Want to make people unsympathetic to the cause of bicyclists on the streets? Only follow the rules when it suits you.
Anyone who drives on never-to-be-widened-ever-ever-ever Manchaca Road (see page 142 here for details) knows that it has the tendency to get backed up going southbound during afternoon rush. So, it was no surprise the other day when I noticed a long line for the Stassney light. However, in this case, there was an extra backup in the right lane. (Thankfully, I was not in the right lane.) As it turned out, there was a bicycle in the right lane, and cars were waiting to get a chance to move to the left lane to get around it. That's all well and good.
However, as I sat at the Stassney light (the backup was enough that I did not make the light), I was rather surprised to see the same bicyclist riding up the sidewalk, but only until the light turned green. At this point, he jumped right back into the right lane of traffic, cutting off several vehicles that, I assume, had just gone through the trouble of trying to pass him earlier. I can only guess that at that point several of the drivers affected were not too happy about this situation, and about the bicyclist in general.
But Snowed, I hear you cry, it's legal to bike on the sidewalk! Yes it is, per Austin City Code Section 12-2-13: "Except as provided in Subsection (B) [a section that lists specific exceptions, not including any portion of Manchaca Road], a person may ride a bicycle on a sidewalk." Again, that's fine. However, the bicyclist in question ignored Section 12-2-14: "A bicyclist exiting from an alley, driveway, or building shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk or sidewalk area, or to a vehicle on a roadway." The drivers I mentioned earlier were cut off by the bicyclist, in total violation of this section. I myself have almost hit a bicyclist who jumped onto Manchaca Road without even looking, about two feet in front of my car.
So, Snowed, isn't it legal for him to simply ride between the cars at a light anyway? No, it isn't, per Section 12-2-16 (B): "A bicyclist may not ride a bicycle between vehicles traveling or standing in the same direction within marked lanes of a roadway." The proper thing to do would have been for the bicyclist to wait in line at the red light with the rest of us.
Again, I have nothing about bicycles on Austin streets; I simply think more people would be inclined to treat bikes nicely if their occupants know and follow the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I won't argue that there are bicycle riders that break the law everyday and from your description the rider was clearly a moron but people don't complain with the same fervor about motorists breaking the law ALL THE TIME. Whether it is distracted driving, rolling stop signs, using the center turn lane as a merge-into-traffic lane, speeding or failure to use traffic signals these things happen on a minute by minute basis on the road. So, complain about bikes all you want but be fair and please note that motorists are just as or more guilty in this respect.
How many motorists have cut you off or otherwise done something reckless/illegal that put you in danger? Did this make you unsympathetic with the needs of motorists?
Monty, that's a load of crap; cyclists break the law far more frequently and far more seriously than do motorists.
> Monty, that's a load of crap; cyclists break the law far more frequently and far more seriously than do motorists.
Agreed. Must be frustrating for the "good" cyclists. I always try to give a large bubble of space to cyclists when passing, sometimes even driving way behind while waiting for a chance to pass. But then when that same cyclist blows through a 4-wat stop in my neighborhood, I wonder why I should just crowd around him and be on my way.
Steve
Riding a bike is not a "cause". Is walking a "cause"? Driving a car a "cause"? Bikes are allowed to be on the road, it's as simple as that. One guy on a bike does not represent all bikers. Just like one guy in a car cutting you off, tailgaiting you for going slow, speeding past you, illegally parking in handicap zones, running red lights does not represent all car drivers.
M1EK citations for moving violations are public record. Hop in any traffic court and see that motorists are 99.99% of moving violations. That is indisputible evidence that motorists break the law far more frequently. Motorists also break the law far more seriosly. If a cyclist runs a stop sign and hits a car, the cyclist is the worst one hurt. If a car runs a stop sign and hits a car, the innocent family can all die. Motor vehicles are dangerous than a little bike. There is a charge called "vehicular manslaughter" but no charge called "Bicycular manslaughter". M1EK you do good work on the noise ordinance issues, but we need you to be credible, and this takes away your credibility.
Don't lecture me about credibility, "Anonymous". The reason most moving violations apply to cars is that most such violations are for laws that cyclists can't feasibly break (speeding, for instance).
Oh, and, due to the fact that most cops don't bother to cite cyclists who blast through stop signs and red lights.
"laws that cyclists can't feasibly break (speeding, for instance)."
The fact that it's hard to break the law on a bike goes to prove that car violations are far more serious than bicycle violations. Cars are so dangerous there are hundreds of laws made to protect the public from cars. There would be more bicycle laws if bicycles weighed as much, went as fast, and cause as much loss of life as cars do. So you really still want to say bike riders break the law more frequently than cars? Even though there is only a handful of rules to break on a bike and cars have hundreds of laws to break? That in the past hour, way more bike laws were broken than car laws?
Yes, "Anonymous", I stand by my statements. All you have to do is go to any intersection in the center-city and see how many cyclists blast through stop signs or red lights; a far more serious infraction than minor speeding.
Post a Comment