Month: August 2010

By Bob Mionske
Most people don’t follow traffic laws. Motorists speed. Cyclists roll stops. Pedestrians jaywalk. And that is where the police come in–to enforce the laws. It’s good that they do, because when people on the road obey the law, we are able to predict with some measure of accuracy what will happen, allowing us to avoid most collisions. But what about when the officer is just plain wrong on the law? There are three things to keep in mind during any such encounter.
If you’re ordered to stop, then stop. The officer is not going to let you ignore an order, and the situation will become worse if you attempt to do so, even if you’re in the right.
Let the officer be in charge. Police officers are trained to maintain control of encounters. If you attempt to take control, you will find the tension escalating very quickly. So keep your interactions polite. Besides, nobody likes dealing with unpleasant people.
Be absolutely certain you are right. This means that you must not only know your state’s laws, but also any relevant local laws. Unless you’re sure, do not assume that the officer is wrong.
Beyond these rules, how you handle the encounter will depend on your goal. If you simply want to continue on your way with minimal hassle, then you should politely comply with the officer’s interpretation of the law. If you want to assert your rights under the law, then ultimately you must be willing to be ticketed, go to court and fight the citation.
However, when you were first stopped, the officer may not yet have decided to ticket you; he may have merely intended to have a talk with you. In this case you have an opportunity to discuss why you believe you were in the right. If you want to try to convince the officer that you were riding lawfully, keep in mind that your greatest chance for success is in not demeaning the officer. For example, it might be useful to have a copy of your local traffic laws on hand as a reference source, but suggesting that the officer should read the laws probably isn’t such a good idea.
Often an officer will relent, particularly when he knows that you’re right but stopped you for your own good, because he thinks that where you were riding is unsafe. But if the officer continues to insist that you are violating the law, your only recourse will be to ask the officer to cite you, which means your fate ultimately will be decided by a potentially disinterested traffic court judge burdened by a heavy docket. Still, that’s the place to use all your evidence and powers of persuasion–far better than having an interaction with an officer go south and decide your fate for you.
[B’ Spokes: I disagree with the above paragraph. We have had a lot of success writing to the Chief of Police after the fact, no citation needed.]
…
Continue reading “How to handle an encounter when you’re unjustly pulled over”

By Bob Mionske
I was returning from a ride, but one of my main routes home was closed for bridge repairs, so I had to use another bridge to cross the river (with eleven bridges connecting the city across the Willamette River, there’s a good reason Portland is nicknamed “Bridgetown”). The alternate route I chose was a bridge with a multi-use path that is wide enough for about three or four pedestrians standing side by side. It was noon, and there were people walking, jogging, and pushing strollers. And of course, cyclists were present.
I was passed by a cyclist, and fell in behind him. As we approached someone walking in the same direction in which we were traveling, I slowed to pass, but the cyclist in front of me just kept his speed. When he was about 10 feet behind the pedestrian, he moved over to the left just enough to avoid hitting the pedestrian from behind. Then he careened back to the right just in time to avoid riding head-on into a jogger. I waited until it was safe to pass, and then proceeded with caution past the pedestrian at about 8 mph. Coming from the opposite direction, I saw another biker doing better than 15 mph. He overtook a pedestrian by swerving over into our half of the walkway, causing me to brake hard to avoid a collision. This behavior was repeated by other cyclists for the duration of my ride across the bridge, and it got me thinking about how we cyclists treat other traffic.
When we’re on the road, we are the underdogs, and I applaud cyclists who stand up for themselves when their rights are being violated. But if some of us are standing up for our rights while simultaneously violating the rights of others around us, that’s hypocritical, and makes for terrible public relations with the majority of the public that doesn’t ride. Further, demanding courtesy and respect from a non-cycling public while not respecting those people will only make it that much harder for us to achieve gains for cyclists.
Beyond this pragmatic perspective—that bad PR is bad for cycling, this isn’t just about PR. At it’s core, this is about common courtesy and respect for the rights of other people.
Ironically, I think that some of the behavior we are seeing is generated by “sunshine cyclists.” These are the people who only ride in the fair weather of the summer months; most of the year, they are in their cars. Now, I think it’s great that people are riding, even if it’s only for a few months out of the year, and even if it’s only because everybody else is doing it. And I think there may be a lot of different reasons why some cyclists seem to ride so discourteously. Some may just be utterly clueless about riding, beyond the basics of keeping the bike upright; some may believe the hype that that’s how cyclists ride; and some may just be self-centered people who ride the same way they drive—with utter disregard for anybody but themselves.
Regardless of which type of cyclist the fair-weather rider is, they are all less invested in relationships between cyclists and others, and therefore, in the affects of their behavior. Fair-weather riders especially seem to have no regard for pedestrians or motorists as they blithely weave around motorists, pedestrians, and other cyclists—and the brunt of any ill-will created by these riders will be borne by year-round cyclists. A pedestrian on a multi-use path doesn’t see somebody who just got on a bike for the first time in 10 years, and is just plain clueless about how to ride around others; all the pedestrian sees is a “cyclist.” And the same thing is true of the “cyclist” who drives most of the year, and thinks that riding without regard for the rules or for common courtesy is part of “the freedom” of being a cyclist. And what about the bully who pushes people around regardless of whether he’s driving or riding? All the pedestrian sees is a “cyclist.”
Of course, not every discourteous cyclist is a fair-weather cyclist. Some year-round cyclists really do believe that their “freedom” means they have rights without corresponding responsibilities to others. And some percentage of people are just inconsiderate, regardless of their chosen mode of getting around; you’ll find them driving, you’ll find them walking, and yes, you’ll find them riding a bike. In my experience, there are fairly few cyclists who are this callous, but again, the impression they create about “all cyclists” is lasting. And of course, because they don’t care about anybody but themselves, they also don’t care that they are creating lasting negative impressions that affect the rest of us.
This means that it’s up to the rest of us—the vast majority of cyclists—to set a better example. One place to begin is on the multi-use path. For cyclists who are used to riding on the road in traffic, the multi-use path can perhaps present a difficult mental transition. On the road, we are at the bottom of the “food chain.” However, once we are on a multi-use path (or “MUP”), we are suddenly the “top predator.”
And even though time spent on the MUP may only represent a brief portion of our ride, the impression about cyclists we are leaving is much greater, relative to our time spent on the MUP, because we interact so closely with pedestrians when we are on the MUP. And of course, these pedestrians are also in all likelihood motorists (and probably voters, too), which means that impressions we create on the MUP will continue to reverberate long after we’ve left the MUP.
It makes sense then, for us to make an effort to create a better environment for everyone (and in the process, improve our P.R.). We can do simple things, like taking care not to frighten or endanger pedestrians when we’re passing them. Besides not creating a lasting bad impression, riding courteously around pedestrians will mean that we are lessening the risk of collisions. And it also means that we are exercising the due care that the law requires of us. It’s a win-win, and it doesn’t cost us a thing.
…
Continue reading “If you ride near pedestrians, you may be doing the rest of us a disservice.”

