trucks have smaller maximum loads, because too much weight while the subsurface is thawing will damage the roads.  Even with lighter loads they cause damage -I can see it on major highways, where the right hand lane has two depressions (truck size) and the left lane does not (trucks rarely use it).
  Also re costs, lots of road maintenance comes out of general revenue, because "roads are good for commerce".  Too bad the same thinking doesn't apply to train rail upkeep - the commuter train system here is so much worse than say, 20 years ago, despite MMM's nice picture of the family on Via Rail.  Too many rail lines are now hiking trails (although they could be transferred back) or have been built on (gone forever as a right-of-way).
  So any cyclist who pays taxes (or child whose parents pay taxes) has helped pay for roads.  And really this is everyone, because home-owners pay municipal taxes, and renters pay rent to owners who pay municipal taxes and federal and state/provincial taxes, and some of those tax dollars get spent on roads.
  Now if everyone (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, skate-boarders) would all behave nicely to each other while on the roads, we would live in paradise.  Right?  I do add skateboarders here, because I know of Universities where skate-boarders are the biggest problem for road/walkway safety - not cars, not cyclists.

[frugalnacho]

Since so much of the road is paid from public funds (not registration fees or fuel tax), and bicycles cause nearly no damage, isn't someone that chooses to bike subsidizing those that drive?  Shouldn't there be an anti-registration fee, where they actually refund part of my tax money that goes to maintain a road I don't destroy?

[Travis]

The university I mentioned earlier mandated that every student register their bikes with the campus transportation office.  It was a California bicycle registration sticker that went on the frame. The fee was $10 and lasted a couple years.  It's on the books as a statewide requirement, but it's not really enforced except for at the colleges.  The university reserves the right to impound bikes without the sticker.

[marblejane]

I dispute the following points that are made, repeatedly, WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. The cyclist population is more likely to break the law than other groups. Show me the evidence for this claim. NO ONE has demonstrated that cyclists somehow break the law more frequently than the general population. Instead, it devolves into an anecdotal bitch session about cyclists.

Yeah, sorry Jane, these are simply my observations. I am either completely making this up, deliberately biased against cyclists, or see so few cyclists over time that I haven't a proper sample size to reach a conclusion. You'll have to simply accept I am not making this up (or not). Since I am a cyclist I have no motivation to be biased against cyclists. And since I have been working in downtown Richmond for over thirteen years, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse on the biking community here. I have no way of proving my observations to you. Nevertheless, it is so all the same.

I will throw this point out, I think one of the reasons cyclists so blatantly flaunt the law in my area is because their size and maneuverability make it far easier (and tempting) to do so. A car cannot readily move against traffic or hop up on and off the sidewalk. With greater visibility, a cyclist can see if there is a cop around before blowing through a red light. Because bikes are so much more different than cars, I think a lot of cyclists quite simply adopt a different mindset when working the pedals. After all, most cyclists are also drivers.

But that's precisely my point. You don't have any data to support your claim that cyclists are somehow more lawless than the general population. And you haven't considered that you may have reached this conclusion incorrectly because of an affect heuristic. Did you read this article? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/cyclists_are_annoying_why_you_think_they_re_a_menace_on_two_wheels_.html

[winstonsmith]

Since so much of the road is paid from public funds (not registration fees or fuel tax), and bicycles cause nearly no damage, isn't someone that chooses to bike subsidizing those that drive?  Shouldn't there be an anti-registration fee, where they actually refund part of my tax money that goes to maintain a road I don't destroy?

Exactly!  I commute by bike in the U.S., but also happen to own/maintain a vehicle (I think many cyclists are in this situation) and pay taxes.  I pay for vehicle registration and occasionally buy fuel.  So, every time I choose to travel by bike, I am paying more than my fair share for road/infrastructure maintenance considering how little damage cycling does to the road.

-winston

[Sylly]

Still no demonstration from any of the anti-bike posters here of the significance of the impact of the cyclist behaviors under discussion. Lots of focus on other things, but tell me what are the real consequences to others of this horrible behavior? If you don't know, why are you so sure something needs to change?

So, yeah, this is why it sucks to hear so much cyclist hating on a community forum that I thought had similar values to me.   Bikes over clown cars, and all.

I feel just the opposite. I'm growing weary of the cycling apologists on this site. Cyclists are not above legitimate criticism, and when they are being legitimately criticized it would be nice to stick to the topic without the constant "Oh yeah, what about car drivers!" that seems to immediately follow (start a different thread I say). Too many overly sensitive cyclists it seems.

To note: I'm pretty ambivalent about cycling. The cyclists I see on the road are generally serious enough cyclists that they know what they're doing, and the road I most frequently travel is a 3-lane parkway with pretty high speed limit and a bike lane, so I don't see them running running red lights or weaving through lanes. So no, I'm not anti-bike. But nor am I a 'cyclist apologist' (as hybrid puts it)

A couple of people posted complaints / criticisms of cyclists who don't follow the law, and/or behave in ways that endanger themselves and others. Some people are more law-abiding than others and prefer all rules of the roads apply equally.
Suddenly all these means people with these views are anti-cyclists.
People can agree or disagree, but it's not ok to exaggerate people's positions and claim that they are anti-bike or against *all* cyclists.
Arguments have subtleties. Just because you can extend it to ridiculous conclusions doesn't mean you're still representing the original argument.

