1. No, I do not argue that Bicyclists should be able to run lights. What I was pointing out was that your argument that running a red light is always inherently dangerous and speeding is not is fallacious. And, of course, the laws make it legal in certain circumstances for a bicyclist to run a light.

My comments:

I do not argue that speeding is never dangerous. I would agree that EXCESSIVE speeding (especially on residential streets) kills and that enforcement against such reckless motorists should be strict. But the Emanuel administration’s attempt to use speed cameras, to catch and ticket speeders going 5 miles per hour over the limit, is a thinly disguised revenue grab, masquerading as a safety campaign. Simply put, Mr. Emanuel is trying to turn commuters into criminals, all in the cynical name of “child safety.”

David wrote:

And if cars want to continue to have a seat at the table of living in the city they have to stop this infernal culture of speeding and they need to STOP for pedestrians in intersections. They presently do neither. Its hypocritical to hold the “less dangerous” vehicle to a much higher standard… yet that’s what many of the drivers wish to do.

My comment:

The hypocrisy here goes both ways. While certain segments of the cyclist community pontificate about motorist bad behavior, those same santimonious blowhards ignore the bad behavior in their own community. It is that shared hypocrisy that on each side that has cyclists and motorists at each other’s throats.

2. Speeding tickets? In the City? Hah. I was a witness to an accident and I attended a Court date involving a driver who was going 75 on Foster at Rush hour, came across a backlog, rolled down the side walk, came off the sidewalk and smashed into about six cars. He did significant damage to several cars and caused serious injury to quite a few people. And he did no jail time and did not lose any driving privileges. Cars routinely and regularly speed in Chicago.

My comment: The fact that you observed an accident where a driver was not ticketed does translate to the conclusion that Chicago police do not give out speeding tickets. If that were the case, the traffic courts at the Daley Center would be considerably less busy.

David wrote:

3. Facts are persistent things. And how many pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in Chicago in the past 5 years? In the case of injury to the bicyclist, it was his stupidity of running the light.

My comments:

No question that cars do injure more people than bikes. But that disparity in injury statistics does not make red light running any less da ngerous. Nor does that disparity justify anything less than a fair, across-the-board enforcement of traffic infractions for both bikes and cars. This is particlarly the case with seniors. One collision between a bike and a senior (resulting from a blown traffic light or stop sign), could result in a broken hip or worse. Bicycle mounted police would be the ideal way to handle this issue, for those cyclists who flout the traffic laws.

David wrote:

4. I regularly go up and down Irving, Western and Ashland and have never seen a speed trap.

My comment:

You must be very lucky. One of the favorite places for a speed trap is on eastbound Irving Park, in one of the obscured turn-off drives across from Graceland cemetary. You don’t see the police car until you’re right on top of him. D’Oh!!

1. You argue that cyclists should be allowed to run red lights if “no cars or pedestrians can be seen for some distance.” This is the kind of thinking that creates accidents. While an intersection may seem safe, vehicles and pedestrians (especially children) have a tendency to come out of nowhere, when you least expect it.

My comment:
No, I do not argue that Bicyclists should be able to run lights. What I was pointing out was that your argument that running a red light is always inherently dangerous and speeding is not is fallacious. And, of course, the laws make it legal in certain circumstances for a bicyclist to run a light.

Jeff wrote:

If bikers truly want to have a seat at the transportation table, the cyclist culture of blowing through redlights and stop signs has to come to end. This is especially the case if cyclists are going to be increasingly travelling congested Loop streets.

My comment:
And if cars want to continue to have a seat at the table of living in the city they have to stop this infernal culture of speeding and they need to STOP for pedestrians in intersections. They presently do neither. Its hypocritical to hold the “less dangerous” vehicle to a much higher standard… yet that’s what many of the drivers wish to do.

Jeff wrote:
2. As for your point about selective enforcement, I agree it is wrong. While motorists are ticketed regularly for speeding and other infractions in Chicago, there is almost no enforcement for traffic violations by cyclists. That selective enforcement is a major part of the conflict between cyclists and motorists.

My comment:
Speeding tickets? In the City? Hah. I was a witness to an accident and I attended a Court date involving a driver who was going 75 on Foster at Rush hour, came across a backlog, rolled down the side walk, came off the sidewalk and smashed into about six cars. He did significant damage to several cars and caused serious injury to quite a few people. And he did no jail time and did not lose any driving privileges. Cars routinely and regularly speed in Chicago.

