- We have to burn down the school to save it? The really nice school?
- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
The Bike Laws
Submitted by Dan U-A on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 4:39pm.
As we all know by now, Councilmen Kenney and DiCicco have decided that the city needs new laws to regulate bicycles. These proposed regulations include:
1) That not only must you register your bikes- for a 20 dollar fee- but you must have a license plate on that bike;
2) Riding on the sidewalk costs you 300 dollars
3) Riding with headphones costs you 300 dollars
4) Riding without a brake costs you 1000 dollars.
Let's examine these for a second.
1) That not only must you register your bikes- for a 20 dollar fee- but you must have a license plate;
The idea of registration is, in theory, not ridiculous. Especially if it were a tool to help recover stolen bikes. But, of course, that is not why they are doing it. Instead, they are doing it because they think it will help them track down hit and run cyclists. Motivations aside, it is totally unworkable. There are something like 50,000 bikes in the city. How many people will actually register theirs? 1,000? 5,000? People have bikes laying around that they barely use. You are telling me that if someone decides that if they are going to get off of the couch, and dust off that old bike on a Sunday in the Spring, they are at risk of a fine? And that Philly police officers will actually add this as part of their job duties? I doubt it.
Even sillier is the idea that there will be licenses plates on bikes that will somehow help capture a biker who has participated in a hit and run. Take the number of people who you think will register, and divide it by 100. That will get you the number of people who would put a license plate on their bike that is big enough for identification in a hit and run.
Sorry, it just will not happen.
2) Riding on the sidewalk costs you 300 dollars
3) Riding with headphones costs you 300 dollars
300 dollars, eh? In other words, if you text someone while driving a 4,000 pound truck, you pay 25% of what it costs you for riding your Schwinn wearing headphones?
Hell, it only costs you 75 dollars if you text, while on a bike. But, when you put headphones on, it jumps to 300. Why is that? Because the texting law was aimed at drivers. So, Council knew they couldn't get too crazy with the fines. Plus, every Councilperson has their blackberry, and they have all probably read emails when driving, so they intuitively 'get' that desire. But when you take drivers out of the equation, and instead it’s the little whippersnappers on bikes, somehow the fines skyrocket. It is punishing the 'other.'
4) Riding without a brake costs you 1000 dollars.
OK, well, people should have brakes. Yes, I know some people are skilled enough not to need them. But a lot of people are idiots, and so, they should have brakes. The fine is, again, so bizarrely high that it is silly, but yes, people should have brakes.
Anyway, I want to do my part, instead of just complaining. So, I propose we add on to these bills, to truly make the roads safe for everyone. To do this, I propose the following measures:
1) Towing any car, including people making deliveries, that pulls over in bike lanes.
2) Yanking the medallion of an taxi that strikes a driver.
3) Since bikes are forced so far over, booting the car of any driver who opens their driver's side door without looking, causing a cyclist to crash into them.
4) A 5000 dollar fine for any driver who runs a stop sign.
5) Immediately raising the cell phone fine to 1000 dollars. After all, driving in your SUV while texting is a lot bigger danger than Ray listening to a little Kenny G while riding home from work on his bike.
Let’s do it!
.......
People who don't ride their bikes want cyclists to follow all of the rules of the road of traffic... except when that means bikes get in their way and slow them down. At that point, they honk, they scream that bikes should get out of the road, they force accidents, and worse.
Cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalks. They shouldn't ride the wrong way on one way streets. They should have brakes. But should cyclists shouldn't follow all the rules designed for cars. No. They don’t present the same dangers as cars, and so, there should be a middle ground. And considering that each year, people are time and time and time again struck on their bikes by reckless drivers, often severely injuring them or killing them, it bothers me that City Council is only taking this up now.
If the Councilmen wanted to start a conversation, they have succeeded. Yes, bikes can be a danger to pedestrians, and that should be addressed. But to do that, you also have to address just how big of a danger cars are to bikes.
it's a revenue scheme
"Instead, they are doing it because they think it will help them track down hit and run cyclists. "
Wrong. it's a revenue scheme, and nothing more.
city council is looking for any way possible to raise revenue for our cash strapped city.
if it was REALLY about public safety, the focus would be on cars. Stuff like congestion fees, drunk driving crackdowns Thursday-Saturday, that sort of thing. For that matter if public safety was so important, they would have properly paved the lanes on Pine and Spruce, which are so littered with potholes you often have to swerve into the path of traffic to avoid flying over your handlebars.
And frankly, the focus on one-way streets is also kinda dumb: I'm not advocating riding the wrong way up a through street like Pine or Spruce, but a lot of bikers (myself incljuded) use the side streets like Naudain or Manning to avoid the idiot drivers on our east-west excursions. And those side streets sometimes change direction every block.
Plus it's unenforceable: all i have to do is make sure I don't carry ID and say I'm from Montgomery County, and it's all good.
