Considering the failure to come to a permanent resolution on the BRT, how relevant is any of this legislation? This is a more pressing issue? Really?
-Sean

Will these new rules apply to bike cops? I can't count the number of times I've seen them riding on the sidewalk or the wrong way down one way streets.
-Sean

This is the absolute worst piece of legislation that I've seen in a long time. So now, are we going to start criminalizing and discouraging bike riding? This legislation will reduce the number of people buying and riding bikes in Philadelphia, not increase it. It totally smacks against Mayor Nutter's goal to make Philadelphia the "greenest city in the country."

Is there an age limit on who the legislation applies to? When my son turns 3 years old, am I going to have to go through the hassle and expense of having his bike registered? Will he (or I) be subject to a fine for riding on the sidewalk?

So are we willing to start throwing people in jail for not paying bike fines? Because that's exactly what we do to scofflaws. This legislation should not make it through Council. If it does, Mayor Nutter should veto it.

so if you live in the burbs (or say you do) they can't give you a ticket. Kind of a problem for enforcement, no?

Here's the Bicycle Coalition's response:

"These bills won't make Philadelphia's streets safer," said Advocacy Director John Boyle. "The problem is not that penalties are too low, the problem is that tickets are rarely given out. It is pointless to increase penalties as proposed by Councilman Kenney when the current penalty system has existed only on paper," he added. Other cities, including Los Angeles, Houston, Washington DC, Detroit, Albuquerque, and the states of Minnesota and Massachusetts have all repealed laws similar to Councilman DiCicco's proposal. Los Angeles' Police Department Chief directly recommended to LA's City Council that their program be discontinued. Said Boyle, "Bicycle license plates are impractical and unworkable. Let's learn from other cities' experiences and not waste time and resources on an ineffective program."

"Enforcement can work and up to now, traffic enforcement hasn't been a priority," said Breen Goodwin, Education Director. "To achieve better compliance with traffic laws, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia believes that equitable and consistent education and enforcement of current laws on all road users must be implemented. Until that happens, enacting higher penalties or registration programs is ineffective and counterproductive."

http://www.bicyclecoalition.org/content/councilmen-kenney-dicicco-propos...

So D.C., LA, Houston, Detroit, Albequerque, the states of Minnesota and Massachusettes all repealed similar bills recently as unworkable but we want to charge ahead with laws to discourage biking but will do nothing to encourage enforcement of the current traffic laws.
-Sean

I'm OK with regulations requiring that bikes have proper reflectors and that meaningful fines can be levied for driving on the sidewalk. I'm not offended by the concept of registration nor am I offended by the concept of a fee, though I think it should be more on the order of $5 or $10 with an exemption if you want to check-off that you have a hardship. Maybe it should be a one time fee?

I'm happy to keep an open mind and rethink what makes most sense. The public debate is valuable.

the registration is on the bicycle not the rider. If its lost or stolen, the bicyclist has to go to the police department, wait in line and pay $10 to get a new registration. This is not generally a good way to encourage sometimes or infrequent riders to first try to do routine commutes on their bikes. In general it discourages infrequent riders from taking the plunge, basically cancelling the benefits of reduced congestion, cleaner air, etc. from less cars, more bikes doing bikable rides.

So it does provide a significant disincentive for folks who have not ridden in a while to "give it a spin". Enforcability is a problem because many current riders won't do it - and non-city residents are exempt. If the police are not writing tickets currently, there is no reason to assume the registration is going to change that. The way to beef up enforcement of traffic laws is to . . . actually enforce current traffic laws.

Casual riders will find the registration process intimidating and some will opt of biking as an option but if you do ride and you don't expect to get a ticket there is no reason not claim to be a non-resident. LA's police chief described bike license plates as "impractical and unworkable" based only on enforcibility.

In terms of Kenney's cranking up of fines
Moving violations in a car $150, driving while on the cell or texting $75, but bicycling on the sidewalk (which I absolutely think should be enforced under current law) is set at $300 and his anti-fixed gear fine is $1000.

