[B' Spokes: Baltimore's goals are not as ambitious as Chicago's and while we are making progress we have a long, long way to go before cycling is normalized. There are some good points in this article.]

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1856/focus_on_cycling_infrastructure_before_enforcement

I can't top Washcycle's coverage so: http://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/05/boston-bike-crash-study-shows-drivers-mostly-to-blame-solution-helmet-law.html

[B' Spokes: there are two types of people, those that think bicycling is easier than walking and those that think bicycling is harder than walking.

If you are or know someone that falls into the latter category have them read this:]

http://www.commutebybike.com/2013/05/16/a-plea-for-first-timers-adjust-your-seat/

[B' Spokes: It's a shame that crash data went from public to top secret in Maryland.]
******************************************************************************************
By Martine Powers, Boston Globe

...
and the mayor’s office may push for a law requiring helmet use by bike riders of all ages.

“We’re still blaming the victim,” said Dahianna Lopez, a Harvard doctoral student who worked as a consultant compiling crash data for the Boston Police Department. “Helmets are not what we need to focus on right now. What the report should be highlighting is, ‘Hey, what can we do to prevent these crashes?’ ”
...

Of the 891 crashes in which causes were listed, cyclists ran a red light or rode through a stop sign before colliding with a car just 12 percent of the time.

Twenty-two percent of collisions between cars and cyclists occurred when a vehicle door opened unexpectedly on a ­cyclist. Eighteen percent ­occurred when a motorist did not see a cyclist, and 12 percent occurred when a cyclist rode ­into oncoming traffic.
...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/15/bike-advocates-react-city-crash-study/6Y7g9E2QefP0hOFA66cT9N/story.html

B' Spokes: Another reaction to Sarah Goodyear's article by Henry Grabar, The Atlantic Cities: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-fine-cyclists/5571/

Some of my thoughts; We typically punish behavior that is a danger to others but what about a danger to the individual, like attempted suicide by overdose? Would a several hundred dollar fine be appropriate and discourage that behavior? And even closer to the point I am trying to make, would a fine be appropriate every time you bought medicine you *could* overdose on? After all we are trying to prevent unsafe behavior, right? (Isn't that like ticketing a red light running cyclist when no traffic is present because if the details of the circumstances were radically different then for sure that would be unsafe behavior.)

You see I like to bike on bike friendly streets, or a more appropriate label would be car friendly streets, you know streets where motorists can easily pass me. These typically are not major streets and when you do have to cross a major street you often have to do so without aid of a traffic light. If it really was so dangerous crossing a major street without a green light every single intersection would have a light but as Henry points out we are expected to take advantages of gaps in traffic on a fairly routine basses.

But cyclist must be suicidal, right? Just look no helmets, running red lights, riding in heavy traffic and so on. But just ask any suicidal cyclists and you'll find it is not a very effective way to go.

This gets to the heart of the problem, while I will strongly assert we are not suicidal but just trying to make the best use of car centric road designs we still have to deal with those in authority who think we are crazy or suicidal and something must be done to stop us (That kind of thinking needs to stop as well.) So just as attempted suicide is treated more as a medical problem than a criminal one. We need to stress bike infrastructure is our "medical" cure and fining cyclists for a legal technicality is as inappropriate as fining attempted suicide.

[A few more thoughts after the fold. (Read more)]

B' Spokes: This is why I think it is very important that drivers understand the laws giving cyclists the right to the road and all the benefit cycling has. Not to mention the practically of cycling. For me a 10 mile car trip takes 30 minutes and by bike 45 minutes. So I just "saved" 15 minutes by using the car but now I need to get an hours worth of exercise later. That is not a time savings!

If people think cycling is impractical or illegal you get crazzy stuff like this: http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_23250013/driver-arrested-cyclists-death-had-complained-bicyclists-dont

That's why I am very offended by WTOP's article and the police saying stuff that is not part of the laws regarding cyclists. (Ref: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20130430133239834 ) We need this kind of junk to stop!

by David Cranor, Greater Greater Washington

Sarah Goodyear of the Atlantic has an article for Bike to Work Week entitled "Cyclists Aren't 'Special', and They Shouldn't Play by Their Own Rules." The thesis seems to be that now that cycling is mainstream, cyclists need to behave better.

I would argue that whether or not cycling is mainstream you need to ride safely and courteously. In fact, an increase or decrease in cycling mode share shouldn't change the way you ride one iota.

Goodyear is asking cyclists to become foot droppers and thinks that more enforcement of cycling laws is what is needed for cycling to "get to the next level." I disagree which is easy to do since Goodyear offers no evidence, no data and no defense of her position. It appears to be 100% emotion-based opinion.

When I look at great cycling cities in Europe it doesn't appear to me that there is some point where increased enforcement is needed to keep growth going. Growth is fueled by better designed streets, laws that protect cyclists, and increasing the costs of driving. If anything, what I've read about Amsterdam and Copenhagen is that they don't tolerate the kinds of bad driving that are considered normal here. I don't read about ticketing blitzes.

She makes the point that many cyclists are rude or ride dangerously and that she'd like to see such behavior ticketed. I have no problem with ticketing dangerous behavior - though if we're really going to focus on the MOST dangerous behavior, that will rarely mean ticketing cyclists. And if law enforcement were to blitz cyclists, it would likely not be for their most dangerous behavior (riding at night without lights or too fast on the sidewalk or against traffic) but rather not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign during a charity ride or at some out-of-the way intersection.
...

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18870/cyclists-are-special-and-do-have-their-own-rules/
**********************************************************************************************************
[B' Spokes: Let me stress that "safety" ticketing blitzes should never be confined to one class of road user especially if it is a vulnerable road user as is too often the case around here. We let motorist unsafe behavior off because otherwise it's a revenue grabbing scheme, automated ticketing of motorists going 12 mph over the speed limit, that's outrageous and needs to stop... ah but unlawful cyclists are the problem so let's ticket them. If the police are going to crack down on the nitty gritty they need to do it across the board! Too many of the unsafe and illegal behaviors by motorists the police are totally unaware of... and that to me is is the major issue. I don't like the distracting argument that cyclists don't obey the laws, motorist don't either and they are the ones that kill!]

B' Spokes: I'm sharing this because Mitchell Krasnopoler is in it. Nathan will be missed.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/Event-brings-cyclists-together-to-ride-remember/-/11664182/20167926/-/ufhx0jz/-/index.html

[B' Spokes: Pretty cute video.]

---

[B' Spokes: This so need to go out whenever someone incorrectly asserts cyclists have to get out of the way.]

---