Something tells me neither Frank nor Jim have ridden a bike since they were children.
At some point, passing laws that are not enforced
or can only be enforced in a haphazard way makes government look ridiculous.
And there really isn't much margin of error when it comes to Council looking ridiculous.
Does anyone think that cell phone use in cars has declined since that law was passed? How many tickets have been handed out?
Maybe we should start an effort enforce unenforced laws before we start passing new ones. How about the law against running red lights? I bet a lot more people are killed by that practice than by both cell phone use and bicycles.
Dupe
dupe post
Momentum
I would add that the existing traffic laws that treat bikes and cars on equal footing should also be reexamined. And I mean that both what rights those laws give to cyclists and what restrictions they place on them should be thought about under the simple premise that bikes and cars are fundamentally different. Many cyclists are drivers at least some of the time and vice versa. Being on both sides of the windshield has made me appreciate how much of a pain in the ass it is when I'm on my bike taking up my legally justified entire lane of traffic. I'd be willing to give up that right (which I often do anyway) and squeeze myself to that usually unmarked strip along the parked cars or the curb if in exchange I get the right to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights like stop signs. (While we're at it, a little heavier enforcement of coming to a COMPLETE stop at a stop sign when driving would be nice. How many times have I ridden through an intersection and stared down the driver on the crossing street and mouth the words "F***ing STOP"?)
Other locations in this country recognize that momentum is much bigger force for cyclists than it is for drivers who simply have to depress a pedal to restart their forward momentum and therefore give cyclists the opportunity - when it is reasonably clear and with proper caution - to legally go through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. If approaching an intersection in which a car has already come to a stop at the cross street, then yield to that car, otherwise car and bike approach at roughly the same time - car stops (completely) and bikes keep going. It's a fool's dream to think that the drivers would get that but in my experience, most of them are more than happy to let me pass through first voluntarily. Other locations also understand that (recent incidents much the exception) cyclists don't pose as big a threat to pedestrians or other drivers and so should be allowed to use discretion at a red light, and choose to go against red - legally - only if doing so would not alter the momentum of cars with green lights.
And like I've said many times, I wish I had the free time, cuz I'd love to be the first one out there enforcing the no riding on crowded sidewalks and no riding against heavily trafficked one way streets rules. There's a special place for that lady I saw riding on the sidewalk on Spruce, mere feet away from the widest, most accomodating dedicated bike lane in the city. It's the cyclists like that who have messed it up for the rest of us.
Biking on the sidewoak should be enforced
But again texting while driving, $75 bucks, taking the sidewalk on a narrow bridge or overpass that drivers treat as part of the highway system, $300. A $50 ticket for sidewalks that was actually enforced in Center City would be a disincentive to break the law. The existing $10 ticket if actually enforced actually would be a disincentive. A $300 ticket that is seldom enforced does little to change the behaviour of most of the bad bikers.
A registration program that the police could never actually afford the manpower to enforce on the tens of thousands of Philadelphians who have an infrequently used bike kicking around their basement or garage - same deal. But with biking as a commute option (something a green city absolutely does want to encourage) its often an incremental step. You try a short ride, you build comfort dealing with Philly roads and Philly riders, you ease into confidence about whether its something you actually feel safe about doing as a regualr practice.
Enforcing realistic fines routinely improves the riding habits of the bulk of bicyclists (and the bulk of motorists, for that matter). Unrealistic and excessive fines handed out sporadically however gives the newbie curious about trying a bike commute for the first time a real disincentive to take the plunge.
So its not just that unrealistic laws and fines make government look bad, they actively discourage people from easing into a practice that lessens congestion and air pollution in our city. Its defacto result is to discourage routine bike commuting while not necessarily making the infrequent or unsafe rider any better at riding safely. Its a step backward on safety, a step backward on making a greener Philadlephia.
-Sean
What do Taxi Drivers have to do with it ?
Ron Blount
Brother Dan , I'm sorry to here that you want to yank the medallions from taxi drivers. Recently, City Council approached us about the addition of pedicabs (bicycle powered), which we fully supported. Instead pitting people against people, I rather see how we can support each other against unjust laws. Of course there should some punishment for taxi drivers hitting anyone or thing after a fair investigation. I guess the same should be true for any motorist or biker. Anyway, we support bicyclist and their struggle to be treated fairly on the streets.
Philadelphia Bicycle Insurrection - Hell No to Dicicco/Kenney!
We're a self-organizing group opposing these initiatives and participation is *exploding* - please come and share your thoughts and insights about how we're going to take these two bills out at the knees.
http://bikeinsurrection.org
http://facebook.com/bikeinsurrection
its hard for me to take this
its hard for me to take this seriously enough to be outraged. i'm encouraged overall by the momentum bikers have going in the city and the gains such as the pine/spruce lanes.