Calm down and try to actually understand what the other is saying -- whichever 'side' you're on.

[Glenstache]

The slate article was very good. Affect heuristic is a good framework for understanding the largely pointless discussion that goes on in the bike-car rant threads. And there is an affect heuristic at work from the cycling community as well. On the road, a subset of drivers yell and scream at well-behaving cyclists, attempt to run them off the road, hit them, slap them on the ass , throw things at them, and generally threaten them with bodily injury or death. While this is a small number of overall drivers the penalties and therefore the emotional response is pretty large. I can tell you that having a water ballon hit you in the back after being launched from a car at 30 mph gets a strong reaction, as does having cars pull into and purposefully block the bike lane you are riding in. These emotions surface pretty readily when driver start complaining about cyclists as a group. Yes, most drivers aren't like this, but there is a reason that cyclists are a bit edgy about cars... and taken as a whole the cyclists view of car behavior is about the same as drivers views of cyclist behavior. Add some affect heuristic from both sides and you get a pointless name-calling discussion. But in the end, doesn't it all come down to the world being a better place if people aren't assholes to each other, be it on the road or in a discussion forum?

[hybrid]

I dispute the following points that are made, repeatedly, WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. The cyclist population is more likely to break the law than other groups. Show me the evidence for this claim. NO ONE has demonstrated that cyclists somehow break the law more frequently than the general population. Instead, it devolves into an anecdotal bitch session about cyclists.

Yeah, sorry Jane, these are simply my observations. I am either completely making this up, deliberately biased against cyclists, or see so few cyclists over time that I haven't a proper sample size to reach a conclusion. You'll have to simply accept I am not making this up (or not). Since I am a cyclist I have no motivation to be biased against cyclists. And since I have been working in downtown Richmond for over thirteen years, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse on the biking community here. I have no way of proving my observations to you. Nevertheless, it is so all the same.

I will throw this point out, I think one of the reasons cyclists so blatantly flaunt the law in my area is because their size and maneuverability make it far easier (and tempting) to do so. A car cannot readily move against traffic or hop up on and off the sidewalk. With greater visibility, a cyclist can see if there is a cop around before blowing through a red light. Because bikes are so much more different than cars, I think a lot of cyclists quite simply adopt a different mindset when working the pedals. After all, most cyclists are also drivers.

But that's precisely my point. You don't have any data to support your claim that cyclists are somehow more lawless than the general population. And you haven't considered that you may have reached this conclusion incorrectly because of an affect heuristic. Did you read this article? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/cyclists_are_annoying_why_you_think_they_re_a_menace_on_two_wheels_.html

I've made my argument Jane, and you can either opt to accept my observations of Richmond cyclists as valid or not. Richmond is not Portland, our cycling culture is weak here. And most folks here are doing it wrong. You can disagree with my first-hand account all you like, to which I'll simply say.... prove it. Your supposed point is based on the premise that you both know Richmond cycling traffic better than someone that actually lives there and that I cannot be objective. Well, you are entitled to that if it makes your square peg fit in a round hole.   

[AH013]

Since so much of the road is paid from public funds (not registration fees or fuel tax), and bicycles cause nearly no damage, isn't someone that chooses to bike subsidizing those that drive?  Shouldn't there be an anti-registration fee, where they actually refund part of my tax money that goes to maintain a road I don't destroy?

Meh.  Weather is a larger factor of the degradation of asphalt than traffic.  Plus that presumes you want no benefit of the roads at all -- police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, public buses, utility maintenance crews, government officials, couriers and freight services, national guard/military, infrastructure construction crews, etc. all use roads and benefit the general populace even if a particular individual of the general populace doesn't drive a car.  I imagine you as a non-driver place at least some value, quantifiable in tax dollars, in being able to call the police to say someone is trying to kill you, and having them fly through the paved streets at 60mph in a cruiser to get to you ASAP rather than hop on a mountain bike and pedal through overgrown wilderness at all of about 2mph.

I think a 50/50 split of road expenses between general populace & car drivers is roughly fair, but would be a proponent of a higher gas tax (as long as those funds went to defray general tax revenue usage for energy infrastructure development or public transit services) as it would have a dual benefit of reducing congestion and reducing energy usage / environmental impact.  But I think gas taxes in general really don't shift the burden of taxation between driver vs. non-driver but rather do so between "drive a reasonable car" vs "cruise around in a H3 cause it's cool".

[hybrid]

I think she's encouraging you to consider the article, not saying you're objectively wrong. But regardless, you raise an interesting point (that's related to one I was thinking about while riding my bike this morning) in your comment that the cycling culture is weak in Richmond (where, incidentally, I spent a summer commuting by bike, but it was a time (the late 90s) when I saw almost no other bike commuters). Since we're throwing out personal observations, I think that the less significant the size of the local cycling population, the more likely a greater proportion of the members are "doing it wrong." As it becomes more mainstream, the people doing it tend to act more mainstream (and the drivers become more familiar with it, too). But if the population of cyclists is tiny, I don't think they have much real impact on drivers even if many of them are doing it wrong.

