Cycling is an excellent and healthy mode of transportation, but like any other vehicle, bicycles are regulated by safety laws. New Mexico and Albuquerque have nearly identically-worded laws regarding the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists (NMSA 66-3-701 through 66-3-707 and Albuquerque ordinances 8-3-3-1 through 8-3-3-24 contain most of these). Among the laws frequently broken by bicyclists:

-Running stop signs and red lights: Walk along any stretch of “Bicycle Boulevard” on any given day, and you MIGHT see one cyclist actually stop at a stop sign. The vast majority will run right through, and if a driver or pedestrian comments on it (even if that driver or pedestrian is nearly hit by the cyclist) the response from the bicyclist is frequently rather hostile.
-Riding too far from the right curb: This is more common along residential streets than it is on major roads, but the law is clear that cyclists need be as close to the right side of the road as practical.
-Riding up along the right side of a stopped vehicle in absence of a dedicated and independently-striped bicycle lane: At any stop sign or light, bicyclists are required to wait in turn, and not try to cut the line.
-Riding too many abreast: On residential streets, it is legal to ride two abreast; on any other streets, bicyclists must ride single file.
-Lack of proper equipment: All bicycles operating at night MUST have a front light visible from a minimum distance of 500 feet, and a rear red reflector visible from 50-300 feet or rear red light visible from 500 feet. All bicycles are required to have a bell or horn (but never a siren or whistle) audible at 100 feet. All bicycles are required to have brakes.
Leaving bicycle lanes where they exist: When a bicycle lane exists, cyclists are required to remain in the lane unless preparing to make a left or U-turn or passing a slower cyclist.
-Riding against the flow of traffic: This is common, and illegal. Though a lot of people have been taught that they want to do this to see the traffic, the law requires cyclists to travel in the same direction as the traffic.
-Riding on sidewalks: This portion of the law is actually a bit unclear. On residential streets, it is definitively illegal. On major roads, the cyclists may ride on the sidewalk if they feel that the road is unsafe, but (and this is the part frequently ignored) they must yield to pedestrians.

There are plenty of laws regulating driver conduct in relation to bicyclists, but, on the whole, these are not the ones being broken. APD is of no help; they seem either unable or unwilling to enforce traffic laws on bicyclists. An (admittedly cursory) perusal of public records I made a few months ago shows that on the stretch of road(s) known as “Bicycle Boulevard”, not a single bicyclist has been pulled over. I even had a Sergeant in charge of a speed trap on Columbia and Silver tell me when I inquired that they were specifically ignoring bicyclists and concentrating on drivers. Sooner or later, a ticketed driver is going to file an equal-protection suit against the city… and win.

Quite frankly, I am offended by how much tax-payer money is spent on “Share the Road” campaigns aimed at drivers and pretty purple signs. I would not object to any of this if drivers and cyclists were receiving equal-treatment under the law, but this is demonstrably not the case.

a) weigh 2000 pounds
b) be encased in steel
c) run on internal combustion

Can’t miss ‘em now!

When crossing a road (particularly in daylight), I rarely find myself terribly concerned about cars. They are watching for me and are aware of my presence. I nearly get run over by cyclists at least twice a week, and unlike the drivers (who are almost universally apologetic when making this error), more than three-fourths of the cyclists are quite offended that I’m daring to cross the street or use the sidewalk.

As for Psychling Thru, I shant repeat the demonstrably correct information that I have already presented. His/her “Truth” is far from factual, and while I will not argue the obvious difference in environmental impact from the two modes of transportation, you seem to have missed the obvious flaws in your proposal, ranging from distance equations to a complete upheaval of our entire economy and almost totalitarian mandate in order to satisfy a particularly small percentage of our population.

Going through a red light will not get you there any faster because the next one will catch you. Speeding and weaving in and out of traffic may grant you an extra minute, at best. Passing a cyclist safely and courteously will cost you approximately five seconds, at most. So why the impatience? Why do people risk their lives and the lives of others every day for that extra 2 seconds? Since I don’t have time to get into the philosophy and analysis of modern American culture and the influences of our time that contribute to common social-psychological phenomenon; I will simply suggest that people are not thinking. They are reacting in a habitual autopilot. If this sounds familiar, relax; life’s too short to be so impatient.

