After reading yet another article about an Austin cyclist being hit and killed by a vehicle, I finally knew what I wanted to write about! Can someone explain to me why Texas legislature believes it's safer for cyclists to ride in the street rather than on the sidewalk?
I guess ideally it's because bikes can move faster than human beings and we don't want our pedestrians to get mowed down. However, isn't a car several times faster than a cyclist?
I'm sure it's much easier to see and avoid pedestrians on a sidewalk than it is to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist biking at 15 mph.
Back in 2009, Texas legislature passed a law it believed would better protect cyclists by requiring motorists to give cyclists a 3 to 6-foot buffer zone. The law also prohibits motorists from cutting off bikers at right-hand turns. Honestly, I think that buffer zone is pretty useless. I have had cyclists cut me off in the middle of the street when I'm driving my 2-3 ton SUV at 40 mph. How does the buffer zone help either of us in that situation?
In 2012, hundreds of cyclists rallied at the Austin capital to protest the "lack of punishment" for motorists who hit cyclists. They strongly believe that motorists need to share the road with cyclists. Austin may be too cyclist-friendly for its own good. How is it okay for a cyclist to take up a whole street lane backing up traffic behind him? On a further note, Texas legislature claims that the law requires cyclists to follow the same traffic laws as a motorist, but I've definitely witnessed cyclists who don't stop at stop signs and "run red lights." When you think about it, even the tiniest car may weigh at least 2000 pounds versus a 150 pound cyclist. In a collision, the car will always win no matter who's at fault.
In actuality, cyclists are allowed to bike on sidewalks, but usually choose not to, in order to avoid riding on prohibited sidewalks. Chapter 12-2 in the Austin City Code specifies exactly which sidewalks that cyclists in Austin are absolutely prohibited from riding on. Ironically, there are few, and those streets are the ones that receive the most traffic from both pedestrians and motorists. Texas Legislature plans to improve cyclist laws as soon as possible, but in the meantime, Chapter 12-2 forces bicyclists to ride in the streets where traffic is most congested. Oh yeah, that's safe. Thanks.
1 comment:
In the blog post "Austin: Where 150 pounds is equal to 2000 pounds", Lenitie Carter discusses the problems that plague cycling in Austin. It appears that her main argument is why the law requiring cyclists to ride on the road with motor vehicles instead of the side-walk is no good. She references to some cyclist laws and provides anecdotal evidence to support them.
One of her arguments was in regards to the law that requires motor vehicles to provide a 3 to 6 foot buffer and how useless it is. An example she gives to back up her reasoning is when a cyclist cut her off while she was going 40 mph and how the buffer law didn't help. While I would agree with her that the buffer law doesn't help in that situation, I also question as to whether or not it was meant to help in that situation. People break rules of the road all the time, be it as a cyclist or a motorist. People breaking the rules don't necessarily negate the effectiveness of the rule when followed properly. What was the law meant to help with? That may be up for debate, but I think it was meant to keep vehicles from passing cyclists to closely or tail-gating them. Both those situations could easily cause serious accidents and even death.
Later, she questions Austin's cyclist friendly culture and whether it makes sense for cyclists to be taking up the road, slowing down traffic. First off, I don't think Austin is exactly as friendly to cyclists as she states. I have ridden all over Austin, and it can be very challenging to find routes that aren't going to get me killed. A lot of roads in Austin are without shoulders or even side-walks, forcing cyclists to brave traffic. Is it fair that I may be slowing traffic? Maybe, maybe not, but sometimes there are no other options.
She makes a note about the law requiring cyclists to follow the same rules of the road as motorists and then proceeds to state that she's seen cyclists breaking these laws. I honestly don't know what her point here was. Was she making an argument that since people break the laws that the laws are useless? Again, motorists break the laws too, how does that negate the importance of the laws?
There are multiple references to the weight ratio between a cyclist and a vehicle. Her argument seems to be that in a collision a vehicle will always win and that is reason enough to get cyclists off the road. While I understand that argument, I don't necessarily believe it's the weight ratio that she's concerned about, otherwise she would have problems with motorcycles, mopeds, and semis, all of which have varying magnitudes of weight ratio to an SUV with similar outcomes. I think it's the speed that is her real issue and the inconvenience she incurs because of it.
In conclusion, I agree that the current laws or even new laws aren't going to make cycling any safer. Infrastructure is the only real answer to safety concerns. It would also help with alleviating the inconvenience that motorists feel when getting stuck behind cyclists. More bike lanes/trails around the city would help tremendously. Of course, then you get into the another debate on who is going to pay for that infrastructure.
Post a Comment