DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

I'm totally in favor of lots and lots of bike infrastructure, the more separated from cars the better. People shouldn't have to bike in mixed traffic.

But there's a troubling sentiment in that post, bunt. Bikes don't belong on the street if some of them are going to break the rules? Should we apply that to cars too? Raise your hand if you've never driven above the speed limit or coasted through a stop sign on a quiet street. Anybody? Anybody at all? Or, if you prefer the pedestrian equivalent, raise your hand if you've never jaywalked. It wouldn't be reasonable to declare that no new drivers are allowed until everybody with a license starts following the rules all the time, and it's not reasonable to expect that from bicycles either, especially given that the best way to produce more cycling infrastructure is to have more cyclists who want it. The whole "scofflaw cyclist" thing really is windshield perspective at its worst. We should be building lots of bike infrastructure because it makes sense to do that, but in the mean time holding cyclists to a more strict standard than drivers and pedestrians is, well, wrong-headed.

By the way, it is actually completely legal for bicyclists to treat stop lights as a stop sign in some states. I don't think Colorado is one of them (yet), but it's a practical solution to a common sense issue - that traffic lights aren't designed for bikes.

[wong21fr]

^I've driven above the speed limit, but coasted through a stop sign? Never.

Such people should be shot on sight. Of course, so should the motorists who drive in the HOV lanes w/ only one vehicle occupant.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Bikes don't belong on the street if some of them are going to break the rules? Should we apply that to cars too?

Don't think I've coasted through a stop sign either...certainly not without a complete stop, haha. And we're not talking about vacant streets - we're talking about normal practice on normal daytime downtown streets.

I think the difference is level of awareness. Bicycling is not the same as walking. It's much faster, and situational awareness, especially at speed, is unquestionably less than for a pedestrian, probably less even than for a car, because you're multitasking. Your field of vision is smaller. It is a different mode entirely and has to be treated as such.

As for the rules... I don't even know what the rules are. Nor do, I think, most bicyclists. I do believe that the city/state can address that, and should address that better. There is simply no apparent consensus on how bicyclists should behave. And what consensus there is (e.g. red lights are optional) is absolute hooey. Either it's a car, or it's a person, or it gets its own infrastructure. Or some combination in different settings, but clearly delineated. Ad hoc rules just lead to accidents. Whizzing through an intersection is not the time for gray area.

Oh, and if I have to wear a seat belt, then a bicyclist should have to wear a helmet (and I'd go so far as to say knee and elbow pads). It's a liability thing.

I'm not saying bicycles should be held to a higher standard, not at all. They should be held to a similar standard. And right now, it's the wild west out there with bicycles.

I'm leaning toward stricter licensing requirements too (very stringent in Honolulu - ticketing bicycles is very common there... (and peds...I'm not a licensed attorney in Hawaii because of a jaywalking ticket, after all!)), but how would you do that for b-cyclists? If I'm on a shared bicycle, do ANY laws apply to me? I am being facetious, but you get what I am saying. Do I have to carry ID while on a bicycle? (I wonder... fun constitutional question there. I have no idea if Colorado has a law on that, will have to check. Yes for a car. No for a ped. But a bike?)

If we're going to subsidize our preferred modes of transportation with less stringent behavioral norms and rules, then I should be able to run my combi buses. Or at least motorized rickshaws.

[Cirrus]

Actually, no. For urban cycling, helmet laws increase danger to cyclists. They are counter productive in the extreme, as multiple studies from several countries have repeatedly shown.

It works like this: By far the greatest danger to cyclists on city streets comes from cars, and a helmet is totally useless against a car. What does help against cars is for there to be lots of other cyclists on the street with you, because as you say it is all about situational awareness. Streets are only safe for bicyclists when drivers expect them to be there, and the only way for drivers to come to expect bikes to be there is for there to be lots of bikes on the street. Therefore, anything that increases the number of cyclists on the road increases the safety of all cyclists, and anything that decreases the number of cyclists on the road makes cycling more dangerous.

Therefore, the best thing you can do to improve cyclist safety is to remove all barriers to entry, in order to make cycling as convenient as possible for the largest number of people possible. Mandatory helmets are a huge barrier to entry, since you not only have to go out and buy one, but you have to plan ahead and carry one with you every single time you want to ride a bike. There is almost nothing you can do that harms cyclist safety more on a large scale in cities than require people to wear helmets. Bikesharing, on the other hand, is so great in part because it removes several barriers to entry; you don't have to do any planning ahead.

