Start Snitchin'

A DC edition of a website where bike riders photograph the license plates of cars blocking bike lanes has launched. I intend to make a pain of myself submitting photos.

I'm a bit surprised their isn't more enforcement of this. Given the currently large number of violations, it seems to me that hiring an additional traffic enforcement officer, giving him or her a bike, and having him or her ride around handing out tickets (especially on the busy, frequently violated lanes on E Street, 14th Street, and New Hampshire Aveneue) would be an easy net source of revenue for the city.

Comments

Wow...anything to suck money out of people's pockets.

Posted by Sean | June 19, 2008 1:57 PM

One word: LOSERS!

Posted by Closetcase | June 19, 2008 1:57 PM

As long as we're talking about enforcement - given the large number of violations, I would LOVE to see them handing out tickets for bicyclists and segway riders who insist on riding illegally on crowded sidewalks downtown. Would be an easy net revenue source for the city.

It's fun to dream, isn't it?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | June 19, 2008 2:04 PM

Are bicyclists bound to the same traffic laws as motor vehicles? This is something I've wondered, especially when I see bicyclists in plain violation of traffic rules (running a red light being the classic example, of course).

Posted by Christopher Monnier | June 19, 2008 2:05 PM

Hahaha, I love the "FBI police cruiser parked in bike lane" one. Good luck with that..

Posted by Paper Mac | June 19, 2008 2:05 PM

I realize this is an obvious straight line, but... what's a segway?

Posted by godoggo | June 19, 2008 2:07 PM

Both bike-lane blockers and sidewalk-riders should get ticketed, early and often, because both are dangerous and stupid habits.

That said, I imagine they are both what Bunny Colvin would describe as paper-bag issues.

Posted by tw | June 19, 2008 2:07 PM

The site has heart, but it's trivial and useless. What's the likelihood that some malevolent multiple violator will emerge—that such a driver will be caught in the act so many times or even exists?

Offenders fall into two categories: people running errands or dropping off/picking people up, which trends toward the "crime of opportunity" end of the illegality scale. The other class of offender is the police squad car or commercial vehicle, a professional criminal who thinks he has a right to park there. Where are the pictures of the FedEx trucks?

And what do the pictures that are on the site offer? Not much: There's nothing useful for me, as a bike-rider, to take away. Even if there were a three- or four-time offender listed in the sidebar, there would still be nothing useful to take away in the way of future guidance. Contributors, maybe, get a feeling of smug satisfaction for having reported on someone, but c'mon.

Posted by Kriston Capps | June 19, 2008 2:15 PM

Riding a bike on the sidewalk in DC is perfectly legal except in the "central business district".

http://app.ddot.dc.gov/information/bicycle/regulations34.pdf
1201.9

Posted by Tom | June 19, 2008 2:18 PM

I'd like to see us enact Dave Barry's suggestion that we institute roving teams of medics who would ensure that if people parking in the handicapped spots didn't need the spaces before the exam, they'd need them after.

Posted by deborah | June 19, 2008 2:19 PM

Interesting way to get the city off its ass. In Toronto, there's a volunteer group (run by Rami Tabello, great guy) that photographs and busts illegal billboards http://illegalsigns.ca/

By posting evidence of a code (or traffic) violation online, it really does put pressure on even the laziest city official to act.

Posted by beowulf | June 19, 2008 2:19 PM

I'm an avid biker, as much as 350 miles per week when I didn't have a full-time job, so my sympathies are with the bikers.

But let's at least note that this is a problem for cars as much as bikes. I drive about 20 city blocks on my commute route in San Francisco, and on average I dodge 2-3 vehicles that have parked in a lane of traffic for cars.

Anyway, I guess my point is that bikers shouldn't feel like they're being singled out by the a-holes. A-holes are nothing if not ecumenical.

