Cyclists protest - want stiffer penalties for motorists who it bicycles

[Hellraiser97]

You are one dense mofo. For a school zone, I get a goddamned SIGN telling me it's coming up. When I crest the hill near my house, I get no SIGN telling me "hey, on this large road, there will likely be a car going 45 mph . . . but there MIGHT be a bike going 15 mph" -- I simply crest the hill, and there he is.

maybe you should slow down and be prepared to stop when going over a hill since you can't see what is in front of you? You're in just as much danger from a cyclist going 15 mph as you are from a traffic backup (not from a cyclist) an accident or a mule deer wandering into the road.

"Slow downs aren't any more dangerous or unexpected." Geezis. Slowdowns are a significant danger WITHOUT bikes, because they are UNPREDICTABLE. I have seen many an accident caused by traffic coming to an unexpected stop/significant slowdown. It is a HUGE increase in risk of a collision. When a highway slows down because of an accident ahead, or what have you, that is empirically one of the riskiest situations on the road. When it happens because of a bike poking along in a main traffic lane . . . same risk.

Be aware of your surroundings.

$#@! it. I mean, if we want to be safe, we might as well just change the speed limits on all our roads to 15 mph. Gotta keep them cyclists safe.

I'm not advocating that by any means.

[Cheese]

Did you know if you pass a cyclist you have to give them at least 4 feet?

I am entitled

i recall reading a study to showed those wearing helmets have cars get even closer, as opposed to those riders without helmets being given a wider birth

bikes have the right of way, but those that go out of their way and being inconsiderate douche bag holier than thou "i have the right of way and can hold you up" mentality really do chap my ass

ironic that the dude in the car has the chapped ass, and the cyclist has the jar of "monkey butt" where the water bottle goes

[groverat]

Are there any organizations or movement within the cycling community focused on how to ride properly? The front-facing and obvious organizations seem to generally be focused on how $#@! drivers need to treat world-saving riders with more respect. Which is irksome.

I'd like to see a movement within the cycling community to legitimize proper riding. Some kind of unofficial licensing or branding.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand]

trying to get the pulse on shaggy's reverence for traffic laws can give you whiplash.

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/show...highlight=time
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/show...hlight=fastest

[Brisketexan]

maybe you should slow down and be prepared to stop when going over a hill since you can't see what is in front of you? You're in just as much danger from a cyclist going 15 mph as you are from a traffic backup (not from a cyclist) an accident or a mule deer wandering into the road.

Got it. You just changed the speed limit on every hill in Austin (and there are quite a few of them) to 15 mph. So, again, let's just go ahead and do that. Every hill should have a posted 15 mph speed limit.

Be aware of your surroundings.

I agree. I am. I have never CAUSED an accident because of a traffic slowdown. But I HAVE been rear-ended when traffic in front of me inexplicably slowed down (an idiot trying to get on the freeway panicked and slowed down to 10 mph on slick streets). A sudden change in speed/flow creates a SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk of a collision. It just does. It's basic phsyics/fluid dynamics. It doesn't mean that it's unavoidable, will inevitably happen, etc. It DOES mean that the risk of a collision increases tenfold, or more.

In areas with limited visibility, such as very hilly terrain, a bike travelling slowly in a main traffic lane creates a heightened risk of an accident. That is a statistical certainty.

I'm not advocating that by any means.

Actually, you just did, when you said we should slow down when cresting a hill. Okay, maybe not ALL roads -- just the ones with hills. So, in Austin, about half of our roads.

[RexWilson]

[JohnnyRage]

I love riding bikes.

Only the frequent blatant racismon this site annoys me as much as the all cyclist are douche-nozzles and should Die On A Side Walk crowd.

[formermav43]

I love riding bikes.

Only the frequent blatant racismon this site annoys me as much as the all cyclist are douche-nozzles and should Die On A Side Walk crowd.

I didn't know you people rode bicycles.