I read the article, all well and good, doesn't change a pretty obvious observation on my part however. To your point about the size of the cycling culture, I think there is some merit there. My commute is 7.5 miles each way, and of the precious few bikes I do see along the way almost no one wears a helmet and most folks are not obeying the rules of traffic. I feel like this impacts me because drivers around me see a lot more of their behavior than mine, and therefore I feel like legitimate cycling (which includes owning your lane) is hindered as a result. On those rare occasions I do get yelled at by motorists, "Sidewalk!" (as in "Get on one") is the most popular. Why? I would venture because the driver both genuinely thinks the cyclist should be there and that is what they see from day to day. Therefore the folks that are riding on sidewalks - of which there are plenty - are undermining folks like me.

If you happen to be in a city where most folks are cycling in a better manner (like, oh, Amsterdam), I think that's great! (It's just not that way here...)   

[DoubleDown]

Well, here in Washington DC, which has a pretty strong biking culture, I see lots of douchebaggery from cyclists. But I see a lot of it from car drivers, too, if that makes anyone feel any better. Like I said earlier, one thing I don't see nearly as much from car drivers is giving the finger and failing to own up to said douchebaggery. Most (not all) car drivers, when they make a mistake and are honked at, either give a wave of apology, or do nothing. But it's a reasonably common occurrence here to see a cyclist blatantly disregard a law (like running a stop sign at 15-20 mph), then when they are honked at, they add insult to injury by flipping the bird to the person honking at them.

[hybrid]

If you happen to be in a city where most folks are cycling in a better manner (like, oh, Amsterdam), I think that's great! (It's just not that way here...)   

Richmond's hosting the UCI Road World Championships next year, so piggyback it for some awareness!

Yeah, I'm worried Brazil has nothing on us regarding being woefully unprepared to host a major sporting event..... I do hope I'm wrong on that account. Getting to work downtown will be a whole helluva lot easier on bike that week.

[NoraLenderbee]

Since so much of the road is paid from public funds (not registration fees or fuel tax), and bicycles cause nearly no damage, isn't someone that chooses to bike subsidizing those that drive?  Shouldn't there be an anti-registration fee, where they actually refund part of my tax money that goes to maintain a road I don't destroy?

Meh.  Weather is a larger factor of the degradation of asphalt than traffic.  Plus that presumes you want no benefit of the roads at all -- police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, public buses, utility maintenance crews, government officials, couriers and freight services, national guard/military, infrastructure construction crews, etc. all use roads and benefit the general populace even if a particular individual of the general populace doesn't drive a car.  I imagine you as a non-driver place at least some value, quantifiable in tax dollars, in being able to call the police to say someone is trying to kill you, and having them fly through the paved streets at 60mph in a cruiser to get to you ASAP rather than hop on a mountain bike and pedal through overgrown wilderness at all of about 2mph.

Yes, everyone benefits from having roads,  even total non-drivers. And (in the US) everyone pays for roads, including non-drivers through general taxes. The point is that when someone says, "Cyclists don't pay their fair share, so they don't belong on the roads" they are making a completely bogus argument.

[GuitarStv]

For the people in this thread who are claiming that cyclists violate the laws associated with road usage more than motorists . . . I'd like to bring up a counterpoint:

Speeding.


At least around here, 95+% of the population of drivers speeds.  It's extremely unusual to see someone driving at or below the limit, and doing so will get you cut off, tailgated, and honked at by other motorists.  Nearly every motorist violates traffic laws each time they use their vehicle.  It's so commonplace that there isn't even a fine on the books until you're doing 10 kph over the limit.

I don't think you can say that there's a huge difference between routinely speeding in a car and routinely rolling through stop signs on bikes as far as law-abidingness goes.

[marblejane]

I read the article, all well and good, doesn't change a pretty obvious observation on my part however. To your point about the size of the cycling culture, I think there is some merit there. My commute is 7.5 miles each way, and of the precious few bikes I do see along the way almost no one wears a helmet and most folks are not obeying the rules of traffic. I feel like this impacts me because drivers around me see a lot more of their behavior than mine, and therefore I feel like legitimate cycling (which includes owning your lane) is hindered as a result. On those rare occasions I do get yelled at by motorists, "Sidewalk!" (as in "Get on one") is the most popular. Why? I would venture because the driver both genuinely thinks the cyclist should be there and that is what they see from day to day. Therefore the folks that are riding on sidewalks - of which there are plenty - are undermining folks like me.

If you happen to be in a city where most folks are cycling in a better manner (like, oh, Amsterdam), I think that's great! (It's just not that way here...)   

Yes, I was encouraging you to read the article, not arguing that you were objectively wrong. Your earlier posts also referred to cyclists "blatantly flouting the law" which I assumed was a reference to the "spandex clad" "urban assault bike messengers"others had mentioned--experienced cyclists who understand the traffic laws and consciously choose to break them.

However, it sounds like there just aren't many cyclists in your area, and therefore there is a lack of understanding (both on the part of cyclists and drivers) of how bicycles should behave. I see how you could find that frustrating.

I just find it unfair that cyclists are being described in this thread as "willful lawbreakers" whereas drivers just don't know any better.

