Ticket a Guy "Not Riding In Bike Lane?"

Here is a great video posted on youtube where a guy gets a ticket for "not riding in the bike lane." He decides to demonstrate with hilarious results why the bike lane is not always the safest place to ride.

Clearly the cop is a douche who does not know the law:

§ 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skates lanes and bicycle or in-line skates paths.

(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skates shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skates lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skates lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.

Get off the road!!!! Take the SKY you cyclists!!

Dedicated Bike Lane... In the sky? Make like a bird bike riders...

Wow, now I’ve seen it all

Hey, I know that the Auto Users of America really want us cyclists off of the roads but this idea takes the cake. I nominate it for the craziest idea I have ever seen outside of commuting by jet packs:

First off, what is with the dirigible? Are those coming back in vogue as the new hotness in air transportation? Anyway, take a look at the concept image of what the view would look like for the road-banished cyclists:

Yikes!!! Imagine the white-knuckle handlebar grip! I hope that those pedestrians have umbrellas to shield themselves from the rain of vertigo-induced puke likely to cascade down to the sidewalk below. Woah. I really do not think that this idea has considered recumbent bicycles either, and trikers would be SOL.

I like to think outside the box, but this is just crazy. Before you call me a killjoy, though there are real issues here:

What if you drop your water bottle or bike bag, or other item?

When someone rides out of that narrow-ass rail what happens?

When a slow rider is in front of you then what?
What happens in an earthquake?
What about all the zillions of birds that would take up residence on the rail?

Why not just build a decent dedicated bike bridge where people cannot possibly fall off?

Why not just make simple lane accommodations for cyclists on existing roads and bridges?

I know the debate rages about wether striped dedicated cycling lanes are good or bad, (article coming here soon!) but I wonder what you all think about this idea?

I’ll take my chances in traffic on firm ground, thank you.

Urban Planning and Cycling Infrastructure

Unless you are living in a cave somewhere that happens to have internet access, your life is affected by Urban Planning. Strike that - if you ARE in a cave, your life might still be affected - as a Planner could have very well written a code provision that protected said cave.

I have heard many times regarding cycling infrastructure: “If only the Planners here had a damn clue” or “they should just tell those Planners to add bike lanes for us cyclists!” Well, the sad thing is that Urban Planning is typically disconnected from any sort of infrastructure decisions that cyclists care about. The real problem is the disconnect between those in Urban Planning departments and those in Public Works departments.

Lets just clarify a few things. One overarching goal of Public Works with regards to transportation is to move cars on the roads and shit in pipes. The roads are built to the standards that exist in the Public Works section of the Municipal Code. Those standards rarely have provisions for cyclists. If they do, consider yourselves damn lucky. The paradigm is that cars and shit are the same - just move that shit from here to there as quickly as possible. Planners live in a happy Planner-Land of zoning and land use - setting up your environs with the utmost care to layout on a grid with nice aesthetic design function or in some (many) cases with a rubber stamp after some developer bullying. A large paradigm in Planner-Land is less cars = better and none is best. Everyone always walks everywhere in rays of sunshine past strategically placed flower pots bursting with color. 

In both cases, cyclists are left out of the equation most of the time because both groups are working outside of “reality.” Public Works is a “by the book” type of arrangement. No cycling infrastructure spelled out in the brain numbing code? No dice. No cyclist friendly engineers in the Public Works Department? No dice. No City Council members on the Public Works Committee that care about your desire for bike lanes? No dice. Nice try. The code is the Law. That Code is probably old and outdated, but that only makes it more powerful. Heard of Moses and his 10 commandments on the stone tablets? I’m pretty sure that Moses could have been a Public Works Director.

Planners, however, are often by nature looking to “get out of the box” and work these solutions into the equation - even in absence of a code provision that allows it. This is a difficult situation to be in. Is the planner breaking the rules consistently? Which rules? Who gets the favor and who doesn’t? Why have any code at all if certain ones can be bent to almost-beyond-recognition? How is consistency maintained when new planners arrive? It also pits the “Word is the Law” Public Works folks against the “Heathen fru-fru rule-breaker Planners” when it comes to infrastructure for cyclists. Many times the Planners can get the cyclists some great fancy-schmancy bike racks but ultimately it is up to the Public Works folks to get the cyclists there or not. In a lot of jurisdictions these two departments are not even in the same building, which means effective communication and collaboration just does not happen.

At best many Planners and jurisdictions have established MUP trails that can be great for cyclists. But those rarely get you anywhere other than recreation. Don’t get me wrong - MUP bike paths are awesome but they have many problems - but a topic for another day.

Cyclists wanting “real” means of transportation options - the ability to access the same services and facilities you could in a car - need to open lines of communication with their transportation folks in the Public Works Department. Get them talking to the Planners some. Too often they do not connect and the REAL recipe to ensure implementation, connection, and continuity of cycling friendly infrastructure gets forgotten. 

Be an advocate for real solutions that work for everyone. Planners get off your high-horse of eliminating every type of powered vehicular transportation and tone down the social engineering. Public Works people wake up and realize that adding safe provisions for lower impact transportation options increases their use and thus in turn reduces future maintenance costs. Win-win here all around. Somewhere in the middle of the Planner dream of a pedestrian-only promenade utopia and the Public Works vision of a 4-lane autobahn through every neighborhood is an environment where cars, pedestrians, and bikes can function somewhat in harmony.