Tickets to ride: more citations

McChris · 2010-02-16 22:19:49

Does APD ever cite motorists for these offenses? Judging by the behavior of motorists in my neighborhood or around my office at UT, I would presume not.

dougmc · 2010-02-16 23:38:40

For stopping, but doing it slightly past the "stop" line? Yes, but very infrequently. Usually when the cop wants to nail you for *something* but can't find anything better.

Ultimately, we all enjoy really poor odds at getting caught for our moving violations. Roll through a stop sign at a few mph? The odds are at least 50:1 against getting pulled over, bike or car -- the odds are a cop wasn't around, and if he was, he probably didn't notice, and if he did -- the odds are reasonably good that he still won't ticket you. Flat out running a stop sign? The odds aren't quite so good, but still quite good.

But yeah, failure to stop in exactly the right place? Even if a cop does see that, tickets are very rare.

damicoaustin · 2010-02-17 10:06:41

Ummm....wheel in the crosswak? Wow. Talk about petty. You should have fought it. Let us know how it goes with TS101 through the courts, though.

m1ek · 2010-02-17 14:06:39

One should consider the possibility that the petty enforcement of wheel in the crosswalk might have been due to this cop's experiences with cyclists that run stop signs or red lights at a rate an order of magnitude higher than do motorists.

But no, they're just out to get us (you). Never mind.

cycling74 · 2010-02-18 10:05:14

m1ek wrote:

One should consider the possibility that the petty enforcement of wheel in the crosswalk might have been due to this cop's experiences with cyclists that run stop signs or red lights at a rate an order of magnitude higher than do motorists.
But no, they're just out to get us (you). Never mind.

Coincidentally, I sped through a red light at that same intersection on my fixie, helmetless and pantsless just moments before the infraction took place. I'm not 100% sure but that could have tipped the scales a bit. Sorry to be the bad apple.

dougmc · 2010-02-18 15:32:44

m1ek wrote:

... cyclists that run stop signs or red lights at a rate an order of magnitude higher than do motorists.

Here we go again ...

Only if you define "run the stop sign or red light" in a way that is far more specific than what the law actually prohibits.

If you look at the actual laws (544.010 for stop signs, 544.007 for red lights), it doesn't make a distinction between slowing down and going through the stop sign/turning right at the red light and going through at full speed -- both actions are illegal, and in practice both motorists and cyclists disobey these laws a very significant portion of the time. The only time either group is good at obeying these laws is when there's traffic that prevents them from entering the intersection.

Yes, I know, you're not talking about people slowing to a few mph as they run through the stop sign or turn right at that red light. But it's still illegal, and the police give plenty of tickets for it too. And both cyclists and motorists do it over half the time when there's no cops or other traffic to prevent it.

I'll agree with you that cyclists are more likely to run a red light to go straight (not legal even if you stop), and they're more likely to run through a stop sign or red light at full speed (legal if you stop, but still illegal if you only slow) than a car is. But as for what percentage of the time these laws are broken between cars and bikes, the only way you're going to get an order of magnitude difference is to look at specific ways of violating them (i.e. not slowing down at all) and ignoring the more common ways (a bike slowing to walking speed, or a car slowing to bike speed or walking speed) of violating it.

And yes, I'll even agree with you that running a stop sign at full speed is more dangerous than running it at two mph. But since we're talking about the law (specifically, it's enforcement), we should consider what's legal and what's illegal -- and both of these actions are illegal and have the same penalty, and both garner plenty of tickets from APD.

Chuck_McNeil · 2010-02-19 14:42:21

Remember the KVUE story on cyclists running the stop sign on Shoal Creek?
I stopped at that intersection last weekend for 5 or 10 minutes.
I saw 1 or 2 cars come to a complete stop. I'd guess maybe 40 cars went by.
I saw 1 cyclist come to a complete stop. I'd guess 15 cyclists went by.

m1ek · 2010-02-19 16:13:41

Here we go again.