[BlueHouse]

I'm not a great rider (yet) and I do some stupid things just about every time I get on a bike.  I'm trying to improve because I want to get good enough to start commuting to work.   
My responsibility is to be as good and predictable a rider as possible while following the rules of the road, but when I am uncoordinated or I make an error, I fully expect car drivers (and pedestrians) to do everything they possibly can to avoid hitting me or getting hit by me, just as I do everything I can to avoid hitting them.  So far, so good. 
Thanks for paying attention when you're driving so that if I fall you don't kill me.   

[thepokercab]

I'm not suggesting cyclists pay the same as cars to use the road, just pay a contribution that covers their use of the road.

I like to think my contribution is that i'm emitting fewer metric tons of earth-cooking C02 into the atmosphere.    I bring this up, because I do think its one part of Mustachianism that tends to get overlooked: Doing what one can to fuck up the planet less.  In that battle, cycling is the pretty clear winner. 

Also, just an observation, but I find Mustachians mixed views on cycling fascinating.  Even when MMM posts something on biking it usually gets the most attention/arguments/comments.   To me its pretty simple that more biking= good, less driving=good, and what flows from that naturally is advocating for policies that empower and encourage cycling.  Imposing a bike 'registration' would undoubtedly have the opposite effect.

What gives Mustachians?   

[Supertaster]

You guys sure love to put on capes for your chosen form of transportation, lol.

My perspective is one of a guy who drives daily and hasn't ridden a bike since he was 14.

Obvious points to cover immediately: There are stupid drivers. There are stupid cyclists.

I think we need to look at why some of those people are 'stupid'. Just to throw out my own personal example:

I approach the same intersection on my way to work everyday. I've seen a lot of idiot drivers to a lot of idiot things. This particular intersection doesn't offer good vision when you're turning left on a yellow light and if you aren't paying attention you'll nail an oncoming car. The timing for one of the right-on-red turns is a little quick once traffic stops from the other directions and if you don't pull out immediately, you'll have a line of traffic on your bumper. They change the light's timing three times a day and this messes with a lot of drivers.

You know how I know those things? Experience. I've seen thousands of situations involving all kinds of cars and all kinds of drivers at this intersection over the course of four years. I know when I need to make my move quickly, and when I need to pause and check a couple of directions.

I've seen maybe four cyclists in that time. I just don't have as much experience in dealing with cyclists. I have no idea if you're supposed to use the light, or use the crosswalk, or if this intersection prohibits bicycles, I have no idea.

I think that's at least part of the greater issue. Car drivers are used to driving with other cars. Due to the medium in which cyclists have to travel, they are also used to driving with cars. Most people driving cars have no idea where bicycles are supposed to be, or when they are in the right, or when they are in the wrong.

You can label this ignorance as 'stupidity' if you want, but there really isn't another way to learn.

[philby85]

I'm not suggesting cyclists pay the same as cars to use the road, just pay a contribution that covers their use of the road.

I like to think my contribution is that i'm emitting fewer metric tons of earth-cooking C02 into the atmosphere.    I bring this up, because I do think its one part of Mustachianism that tends to get overlooked: Doing what one can to fuck up the planet less.  In that battle, cycling is the pretty clear winner. 

Also, just an observation, but I find Mustachians mixed views on cycling fascinating.  Even when MMM posts something on biking it usually gets the most attention/arguments/comments.   To me its pretty simple that more biking= good, less driving=good, and what flows from that naturally is advocating for policies that empower and encourage cycling.  Imposing a bike 'registration' would undoubtedly have the opposite effect.

What gives Mustachians?   

I totally agree that lower CO2 emissions are part of the game, and for a Mustachian tie in with better health and lower expenses. Unfortunately, lower CO2 emissions don't contribute directly to the cost of the road infrastructure. If someone drives an electric car, should they be exempt from registration too? Given the increasing number of electric cars we will have on the road, is that really sustainable? And lets also consider the ultimate end game. 90% of people using bikes to commute to work. Now, yes, road maintenance would be less, but would it be sustainable?

Personally, when I pay for something, I do my best to make damn sure to get maximum value from it. I think if I stumped up money for registration, it would encourage me to actually ride my bike more. A $50 (for arguments sake) registration for bicycles wouldn't override the financial benefits (no fuel, ultra low depreciation, etc) , would still be cheaper than a yearly gym membership, and imo could ultimately lead to better outcomes for all cyclists.

[philby85]

Here is another idea... What if cyclists had to pass a written and practical exam before they were allowed to ride on the road? And they had to have a photo ID licence to back it up? And then in parallel also modify the drivers licence exams to include a whole section on bicycles, how the road rules apply to them, and how cars should interact with bicycles?

a) this educates both sides of the divide
b) for bicycles, it would introduce a demerit and fine system similar to what is imposed on car drivers allowing for repeat and serious offenders to be banned from the road

The only major downside I can see to this is that it would be a barrier in getting people to switch from cars to bicycles, but ultimately if you need a bus/car/truck/motor bike/etc licence to use the road, why should bicycles be any different?

[clarkfan1979]

I'll chime in. I was approaching a stop sign at a 3-way intersection. A cyclist comes from the street to my right and turns onto my street. They are going about 20 mph, completely blew the stop sign and are struggling to make the turn because they took it a little too tight. The cyclist had to use the left lane of oncoming traffic to make the turn. I see him at the last minute and hit the brakes and he nearly misses me. He puts him arm out, instructing me to stop like a crossing guard, and rides away. I would never wish anyone to get hurt, but I think it would have been funny if he got hurt and got a ticket. 

