from Cyclelicious
In Thursday’s Mercury News, the Mr. Roadshow columnist supports a reader who wants to “restrict bicycles to roads specifically designed with bike lanes” and require helmet use for all riders, because “bicycles and cars don’t mix.”
11/14 UPDATE: Mr. Roadshow runs a response column…but still pretends like bikes and cars share equal responsibility in preventing collisions. Victim-blaming’s never out of style, apparently.
Roadshow: The bicycling debate revisited
Why harp on helmet laws when all the research shows the best way to increase safety is to put MORE bikes on the street, helmet or not?
If you, like I, believe that bicycles belong on ALL streets and that the danger on roads comes from mismanaged automobile traffic, not cyclists, please write to Mr. Roadshow to express your opinion!
Here are potential talking points (tweak to fit your own style):
- California’s recent “Complete Streets” REQUIRES all government agencies to plan roads for bicycles, pedestrians, transit users, as well as automobiles.
- Cars weigh thousands of pounds. Bikes weigh hundreds. How again are bikes causing dangerous collisions? Simple physics say the cars are the dangerous element of this equation.
- Cyclists do not kill themselves frequently in solo-cyclist collisions, but people ask us to wear helmets. Cars crash into each other, into trees, into poles, into cyclists and pedestrians, and they still crash when nothing else is around! Why are we not addressing the real source of danger?
- We have destroyed our cities with suburban sprawl and expressways. When will we realize that it’s time to support other modes of transportation and move away from car-based infrastructure?
Keep in mind that most readers of the Mr. Roadshow column are likely motorists, and the columnist himself spends every day driving. A sample letter sent by one Bike Party rider and the original article are below.
Dear Mr. Roadshow -
Your support of Mr. Mazzei’s suggestion that bikes do not belong on our roadways without further legislation is disturbing and irresponsible. When two vehicles meet on a roadway and one weighs several thousand pounds and the other a few hundred, it is clear which operator bears the primary responsibility for keeping the roads safe. Quite simply, a car is a lethal weapon, and a bike is not. If we want safer roads, we should increase regulation on motorists, not cyclists: it’s just common sense. The presumption that cars own the roads must end: pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and more all share these spaces. Cars’ majority is no excuse for murderous behavior. Law such as the recent Complete Streets legislation clearly show the direction our state is headed: more bikes, less cars. When will Mr. Roadshow learn? Bikes belong!
Nick Laskowski
San José
Original post:
Roadshow: A father’s plea: Bikes and cars don’t mix
Q: I just read another article about a bicycle rider who was recently killed on Alpine Road near Interstate 280. We lost our daughter about five years ago in a similar accident on Woodside Road near 280. When are people going to realize bicycles and cars don’t mix? I have had horrible days driving along Highway 1 in Marin County where the bikers are so thick that they force cars to pass on the opposite side of the road — in many cases on blind curves. We need some strict laws that restrict bicycles to roads specifically designed with bike lanes. How about a registration and helmet requirement to ride on streets and highways? Anything else should be illegal and subject to a citation. How many more people need to die before something is done?
Rob Mazzei
Redwood City
A: Rob’s daughter, Michelle, was a fourth-grade teacher at a Menlo Park school who was stuck by a car that drifted into the bike lane and killed her. The experienced cyclist was wearing a helmet.
The chances that bicyclists will be banned from certain roads is unlikely, but Rob’s concerns are legitimate. And here is where we can start: making helmets mandatory for all bicyclists, not just those under 18. My son attends the University of California-Davis, and on a recent visit there I was struck by how many students do not wear helmets.
A helmet did not save Michelle nor Lauren
Ward, the mother of two who was killed last week in a crash involving a big-rig driver near the freeway ramp from Woodside Road, where there is no bike lane. Officials from the state and San Mateo County, along with bicycling advocates, will look at possible safety improvements.Q: I was riding on Foothill Expressway, which has a wide shoulder used by bicyclists, when I rode up to a group of riders which filled that lane for quite a distance. I checked my mirror and no cars were coming, so I moved out to the left and began to pass the group. Before I could get around them a car came up behind me and really laid on the horn. As you can guess, it scared the heck out of me and many of the other riders. I did not pull out in front of this driver. My question: Was it legal for me to pass on the left side, in the car traffic lane, in this situation?