MOST cars AND cyclists come to 'rolling stops' at ridiculous intersections like the 4-way stops on Shoal Creek that are there for nothing but traffic calming. MOST of the people who blow through those stop signs at non-trivial speeds are cyclists. Got it?

dougmc · 2010-02-19 18:15:02

m1ek wrote:

MOST cars AND cyclists come to 'rolling stops' at ridiculous intersections like the 4-way stops on Shoal Creek that are there for nothing but traffic calming

Criminals. That's a Class C misdemeanor in the state of Texas, and the fine in Austin is $167 if you pay quickly.

MOST of the people who blow through those stop signs at non-trivial speeds are cyclists.

More criminals, violating the exact same law as the criminals above, subject to the same penalties.

(I guess I could argue that a cyclist's "non-trivial" speed is often the same as a car's "rolling stop" speed (not always, but often), but that's not really my point here, and the law doesn't treat the two different situations any differently anyways -- which IS my point.)

Got it?

Yes, we've got it, I think. Lots of criminals, scofflaws all of them! (Well, not all, but most.) But arguably a somewhat higher percentage of the cyclists break the law than the motorists -- not a huge difference, but not insignificant either.

m1ek · 2010-02-22 12:34:49

Your insistence on treating the typical rolling stop to the typical-only-among-cyclists blowing-through-stop-sign-at-speed is truly extraordinary. Congratulations on your tenacity.

If cyclists were the majority of voters, it might even be laudable. As it is, the refusal to recognize reality is counterproductive.

dougmc · 2010-02-22 13:06:47

I don't "treat" either case. That's the job of the police -- they "treat" it, and the "treatment" they give for both cases is exactly the same. (One could also argue that Darwin or Karma also treats the cases, but really, in the vast majority of cases, these laws are broken both groups without any negative impact on safety.)

Not sure what you're getting about "if cyclists were the majority of voters", however -- what does my position have to do with voters? Am I suggesting a change in the law or elected officials? You seem to be assigning some additional agenda to me beyond pointing out that in the eyes of the law, the offenses are the same, and while cyclists may very well violate these laws (for stopping properly at a stop sign, the percentages are probably similar, but for stopping at red lights, cyclists likely violate more often) more often, overall it's only somewhat more often -- neither group is good at obeying these laws, and the differences are certainly far less than "an order of magnitude" unless you pick some creative way of counting things that isn't reflected by the actual laws.

Especially with regard to stop signs (as opposed to red lights, where, as you say, motorists rarely run a red light to go straight (but they'll freely run it to turn right)), the only cases where either group is good at obeying the law is when 1) there's other traffic that forces them to stop and wait or 2) there's a cop watching.

As for being counterproductive, that depends on what I'm trying to produce here.

MichaelBluejay · 2010-02-23 00:20:22

m1ek wrote:

Your insistence on treating the typical rolling stop to the typical-only-among-cyclists blowing-through-stop-sign-at-speed is truly extraordinary.

It's not extraordinary when you consider the way motorists typically complain about cyclists: They complain that cyclists are "breaking the law". That's the complaining motorists' choice of wording, not ours. If *that's* what motorists decide they want to complain about, it's not our fault if we take them at their word.

m1ek · 2010-02-23 15:28:24

If you guys think there's no difference in effect, in the real world, in a political sense between what motorists AND cyclists do (rolling stops, especially when turning right) and what basically ONLY cyclists do (blasting through at speed), you're incredibly naive.

And, yes, both are "breaking the law". Guess what? If you speed, you break the law. If you kill somebody, you break the law. Are those the same thing too?

dougmc · 2010-02-23 17:47:27

I'll let Michael respond on his own, but since you said "you guys" I'm assuming I'm included here.

You're doing a great job at setting up strawmen here, attacking me for positions I never took!