[GuitarStv]

Here is another idea... What if cyclists had to pass a written and practical exam before they were allowed to ride on the road? And they had to have a photo ID licence to back it up? And then in parallel also modify the drivers licence exams to include a whole section on bicycles, how the road rules apply to them, and how cars should interact with bicycles?

a) this educates both sides of the divide
b) for bicycles, it would introduce a demerit and fine system similar to what is imposed on car drivers allowing for repeat and serious offenders to be banned from the road

The only major downside I can see to this is that it would be a barrier in getting people to switch from cars to bicycles, but ultimately if you need a bus/car/truck/motor bike/etc licence to use the road, why should bicycles be any different?

Here's another major downside . . . Your plan would effectively push even more people who bike off the road and onto the sidewalks to avoid paying for licensing.  This has two consequences:
- cycling is significantly less safe on sidewalks than on roads
- it results in fewer cyclists on roads which has proven to increase car related accidents (with bikes) as drivers are less used to looking out for cyclists.

Your plan guarantees higher fatalities for cyclists as well as being expensive to run.

[Blarny]

I hate cyclists on the pavement!

[ChrisLansing]

Here is another idea... What if cyclists had to pass a written and practical exam before they were allowed to ride on the road? And they had to have a photo ID licence to back it up? And then in parallel also modify the drivers licence exams to include a whole section on bicycles, how the road rules apply to them, and how cars should interact with bicycles?

a) this educates both sides of the divide
b) for bicycles, it would introduce a demerit and fine system similar to what is imposed on car drivers allowing for repeat and serious offenders to be banned from the road

The only major downside I can see to this is that it would be a barrier in getting people to switch from cars to bicycles, but ultimately if you need a bus/car/truck/motor bike/etc licence to use the road, why should bicycles be any different?

What if we just have a bicycle section on the standard motor vehicle test and forget a special bike license ?   

Half the bicycle riders are too young to get a motor vehicle license.    Do we really want to tell an 8 year old he can't ride his bike because he didn't pass a test?   

The other half of bicyclists are over 16 and most of them will get a drivers license.   If the licensing process actually educates them about the rules, then they'll know.   Eventually they'll even be able to teach their minor children the rules.   This is a slow, but low cost way to ensure than the next generation actually knows the traffic laws as they apply to bicycles.   

[NoraLenderbee]

In the US, there is an implied right for everyone to use public roads. No qualification is needed. There is no age limit or proof of competence required. Generally speaking, you can drive a bike, horse, scooter, skateboard, etc. on public roads, as well as walk or run on them. (There are certain specified exceptions--for example, pedestrians can be banned from freeways.)

To operate a motor vehicle on a public road, however, one has to pass a test.

It may be different in other countries.

And just for the record--I am bothered by other cyclists who flagrantly violate laws. And by other drivers who do the same. I firmly believe that cyclists should operate like drivers and follow the same rules, because that is the safest for everyone. I'm not defending anyone who runs red lights. However, I really can't tolerate this unsupported accusations that cyclists are so much worse, or that the biggest reason drivers hate us is because of our own behavior. (The biggest reason drivers hate cyclists is the same reason they hate other drivers: driving a car makes most people utterly unable to tolerate anything that slows them down for one second.)

Cyclists on the road are not impeding traffic; they are part of traffic. They have exactly the same right to be there as a slow truck, or a slow car, or a slow pedestrian. Is it annoying to be stuck behind a slow vehicle? Sometimes, sure. Does that mean they are obligated to get out of your way?  Absolutely not. Most drivers don't understand this, and a lot of cyclists don't either.

(All mentions of "you" are general.)

[philby85]

Here's another major downside . . . Your plan would effectively push even more people who bike off the road and onto the sidewalks to avoid paying for licensing.

Well actually (in Australia anyway) often adults are NOT allowed to ride on the footpath. Only children under 12 can ride on the footpath.
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/02/bikes-on-footpaths-when-is-it-lawful/

This has two consequences:
- cycling is significantly less safe on sidewalks than on roads

Do you have statistics on this? If you are doing 50km/h on the sidewalk, yeah, I can see how it would be less safe. But trundling along at 10km/h... I don't see it being an issue. Also, worthy of note is that in Australia (I assume other countries have similar laws) you are also required by law to ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath users.

- it results in fewer cyclists on roads which has proven to increase car related accidents (with bikes) as drivers are less used to looking out for cyclists.

Can you please link me to the study?

Your plan guarantees higher fatalities for cyclists as well as being expensive to run.

Again, I'm very interested to see statistics on a) weather cycling on the footpath actually has a higher fatality rate and b) greater cyclist education leads to higher fatality rates on the road?

In what way do you see it being expensive to run? Looking at the numbers on what it costs in my home state in Australia for a drivers licence...
http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/licensing/driver-licensing/fees/index.html
$21.55 to sit the written test
$17.85 for the hazard perception test
$50.50 for the practical driving exam
$154 to renew your licence for 5 years ($31 a year)
Yes, I admit it is a barrier to getting people switching from cars to bikes, but to characterize it as expensive is a bit of a stretch.

