The interview is here, last interview starting around 9:40. Since David Alpert doesn't bring it up, I have my ntoes below.
Alpert asks about how to make things safer and better for cyclists and pedestrians and Graham notes that its complicated asks back "should cyclists be subject to traffic controls." He states that in practice they are not, but that everyone else is. He then talks briefly about the Idaho stop and the vortex that such a discussion leads to. {He asks if it is law anywhere else, and the answer is no, but stop-as-yield laws are in place in parts of Colorado]. He seems to regret that the city doesn't have a motor vehicle ticketing division of MPD and then starts talking about how drivers and pedestrians also don't have to follow traffic control laws. To his credit, Alpert calls him out on this, noting the contradiction between his original statement about how only cyclists could break the law without fear of enforcement, but Graham manages to dodge Apler's question by making it seem like it was his point all along - "it's complicated." He states support for dedicated bicycle lanes and bike sharing, and streets dedicated to bicyclists. He's going to do a Ward 1 forum on bicycles. When Alpert explained it to him, he was interested in the idea that increasing cycling numbers decreases violations per cyclist. Mentions couriers and how everyone used to complain about them.
Being confused and/or sowing confusion is not the same as having a complicated subject.
The question is how to make things safer and better. It would have been reasonable to point out that doing so might involve tradeoffs for drivers, but who breaks the most laws is so off-point is really raises the question as to why this guy is still around.
Posted by: Crickey7 | February 25, 2014 at 03:40 PM