Leslie Clapp
Mountain View
A: Tough call. Los Altos police say if you had the opportunity to pass without interrupting traffic, your move was OK. If not, you were making an unsafe lane change. But drivers should avoid honking, as a blast of the horn can cause bicyclists to make evasive and potentially dangerous moves.
Q: In late July I was riding my bicycle in Santa Cruz with a buddy. We rolled through a stop sign without stopping completely and were pulled over and given tickets. OK, we did it. That’s not the problem. My problem is that the city, county or whoever processes the tickets seems to have lost mine. I’ve checked online repeatedly, and waited through the line at the county building three times, only to be told to check back in another month. My buddy, on the other hand, was able to pay his a month ago. Going to the county and waiting in line monthly is a pain. I just want to pay my fine and be done with it but until they find my ticket that can’t happen. So is there a time limit for them to find the ticket? Do I have to keep going back monthly until I die of old age? I don’t want to blow it off and then someday get pulled over for a burned-out taillight and taken to jail for failure-to-appear! Last week I was able to get a live person in the traffic ticket office on the phone and she told me that I need to check back once a month until a year has passed. At that time the ticket becomes too old and I’m off the hook for good. Does this sound like fact?
H. F.
Santa Cruz
A: It’s fact. Matt-the-Attorney says a citation in California is valid for one year: “Basically, it is a one-year statute of limitations. Unfortunately, your reader will have to check back periodically to see if his ticket has been processed. Also, neither the court nor the agency is required to notify your reader if the ticket has been processed. Courts typically send out courtesy notices, but they are not required and the burden is on your reader to check with the court to see if the citation has been processed.”
Contact Gary Richards at mrroadshow@mercurynews.com or 408-920-5335.
yoshi
November 11, 2010
my response ↓
Mr Roadshow,
In a recent article, you entertain the possibility of mandated helmets in response to cyclist car collisions. Instead, why not educate the driving population the right of cyclists to share the road? With few exceptions cyclists may use any road or highway and also may use the entire lane when THEY feel like riding on the side of the road presents a dangerous situation. Drivers MUST wait for a place to pass safely. I feel like a lot of drivers think their convenience > a cyclists safety.
Go wear a helmet and walk in a bike lane as close to the road as possible, do you feel any safer?
yoshi (car driver & cyclist)
ryan
November 11, 2010
Here’s what I sent in:
Hi Gary,
I’m shocked at your victim blaming in this morning’s article, “bikes
and cars don’t mix.” As we try to move beyond the single-occupancy
vehicle for more sustainable modes of transportation – for
environmental, health, and even national security reasons – you
continue to promote an unsustainable mode of transportation above all
others, even to the point in this case where you favor the “rights” of
one mode over the safety of all others. You have the opportunity to
make an impact on transportation issues, yet you continue to embrace
the highly dangerous and destructive automobile.
PS – Maybe you should present an article and fatality statistics
regarding all modes of transportation to help your readers be aware
and well informed at just how dangerous cars are, and how many fewer
deaths occur on the bicycle.
Thank you,
Ryan
ryan
November 11, 2010
Follow up letter that I sent:
Dear Mr. Roadshow,
I feel that your column, ‘Bikes and Cars Don’t Mix,” in today’s Merc is very irresponsible and threatens the safety of bicyclists and drivers alike by sending mixed messages about what is appropriate road use under California law. You’re assertion that keeping bicycles in bike lanes is a ‘legitimate’ concern treats the situation as if bikes are somehow infringing on the rights of motorists merely by asserting their own right to the road. I believe that you are doing a grave injustice to your readers by promoting ideas contrary to safe practices and state law by favoring one type of transportation over an other when both clearly have similar rights to most roads. You have the opportunity to promote safety and understanding but you choose instead to support victimization. I think you should run a retraction of your statement and instead offer safety advice on how bikes and automobiles should share the spaces that the laws of California have granted both.