Because US citizens use bicycles for about 1% of their trips, both motorists and cyclists have a common problem of ignorance and lack of experience. Many simply do not know the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists.

The laws of all 50 States clearly state that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the roadway. The reason for this is that there are 4 things that keep bicyclists safe:

1. Being alert
2. Being assertive (not to be confused with aggressive)
3. Being visible
4. And being predictable

Consider the last two. In order to be visible and predictable, bicyclists must follow the same rules of the road. We know from research, statistics and experience that bicyclists fare best when they act as and are treated as vehicles of the roadway, as counter-intuitive as this may be for some. By doing so, it is safer for cyclists and motorists.

Just like any other, bicyclists must obey speed placement. This is why properly riding cyclists are on the right side of the road with slower moving traffic. Cyclists must ride with the flow of traffic. Cyclists have the right to any lane when it is occupied by that cyclist, on a first come, first served basis. Cyclists must yield and signal when changing lanes and yield when entering from a lesser roadway. Cyclists must obey traffic control devices.

These things are all the law. They are the law for all roadway users. The only differences are that bicyclists are easier to miss and often slower than other traffic and must behave as a slower vehicle, just like a tractor, horse, or car with hazards on, moving slowly for whatever reason. What is often suggested, understandably because many people in the States are not familiar enough with traffic law, traffic theory, or crash statistics; is “why don’t cyclists ride on the sidewalk or in the gutter, rather than on the road?”

Sidewalk riding is illegal in many parts of the country. It endangers pedestrians. It does not allow for cyclists to be visible or predicable. Motorists don’t expect anyone to be traveling at a speed much greater than a pedestrian on the sidewalk and hence can not properly look for a cyclist or see one when turning. Left turns by the motorist in front of the cyclist are 13% of all car-bike collisions, holding the number 2 spot for causes of car-bike collision. Right turns, by the motorist, in front of the cyclist, share the number three spot with cyclists turning left from the right side of the road, at 11%.

As far as the gutters, bike lanes, and average traffic lanes go; cyclists must be in the right third of the right-most lane serving their destination. If they are in the gutter, they blend in with sidewalk traffic and become invisible. There is nowhere to turn off, in an emergency, in the gutter. Many cities have crowned streets, putting dangerous debris in the gutter. Motorists do not slow down or acknowledge the cyclist when he is in the gutter, which is the most important and final point of my text here.

For motorists to safely interact with cyclists, it only takes an extra 5 seconds. When you approach a cyclist, slow down a bit. Check the adjacent lane to your left. If it is safe to pass without speeding up or being reckless, pass the cyclist with at least 3 feet of distance (In Albuquerque, NM, the law is 5 feet). There are times when you must not pass at all; such as around blind corners and at intersections. It is at these times that an experienced cyclist will look, signal, and “take the lane.” This means they will place themselves in the center or left third of the lane to prevent any passing or potential right turns when it is absolutely not safe to do so. This makes it safer for motorists and cyclists by preventing common motorist errors. This also includes bike lanes, which is a major reason why the ordinance, in Albuquerque, prohibiting cyclists from leaving adjacent facilities was taken out.

Does any of this mean that all cyclists are experienced and know the rules of the road? No. Do all motorists obey or know all rules of the road? Definitely not. People who are driving badly are bad drivers, whether on a bike or in a car. Trying to generalize about driving habits based on choice of vehicle type is absurd. If someone drives badly, it has very little to do with what is under their butt. The statistics show this. According to the NHTSA, motorist/pedal-cyclist fault is split about 50-50. These are the laws and by following them we can all use the road without frustration and, hopefully, fewer fatalities.