This is also why trying to cap b-cycle growth is a terrible idea. Bike safety improves the more cyclists there are even without the corresponding political call for more bike infrastructure that comes with having more bikers. So capping b-cycle growth hurts you two ways: 1) by reducing the demand for more bike infrastructure, and 2) by reducing the number of cyclists on the street and therefore reducing drivers' awareness of cyclists as a regular user of city streets.

Now, if you've got a helmet handy then it doesn't hurt to wear one, but any time you opt against riding a bike because you don't have a helmet you are making cycling more dangerous for yourself the next time you do go out on a bike. Also note that this only applies to city cycling, where the main danger comes from cars. If you're biking for sport or recreation and staying away from streets, then you should wear a helmet.

[Cirrus]

As for the rules... I don't even know what the rules are. Nor do, I think, most bicyclists. I do believe that the city/state can address that, and should address that better. There is simply no apparent consensus on how bicyclists should behave...

This is fair. I'm totally in favor of better delineating the rules, and of adopting rules that make sense for bicyclists.

But why hasn't this happened already? It's not like bikes are new. The reason it hasn't happened already is that there haven't been enough people biking on city streets for transportation until very recently. As long as it's considered niche, legislators won't treat it seriously. If you want it to be treated seriously, it has to continue to grow.

Also, I'm totally in favor of letting you run your rickshaw business.

[bunt_q]

So safety in numbers - ordered chaos that slows everybody down. I can see that. I've always been intrigued by ordered chaos (that's why engineers don't love me ). Reminds me of that town in Germany (or was it the Netherlands?) that removed all traffic signals recently. Last I heard, safety was actually improved. But that doesn't mean it's the right answer everywhere.

But who said I was only worried about the safety of the bicyclist? What about pedestrian safety? I have a hard time believing that a critical mass of bicyclists, following no traffic laws, is good for pedestrians. Quite the opposite, they are a hazard, both direct (who hasn't been smacked by a bicycle walking downtown? Maybe it's just me... I'm a pretty big target, I suppose) and indirect (intersection chaos). Predictability is what saves pedestrians, and bicycles are anything but. Take away the helmets, no problem, but I still want license requirements (and not the bike - the rider) so we can ticket bicyclists who insist on going rogue through downtown.

I just want rules, that's all I'm asking. In the absence of bike lanes, you ride in traffic. Ideally, in the right lane. As far right as you can (???), while keeping out of the Denis Leary door zone. You stop when cars do. You signal. Sure, not every car signals either - but in Wong's terms, those drivers should also 'be shot on sight' too. Etc. Rules.

Don't suppose you, Cirrus, would support legislation making b-cycle jointly liable for its riders' negligence, eh? What sort of insurance do programs like that carry?

EDIT: You replied to rules comments already...

I so want to do rickshaws... alternative fuel (hybrid? or whatever) rickshaws.

[Cirrus]

>> But who said I was only worried about the safety of the bicyclist? What about pedestrian safety?

This is why you want bicyclists to ride in the street. Of course, they'll only do it if they feel safe.

>> I still want license requirements (and not the bike - the rider)

I don't think that's the answer. Talk about a barrier to entry! But even if you don't care about barrier to entry, the only way to write a license requirement without turning every 10 year old in the state into a criminal would be to require it only for street cycling in certain areas, which would be confusing, hard to enforce, and would just encourage more people to bike on sidewalks. Not a practical solution.

Increased ticketing... possibly a practical solution, although probably much less practical than just building adequate infrastructure. Striping a bike lane is not expensive.

>> In the absence of bike lanes, you ride in traffic. Ideally, in the right lane. As far right as you can (???)

Right lane, but NOT as far right as you can. The far right is the most dangerous zone for a bike, for two reasons: 1) it's the door zone for cars parked on-street; 2) riding to the far right encourages cars to pass without shifting lanes, which is dangerous and illegal.

>> Don't suppose you, Cirrus, would support legislation making b-cycle jointly liable for its riders' negligence, eh? What sort of insurance do programs like that carry?

DC bikeshare has insurance on the bikes themselves, but any rider who causes an accident and is at fault is personally liable (unless they have their own insurance). It's in the user agreement that comes with a membership. I imagine b-cycle is the same.

Of course, you're not going to kill anyone or cause massive amounts of damage in a bike. Maybe a broken arm or a scratch in the paint, but not much more. Bikes are faster and bigger than pedestrians, yes, but a lot closer to the pedestrian scale than the car scale. Insurance is just much much less of an issue.

And no. Why would I support making b-cycle liable? That would be inconsistent with the rules for auto insurance (BMW isn't liable when Hans plows into Sven because they're both chatting on cell phones) and the rules for private biking (Schwinn isn't responsible when Tommy falls off his training wheels) and it would reduce the viability of bikesharing, which would reduce the number of cyclists, which would make cycling more dangerous for everyone.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

>> In the absence of bike lanes, you ride in traffic. Ideally, in the right lane. As far right as you can (???)

