Yeah, lets just let the government control and run every bit of our lives.

Did anyone else think this was satire when they read the part about licensing and registration?

Wow. Just, wow.

Thanks for your comments, in particular the research links. Derk wrote an entire post last night in response.

http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/07/02/more-bicycle-safety-studies-needed/

you wrote, “License plates equilavent to car size? Seriously, is that size necessary?”

judd isn’t advocating this. this is what he wrote:

“A bicyclist must attach license plates to the front and rear of his bicycle. These license plates should be the same size as motorcycle license plates, and should never be obstructed by any other object.”

Etc., etc.

And for all that, what will the effect be? Listen: because cars kill poeple, because cars are expensive and powerful machines, because drivers deal with all of that hassle, we have a whole network of roads, highways, avenues and streets designed specifically for automobiles. What was the cost of creatign and maintaining all those roads? In the trillions of dollars, probably. Use of those roads is what motorists get for undergoing the expense and inconvenience of operating an automobile. Build me a similar network of thoroughfares, *just for bicycles,* and I’ll happily submit to all your restrictions. But without the payoff, none of it makes sense. (Further, the various points made by Rob, Dave and cDowski are all valid and all completely destroy this nonsensical proposition.

Just for fun, though, let’s go a step further. Should we regulate inline skates, too? What about walking?? There are far more pedestrian deaths than bicycle deaths.
Clearly we should make people obtain a walking license before we allow them to leave their house. Also, they should have to register their shoes, and wear license plates on their butts, and insure themselves against tripping, and only walk in proper walking lanes (maybe the sidewalk on one side of the street will be for walking one way, and across the street for the other way). Also, there should be toll booths on every streecorner to collect money for the wear-and-tear walkers inflict on the sidewalks…

Etc.

2. Before we talk about regulating bikes there should first be more widespread initatives to better integrate this mode of transportation into City planning.
Also, don’t talk about paying for parking or regulating it until there is a reasonable amount supply for the demand. In NYC there are 5,000 bike racks for 131,000 + bike commuters (NY times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/nyregion/01bike.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin). I imagine that this is relativley the same for the rest of the country. Also, commercial building oweners should be encouraged to either provide bike storage or allow tenants to store bicycles in their own space. Currenlty most building owner do not.

3. Bikes on commuter trains is no problem. In copenhagen every train has one a car at both ends for bikes with integrated seating. Pairing bike and rail commuting is an absolute must. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/966038640/).

4. You cannot honestly say that bikes are not paying their fair share. They have no shares of the road. When city officals propose to raze entire neighborhoods to make way for dedicated bike thoroughfares then maybe we can talk about tolls and other fees. Furthermore, bike lanes are a pulic amenity. I can’t stress enough the overlooked impacts that automobiles have on cities: emissions, oil and auto fluid run-off, noise, and they require a lot space for they use, storage, and maintenance. All things that car owners don’t pay to fix. And, as I alluded to above automobile right-of-way is frequently put before the community needs without considering alternatives or compromise. Yes cars need access, but not at the expense of decent public spaces. What’s the point of being able to get around in a car if everywhere you go is an awful concrete and steel mess.

5. License plates equilavent to car size? Seriously, is that size necessary?

I appreciate that you aim to make bike travel safer for everyone, but your proposal comes off as a punitive response for a perceived freeloading on the part of cyclists. Just remember, bikes will pay more when they get a lot more. Besides, it is incumbent on city leaders to make more effiecient and friendly cities. Bikes help in that regard, cars don’t. Are there currently any political backers of this proposal? Democrats seem unlikely because it runs counter to green and environmentally friendly initiatives and Republicans are supposed to be anti-government regulation and pro growth (although they don’t care about environmental initiatives and don’t like democrats). This is an important discussion to have about our cities. I just think it needs to find ways that respond to the culture of the bike and not be based soley on models developed for cars.

Further, except for requiring all cyclists to wear helmets and reflective vests, the “Safety” guidelines you’re proposing are already written in law across the US. You don’t need a new bureaucracy to enforce laws that already exist.

What Judd is proposing is a poor piece of policy. First, implementing a new layer of bureaucracy is not simple, cost-effective or efficient. Second, it’s targeting a group that bears little culpability when they are killed by motor vehicles. Third, it does nothing to improve safety for pedestrians, who are slaughtered by motorists in even greater numbers by motorists (not bicyclists).