Jeff wrote:
3. While it is true (as you state) that being hit by a car is far more dangerous than being hit by a bike, the cyclist who runs the run light runs the risk of hitting a vehicle or a pedestrian. Either way, serious injury is the result. Either the cyclist is seriously hurt when striking a car, or the pedestrian is seriously hurt when they are knocked down by a cyclists and their head slams into the pavement. (Just ask former Mayor Daley’s nephew how easy it is to kill someone by slamming their head down on the sidewalk.)

My comment:
Facts are persistent things. And how many pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in Chicago in the past 5 years? In the case of injury to the bicyclist, it was his stupidity of running the light.

Jeff wrote:
4. I would agree that side streets should not be travelled at speeds over 20 miles per hour. I live on a narrow side street, so this only makes sense to me. But the 30 mile per hour limit on four lane arterial streets (Irving Park Road, Western Avenue, Ashland Avenue, etc.) is contrary to the 85th percentile rule. And, of course, it is on these four lane arterial streets that Chicago police will routinely set the most lucrative speed traps.

My comment:
I regularly go up and down Irving, Western and Ashland and have never seen a speed trap.

1. You argue that cyclists should be allowed to run red lights if “no cars or pedestrians can be seen for some distance.” This is the kind of thinking that creates accidents. While an intersection may seem safe, vehicles and pedestrians (especially children) have a tendency to come out of nowhere, when you least expect it.

If bikers truly want to have a seat at the transportation table, the cyclist culture of blowing through redlights and stop signs has to come to end. This is especially the case if cyclists are going to be increasingly travelling congested Loop streets.

Note the following article discussing red light running as an embedded tradition among cyclists in both the US and other countries:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/08/why-do-cyclists-run-red-lights/2840/

2. As for your point about selective enforcement, I agree it is wrong. While motorists are ticketed regularly for speeding and other infractions in Chicago, there is almost no enforcement for traffic violations by cyclists. That selective enforcement is a major part of the conflict between cyclists and motorists.

3. While it is true (as you state) that being hit by a car is far more dangerous than being hit by a bike, the cyclist who runs the run light runs the risk of hitting a vehicle or a pedestrian. Either way, serious injury is the result. Either the cyclist is seriously hurt when striking a car, or the pedestrian is seriously hurt when they are knocked down by a cyclists and their head slams into the pavement. (Just ask former Mayor Daley’s nephew how easy it is to kill someone by slamming their head down on the sidewalk.)

4. I would agree that side streets should not be travelled at speeds over 20 miles per hour. I live on a narrow side street, so this only makes sense to me. But the 30 mile per hour limit on four lane arterial streets (Irving Park Road, Western Avenue, Ashland Avenue, etc.) is contrary to the 85th percentile rule. And, of course, it is on these four lane arterial streets that Chicago police will routinely set the most lucrative speed traps.

Like any study, the Hunter College study can be challenged or critiqued. The point here is that cyclist disregard for traffic safety cannot be dismissed as an urban legend, or as the ranting of anti-cyclist pundits.

My comment
My point is that cars, which are FAR more dangerous than bicycles, routinely violate the traffic laws as well. Selective enforcement is simply wrong.

The comparison between bikers (who are more likely to run red lights) and motorists (who are more likely to exceed speed limits) is a false comparison.

My comment:
Is it? How many pedestrians and motorists were killed last year when struck by Bicycles? How many pedestrians and bicyclists were killed when struck by motorists? You have focused on one violation — that of some bicyclists running some red lights. If it were “dangerous” to others, one would assume that some people would have been killed. Yet certainly there have been fatalities caused by excessive speed. Yes, it really isn’t a fair comparison because one causes a lot more harm to third parties than the other.

Jeff wrote:
In the first place, while both motorists and cyclists can run red lights, only cyclists can speed. Bicycles simply cannot travel at the same speed as cars, so speeding is not comparable to red light running.

My comment:
I assume you mean that only Motorists can speed. And that’s part of the point. Even on side streets cars get up to far faster speeds.

Jeff wrote:
Moreover, while running a red light is dangerous regardless of the circumstances, that is not necessarily the case with speed limits. Speeding 5 miles per hour over the limit is not appreciably more dangerous than travelling at the posted speed limit.

My comment:
Is it? Running a red light on a quiet intersection late at night with no cars or pedestrians that can be seen for some distance is “dangerous”? In fact, the city already recognizes that a bicycle running a red light is NOT inherently dangerous. The traffic laws allow a bicycle to cross through a red light if it has remained red for a certain period of time. This is because some red lights do not trigger off for bicycles.

