Fit City

By pam

October 22, 2009 3:53 PM | Link to this

:-D

By Mike W

October 22, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this

Good stuff! At least the city was smart enough to do what Perry didn’t.

I wonder if this also goes for pedestrians when there is no sidewalk? Any idea?

By s

October 22, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this

I say just run them over if they get in the way!

By BKinATX

October 22, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this

The problem is the majority of cyclists I encounter get too close to ME. The whoose through stopped traffic or stop suddenly when i’m 8-10 feet behind. Are they going to be ticketed if they get too close to a car? And really, if there’s an accident and my car is top of a cyclist and there’s no real witnesses, who’s going to think it was the cyclists fault (even if it was…)? This is one of 2 asinine driving laws Austin passed today. Austin is in the suck bucket for a while in my book.

By Opsmit

October 22, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this

HOw come it seems like the majoity of cyclists don’t follow any laws but expect special treatment? Shouldn’t that be part of the ordinance? Maybe if they paid more attention and acted like they were part of traffic as opposed to above it, you wouldn’t need ordinances like this one.

By Travis Cook

October 22, 2009 3:59 PM | Link to this

It must be wonderful to have a job that lets you come and go as you please. I am exhausted with your petulant whine that you have rights. Well, commuters have rights to. The right to drive a road without one of you self important, look at me cyclists, demanding your new rights be respected. You won’t ever see a rancher bicycling. Why is that? Because real people, have real jobs, and can’t afford to loiter behind cyclists with rights, but no sense of responsibility to the 1,000s of people you slow down everyday to assert our “rights” I;m beginning to think that no one under 40 should be allowed to vote.

By catwoman2009

October 22, 2009 4:03 PM | Link to this

I hope part of this ordinance says the cyclists have to ride single file. The gaggle of 3 or 4 riding shoulder to shoulder has to be banned to enforce this law.

By c

October 22, 2009 4:05 PM | Link to this

to BKinATX: Ditto! Plus, in order for me to get 3’ away from cyclists, I would have to straddle the line between lanes or veer into oncoming traffic in order to pass them. What say, cyclists? How about if you keep to the far right of the lane you’re in, including the shoulder? I’ll be as courteous to you as you are to me.

By Sunshi\

October 22, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this

I only wish they’d build a curb between the bike lanes and the road.

By catwoman2009

October 22, 2009 4:07 PM | Link to this

The cyclists should be required to ride single file only. It is the gaggle of 3 or 4 of these guys riding shoulder to shoulder that is so dangerous & impossible to get around. And those outfits-they REALLY should be outlawed!!

By Ride a bike

October 22, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

So are bitter because you have a job that doesn’t allow you to ride a bike? I work downtown and I know plenty of construction workers who ride bicycles into town. Do they not have real jobs? The roads are for everyone, they don’t belong just to you.

By c

October 22, 2009 4:09 PM | Link to this

Ditto to BKinATX’s comment that cyclists are too close to cars. In order for me to keep 3’ from a cyclist, most times I will have to straddle the line into the lane next to me or into oncoming traffic. What say you, cyclists? How about if you stay to the far right of your lane, including the shoulder? I’ll treat you with as much courtesy as you extend to me.

By Amused in Austin

October 22, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

So whats next, a law saying you have to give 6 feet to a skateboarder or 8 feet to a roller-skater who thinks they can keep up with 35mph traffic?

I guess the city council’s long term plan is to jam the downtown streets with so much unsafe crap no traffic can move at all, so we’ll all have to walk around anyways.

By cc

October 22, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this

Ditto to BKinATX’s comment that cyclists get too close to cars. In order for me to stay 3’ from a cyclist, most times I will have to straddle the line between lanes or oncoming traffic. What say you, cyclists? How about you stay in the far right of your lane, including the shoulder? I will treat you with the same amount of courtesy you extend to me.

