Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Cyclist on cyclist violence?
At 15 seconds into the piece, Mr. Barker points out one of my problems with the so-called "Safe Passing Law" that excluded cyclists from the provisions of the proposed law.
This is a surprisingly even-handed piece. Just imagine what it would have sounded like the reporter interviewed runners instead of other cyclists?
Note: While a cyclist pictured did indeed run a stop sign, saying they "cut off" an SUV is a little over the top. As in most other locations, my recommendation is that trails should have YIELD signs instead of STOP signs. Had the trail sign been a "yield" instead of a "stop", the cyclist would have been seen executing a legal merge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Are you taking your headline generation instructions from Fox, PM?
That piece had nothing to do with "cyclist on cyclist violence". The subject was about highlighting the preponderance of discourteous and aggressive cyclists riding around White Rock Lake.
"[M]y recommendation is that trails should have YIELD signs instead of STOP signs."
How do you figure that?
The portion of the trail presented terminates at the park road. A vehicle approaching any "T" intersection from the leg is required to yield RoW to through traffic. Why should cyclists be any different? Yes, this is codified in law — see §545.151(e)(1).
The trail would not have had a yield sign, instead of a stop sign. To do so would have been a violation of the rules governing that type of intersection.
Why is suggesting the cyclist cut off the automobile "over the top"? The same sub-section of the transportation code states, "An operator approaching an intersection, after stopping, may proceed when the intersection can be safely entered without interference or collision with traffic using a different street or roadway." Do you really believe that a cyclist traveling at, oh let's be generous, 22kph is not going to present themselves as interference to an approaching motorist, separated by less than 30m, who is likely traveling at 32+kph? If the motorist had to slow to accommodate the cyclist - who just blew through a stop sign - that is being cut off.
What does this site say immediately to the right of this post?
"Every person riding a bicycle shall be granted all rights and be subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle."
Motorists are required to stop at a "T" intersection — signed or not. Why should cyclists be granted special exception to this rule?
Herman, yes, I am taking my headlines from Fox News. Keeps things hopping on a slow news day. ;-)
I prefer "YIELD" signs on trails at minor intersections, partly because the "STOP" signs are not enforced, but mostly because it's the Traffic Control Device (TCD) that makes the most sense in that application.
Failure to make any effort to enforce trail stop signs communicates to cyclists and runners that they are optional, encouraging cyclists to treat roadway stop signs with the same cavalier attitude, even though the warrants for their installation are very different.
The YIELD more accurately reflects the best way to handle that type intersection in most cases, based upon traffic volume in all directions. In the cases where it doesn't, I still prefer STOP signs.
Every intersection does not require a traffic control device, and not every one that does is best served by a stop sign.
Look at that video again. There is sufficient distance (barely) between the cyclist and the SUV, and the speeds are not wildly dissimilar (notice no "front end dive" on the SUV indicating hard braking). Should she have waited? Probably.
Did she "cut the SUV off"? No.
Should she have been ticketed for running a stop sign? Yes.
Would she have if a patrol officer was present? No, because the signs on trails are not legally handled the same way as the signs on roadways.
Herman, BTW: I am working on a post about Bob Mionske's illogical support of the movement to allow cyclists to treat stop signs and stop lights as yields, as expounded in his article in the latest issue of Bicycling magazine. His point in a nutshell? A reverse twist on the NRA's "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
"I am working on a post about Bob Mionske's illogical support of the movement to allow cyclists to treat stop signs and stop lights as yields."
Yet you seem to be proposing the same activity WRT trail/street intersections. How do these differ? In fact, your exception is more dangerous and egregious than Bob's. (I agree with neither, BTW.)
A trail is little more than a glorified pedestrian facility, intended for a much wider range of users than a sidewalk. To wit, they are wider and often had lines painted to separate bi-directional traffic. How can you justify allowing a pseudo-pedestrian cyclist the right to merge onto a vehicle facility without yielding RoW to vehicular traffic? There is no rationale to support the idea; it is untenable.
Any argument attempting to suggest that the yield would only apply if there is no existing traffic at the time of merging is hypocritical. This is precisely the same rationale Bob uses for proffering his rolling stop paradigm.
This disagreement is very much akin to our disparate view of inline skates. IMO, skaters are never anything but wheeled pedestrians. By the same token in the context of this discussion, when a cyclist is on a pedestrian facility or MUP, they are little more than a wheeled pedestrian. Until they fully transition to a vehicular facility, they must adhere to the same limitations of access as pedestrians: stop, look both ways, and yield RoW to any vehicles present.
"There is sufficient distance (barely) between the cyclist and the SUV, and the speeds are not wildly dissimilar (notice no "front end dive" on the SUV indicating hard braking)."
Ever take a Physics course, PM? Just because the automobile did not pitch forward under deceleration reflects neither that the operator did not have to brake, nor that their forward progress was underwent interference. If they were required to decelerate — at all — when they had RoW and someone pulled out in front of them, then the cyclist violated the law.
velociped said...
