Home

30 Responses to “Toward A New Bicycle Safety in America”

1. 1 | Slimfender | June 30th, 2008, 8:15 pm

   Judd-

   Quite an interesting take on this. I agree with many of these safety measure as far as what the cyclist should have concerning a vest, helmet, front and rear lights etc.

   However, I think it’s ridiculous that you’re proposing cyclists to pay a toll on roads where automobile drivers are required to. Is not the point of a toll to pay for construction and maintenance costs, because automobile driving does damage to the roadway, unlike a bicycle? Now, if you suggest that cyclists pay tolls on bike only paths where automobiles are not allowed, then that would seem more than reasonable. Again, also the main point of metering parking spots is not for the space they take up but for funding maintenance and construction, am I not wrong?

   Feel free to email be back with a response. I’m all for learning more on your point of view.

2. 2 | Paul C. | June 30th, 2008, 10:50 pm

   Ahh Jesuzzz Judd…

   Can’t you just admit that most of this pile o’ dreck stems from a deep-seated jealousy of cyclists free and unregulated status?

   A person moving under his/her own power, on a public street should not be encumbered in the same way as is those exercising the PRIVILEGE of operating a powerful motor vehicle on said thoroughfare.

   Stop whining about all those cyclists “getting away” with not paying for parking, or having to stand in line at the DMV.

   Don’t be a player hater.

3. 3 | Judd Wiley | June 30th, 2008, 11:17 pm

   Slimfender,

   Thanks for your comment. You make some excellent points.

   The real question is: What is the purpose of tolls and parking meter fees? Do all vehicles essentially pay for their own infrastructure, or do some vehicles subsidize other vehicles?

   I’m going to write more about this tomorrow. It’s a very complicated issue, but it gets to the heart of the transportation debate.

4. 4 | Judd Wiley | June 30th, 2008, 11:19 pm

   Paul C,

   You are one of my favorite readers. I mean this seriously. I suspect you and I would get along handsomely offline.

   That said, I must disagree with you when you say the following:

   “A person moving under his/her own power, on a public street should not be encumbered in the same way as is those exercising the PRIVILEGE of operating a powerful motor vehicle on said thoroughfare.”

   As I mentioned above, bikes usually travel between 10-30 mph. Put a 170-200 lb man on bike, and even at 20 mph he’s a danger to pedestrians, not to mention himself. A bike going 20 mph is hard to stop quickly, for instance when someone opens their car door, or a pedestrian steps between 2 parked cars.

   I want to see the number of bicycle deaths decreased, and I think we can do it with some common sense regulations.

   Proper licensing, registration, inspection, insurance, and safety regulations would be a good start.

   As I promised Slimfender, I’ll write more on tolls and parking fees tomorrow.

5. 5 | Jobo Plotz | July 1st, 2008, 1:15 am

   It’s an interesting question and worth talking about. But the proposals here do not go go far enough. More cycling is good for car drivers because it will reduce the number of cars in traffic. So the licensing fees should be spent on a number of initiatives, including a public education campaign to encourage cycling and safe motorist behavior around cyclists. There should be buffered bike lanes separating bikes from cars, and since this would result in some car-only (faster) avenues, there ought to be some bike-only cross streets and avenues. The parking should be ample enough so that bicyclists do not have to resort to inappropriate locations for locking up. There should be strict enforcement of traffic rules on everyone — cars and cyclists alike. Pedestrians should also face ticketing if they walk in bike lanes or otherwise interfere with bike traffic. Cars that park in bike lanes should be towed, not just ticketed (blocking the lane forces bikes into car traffic, creating a hazard). There should be fewer restrictions on transporting bikes on commuter rail — there should be ample storage on the trains so bikes can be used at rush hour. There should be criminal penalties for harassment and honking at cyclists. It should be possible for a child to safely bike using protected buffered routes.

6. 6 | The truth about cyclists in NYC. | July 1st, 2008, 10:56 am

   […] Crapper posted this link today which is pretty dead on. Cyclists need to be regulated, for their own safety and for the […]

7. 7 | Outraged | July 1st, 2008, 11:00 am

   I wholeheartedly agree with Judd on this one.

   Cyclists currently use a transportation infrastructure that is subsidized by automobiles. They should pay their fair share.

   The licensing, registration, insurance, safety, and inspection requirements are very appropriate. Why should all of this apply to cars but not bicycles, which can travel up to 30 mph?

   Again, bravo Judd and Lewis for smart thinking on this.

   If bicyclists want their chosen mode of transportation to be taken seriously, they would support all of these initiatives.

   Question is: How do we get these rules and regulations made into law?

8. 8 | Are you serious? | July 1st, 2008, 11:44 am

   What the BLEEP is wrong with you people? Let me guess, YOU ALL DRIVE CARS.

