Posted on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 07:10 — by SputnikDeb
It's not just San Ramon, nor bicyclists. Drivers rarely seem to notice anyone waiting to enter crosswalks. It's no longer sufficient for pedestrians and bicyclists merely to step into the crosswalk when the "walk" symbol is flashing in their favor. Now it's necessary to ensure that right-turning drivers intend to yield for people (or not) before stepping into the crosswalk. Some driers seem to realize their mistake as they cut us off, but most of them are oblivious. Drivers should be cited for failure to yield to pedestrians.
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 10
It's not just walk signals, kids, or oblivious drivers. The problem seems to be exacerbated by diminishing attention by many people using the roads. For many drivers, "NO TURN ON RED" has become a suggestion, not a rule. Similarly, many drivers appear to lack the basic driving skill of planning their turn or lane change a block early, resulting in an unsafe turn or lane change. I often see people making left turns from the lane to the right of the left turn lane, or cutting accross one -- two lanes of traffic because they were not in the right hand lane when arriving at the intersection [they need to turn right at]. Many cyclists are the same in the disregard for basic rules of the road. I've seen far to many cyclists regard stop signs as something that applies only to motorized vehicles. Recently, a cyclist at Pleasant Hill BART apparently couldn't go a block over to get on the Iron Horse Trail or Coggins Ave. He proceeded to ride through the pedestrian traffic walking to the busses and parking garage. At 6:00 PM. And unless there's a teenager with a gray beard, this man was no kid. Motorcyclists can split lanes, but a number (it seems to be mostly guys on Harleys--perhaps with a misplaced sense of entitlement--who insist on splitting lanes at 30-40 mph...at traffic signals. And not to leave anyone out, I quite often see pedestrians who apparently can't walk that extra 100 yards to the crosswalk and back, but jaywalk in the middle of the block, usually on a busy street like Monument Blvd in Concord, Buskirk in Pleasant Hill, or most anywhere in downtown San Francisco. Sorry to sound curmudgeonly, but the news coverage has sounded a bit like local govt is being tasked to respond to a back of basic driving skills and common sense when using roadways. And I am not blaming the kids on the bikes.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
After watching a bike run every red light on Tassara Road today and cut accross on-coming traffic to turn on to Crow Canyon Rd.; I just want to confirm that the problem is not just cars. Bicycles might have a more legitimate concern for their own safety if they were held to the same responsibilities as a car, but they are not. Bikes should not, according to the vehicle code, use a cross walk to cross, should not run lights, and should not turn into oncoming traffic. They should never impede faster traffic, nor should they trespass on private driveways. In my Opinion, bikers who violate these rules need to be ticketed and as heavily fined as a car. Bikes should also be required to hold a Driver's license and if they violate the code repeatedly, they should have their priviledges removed. Finally, they need to be taxed at the same rate as a car because they should contribute financially to road upkeep. Until they are held to the same level of responsibility as a car driver, I can not, morally respect their concerns or their presence on the road. If a bike rider dies, so be it; they knew and accepted the risk to themselves and others by opting to ride their bike.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3
"Bicycles might have a more legitimate concern for their own safety if they were held to the same responsibilities as a car, but they are not."
I agree with that. I ride a bicyle, have for over 30 years. for almost 30 years I rode my bike to work every day. I rode my bike across the US - twice. I ride about 150 miles a week now - more than I drive a car. Bikes are ticketed - if the cop wants to. Nothing stopping them except lack of cops. I also don't mind if driving a bike requires a license. It's the same as a car, so no big deal to me.
But the fact is that car drivers are not held to any higher standard than bike riders. I see car drivers run stop signs and red lights every day (and remember, car drivers are driving 2-ton death-machines, not 25-pound bikes). When I walk my dogs I don't cross at cross walks anymore because cars simply will not wait for you to cross. They will go even if you 2 feet away from them. Even stop lights are iffy these days. Cars constantly pass me on blind curves, blind hills, taking evey chance. Motor cyclists are even worse. Last week end I watched a pack 5 motorcyclists run 3 stops signs in a row - at about 30 mph, just because they did not want to stop. No cops around when you need them!
