Ask the Advocate

by Mia Birk

March 31, 2011

Police Officer Tickets Bicyclists, 2008

dcist.com

A police officer tickets cyclists traveling against traffic along the one-way New Hampshire Avenue in Washington, DC, in the summer of 2008.

By Mia Birk

Riding home not long ago, I spotted a police officer videotaping bicyclists at a large and lovely traffic circle on one of Portland’s most popular bikeways in Ladd’s Addition, one of its oldest residential neighborhoods. More than 4,000 cyclists a day circumnavigate the roundabout, which features a park in the middle and is the salient feature of this historic neighborhood.

A couple times a year, cranky neighbors complain about cyclists rolling the stop signs. The police usually respond by handing out a couple dozen $242 tickets and then go back to ignoring it. Very productive. Once again, someone had complained, and the officer was there to document the situation.

Sure cyclists don’t come to a complete stop at this or most stop-controlled intersections. Most motorists don’t come to a complete stop either.

I can explain to the officer until I’m blue in the face that it is desirable, normal and natural to keep up momentum when bicycling. The fact is that stop signs were placed at intersections to keep two-ton vehicles from crashing into each other. One-to-two-hundred-pound bicycle riders do not need to come to a complete stop to avoid serious injury. Stop signs may do a fine job of governing the right-of-way for motorists, but cyclists need a different system.

The simplest solution: at the traffic circle in Ladd’s Addition, and at just about every stop sign-controlled location, we should add yield signs and/ or pavement markings to govern cyclist behavior. This infrastructure already appears all over bicycle-friendly cities in Europe. Great idea, but easier said than done. Even in Portland, our progressive, bicycle-friendly traffic engineers are not ready to take that step.

Another option is to change state and provincial laws to allow cyclists to yield at stop signs, as the US state of Idaho has done. Again, much easier said than done. Other attempts – three failed efforts in Oregon, for example – to make this shift have been beaten back by law enforcement advocates who feel that cyclists already have too many privileges. One argument they use is that it sends a mixed message: why should cyclists yield if motorists have to stop? How do we explain this to our kids? On the contrary, it sends a clear message: if you’re driving, stop, and if you’re bicycling, yield.

The fact is that making bicycle-friendly communities is not just about building a bikeway system and encouraging people to use it. It’s also about the evolution of our attitudes and mores, our models and policies, codes and traffic control devices, laws and enforcement practices. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle; to expect bicycle riders to behave exactly like motorists is like expecting kayakers to follow the same rules as motor boaters. Ultimately, we need to tailor a set of laws based on cycling as its own form of transportation, rather than hold on to today’s commonly-held belief that “the bicycle is mostly the same as a motor vehicle.”

, , ,

by Mia Birk

March 31, 2011

Latest Comments

  • Safety

    The fact is many laws are obsolete. Cyclist CAN navigate the streets without stopping at every sign SAFELY. Laws are arbitrary. Being "above the law" implies the person is confident they are better than everyone else. Cyclist do not hold this superiority, they are just smart and have reasonable priorities. Every cyclist can safely judge intersections and it is the law that is flawed and foolishly restrictive.

    Posted by John Kessler May 09, 2012 13:56:49

  • Idiots

    Sorry if i sound rude but traffic signs are for everyone's safety not just motorized vehicles. If a bicyclist wants to run a traffic sign/light because they think they are above the law then they should pay the consequences.

    Posted by jesse May 08, 2012 12:15:57

  • Few people KNOW the law.

    As a year-round Minneapolis bicyclist, I can say that people continue to hold on to old misconceptions about what the rules of the road are. Although Carol bikes & drives she doesn't realize that the law ALLOWS bikers to ride 2 abreast. It is not prohibited. I rarely ever see 2 abreast & less often see 3 abreast as she has stated. That would be illlegal. But, what if someone catches a glimpse of one cyclist overtaking 2 others, that would look like 3 were riding together.

    I also rarely see anyone with headphones. When I do, they are usually teens or someone who looks like they don't give a care about anyone but themselves. I always think, thank goodness they aren't behind the wheel. Here in the Metro area, there are many bike paths, however, they are not the most direct route. They often meander and don't have access to every intersection. Also, runners use them, stroller & dog walkers, too. In winter, they often have more icy patches than the roads, because they are only plowed and never salted, so any melting refreezes into ice. For all these reasons, I might use the roads, because I lawfully can, and it is more suitable to my commute. Motorists shouldn't assume that the bike path is always the ideal route for bicyclists.

    Posted by Deb Stancevic May 08, 2012 05:51:35

  • Road riding

    I understand the point about the stop signs, but it is true that too many bikers inconvenience other bikers, drivers and pedestrians unnecessarily. Not signalling for drivers, not letting other bikers and pedestrians know they are approaching and passing are hazardous to ll.

    As for the the tickets for the wrong way on a one way street, well that is a dangerous way to ride and as drivers do not expect bikers to be heading at them on the street, whether one way or two-way.

    Ride should ride the direction of traffic and signal visually to drivers and verbally to others.

    Posted by Loveland biker/driver May 08, 2012 05:31:20

Add your thoughts

  

Built with Metro Publisher™