NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Christopher Beam wrote an article... Ill post in its enitrety... since its not about replying, but reading. Well... its a bit much... but worth a glance
The title is a bit misleading... because he only concludes about leaving rolling stops alone... so i was a little disappointed. But some youngers peeps would benefit from reading the setup for the debate and what the debate entails (in part). Might help guide the understand of our actions on bikes, and which are clearly to be frowned upon.
http://www.slate.com/id/2232555/pagenum/all/#p2
excerpts
---
Bike ticketing "comes and goes in waves," Gilliland says, but the rate has gone up over the last five years.
was their behavior any great public-safety risk?
What's the point of traffic laws for bikes? And if there is a point, is there any way to get me and my stop sign-flouting cohort to follow the rules of the road?
Bikes occupy a gray area of the law. They're neither cars nor pedestrians. Most states do carve out special laws for bikes, but not enough to avoid confusion.
The reason, say cycling advocates, is that the traffic laws were designed without bikes in mind. It was not always so. After all, bikes were here first. In the late 19th century, a group of bicyclists called the League of American Wheelmen lobbied local governments to pour asphalt on their roads so bicyclists could cruise around more easily. This "good roads movement" paved the way for cars. It wasn't until after World War II, when nearly every American household had an automobile and Eisenhower pushed to build the interstate highway system, that modern traffic laws evolved. "You didn't need stop signs until cars were in common use," says Thornley. "You just looked in the eyes of the other guy and it sorted itself out."
What to do? Today's cycling activists generally split into two groups: "vehicularists" and "facilitators." Proponents of "vehicular cycling" believe bikes should act as cars: occupy full lanes, stop at red lights, use a hand signal at least 100 feet ahead of a turn.
Facilitators, meanwhile, say we should change the laws and the environment to recognize the innate differences between bikes and cars.
The beauty of this approach, say facilitators, is that it creates compliance from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
Vehicularists see the potential transformation of America into a Euro-style bike paradise not just as a far-fetched utopia but as an insult. Dedicated bike paths are an admission that the cyclist deserves pity and should be walled off from the world. Bike paths are separate but unequal—a way for motorists to get bikers out of their way.
The strongest argument in the vehicularists' favor is realism. Building bike paths is expensive, and state budgets are already hurting. Who's going to want to put taxpayer dollars—and most taxpayers also happen to be motorists—into frivolous bike playgrounds?
Enter the Idaho stop-sign law. The rule, passed by the Idaho state legislature in 1982 and updated in 2005, essentially allows bikers to treat stop signs as yield signs. If a biker slows down and sees no cars coming, he or she can roll through a stop sign—a so-called "rolling stop."
...a follow-up study of the Idaho statute found that accidents involving bikes actually decreased the year after the law was passed and haven't varied much since.
As a biker, my wish would be for police to crack down on more dangerous behavior, such as riding at night without a light or tearing the wrong way down a one-way street. Yes, I committed the latter crime just yesterday, and I admit I was in the wrong. If cops started handing out more tickets for one-way infractions, bikers like me would probably clean up their most-outrageous behaviors. Once that happens, maybe all of us—cyclists and car people and activists and cops—could agree to leave the rolling stop alone.
Good article! Too bad it got swallowed up with all the BS today. I have to say I'm definitely a vehicularist. But I do venture into being a facilitator, if there isn't infrastructure in place.
Having just cruss-crossed the netherlands I can report that the Dutch are strong facilitators with almost just as much vehicularist tendencies. It all depends. It seemed that about 80 to 90% of the roads were marked with bicycle lanes. However, there were also roads that cyclists were expected to take the lane. These were narrow roadways in the heart of cities like Amsterdam where I presume that it was not possible to widen the roads for bike lanes. In these cases the Dutch frequently put in a "plateau" essentially an elongated speed bump to calm traffic. Aside from roads with bike lanes there are national bike highways that ate completely separate from roads. Many times these highways parallel a highway from city to city. In these cases, the highway has no facility for bicycles even though they were many times single lane bi-directional roads.
Also the Dutch have gone and created scenic bikeways designated with green signage whereas a direct route on the bicycle highways are designated with red signs. The only annoyance was that the bikeways allowed motorscooters to use them as well. Most of the time this was cool but every once in a while a fast scooter would sneak up on you as you merrily ride through the most beautiful lands you've ever seen.
The Dutch are some seriously industrious people. The taxes may be higher but the people get a great deAl on their money. Aside from all the obvious benefits like cradle to grave health care, and quality of life expenditures like constant upkeep of roads and bridges - I did not see one single pothole in the 100-200 km I traveled - When a building goes up, you get the impression it is being built to last for generations. In fact many buildings have been there for hundreds of years. So while they spend tax money on public works, those projects are there for years and years and the next generations taxes and labor are spent Adding to the layers of infrastructure rather than replacing it.
I saw many many workers of the city. Traffic control, brick layers, police, train operators, electrical workers.... Working. Keeping seemingly every inch of the place in tip top shape.
But I digress.... I will save all the jibber jabber for my blog.
I am a strong facilitator. I've talked with council members about instating a bikes-treat-stops-as-yields law in CA. All I can say is that they weren't off-put, and they didn't shoot the idea down, but in order to get this pushed through legislation would require tons of research ..the time for which I simply do not have. it would be cool though..also, absent a rash of tickets targeted at cyclists, no one will really be in a hurry to support it anyway..just wish I had the time...
I dont think Bikes need to follow the same laws as cars (let me be vague for a sec, thanks).
I also dont think we need money for more bike infrastructure (in general). We have roads, and ideally... i want them used wisely--i.e. bikes, skateboards, roller skates, hover boards
md2 responding to a comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 1:07 pm
LA isn't a good place to drive a car much less ride a bike
The ENTIRE transportation system...public transit, roadways...is just moronic in this city. It's actually pretty moronic in most cities in CA, because there's too damn many people and not enough space.
Getting this city to be truly bike friendly would take more work than I could imagine
What I find funny about LA is that at one point there was a really great train/trolly system, most all the freeways where trolly lines, and it wasn't until the "car revolution" that they where replaced with freeways, and totally changing LA. Now there are so many business, and design that are based around it, eventually leading to way too many cars. LA is really great for driving if it were not for the traffic.
Now LA is great for biking!!!
braydon responding to a comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 1:27 pm
We (Ridazz Glen Bailey LACBC and company) and the local neighborhood councils were able to agitate the LADOT into a 180 degree reversal in a matter of weeks.
It takes a localized and resident-centric approach. We have to appeal to resident's interests first. In the reseda case it was simple. Do you want to have a freeway on your front door? No? Then put in a bike lane and make it that much harder for the LADOT to creep in a freeway on your porch.
Roadblock responding to a comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 1:35 pm
Waste money on bike infrastructure? Good grief. Tell that to the Dutch and the Danish. They each spent 30 years and billions creating the most bike-able countries on the planet. Money well spent. About The only fat people I saw in either country were Americans.
It depends on what you mean by "Compton".... Do you mean low income area? Or the place where brown people live? Either way I was told that there was an area of Amsterdam in the south east that is the low income Muslim neighborhood. But even that area is well maintained. Maybe the Dutch can see the difference but I couldn't really tell the area was poor. The city services still do their thing... I rode all over Amsterdam and the outskirts and again, no potholes that I could find. In fact most of the people I saw were dressed well. The houses and apartments are well kept even in the "poor" areas.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
![[False Flat]](http://scrapbook.citizen-citizen.com/photos/uncategorized/falseflat.jpg)