[ihateowho]

Just because you can do something legally doesn't mean you should. Riding a bike on a road with fast moving automobile traffic without ample room on the shoulders is stupid. And asking any cars to respect some a-hole on a bike that is going 15 on any street is equally stupid. Just as I don't feel sorry for the daredevil who fell while trying to jump onto a an airplane from a helicopter, I don't feel sorry for the cyclist that died while riding on a busy street. I do fell sorry for the families they left behind because they didn't have enough goddamn common sense to stay out of traffic.

[crash_davis]

I love riding bikes.

Only the frequent blatant racismon this site annoys me as much as the all cyclist are douche-nozzles and should Die On A Side Walk crowd.

that's odd. i love this site because it calls out the douche-nozzles for what they are regardless of skin color or choice of transportation.

[judge roybeanbag]

I should starts another controversial thread, related to this one, on how 85 year old people shouldn't be allowed to drive without a thorough testing every year. Because it was an 85 yr old man who veered onto the shoulder and killed the cyclist that prompted this.

[gsoda3]

Only if a minimum speed limit is posted.

that's not true. you can be given a ticket for driving under the speed limit whenever an officer feels it's warranted.

[Longhorn_Fan68]

that's not true. you can be given a ticket for driving under the speed limit whenever an officer feels it's warranted.

this is correct.

[crash_davis]

I should starts another controversial thread, related to this one, on how 85 year old people shouldn't be allowed to drive without a thorough testing every year. Because it was an 85 yr old man who veered onto the shoulder and killed the cyclist that prompted this.

save for armybrat, i think everyone would be in agreement about geezers being banned from operating a motorized vehicle.

[Wiler77]

Don't want bikes on the road? Fund more dedicated bike lanes. Otherwise STFU.

Want safer conditions for bikers on the road? Fund more dedicated bike lanes. Otherwise STFU.

Just because you can do something legally doesn't mean you should.

Reminds me of the Chris Rock joke. "Just because you can do something does not mean it's to be done. You can drive your car with your feet, but that don't make it a good $#@!in' idea!"

[Hellraiser97]

Got it. You just changed the speed limit on every hill in Austin (and there are quite a few of them) to 15 mph. So, again, let's just go ahead and do that. Every hill should have a posted 15 mph speed limit.

No, I said slow down and be prepared to stop. You don't need to be going 15 MPH.

Actually, you just did, when you said we should slow down when cresting a hill. Okay, maybe not ALL roads -- just the ones with hills. So, in Austin, about half of our roads.

Nope, I just said slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, which you should be doing anyway.

[jester]

save for armybrat, i think everyone would be in agreement about geezers being banned from operating a motorized vehicle.

He's going to be pissed when he reads this after waking up from his evening nap in about 10 minutes.

[Hellraiser97]

that's not true. you can be given a ticket for driving under the speed limit whenever an officer feels it's warranted.

True, but just being a bike on a two lane road isn't 'warranted'.

[t-shirt fan]

I wonder every time I drive 360 why more cyclists aren't killed out there.

They're sneaky quick those little fukrs.

[jt]

riding to the front of a line of vehicles is the safer option for the cyclist and the faster option for the cars in some cases. for instance, when i am headed south on 360 and turning east/left onto westlake drive, i ride to the light on the right side of the left hand turn lane, so i'm staying on the outside of the lane when i get to westlake drive. that allows me to gtfo the way of all the cars turning left and not worry about getting run over by anyone making a u-turn.

i also get the feeling that the "cyclists never stop!!" crowd is pissed more at bike that don't stop at a light/sign when the car has to, than when the cyclist is being dangerous. i'm going to blow the light headed south on 360 by riverbend church every time there's not a car there. i'm going to blow pretty much every single stop where there isn't cross traffic. it's not dangerous, so spare me - you're just pissed because cyclists get away w/ it and cars don't. if a cyclist blows a stop and gets hit by a car, they deserve it.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand]

I should starts another controversial thread, related to this one, on how 85 year old people shouldn't be allowed to drive without a thorough testing every year. Because it was an 85 yr old man who veered onto the shoulder and killed the cyclist that prompted this.

if you're following shaggy protocol, you should conflate the worst of any demographic into one homogenized group, unless of course you belong to that demographic, in which case we can all condemn the p.o.s that ran over Kylie Doniak (good thing she wasn't on a bike), as someone other than one of us.