By Eddie

October 22, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this

S, you have some bad mojo coming to you. I really feel sorry for you and your thinking that killing someone is appropriate. You are basically saying it is ok to Murder someone.

To all others, is it really that much of a problem to take an extra 5 seconds to pass someon carefully on a bike? Really? You wait at least a minute at red lights. Also, if a cyclist is dumb enough to run red light, cut through cars or not respect the size of a motor vehicle, then that is their problem. However, this IS NOT every cyclist out there.

By Austinite

October 22, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this

I expect the same rule to apply to cyclists. Meaning no passing a stopped car by riding on the curb or riding down the middle white line between the cars. When the cars stop, cyclists stop too!!

By elvis

October 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Link to this

Yes it is! Time to throw a party in celebration!!

By How About No Feet Behind?

October 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Link to this

Move back to Cali you tree huggers and take Pam and her bike with you.

Love the way you present all sides of the arguments Pam, seem to like talking to yourself…thats a little creepy.

You all have tons and tons of designated bike lanes all around Austin. Do you chose to use those? No.

Us commuters who are trying to make it to work on time have to idle behind your anorexic arses (which are gross to say the least) and wait and wait.

I will be bringing a measure in front of the Council that every bike has to be registered in the City and has to pay a $100 a year fee for bike lane maintenance. Why Not?

You Libs should just stay inside your houses…its just better for all of us that way.

Also stay off MoPac, its illegal for bikes to be on that stretch of road.

By osama

October 22, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this

what makes anyone think this is going to help cyclists? how many cyclists die per year in the state of Texas?

How many cyclists die

Risk of death from cycling compared to driving. This is difficult to calculate because we don’t know the number of bicycle miles traveled in the U.S. annually, because the sources disagree so strongly:

150 billion

Consumer Product Safety Commission “Bicycle Study (PDF)” (doc. #344), 1991. States 67M cyclists riding 15B hours. Frankly, this figure is not very believable. 6 to 21 billion

U.S. Dept. of Trans. / Fed. Hwy Admin. “The Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking”, 1993 6.2 billion

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Household Travel Survey, 2001

So we'll compare risk at both the 6.2 billion and 21 billion miles traveled levels.

784 cyclists died in 2005 (p. 86). That would make the death rate 0.37 to 1.26 deaths per 10 million miles.

33,041 motorists/passengers died (p. 86) from 3 trillion miles traveled (p. 15), making their death rate 0.11 per 10 million miles traveled.

So cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile. Neither conclusion is very happy.

However, all these figures include people who ride dangerously, such as against traffic, at night without lights, on sidewalks, or through red lights/stop signs without adequately checking cross-traffic. A study in Washington State found that 11% cycling fatalities involved wrong-way riding. Subtracting out 11% of the nationwide deaths, we find that cyclists who don't ride against traffic are 3x to 10.2x more likely to get killed than motorists.

More than 80% of fatalities for child bicyclists 14 and under were caused by unsafe riding (riding the wrong way, running signs, etc.), However, I can't subtract out those fatalities, because then I'd be counting some wrong-way fatalities twice, since I already subtracted out wrong-way riding for all cyclists above.

I would like to subtract out fatalities where the cyclist was riding at night without lights, or riding on the sidewalk, or ran a traffic signal, but I can't find the data. If you can find the percent of fatalities (not crashes) caused by these things, please share!

(All figures from NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2005 (PDF) except where otherwise linked. The BTS gives a slightly different figure for car passenger miles, 2.7 trillion. )

The Risks of Cycling. Ken Kifer has a huge page with lots of stats and analysis. His conclusion is that cycling is not dangerous. Ironically, he was later killed while riding his bike.