Posted by mlmitton | June 19, 2008 2:20 PM

Except that, as was pointed out in an earlier thread of yours, a lot of us hardcore bike commuters hate bike lanes anyway, so, the outrage isn't there.
And I am _so with_ the person chastising bikers for disobeying traffic laws. I used to literally grab the handlebars of asses riding their bikes through the sidewalk crowds near the Pit in Harvard Square (and fortunately am large enough to have done that without getting my ass kicked). I think there's much MUCH more cyclist disrespect for pedestrian safety than car disrespect for cycle safety, not that I like either.

Posted by Sanjay | June 19, 2008 2:23 PM

Riding a bike on the sidewalk in DC is perfectly legal except in the "central business district".

and what part of "riding illegally on crowded sidewalks downtown" do you think is NOT in the "central business district", Tom?

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | June 19, 2008 2:27 PM

We need something like this for cars in driveways that block the sidewalk for runners. My oh-so-trendy neighborhood is filled with two-income yuppies in small bungalows. They refuse to take public, of course, so they need two cars (usually an Audi A4 sedan and some sort of high end Japanese SUV). But because their house is small, they use the garage for storage and park in their driveway. These driveways aren't big enough to park the cars next to each other, so they usually park one-behind-another. The back car then sticks out almost into the street -- and certainly far enough to block the sidewalk. So, when I run during rush hour, my only option is to weave out into the street to get around them. Very dangerous. I usually spit on the car as I go by.

Posted by Joe | June 19, 2008 2:28 PM

I saw the Fuzz doing this a couple of weeks ago where Wiehle Avenue crosses the WO&D Trail in Reston VA. As someone who drives to work on Wiehle (and could have therefore been ticketed) and who also uses the WO&D Trail to run, cycle, and inline skate, i was glad to see the law being enforced. Particularly since I can barely stop on those doggone rollerblades.....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 19, 2008 2:29 PM

I think there's much MUCH more cyclist disrespect for pedestrian safety than car disrespect for cycle safety

Absolutely. And I'd also add that's there's much more cyclist disrespect for traffic laws than there is motorist disrespect for cycle safety. For every 1 car I see in the bike lane I see 10 bikers running red lights and stop signs. Douche-nozzles.

Posted by AB | June 19, 2008 2:33 PM

Where in my comment did I address you, Ethel-To-Tilly? I was speaking to tw, and to the hordes of people that always, always chime in on these threads without knowing the relevant law.

With that said I hate riding on the sidewalk and avoid doing so whenever possible, not least because of the slow, deferential pace that doing so demands.

Posted by Tom | June 19, 2008 2:49 PM

For every 1 car I see in the bike lane I see 10 bikers running red lights and stop signs.

And don't forget the ones that think they're moving so fast (and they're not) that it's OK to ride in the middle of a lane. Or because they're in a group, it's acceptable to cycle 2 or 3 wide and take up a lane. There are too many flaming a**holes who think that public roads are actually closed bicycle courses.

Posted by LFC | June 19, 2008 2:58 PM

I suppose it's a way to vent, but as a daily bike commuter (20 miles rt) and rider on the streets of your most loathed championship city of Boston, the time spent mildly annoyed as I pass by an obstacle and then forgetting about it vs. stopping, grabbing a camera, getting a good enough shot off...I mean, really? I already hate stopping for anything as it is, this would just compound things.

But, if Cambridge cops are cool with ticketing bicyclists who run red lights (happens just up Mass from Harvard Sq.), you'd hope they would apply as much attention to bike lane infractions, etc.

Posted by kntel | June 19, 2008 2:58 PM

You may have been reading a bit too deeply into my post. It is illegal to ride the sidewalks in my locality; that I didn't familiarize myself with the relevant traffic regulations of individual posters before posting a half-joking post is, of course, my bad.

That you think I was somehow maligning your cycling in particular is, of course, tant pis.