This is a superficial solution to traffic safety, which would discourage more cyclists, eroding the proven “safety in numbers” effect, and make bicycling more dangerous. You should focus on the problem, which is motorists killing and injuring thousands of people.

You raise some interesting points. I am actually working on a post on this very subject, and I appreciate the links to other studies that I hadn’t found yet.

I need some time to review the information you just provided, but we are working on a post that will address the issues you raise.

In general, our stance isn’t that automobiles don’t pose risks to cyclists, they do - our stance is that simple regulations like these could increase safety in a cost effective way without the hassles of trying to implement anti-car legislation (congestion pricing, traffic calming, etc…).

Judd’s proposal is something that’s easy to implement, and would measurably improve safety very quickly.

More than 5,000 pedestrians and cyclists are killed each year by motor vehicles, and more than 100,000 are seriously injured. I agree with you that we need to minimize conflicts and crashes between all road users, but WAKE UP and put the burden where it belongs. Drivers bear the greatest responsibility for killing off thousands of our friends, family members and neighbors each year. It is the driver’s presence that creates the danger.

An analysis of Pedestrian fatalities in NYC in 1997, found drivers were strictly responsible for 75% of pedestrian fatalities. (Study)

A study of bicyclist fatalities in NYC from 1995-1998, found drivers were strictly responsible for 80% of bicyclist deaths (Study)

The NHTSA studied 8,000 pedestrian and bicyclist crashes and found motorist responsible for motorists responsible for 54% of crashes with a known cause. (Study)

Your argument that cyclists do not pay for the roads doesn’t hold water. If you actually look where money for highways and local roads come from, it’s clear that cyclists are paying their way, and actually subsidizing motorists. From STL Bicycle Federation with govt sources:

- According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads–the ones most often used by cyclists–come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.

- FWHA calculates that 92% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But 8% come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.

Research in multiple cities has shown that tripling the number of bicycle riders on the street cuts motorist-bicyclist crashes in half, so the increase in cycling will bring greater safety.

Thanks for your comment (#5).

Here’s a point by point response to your suggestions:

The licensing fees should pay for the cost of licensing, first and foremost. I don’t want to create a revenue stream for other government initiatives. I also don’t think a public campaign to encourage cycling is the job of the government. That picks favorites, and I think a bike is no more legitimate a means of transportation than a car.

That said, your point about encouraging safe motorist behavior around bicyclists is spot on. Perhaps we could incorporate this into the pre-licensing requirements for drivers, i.e. mandating some kind of bike safety awareness segment in driver’s ed classes? I’ll be honest. I never learned anything about how to drive safely around a bike in driver’s ed, other than to try to not hit them.

Buffered bike lanes is an interesting idea. What is the current thinking on how this would be constructed? Perhaps jersey barriers? I’m not too familiar with the idea of bike-only cross streets and avenues. How would this work in NYC or DC for instance? Would you have to remove cars from certain lanes? I’d prefer not to do that, but rather to share the road.

I wholeheartedly agree that if we put up metered parking for bikes, there should be enough of it. Since bikes don’t take up too much space, I don’t see this as a problem. You can probably fit 10 bikes in the space that 1 parked car takes up. Makes perfect sense.

I definitely agree about strict enforcement of traffic rules. Parking in bike lanes and blocking the lane and harassing bicyclists should result in citations.

I disagree about transporting bikes on commuter rails. They simply take up too much space, and block those trying to get on and off. If we were to massively increase our commuter rail capacity, perhaps we could have a “bike car” on, say, every other subway (or whatever interval works best) that could carry up to a certain number of bikes?

I disagree about criminal penalties for harassing and honking at cyclists. I don’t think it’s appropriate to arrest drivers who yell some kind of mockery or honk at bicyclists. They can currently yell and honk at other cars without getting arrested. The punishment doesn’t seem appropriate to the offense. Perhaps a citation and a fine, but not jail time.

I’m also not sure I agree with you on children biking on major roads, even if they’re buffered. An adult could easily plow over them at 20 mph. Plus at what age is a child capable of understanding the danger of the road? Perhaps we could allow children to ride if they were supervised by an adult?

“If you want to cash in on autonomous transportation, cash in on jaywalkers. They’re the ones putting people at risk.”

yo “are you serious” check this out!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NmHRnA780WM

Freshly paved bike lanes, perhaps painted green to distinguish them from the rest of the road! Would definitely make bicyclists safer.