Deaths per year. 725, 629, 665, 732, and 693 cyclists died per year in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000 respectively, and were about 89% male. (National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration, and Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey)

Health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. “The gain of ‘life years’ through improved fitness among regular cyclists, and thus their increased longevity exceeds the loss of ‘life years’ in cycle fatalities. (British Medical Association, 1992) An analysis based on the life expectancy of each cyclist killed in road accidents using actuarial data, and the increased longevity of those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, has shown that, even in the current cycle hostile environment, the benefits in terms of life years gained, outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1.” — Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, and British Medical Association researcher (7, 8)

Cyclists are 2% of road deaths & injuries. The 761 cyclists killed in 1996 accounted for 2% of traffic fatalities, and the 59,000 cyclists injured made up 2% of all traffic injuries. (5)

Cyclists accounted for 12% of all nonmotorist traffic fatalities in 1996. Pedestrians accounted for 86 percent, and the remaining 2 percent were skateboard riders, roller skaters, etc. (5)

Cycling deaths higher in 70’s & 80’s. The number of cyclist fatalities in 1996 was 19% lower than the 941 fatalities reported in 1986. The highest number of cyclist fatalities ever recorded was 1,003 in 1975. (5)

Cyclists killed since 1932. Nearly 44,000 cyclists have died in traffic crashes in the United States since 1932 &emdash; the first year in which estimates of cyclist fatalities were recorded. (5)

Cyclists killed IN 1932. The 350 cyclists killed in 1932 accounted for 1.3% of the 27,979 persons who died in traffic crashes that year. (5)

Note this colection of reports about cyclist injuries & fatalities by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Also note their Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which covers all road users.

Where cyclists die or crash

U.S. cyclists are three more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more than Dutch cyclists, whether compared per-trip or per-distance traveled. (Reuters, Aug. 28, 2003, by Maggie Fox)

Saftey in numbers. Worldwide, the greater the concentration of cyclists, the lower the fatality rate. That is, the more cyclists, the safer it is to cycle. By converse, the fewer cyclists, the more dangerous it is to cycle. This is a main reason why cyclists oppose helmet laws, because they’re shown to reduce the number of cyclists, and that makes cycling more dangerous for those who remain (whether they wear a helmet or not). The Safety in Numbers principle was proved even within this country, as NYC has a similar rate of cycling fatalities per capita compared to the rest of the country, but nearly four times as many people bike or walk to work in NYC compared to the rest of the U.S. (Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City PDF, 1996-2005)

Cyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (66%), at nonintersection locations (67%), between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. (30%), and during the months of June, July, and August (36%). (NHTSA, 2004)

89% of fatal bike crashes in NYC occurred at or within 25 feet of intersections. (“Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City”, PDF, NYC government, 2005)

The most common bike-car collision is a driver failing to yield at a stop sign. (Bicycling Life, 1995)

Study shows the most common kinds of bike-car collisions. (Bicycling Life, 1995)

Riding the wrong way (against traffic) is three times as dangerous as riding the right way, and for kids, it’s seven times as dangerous. (Bicycling Life, 1985-89)

Riding on the sidewalk is several more times more dangerous than riding in the street. (William Moritz, 1998) Another study says it’s twice as dangerous. (Bicycling Life, 1985-89)

Most deaths on major roads. Fifty-seven percent of bicycle deaths in 1999 occurred on major roads, and 37 percent occurred on local roads. (6)

Streets with bike lanes have a significantly lower crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities (38 and 56% respectively). (William Moritz, 1998)

Streets with bike lanes are safer than those without. Article also has information about the safety of bike paths. (BicyclingInfo.org, 2004)

Texas leads cycling deaths. Texas ranks 14th in number of cyclist fatalities per capita. (5)

Four states lead cycling deaths. Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) accounted for 43% of bicycle deaths in 1999. (6)

Austin stats. Statistics specific to Austin are listed below.