Posted by tw | June 19, 2008 3:06 PM

LFC, I hate to break this to you, but cyclists absolutely are entitled to ride in the middle of the lane. There is absolutely no reason we should squeeze in next to a bunch of car doors that are waiting to fly open and cause us severe injury. You are required to go around us; we are not required to accomodate you.

Posted by Rock On | June 19, 2008 3:06 PM

Also, this is just insane:

AB: And I'd also add that's there's much more cyclist disrespect for traffic laws than there is motorist disrespect for cycle safety. For every 1 car I see in the bike lane I see 10 bikers running red lights and stop signs. Douche-nozzles.

You clearly don't commute by bike. I do, and I see at least two bike lane violations by car every day on my very short ride.

A few points, all made with the caveat that I do not think cyclists should violate the law:

1. Cyclists don't want to get hit by cars. That's all. When they violate the law, it is not done out of sheer malevolence. Generally it is out of a desire to avoid being around cars as much as possible. This is the only reason I've ever run a red light on a bike (after stopping completely, and checking to make sure the coast is clear, of course): if I'm near cars that I don't trust or that seem not to have noticed me, it's worth the risk to get ahead of/away from them.

2. Cyclists can generally see over cars in a way that drivers cannot. This can make it perfectly safe for them to slow, rather than stop, at stop signs if they have an unimpeded view of coming traffic. This can be alarming to drivers who see the cyclist much later than he sees them, but that doesn't say anything about the safety of the situation. Again, if it means I can get away from cars, I will do it: motorists' unpredictable behavior (in this case extending/not extending the right of way as the law dictates, or just not looking for cyclists -- something that led to me getting hit despite being 100% in compliance with the law at a four-way stop) means that it's better to avoid the interaction entirely if at all possible.

3. The consequences of a cyclist behaving unsafely are far, far less serious to others than the consequences of a car doing so. That's not to say they aren't serious, but it does mean that the spouts of anger directed at cyclists (largely due to a few bad apples) make very little sense.

All of the above makes it seem like I'm proposing that the biker unfairly claim responsibility and superior knowledge of what constitutes safe behavior relative to drivers and pedestrians. Well, I sort of am: cyclists are the most vulnerable of the three classes, and consequently they're generally paying the most attention. This is a lesson you learn very quickly when riding in the city: you cannot count on anyone else to act safely, legally or predictably. It's entirely up to you.

When I'm driving a car or on the sidewalk I get angry at those on bikes, too. But that's tough (and largely born of being forced to drive more slowly, I think, than out of concern for safety or civic responsibility). If you don't bike regularly you don't understand the situation completely. Until our cities commit to supporting a real bike infrastructure, and drivers become used to it, everyone else is going to have to suck it up.

Posted by Tom | June 19, 2008 3:10 PM

Except that, as was pointed out in an earlier thread of yours, a lot of us hardcore bike commuters hate bike lanes anyway, so, the outrage isn't there.
And I am _so with_ the person chastising bikers for disobeying traffic laws. I used to literally grab the handlebars of asses riding their bikes through the sidewalk crowds near the Pit in Harvard Square (and fortunately am large enough to have done that without getting my ass kicked). I think there's much MUCH more cyclist disrespect for pedestrian safety than car disrespect for cycle safety, not that I like either.

Posted by Sanjay | June 19, 2008 3:12 PM

There are too many flaming a**holes who think that public roads are actually closed bicycle courses.

Sorry, it's my road, too. Literally. Hey, gas it five bucks, yet?

Posted by asl | June 19, 2008 3:12 PM

Except that DC parking enforcement has next to zero enforcement standards. I walk, metro, bike, and have a car (shared by 2) so I feel I have a pretty good handle on the many and varied transportation woes of a DC-ite.

The problem is, if the DC meter maids were to suddenly start ticketing for something like blocked bike lanes, it would imply that they ticket for anything rational. Believe it or not I received a parking ticket this month for parking in the spot I pay my small apartment building to park in.