[Nudelkopf]

Here's another major downside . . . Your plan would effectively push even more people who bike off the road and onto the sidewalks to avoid paying for licensing.

Well actually (in Australia anyway) often adults are NOT allowed to ride on the footpath. Only children under 12 can ride on the footpath.
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/02/bikes-on-footpaths-when-is-it-lawful/

Only in some states. In Queensland, you may ride on the footpath so long as its not signed otherwise.

[philby85]

Here's another major downside . . . Your plan would effectively push even more people who bike off the road and onto the sidewalks to avoid paying for licensing.

Well actually (in Australia anyway) often adults are NOT allowed to ride on the footpath. Only children under 12 can ride on the footpath.
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/02/bikes-on-footpaths-when-is-it-lawful/

Only in some states. In Queensland, you may ride on the footpath so long as its not signed otherwise.

Yes, I know. That is why I said often ;)

[Travis]

Here is another idea... What if cyclists had to pass a written and practical exam before they were allowed to ride on the road? And they had to have a photo ID licence to back it up? And then in parallel also modify the drivers licence exams to include a whole section on bicycles, how the road rules apply to them, and how cars should interact with bicycles?

a) this educates both sides of the divide
b) for bicycles, it would introduce a demerit and fine system similar to what is imposed on car drivers allowing for repeat and serious offenders to be banned from the road

The only major downside I can see to this is that it would be a barrier in getting people to switch from cars to bicycles, but ultimately if you need a bus/car/truck/motor bike/etc licence to use the road, why should bicycles be any different?

What if we just have a bicycle section on the standard motor vehicle test and forget a special bike license ?   

Half the bicycle riders are too young to get a motor vehicle license.    Do we really want to tell an 8 year old he can't ride his bike because he didn't pass a test?   

The other half of bicyclists are over 16 and most of them will get a drivers license.   If the licensing process actually educates them about the rules, then they'll know.   Eventually they'll even be able to teach their minor children the rules.   This is a slow, but low cost way to ensure than the next generation actually knows the traffic laws as they apply to bicycles.

I don't recall any bicycle questions on the driving test, but I remember bicycles being a part of the in-class curriculum in high school.  I'd have to go back and find a copy, but I'm pretty sure bicycle riding is in the DMV handbook.

[GuitarStv]

Here's another major downside . . . Your plan would effectively push even more people who bike off the road and onto the sidewalks to avoid paying for licensing.

Well actually (in Australia anyway) often adults are NOT allowed to ride on the footpath. Only children under 12 can ride on the footpath.
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/02/bikes-on-footpaths-when-is-it-lawful/

We have similar laws in Canada too, but the majority of adult cyclists ride their bikes on the sidewalk under the misguided impression that this is safer than being on the road.

This has two consequences:
- cycling is significantly less safe on sidewalks than on roads

Do you have statistics on this? If you are doing 50km/h on the sidewalk, yeah, I can see how it would be less safe. But trundling along at 10km/h... I don't see it being an issue. Also, worthy of note is that in Australia (I assume other countries have similar laws) you are also required by law to ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath users.

Speed does not cause the worst accidents on bicycles, being hit by vehicles does.  Even very slow cycling moves about twice as fast as walking.  Sidewalks are usually peppered with roadway crossings.  Motorists are not expecting a bicycle that moves faster than pedestrians walking, and don't check very far up the side of the sidewalk because of this.  That tends to lead to the most common bicycle/car accident - where a turning car strikes a bicycle.  Ironically more vehicle collisions happen when cycling on sidewalks than on the road.

Don't take my word for it, there's plenty of data that demonstrates this:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

- it results in fewer cyclists on roads which has proven to increase car related accidents (with bikes) as drivers are less used to looking out for cyclists.

Can you please link me to the study?

Fewer cyclists on the road make coming across a bicycle a more unusual experience for a car driver.  This has the effect of making things more dangerous for the cyclists.  Again, there's plenty of data that demonstrates this:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full.pdf

Your plan guarantees higher fatalities for cyclists as well as being expensive to run.

Again, I'm very interested to see statistics on a) weather cycling on the footpath actually has a higher fatality rate and b) greater cyclist education leads to higher fatality rates on the road?

In what way do you see it being expensive to run? Looking at the numbers on what it costs in my home state in Australia for a drivers licence...
http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/licensing/driver-licensing/fees/index.html
$21.55 to sit the written test
$17.85 for the hazard perception test
$50.50 for the practical driving exam
$154 to renew your licence for 5 years ($31 a year)
Yes, I admit it is a barrier to getting people switching from cars to bikes, but to characterize it as expensive is a bit of a stretch.

Your plan has the net effect of killing more cyclists by:
- encouraging dangerous behaviour
- creating a more dangerous environment for those who cycle on the road.

I've already provided studies that demonstrate the above.  If you can provide studies showing that cycling on the sidewalk is safer that cycling on the road, that no-biking-on-sidewalk laws are seriously enforced anywhere, or that fewer cyclists on the road lead to safer cycling I'd be quite interested to see them.

The cost of your plan is higher than zero, but the benefit is negative.  Even if this program was free it wouldn't be worth it.  Since the price to administer it will be above zero it's clearly unacceptable when you examine it logically.