"'Every person riding a bicycle shall be granted all rights and be subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.'"
Motorists are required to stop at a "T" intersection — signed or not. Why should cyclists be granted special exception to this rule?"
Motorists are not required to stop at a T-intersection. If the intersection is "uncontrolled", they are required to "yield right of way" to an oncoming. The gray zone to what constitutes "who has the right of way" is often determined by who had to take "dramatic action" to avoid a collision.
Blogger velociped said...
"'I am working on a post about Bob Mionske's illogical support of the movement to allow cyclists to treat stop signs and stop lights as yields.'
Yet you seem to be proposing the same activity WRT trail/street intersections. How do these differ? In fact, your exception is more dangerous and egregious than Bob's."
Not at all. That intersection best warrants a yield sign (which requires the operator to STOP is the ROW is not clear) from a Traffic Engineering perspective. Mionske's suggestion is that Traffic Control Devices (stop signs and stoplights) should be allowed to mean different things to different people (user classes), which you seem to like better (based on your comments).
A trail is little more than a glorified pedestrian facility, intended for a much wider range of users than a sidewalk. To wit, they are wider and often had lines painted to separate bi-directional traffic. How can you justify allowing a pseudo-pedestrian cyclist the right to merge onto a vehicle facility without yielding RoW to vehicular traffic? There is no rationale to support the idea; it is untenable."
It's the law. It's legal to "merge" into traffic from a trail, just as it's legal to merge into traffic from any curb-cut, driveway, or sidewalk crossing. Because it's not marked as a crossing (which requires the road vehicle to yield/stop for crossing activity), the ambiguity is increased.
And yes, I've taken both physics and traffic engineering courses, and I've spent hours with traffic enforcement officers observing how they observe vehicles for visual clues to what they are doing. Even the slightest touch on the brake pedal will cause a noticeable drop in the vehicle's nose.
There is nothing in that video that indicates the SUV had to slow down below the speed it was already traveling for the cyclist to make a successful merge. Again, there is no "minimum distance" specified.
Was it a wise maneuver of the cyclist's part? Obviously not. Was it illegal? Even with the stop sign, that's debatable (The City Attorney issued a ruling several years ago regarding the enforceability of traffic signs on park trails. It wasn't a ruling that favored enforcement).
I simply don't know why you're complaining about this. Everyone in that video was wearing a helmet, so obviously, they're all safe. (snicker)
Seriously, that shot of a cyclist 'cutting off' the SUV looks like it was taken with a modest telephoto lens. Those lenses flatten perspective, making objects appear to be closer together than they really are. The SUV doesn't appear to brake at all since there's no noticeable dive as the front suspension compresses. It tends to make me think there was ample room between the stop-sign runner and the motor vehicle.
Does the law even apply on the road that the SUV is on? It is a park road, if I'm not mistaken. Drivers on that road and that side of the lake always get second-class-citizen status. There's too many joggers, cyclists, and walkers there to drive more than a snail's pace. The SUV was just picking up speed again from a stop sign they had just a few feet back. I've never seen a car go faster than a cyclist at that spot, so they were probably barely moving when he got "cut off".
Why did the reporter not interview anyone who was blowing that stop sign? The video a few weeks ago from Austin had several interviews with cyclists who were going straight through a real road stop sign.
Eliot said...
"Does the law even apply on the road that the SUV is on?"
Yes, although it generally operates as a chaos zone on weekends. East Lawther, although a Park Road, is still a public road. All rules and requirements apply.
"Why did the reporter not interview anyone who was blowing that stop sign? The video a few weeks ago from Austin had several interviews with cyclists who were going straight through a real road stop sign."
It's an odd piece. That's why I used the headline I did ("Cyclist on Cyclist Violence?"), with a question mark. It tries to make a big story out of something they show no examples of, and then shift to something they can show (cyclists failing to stop at a trail stop sign).
What's your opinion about running red lights? I get tired of going on the sidewalk to hit the crosswalk button. I guess sometimes you need a car to trip the switch so the light will turn green.
Rod said...
"What's your opinion about running red lights? I get tired of going on the sidewalk to hit the crosswalk button."
I am VERY much against running stop lights. Far better to turn right and make a U-turn. There a couple of things to remember about lights:
1) Make sure you know how to trigger them on a bicycle. Basically it means aligning your bicycle on top of the grooves containing the wires of the detector.
2) Be patient. A normal signal phase sitting in your car can seem like an eternity sitting on your bike (especially in the summer). This would be a good post subject.
"I guess sometimes you need a car to trip the switch so the light will turn green."
Only in the most extreme circumstances. Report any signal that doesn't detect you to the city's transportation department. Be specific about location and direction.
If you want to avoid some hassle, tell them your are on a motorcycle/mo-ped (or a peda-cycle if stretching the truth keeps you awake at night). They'll have no qualms about adjusting the signal to detect a 50cc Honda Passport, even if they balk at adjusting it for a bicycle.