[Brisketexan]

No, I said slow down and be prepared to stop. You don't need to be going 15 MPH.




Nope, I just said slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, which you should be doing anyway.

Actually, the roads were DESIGNED with lines of sight based on MOTOR vehicle traffic. Speed limits (including those that have you slow down before a blind curve, etc.) are DESIGNED with MOTOR vehicle traffic in mind. Our roads were built for cars only(well, at least the higher-speed non-residential roads were). They were laid out for cars only. TXDOT's engineering did NOT account for bikes.

But we should gum up our roads -- the engine of our commercial system -- for the random biker who wants to putz along at 15 mph. That is FAR from the socially optimal use of resources.

[jester]

i'm going to blow pretty much every single stop where there isn't cross traffic. it's not dangerous, so spare me - you're just pissed because cyclists get away w/ it and cars don't. if a cyclist blows a stop and gets hit by a car, they deserve it.

I don't necessarily take issue with this. I DO take issue with the above when it is coupled with a demand for special treatment.

[jt]

as to stiffer penalties for deaths caused by auto-cyclist accidents, that's $#@!ing stupid. cyclists take the risk of being on the road w/ giant metal beasts travelling 5x their speed. deal w/ the consequences. if you want to survive an accident w/ a car, you should probably be in a car.

[Hellraiser97]

Actually, the roads were DESIGNED with lines of sight based on MOTOR vehicle traffic. Speed limits (including those that have you slow down before a blind curve, etc.) are DESIGNED with MOTOR vehicle traffic in mind. Our roads were built for cars only(well, at least the higher-speed non-residential roads were). They were laid out for cars only. TXDOT's engineering did NOT account for bikes.

But we should gum up our roads -- the engine of our commercial system -- for the random biker who wants to putz along at 15 mph. That is FAR from the socially optimal use of resources.

Well then TXDOT failed given that its not a new law that allows bikes on roads.

[Longhorn_Fan68]

riding to the front of a line of vehicles is the safer option for the cyclist and the faster option for the cars in some cases. for instance, when i am headed south on 360 and turning east/left onto westlake drive, i ride to the light on the right side of the left hand turn lane, so i'm staying on the outside of the lane when i get to westlake drive. that allows me to gtfo the way of all the cars turning left and not worry about getting run over by anyone making a u-turn.

i also get the feeling that the "cyclists never stop!!" crowd is pissed more at bike that don't stop at a light/sign when the car has to, than when the cyclist is being dangerous. i'm going to blow the light headed south on 360 by riverbend church every time there's not a car there. i'm going to blow pretty much every single stop where there isn't cross traffic. it's not dangerous, so spare me - you're just pissed because cyclists get away w/ it and cars don't. if a cyclist blows a stop and gets hit by a car, they deserve it.

apparently APD has been told to crack down on people like you. Just FYI.

[phdhorn]

Did you know if you pass a cyclist you have to give them at least 4 feet?

I'm not disagreeing that it's a good idea, but this is a city ordinance and does not apply out of Austin city limits (or such other municipalities as have enacted a similar law). There might be some county ordinances on this, not sure. But it's not a state law in Texas.

Did you know as a cyclists I am entitled to take the entire right lane if there is a not a bike lane?

Austin's laws (§ 12-2-16) of the City Ordinances are a little vague and allow in some cases unrestricted use of a right lane (not always) on a 2 > lane per direction road. But again, that's it. In fact, the State requires cyclists to ride in the extreme righthand (or lefthand in some cases) portion of a road if they cannot keep up with the flow of traffic (or the shoulder). They are not entitled to "all" of the lane - with only a few exceptions - unless they keep up with traffic speeds.

This is from Chapter 13-1 of the Texas Driver's Handbook:

5. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than
the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as possible to the right curb
or edge of the roadway unless:
a. The person is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in
the same direction.
b. The person is preparing for a left turn at an intersection or onto a private
road or driveway.
c. There are unsafe conditions in the roadway such as fixed or moving
objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, potholes, or
debris.
d. The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel
side by side.
6. A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more
marked traffic lanes may ride as near as possible to the left curb or edge of
the roadway.
7. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable
flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway
must ride in a single lane.

