Philadelphia Crack Down

Adam Voiland has a roundup of the Philadelphia crack down after two pedestrians were killed by cyclists.

In the first homicide a wrong-way cyclist hit a paralegal and left him to die in the street without giving assistance. Authorities are still trying to find the cyclist. In the second homicide, a pedestrian was again hit by a wrong-way cyclist, who did not flee the scene. That cyclist has not been charged at this point (which I think is very unfortunate. The cyclist was riding in an unsafe manner, saw the pedestrian and hit him. He should be charged, IMO).

As a result, a pair of Philadelphia City Council Members introduced tougher penalties for bike violations.

Kenney's legislation would increase the fine for riding on the sidewalk from $10 to $300, increase the fine for riding with headphones from $3 to $300 and require that people on bicycles without brakes face a $1,000 fine or confiscation.

$3 does seem ridiculous, but then so does $300, especially since the fine for driving while talking on the phone is only $75.

In PA, bikes are required to have a "braking system" which includes fixed gear bikes according to Mark J. Ginsberg a Portland, OR bike lawyer.

Mr. Ginsberg said that most states have adopted a standard definition of bike’s brakes that is technology independent. “No where does it say what the brake should look like; it only says what it should do,” he said. In most states — though not New York — the rule is that a bike moving at 15 miles per hour must be able to stop in 15 feet, something that is “easily done” on a fixed gear by riders of all levels, Mr. Ginsberg added.

But Bob Mionske is less sure, and calls out DC as the exception:

“Fixie riders argue that the fixed gear hub functions as a brake when backwards pressure is applied to the pedals, and that they are capable of meeting the required performance standard for stopping,” said Robert Mionske, author of Bicycling and the Law. “So far, that has tended to be a losing argument in traffic courts.”

There have not been other attempts to legislate fixies off city streets, Mr. Mionske said. “In fact, Washington D.C. has gone the other route, and embraced fixies, by revising their bicycle ordinance to specify that a fixed gear hub is a brake.”

The crazy thing is that even if you put a brake on a fixed gear bike, there is no obligation to use it. So it's kind of pointless. And I'd still love to see that research that points to the fact that fixed gear bikes are involved in more collisions.

As for sidewalks, you know how I feel about that law. These laws assume that one can't safely operate a bike on the sidewalk or without brakes - but I'm not sure those assumptions are valid.

DiCicco's bill would require registration of all bicycles owned by persons 12 and older.

 I can't figure out for the life of me how registering bicycles makes pedestrians (or anyone) safer.

"This is not an attempt to put any roadblocks on that effort," he said. "This is a way in which we can educate people riding bicycles to obey the rules of the road." DiCicco said that his proposed legislation would make it easier to track bikes involved in accidents.

Turns out he actually wants cyclists to have license plates. So, how do I get around if I bring my bike to Philly?

And I don't see how registration helps education. Even the Inquirer thinks it's "silly" and they welcome the crackdown. They wrote a whole opinion piece on the registration in which the author, a cyclist, talks about pedestrians in exactly the same way drivers talk about cyclists.

A cyclist must obey traffic laws, but a pedestrian listening to an iPod - and completely oblivious to his or her surroundings - is somehow free of any guilt.

Odd that wrong-way cycling wasn't one of the violations to get an increased fine since it was the cause. 

Meanwhile, State Rep. Angel Cruz (D., Phila.) introduced a bill similar to DiCicco's that would require bikes in the city to be registered and have the same safety features as motorcycles, such as lights.

Lights at night or in low light? Absolutely. On a sunny afternoon? Stupid.

A Daily News Columnist, Stu Bykofsky, got in the act with a ridiculous anti-cyclist article. Let's start with the title "If cyclists want rights they should follow rules." No, that's not how it works. Cyclists have rights. They are inherent. Yes, they should follow the rules, but it is not a quid pro quo. Drivers don't follow the rules but no one questions there rights to the road.

In September, the city surrendered one of two traffic lanes on Spruce and Pine streets in Center City to cyclists.

What kind of a perverted quota system gives 50 percent of any city street - designed for cars - to bikes, which account for 1.2 percent of Philadelphia commuters?

