Cyclist's Bill of Rights
Thread started by
Alex Thompson at 02.6.08 - 3:39 pm
This post is partly to remind Mr. Box that we decided that it's better to call it the "Cyclist's Bill of Rights". Try to stay abreast codger.
This is the draft . . . the next couple months is the time to sign on and/or comment:
BICYCLIST BILL OF RIGHTS
WHEREAS, cyclists have the right to ride the streets of our communities and this right is formally articulated in the California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, cyclists are considered to be the “indicator species” of a healthy community; and
WHEREAS, cyclists are both environmental and traffic congestion solutions; and
WHEREAS, cyclists are, first and foremost, people - with all of the rights and privileges that come from being members of this great society; and
NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE CYCLING COMMUNITY, do hereby claim the following rights:
1) Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear.
2) Cyclists have the right to equal access to our public streets and to sufficient and significant road space.
3) Cyclists have the right to the full support of educated law enforcement.
4) Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law.
5) Cyclists have the right to routine accommodations in all roadway projects and improvements.
6) Cyclists have the right to urban and roadway planning, development and design that enable and support safe cycling.
7) Cyclists have the right to traffic signals, signage and maintenance standards that enable and support safe cycling.
8) Cyclists have the right to be actively engaged as a constituent group in the organization and administration of our communities.
9) Cyclists have the right to full access for themselves and their bicycles on all mass transit with no limitations.
10) Cyclists have the right to end-of-trip amenities that include safe and secure opportunities to park their bicycles.
11) Cyclists have the right to be secure in their persons and property, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure, as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.
12) Cyclists have the right to peaceably assemble in the public space, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
And further, we claim and assert these rights by taking to the streets and riding our bicycles, all in an expression of our inalienable right to ride!
reply
Oh yeah, this was authored primarily by Stephen Box, Mikey McDermed, and myself . . . with a lot of thought about what was offered up in the two threads here.
Word - tear it up people!
Alex Thompson02.6.08 - 3:42 pm
reply
now
that's what I'm talkin' about! I don't know how you got from where we were when I gave up on the threads to here, but that is spot on.
ideasculptor02.6.08 - 3:59 pm
reply
Let the nitpicking commence...
WHEREAS, cyclists are considered to be the “indicator species” of a healthy community; and
The "to be" is unnecessary.
It's probably more accurate to say that cyclists are
an indicator species of a healthy community. Others include pedestrians and non-criminal sidewalk lingerers.
WHEREAS, cyclists are both environmental and traffic congestion solutions; and
A little awkward. Unfortunately I can't think of a better way to say it without fucking up the parallel construction "cyclists are...", but maybe you can.
WHEREAS, cyclists are, first and foremost, people - with all of the rights and privileges
Try it with a comma between "people" and "with."
that come from being members of this great society; and
Unclear. Which great society? If this document is meant to be universal, you may want to rephrase that. (Or are you guys just big Lyndon Johnson fans?)
2) Cyclists have the right to equal access to our public streets and to sufficient and significant road space.
Just "sufficient" would be sufficient.
4) Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law.
You'd better be really precise here. You want people who injure or kill cyclists due to some fault such as recklessness, inattention, or malice to be "dealt with" (i.e., prosecuted) to the full extent of the law, right? If you don't make it very clear what you're asking for, this clause could be misinterpreted as advocating a policy of blaming non-cyclists for accidents regardless of what actually happened.
10) Cyclists have the right to end-of-trip amenities that include safe and secure opportunities to park their bicycles.
Which end-of-trip amenities besides parking? It's not a good idea in a bill of rights to allude vaguely to the existence of rights which are not named (unless you're talking about a Ninth Amendment sort of thing, which you aren't).
And further, we claim and assert these rights by taking to the streets and riding our bicycles, all in an expression of our inalienable right to ride!
Finally, I humbly suggest that a Cyclists' Bill of Rights will be taken more seriously if exclamation points are not used! I really mean it! You can tell, because I'm shouting very loudly!
PC02.6.08 - 4:27 pm
reply
ideasculptor,
It's possible someone discussed this privately, beforehand. I don't recall as Oliver North would say. The arguments in the thread definitely influenced things.
Alex Thompson02.6.08 - 4:30 pm
reply
The indicator species argument is a bit illogical. You're saying "healthy communities have lots of cyclists, so if we promote cycling we'll have a healthy community" which doesn't really follow.
To further dilute the metaphor, if you give the canary in the coal mine a gas mask, it doesn't really serve the function of the canary anymore.
stevestevesteve02.6.08 - 4:41 pm
reply
They're not actually saying that at all, but I do think that of the four "whereases," the indicator species one is the weakest.
