Austinist: The Accidental Gentrifist: Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad (1 of 3)

Benj

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:32:23 -0600

Ah, the ol' ALOBV. I forget, how much does it cost to join?

damicoaustin

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:45:53 -0600

Just a note that to be active or stay informed in these issues, check out Austin's League of Bicycling Voters: http://www.lobv.org

Benj

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:02:45 -0600

I faceplanted in front of that hotel on 12th or 11th, while laboriously cranking up the the hill from Red River, proving that yes it is indeed possible to crash hard while going 0.25mph. Thank God I wasn't wearing a helmet or I might have hurt my neck or something.

mdahmus

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:39:30 -0600

Benj, Yes, agreed completely - the point is that drunk bikers comprise a disproportionate share of bicycling injuries, and that's relevant when the total amount of bicycling injuries makes you think it's unsafe compared to driving. I had some great times BWI back in the day. Made it up a hill I could never do sober, among other things.

Benj

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:20:46 -0600

I don't think drivers should concern themselves as to how well liked or understood they are by riders. Just stay out of the way. You are surrounded by 3600 pounds of steel and glass. Your physical protection should also be your emtotional insulation, especially if your car truly is an extension of yourself. On that same note, I heartily scoff at the notion that 'drunk biking' is as dangerous as drunk driving. The only similarity is the increased likelihood both operators will get injured. However, what's more relevant is the social issue-- how much damage each can inflict upon others. A drunk driver can cause geometrically more damage than a cyclist ever could.

mdahmus

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:54:04 -0600

missteak, I'm right there with you - but Texas' pedestrian laws are actually pretty weak too. (Most states require you to stop if somebody's about to get into the crosswalk; Texas allows the drivers to basically play chicken with the peds). It's also nearly impossible to get a traffic light due to pedestrian traffic - we tried to get some push-button-activated traffic lights at Zilker Park, for instance, and even there, the ped traffic wasn't high enough to trigger that particular 'warrant'. As for the walk signals, that's a traffic control issue - I think I remember reading that it's often an attempt to do shorter green cycles if no pedestrians are present, but don't quote me on that. If you know of an intersection with frequent ped traffic that you still have to constantly push "Walk" at, it might be worth bringing up at the UTC to see if they can turn it into a regular cycle like the lights downtown.

misssteak

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:16:52 -0600

I think a lot of drivers here just do not know about ROW laws. I was appalled when riding with a friend who nearly plowed two women over in a crosswalk because she thought she had the right of way. As an almost full-time pedestrian (I do bike and bus, but tend to walk nearly everywhere), I've gotten to the point where I think something needs to be done. Here's a post from my blog 2 weeks ago: My daily walk to and from work is riddled with "near-misses" and asshole drivers who do not comprehend pedestrian laws. I've ranted about this before. People here seem to view their vehicles as an extension of themselves -- I mean that more literally than you can probably imagine if you've not lived here. In Chicago and NYC, I found that cars coming out of allyways or driveways would give a quick beep-beep to alert pedestrians of their presence. Not so here. If I see a car in a driveway, I've got to look at them, figure out if they've seen me, then determine that even if they have seen me if they will decide to dart out in my path anyway, or I've got to walk all the way around and behind them (which is dangerous because of visibility if any other cars decide to pull into the driveway). Yeesh, talking about it even makes my head hurt. I am one of the most alert pedestrians out there. I know most traffic signals and changes better than the drivers sitting at them. I've got this thing down -- and yet it doesn't matter because even if I follow all the rules, I can still get creamed (and nearly did yesterday, by a girl who nearly plowed me down -- at least she smiled and said sorry). So what I'm thinking is that it might be fun and interesting to do something like a Bicycle Critical Mass, but for Pedestrians. Just a mass of people walking up and down whatever determined route -- following the signs -- but making their presence known. Drivers in Austin should be aware of the other people that exist outside of cars. Of course I'm terrible at setting up huge things like this on my own, but I'm willing to give it a go (after the new year). Texas Pedestrian Law -- frankly I think they need to specifically address what happens when pedestrian lights are not in working order. It has been my experience in other cities that pedestrians go with the green traffic light (not green arrows of course) in that case. Additionally, I believe it is extremely important that all pedestrian walk lights are synched to the traffic lights (green traffic light=walk sign, yellow traffic light=flashing hand, red traffic light=stop hand). There is no reason why I, as a pedestrian need to push a button at an intersection. This is antiquated and unnecessary. Texas Law Pertaining to Pedestrian Crossings Texas State law (Transportation Code of Texas, Sec. 552.003) includes the following regulations regarding pedestrian crossings (see Appendix for full text of the statute): • Vehicle operators must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in a crosswalk if no traffic signal control is in place or in operation (Sec. 552.003(a)). • A pedestrian may not suddenly proceed into the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible for the vehicle operator to yield (Sec. 552.003(b)). • A pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to vehicle operators when crossing the roadway at a place a) other than a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, or b) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided (Sec. 552.005(a)). • When traffic control signals are in operation at adjacent intersections, pedestrians may cross only in a marked crosswalk (Sec. 552.005(b)). • Vehicle operators emerging from or entering an alley, building entrance, or private road or driveway must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across said alley, building entrance, or private road or driveway (Sec. 552.006(c)). from here (http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/2136-2.pdf) God, if nothing else, they need to sync the pedestrian signals with the lights -- when the traffic signal turns green, that should automatically trigger the pedestrian walk signal (this is how it works in most other large cities -- you don't need to push a button to get a walk signal). Drivers, bikers and pedestrians need to become more aware of each other.