By Bob Mionske
One of the more common negative cycling stereotypes is that of a tuned-out rider blissfully unaware of his surroundings as he pedals along, lost in the music blaring from his headphones. The reasons cyclists ride with earbuds are as varied as the riders themselves. Music may motivate some to train harder, while others like the way it helps filter out wind noise. Also, moving to music is an ancient tradition dating back to the dawn of human culture. For some, listening to music while riding is just a perfect way to combine two beloved activities.
Although detractors say it’s unsafe, that’s not necessarily true. Most headsets for portable devices are designed in a way that does not inhibit outside sounds from reaching the ear. And in most states, it is not illegal to wear earbuds or a headset while riding. Of course, if you’re listening to music at ear-damaging volumes, outside sounds may be drowned out, but no law requires vehicle operators to be able to hear. If the law did require that, motorists would not be allowed to crank their stereos up and deaf people would be prohibited from operating vehicles. The fact is, when riding we rely less on our ability to hear other vehicles–an imprecise source of information regardless of how fine-tuned our ears are–than we do on sight, along with our balance and our body’s sense of itself in space and time. Thus, even if headphones did impair hearing–and generally they don’t if you’re listening at a reasonable volume out of a single earbud–it’s still possible to safely operate a bicycle.
However, if wearing headphones while riding is against the law in your state (see box), you face potential penalties for doing so. Although the most common one is a traffic ticket, there are potentially more serious ramifications: If you are involved in a collision and you were wearing headphones in violation of the law, you may be found to be liable for negligence even if the other person was also negligent.
The Law: Riding with Tunes
Only five states regulate the use of headphones by cyclists, and generally the limitations are directed at all vehicle operators. Two of those states–Florida and Rhode Island–prohibit any use of headsets. The intent is to ensure that vehicle operators won’t inhibit their ability to hear sirens and vehicle horns.
The other three states that regulate the use of headsets–California, Delaware and Maryland–prohibit their use in both ears; in these states, one ear must be left uncovered. Maryland makes an exception to this law for riders on bike paths.
Some states make a distinction between headsets used for playing music or other recorded material and those used for cell phones. For example, Florida lifts its ban on earphones when they’re used with a cell phone. In fact, as more states begin to regulate mobile-phone use, vehicle operators are increasingly being required to use hands-free devices.
…
Continue reading “Can you legally wear headphones while riding?”

I guess as these things demand more of our money some effort to make them seem more human is needed.

Continue reading “Yes For Real: Fake Eyelashes For Your Car”