When cyclists die

Many deaths occur at night. In 1999, 39% of deaths on bicycles nationwide occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight. (9) (more on when cyclists died)

Age of cycling victims

Child cyclists killed. Cyclists under age 16 accounted for 24% of all cyclists killed in 2002. (Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey) Cyclists under 16 were 33% of all cyclists killed and 45% of those injured in traffic crashes in 1996. In comparison, cyclists under age 16 accounted for 47 percent of all those killed in 1986. (5)

Average age of killed/injured cyclists. In 1996 the average age of cyclists killed in traffic crashes was 31 years, and the average age of those injured was 23.2 years. In 1986, the average age was 23 years. (5)

Non-Fatal Injuries

Risk of injury from cycling compared to driving. 45,000 cyclists vs. 2.4M motorists were injured in 2005, from traveling 6.2 billion milies and 1.6 M-M miles respectively, yielding 7.3 injuries per million miles for cyclists and 1.5 injuries per million miles traveled for motorists, making cyclists 4.9 times more likely to be injured per mile of travel. NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2005 (PDF)

Kinds of crashes. Falls account for 59% of all crashes, running into a fixed object 14%, moving motor vehicles were involved in 11%, and another bicycle in 9%. (Moritz, 1998)

One in every 20 bicyclists is injured annually.(Bicycling Magazine 1987)

A bicyclist can expect a minor injury every three years and a more serious one every fifteen. (Bicycle Forum 1978)

Bike Lanes

We have a separate page about the safety of bike lanes.

Helmets

Head injuries going up with increased helmet usage. Between 1991 and 2001 two things happened: helmet use among cyclists soared, and head injuries soared along with it. Head injuries among cyclists went up by 10% on a simple basis, but when we factor in the dramatic decrease in the number of cyclists during that period, head injuries effectively went up by 51%. (New York Times, 2001)

Helmet use went from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 2008. (Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1999)

Helmet use and opinion survey. (NHTSA, 2008)

The Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling has lots of information about helmet efficacy.

DWI, Cell Phones, and DWD (Driving While Drowsy)

DWI & crashes. Alcohol involvement — either for the driver or the cyclist — was reported in more than one third of the traffic crashes that resulted in cyclist fatalities in 1996. In 28% percent of the crashes, either the driver or the cyclist was intoxicated, with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0.10 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater. Lower alcohol levels (BAC 0.01 to 0.09 g/dl) were reported in an additional 8.3%. Nearly one fourth (23.9%) of thecyclists killed had a BAC of 0.01 g/dl or greater, and nearly one-fifth (17.9%) were intoxicated. (5)

BAC lowered by .02 per hour. Alcohol is removed from the body at approximately .02 per hour. Useful for estimating blood alcohol level at the time of a collision, if the test is administered hours after the collision. (unattributed)

The risk of having a car crash while using a cell phone is the same as that while driving drunk. (read the article)

Cell phone use is just as dangerous as driving drunk, and hands-free phones are no safer than handheld phones. (Bloomberg, July 2006)

Driving while Drowsy. More than half of Americans admit to driving while drowsy. Is this really a problem? Hell yes! Many fatalaties are caused by motorists who fall asleep at the wheel. And when sleeping drivers injure or kill cyclists, and then often don’t face any penalties! (For example, see the case of Jason Boardman & Cameron Cooper, also listed in the table.)

Speeding. The Wisconsin State Journal points out that everyone is focused on the danger of drunk driving, while speeding is potentially an even bigger problem.

Yes, "everybody does it" - or at least 71 percent of licensed drivers, according to the American Automobile Association. Nationwide, 13,713 died last year [2003] in accidents caused by speeding. That's about 400 more fatalities than were caused by drunken driving in 2002.

Moreover, while the number of drunken driving fatalities has fallen 37 percent nationwide in the past 20 years, the number of fatal accidents has been rising steadily in the 22 states that have raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more since 1995. Safety experts say the risk of death in a crash doubles for every 10-mph increase in speed.