[frugalnacho]

Since so much of the road is paid from public funds (not registration fees or fuel tax), and bicycles cause nearly no damage, isn't someone that chooses to bike subsidizing those that drive?  Shouldn't there be an anti-registration fee, where they actually refund part of my tax money that goes to maintain a road I don't destroy?

Meh.  Weather is a larger factor of the degradation of asphalt than traffic.  Plus that presumes you want no benefit of the roads at all -- police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, public buses, utility maintenance crews, government officials, couriers and freight services, national guard/military, infrastructure construction crews, etc. all use roads and benefit the general populace even if a particular individual of the general populace doesn't drive a car.  I imagine you as a non-driver place at least some value, quantifiable in tax dollars, in being able to call the police to say someone is trying to kill you, and having them fly through the paved streets at 60mph in a cruiser to get to you ASAP rather than hop on a mountain bike and pedal through overgrown wilderness at all of about 2mph.

I think a 50/50 split of road expenses between general populace & car drivers is roughly fair, but would be a proponent of a higher gas tax (as long as those funds went to defray general tax revenue usage for energy infrastructure development or public transit services) as it would have a dual benefit of reducing congestion and reducing energy usage / environmental impact.  But I think gas taxes in general really don't shift the burden of taxation between driver vs. non-driver but rather do so between "drive a reasonable car" vs "cruise around in a H3 cause it's cool".

Well my original point was against the arguments that cyclist should be charged and forced to register their bikes with the proceeds going to support road repair - because it is an asinine argument and I have already paid enough in taxes to support my fair share.  Also I never said I wanted to pay no taxes for the roads and not receive emergency services - in fact I pointed out that everyone already paid for that service from the general funds.

If weather is the largest factor in road degradation, then why do roads get huge pot holes and cracks while the sidewalks next to them last for decades with no damage?  Why don't they just make the road out of sidewalk material so it never gets damaged in the weather?

[philby85]

Speed does not cause the worst accidents on bicycles, being hit by vehicles does.  Even very slow cycling moves about twice as fast as walking.  Sidewalks are usually peppered with roadway crossings.  Motorists are not expecting a bicycle that moves faster than pedestrians walking, and don't check very far up the side of the sidewalk because of this.  That tends to lead to the most common bicycle/car accident - where a turning car strikes a bicycle.  Ironically more vehicle collisions happen when cycling on sidewalks than on the road.

Don't take my word for it, there's plenty of data that demonstrates this:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

Fewer cyclists on the road make coming across a bicycle a more unusual experience for a car driver.  This has the effect of making things more dangerous for the cyclists.  Again, there's plenty of data that demonstrates this:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full.pdf

Thanks. Some interesting studies there and surprising to see such a high number of sidewalk incidents. I’ve always felt safer on the sidewalk, but I will certainly think twice about that now! It would be interesting to see the age distribution for sidewalk vs road on those results since 1) under 16 year olds did the most km’s 2) under 16 year olds have less experience 3) under 16’s would (just guessing here) be more likely to ride on the footpath. The results are interesting none the less.

I've already provided studies that demonstrate the above.  If you can provide studies showing that cycling on the sidewalk is safer that cycling on the road, that no-biking-on-sidewalk laws are seriously enforced anywhere, or that fewer cyclists on the road lead to safer cycling I'd be quite interested to see them.

I'll admit that I only have my own anecdotal evidence. I've been clipped by a car once (just it's mirror) while riding on a narrow road shoulder, but I've never had any problems while cycling on the footpath. I did a little googling and you are right, there is a lot of evidence out there that the road is actually a safer place.

It's an issue that is important to me. I'd love to see a lot more bicycles on the roads. From reading the reports you linked to it seems the best way forward is to encourage more people to make the change by catering for cyclists more on our roads by installing bike lanes and pointing out the health and cost benefits. Unfortunately it comes back to "who is going to pay for it" and the motorists often win out when it comes to getting the dollars.

EDIT:  I still think that something definitely needs to be done, but you have convinced me that registration and licencing isn't the best way to achieve that goal. <this isn't directed at you GuitarStv, just a general comment> See what happens when you have a rational discussion rather than insulting the other person :)

[zhelud]

Honestly, I'm always surprised when drivers complain about cyclists- not because cyclists are perfectly law-abiding, but because so many drivers are using their phones and/or texting while driving, I'm surprised that they even see us!

I get a really good view into car windows from my bike. At any given time, I'd say that at least 30 percent of drivers are occupied with an electronic device. Please, everybody, put down the phones. (That goes for bikers too, although I have only ever seen one or two using a phone while biking.)

[beltim]

Honestly, I'm always surprised when drivers complain about cyclists- not because cyclists are perfectly law-abiding, but because so many drivers are using their phones and/or texting while driving, I'm surprised that they even see us!

I get a really good view into car windows from my bike. At any given time, I'd say that at least 30 percent of drivers are occupied with an electronic device. Please, everybody, put down the phones. (That goes for bikers too, although I have only ever seen one or two using a phone while biking.)

Obviously, all of the car drivers here are 90th percentile drivers or better and would never be found texting or otherwise occupied with an electronic device.  Just like every cyclist here is a 90th percentile rider and never breaks any traffic laws that in any way impact anyone's safety ever.
:)

[Runge]

Honestly, I'm always surprised when drivers complain about cyclists- not because cyclists are perfectly law-abiding, but because so many drivers are using their phones and/or texting while driving, I'm surprised that they even see us!

