Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

Want respect? Obey the law.

…and, if you really cannot obey the law, please at least try to do so in the “high visibility” areas around town (Summit Ave; Smith Ave; the Greenway; the Chain O’ Lakes; Grand Rounds; etc).

Well my disapointment in the report was they could have made it into something positive. In other words stress to cyclists that, under the law, they have the same _responsibilities_ as any driver does.

In addtion they could have pointed out to motorists that cyclists have the same _rights_ as any other motorist.

Instead, as expected, they chose a villian and sensationalized it.

Add two that they broke the law to do it…
A) Talking from a car to a cyclist while in motion stikes me as potential interferance with a person operating a vehicle.

B) To conduct these on the fly interviews they were potentially with in 3 feet of the cylist, which is agains state law.

C) Did they wait for a cyclist to blow througha stop and then speed up to catch them? Then, on river road, the most like broke the speed limit.

But no… cyclists are evil. Cars are good…

I agree,obey the law. Face the consequences if you don’t. But using logic as presented in the report (and via replies on their web site) cars should also not be allowed on the road as drivers break the law too.

Even if the law of the land did not apply to cyclists, one would think that the “laws of physics” would persuade cyclists to follow the same customs that sane drivers do.

I once was asked by a coworker whether she “had to” get a helmet to ride her bike because of the law–my response was more or less “who cares?”, given that I’d much rather shatter a $40 helmet than my head. Scary to think that some people won’t do things sanely unless the threat of law enforcement is involved.

“Do I run stop signs? When there is no traffic to stop for I sure do. But if there is a single car around I stop.”

Funny, I remember John Stenner saying something like that.

Sure do miss the guy.

I guess it’s your choice. Maybe someday they will name a race after you, too.

Now you’re getting back on track (really do miss the Smithers’ Twitter though). Please, take the hate away from my site.

Back on message now - Double standards abound everywhere. This reminds me of when skateboarders were in the crosshairs.

The thing that KSTP missed out on (not surprizing) is that there is much more to this story that what they covered. Sure cyclists breaking the laws is a bad thing and I need to do a better job of it myself. The problem is the viciousness of the emotions involved. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. When I see someone jaywalk I don’t think to myself, “gee I should go throw something at them or punch them in the face”. Every see a runner cross the road when traffic is clear? Why not question/analyze the rage against cyclists instead of build it. I’ll answer my own question - because that takes too much effort and talent to be insightful and build a story that means something. It doesn’t fit their template for overhyped sensationalism.

How about a balanced piece on traffic violations on River Road. No excuse but nothing stops at those signs. Does anyone speed on that road? I did and got a ticket! I don’t now.

I try to obey the laws just as you do Smithers, but I do so mostly for my own safety. Sure, it looks bad when others don’t obey the laws, but I don’t believe for a second that if all cyclists played nicey nice it would improve the situation. The much bigger problems will still remain, i.e. that motorists don’t understand the laws pertaining to cyclists on the road, that many don’t believe that cyclists belong on the roads at all, and that many believe it’s a good thing to bolster our car-centric culture and further increase traffic speeds and volumes.

When it is a stop light I stop, until it is safe to cross, this because some of the lights to change because the sensors don’t pick up my bicycle.

If there are not any cars around at a stop sign I roll it. If there are cars I slow down and stop like the rest of people.

…

Bill Basso’s comment seems a little out of line and over the top. If I got caught running a stop sign I would probably pay the ticket, I would laugh at the fact I got caught, but lets be honest about something…they were utilizing a stop sign of a t-intersection with cyclists in the bike lane.

Seems a little mundane. I would much rather see a story done about cyclists going over the 10mph speed limit on the path!

Frye makes a good point.

The part about all this that gets me is that the story may insight some vigilanty tactics by drivers. It’s bad enough I have to deal with getting yelled at and/or buzzed during my commutes for no other reason than my exist as a cyclist on the road; now, I’m afraid some asshat will decide that it’s his/her job to teach me (or someone else) a lesson.

I confess. I did it. I could have been toast. The sad reality is that when push comes to shove, the cyclist will always be the recipient of road rage and this piece on tv will lead to more of the same. It could have been an opportunity for educating the public about the rightful place on the road for cyclists. Instead….the low road again. Anyone surprised here?

When its early in the morning and there is little traffic, at red lights I take a right, go about five feet, do a u-turn, and then take another right turn. Is this better than rolling through?