However, some of what you say is non-sensical. for instance "...should never impede faster traffic." That is balony. What do you do if you come across a tractor in the road? you wait a bit. It's no big deal for a car - you just press the pedal a bit and you lose no time at all. That sentiment is just laziness on your part.
Also, bicycles have every right to the road. At least half of every highway road project is paid for by general taxes (income and sales tax), not gas tax. The vast majority of residential and city roads are not paid for by gas tax at all. If you want to pay for roads by gas tax alone, you will have to accept much more than double the gas tax you pay now. I doubt anyone will go for that. As to road upkeep, that is a joke. The roads are in extremely poor shape due to heavy trunks. Cars, and cetainly bikes, don't damage roads at all (except for Hummers etc that are grossly over weight and technically are not supposed to be on residential roads). And there are so few bikes the taxes would be completely insignificant. if you want more taxes for repairing roads, put it on the trucks.
You say you ..."cannot morally accept bikes on roads." I have now informed you of the reality and the acuality of why bikes are allowed and belong on the roads. Sorry, we're here to stay. If you are really a socio-path maybe you should stop going out.
You say "If a bike rider dies, so be it;" just because they are not ticketed enough? I believe you must be insane. The cops deserve at least as much blame because they are the ones at fault for not enforcing the law. The fact is bicyclists die primarily because of gross negligence by car drivers. It is extremely rare for a cyclist to die because of the cyclists mistake. Remember that cyclists are completely unprotected. They do not do things that could get them killed. Even if they run a stop sign it is becuase there are usally no cars around that could hit them anyway. (btw, I do not run stop signs and cringe every time I see one do so because I respect the law and I understand sentiments of car drivers like you). Generally cyclists die becuase drivers take their attention off the road. For instance in Santa Rosa a cyclist was crippled for life because a driver decided it was more important to get an orange out of her shopping bag than to drive her car. She swerved out of her lane into a wide bike lane and hit a bicyclist paralizying him for life. The bicyclist was not in her lane at all. Most astonishing about this incident was that the car driver was not charged with anything!!! They called it an "accident.!!!!" I'm sure even you recognize the gross negligence that led to this crime.
Yes, we accept risk by riding our bikes on the road. But the risk is there due to 1) stupid car drivers, 2) extremely lax enforcement of laws for cars and bikes and 3) Unbelievable lack of acceptance of responsibility by car drivers to drive safely.
So please, next tiime you see a bicyclist on the road, remember that they are just traveling, like you. They are not at fault for lax enforcement. They are not at fault for you being late. Accept them for what they are - vehicles on the road to be accepted just like every other vehicle on the road.
The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones and the oil age won't end because the world runs out of oil. Amory Lovins, www.rmi.org
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
But the fact is that car drivers are not held to any higher standard than bike riders. From my point of view that is simply not the case. If a car runs a red or speeds in front of a cop, they will be ticketed, but bikes commit violations in front of cops and are not. My point of view has been confirmed by both the Sherriff’s office and the San Ramon Police who say that it is generally more effort then it is worth to ticket a bike. However, some of what you say is non-sensical. for instance "...should never impede faster traffic." That is balony. Actually that is is the law according to the California Driver’s Handbook—slower vehicles are requested to pull to the right or pull over if they are impeding traffic. It actually also applies to agricultural vehicles outside of a designated ag core. As a horse rider, I do not see politebikes waiting behind our horses if we on both on a trail. Also, bicycles have every right to the road. At least half of every highway road project is paid for by general taxes (income and sales tax), not gas tax. Upkeep is paid by gas taxes, and bikes do not contribute to them. Enforment of trafiic laws is partially paid for with licences and again bike do not require licences. The vast majority of residential and city roads are not paid for by gas tax at all. Most residential and city streets have bike paths, and I have no objection if bikes stay entirely within bike paths—the fact is that they do not. In fact their attitude seems to be that they have the right of way, by not pulling aside for faster traffic and no obeying the law; the implication is that they are not sharing the road. Because of that attitude alone, if they are injured it is their own fault. You say you ..."cannot morally accept bikes on roads." I have now informed you of the