Marketing and PR 101- if you want something from someone, it is best to show them how giving it to you benefits them. If there are more bike lanes, there are fewer cars and calmer traffic, which will get drivers to their destination faster. It there are more bike lanes, then the decreased car-bicycle interaction will mean fewer accidents and less lost time and life for all. If we target everyone for education on sharing the road, fewer of us will be caught up in the silly stresses of bike-car interactions like dooring, right hooks and passing too close. If we limit car access around schools, children will be able to walk and ride to school safely with less need foe chauffeuring by parents…..

All of these things are tied together, what makes sense for bicycle riders makes sense for all. Everyone benefits from more riders on the road, we have to show them how and not make it adversarial or blaming.

In many European countries, there is vulnerable road user legislation. For example, in the Netherlands, if there is a crash involving a cyclist and motor car, the motorist is assumed guilty and the onus is on the motorist to prove otherwise. This is the kind of legislation we need in North America.

Many say ‘get used to stopping’. When I carry my 4 year old on the back of my bike, I become unsafe if I have to constantly get us up to speed again and again. My legs get so tired it becomes difficult to keep us both balanced, especially if he is squirming- and no, finding other paths isn’t going to help. I am a very strong cyclist, but I still get tired.

We have to stop trying to force square pegs into round holes. Cars and bikes may be equal in importance and right to the road, but each has different needs that need not be competitive. If each group is given what they need to get where they need to go, everyone will get there safely.

Share the road.

That being said, though, I think an even better law to enact would be one requiring all cyclists to have at least a headlight and taillight affixed to their bikes. I realize that many would balk at this and think that it discourages new cyclists from riding, but in my opinion, it would do wonders to reduce the chances of not being seen by motorists (especially if both lights have a blinking function).

“…the study did indeed show that bicyclists come to a complete stop only 7 percent of the time, it also showed that motorists stop completely only 22 percent of the time.”

“‘The law says a complete cessation of motion is required,’ said Greg Raisman, traffic safety specialist for the Portland Bureau of Transportation.”

“Regardless of whether they drive an SUV or pedal to work, everyone on the road tends to have ’selective perception’ in how they view other modes of transportation, he (Randy Blazak, a Portland State University sociologist) said.”

“A 2002 study by England’s Transport Research Laboratory found that when bicyclists violated a traffic law, motorists saw it as symptomatic of reckless attitudes and incompetence among people who choose to bike. However, when they saw another driver breaking the same law, they tended to see it as somehow required by unpredictable circumstances.”

“Of course, there’s also a such thing as ‘transportation envy,’ said Blazak, who often bikes to work. ‘Cyclists have a kind of freedom that people in cars don’t have,’ he explained, ‘including getting around backed-up traffic, going up on the sidewalk, being out in the elements. It breeds a certain amount of resentment and jealousy when you’re stuck listening to a mattress commercial in a traffic jam.”

whatever the case, i find little value in implying that i have found “…Zen-like clarity to ‘learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road’. i didn’t imply this or write it, so please don’t apply it to me. it has nothing to do with being ‘Zen-like’ (whatever that may be). it’s just a simple case of coming to terms with the situation in a manner that best suits your needs –which you and i seemingly both have.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion regarding what I wrote and why I wrote it. It’s entirely possible that you simply a better, stronger bicyclist than I have been.

I used to ride a fat tire bike on the wonderful bike paths of Eugene, pulling a Burley trailercycle. My children, bless them, were always 99+ percentile for height and weight, and starting from a dead stop was ALWAYS a concern for me, and there were many, many times when a child leaned abruptly one way or the other before I was up to speed and I very nearly went over. I found this very frightening. Enough so that, for this and other reasons, I chose to NEVER ride with my children in traffic.

My experience with recumbents has been owning, and commuting on, a long wheelbase Koosah, also from Burley. With your experience, you surely know how much harder it is to balance on a recumbent, particularly at very low speeds. You aren’t able to use your body weight effectively to maintain balance, and ‘bent riders are forced to swerve right and left at low speed to stay upright. This comes into play both when starting out at intersections, and when climbing hills. It’s one of the primary reasons I QUIT bicycle commuting, because the damage to my knees prevents me from applying enough power to the crankset to maintain a minimum stable speed when climbing.

Jeremy, I congratulate you on your ability to rise above these petty distractions, and appreciate that you have attained the Zen-like clarity to “learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road”. But I’m not about to pretend it isn’t challenging (and sometimes ‘terrifying’ and ‘daunting’) for you or anyone else. That’s a disservice in itself, and would NOT be an accurate reflection of MY OWN cycling experiences.

First, in your comment from march 19 you state, ‘…it (the discrete span of time when you are in motion at a stop, but not moving fast enough for the bike to be stable) can be a terrifyingly long span of time. The idea of going through that panic every single block is a daunting one.’

in my opinion, this is a mischaracterization. ‘terrifyingly’, ‘panic’ and ‘daunting’ do not accurately describe this situation and certainly do little to encourage new riders. i have ridden and do ride most every type of bicycle you listed in your post (commonly carrying 100 pounds of cargo) and have never suffered from these fear-inspired words due to a stop sign. yeah, stopping on a hill is a bitch, but so be it –get off the bike and push it to a flat spot if it makes you uncomfortable. if you’re choosing to ride a bicycle (which i do every day), then you choose to learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road.

the only thing terrifying about bicycling is knowing that there are other people on the road who do not take care to learn, respect and appreciate the responsibilities inherent in their transportation choice (be it automobile, bicycle, camel, etc.).

whatever the case, i have yet to develop an opinion on whether the idaho stop law would hurt or help. yes, i would love maintaining some of my momentum as opposed to killing it at every stop sign, but i can always use the exercise. i really don’t care whether the law changes as i follow the rules of the road, whatever they may be. i stop at every stop sign because it’s the law. if you choose to break the law (which many people on bikes and people in cars do at stop signs regularly), then you deserve whatever fine you get. hell, i wish i was deputized so i could dole-out fines to people all day long (regardless of their transport choice). people roll through stop signs regardless of their transport choice and as the laws exist today, it is unlawful and punishable. are these laws in the best interest of everyone? good question.

the implications of breaking the stop sign law is contextual. one could argue that enforcing stops for motor vehicles is good, but perhaps unnecessary for bicycles, simply due to the potential for harm incurred during an accident. but this argument is flawed as it makes assumptions for only one component of the collision, when in fact, there are two. subsequently, lawmakers often consider worst-case scenarios when drafting laws; maybe not the most ideal scenario, but it often gets the job done.

lastly, let us not confuse idaho with oregon. i grew up in idaho and cycled in pocatello and boise for years. idaho is not portland, oregon. the law works in idaho because idaho has very few cyclists, thereby making the impact on other roadway users minimal at best. in my opinion it is rogue to assume a law will be just as effective here as it is in idaho. the implications are obviously far greater here in portland alone.

http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/19/bta-negative-media-has-put-idaho-stop-effort-in-jeapordy/