The rookie is right, those stop signs are next to irrelevant. There is zero effect on automotive traffic — what’s left is the well timed coordination of yield/acceleration with peds/bikes crossing the street, i.e. rudely crossing into a moving rider’s line at 8mph.

Over the top? Not at all.

It’s just like the track, you want to make everything you do deliberate and predictable in order that you get along with the others out there. You also want to make a habit of looking out for others who might not be as polite or inclined to follow etiquette.

Once you start heading down that slippery slope of improvising the rules as you go you are opening yourself up to trouble. Stenner’s not the only cyclist to get killed blowing a stop sign, but he’s a good example: he was an upright, intelligent man and a damn good human being and rider. He made racing fun. Even when he was kicking your ass he was telling you jokes. He was a joy to compete with, the guy was a great sportsman. If he can make that mistake you are kidding yourself thinking you are immune.

Sure the KSTP was picking low hanging fruit, they are hacks, but to be honest with you I would have stopped at that intersection. An intersection like that wouldn’t be a complete stop with my foot on the ground, but it would have been a brake and track stand on the pedals long enough to do a full survey of the intersection before proceeding. Basically the same thing expected of a motorist. I mean your on the street where statistically half the motorist out there are of below average intelligence(and that’s being optimistic), you need to be careful.

For years I used to commute daily a route from NE Mpls to Eden Prairie. I found it took no more time to follow the rules than to skirt them. I also found following the rules to be less mentally taxing.

My main pet peeve with street cyclists, especially when combined with blowing red lights and stop signs is passing on the right. Stop and wait behind traffic if there isn’t room for a car to proceed.

It is the rudest thing to do to motorist — pass them on the right while they wait at a controlled intersection and force the line of cars you just illegally passed to pass you once again. It’s little wonder motorists are frustrated with cyclist when they so flagrantly make themselves impediments to traffic flow.

My pet peeve…bikers that assert that they have as much right to the lane as cars, and ride on the left side of the white shoulder line versus on the right side of the line, which I think is considered the “bike lane”.

By law, they may well have the right, but what point are you making if you get smucked?

Hey, when is KSTP running the hard-hitting expose on jaywalking?

jroosh. i ride on the left of the line for a few reasons depending on the situation.

a) if there are parked cars to get out of the “door” zone.
b) to avoid the potholes, sand, and debris that piles up in the curbed lane.

These are only if the situation dictates it (spring is a prime time for reason B, and A happens on E. River Road just past the university.

jroosh - if you actually read the cycling statutes closely, you’ll discover that it’s technically illegal to drive a vehicle on the shoulder of the road. Bicycle = vehicle. Now, I don’t know of any cyclist who has ever been cited for doing so, and when I’m riding, if the shoulder is in safe condition for riding (smooth pavement and free of debris) I obviously do so as a courtesy to motorists. But unless the shoulder is marked as a bike lane - it’s illegal.

Under no circumstances is it illegal to ride a bicycle on the left side of the white shoulder stripe. Cyclists do indeed have a right to do so.

It’s from the Willy Horton school of journalism. Instead of baiting the electorate with wedge issue race or gay hatred issues, you’ve got hack journalists baiting the barely suppressed hatred of all those road ragers out there. “Hey honey, come and see this on the TV. Look at that &*%$&#% smug lyrcra-asshole getting his due.” And better yet, the report gives the car commuting nation reason to expiate all of their enviro-guilt against those infernal self-satisfied cyclists who have no such guilt.

I’ve commuted for 12 years by bike and been hit twice by cars. I didn’t know John Stenner For now, I’m on the bike trails and back streets during rush hour. After all, with this kind of bs reporting combined with the bluetooths and GPS units and other distractions, a driver doesn’t notice or cyclist or maybe just regards us as another target on the big-screen gaming console that’s his windshield.

a. kruse, I don’t doubt that it’s legal, I said that, but it’s one thing to be right, it’s another to be dead.

It’s like crossing a busy intersection when the Walk light comes on. You need to look both ways to make sure you can exercise your right to cross without getting killed.

and attitudes like yours are what make life hell for cyclists everywhere, like you have some inherent right to be yielded to simply because you’re wielding a 2000 lb death machine.

Most cyclists are well aware of physics. The point is that physics don’t write the road laws - legislators do, and motorists have just as much responsibility to obey the written laws as anyone else.