I didn't say there was no difference in the real world. I said in the eyes of the law, the same law is broken, and the penalty is the same. And the laws are even broken in comparable percentages of the time -- there's some differences, but it's not an order of magnitude difference unless you only look at one of several cases/ways where the two laws are typically broken -- distinctions that the law doesn't even make. And yes, the police have enforcement guidelines that might make some distinctions there, but the police certainly do ticket people both for rolling through stop signs and red lights at a low speed and for going through at full speed.

(Just so there's no confusion, there's one law for stop signs (well, one main one that covers running them anyways), and another law for red lights (ditto), and the City of Austin has different fines for the two laws. Other cities may have different fine schedules.)

In any event, just because motorists have 12% less total sin (yes, made up figure, with more to follow. I'm guessing they're qualitatively accurate, but certainly not quantitatively accurate), that doesn't mean they really should be throwing that first stone. Even if they have 50% less sin in the red light department, 15% less sin in the stop sign department (and 5000% more sin in the speeding department, though I've been mostly avoiding that one, but you brought it up.)

Perhaps they think they can claim to be the righteous, and perhaps because there's more of them than cyclists they can get away with it, but that doesn't make it right or legal. (Unless we're talking a "might makes right" situation, but the laws (other laws, anyways) as written tend to discourage that too.)

As for speeding, the laws and penalties for speeding are again different than violations involving stop signs and red lights. And killing somebody isn't always against the law -- but when it is, that's another law broken and another penalty again. But yes, if you roll through stop signs or red lights, exceed the speed limit or kill somebody (illegally, of course) -- you're a criminal. Don't like the term? Don't do the crime. And if you want to call somebody else a criminal, fine -- you're probably right -- but remember, you're probably one too.

allendemling · 2010-02-25 11:23:32

If you want to compare cars and bikes that blow through stops, you have to at least understand why each does it.

When cars do blow through (and they do) it is generally because they are distracted and don't see the stop. This is very dangerous because they are not doing a mental cost-benefit analysis when blowing through, they aren't thinking about it at all. It is very difficult, due to reduced speed and less distractions, for a bicyclist to completely miss a stop sign or light.

Bicyclists, however, generally think "I'm coming to a stop sign/red light, I can see cross traffic, I know that I can make it across without getting hit, if I don't I will either be severely injured or killed". You weigh your options and what you gain (a few seconds of time/energy) vs what you loose (possibly your life), you are essentially determining how safe it will be to blow through the stop, something cars generally don't do, or don't do very well since they are surrounded by a metal cage.

Now I have not said anything about the legality of either. I personally don't think the laws that were created for auto-centric traffic work well for bikes, but it is the law. I also am not talking about rolling stops, just "blowing through", since that is what M1Ek is focusing on.

So, in my opinion, even the "typical" behavior of cyclists running stops at speed is inherently safer than the "atypical" behavior of cars running stops at speed.

One way to verify this is to look at accidents caused by bikes blowing stops and compare to accidents caused by cars blowing through stops. I bet there would be many more accidents involving cars even though M1EK insists that this behavior almost never happens. I'm guessing this info is not readily available though.

rich00 · 2010-02-25 12:34:00

allendemling wrote:

When cars do blow through (and they do) it is generally because they are distracted and don't see the stop. This is very dangerous because they are not doing a mental cost-benefit analysis when blowing through, they aren't thinking about it at all. It is very difficult, due to reduced speed and less distractions, for a bicyclist to completely miss a stop sign or light.
Bicyclists, however, generally think "I'm coming to a stop sign/red light, I can see cross traffic, I know that I can make it across without getting hit, if I don't I will either be severely injured or killed". You weigh your options and what you gain (a few seconds of time/energy) vs what you loose (possibly your life), you are essentially determining how safe it will be to blow through the stop, something cars generally don't do, or don't do very well since they are surrounded by a metal cage.