I would like to ticket the bikers who go the wrong way down my one-way street, but it's less annoying of me to just fret about it here than to encourage we ticket those folks.

Posted by CHoward | June 19, 2008 3:14 PM

Dallas does not have bike lanes (at least where I live and work). Dallas ordinances allow bikes on sidewalks except the downtown financial district. I spoke to my council woman about it, she actually encouraged sidewalk use because there are no bike lanes (circular reasoning) and because she said motorists around here will "aren't used to bikes" and probably would mow you down in their monster trucks anyway. The sad thing is that there aren't many sidewalks either in parts of Dallas. So it is a bit of challenge to bike to work.

Posted by Bob Oso | June 19, 2008 3:20 PM

Matt, I don't understand this site. I go around cars in bike lanes every day. So what? It's not like cars don't have to go around parked cars, pedestrians, etc. Welcome to the city commuting.

Posted by asl | June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

CHoward, it sounds like downtown needs to hire Georgetown's metermaids, especially the ones right next to Georgetown University. I've seen cars ticketed for being parked in the residents-only zone thirty seconds after it takes effect in the morning.

Posted by Tel | June 19, 2008 3:25 PM

Sorry, it's my road, too. Literally.

True, and as long as they are obeying the law and not endangering me, I have no problem with bikes on the road. If there is no oncoming traffic, I will get over as far as possible when I pass so as not to hit the cyclist with the wind from my car.

BUT, being a public road doesn't mean that you have the right to cycle at 20mph in a 45 zone. That's against the law in my state, and also extremely ignorant. Side by side cycling that blocks a lane is not only illegal and ignorant but dangerous to both cyclists and the drivers that have to go around them.

There's a HUGE difference between appropriate use of public roads by bicycles and a**holes who feel that it is THEIR road and nobody else's. If that's the way you ride, don't bitch when a driver refuses to endanger themselves and passes within inches of you.

Posted by LFC | June 19, 2008 3:27 PM

BUT, being a public road doesn't mean that you have the right to cycle at 20mph in a 45 zone.

I'm not sure where you're from, LFC, but in general I wouldn't be too certain about that. Here in Houston, cyclists are required to be in the rightmost lane, and it's certainly good form to keep far enough to the right that a car can get by if the lane's wide enough, but if I feel as though I need to take a whole lane for my safety, I'm within the rules anywhere but on the freeway. That's pretty much been the law everywhere else I've lived, too.

Posted by Zach | June 19, 2008 3:50 PM

On the other hand, there are very few bike lanes in Houston, and I think we have to use them if they're available.

Posted by Zach | June 19, 2008 3:53 PM

"I think there's much MUCH more cyclist disrespect for pedestrian safety than car disrespect for cycle safety"

I wonder how many motorists have been killed by irresponsible cyclists in the last year.

Posted by digamma | June 19, 2008 3:58 PM

I think a lot of people writing here have misconceptions about the laws regarding cycling, first and foremost, that every state is the same. Sidewalks may or may not be legal. Two-abreast may or may not be legal. Riding in the center of the lane may or may not be legal. You get the idea.

velonews.com has a columnist, a lawyer who specializes in bike law, that writes about such things every week or two. You can find him here:

http://velonews.com/author/71301

I'll bet most questions are already answered there, but if not, it's not very hard to search your state's statutes. And generally speaking, DMVs publish a pamphlet explaining bike laws.

Posted by mlmitton | June 19, 2008 4:08 PM

Here in Houston, cyclists are required to be in the rightmost lane, and it's certainly good form to keep far enough to the right that a car can get by if the lane's wide enough, but if I feel as though I need to take a whole lane for my safety, I'm within the rules anywhere but on the freeway.

Zach, here are the rules for Texas. Note that staying to the far side of the right lane is the law, not just "good form". You may only ride in the lane if it is not possible to safely stay to the right. And two people can ride side by side but "may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway", which means getting their tails to the right when a car comes.