Finally, don’t think of it so much as cyclists and motorists. There are not two separate species of hominids. All we are talking about is human beings operating different kinds of vehicles. To get angry at a cyclist for being a cyclist, or vise versa, is like getting angry at someone who prefers Adidas to Converse. In the same way, a person doesn’t walk differently in different shoes, so too, a person drives their bike, just as they would a car. There are over 6 million car crashes and over 40,000 motorist fatalities every year in the states. Between 600 and 900 cyclists die every year from crashes. So please, chill out.

Now that you know, be cool, drive smooth, and have a good day. There’s no need to rush, to risk it all, or to get angry. Life is too short to be impatient and frustrated for two or more hours of your day.

I intended to put this in my last post, but forgot!

Not to threaten, but to inform – the average of gun ownership in Texas (for example) is now 3.2 guns per person and concealed carry increases daily, some of these people are cyclists. ;)

Indeed, changing motorist behavior will save lives, but it is also important to understand that changing cyclist behavior is where we can make the greatest impact on cyclist safety because cyclists, not motorists have a very strong personal interest in modifying their behavior to be visible and predicable…the keys to safe cycling. Bottom line, cyclists can solve a majority of their own problems by riding visibly and predictably. Unfortunately, we have scofflaws on both sides and the key is to lay down the rules for all parties to follow, make sure the parties know the rules and then enforce them…hold people accountable…including cyclists.

So much of the noise surrounding cycling safety issues are focused on the actions of the few motorists and cyclists who just don’t get it. They don’t care about their own safety let alone others’ safety. We argue endlessly about the actions of these few scofflaws. And while we argue people are getting hurt and killed. Moms and dads and brothers and sisters and just good people are losing their lives because we cannot get beyond the negative stuff that suffocates progress. We cannot focus our attention on taking reasonable steps to provide “clear standards for behavior and ultimately safer roads for drivers, runners, cyclists, pedestrians and all others.” We have to push aside all the meaningless noise, roll up our sleeves and do whatever we can to give vulnerable road users greater protection. And at the same time we need to let vulnerable road users know that they have rules to follow as well…and they too will be held accountable.

I am hopeful that Mayor Berry has the courage and the stamina to get past this early flak so he can help your fine city become an even better city, an even better community for all residents and travelers, no matter the means. The good news is he’s at the plate. The great news will be when the residents of Albuquerque stand beside him and help him swing the bat.

Make it happen Albuquerque…there’s too much at stake.

Joe Mizereck
joe@3feetplease.com

But as bad as some cyclists are, who usually loses when it is bike vs. auto? This article was rather fortuitious; just Monday another cyclist was killed. In this case, a driver on Paseo del Norte (not impaired as far as anyone knows) “lost control of her vehicle” and exited the highway, going through the fence and killing a cyclist on the bike path!

I have been driving since 1976 – how does one, when sober, just “lose control” of a car? What is the worst that would happen if a cyclist lost control of their bike?

Seriously, the blog you cite claims that there is a study to this effect, then links to… another blog.

In fairness, if you search that blog, the doctor who wrote it does actually address the issue on his site. After much searching, the study does exist. Of course, it only addresses cycling in Toronto, where safety laws are completely different. It then goes on to compare it to various European countries… where, again, safety laws are entirely different. The US is never addressed once. So this is relevant how?

I did once find someone making a similar claim to yours, saying that 85% of accidents were the fault of drivers. They then linked to a study that not only proved them wrong, but only applied to the island of Manhattan, where traffic patterns are, shall we say, unique. I finally figured out that the way they came to the 85% figure was to count bicyclists AND pedestrians together. Eliminate pedestrians, and the at-fault rate for drivers in Manhattan fell to just under 30%… which actually says that there is a frighteningly large danger to pedestrians there.

Bob, if you’re going to talk about selective statistics, you might want to do it with someone who hasn’t spent years on this issue, trying to make things safer on everyone. What happens when you do that is you get caught for doing exactly what you tried to accuse me of.

That being said, I do have to thank you for one thing; Doctor Cavacuiti (the aforementioned Canadian) has an excellent bicycle safety site, and proposes a lot of very good measures that I think have proven effectiveness, and while not all of them are applicable to a city design as haphazard as ours, most of them can easily be adopted to increase the safety and well-being of everyone.