+1

A few weeks ago on Nueces I watched a car pass me and go through the 4 way stop at over 30mph right in front of a cop who did nothing. When you see stuff like that on a bike, it really makes your blood boil when cops/car drivers hound you about being dangerous as you, a 200lb 1/10th physical size object, roll through an empty 4 way at 10-15mph after yielding and thoroughly making sure no one was near the intersection.

At the same time I do see people on bikes go through 4 way intersections, plowing into road users who were there first. That's BullSheet as well.

The absence of logic is what makes things wrong in this world.

Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-25 12:36:23)

rich00 · 2010-02-25 12:59:14

m1ek wrote:

And, yes, both are "breaking the law". Guess what? If you speed, you break the law. If you kill somebody, you break the law. Are those the same thing too?

And if you don't watch out for your own safety, you can find yourself run over.

I'll keep saying it: The law is nothing more than the law. Just some written rules on how we should act. It's not going to magically heal your injuries. (You might get a nice settlement if your lucky though).

m1ek · 2010-02-25 13:29:43

So very very tiresome. Do you guys enjoy hearing every single person opposing a bike facility talking about how poorly cyclists obey the law, and noting that some city council members are nodding their heads subconsciously? Were any of you guys fighting a losing battle in the Shoal Creek Debacle?

No, it's more productive for you to ignore one of the very few of the community that spent significant time both cycling to work AND driving to work among a community of largely bicycle-hostile coworkers in the suburbs. That's bound to work - just keep chanting "nobody gets hurt when we run stop signs and red lights" (not true) or "cars do it more often" (also not true, for reasonable values of 'true').

Or just keep trying to wriggle out - and wonder why things like Shoal Creek (and now, Nueces) keep 'happening to us'. Hint: Be respectable, and it's harder for others to paint you otherwise, even if they were only doing so as an excuse or a pretext. It STILL works - there's literally no downside to being a damn adult and noticing that there IS a difference between how people on the roadway are treating right-of-way control devices.

m1ek · 2010-02-25 13:34:45

allendemling wrote:

If you want to compare cars and bikes that blow through stops, you have to at least understand why each does it.
When cars do blow through (and they do) it is generally because they are distracted and don't see the stop. This is very dangerous because they are not doing a mental cost-benefit analysis when blowing through, they aren't thinking about it at all. It is very difficult, due to reduced speed and less distractions, for a bicyclist to completely miss a stop sign or light.
Bicyclists, however, generally think "I'm coming to a stop sign/red light, I can see cross traffic, I know that I can make it across without getting hit, if I don't I will either be severely injured or killed". You weigh your options and what you gain (a few seconds of time/energy) vs what you loose (possibly your life), you are essentially determining how safe it will be to blow through the stop, something cars generally don't do, or don't do very well since they are surrounded by a metal cage.
Now I have not said anything about the legality of either. I personally don't think the laws that were created for auto-centric traffic work well for bikes, but it is the law. I also am not talking about rolling stops, just "blowing through", since that is what M1Ek is focusing on.
So, in my opinion, even the "typical" behavior of cyclists running stops at speed is inherently safer than the "atypical" behavior of cars running stops at speed.
One way to verify this is to look at accidents caused by bikes blowing stops and compare to accidents caused by cars blowing through stops. I bet there would be many more accidents involving cars even though M1EK insists that this behavior almost never happens. I'm guessing this info is not readily available though.

This has the nugget of truth within it, but is then surrounded with a creamy shell of baloney. Mmm, creamy baloney.

The primary reason 'most' drivers that run stop signs right now do it due to being distracted is because most wouldn't do it on purpose, because most have some respect for the fact that the only reason the roadways 'work' is that you can almost always count on the other guy obeying the rules. Otherwise, you could never go through a green light at non-trivial speed, for instance(*).

The primary reason 'most' cyclists that run stop signs and red lights do it is because they don't feel like stopping.

Somehow, you think this more noble, or at least more safe.

But what do you think happens in the long-run if motorists, let's say, use the same 'logic' as you do - "I don't see anybody nearby; why should I waste gas stopping and starting? Gas is expensive!"?