reality and the acuality of why bikes are allowed and belong on the roads. Sorry, we're here to stay. If you are really a socio-path maybe you should stop going out. It is precisely that attitude that leads me to belief . I believe you must be insane. The cops deserve at least as much blame because they are the ones at fault for not enforcing the law. The fact is bicyclists die primarily because of gross negligence by car drivers. It is extremely rare for a cyclist to die because of the cyclists mistake. The primary mistake bike riders make is their decision to ride in unsafe conditions. Any road without a designated bike lane is unsafe for bikes. You should understand this because of the precautions you take with your dog—you do not walk him/her where it is unsafe. If your dog is injured because you take him into situation you know to be unsafe, whose fault is it that the dog is injured? Lets give you another situation—I do not ride my horse across public roads(I get off and lead him) because it is unsafe. Do I legally have the right to ride him on the public road, yes. But it woul be foolish and if I was injured or he was injured it would be my fault for making that decision. Legally this is called assumed risk, and yes people do take risks, but when they choose to do so—they are responsible for the results. Responsibility is extremely important and generally forgotten about in our area. Remember that cyclists are completely unprotected. Which is their choice not mine. They do not do things that could get them killed. Running the stop light at Tassajara and Black Hawk in commute traffic is risky, and if they suffer why are they not responsible for taking that risk? Riding a bike without the safety of a bike lane is a choice they make not me, so why are they not responsible for the results of that choice Most astonishing about this incident was that the car driver was not charged with anything!!! They called it an "accident.!!!!" I'm sure even you recognize the gross negligence that led to this crime. I do not know all of the facts of this case, (nor I suspect do you) so I would rely on the decisions of the authorities who responded. Gross negligence is not clearly defined by the facts you laid out. So please, next tiime you see a bicyclist on the road, remember that they are just traveling, like you. The point that I am making is that they not merely traveling like me. They are asserting new rights that impose and limit my rights. Moreover, if I were to assert my right to go more slowly then them, more often then not they would viollate the law by passing me to go faster. Accept them for what they are - vehicles on the road to be accepted just like every other vehicle on the road. What they are is unsafe vehicles that greatly increase the hazards of the road for everyone. What they are is a political group asserting rights that impinge my rights. What they are is aggressive, anti-social behavior that is aimed at forcing their believes on others rather then peaceful co-existance. Because of what they are, I will not accept them. They are offensive. I will not harm them but neither will I help them or make their existance easier.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10
It is nothing short of shameful, how some people out on our roadways drive their vehicles. This actually has very little to do with bicycle safety, as much as it has to do with the growing problem of urban congestion. It is partly the product of a higher volume of vehicles now traveling on the roadways, along with the increased necessity to get to their destinations as quickly as possible. Whether drivers are simply distracted from, or oblivious to the need to exercise caution at all times, these incidents will only increase as more vehicles continue to dot the highways and neighborhood streets, making bicylce traffic less and less compatable with those other determined travelers on the road. In essence, it only takes a few unfocused or inebriated drivers to make this a trend, leaving bicyclists with a limited amount of options, as far as getting around. So, there doesn't seem to be a solution of any kind, as this problem pertains to vehicle traffic. However, the Iron Horse Trail is one alternative option for bicyclists, although it only has a northerly and southerly set direction in which to travel upon it. So, in getting around to other parts of town, bicyclists are then forced to use the streets, where they are again at the mercy of those who operate their motorized vehicles. Now, if the Iron Horse Trail only had a spider vein type system that conveniently ran looping side trails out to key destination points around the city, it would keep some bycyclists (especially children) off of the roads and away from the uncontrollable hazards that are otherwise faced with the constant flow of vehicles along the city's thoroughfares and boulevards. Certainly, it would present an added cost to the city, but also would get many of the younger bicyclists off of the crowded thoroughfares and away from potential harm. Whether this is actually feasible or not, is something that the city council could at least explore, provided that it might be presented to them.