PC02.6.08 - 4:50 pm
reply
"12) Cyclists have the right to peaceably assemble in the public space, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. "
I would remove that one... citizens have this right but citizens in vehicles apparently dont, thus cruiser laws. I would hate to see bicycle cruiser laws come about just in reaction to or because we are forcing our want of mass rides on the city. mass riding is a priviledge in the same sense that cruiseing would be. (which I personally tend to believe that cruising should be legal all the time... ) this one point would bring too much light to the party ride influence and distract from the other well written rights above. lets keep our dirt low key and not pester people about our rights to it just do the rides.
Roadblock02.6.08 - 8:39 pm
reply
PC,
thanks for the nit picking man. i personally think that the bill should always be updating, just like computer code. version 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 2.0, etc.
nit picking is important. without constant discourse and criticism this thing wont grow.
peace,
mikey wally
mikeywally02.6.08 - 10:18 pm
reply
Roadblock wrote:
mass riding is a priviledge in the same sense that cruiseing would be. (which I personally tend to believe that cruising should be legal all the time... )
Which makes it a right, as is mass riding. Which makes it worth fighting for.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this clause was intended to protect Critical Mass, not MR. At any rate, the idea behind a bill of rights is not to conceal "dirt."
PC02.7.08 - 3:59 am
reply
The 1st amendment clause was inserted because bikers consistently have their protests disrupted and 1st amendment rights trampled on because they move faster than walkers. Part of the motivation for the Cyclist's Bill of Rights is that it seems as if bikers somehow are construed to lose their rights when they get on a bike.
The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about whether your ride is a party ride or a protest ride, it just says you can peaceably assemble in the public space.
The NYCM people have been using the 1st amendment all the way to defend their ride, and we made mistake by not doing so with SMCM.
I think the distinction between CM and MR doesn't really exist, but even if you think it does, I don't see how not asserting our 1st amendment rights is a good idea.
In other words, I'm with PC.
Alex Thompson02.7.08 - 4:55 pm
reply
peaceably assemble in the public space"
now you're getting into a whole other arguement that has nothing to do with bicycle infrastructure and has evrything to do with defining what a peace-able assembly is. and I think the argument could easily be made that riding en masse and disobeying traffic laws could be construed as non peaceful assembly or at the very least the type of assembly that would require a permit since it involves using the public roadways while disabling them for other users of said public roadways.....
why not stick to infrastructure issues that serve all cyclists instead of injecting something that serves a specific group of cyclists who ride on mass rides and potentially turns off those (both cyclist and non cyclist) that dont care to defend or participate in mass rides?
Roadblock02.7.08 - 5:13 pm
reply
You know what. You guys are going to be arguing about this stuff forever. Go ahead and make a bill of rights and what have you...
Just remember this is still midnight ridazz forum and we talk about bikes and riding and events and stuff in the news but we don't get all hung up on political bullshit. It's fine to express your ideas, and Alex probably has a good loophole for critical mass to work with perhaps. I just think Roadblock doesn't want Ridazz to get too Radical with all of this. I'm not saying we shouldn't... And if you ask me, which you aren't - but I'll say it anyways. We should just continue being the "Indicator Species" by our example. That means going out and riding and encouraging others to ride and have fun, (aware and safely). The more we ride the more impact we make in peoples minds that we are present. .Those who are political and think their voice can make a difference, go for it. I salute you. You are doing great things in representation of all of us who ride. Just don't forget the majority of us, in my opinion, don't have much faith in political agendas.
I really think if we want to spread the word about Bicycles having equal access to the roads we need to actively educate people by showing them by example. "Get use to us - We are traffic". Critical mass can be in your face about it and Ridazz can just be aware of it.
Dot com
Joe Borfo02.7.08 - 5:32 pm
reply
RB,
BECAUSE IT'S A BILL OF RIGHTS, Not a Bill of Things I Think Are Most Strategically Effective. It should cover the fundamental rights of cyclists as pertinent of cycling.
Personally I'm not one to get involved in roadway planning, I'm more concerned with getting people on bikes regardless of the road condition. However, I'm totally supportive of rights 5 & 6 which are primarily concerned with the way the planning process includes cyclists.
So I guess I don't objections on the basis of things be strategically poor routes are good objections. What is effective strategy changes, but our rights are fixed. So, if you could give a reason that cyclists don't have a right to 1st amendment uses of public streets that would be more relevant in my opinion.
Personally I think the objection to enumerating our 1st amendment rights reflects on how we've given up as a society on the right to protest.
Alex Thompson02.7.08 - 5:36 pm
reply
Borfo,
WTF are you trying to say? I have no idea.