This is similar to the laws in Pennsylvania, where I live. And when bikes follow these laws, cars and bikes work together pretty well, even on the fairly narrow semi-rural roads in the area where I live.

Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;

(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway; or

(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or

(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

(b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway.

(c) Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.

Posted by LFC | June 19, 2008 4:17 PM

Maybe pedestrians should "cork" bike paths in "protest." This is from the May 30 Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"Tonight, as happens every last Friday of the month, a minor revolution will break out on Atlanta's streets.

Starting about 6:30 p.m., more than 300 bicyclists plan to take over several lanes of traffic, shoving King Car aside.

They call it Critical Mass. It's a rolling message board that says "Bicycles have a right to the road too!"

During last month's ride, a few bicyclists "corked" the intersections at every traffic light, blocking cars for the mass of bikers as they pedaled through a couple of light changes.

Surprisingly few drivers honked. Most just stared with quizzical looks. One elderly woman behind the wheel of a large sedan appeared startled, possibly frightened by the bicycle version of Freaknik gliding down 10th Street near Georgia Tech.

The event is both political statement and rollicking street festival, with some civil disobedience thrown in. (Bicyclists are supposed to follow the same rules as drivers, including stopping for red lights). There's no organized leadership. Routes are not planned, and anyone who wants to lead the pack is welcome to try.

Critical Mass started in San Francisco in 1992 and is now replicated in hundreds of cities worldwide. An Emory University graduate student brought the ride to Atlanta in 1999.

Darian Somers, 34, a Virginia-Highland resident, has seen the mass ride through her neighborhood.

"I don't have a problem with them trying to get the point across," she said. "Feel free to share the road, but follow the same rules that apply to motor vehicles. Don't go flying through a red light while we're all waiting."

Posted by worrywart | June 19, 2008 4:18 PM

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Look, nobody's going to ride two abreast on a single-lane road with the intention of holding up traffic, but sometimes it simply is not safe to keep close to the curb! The only places around here where I've seen people two abreast are on roads with at least 3 lanes in each direction, in light traffic conditions.

Posted by Zach | June 19, 2008 5:33 PM

I just want to say that I am convinced that fines should not be used directly as revenue. They should be used to set up trusts or foundations directly competing with whatever the fine was levied for, and those trusts would hopefully be somehow insulated from gaining too much power. After all, if the money stops coming in, the problem is solved, right?

Whenever you use fines as a revenue stream, it opens the door to coming up with excuses to fine people, and that is tyranny.

Speeding tickets, anyone?

Posted by qkslvrwolf | June 19, 2008 5:39 PM

I just want to say that I am convinced that fines should not be used directly as revenue. They should be used to set up trusts or foundations directly competing with whatever the fine was levied for, and those trusts would hopefully be somehow insulated from gaining too much power. After all, if the money stops coming in, the problem is solved, right?

Whenever you use fines as a revenue stream, it opens the door to coming up with excuses to fine people, and that is tyranny.

Speeding tickets, anyone?

Posted by qkslvrwolf | June 19, 2008 5:45 PM

I more or less agree with Sanjay. Bike lanes are great for allocating a few extra feet, but they certainly don't obligate cyclists to stay in that little corridor--that's a bad mentality for both cyclists and drivers. Double parking is a fact of life in a busy city and I don't think there's anything evil about that. Both cyclists and drivers should be comfortable with the cyclist entering the traffic lane to pass. Happens several times every time I ride. If you feel pressed just stick your left arm out a good ways before the hazard and merge in. What you want to avoid is going in between the parked cars and a double-parker.

What's great about these bike threads is the undercurrent of anti-bike animus that always emerges... Those dad-burned bicyclists always breakin the laws! With the number of life-and-death incidents that these people have supposedly narrowly avoided you'd think they might have picked up a thing or two about how to conduct their business in this wild and dangerous world without getting their blood boiling.