Right lane, but NOT as far right as you can. The far right is the most dangerous zone for a bike, for two reasons: 1) it's the door zone for cars parked on-street; 2) riding to the far right encourages cars to pass without shifting lanes, which is dangerous and illegal.

Right, that makes sense, that was more of a question. Like I said, the Denis Leary door zone. (note: he's an a-hole)

• Video Link

EDIT2: I just watched that actually... the little added "I agree" was not me.

I was sort of joking about the liability insurance issue. But even so, liability isn't just limited to direct damage - I hit you and break your arm. If I weave through traffic, run a red light, whatever, and cause a vehicular accident, that's sort of unfair, because none of the vehicles will be liable, and the bicyclist doesn't carry insurance. Anybody have any experience with that? Would that fall under your uninsured motorist, or your comprehensive coverage, or maybe neither? I wonder how ironclad the b-cycle disclaimer is?

Not sure how to get around the 10-year old criminal problem, but some sort of licensing should be required. At a minimum, require bicyclists to carry ID, and provide it upon request by law enforcement (EDIT: maybe this exists, I haven't looked yet). It sounds like a bad law school exam question, but it just seems too easy to skirt all sorts of laws on a rental bike.

Do the programs share rental info with law enforcement on request, let's say I'm on a b-cycle and I dump it to avoid a BUI? (apparently those are all the rage in Denver these days... or so I was told at the bar after the art walk on friday when, at 2am, the poor bartender had to run out to keep everybody from biking home )

I'm just grumpy today. 6 hours of software installs, ugh.

[Cirrus]

Bike licensing sounds impractical to me, but requiring adults to carry ID would be reasonable enough, and not a significant barrier to entry. You'd still have to except minors though... at least unless we had a universal ID program, in which case the discussion is moot anyway.

If I weave through traffic, run a red light, whatever, and cause a vehicular accident, that's sort of unfair

How do we handle it if someone run into traffic on foot and causes a vehicular accident?

[bunt_q]

We don't, I suppose. I guess it's a question of whether your insurance company would look at a bicycle as a vehicle, or something else (like a moose!). But the more bicycles act like vehicles, the more likely they're going to be treated similarly. Sounds like a fun spare time research project... surely there's something on the books.

Every time I fill out those 'political surveys' at the peoples' fair (or any other fair - they're all the same), the folks are baffled that I come out as a "statist." I don't know... this year, I was the only statist in Denver. As if I am Mussolini... I don't see how thinking a national ID card is a good idea fits any particular political mold. One guy sees it through an immigration lens, the next guy is thinking states' rights, and somebody else may just be thinking it'll make it easier to enforce bike laws. How is that a liberal or conservative stance? Oh well.

[Cirrus]

By the way, if you want licensing then bikesharing should be your friend, because anyone on a bikeshare bike is de-facto licensed. Each bike has a unique number, and each member has a number. Unlike personal bikes, you can't ride a bikeshare bike anonymously. The company knows who's on each one every time it's out. Of course, you could give your bike to a non-member, but that's a violation of the user agreement, and they'd know who unlocked it.

The city could even require bike numbers to be painted large enough to read from the sidewalk, giving each bike a functioning license plate.

If you want biking to be non-anonymous, bikeshare is definitely better than private biking.

[Strange Meat]

All this bike talk.... Anyone do Denver Cruisers?

[awholeparade]

i have been ticketed for going through a downtown light. it was at broadway & blake (i think), which has pretty much no traffic at 2 pm on a weekday. anyways, i stopped at the light, couldn't even see a car as far as i could look, so i went through. Boom, $120 ticket. this really infuriated me. it was 2 summers ago and a bunch of drivers had started throwing a fit about cyclists, making us out to seem like we are destroying the city. don't get me wrong, RUNNING a light on a bike is stupid, dangerous, and should never be done, BUT what i did, give me a break. if you want to promote cycling, which this city sure seems like it wants to do, you don't make it more of a nuisance to ride a bike. cirrus is right, a few states do allow you to stop at a light, check, and continue, and this how things need to be. other than a car and a bicycle both being rolling objects, they aren't similar, so why should bikes be stuck with the same laws? if you want to promote cycling and nurture its efficiency within a city, you just can't hold them to the same laws as a vehicle.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

i have been ticketed for going through a downtown light. it was at broadway & blake (i think), which has pretty much no traffic at 2 pm on a weekday. anyways, i stopped at the light, couldn't even see a car as far as i could look, so i went through. Boom, $120 ticket. this really infuriated me. it was 2 summers ago and a bunch of drivers had started throwing a fit about cyclists, making us out to seem like we are destroying the city. don't get me wrong, RUNNING a light on a bike is stupid, dangerous, and should never be done, BUT what i did, give me a break. if you want to promote cycling, which this city sure seems like it wants to do, you don't make it more of a nuisance to ride a bike. cirrus is right, a few states do allow you to stop at a light, check, and continue, and this how things need to be. other than a car and a bicycle both being rolling objects, they aren't similar, so why should bikes be stuck with the same laws? if you want to promote cycling and nurture its efficiency within a city, you just can't hold them to the same laws as a vehicle.