But do cyclists have 50% of ALL roads. I think not. Faulty logic.

if we get more cyclists, as seems to be the city's wet dream, we'll get more injury and death.

He actually wrote about nocturnal emissions - classy. And he's wrong. If there more cyclists that would probably mean fewer drivers, which would surely lead to less death and injury. 

DiCicco's idea was a good start.

Let's put more on the table. If you want parity with cars, how can you not agree to be insured?

Let's license adult bikers as we do motorists, to assure that they are competent and know the law.

No more parking anywhere you want for free. Like cars, you will park only in designated areas. You will feed a meter or pay for space on a rack, in a lot or garage.

Did I mention that your bike must have a horn or bell, brakes, a rear-view mirror, front and rear lights, all of which will be tested annually in a city-licensed bike shop? You will wear a helmet and reflective tape for safety.

Which reminds me of people who objected to the ERA by saying women would have to serve in the military (I know, a crazy idea) and use the men's room. Besides if he's interested in parity then he'd have to make kids wear helmets in cars and drivers stay in the right lane. And he goes way over with the helmets; drivers don't wear helmets. It's a ridiculous premise and based on the false idea that cyclists want parity. We don't any more than pedestrians do. Would he like to license pedestrians?

[Bicycling] will never be a serious mode of transportation in and around Philly.

I'd say at 1.2% it already is, and I'd be willing to make a wager on it not rising to his definition of "major". Never is a very long time.

Later the same columnist responds to his critics by complaining about how bike lanes have made it harder for him to drive across town (from 7 minutes to 5 minutes) and sail through lights, and suggests 3 foot wide cycletracks. That does not sound safe. And he continues to say that cycling is a tiny fraction of road traffic, so why is it such a safety hazard? Why make such a big deal about it?

The NY Times Spokes Column wrote about the issue, pointing out that Bykofsky

also criticized Mayor Michael A. Nutter’s decision this summer to have the city give equal consideration to bikes in future transportation efforts.

And

“The message these city council members is sending is: We don’t want people riding bikes,” said Mark J. Ginsberg, a Portland, Ore., cycling lawyer who helped draft the state’s bike laws. In Oregon, there had been similar legal confusion over the status of fixed gear bikes — whether the act of pedaling backward constitutes a brake — and Mr. Ginsberg sought to add language to specifically address the issue in 2006. “What got shot down was the extra ‘and a fixed gear has a brake,’” he said.

All of this has led to a protest by bike messengers.

Nearly 100 bicycle messengers rallied at John F. Kennedy Plaza yesterday evening to protest what they called a growing "anti-cycling" mood in the city.

They also decried an incident in which they said an angry motorist ran a cyclist off a Center City street on Thanksgiving morning, causing her to land on her face and suffer a broken jaw.

The Philadelphia City Paper calls for the Idaho Stop, which they call the Boise Stop.

"Cyclists tend to avoid streets that have stop signs because it's too much of a hindrance. So they move over to the more traveled arterial ways."

In other words, Boise Law would curtail interaction between cyclists and motorists. It would also, according to Mionske, encourage cyclists to use neighborhood streets and would reduce the amount of time spent in intersections where many collisions occur.

Bob is smart. 

The Bicycle Coalition of Philadelphia participated in a live chat on cycling and have submitted an editorial that will run some time this week.

It's very unusual for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian. So when it happens it is a man bites dog story, especially if it happens twice in one year or if a reward is offered in one case. But it's sadly normal for a driver to kill a pedestrian and so this is not nearly as newsworthy. I think the two cyclists who were involved in these crashes should be prosecuted appropriately, but if you really want to make streets safer, you're cracking down on the wrong group. This is like not allowing passengers to board planes with knives, but allowing guns. Yes, bad cycling can kill. But bad driving is the real risk. The ratio is something like 1000 to 1. So for every cop you have writing cyclist tickets, you need 1000 writing tickets to drivers.

Comments

[JTS]

so does anyone feel that this is getting kind of serious? I mean, washcycle, as always you put together a poignant, scathing criticism of fallacious reasoning. But it doesn't change the fact that idiots like Stu have a huge readership compared to this blog and its Philly counterpart.

