Comments on: Proposed Anchorage bicycle law dangerous for bicyclists, especially children

By: • Anchorage rewrite of Title 9 makes cyclists liable for wrecks if they are hit crossing a roadway « Alaska Bicycle and Pedestrian Alliance

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:09:19 +0000

[...] the Anchorage Press, Anchorage Daily News and other media. Thomas Pease’s guest editorial had this discussion on the BCA site. Here is the current discussion thread about the Title 9 rewrite on the [...]

By: kat

kat — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:09:08 +0000

i was under the mistaked impression that the same rules applied to bikes as to cars,or pedestrians when coming up to an intersection you stop and look both ways and yeld to the traffic in motion, this doesnt happen at most of the intersections on tudor rd, i see bikes flying through the intersections without even looking, its a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed,

By: Damian

Damian — Fri, 07 May 2010 07:22:24 +0000

I think many of us choose the sidewalk over the road. This is especially true on high speed roads or roads with very little shoulder. The sidewalk gives the sense of safety because we are separated from the traffic by a curb. But, as you noted cyclist have to be extra vigilant on sidewalks. Many motorist will over-shoot cross walks or stop lines. You may have not experienced a problem with riding on sidewalks because you are aware of your surroundings and adjust accordingly. The proposed law is more about fundamental attitudes. Nationwide there is a movement to stop distracted driving. A car is a dangerous appliance and drivers need to become more careful and their attitudes need to be shifted to be more safe and defensive. The proposed language relaxes the driver’s duties to be safe and to respect other road users. Thanks for your comments and keep on bike commuting!

By: tpatten

tpatten — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:40:55 +0000

I might be in the minority here, but when bike lanes are absent and a sidewalk is available, I believe all cyclists should use them. The reasons that roads are “safer” for those on bikes, is that those cyclists frequently don’t take the time to be safe. Many don’t look carefully at all side roads and driveways before they cross them and many don’t look to their rear when crossing an intersection. I ride on sidewalks for miles a day but I do all of those things and have never come close to having a problem.

Cyclists riding in the road should be courteous and stay as far to the right as possible and obey all traffic laws including obeying traffic signals and not passing cars or trucks on their right unless they have a bike lane. In other words, when at a red light it is illegal to pass all the lined up cars.

By: Obsolescence « la bomba shelter

Obsolescence « la bomba shelter — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:48:33 +0000

[...] The best transportation choice since the beginning of the industrial age, the bicycle still doesn’t get any respect. [...]

By: CityKid

CityKid — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:21:44 +0000

Brian says:
March 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm

I think we would all like to see more bike infrastructure on the road that makes it safer for bicycle use. But we just dont have that yet.

And speaking from experience, I’ve been commuting for the last 30+ years and have 10,000 mile or more on my gams, we will get nowhere in Anchorage until we demand a place on the streets. The Bike Plan is a good start but, in reality, it gives us nothing – it’s just a set of recommendations. I’m sure you are aware of what has been happening in other places. Simply put, you take the street – or you get screwed. Politicians follow the path of least resistance.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:02:33 +0000

I think we would all like to see more bike infrastructure on the road that makes it safer for bicycle use. But we just dont have that yet. And even if the Anchorage Bike Plan is implemented as proposed, its a 20 year plan so it will take time to get a fully connected bike network in place that allows for safe bicycle use on the road. BCA agrees that bicycle use on the sidewalks is generally a very dangerous proposition and that bicyclists are safer on the road, where they are more visible to motorists and their intentions are more predictable. Visibility and predictability are very important factors in reducing car-bike collisions. However, there are many places in Anchorage where, currently, it is just not safe to be on the road, and while it isnt safe to be on the sidewalk, it is safer and the dangers are easier to avoid if you are well educated on how to bicycle safely in an urban setting (something many in Anchorage lack). While bicycling on sidewalks may be disempowering, emphasizing the priority of cars over bikes, BCA focuses first and foremost on safety. We promote safety above principals. So with that understanding we educate bicyclists to avoid sidewalks when the road is the better place to be (and there are a variety of factors that influence that decision including volume and speed of traffic and conditions of road). But BCA also advises bicyclists to not place themselves in dangerous road situations. This may mean using the sidewalk. And when on the sidewalk we then instruct the bicyclist to ride in a different manner (for example, being ultra alert of traffic coming from the sides, of traffic coming from behind that may take a right turn while you are crossing a driveway or street, to not proceed in front of a car looking to merge unless you have eye contact and acknowledgment to safely pass in front of them). Until we have better bicycle infrastructure, we will continue to see many bicyclists on the sidewalk. As a result, we will do all we can to ensure that those on the sidewalk are adequately protected by law.

By: Mark Fitch

Mark Fitch — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:34:30 +0000

Two flaws (at least) exist in the APD request.

First, they wish to revert to a confused set of conditions. A car must yield to another car, but not a bike, but they must yield to a pedestrian. How many motorists can run through this checklist fast enough to avoid an accident? There is a reason the standard in all US states is “straight away has right of way.” Look both ways before crossing any street (route) is also good advice. Easy to remember is good.

APD provides a “suspected” reason for the previous change. They are wrong. That change was made at my request for the reason stated above.

APD also states that cyclists moving at 20-30 mph are the problem. Even if this were true, motorists are moving at 35-50 mph and would still see the cyclist ahead of time if they looked at all. The concern about visibility, which is clearly valid, also applies to pedestrians for whom the police state there is no problem. This renders that argument invalid (inconsistent is not logical). Finally if cyclists are moving at 20-30 mph on shared paths, they are already in violation of the law requiring speeds match conditions. A stated speed limit for cyclists on trails would be an easier way to adjust for this.

APD has a valid concern. Their suggestion, however, is neither reasonable nor effective.

By: Huliavita

Huliavita — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:33:51 +0000

When you talk about bike lanes are you thinking about the shrinkage of the roads in the winter time? Besides I commute around town and I am unaware of many bike lanes in town. However I like to stick to the bike paths if possible because when I ride I am meditating. I don’t want to think about the pile up of vehicles behind me on the roads. Also, I was hit on the sidewalk no less in midtown last year by a vehicle on Bike to work Day. It took out my bike, helmet, and left me with a fractured ankle. I was in a very visable spot and there is no reason the driver shouldn’t of been able to see me. Medical bills where about $15,000. That doesn’t include the replacement of my bike or helmet. I understand that it was an accident and I also am much more cautious now. The municipality was very helpful and fully on my side the entire fight with the insurance company.
However if I have to wait for every motorist at every driveway or intersection my commute is going to double in time. In the winter my commute is already longer. I am selfish and personally don’t want to add more time.
I can’t imagine that my 16 year old dare devil boy is going to stop for every motorist. I have a hard enough time strapping a helmet to his head. Plus I am not sure I want him biking in the middle of the road in midtown besides that he does not drive yet and he does not have auto insurance. The laws put in place for people of all ages. Motorists are required to take a test and have insurance before hitting the roads. If the blame is put on the bicyclist then the bikers pays for the damage regardless of being insured or not. Is that fair to our minors or to those who can’t afford a vehicle or auto insurance?

By: CityKid

CityKid — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:06:04 +0000

OK – so much for “tough love” I agree with you. BUT – except for young children, say under the age of 14, and under extremely adverse conditions, it is my belief that cyclists belong on the road, not on the sidewalk. Like I have said over and over The Municipality, by placing cyclists on the sidewalks, gets to side-step a host of issues relevant to the rights given to bicyclists by the laws as defined by The Municipality and The State of Alaska. Riding on the sidewalks is dis-empowering NOT empowering.