If you don't think that going out and riding 600 strong, even if you're dressed up and drunk, is a political statement then you must be from outer space,
or Brazil.
Alex Thompson02.7.08 - 5:38 pm
reply
"So, if you could give a reason that cyclists don't have a right to 1st amendment uses of public streets that would be more relevant in my opinion.
I already did.. unless of course you intend that the mass ride "right" will obey all traffic laws. in that case you would be arguing for a right that already exists. but as I mentioned before, if you are arguing for the right to protest there are limits to those rights and those limits are hotly contested all the way to the supreme court. the question becomes "do people have the right to assemble without a permit if it impedes the rights and ability of other people?" riding en masse, so far as we all do most of the time, involves often times illegally impeding other users of public roadways and therefore becomes an issue not related to bicycle infrastructure and more to do with the question of what a peaceful assembly is and whether you are required to file for a parade permit. why even get into it. you might as well throw an abortion rights clause in there.
Roadblock02.7.08 - 5:45 pm
reply
everything is political Alex.
The people who run this country are rich white conservatives. They are never going to listen to us. Whatever, I'm not being clear enough. I'm not dogging your style either - I support what you do. I'm just saying that you guys are never going to see eye to eye on everything. CVC code 21200 .. doesn't need fixing. It needs more awareness of its existence.
I'm out.
Joe Borfo02.7.08 - 5:46 pm
reply
we need to get more cyclists on the streets.
mikeywally02.7.08 - 8:12 pm
reply
B.O.R.F.O. wrote:
CVC code 21200 .. doesn't need fixing. It needs more awareness of its existence.
What good does it do to increase awareness of a flawed law? The police are already plenty aware of the parts of 21200 that they can use to hassle us.
Take the ambiguities out of it, and the parts that are archaic and downright hostile to cyclists, and you won't have to worry about awareness.
PC02.8.08 - 2:04 pm
reply
I think what Borfo was trying to say is that yes a Bill of Rights is great. Go for it. But in the end it's just a piece of paper.
What really enhances awareness of bicycles on the road is more bicycles on the road.
How do we bring more bicycles on the road?
By doing the rides we do.
Why?
Because we are actively demonstrating how much fun we have on two wheels and more people want to join us.
More people. More awareness.
Diabolical but simple.
marino02.8.08 - 2:14 pm
reply
Ah, then we're talking about two different things. I was referring to a potential campaign to change specific laws that are out of date and/or frequently used to hassle cyclists.
PC02.8.08 - 2:18 pm
reply
you guys are out to lunch if you think running red lights with an open tallie in your bottle cage and an eigth in your backpack is a 1st amendment right.
MR type rides are a privilege earned by our ability to police ourselves and be a positive part of the community, don't ever forget that.
critical mass is another matter, but since nobody can say what critical mass is for anyone but themselves, i'm not going to argue about it
stevestevesteve02.8.08 - 2:33 pm
reply
I'm inclined to agree with the three Steves on this one. MR is not a political statement, no matter how fervently some people may wish it to be one.
PC02.8.08 - 2:39 pm
reply
I don't wish MR to be a political statement, I think it is one. You're claiming the streets in the name of FUN in a place that worships the car possibly more than Detroit. Who cares if you have beer while you're at it - fun & political are NOT mutually exclusive. MR is a kind of passively political thing.
Midnight Ridazz is SERIOUS FUN, and I challenge anyone who has ridden with me on CRANK mob to disagree.
Midnight Ridazz is like sodomy in a Saudia Arabia - fun, illegal, and irreverent.
Alex Thompson02.8.08 - 3:11 pm
reply
If I belonged to a political party it would be the FUN Party
our credo would running in the halls
our mission would be hijinkz
and our afterparties would be in Saudia Arabia
with lots of sodomy.
Alex Thompson02.8.08 - 3:23 pm
reply
Fuck Italy!
Trip to Saudi Arabia!!!
marino02.8.08 - 3:46 pm
reply
triplesteve:
not every MR-related ride is about alcohol and recklessly running red lights. while i understand why you would generalize, i think the idea here is to protect all group rides, whether they are MR or not.
the cyclists' bill of rights is not an MR endeavor, it's a cyclists' endeavor.
hope you heal up fast, btw.
trekkie02.8.08 - 3:52 pm
reply
TreKSI
DIS FRED IS ABOUT SERIUS FUN
ARE U SERIUS ABOUT UR FUN
iz mai sinseer est hope dat u R
becauze udder wise ai eets your fayce.
Knittens02.8.08 - 3:57 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
Amen!
CIRCLE OF DEATH!!!!