Sincerely,
Ryan Smith
Bicyclist and community member
San Jose
high cadence
November 11, 2010
what i wrote:
drivers are required to have license to operate a motored vehicle simply because the motored vehicle is dangerous for occupants and dangerous to the public on public roads. it’s a privilege for motorists to drive to which they take advantage of every single day endangering everyone on public roads, not just bicyclists. these licensed and/or unlicensed motorists crash into trees, cars, houses, buildings, people, bicyclists and off cliffs. you name it, it has been done. let’s not forget licensed drivers who choose to not keep their motored vehicles safely maintained with non-working tail-lights, headlights, under-inflated tires, brakes, non-working signals.
human judgement or lack of, coupled with heavy cars/SUVs/vans/buses/trucks kill people and cause a lot of damage. plain and simple. bicyclists should not be restricted to just bike lanes. how stupid does that sound. dangerous drivers will hit cyclists regardless if there’s a bike lane or not.
safe practices guaranty safety, not lanes. why would anyone try to pass cyclists on a blind curve??? if it’s not safe to proceed, WAIT until it’s safe to pass. how hard is that, really?!?!
get it right gary, rob’s concerns are not legitimate. they’re ignorant. smh
Sherbona
November 11, 2010
My response:
Mr. Roadshow,
I am somewhat disappointed with Rob Mazzei’s comments in today’s Roadshow column and your response.
> Passing: Bikers do not “force cars” to make unsafe passes – the driver must not pass until it is safe, period. This may mean slowing down and perhaps arriving at your destination a few minutes later, the horror!
> Mixed Use: Bicycles and cars DO mix, it happens every day. I have commuted by bike and have been car-free for several years now. I afford every courtesy possible to cars, and for the most part – with the exception of a few drivers who tend pass too close and then turn right (“right-hook”), or open their parked car door without first looking – we all get along just fine. Rare is the day I don’t share a smile or friendly wave with a driver.
> Restricting Bicycles: Bicycling is a mode of transportation, it is not just for recreation. For some of us it is our primary or even only transportation, one that I may add does not consume foreign gas or cause air pollution. Restricting bicyclists from roads that do not have bicycle lanes is just as crazy as restricting “cagers” (car drivers trapped in 4-wheeled cages) from those same roads.
> Helmets: Many more people die in car accidents that don’t involve bicyclists. By your logic Gary all drivers and passengers should by law have to wear helmets as well. Or perhaps we don’t need a law for everything.
I note that this kind of thing seems to come up after bicycle accidents yet not after car, bus, or train accidents. Why is that? I think perhaps because some perceive bicycles as being for recreation only and not transportation. California’s recent “Complete Streets” REQUIRES all government agencies to plan roads for bicycles, pedestrians, transit users, as well as automobiles.
Please everyone, share the road and ride/drive safely.
Richard Masoner
November 11, 2010
I was writing up my response to this when I saw the incoming link — good talking points!
Gary’s usually pretty good at understanding and explaining the cyclist viewpoint, so this most recent column came as a surprise to me.
Hans
November 11, 2010
This is what I sent him this morning
Gary,
I don’t own a car. I haven’t since 2005, and to this day refuse to invest in one. I feel as though it is my right as a human being and a commuter to choose my form of transit. Before becoming a full-time cyclist, I utilized my city’s public transportation system. After numerous dangerous situations that the bus drivers had put me in, I decided to start riding a bicycle. It seemed safer than putting my life in the hands of a random transit operator who may possibly be overworked, tired, and over(/under) caffeinated.
However, I realize that riding a bicycle is not the safest way to get around. Cars are heavier than bikes, and a collision with one could cause me to be mortally injured while an automobile may suffer only cosmetic damage. Drivers sometimes have short fuses, and don’t understand the needs of cyclists, and why they ride where they do in the manner that they do (taking up much lane space, cutting into traffic to make left turns, etc.) and can react irrationally, putting us in danger.
Some drivers are completely oblivious to our presence. They either don’t care that we exist, or are too distracted by crying children, the dire text messages they are receiving, or the even more dire cheeseburger that must be ingested while making a right turn without signaling.
It can be scary out there. Most of the roads aren’t built for us. They were designed decades ago during a boom of a culture that was quickly becoming more automobile-centric. And it seems that only recently have drivers begun to take cyclists as a serious factor of driving conditions. Still, we have a right to these roads, and will not back down because some ignorant, cheeseburger fueled gas-hog can’t be bothered to accommodate our needs. The fact that so many drivers want the bikes to be taken off the streets is only a a reflection of a society that is impatient, selfish, and unaware. Just because drivers don’t want to have to wait an additional ten seconds before making a right turn doesn’t mean I should fear for my safety whenever I need to pass through an intersection. Just because I am not provided with a bike lane doesn’t mean that a driver has the right to violently honk at me for taking up their space. Just because a driver can’t be bothered to check their mirrors before changing lanes doesn’t mean that I should be forced to ride on the sidewalk (sideWALK).