Out where I live (620/71, etc.) I see cyclists violating this all of the time, usually riding in "packs" for outings, 2-3 abreast, often lingering onto the right lane when there is a shoulder, etc. I would suspect a lot of this is that they think what Austin's passed is applicable to the rest of the county/state/ It isn't.

Again, the State makes it abundantly clear in its code that if a cyclist is not able to keep up with the flow of traffic, they are to yield all of the lane(s) except the extreme right (or left) to motor vehicles.

[chillywillywall]

There are $#@! cyclists jut as there are $#@! drivers. Not to mention drivers go full retard and hit the panic button when they see a cyclist, today I rode my bike to work, stopped at a stop sign waiting for the cross traffic to pass, the cars decided to stop as if I was at a cross walk, wtf? I'm in the left lane at a stop sign. Goddamn people use your head

[Celery Man]

Can we at least declare open season on the douchenozzles riding the double-decker bikes?

[judge roybeanbag]

I have absolutely no problem with cyclists on 360, it's a pretty safe road provided they stay on the shoulder.

[Hellraiser97]

Can we at least declare open season on the douchenozzles riding the double-decker bikes?

WTF is a double-decker bike?

[Blank]

Cyclists protest - want stiffer penalties for motorists who it bicycles

I'd it it?

[JohnnyRage]

Phd, I would think that 13-1 5.d would give the right to cyclist to right in the right hand lane on many roadways.

2 ft from the curb is reasonable. Wanting at the very least 3ft of safe space on the left of the cyclist us reasonable. A body/bike is 2ft wide. Most lanes are not going to accommodate this.

[phdhorn]

Phd, I would think that 13-1 5.d would give the right to cyclist to right in the right hand lane on many roadways.

2 ft from the curb is reasonable. Wanting at the very least 3ft of safe space on the left of the cyclist us reasonable. A body/bike is 2ft wide. Most lanes are not going to accommodate this.

Of course that's one of the exceptions, but I would find that extremely rare. Since there is no "official" space requirement between bike and car outside of the city limits, judgment would have to be used. In most cases I would expect the bicyclist, if he is leading a parade of frustrated motorists, to do what many good drivers (especially trucks) do... pull over when able and let the parade go by.

But the great majority of roads with traffic would find this rule inapplicable. Maybe .5 percent of roads in the area?

[KaiserSoze]

WTF is a double-decker bike?

They're a regard type of bike that hipsters ride- probably ~10ft tall. I see them on Barton Springs Dr. all the time, which actually has a really nice bike lanes.

I ride my bike in the central part of town pretty often (generally between the Barton Springs and 45th area). There are many safe routes/options in that region, including the Shoal Creek trail.

On Saturday I rode my bike from Barton Springs to Pease Park for Eeyore's Birthday. When I got on the Shoal Creek trail at the Town Lake entrance, turns out it was closed. Because of that I ended up taking Rio Grande up to 12th and then hopped on the trail to Pease from 12th to avoid Lamar... not because I'm required to, but because it is SAFER.

While riding the stretch from Town Lake to Rio Grande there are stop signs at what seems like ever intersection or every other intersection. There wasn't much traffic but I still came to a stop at every stop sign. The main reasons why- I'm not an idiot, I don't want a ticket, electric cars don't make much noise- if I'm running a stop sign it's unlikely I'll hear/see one coming until it's too late, and I hate it when other cyclists disregard the rules and feel entitled to be given a pass.

That said, I think it's regard that cyclists obstruct traffic as most do and insist that they're more important than others. Again, quit demanding special treatment until you start following the rules.

If more parts of town had bike lanes like the central area does, a lot of these problems would be alleviated. I'd love more bike lanes.

[Armybrat]

as to stiffer penalties for deaths caused by auto-cyclist accidents, that's $#@!ing stupid. cyclists take the risk of being on the road w/ giant metal beasts travelling 5x their speed. deal w/ the consequences. if you want to survive an accident w/ a car, you should probably be in a car.

This is, of course, the correct attitude.