The backlash in Philly scares me because this could be a harbinger of a rise in anti-cycling sentiment in other cities around the US. What can the community do to extinguish this vitriol? I'm not looking for the cookie cutter "dont run red lights" suggestions.

[Eric_W.]

Ever since I started biking, I don't listen to NPR as much as I used to. But yesetrday, I had to drive and on my way to the function I had to visit, there was a segment on reader responses about some bicycling story they had a day or so before.

I could have written that segment without any knowledge of the original report or reader repsonses. They quoted some woman who said that her biggest problem with bicyclists is that they run red lights. It's the same stupid stuff over and over and over again.

This is going to be a long and hard battle and at $3 a gallon it is too easy for drivers to keep driving too much in cars that are too big. That is just a fact.

Proposing ridiculous fines as above is pathetic, especially considering what people are doing in cars which are obviously going to have a much more severe impact when something goes wrong.

[freewheel]

Excellent analysis, as usual washcycle. The facts are kinda vague, though. Were both cyclists wearing headphones and riding fixies on the sidewalk when they collided with the pedestrians? Or is this just the perfect excuse for a crackdown?

BTW, I have no problem with banning bikes from sidewalks. Once the ban is in place, however, the city is obligated to make its streets safe for cyclists.

[oboe]

No more parking anywhere you want for free. Like cars, you will park only in designated areas. You will feed a meter or pay for space on a rack, in a lot or garage.

Did I mention that your bike must have a horn or bell, brakes, a rear-view mirror, front and rear lights, all of which will be tested annually in a city-licensed bike shop? You will wear a helmet and reflective tape for safety.

Pass.

Now fuck off, suburban troll...

[MLD]

I guess the idea behind registering cyclists is that if you try a hit-and-run like the first guy that somebody can get your plate number and then track you down.

I'd be interested to know if there are any actual statistics on bicycle/pedestrian accidents. Sure, I would assume that a cyclist killing a pedestrian is rare but I would bet that cyclists hitting pedestrians is not all that rare. So what recourse do you have when the cyclist says "oops sorry!" and rides off? A person in a car wouldn't do that if they knocked you down, because there are actual consequences because they are traceable.

As for how to combat anti-cycling sentiment, I'm not sure. I think more mode separation and better bike infrastructure on certain streets should be used to try to pull people away from cycling on streets that have heavier car traffic. Until somebody has the balls to do something that will really get people out of their cars (like raise gas taxes, or triple investment in transit) then cars will be the dominant mode of travel and it might be in our best interest to avoid certain spaces.

[oboe]

You combat anti-cycling sentiment the same way you support any other urban quality-of-life choice:

Like-minded people will continue to be drawn to cycling-friendly cities like DC, NYC, Portland, SF, etc... Cities that discourage cycling (and walking, and transit) will continue to wither.

Look at DC. There are DC residents who hate cyclists. They're a tiny minority of voters. Most anti-cyclist sentiment comes from--where else--suburban commuters. These folks would bitch-slap pedestrians, too, given a chance. Because they're an inconvenience. And if there's one cardinal sin in the 'burbs, it's the sin against convenience.

Anyway, vive local control.

[Eric Rosenberg]

IMHO any attempt to enact the Idaho law here in the District will fail. It's way too far-reaching and will attract a wide range of interest groups who feel that any legislation that takes away from motorists is bad, if not evil.

An incremental approach to the issue might be in order. Why not develop legislation that would apply to those "T" intersections where the cyclist is riding across the top of the "T". Traffic coming either into the "T" or traveling in the opposite direction cannot cut in front of the cyclist.

There are *many* streets in the District that this could apply to.

If this proves successful, additional types of intersections could be added at a later date.

[Washcycle]

Hit and run is actually very common for drivers.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/09/hit-and-run-incidents-on-the-rise-cyclists-among-victims.html

So plates haven't solved that problem.

I have looked for a long time for stats on cyclist-pedestrian and cyclist-cyclist crashes and have found very little. I did find some stats for NYC which I tried to extrapolate out (as I recall a pedestrian is 1000 times more likely to be killed by a driver and a cyclist is 50 times less likely to kill a pedestrian than a driver - per capita) but I'll need some time to find that again if you want. But, in the absence of any data, I think it's reasonable to assume that cyclists hit pedestrians with the same frequency that drivers do.