Posted by Other Ezra | June 19, 2008 5:56 PM

Re: That "As far right as practical" language.

To me, that means out of the door zone, as in four feet from any parallel parked cars (if there's a bike lane, like on Clinton St in Brooklyn, this means riding on the right edge of the bike lane). There's a really good reason that that is "as far right as practical." If you look at the ghost bike article in this week's _New York_, about half of the people killed on bikes in that article swerved to miss an opening door and were then run over.

If there's no bike lane and four feet brings me into the center of the lane, so be it. The cars can wait, I move pretty fast. If there are no parallel parked cars, I'll ride near the curb, but if there are doors to be dodged, I'm staying as far away as I need to.

Yeah, I've been doored. It sucks.

Posted by Andrew | June 19, 2008 6:11 PM

Re: That "As far right as practical" language.

To me, that means out of the door zone, as in four feet from any parallel parked cars (if there's a bike lane, like on Clinton St in Brooklyn, this means riding on the right edge of the bike lane). There's a really good reason that that is "as far right as practical." If you look at the ghost bike article in this week's _New York_, about half of the people killed on bikes in that article swerved to miss an opening door and were then run over.

If there's no bike lane and four feet brings me into the center of the lane, so be it. The cars can wait, I move pretty fast. If there are no parallel parked cars, I'll ride near the curb, but if there are doors to be dodged, I'm staying as far away as I need to.

Yeah, I've been doored. It sucks.

Oh, and that site, and the New York one, is pretty dumb. Double parked cars are a fact of city life.

Posted by Andrew | June 19, 2008 6:13 PM

I think parking in a bike lane is bad, but posting people's license plate numbers on the Internet?

Why not list where those people live just like those web site that list where the abortion doctor's live? I am sure you agree with that.

Posted by A Litte Too Far | June 19, 2008 8:23 PM

OK, I've been both biker and driver, and I sympathize mostly with the biker. But you have got to be kidding me with this site. I'm actually pretty disgusted.

Posted by Will | June 20, 2008 12:16 AM

LFC - We don't have 45mph zones in DC. (That's almost literally true -- there are stretches of 395 and 295 that have speed limits that high, but bikes aren't exactly clamoring to ride on them.) In fact, virtually every street in DC is 30mph, tops, with a lot of them being 25mph. (Again, there are a handful of faster roads, but bikes are a rarity on them.) Other major cities may be different, but by and large, bikes really can keep up with car traffic on city streets. (Or at least they can approach the legal speed limit -- keeping up with speeders is another thing altogether.)

Posted by pilgrim | June 20, 2008 12:38 AM

I was gonna post something snarky, but Tom upthread absolutely nails the arguments for bikers breaking the law.

I would like to add one other point: A lot of times it's better for flow of car traffic for bikers to have a...shall we say, liberal view of traffic laws. If I'm on a bike and I come to a full stop at a stop sign, it takes me a lot longer to accelerate through the intersection than a car. Generally, I try to figure out when the next car in my line will go, and try to hit the intersection at the same time at full speed. It's not "legal," but it saves me time, and does the same for you as well, motorist.

But then again, I'm also the auto driver who runs red left-hand turn arrows when there's nobody coming from the opposite direction.

Oh, and I smoke pot, too.

Please don't tell the children.

Posted by scythia | June 20, 2008 6:40 AM

Re: And don't forget the ones that think they're moving so fast (and they're not) that it's OK to ride in the middle of a lane.

You might want to consider that some roads have such rough margins that they aren't safe for bikes to ride along the edge. And here in Baltimore there are storm drains with very dangerous grates over them. The grates have parallel bars on them, and while some are placed perpendicular to the direction of travel on the road, others are placed parallel. Since the spaces between the bars are wide enough for a bike tire, this is a terrible accident waiting to happen, and I'm surprised the city hasn't already been sued over it. It would be a easy fix too, since the drain openings are square the grates could simply be turned the other way.