mdahmus

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:36:56 -0600

"but sometimes it makes more sense from a self-preservation standpoint to blow through a red light." No, it doesn't. Not ever. Unless there's a guy with a hockey mask waving a chainsaw out the window of his pickup truck at you or something. As for 'serious bicyclists' - the guys with the backpacks are the ones who are serious, in my opinion. The ones who get all dressed up and ride around on the weekends have usually done so after driving their Tahoe to a parking lot somewhere; and they never, ever, ride anywhere, you know, to actually get there. As for the helmets - again, the stats are in, and in every single country with enough data to study, vast increases in helmet usage have led to zero improvement in head injury rates. Zero. Not just a little, but ZERO. The negative effects of helmet promotion, being non-zero, thus make it an imperative to not just say "well, it might be a good idea to wear one" - some suburban housefrau stops her kid from riding his bike at ALL every time she sees some idiot in a helmet because in her mind the helmet signifies DANGER.

shmoothaustin

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:35:25 -0600

...wow, those are the same people who scream for cyclists rights, but they see no need to obey the laws when they see fit negative. the 'serious bicyclists' don't do shit. they are just assholes. they don't have time to be activists or show up at meetings or write letters or demonstrate or do anything useful to anybody. They only have time self-centered, righteous aholes.

kenneth1

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:28:07 -0600

As long as we're passing laws forcing cyclists to wear helmets "for their own safety," let's also pass a law requiring motorists to use their turn signals & yield ROW to cyclists and pedistrians in crosswalks. Oh wait, we already have such laws, they're just not enforced by the city that claims to be so concerned with our safety. Never mind.

Jros

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:14:34 -0600

I'm joe bike rider. I generally follow traffic rules, but sometimes it makes more sense from a self-preservation standpoint to blow through a red light. It keeps my speed up to that of traffic and I generally ride in the middle of the lane whenever possible to avoid be run off the road/doored. If I'm upsetting anybody stuck at a light in a car... well, fuck em. I figure they'd rather I blow through than be stuck behind me while I start out from a dead stop when the light turns green. And before you jump on my back Grape Ape, I'm not a dude in a peloton. I'm a dude trying to make it to work and back in one piece on roads that favor cars and have no bike lanes whatsoever. As for helmets, I've been wearing one since a buddy of mine went through the back window of a parked car on Dean Keaton. A parked car! It's not always about being hit. It's about giving yourself the best chance of surviving if/when you go over your handlebars. If there's a biker out there who hasn't gone over the bars at least once in their biking career, they're due. It's just an eventuality. Act of god or act of SUV.