(* - my example so many of you love was when one of these Spock-on-a-cycle types ran a red light across 24th right in front of me and my car in the left lane; I swerved to avoid KILLING the far-superior logician; and nearly wrecked into a driver in the oncoming left lane - neither one of us would likely have died, but we'd have been hurt and likely out many thousands of dollars. The Logical One pedalled off completely oblivious, of course).

dougmc · 2010-02-25 13:38:02

allendemling wrote:

So, in my opinion, even the "typical" behavior of cyclists running stops at speed is inherently safer than the "atypical" behavior of cars running stops at speed.

I do agree with you, but be aware that motorists do make the same cost-benefit decisions and will run red lights and stop signs for the same reasons that cyclists will.

It's just that the benefits are smaller. For a cyclist, 3 mph worth of momentum isn't worth much energy (many people over-estimate it, however), but 15 mph is worth 25x more and will require some hard pedaling to get back. You slow down, unclip your pedals, go from sitting to standing, stand while you wait, go back to sitting, clip back in and you're off. For a car, you just push the brake, wait, then push the gas for a while -- sitting all the time. On the bike, it's a lot more complicated and you have to actually *work* to get back up to speed.

The cost may also be higher as well -- perhaps cops are more likely to give them a ticket if they're seen (this is debatable), they get points on their license for it (cyclists don't, not in Texas anyways), insurance could go up, and their view isn't as good as that of a cyclist so they can't see quite as well around them to make sure it's completely safe. (Though if a cyclist makes a mistake, the odds of injury are higher, so it's not all biased towards the cost being higher for motorists.)

Also, in some other places (but not in Austin), bicycle tickets are a lot less than car tickets. I've heard that in some places running a stop sign on a bike is around $20 where doing it in a car is $200 -- that would reduce the incentive to not run stop signs for cyclists. This is not the case in Austin, however -- the fines are the same.

One way to verify this is to look at accidents caused by bikes blowing stops and compare to accidents caused by cars blowing through stops. I bet there would be many more accidents involving cars even though M1EK insists that this behavior almost never happens. I'm guessing this info is not readily available though.

Well, if I recall correctly, M1EK has generally said that when cars roll through stop signs at low rates of speed, it's unlikely to result in an accident. (I would assume that the same applies to bicycles, but I don't recall if he's explicitly said that or not.)

Using this assumption (and yes, it's not 100% accurate) that rolling through stop signs at low rates of speed isn't dangerous, then all of the tickets that involve a collision or injury are caused by people going through stop signs at a high rate of speed. And while APD doesn't track the speed that one goes through the stop sign, their tickets do indicate if an injury or collision were involved, and they do keep track of the types of vehicles involved -- and you can get them to extract that data for you, you just have to pay their programmer to work out the SQL and run it. The price is very reasonable. So yes, the data really is available, at least much of it.

The same theory could also be applied to red lights -- M1EK has said that running a red light that just changed isn't particularly dangerous (it takes a while for people to get going, and many lights give a time buffer anyways), so any time there's an accident that involves a red light being run it's likely that the light was run a while after the light changed -- and so while the police tickets do not indicate how long the light was red, if there was an accident you can assume with reasonable accuracy that it was red for a while.

In any event, I don't think his assertions are really about what cyclists do being *dangerous* or even about it being illegal -- I think it's more about how it's perceived by the motorists. And since there's far more motorist voters than cyclist voters, it matters more that the motorists think cyclists are scofflaws (true or not) than if the cyclists think the motorists are scofflaws (true or not), at least for political reasons. And in that respect, fair or not, he's likely right.

rich00 · 2010-02-25 15:59:27

I never said "nobody gets hurt when cyclists run stop signs and red lights."

AGAIN, there seems to be no gray area.

I really don't care what the result of my actions are - because they are worth it to me - because I ride to KEEP MYSELF SAFE. Most of the time that means slowing to 5mph or making a complete stop at stop signs, sometimes it means going through at 15mph.