Some Western European nations have already recognized that speeding can be just as dangerous as drunken driving. In England, for example, the government launched a campaign: "Kill your speed - not a child." It also installed lots of roadside cameras to photograph and tickets speeders. (Alas, photo radar is illegal in Wisconsin.) The result of the British campaign: a 50 percent reduction in speeding-related fatalities. (full article)

Miscellaneous

Stats specific to Austin

A good collection of statistics regarding car-bike collisions in Austin is available on the bicycle section of the City’s Safe Communities page. Here are some excerpts from their report (percentages have been rounded):

* An average of 2.4 cyclists dies each year in Austin. (From 1980-96, the fewest in any one year was 0, and the most was 7.)
* Of the 41 cyclists killed between 1980-1996, 39 were struck by motor vehicles. (>95%)
* 80% of the victims were age 39 or under.
* From 1990-96, 12 cyclists were killed, but another 1,222 were injured. Of those injured, around 15% suffered incapacitating injuries (i.e., needed help leaving the scene of the crash).
* Surprisingly, from 1994-96, nearly 78% of cyclist injuries occurred during daylight hours, which a huge chunk of the total (42%) occurring during just the four-hour period of 4-8pm.
* However, although nighttime collisions are more rare, they're also more dangerous. While only 22% of all injuries occurred at dusk or at night, 46% of fatal and incapacitating injuries did.
* From 1994-96, 57% of bicycle injuries either occurred at intersections or were intersection-related. Another 16% occurred at commercial or residential driveways. Since driveways are really a kind of intersection, ~73% occurred at some kind of intersection.
* Bicyclists were judged to be in violation of the law in 62% of crashes from 1994-96.
* Of the 180 cases in which the police noted motorist-related crash factors, citations were issued to motorists only 35% of the time. (1994-96) For example, in the 39 cases in 1998 where drivers caused or contributed to bike collisions by failing to yield the right of way, citations were issued in only 14 cases.
* While most collisions occurred on city streets, those occurring on the frontage road of I-35 or on county roads were about twice as likely to be fatal or incapacitating (probably due to the increased speed of automobiles on these roads).

evolve or die.

By Nirav Patel

October 22, 2009 4:28 PM | Link to this

Great news.

By Mike W

October 22, 2009 4:29 PM | Link to this

Gotta love all so much anger and passion out there!

Once again, it’s clear that if a new law does help others, but doesn’t directly help you, then it’s plain stupid.

Why so much hatred for a rule that just looks to potentially save lives of people that may be your friends, coworkers, or even your own family members?

The narrow minded road warrior mentality is astounding. Being forced to potentially have slow down for 3-6 seconds once in a while because you are in your vehicle behind a cyclist, until you can safely merge over to the next lane, is nothing but 3-6 seconds in the grand scheme of your entire life. Chances are you’ll still reach a red light within a mile, or will make up that time while driving over the speed limit anyway. Lighten up, and think about what you’re complaining about! There are much more important things in life than ***** about a law that looks to save lives.

Finally, for a little tongue-in-cheek, I’m thinking “no one named Travis should be allowed to vote”, because that’s about as intelligent a statement as yours, Travis.

By Ridiculous...

October 22, 2009 4:30 PM | Link to this

Bikers want it both ways, they want YOU to obey every law while they obey NONE of them.

So while you have to stay back 3 feet they can drive between side by side cars and just go go go.

It just shows how far LEFTIST this Council is. They are all COMMIES…taking away your rights on a daily basis.

Here’s my question: Why should motorists share the road with bicycles? Wouldn’t it be easier to have walkers share the sidewalks with bikers? Sidewalks are everywhere. Why should we have to suffer?

By Skee

October 22, 2009 4:30 PM | Link to this

As a 30+-year south Austin cyclist and a motorist, I can state that there are just as many, if not more, motorists breaking laws as cyclists. And the motorists are getting much more aggressive and/or distracted, making driving and riding increasingly dangerous for everyone on the roads and the sidewalks. But a law that requires cars to pass with 3’ of space is unenforceable and will potentially enrage even more drivers as they are forced to go something closer to the posted speed limit and perhaps be late for their appointment with the couch and the first Nattie Light of the evening. Better to require all cyclists to wear helmets regardless of age and to take a defensive riding class - the only safe way to ride in Austin today is to assume that everyone on the road is going to hit you.