Jeff wrote:
In addition, note that traffic engineers will tell you that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile – at the speed at which 85% of the cars are travelling at or below that speed.

My comment
Yes and No. You also have to take into account stopping distances and non-car users of the streets. We have created all sorts of artificial barriers to cars in this city (speed bumps, traffic circles, Cul de Sac’s) because of the pervasive culture of speeding on the part of cars in this city.

Jeff wrote:
In Chicago and many other cities, speed limits on many streets are set artificially low. Those artificially low limits are set with the likely goal of increased revenue – rather than traffic safety.

My comment:
I call Bullshit on that comment. 25 is plenty fast for a sidestreet. Many Chicago side streets are very narrow and anything over that increases stopping distances. At 25 MPH the total distance to stop is 85 feet (55 feet in reaction time) at 35 mph the total distance to stop is 135 feet only 77 of which is reaction time (the brake time is nearly double).

Jeff wrote:
So if a car happens to be travelling at 36 miles an hour on Irving Park Road (six miles above the speed limit), the motorist who gets a ticket is getting it because the city set the speed limit artifically low – in the name of revenue, and not for the sake of traffic safety.

My comment:
Bad example. Irving Park Road is a radically different street than almost everything that parallels it. The speed limit on IPR is likely too low and no sane bicyclist ever rides on it. The problem is the excessive speed on the rest of the streets.

My gut feeling is the same as you on this.

Based on how many bike riders I see ignoring the law, I expect a lot of bikers blowing off this proposed bicycle traffic lights.

We plan on bringing a video camera down there to see how many bike riders actually obey the bicycle traffic lights when (if) they get installed.

The comparison between bikers (who are more likely to run red lights) and motorists (who are more likely to exceed speed limits) is a false comparison.

In the first place, while both motorists and cyclists can run red lights, only cyclists can speed. Bicycles simply cannot travel at the same speed as cars, so speeding is not comparable to red light running.

Moreover, while running a red light is dangerous regardless of the circumstances, that is not necessarily the case with speed limits. Speeding 5 miles per hour over the limit is not appreciably more dangerous than travelling at the posted speed limit.

In addition, note that traffic engineers will tell you that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile – at the speed at which 85% of the cars are travelling at or below that speed. In Chicago and many other cities, speed limits on many streets are set artificially low. Those artificially low limits are set with the likely goal of increased revenue – rather than traffic safety. So if a car happens to be travelling at 36 miles an hour on Irving Park Road (six miles above the speed limit), the motorist who gets a ticket is getting it because the city set the speed limit artifically low – in the name of revenue, and not for the sake of traffic safety.

David Wrote:
My Comment:
For which Cops write tickets.

There is something to look into….a FOIA of the number of Tickets issued by Chicago Police to Bike Riders in 2011 and 2010 and YTD 2012.

I bet people would be surprised at how Few are actually issued for “Riding on the Sidewalk, Person over 12″ or “Failure to Stop” at a Signal or Stop Sign or “driving the wrong way down a street” (whatever that MCC or ILVC is….)

Like any study, the Hunter College study can be challenged or critiqued. The point here is that cyclist disregard for traffic safety cannot be dismissed as an urban legend, or as the ranting of anti-cyclist pundits. It is an observable phenomenon that has been measured in several academic studies, including the Hunter College study.

For another article discussing a similar study by Portland (Oregon) State University, click here:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/uncomfortable-relationship-between-bikes-and-red-lights/623/

As noted in that study, cyclists in Portland, Oregon (a city that has made great accomodations for cyclists), cyclists were over 8 times more likely (7 percent of motorists versus 58% of cyclists) to run red lights than motorists at the same intersections.

If you want facts about cyclists and traffic laws, check out the following New York Times article. The article discusses a recent study by researchers at Hunter College, concluding that cyclists routinely disobey traffic laws:

My comment:
One of the major violations was a “failure to wear a helmet”. That has no impact on anyone other than the Cyclist. Another violation was use of a sidewalk by children under 14. In Chicago that’s actually legal. As for “riding against traffic”, that’s just plain stupid on the part of the bicyclists and the number (13%) seems high. Could it be they chose a location where street patterns create this? As for the 57% “ignoring” red lights, it would be interesting to see how this is defined.

And, of course, depending on location, we could show 90% or more of cars violating the traffic laws by speeding.