No offense, but good! Glad to see they are enforcing. Now, that said, I don't necessarily know that bikes should be held to the same laws. I would support a stop sign-type law, as long as bikes yield to legally turning vehicle traffic and pedestrians when going through on red. No problem.

However, it's a discussion we need to have. And we need to change the law. And then we should educate the public, if we're going to bring bicycling mainstream (sort of like the educational programs when light rail was added). Right now, it's a state of anarchy, because bicyclists are doing what they think the law should be, or what they think it is (many I believe just don't know what's allowed). Like I said, the wild west. Not everybody is as courteous as you, to only do it when it's truly clear.

EDIT: Ironically, I made the same argument when I got a jaywalking ticket - not a car in sight - crossing the street at an awfully, awfully placed mid-block bus stop. A good 300-feet to an intersection. Yeah... judge wouldn't have any of it.

[Wizened Variations]

We are still talking about elitist bicycling. How about when it's cheaper and maybe people have less money? Many of these bicycles shown in these images were likely ridden to the train or bus station in the rain, on those cold Europen fall days when the temperature is a cool 4 or 5 degrees celcius and the humidity around 75 percent.

What about in the snow? (and I not talking about those hard core winter bicyclists: I did that about 10 years ago, and, now I am too old to survive that envitable fall without major damage).

When the common person is forced to bicycle, when bicycling is more than a young person's recreation, bicycling itself can be miserable work.

I remember returning to Japan after a couple of decades and noticed how many less bicycles were on the streets. Sure were a lot of new cars though.

If you want a bicyle world, human powered bicycles would share the road with eletric bikes, mopeds, motorized 3 wheelers, motorcycles, small trucks, big trucks etc. A lot of the 2nd and 3rd world cities are like that..

Maybe this new world is coming whether we like it or not, eh?

All of this is a matter of moving the young, and, old, male and female, strong and weak for less real dollars- efficiently and enmass.

[Wizened Variations]

Let's look at bicycling in Denver for real, and not be 'romantic' about it.

1) How many employers have showers?

This radically reduces the distance one can bike. If employers have no showers, then I can bike fairly short distances to buses or light rail stations. These buses take a huge number of bicycles with them (2). The light rail- brilliantly designed as it is- can take 2 at each end of a light rail car- for a total of 4 people. That is the passenger carrying capacity of two seats facing each other in those Siemens cars.

2) As an employer without facility showers, what certainly do I have that you as a bike rider who is not 'oduriferous' will arrive on time every day? Are you going to take your Hummer when there is snow or rain out?

3) Am I, as an employer, forced to give extra credit to those applying to job openings that ride bikes? (I do believe for a few, exercise will let them them live longer with less insurance cost to me, but, most of us- me included- can spot that in a country minute).

I think in the tropics and subtropics, electric bicycles are truly viable. Bike roads like the brilliant South Platt Bike Way ((simply brilliant between Oxford and C470, less brilliant north of there, IMO) What a nice ride!!!)), are truly viable (particularly when, in the case of the South Platt Bike Way you take the bus (correciton: light rail. Shame on me).....uphill

But this means that the definition of who can use such roads must expand to more than the recreational bicyclist and the narcissic spandex superman wanna be. Electric bikes must be able to share the same facilities. They must be policed (we Americans are so good at that).

Get the idea?

[Strange Meat]

Two bikes can fit at the each end of each car, except the head of the train, so, if it is a three car train (rush hours), then that is 10 people with bikes on the train, given space.

[wong21fr]

^Fourteen on the soon to be running four car trains.

The bike station that will be constructed as part of Union Station will be an interesting experiment with it's lockers, showers, bike repair shop, and storage of a couple hundred bikes. If it takes off I can see additional stations being built around DT.

[bunt_q]

Can you actually get on though when the trains are at crush load? I've never tried... But any closer than Englewood or Colorado Station, I just can't imagine it's possible. That's when I'd use b-cycle, even if I did own a bike.

[Cirrus]

There's a rule against carrying bikes on to Metro at rush hour, for exactly that reason. I can't imagine that's a particularly uncommon thing.