Grape Ape

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:51 -0600

I think the attitude towards cyclists in Austin is based on the holier than though attitude of some of the "serious" cyclists. Disclaimer: I ride my bike and I wish I could ride it more, and I wish we had more bike lanes etc. Now with that out of the way - The cyclists I see obey the laws is usually joe bike rider with his back pack and non-spandex attire. The only people I usually see running red lights, cutting through traffic and generally be assholish are the guys who look like they're riding in the TDF. I personally watched ~20 of them blow through a red light on Barton Springs last week and thought to myself, wow, those are the same people who scream for cyclists rights, but they see no need to obey the laws when they see fit (i.e like when some of them in the pack would have to stop at the light as it changed, can you imagine if cars traveled in packs and ran red lights just to not fall out of the pack). It's time like those when I roll down my window and yell "if you want rights, obey the lights" I usually get a nice "fuck you" gesture as they roll along. And people wonder why most people in cars have no symapthy for cyclists. Point is; this is an opinion coming from someone who is on the pro-cycling, we need more lanes and increased rights side of the fence. Imagine what people who don't like/ride bikes must think.

heyzeus

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:58:35 -0600

The law against biking on sidewalks isn't to protect the biker. It's to protect the pedestrian. I've almost been clobbered by a zooming sidewalk-biker too many times downtown. However, the law on where exactly you can bike on a sidewalk is very unclear.

misssteak

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:14:51 -0600

Austin does allow for biking on sidewalks in certain areas some of the time, but it does make it quite dangerous for pedestrians (I should note that I'm both a pedestrian and a biker). I have biked in many places in the US and Austin is the least friendly of supposedly bike-friendly places (there are worst places to bike in, like anywhere outside of the loop in Houston for instance the best place I've ever biked was Chicago). My conclusion is that drivers here are completely oblivious or maybe consciously assholish to anyone who is not as big as them -- this goes for peds and bikers. The general attitude is "my car is an extension of myself" -- which is take to an extreme degree here (and seemingly most places that don't thrive on major public transportation). I don't think helmets really do that much good, but hey, if it makes people feel better -- whatever. Whatever you do, try to avoid being a ghost bike. Addendum -- I think drunk biking is just as bad as drunk driving. Biking in Austin, as you've mentioned, requires quick eyes and quick reflexes -- being drunk dulls you and you're much more likely to be hit in that state.

itza

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:55:25 -0600

As far as I understand it, it's OK to ride the sidewalk in Austin, excepting downtown and the campus area, because of the high pedestrian traffic. Then there was a study about a year ago that concluded that drivers actually give you more space if you're without a helmet, and still even more if you're a female without a helmet. Hmmm, go figure. 2nd on mdahmus' comments as well! :)

mdahmus

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:00:01 -0600

dammit, I wrote a very long comment that better not have gotten lost - got a POST error right afterwards, and of course, because you guys use evil javascript, I can't just go back and resubmit. argh. summary: biking very safe, as long as you don't do the Big Dumb Things (ride without lights at night; ride against traffic or on sidewalk; ride drunk; run red lights and stop signs) and helmets don't work, and aren't necessary anyways, because without the Big Dumb Things, you're about as safe as you are when you drive. Seriously.

mdahmus

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:58:12 -0600

You got about 90% of this right, but you're still way too hyped-up about the danger of cycling. Stats show that if you don't do any of the following dumb biker behaviors: 1. Bike at night with no lights 2. Ride the wrong way 3. Ride on the sidewalk 4. Ride drunk 5. Run red lights and stop signs you're arguably SAFER than if you drove the same number of miles. Yes, you heard me, SAFER. Even WITHOUT THE HELMET, which doesn't do any good in the real world anyways. This is partially because you wouldn't drive on the same (slow, safe) roads you'd bike on, but still. Even with that, biking, as long as you don't do it stupid, is damn safe. Problem is that a lot of people get the wrong idea about safety and end up violating many of those magic bullets above. Also, separated traffic doesn't work without a draconian regime of enforcement and trillions of dollars to completely rebuild the street system in place. Riding in the street, as long as you follow the rules above, is very very safe, again, so why bother with the rest of it? Even in most of Europe, you don't ride on a separate path.