[crash_davis]

Phd, I would think that 13-1 5.d would give the right to cyclist to right in the right hand lane on many roadways.

2 ft from the curb is reasonable. Wanting at the very least 3ft of safe space on the left of the cyclist us reasonable. A body/bike is 2ft wide. Most lanes are not going to accommodate this.

again w/ the special treatment. when i pass other cars on the road, i don't have to give them a 3ft wide berth.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand]

as to stiffer penalties for deaths caused by auto-cyclist accidents, that's $#@!ing stupid. cyclists take the risk of being on the road w/ giant metal beasts travelling 5x their speed. deal w/ the consequences. if you want to survive an accident w/ a car, you should probably be in a car.

and if you want to survive an accident with a semi/speeding Lamborghini, you should probably be in a semi/speeding Lamborghini? regardless of who is at fault, the driver of the smaller/slower vehicle bears at least partial responsibility for the consequences simply for their choice of mobility? does Kylie Doniak despite breaking no traffic laws in a crosswalk bear some responsibility for the consequences of her ordeal based on her choice of mobility? i don't believe i can go for that, no can do.

i think what the op deals with is cases like these-

http://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?id=269

"Honestly, I started crying," the nurse practitioner said in an interview Tuesday. "I was just so … I couldn't believe that there was that hope of getting some type of closure."

In March of 2007, Raibstein's husband, 36-year old Adam Raymond, an Austin optometrist and father of a newborn at the time, was killed while riding his bicycle on Mount Gainor Road in Dripping Springs. Raymond was three weeks away from redeployment to Iraq.

D.P.S. investigators say 26-year old Bradly Danz of Wimberley, who was travelling in the opposite direction, was speeding and entered Raymond's lane hitting him head-on with a Dodge Ram 3500 pick-up truck.

On Friday, February 13th a Hays County jury of six convicted Danz of reckless driving, a charge which could bring 30-days in jail and a $300 fine. However, Raymond's family, defense attorneys and prosecutors agreed on two-years probation for Danz.

"It's a small victory," said Raibstein. "I don't think it fully fits the crime, but I'm happy. It does bring me some sense of peace that, unanimously, six people saw that he did do something wrong and they called him on it."

A few months after the accident, a Hays County grand jury declined to indict Danz on any charges. A few months later, in an unusual move, Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe filed her own charge against Danz for reckless driving.

"It's a culture," said Al Bastidas, a cyclist and founder of an organization called "Please Be Kind To Cyclists."
Bastidas says the move by the Hays County district attorney to charge Danz and the jury's decision to convict him means that attitudes towards cyclists may be changing.

Libby Raibstein is hoping her husband's death serves as a reminder to cyclists and to drivers to obey the laws and to look out for each other.

"Just watch what you're doing, you're not the only one on the road in a car that's protecting you, and cyclists just keep an eye out for the motorists" she said.

speeding, crossed over into oncoming traffic, killed someone- probation, and that was considered a victory.

[Murfdogg21]

My Tundra >>> your Huffy. Get outta my way, hippies!

[Hellraiser97]

They're a regard type of bike that hipsters ride-

You could have stopped here and had your answer.

[Hellraiser97]

again w/ the special treatment. when i pass other cars on the road, i don't have to give them a 3ft wide berth.

I don't require 3 ft, just make sure, just as with a car, that you fully enter the other lane to pass me.

[JohnnyRage]

Of course that's one of the exceptions, but I would find that extremely rare. Since there is no "official" space requirement between bike and car outside of the city limits, judgment would have to be used. In most cases I would expect the bicyclist, if he is leading a parade of frustrated motorists, to do what many good drivers (especially trucks) do... pull over when able and let the parade go by.

But the great majority of roads with traffic would find this rule inapplicable. Maybe .5 percent of roads in the area?

I don't think the situation is nearly as rare as you make it out to be. It's saying that if I don't think cars can safely passe me within the same lane that I can take up that lane.

Like you said judgment on all sides should be exercised. I ride in dangerous situations for as short of a time as possible.

[crash_davis]

I don't require 3 ft, just make sure, just as with a car, that you fully enter the other lane to pass me.

i'll enter the other lane to pass you when you stop cutting to the front of the line at red lights.