Rather than try to remove us from the streets, I urge motorists to instead rise to the evidently difficult challenge of working with us. I’ll yield to you when I need to get over into the left turn lane, you yield to me when I’m going straight through an intersection and you need to make a right turn (or at least use that mysterious lever on your steering column so I know what you’re doing). You check your sideview mirror before opening your door when you’ve parked on the street, I’ll give you the space you need in order to pass me when a bike lane is not provided. You humor me with a modicum of patience and respect, I’ll turn down the smug-o-meter and pretend to forget for one moment that there are other ways for you to make that difficult five mile commute besides driving an over-sized SUV while you please your taste buds with delicious cheeseburgers.
Yes, there are other things that cyclists should do to make a peaceful road for both of us, but you should do some of the same things. Neither of us should text while operating our vehicles. Neither of us should operate while intoxicated. Both of us should keep the cheeseburger in the bag until we are at a location where it is safe to ingest.
We, the cyclists, will make the proper gestures to prove that we are willing to peacefully occupy the same road space, provided you accept the fact that we deserve your respect. Keep in mind, however, that you are many and we are few. If the drivers of the world would all accept our right to be there, then we the cyclists would certainly be less inclined to ride in ways that are unnecessarily dangerous and make you uncomfortable. We do what we need to as cyclists to ensure our safety, and visibility. All you drivers need to do is respect our desire to get to where we need to, and work with us rather than against us. Please. I want to get to work safely. My cheeseburger is getting cold.
-Hans
sk8dad
November 15, 2010
Really well-written and compelling argument. I like cheeseburgers after my ride.
TimC
November 12, 2010
Please keep in mind, everyone, that Mr. Mazzei lost his daughter in a tragic accident.
I can only imagine that every time he sees a bicyclist on a busy road, his thoughts go straight to whatever happened to his daughter. Sadness, anger, rage. No one should expect him to have a balanced view of bicycles sharing the road with cars.
Yes, express our side of the argument, but please be mindful of where the other side is coming from.
Rider 44
November 13, 2010
TimC, you rock!
I really appreciate what you add to Bike Party.
Thanks,
David
Wilson
November 13, 2010
Car-free by choice, here. Not anti-car, but pro-bike. I’ve found the hum about car vs bike is rising and the good news: that means there are more bicyclists, we are no longer obscure, we are growing in size, getting attention, and gas-powered vehicles are getting upset. Why wouldn’t they? It’s only natural – the roads are already congested during prime work hours of the day and the gas-powered vehicles already make a mess of the roadways on their own. Now introduce bicyclists into the equation.
The first natural thing to do is demand more rights, more laws, further paper-pushing office workers and pushing the stressed out law enforcement into enforcing these ridiculous laws. As we’ve learned already, the law enforcement fatally shoot unarmed civilians in the back of the head (more than three times occurred in the East Bay Area in recent memory) – they have poor judgement like any human – be it a hamburger eating fat-ass in a soccer ball SUV on their cell phone or a svelte, green-recycling and commuting tree hugging hippy cutting through traffic with grace and godspeed.
The best solution in my opinion is human to human interaction and courtesy. Courtesy is missing big time in today’s society. Being polite and being courteous – being the nice guy – doesn’t get much credit these days. Try it, educate your friends and family. They’ll spread the word. We don’t need more laws, law enforcement, rules, regulations, forced upon us, we need compassion and understanding.
That’s why I participate with the EBBP and SJBP. Any form of having FREE FUN and expressing our FREEDOM is a winning lifestyle.
Streak-o-lite
November 16, 2010
My Reply titled “Time for a Mr Bike Show”
And we want our own column too. Your thoughts on restricting bicycles only continues to create a devise notion that “cars own the road”. Thankfully California and Federal legislators don’t have the same idea as Mr Road Show or the letters he chooses to endorse.
http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/media/cs-ca-pressrelease.pdf
Shame on you. I drive, motorcycle and bike. You must never have had a knee brush with a two ton vehicle under the control of a self righteous car drivers who values their possible “inconvenience” greater than cooperating with all road users safe travel.