By Amused in Austin

October 22, 2009 4:31 PM | Link to this

There goes the cycle-times at intersections and optimum capacity of the roads. Not that they’re that great now. Now 2+ lanes of motorway traffic must slow or stop so these goobers can think they’re saving the world.

Fasten your seat-belts and cover your brake pedal motorists, side-swipe collisions will be a common occurrence now, and morning and evening rush hour is gonna be fun! I guess someone on the city council gets a little $$$ from collision repair places.

By Greg

October 22, 2009 4:31 PM | Link to this

Are there bicyclists who are respectful and ride safe? Yes. But, the majority of the riders I see every day ride recklessly. In the last couple of years, I’ve had to take evasive action because of these dangerous riders. They were lucky that I’m an attentive driver. If I weren’t, they would have been under my truck and probably killed. I usually give bicyclists a wide berth, as I don’t trust them. But, I sure as heck won’t drift into oncoming traffic on a narrow road to get by them. The bicycle community whines and complains about how they aren’t respected, but your community brings that on themselves.

By erich

October 22, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

this new ordinance is impossible to inforce, what is a cop going to do make the driver and cyclist freeze so they can get their tape measures out? i have no problem sharing the road with cyclists once they start registering their bikes and paying the road taxes that every other driver pays. we have to pay for tags on trailers that may be used once a year yet they have equal rights w/o paying a dime? that makes no sense!!! We need to tax the cyclists it would be agreat way to put money back into all the road work needed to make bike lanes that we pay for but only a handfull of austinites enjoy. also they should be licensed to ride on major roads and banned on roads that do not offer shoulders that have speed limits above 55 mph.

By Skee

October 22, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

Osama - rather than cut-and-paste a huge article, just post a link and save everyone the hassle of scrolling. Thanks.

By Mick

October 22, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

Keep the cyclist OFF FM 1826!!! Also the cyclist who ride down 45 towards FM 1826 follow the laws and ride to the stop sign to turn. Just because you put your hand out to cut in front of some car going the speed limit doesn’t mean the car has time to stop before hitting you. Unless they are just suicidal!

By Is That The Real Osama?

October 22, 2009 4:37 PM | Link to this

Osama - WOW what numerous stats you provide.

You ramble like that idiot hiding in the hills in Afghanistan, or is it Pakistan?.

If you are him can you tell me where you are, I think you have $10 million price on your head by the US government. It may be more since I last heard.

Come on just let me know where you are so I can cash in and move away from all of these California nutjobs that have moved here and now give dogs and cyclists (same thing I guess) more rights than motorists.

By Mike W

October 22, 2009 4:38 PM | Link to this

Hey Travis, didn’t you get the smoke signals?, 40 is the new 30!

By Greg

October 22, 2009 4:38 PM | Link to this

“Bicyclists were judged to be in violation of the law in 62% of crashes from 1994-96.” So let me understand the logic here. The majority of accidents were the bicyclists fault. So, we then make a law to give them more room because why? The statistics from the City’s website is pretty cut and dry and shows that bicyclists are mostly to blame for their wrecks but yet the drivers are the ones who are penalized. Makes no sense whatsoever, but then nothing this City does makes sense.

By Joe Mizereck

October 22, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this

Congratulations Austin. Your Council did a good thing for cyclists and the Austin community by putting in place a tool to help educate motorists of the need to give cyclists at least 3 feet clearance when passing from the rear. Motorists won’t learn this on their own, they will need help in understanding this is expected of them and once they know this they will help make it safer to ride a bicycle on your streets and roads. And yes, it’s going to save lives.