[texashorne]

I read the thread title and knew there would be about 5 posts about how drivers should be able to legally run over cyclists.

[JohnnyRage]

again w/ the special treatment. when i pass other cars on the road, i don't have to give them a 3ft wide berth.

But why would you not? Are you just a $#@! head?

[crash_davis]

But why would you not? Are you just a $#@! head?

yes but just to douchenozzle cyclists.

[Hellraiser97]

i'll enter the other lane to pass you when you stop cutting to the front of the line at red lights.

I don't.

Regardless, I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of two wrongs don't make a right?

[Bat Guan0]

Bicyclists seem to act as a lightning rod for driver anger and aggression. There are a lot of things that slow you down, that appear to be unnecessary - drivers who don't know where they're going, slowing down to look around; pedestrians; bicyclists taking the lane; and my personal pet peeve, the $#@!heads slowing down traffic to talk on the phone or text. Since I started riding my bike to work about a year ago, on a regular basis but not every day - I still drive more than I bike - I started seeing the problem from both sides. Try this thought experiment, next time you're in traffic trying to get somewhere with a bit of urgency - either to work or home or whatever: make a mental list of the things that are 'slowing you down,' and the amount of aggravation they cause you. You may find, if you're like me, that bicyclists are really pretty far down the list; you may not even see one every day, and when you do they don't always act like douchebags. The ones that do, however, stand out; you tend to remember the $#@! who rode in the middle lane of W. 6th street, basically slowing down all three lanes because he wanted everybody to see his tanned and toned shirtless torso. But again, if you compare that rare occurrence to the many, many times each day you get stuck behind a city bus; or a moron texting her BFF; or someone just driving slowly because he can, in the left lane, then think about what the real problem is.

When I ride my bike, yes, I will go through stop signs, but ONLY when I am sure it is 100 percent safe to do so, because I am acutely aware that it's my ass that will get maimed or worse if I $#@! it up. Same with red lights, and only after I slow down to basically a track stand and make absolutely certain it's safe to go. Again, it's my ass on the line. I signal left turns, but it really makes no difference if I were to signal right turns so I don't bother with that. I also take into account motorists' convenience; I won't get in someone's way if there's an acceptable alternative. Problem is, on my commute, there isn't, for a few miles; there are literally only two alternate routes: a 45-mph with two lanes in each direction but no shoulder, and a 60-mph divided highway. I take the slower one, and yes, I take the lane, because if I don't I get brushed by side mirrors all the $#@!ing time. I don't like this section, but I don't have a choice. The only time I'll act like an $#@! is if someone does it to me first: most people are pretty considerate, but there's occasionally one $#@!head who makes sure to blow by me in a huge cloud of exhaust, then slams on the brakes when he gets caught at the red light up ahead. In those cases I have absolutely no problem filtering to the head of the line ahead of the moron and taking the lane, at my usual 15 - 20 mph pace.

Back to the OP's question, if a motorist is negligent or hostile enough to hit and kill a bicyclist who is riding on the shoulder of the road, then yes, he should be prosecuted and there should be some stiffer penalty than that for crossing the white line or whatever. Because, you know, someone ends up dead.

[KaiserSoze]

You could have stopped here and had your answer.

Yes, shame on me for mentioning that Barton Springs Dr. has really nice bike lanes.

I see them on Barton Springs Dr. all the time, which actually has a really nice bike lanes.

Anyway, when driving I'm very cautious and laid back about cyclists who are being idiots. I don't ride their ass, I give them a wide birth, I let them pass before I turn right even though they jumped the line by 10 vehicles when they themselves want to be treated as vehicles. Why? Not because I think it's okay for them to act like entitled children about their equal treatment (which they abandon when it is more convenient for them), but because I really don't want to live with killing anyone on my conscience. It still pisses me off, but I'm nice about it.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand]

I read the thread title and knew there would be about 5 posts about how drivers should be able to legally run over cyclists.

it's a yuk-a-minute with punchlines you completely don't see coming from a mile away, an essential element for comedy gold.