   Get the BLEEP over yourselves. Your “list” under inspection is outrageous. If NYC was designed with bikes in mind, there would be no need to disobey traffic signals. And NO ONE goes above 28mph on a bike. Trust me. I guarantee you 100% that is is almost impossible to go 50mph on a city street. Link your sources.

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

   Why the hell should cyclists pay tolls? Our bikes don’t damage the roads. We don’t pollute, we don’t take up city streets with parking and we sure as hell don’t KILL people.

   By NYC a bicycle is required to have a blinking red light on the rear, a blinking white light on the front, brakes and that’s it.

   and trust me. the last BLEEP thing we need in this world is ANOTHER form of insurance. You lazy fat BLEEP need to get off your high horses and quit being jealous of people who can move about freely and efficiently through the City while you sit in gridlocked traffic paying $5 a gallon.

9. 9 | Are you serious? | July 1st, 2008, 11:51 am

   Also, the amount of people who ride bikes in cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris, Copenhagen puts our city to shame. Do they require licenses and registration and some bureaucratic BLEEP to go along with their 2-wheeled transportation? NO. No country requires that BLEEP. Leave it to ill-tempered Americans to come up with some lazy-ass excuse to “level” the playing field. Until my bike kills a driver upon impact, I think it’s pretty safe to say the playing field will never be level.

10. 10 | Judd Wiley | July 1st, 2008, 11:57 am

    Are you serious -

    You’re right, that was a typo. 10-30 mph is the range, not 50 mph. We’ve corrected the mistake. All our other points remain.

    Your profanity-laced tirade has also been updated.

11. 11 | Are you serious? | July 1st, 2008, 11:59 am

    You wouldn’t have corrected the 50mph error unless someone called you out on it. Have fun with those gas prices BLEEP!11!!!!1111

12. 12 | Judd Wiley | July 1st, 2008, 12:04 pm

    I corrected the error literally seconds after you pointed it out. If simply misread km for mph on the Wikipedia bicycle performance article.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

    A very careless mistake on my part, for which I take full responsibility.

    But think about it. Why would I want to spread false information? That only discredits my position, and gives ammo to people like you.

    Again, thanks for pointing this mistake out.

    I should add that all of your other points are absurd. More on this soon.

13. 13 | Are you serious? | July 1st, 2008, 12:17 pm

    What’s absurd about my very legit point regarding the way that other countries deal with bicycles?

14. 14 | Judd Wiley | July 1st, 2008, 12:29 pm

    Are you serious -

    I’m sorry, I missed that point. It was camouflaged behind your profanity.

    You wrote: “Also, the amount of people who ride bikes in cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris, Copenhagen puts our city to shame. Do they require licenses and registration and some bureaucratic BLEEP to go along with their 2-wheeled transportation? NO. No country requires that BLEEP.”

    Well, that’s just not good enough! We can do better than the Europeans. We shouldn’t look to Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris, and Copenhagen as our end state. We should aim higher!

    I believe that these rules and regulations will save lives.

    - Making sure a bicyclist knows how to safely operate his vehicle, and understands the rules of the road (LICENSING).

    - Making sure we know how many bikes are on the road, and making sure that these bikes are owned and operated by licensed riders (REGISTRATION).

    - Making sure a bicyclist’s vehicle is road worthy, and safe for him to ride on (INSPECTION).

    - Making sure a bicyclist operates his bike in a safe and responsible manner, and doesn’t do anything to increase the chances of harm to himself or others (SAFETY).

    - Making sure bicyclists pay their fair share of the transportation infrastructure they use, when such fees apply to cars. And let’s be honest, how many bikes ride on roads that are normally tolled? (TOLLS AND PARKING FEES)

    All very reasonable, my friend. And many many other Americans agree with me.

    Again, our goal here is to save lives.

15. 15 | Mike B. | July 1st, 2008, 12:42 pm

    i say by all means regulate bikes!!!! i ride a bike myself and, to be honest, i agree with judd that many cyclists are irresponsible and bring greater danger to themselves and others.

    whats the problem with regulating bikes? so what if we have to go get a license, and have our bike inspected, and then ride in a safe manner. this is required for all other passenger-operated vehicles - cars, trucks, buses, planes, boats.

    if we want our government to consider bikes a legitimate means of transportation (and receive the proper funding), we should welcome these rules and regulations.

16. 16 | Judd Wiley | July 1st, 2008, 12:48 pm

    Also, the tolls and parking fees bicyclists should pay would go to upgrading bicycle infrastructure, which increases safety. I don’t think I was clear enough about this point in my post.

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

17. 17 | gDubs | July 1st, 2008, 1:03 pm

    “I guarantee you 100% that is is almost impossible to go 50mph on a city street. Link your sources.”