A word about fixed gear bikes - personally, I'm not a fan. I never spent enough time on one to get used to it and they are supposed to have a small learning curve - but folks who prefer them claim they are actually much more responsive than traditional bikes. In essence since the pedal is locked to the wheel, you slow down by forcing your pedaling to be slower and you stop by stopping pedaling. On a conventional bike, the brake merely stops the wheel from turning and friction from the tire stops the bike. On a fixed gear the rider's legs stop or slow the pedaling and the wheel stops turning, friction stops the bike. In other words they have a "brake" that works just as effectively at stopping the wheel from going around, its just tied directly to their pedaling. Folks who like fixed gear bikes (which are modeled on track bikes in how they function) prefer them in part because they are so mechanically simple, less to break down. But Kenney's bill has no provision saying a rider with a conventional handbrake has to keep their bike tuned up. A "fixy" will always, always stop when the rider stops pedaling. A rider with conventional handbrakes where the brakes are out of adjustment or the cable snaps or brake pads are worn will not be able to stop effectively in an emergency, on the other hand. Basically he punishes a more esoteric "bike geek" kind of bike that he incorrectly says "has no brakes" but will always, always stop and lets riders whose lack of maintenance hinders their ability to actually stop go scott free because he does not understand the mechanism.

As bike ridership goes up, absolutely police should begin to actually write tickets with the existing code (which they rarely do currently) but new laws that discourage newbies from trying it out while doing nothing to change police enforcement against current irresponsible riders won't make the streets any safer.
-Sean

Councilmen,

I think you are wrong to advance your bills; they do nothing to protect motorists or pedestrians, and will end up being repealed like they are in almost all other states.

Penalties
Increasing the penalties does nothing to decrease the cyclists that break the rules, if they are not going to be enforced; they are not enforced now and there is no reason to believe that they will in the future. Why don't you support the Bike Coalition and Poice Department, who are willing to work together on education and targeted enforcement campaigns.

Registration
The costs and problems of implementing registration will outweigh any of the perceieved benefits and risks.

Why is the law broken in the first place?
When bicyclists break the law, I feel it's usually for one of three reasons:

1. They can and want to - this is the same for car drivers who run red lights, barely stop at stop signs, and park/stop wherever they want to. This can be decreased by enforcement of the rules/laws already on the books. It doesn't make sense to increase penalties when the rules aren't enforced now. And registration won't end this, cause where will the plates be and how easy will they be to be observed? There's too many hard to answer questions there.

2. They don't know any better - Happens with Cars all the time, and the answer is ticketing and education; once again, enforce the current rules on the books and participate in the education process.

3. The infrastructure isn't there to support safe cycling - When a citizen of this city starts biking to work, possibly not having biked in over 5-10-15 years, he or she is going to be scared by sharing the roads with cars. And despite the "200" miles of bike lanes in this city, most aren't in center city and the areas near it, but far away on underused roads (like Torresdale Avenue, Lehigh Avenue, Castor Avenue,...who bikes on these roads to work?) that are not commonly used in commuting to work. The addition of the Spruce and Pine Street bike lines are the most significant infrastructure change in years in relation to biking. But when people, especially newer cyclist who aren't the experienced road warriors some of us are, don't have the opportunity to go biking along dedicated lanes thru center city (like say on most of Walnut), they are gonna, for fear of death, bike on the sidewalk. The answer to getting them in the street, is to increase the amount and safety of bicycling infrastructure. Admission: I don't bike on the sidewalk 99% of the time; but that 1% I do is because bicyclist don't have the necessary infrastructure to prevent this. It isn't equal in quantity or quality to what is automatically given over to cars.

That about sums up my position. Councilman Kenny, you've replied to me in the past, and it has been thoughtful and responsive; I hope to same the same level of thoughtfulness on this issue. Council DiCicco you have not responded to me in the past, but I do hope you take the time for this issue.

Thanks,

Tom Taggart

Environmental Engineer,
BLS - PWD

4604 Chester Ave, Apt 2R

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