We live in a world with billions of variables - why do we keep trying to make laws and statements that fit everything? This is a huge problem with the world - think about it.

And can't people be responsible for their own actions?

I don't ever endanger anyone. Isn't that the point? Isn't that the point of traffic laws?

I only speak for myself. I don't speak for other cyclists, I don't speak for that ahole on a bike who plowed through a busy 4 way stop or red light, I don't speak for bad drivers.

Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-25 16:03:14)

dougmc · 2010-02-25 23:07:28

m1ek wrote:

This has the nugget of truth within it, but is then surrounded with a creamy shell of baloney. Mmm, creamy baloney.
The primary reason 'most' drivers that run stop signs right now do it due to being distracted is because most wouldn't do it on purpose, because most have some respect for the fact that the only reason the roadways 'work' is that you can almost always count on the other guy obeying the rules.

... as long as the rules in question don't involve things like coming to a complete stop when the law requires it, obeying the speed limits, not texting while driving, having insurance (last I heard the estimate was that around 20% of cars on the road don't?), signaling turns, no open containers of alcohol, etc.

Fortunately, travelers (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, etc.) usually make reasonable judgements about which rules can be safely disregarded, when and to what degree. If they didn't, then as you said -- we'd not even be able to go through a green light at a non-trivial speed. And when the laws can't be disregarded safely -- all of these groups generally respect them. Those that didn't -- they're likely dead now, or possibly in prison.

The primary reason 'most' cyclists that run stop signs and red lights do it is because they don't feel like stopping.

Not to be confused with motorists, who also don't feel like stopping. Both groups make the same cost/benefit decisions (but based on somewhat different costs and benefits) and end up doing similar things -- though in somewhat different ratios, likely due to the different costs and benefits. In both situations, in the vast majority of cases, even decisions to disregard the law do not result in an accident, a near accident or a ticket.

But what do you think happens in the long-run if motorists, let's say, use the same 'logic' as you do - "I don't see anybody nearby; why should I waste gas stopping and starting? Gas is expensive!"?

Um, they run the light, nobody gets hurt (or even ticketed) in the vast majority of cases, life goes on. I haven't heard you claim that you never see this happen in a while -- do you still never see it? I see it on a semi-regular basis. I saw it yesterday -- guy in a car blew a red light in front of me 10 seconds after it changed. He did slow a bit, but was probably doing 30 mph when he did it. It was night, so I couldn't tell if he saw me or not, but I was coming up to the light as he did it -- I wasn't in danger of being hit, though I was watching him and it looked like he wasn't going to stop. (I do pay a lot more attention when I'm on my bike to things like this.)

(* - my example so many of you love was when one of these Spock-on-a-cycle types ran a red light across 24th right in front of me and my car in the left lane; I swerved to avoid KILLING the far-superior logician; and nearly wrecked into a driver in the oncoming left lane - neither one of us would likely have died, but we'd have been hurt and likely out many thousands of dollars. The Logical One pedalled off completely oblivious, of course).

Um, yeah. Isn't it usually a hipster on a fixie (with lots of tattoos, a pierced tongue (you know what Chris Rock said about that) and an iPod) rather than Spock?

rich00 · 2010-02-26 01:35:56

m1ek wrote:

(* - my example so many of you love was when one of these Spock-on-a-cycle types ran a red light across 24th right in front of me and my car in the left lane; I swerved to avoid KILLING the far-superior logician; and nearly wrecked into a driver in the oncoming left lane - neither one of us would likely have died, but we'd have been hurt and likely out many thousands of dollars. The Logical One pedalled off completely oblivious, of course).

That's too bad. But what makes you call him "The Logical One"?

Of course you're being sarcastic, but yeah, why?