I get a really good view into car windows from my bike. At any given time, I'd say that at least 30 percent of drivers are occupied with an electronic device. Please, everybody, put down the phones. (That goes for bikers too, although I have only ever seen one or two using a phone while biking.)

I used my phone while biking this past Friday...but I made sure there were no cars around (in front or behind) before I pulled it out to check the map. Yeah yeah...it would have been super easy to pull over and stop since I'm on a 20 lb bike instead of a 4000 lb car. Anyway, thanks for reminding me to face punch myself.

Just fyi, I'm firmly in the no cellphone while driving camp in talk and practice.

[GuitarStv]

EDIT:  I still think that something definitely needs to be done, but you have convinced me that registration and licencing isn't the best way to achieve that goal. <this isn't directed at you GuitarStv, just a general comment> See what happens when you have a rational discussion rather than insulting the other person :)

For what it's worth, it took me a lot of hard thinking (and experience cycling) before I really came to terms with that information.  It doesn't make intuitive sense that you're more likely to get hit by a car on the sidewalk than the road, but it makes sense when you realize how the accidents tend to occur. . .

[unpolloloco]

The stupidity of everyone on the road astounds me - motorists, cyclists, pedestrians alike.  The proportions are pretty much the same.  X% of motorists, x% of cyclists, and x% of pedestrians should have been taken out of the gene pool already if Darwin had his way.  X is pretty much the same in all cases.

[Beric01]

The stupidity of everyone on the road astounds me - motorists, cyclists, pedestrians alike.  The proportions are pretty much the same.  X% of motorists, x% of cyclists, and x% of pedestrians should have been taken out of the gene pool already if Darwin had his way.  X is pretty much the same in all cases.

I haven't seen any studies to support this. Nor have I seen any denying it. That's the point - there really is no data. My personal observation as a lifelong cyclist (which is surely just as valid as yours) is that a disproportionate percentage of cyclists as opposed to drivers run red lights and stop signs.

Anyway, changed my personal title to "law-abiding cyclist", since apparently that's a big deal around here.

Oh, and I do see a number of egregious cyclist offenses, about one every day.

[BuildingFrugalHabits]

I've been bike commuting for about 15 years now and I don't really feel like things are as bad as this thread would lead you to believe.  In general, most drivers I encounter are courteous almost to a fault.  Most of the time they will yield to me at a four way stop even though they arrived first which makes things awkward sometimes although I'll take that over the angry drivers that many others here seem to encounter.  Most cyclists I see seem to be pretty good.

I'm in favor of the Idaho stop sign law and other common sense rules that encourage riding.
I'm not in favor of imposing onerous regulations on biking.  Here's why that would be bad policy:

1: Economic incentive.  You want to incentivize behavior that is desired and tax behavior you want less of.  In this case, the benefits of cycling are so much greater than any costs, it should be one of the top priorities of any municipality.  I started cycling to school occasionally in college because parking cost money.  I gradually increased the habit and then made it a priority to live where bike commuting was possible thereafter.  Had there been a barrier to entry such as registrations, tests etc I may not have started biking.  Biking becomes safer when more people do it.

2: It would be difficult to enforce.  Is it practical to require and enforce registration for everyone who uses a public street?  A  year old's bike, my mountain bike, someone on rollerblades or a skateboard?   

3: It's not necessary. As others have mentioned, roads are funded through other revenue sources aside from registration and gas taxes.  Also, most people that I know who own a bike also own a car and pay to register it.  Every mile I bike is less wear on the roads while my car stays parked at home.  My conscience is crystal clear on this one. 

4: Legality.  My understanding is that the public has the inherent right to freedom of movement which means access to the public right of way.  Operating a motor vehicle however is not a right but a privilege which can be taken away.

While it's not absolute, most cyclists I observe seem to know most of the rules of the road and will pick the rest up as they go by watching others if nothing else.  The more people ride, the faster and easier it is for people to catch on and learn the right way to ride.  Also there are plenty of resources between the internet, books, and local bike shops / REI etc where people can go to learn more about riding.  There is plenty of incentive for someone to learn how to ride properly with self-preservation being foremost. 

The biggest difference to keep in mind is that a reckless driver is a danger not only to himself but everyone around him (or her).  A reckless cyclist could potential injure a pedestrian or other cyclist but is mostly a just danger to himself. 

[Beric01]

The biggest difference to keep in mind is that a reckless driver is a danger not only to himself but everyone around him (or her).  A reckless cyclist could potential injure a pedestrian or other cyclist but is mostly a just danger to himself.

And a driver who needs to react to the cyclist being reckless, potentially getting into an accident themselves and getting injured.

I've love to see statistics for this type of accident, but of course they aren't recorded.

I agree with the rest of your points - we don't need more regulation for cyclists. We just need enforcement of the laws we already have.

[TennisPro]

The pictures in the link below, made me remember how awesome bike riding in Amsterdam is.  And I didn't see anyone get hit, and was never concerned about being hit as a pedestian, because it is simply a bike culture.  You don't use a car...   you bike.  You even give your friends a lift, on your bike.  ;-)

http://qr.ae/4HPOy