Where your Governor failed you, your local leadership came through. Good for them…and good for you Austin.

Joe Mizereck joe@3feetplease.com

By Side of Beef

October 22, 2009 4:42 PM | Link to this

This is cool, but cyclist also have to remember to be nice. Biking in Austin is a lot of fun.

By Dylan Spurgin

October 22, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this

People on both sides of this argument have to put down their attitudes and admit that there are a lot of people trying to get around in this city and they choose to do it in different ways.

Cyclists are commuters, too. A lot of comments make it seems like if I’m on a bike I’m just going for a stroll around town lake. 6000 people ride a bike to work in Austin every day.

People on both sides break the law. It’s not ok to put someones life in danger because someone else using the same form of transportation pissed you off.

When you ride a bike you have to swerve around small pot holes that a car can drive over. If someone is passing you closely when you do that you are likely to be hit and seriously injured.

When there is more than one lane you can’t pass a bike and not be in the next lane anyway. Why not give them the whole lane just to make sure you don’t injure them?

By Rob

October 22, 2009 4:47 PM | Link to this

This is just going to be a law the cyclists will wind up abusing. Whenever a motorist does something they don’t like, then they will just report them for this. And then the burden of proof will fall to the motorist and cyclists will become more alienated than they already are. The only people who like cyclists on the road are cyclists. Roads were designed for motor vehicles.

By To crybaby motorists

October 22, 2009 4:47 PM | Link to this

It’s a good thing so few of you whiney babies actually turn out to vote, you don’t deserve representation anyway. Take your hateful spite elsewhere.

By LMAO

October 22, 2009 4:49 PM | Link to this

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Listen to the whining drivers. “Wah, I have to work all day and speed and run people over just to make ends meet, next time I see a cyclist I’m running him over”. Do us a favor, have your wife run you over after your next wife-beating and see how you like it. Go back to Houston, Dallas, College Station, WHEREVER, just get the F out of my town you angry republican F150 driving sons of *****.

By Ridiculous

October 22, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this

Joe Mizereck - Get a JOB Loser.

Come for a drive in Austin sometime, we’ll show you some Texas hospitality with those goofy yellow shirts you sell…

You paying taxes on those shirts Joe or are you hiding behind your phony tax exempt 401?

Time will tell Joe and stay off these Texas blogs, your Massachusetts COMMIE opinions don’t belong here in Texas at all.

By Dylan Spurgin

October 22, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this

Rob, the internet was designed for text without pictures. Better not try to download videos!

Things change. Bikes have been around longer than cars anyway. It’s a valid form of transportation and even if you don’t agree with it it’s not ok to put someone’s life in danger by passing them too close.

By Amused in Austin

October 22, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this

I will consider bicycles equal users of the road when they pay registration, display license plates and take safety classes like the rest of us.

Oh wait, they wanna be like vehicles, but they don’t wanna be THAT much like vehicles!

By Ridiculous

October 22, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Chairman LMAO, you’ll be seeing my F150 real soon buddy boy…

By Pete

October 22, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this

Laws are as good as enforcement of them and the number of people who choose to abide by them.

By Pam LeBlanc

October 22, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this

FYI vulnerable road users also include “a pedestrian, including runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger.”

By Dylan Spurgin

October 22, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this

Ridiculous, you’re joking about killing someone. These are the attitudes behind the people coming up behind a cyclist on his way to work every morning. Can’t you just try to think of that cyclist in front of you as someone you care about?

I’d love it if you’d come on a Thursday night social ride sometime. I’ll give you a bike that you can do whatever you want with afterwards if you do. Click my name to respond.

And I’ll extend that offer to anyone who is opposed to this law. Free bike for coming on one very easy ride on a Thursday night that usually ends in free beer. Bikes are fun. Get in on it.