Good resource:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm
About running lights: My wife and I have been doing pre-dawn rides all week, to avoid the ninety-plus temps of the late day and get some fun exercise. Our well-lit Screamer tandem means the darkness is no big deal and the four and six lane roads on which we ride are pretty quiet.
This morning's ride was unique in that we did not have to stop for a single red traffic light. Sure, many of them were red as we approached, so I would slow until it went green.
The very first light out of our neighborhood has a trigger that picks up the front wheel of the tandem (20") and allows us to continue very very slowly as it cycles to give us green.
It's a bit of a challenge for me to operate this way and until this morning's ride, I have had to unclip and stop at least once. I did have to unclip twice, but not stop.
RE PM's comments about lights. #1 only works if the light's got an induction sensor. More and more have camera activation nowadays that depend on the sensitivity of the camera and how well the camera's aimed. Look at where the camera's aimed and stop there. Turning the bike sideways can help. I wave at the camera, though I don't know if that really does anything more than make me feel better.
I once tried lying the bike down, running over to hit the "walk" button, and running back. It worked, though I'd not do it again unless there happened to be a cop present to witness things. Instead, in the worst case, I'll make a right and then a U turn. I'll also call to report the thing if I have to do stuff like that.
PM, Thanks for the URL on how to trigger the traffic light! I have trouble with this all the time :)
@PM Summer
"Motorists are not required to stop at a T-intersection. If the intersection is "uncontrolled", they are required to "yield right of way" to an oncoming."
Wrong. I have cited the relevant statute, §545.151(e)(1). It states, in no uncertain terms...
"(e) An operator approaching an intersection of a street or roadway from a street or roadway that terminates at the intersection and that is not controlled by an official traffic-control device or controlled as provided by Subsection (b) or (c) shall stop, yield, and grant immediate use of the intersection to another vehicle that has entered the intersection from the other street or roadway or is approaching the intersection on the other street or roadway in a proximity that is a hazard; after stopping, may proceed when the intersection can be safely entered without interference or collision with the traffic using the other street or roadway."
There is no ambiguity or "gray area" there. It states explicitly that the vehicle approaching on the terminating facility must "stop, yield, and grant immediate use".
The argument regarding "merging" from a private drive is also invalid, as illustrated in §545.155.
"An operator about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching on the highway† to be entered."
† "highway" seems like an inappropriate term, which would disqualify its application in this instance. However, consulting §541.302(5) one learns that Texas defines "the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way any part of which is open to the public for vehicular travel" — basically any roadway — as a highway.
Herman, you are over reading the law.
A vehicle approaching a T-intersection must yield right of way (one yields r.o.w. by stopping) to oncoming through traffic, just as I stated.
You stated vehicles must stop at all T-intersections (as if there were a stop sign). If there is no oncoming vehicle, there is no need to stop (hence the yield). Your interpretation would make yield signs redundant and confusing (which they aren't).
I disagree. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in.
A yield sign is never redundant, because the native state at such an intersection is a full stop. The presence of a yield sign alters the implied stop to become a simple yield.
What is redundant is the need to install a stop sign at a "T" intersection. Since the stop and surrender of RoW is codified in law, the sign is really not needed. Exceptions occur when the design of the intersection is ambiguous, such as this example (since deleted by its petulant author)...
"For my candidate of the day, go to Google Maps, 1386 Briar Ridge Dr, Keller, TX and do Streetview. Mosey around a little and tell me ONE SINGLE sensible reason the cul de sac needs to be protected by a stop sign, or why Briar, which has no choice but to turn right or into the cul de sac, presents a threat to any traffic on Meandering Woods worthy of such a device. Even a "yield" sign would be excessive."
(Gotta love the archiving qualities of Google Reader!)
That stop sign exists at a "T" intersection, because its close proximity to the cul-de-sac makes the RoW somewhat ambiguous. There are many other examples in residential areas, where some intersections, existing otherwise in parity with one another, have stop signs in one cardinal direction, but not in the other. A four-way stop is overkill, but the absence of any control device would lead to rampant collisions.
No, I do not believe I am "over reading" the law. Perhaps I am prone to the literal interpretation, whereas you seem willing to bend it to the benefit of cyclists. A "T" intersection is a "T" intersection and, according to the statute, a vehicle on the terminating leg of a "T" intersection always stops and yields RoW to the through traffic.
The key to the statute (I belive) is "yield and stop to through traffic". A stop sign says stop. A yield sign (because it is by category a cautionary sign) reminds vehicles that they should yield to through traffic.
But as always, your fine reading brings up good points, and I will ask for clarification from our Traffic Engineer.
And no, I never interpret rules for cyclists anymore than I interpret them for other road road users... interpret meaning to make understood, not to change or deviate.
Herman, I stand corrected.
Your reading is correct, and my understanding (shared by more than one of our traffic engineers) was incorrect.
At an uncontrolled T intersection, the minor must stop for the major. Thank you for the correction. It's no small thing.
Post a Comment