Re: Sidewalks may or may not be legal.

Sidewalks are legal for bicycles everywhere unless specifically posted otherwise. That's a local matter, not a state one.

Re: Double parking is a fact of life in a busy city and I don't think there's anything evil about that.

Double parking is illegal, discourteous and should be ticketed. If you're just letting someone out or picking someone up I'm OK with it (although why not just pull up at the intersection or in a no-parking spot?), but when the car stops, is turned off, and everyone piles out to go shopping (yes, I've seen this) that shouts "A$$holes!" and I'd love to see those cars towed away.

My own pet peeve: pedestrians who cross against the light when there are no cars coming but there is a bike approaching them with the right of way. Also, pedestrians who insist on walking in the bike lane when there is a sidewalk right next to it (annoyingly common along our Inner Harbor bike lane, which is barricaded from car traffic)

Posted by JonF | June 20, 2008 6:56 AM

Here's what I can't reconcile: Bikes are supposed to follow traffic rules, and they are also expected to move out of the way of faster moving traffic, when possible (which they generally do). Somehow, however, riders seem to think they have a corresponding right to zip past vehicles that are stopped at traffic lights or stop signs (on the right!), as though those vehicles, by obeying the required stop, have become "slower moving traffic." The rules for bicycles are simply not clear enough and they seem to be completely unenforced anyway.

Posted by Egalitarian | June 20, 2008 10:21 AM

Critical Mass: Great idea. It'll especially get the point across when someone dies in the back of an ambulance that can't get them to the hospital because self-righteous a'holes are intentionally blocking the intersection.

Typical for the cyclists where I live, though. All of the rights, none of the responsibilities. The next Portland cyclist I see stop at a stop sign will be the first.

Posted by Mad John | June 20, 2008 1:16 PM

No emergency vehicle has ever been delayed by any Critical Mass that I've seen. In fact, getting hundreds of bicyclists out of the way takes a LOT less time than getting hundreds of cars out of the way.

There is a difference between observing the *letter* of the law and the *intent* of the law. The intent of putting stop signs every 300' here in Chicago is to have slow, quiet traffic flow with orderly queueing -- something that I, as a bicyclist, can achieve with "California stops." Indeed, just last night I was "raced" down a quiet side street by a H3 who still (thanks to their vastly faster acceleration) got to the end faster; even if she technically did "stop" at each block, the intent of the law was not met (since the motive force of said H3 through an intersection is 100,000X greater than mine).

Just because we don’t trust drivers to drive politely and let one another in in traffic -— which we might accomplish with, say, yield rather than stop signs (see "Distracting Miss Daisy" in this month's Atlantic) -— hardly means that pedestrians or bicyclists can’t be trusted with the same. That's why you see "Bicycles Excepted" and "Yield" signs (and many fewer traffic deaths) throughout northern Europe.

Double-parking, on the other hand, is an infraction with a true cost: just one double-parked car on each block effectively removes an entire lane of traffic, and cuts road capacity by even more than that (by forcing people to suddenly merge into other lanes). One study of a NYC avenue (without curbside parking) found that 75% of the traffic flowed in just two of the five lanes -- the other three were usually obstructed by parking and loading.

Posted by PCC | June 20, 2008 4:55 PM

Cyclists who are real men run stop signs and red signal indications. Only wimps and wienies obey them.

Posted by SLC | June 21, 2008 8:54 AM

I think all cities need to follow Chicago's lead by enforcing a $500 fine for any motorist who doors a cyclist. Automatic $500, no questions asked. Might make people look over their shoulder before swinging a hundred pound metal & glass impediment into the bike lane. And while we're at it, why not a $500 fine for double parkers since they are not only getting in the way of bikers, but also in the way of car traffic and blocking the exit of whoever's car they're next to.

Posted by VBatt | June 25, 2008 12:10 PM