What's a "Spock-on-a-cycle type"? A road cyclist in road gear? I love my spandex, lycra, road cycling clothes - it makes riding much more efficient (oh no, be careful - we all know how lame it is to be smart with our energy, especially when we are the engine), faster, and comfortable.

Obviously the bike rider in your example didn't use basic common sense, logic, or a conscientious effort to make sure the road was clear. We could spend all day talking about all the idiots we see using the road, in cars, on bikes, walking.....

m1ek · 2010-03-05 14:51:51

"The Logical One" was referring to the claim by somebody here that it's only logical to run stop signs and red lights when on a bike if you don't see anybody coming.

MalloryArt · 2012-11-28 23:15:52

Sigh. I got a ticket this evening for running a red light. I did run the light, but there was no cross traffic and my logic (though law breaking) was that if I got started before the cars, I would not keep the cars from having to drive super slow behind me, or worse, pass me quickly and un-safely. I got "pulled-over" by a bike cop and was given a citation for running a red light, a 275.00 ticket (!). The officer informed me that I *may* have an opportunity to take a safety class (https://austincycling.org/education/cla … ve_cycling) and have the situation dismissed. God, I hope so! Ultimately, I want to be a safe rider both for myself and the other bikers and drivers around me. I'm sure I could use a defensive cycling class as much as any other bike commuter, maybe more because I ride TO work at 7 am when there are very few cars on the road and I tend to be a bit on the crazy side. I do have issues with the way that cars treat me, yell at me, cut in front of me quickly and often seem to be doing it out of spite, but I usually don't try and fight them because well, I have no chance. The problem I have with this whole situation is; in the time I was getting pulled over, and immediately after, I saw multiple driving infractions that were not addressed in any way. For one, a driver made a LEFT on red, which I see ALL the time. Another car ran a yellow light AFTER I had been pulled over so I guess the cop could have busted trying to get to him, but definitely, did not. A whole bunch of cars switched lanes without signals and there was a car sitting in the bike lane, looking at their cell phone (that one REALLY gets me!). That was all in about 10 minutes, and I obviously see a lot more infractions as I am riding my 8 mile round trip to and from work. Then when a car passes me on the left and then has to stop at a red light or stop sign and I pull up past them on the right, they beep and yell at me and throw me the finger. SERIOUSLY?!? I know this is the wrong way to think about it, but honestly it makes me want to be an A-hole and starting using the full lane (so as to avoid the situation I just mentioned) and not try hard to get over to the right to allow cars to pass. I don't know...I was thinking today about all the bikers killed and I obviously do not want to be one of those. However, it feels pretty crappy to be seen and treated as a second class citizen because I choose a healthier option of commuting, both for myself and the environment. I will definitely be more mindful of stop signs and lights but not because it will piss less people off or keep me from getting tickets (well maybe that one a liitle bit) but because I need my body whole and healthy and you know, alive...

http://www.bekindtocyclists.org/

Bicycle Austin forum

#26 2010-02-16 22:19:49

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#27 2010-02-16 23:38:40

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#28 2010-02-17 10:06:41

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#29 2010-02-17 14:06:39

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#30 2010-02-18 10:05:14

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#31 2010-02-18 15:32:44

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#32 2010-02-19 14:42:21

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#33 2010-02-19 16:13:41

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#34 2010-02-19 18:15:02

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#35 2010-02-22 12:34:49

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#36 2010-02-22 13:06:47

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#37 2010-02-23 00:20:22

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#38 2010-02-23 15:28:24

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#39 2010-02-23 17:47:27

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#40 2010-02-25 11:23:32

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#41 2010-02-25 12:34:00

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#42 2010-02-25 12:59:14

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#43 2010-02-25 13:29:43

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#44 2010-02-25 13:34:45

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#45 2010-02-25 13:38:02

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#46 2010-02-25 15:59:27

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#47 2010-02-25 23:07:28

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#48 2010-02-26 01:35:56

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#49 2010-03-05 14:51:51

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#50 2012-11-28 23:15:52

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

Board footer