    “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

18. 18 | Judd Wiley | July 1st, 2008, 1:06 pm

    Jobo Plotz-

    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?

19. 19 | Rob | July 1st, 2008, 1:20 pm

    Judd,

    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.

20. 20 | Lewis Derkins | July 1st, 2008, 1:40 pm

    Rob -

    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.

21. 21 | Rob | July 1st, 2008, 2:11 pm

    Lewis,

    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.

22. 22 | Rob | July 1st, 2008, 2:31 pm

    I should be clear in saying my ire is mostly directed to your idea of registering and inspecting bicycles, forcing cyclists to pay even more for the streets, forcing cyclists to pay tolls, forcing cyclists to pay more for parking, etc. under the guise of reducing cyclist fatalities. It’s disingenuous and not a way to improve safety or save lives.

    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.

23. 23 | Dave Sohigian | July 1st, 2008, 2:34 pm

    The idea that we need to set up bureaucracy mentioned in this post to manage bikes right now is counterproductive. Bike commuters should not (currently) pay for the infrastructure they ride on because every person we get out of a car is reducing congestion, pollution and oil consumption. If we get a large percentage of people commuting on bikes, then they probably need to start paying their way, but since the number now stands at 0.5% we should be doing everything we can to encourage people to get on their bikes. Licensing, Inspection, Registration, Tolls and Parking are all things that will discourage the use of bikes. I am all for safety and other measures that encourage bike commuters. But when it comes to safety, the real danger to bikes is autos. So the most important thing is to get less people driving cars and more people riding bikes. Few of the measures mentioned in the article will accomplish any of these things.
    Take a look at the number at the top of the article: 770 bike deaths every year. The number for autos is around 250,000. And most of those bike deaths are probably with autos (although there are certainly bike-only or bike-ped deaths). The reason why autos are so highly regulated is that it is so easy to kill someone while operating one and the infrastructure they require is so expensive. Compare a parking structure for 1000 bikes with a parking structure for 1000 cars. Compare the wear and tear on a road from an auto vs. a bike.
    It is in the best interests of commuters (motorists in particular) to encourage bike commuters. More bikers means fewer traffic jams for everyone, motorists included. So, instead of figuring out how to discourage biking in the name of “safety” figure out how to get as many people on bikes as possible. It may seem like favoritism, but it’s really just smart policy.

24. 24 | Cdowski | July 1st, 2008, 2:58 pm

    I find this all very interesting, albeit a little excessive.
    1. So either we have longer lines at the DMV for bike registration and testing, or you start a whole seperate orgainzation? I am all for regulation, but I think it must be streamlined. What you propose would only further deter people from using bikes given what you’re proposing (hundreds of dollars in fees).

    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.

25. 25 | john the bicyclist | July 1st, 2008, 4:05 pm

    I doubt the police would want to enforce any of this. Too much work for them- hell, they hardly take care of aggressive, lane-swerving motorists in NYC. I agree that there are some asswipes on bikes, but there has to be a better way to ensure safety then with more regulation. Education and adverstising is a good place to start.

26. 26 | rider | July 1st, 2008, 4:46 pm

    This is entirely absurd. What, did the OP get hit by a bike yesterday? We should make bikers pay 1) to be allowed to ride a bike, 2) to own a bike, 3) to inspect their bike, 4) to insure a bike against the miniscule financial risks associated with bike-riding, and 5) to park a bike where it is currently easy and free to park. Also, cyclists should be forced to look like dorks, wearing bureaucratically-designed vests. Also, we shouldn’t allow anyone to ride a bike unless they pass a test, but we’ll keep all kids under 16 off bikes, ensuring nobody can ever actually learn how to ride. Actual operation of bicycles should be strictly controlled, with specific lanes and traffic rules (and toll booths!), thereby destroying the inherent flexibility in using a small, slow, highly maneuverable, self-powered vehicle.

    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.

27. 27 | Mike B. | July 1st, 2008, 4:55 pm

    cdowski,

    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.”

28. 28 | Judd Wiley | July 2nd, 2008, 8:46 am

    Rob (#19),

    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/

29. 29 | Josh | July 18th, 2008, 3:09 pm

    These ideas are horrible. Get licensed permission from the government to ride a bicycle? WTF?

    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.

30. 30 | Jenny | August 16th, 2008, 5:00 pm

    Really? I am an avid cyclist and big proponent of safety on the bike, but I completely disagree with your suggestions. They would effectively discourage bicycle riding. Many people rely on it as a mode of transportation and can not afford a car, or all the excessive gear or gadgets you recommend. Seriously dude, you don’t know how to enjoy to beauty and simplicity of a good ride.

Leave a Reply