What’s your next idea. Eliminating crossing guards because they increase pedestrian use of public roads and slow vehicle traffic? Eliminate crosswalks because people get hit and killed in them? Stop Caltrain due to fatalities? Close undivided highways due to head on accidents?
For many, age and economics drive the style of conveyance. Not all citizen’s can afford the luxury of “car” travel and resort to any means possible to get from point A to B without being assaulted by inconsiderate drivers.
Richard
November 17, 2010
I hate to be the naysayer here, but I can’t agree with all the talk against requiring helmets. Cars are required to have safety systems to protect the occupants in the event of an accident. That’s any accident. It includes accidents with other cars, accidents with bikes, even accidents with trees or just the plain old road. I don’t see why bicycles are exempt from this. A cyclist can crash, badly, on their own with no help just like a car can. In the rare case where that happens, all the hundreds of thousands of times the helmet didn’t do anything for you are made up for in that one moment where it saves your life, or your quality of life.
To be honest I think even the helmets that cyclists do wear are pretty worthless, since you need both the bottom and the top half of your head to stay alive. I ride with nothing less than my MTB fullface even during bike party. No it’s not too hot, no it’s not heavy, and I ride a 20 inch with one speed and I pedal like a madman most of the time. Even if the helmet doesn’t save me, it can make the difference between dusting myself off and continuing, or going to see the medic or to the hospital.
While I agree with many of the points above about sharing the road and about cyclists rights, you should not have the right to go without a helmet. Car drivers don’t have to weak one because they have a seatbelt and airbags and a roll cage. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets and cyclists should most definately have to as well. If you want equal rights on the road, then step up and take equal safety measures. No one balks at being required to have lights, how can you guys in good conscience say that we should be exempt from a safety rule that all other occupants of the road must adhere to?
nick
November 18, 2010
Let’s not get trapped by car-centered debates here. This isn’t a referendum on helmet laws – that is what a lot of car drivers want us to worry about, because it neatly shifts the blame for car crashes to the cyclist.
Helmet laws are a false dichotomy: every cyclist I know agrees that helmets make us safer and that we should all wear them whenever possible. I wear one daily, most riders I know do too. It’s a non-issue. Safety statistics agree, too, but only mildly: quite simply, helmets might protect 1 head in 1 crash, but they do not overall make cycling dramatically safer. The only thing that does that is putting more cyclists on the road, most likely because all road users become used to seeing bikes and understand how to behave reasonably. We can see this in any bike-heavy city (Copenhagen, Amsterdam, even Quebec or Portland) where thousands of cyclists use the safely-designed streets daily without incident but many ignore helmets. In fact, a helmet law might hurt our goal of getting more cyclists on the road if it is enforced selectively, SJPD-style. Giving the cops something new to harass cyclists about may encourage more people to skip the two wheels and drive their SUV.
Overall, we need to be cautious to avoid getting sucked into someone else’s debate. This is politics, after all, and we can see how badly this has happened with the overall country in the past few years, where the most absurd arguments have gotten the most airtime and thus shifted the debate toward their agenda. We need to be shifting the debate toward OUR agenda: make city life more enjoyable and human by getting more cyclists on the streets and making the streets safer and more inviting for ALL non-car users. In other words, build community through cycling.
Richard
November 18, 2010
Maybe then a helmet isn’t enough. You know that jacket that James Bond had that one time that inflated into a ball around him to protect him from an avalanche? Maybe we need jackets that do that, like an airbag all around us in case of an accident. One thing I know is that there will always be accidents. I agree that its smart to try to reduce them by getting people more used to sharing the road properly with cyclists, but that won’t stop all accidents. Passenger protection is so advanced in automobiles, and the only technology we have is helmets? We need a bigger piece of that pie.
ryan
November 18, 2010
The Netherlands is the safest country in the world for bicyclists, yet less than 1% of the Dutch wear helmets. For comparison, for every cycling death in the Netherlands, there are 5.8 in the U.S. Why? The U.S. has less than 1% bicycle mode share nationally, while the Dutch have 27%. More bikes = safer conditions. Studies comparing Northern Europe cycling trends to the U.S. suggest that our over emphasis on safety (wear bright yellow lycra and stay as far to the right in the gutter as possible or you’re going to die!) turns people off of riding. We should be focusing on getting more people on the road, not less.
Source: John Pucher and Ralph Buehler. “Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe.” Transportation Research Record #2974, 2008.