[Mark]

In the meantime, I wonder why the daily violence done by drivers on our roads passes without comment. How many motorist hit & run crashes have there been in Philly this year?

[microzen]

In PA the fine for wearing earphones or headphones while cycling is $50, not $3. In the law, the prohibition is earphones connected to an audio device. Unlike VA which allows for single earpiece listening, PA bans all headphones. While not intended for, this may prohibit handsfree or bluetooth cellphone earpieces.

As for Oboe's comment, Bykofsky is a Philly resident. It is his arguments that are wrong, not his address.

[TMoore]

I certainly don't condone the actions of the cyclists involved in the deaths in Philly--by all accounts they were acting recklessly.

But these analyses also beg the question: How many pedestrians have been killed by motorized vehicles this year?

[jmr]

washcycle,

this is an excellent critical essay. i dont know how much good it'll do, but it is excellent nevertheless!!

as far as the issues involved, my fellow bicyclists, none of what is proposed will likely affect your daily riding conditions, because all of the proposals are unenforceable.

as regards philly, where ive spent a zillion miles on a bike, its colonial infrastructure and recent stupid development over the past 50 years assures safety for cyclists as long as you know which streets to use...

[CyclingFool]

Everyone else seems to have already captured my thoughts on the issue, so I won't chime in other than to say that:

1. The cyclists were wrong. Salmons are dangerous. At least one of them stayed at the scene of the incident.

2. The type of reaction this brought out makes my blood boil. Let's think of all the other things that kill people that aren't fined/banned/regulated (not to say that they all should, but...): motor vehicles, guns, alcohol, tobacco, processed foods, McDonalds, falling in the shower, choking on chicken bones... Where does it end?

The world isn't going to be perfectly safe all the time. But perspective on what constitutes real danger (as opposed to perceived danger) is not only important, but is lacking from Bykofsky's thought process and column.

[oboe]

As for Oboe's comment, Bykofsky is a Philly resident. It is his arguments that are wrong, not his address.

Okay, fine:

"There are [Philly] residents who hate cyclists. They're a minority of voters. Most anti-cyclist sentiment comes from--where else--suburban commuters."

Better? Look, my point is, pro-cyclist policies have a natural urban constituency. The reason DC and New York are implementing all this bike infrastructure is that it has the support of voters. There certainly is no equivalent suburban constituency for utility cycling.

[Rich Wilson]

Wait, both cyclists were riding against traffic, and they're increasing fines for headphones? And talking about license plates? Where is enforcement and hefty fines for the stupidest part, riding against traffic?

[Washcycle]

I know Rich, it's the worst kind of policy.

[Catherine]

Hey oboe can you attempt to use a less broad brush? I am a "suburban commuter" (depending on how you define the suburbs I guess) AND a DC bike commuter. As in, I ride my bike from the suburbs to DC. Even when I did drive (and do now occasionally with Zipcar), I never had any complaints about bikes or peds.

The point is, and I think you're demonstrating it well, that some people are jerks. Jerks can live anywhere. The jerks you notice happen to also have license plates giving clues as to their origins and maybe you DO encounter more MD and VA drivers treating you badly than DC drivers---but I have to tell you that there's a pretty even 33% share for all parties in my experience--just depends on the neighborhood I'm riding in.

[guez]

From a Contrarian comment from a previous thread?:

"Guez, I call bull. Show me one verified instance of a cyclist disregarding rules causing a car-on-car accident or a pedestrian fatality anywhere in the US in the past year. It just doesn't happen in the real world."

How about 2?

[Washcycle]

Oh, burn...

[Froggie]

"There certainly is no equivalent suburban constituency for utility cycling."

Perhaps not in this region, but it exists in other regions...

[SJE]

Further to Oboe's comments re urban v suburban: I do not know where one starts, and the other begins. I mean, the density around downtown Silver Spring and Bethesda, or Old Town Alexandria, seem a lot higher than large sections of D.C.

I think its more accurate to say that there are jerks everywhere.