“My main pet peeve with street cyclists, …. is passing on the right. Stop and wait behind traffic if there isn’t room for a car to proceed.
It is the rudest thing to do to motorist — pass them on the right while they wait at a controlled intersection and force the line of cars you just illegally passed to pass you once again. It’s little wonder motorists are frustrated with cyclist when they so flagrantly make themselves impediments to traffic flow.”

I could care less about hurting some motorist’s “feelings” when my life is at stake.

If you’re stopping behind traffic you’re probably in the most vulnerable spot you could be. One inattentive driver coming up behind you (and not stopping in time) is all it takes to end up dead.

By passing stopped cars on the right and pulling to the front you also allow drivers to see you (if they like it or not). That way you completely eliminate the risk of being cut off or run over by the driver making a right turn because they didn’t see you.

I do it just to show them that I can get to work just as fast as they can, I always make sure I’m smiling as I go by them. Usually they don’t notice, too busy shaving, putting on makeup, talking on the phone or eating…

World’s stupidest bike lane video:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid2715 57392/bctid1504447505

“By passing stopped cars on the right and pulling to the front you also allow drivers to see you (if they like it or not). That way you completely eliminate the risk of being cut off or run over by the driver making a right turn because they didn’t see you.”

Huh? Passing them on the right puts you in the blind spot of every single vehicle you pass in the process, any of which may pull out of the lane of traffic to turn right–drivers are not good about signaling before making sudden moves like this. This is why bike lanes on the right side of the road make me nervous: drivers don’t expect traffic passing them between the right-most lane and the curb.

“… any of which may pull out of the lane of traffic to turn right–drivers are not good about signaling before making sudden moves…”

My point exactly. I was referring to the previous post as quoted- the assumption is that the cars are completely stopped (at a red light), bumper-to-bumper, no bike lane and therefore no room for them to pull out of the lane of traffic.

“…the assumption is that the cars are completely stopped (at a red light), bumper-to-bumper, no bike lane and therefore no room for them to pull out of the lane of traffic.”

That is not an assumption I *personally* am willing to bet my life on.

I refer to the previous post which stated that shoulders are not to be driven on in MN. This was very valuable information to me, because I was none the wiser.

The MN statute may be correct and the post may be correct. I do know that this law VARIES from state to state - why i dont know? Don’t we all live in the same country? or is that a misnomer?

My point is that how is anyone rider or driver supposed to know the law? Does every driver who drives across the state line, become infinitely aware of what the laws are associated to one state versus the next - NO!

Why make it so confusing? Why have one state have a 3 feet law and another a 2 feet law? Why allow one state to allow riding on the shoulder, e.g. Nebraska and another state to not, such as MN? What gives??

a. kruse, you’ve missed my point twice, and by the way, I am a cyclist.

I give cyclists full respect and consideration at all times, and not just because I am one; because I am in a car and they are unprotected.

When I am on my bike, I realize that motorists, who are just as likely to be text messaging as they are to be watching the road, are to be expected to do something to endanger me on my bike, intentionally or not.

As such, whether it’s the law or not, even if the law says I can ride down the middle of the lane naked with my middle finger in the air, I am going to stay as far to the right of the shoulder as possible.

Cocky bikers only risk their own lives. Do what you want but I’m not going to try to prove some stupid point by risking my life.

So… taking what the law entitles me to (riding my bicycle on the roads per MN statutes) qualifies me as ‘cocky’?

Oh that’s right, we are “cocky” if we obey the law!

It’s a privelege to use the road, not a right!

Perhaps, the state and federal governments could start spending some on education awareness programs on the rules of the road for all who travel on it, rather than just incenting motorists to drive around in larger vehicles hiding behind inadequate CAFE standards that are geared towards “trucks”.

So… taking what the law entitles me to (riding my bicycle on the roads per MN statutes) qualifies me as ‘cocky’?

I can’t believe I have to explain this again, but it might; yes! You may very well be in compliance with the law, enjoying your right to the road, and someone is text messaging and swerves into you. You were right, but you are still injured or dead.

As for Stephen, (Bianchi forever!), CAFE standards are irrelevant. If you are hit by a Smart ForTwo, you are in just as much peril as a if it was a Suburban.

As someone who has been hit my both a truck and a small sedan - I can tell you the truck is worse.