By d

October 22, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this

This law sucks @$$. I’m not swerving to pass a cyclist if they are riding 2,3, or 4 wide in the bike lane on Barton Springs. Especially when noone goes the speed limit down Barton Springs anyway. See ya on the road suckas!

By MH

October 22, 2009 5:11 PM | Link to this

This ordinance is idiotic. How exactly does the City Council expect police to enforce it? Unless an officer sees the infraction as it happens, it’ll be the cyclist’s word against the motorist’s. This is just another feel-good law that APD will ignore and not bother enforcing, since the police have better things to do. As for cyclists, I’m all for them being allowed to use the road, but I wish more of them would at least try to get out of the way of drivers and not slow them down just to make a point. More drivers might be sympathetic to them then.

By Dylan Spurgin

October 22, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this

The reason cyclists ride shoulder to shoulder is because there is not enough room for a car to safely pass a cyclist if they are both in the same lane.

d, are you saying that because you saw someone on a bike doing something that inconvenienced you, you are going to put another persons life in danger?

If you were passing two cyclist riding shoulder to shoulder and the one next to you had to swerve suddenly to avoid a pothole (but stayed in their lane) and you ran them over would you wish you had just gotten all the way over in the next lane?

You can’t pass a cyclist without taking up part of the next lane anyway. Why not resolve to give them the whole lane and stop getting so upset over it?

By Larry

October 22, 2009 5:15 PM | Link to this

It is okay to try this out. But if bikers abuse the law or the cops use it to raise money for the city then there will be rebellion by the voters who can change the law. After all 98% of us drive, we are trying to be neighborly towards bikes…but that can change. I have no animosity for bikers, have met only a couple in 20 yrs who were horses azzes. It does anger me though when I pass a bike and then have to stop behind a line of cars and the bike goes right by us and thru the stop light….making all of us having to pass him again. Slowing us all down and putting us all in a little more danger.

By Jim

October 22, 2009 5:28 PM | Link to this

We’re all in this together folks, let’s just try to remember that. This is for everyone’s safety: motorists, cyclists, wheelchair users, and pedestrians. I drive regularly, pay my share of taxes to the fed, state and city as a property owner, pay my gas taxes when I fuel up, and pay my taxes on registering my vehicle. I also ride a bicycle on Austin’s streets from time to time and obey all traffic laws. I am a pedestrian on many days as well. I also have a family member in a wheelchair. This law is to protect all of us. Let’s face it, the roadways have gotten much more dangerous with everyone on their cell phone all the time.

In closing, let’s just take care of each other out there and show each other some respect. This law will probably only have teeth to be enforced when a cop sees one of those ignoramuses (and you’ve seen ‘em) buzz a few inches from a cyclist.

By Daniel B

October 22, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this

The problem is that the law is WRONG when it calls bicycles vehicles. Bikers are pedestrians.

By JAYEMANIC

October 22, 2009 5:31 PM | Link to this

Who the hell are all of these IDIOTS that think roads were invented for cars!!! Roadways were here long before cars OR bicycles as a means of traveling on a gridded map that makes it easy to get where you are trying to go. Ignorant motorists with hate filled agendas towards cyclists should not be driving at all.

“what am i supposed to do when a slow a$$ cyclist is in front of me and to give him 3 feet would put my vehicle in oncoming traffic”, blah blah blah, wah wah…

Here’s a thought, DONT PASS!!! Wait until it is safe to pass, i.e. when a second lane is introduced or when you reach a stopping point and can get ahead then.

Whatever you do, PLEASE STOP BEING SO IGNORANT!

By Aaron

October 22, 2009 5:39 PM | Link to this

Look;s like real people, don;t go to, real school

By Chris Lohman

October 22, 2009 5:40 PM | Link to this

I’m an avid cycleist, I both bike and drive on Austin streets. Unfortunely I’ve been noticing a lot of BAD riders on the roads that make the rest of us look bad..You can tell that most of these people just starting riding and have no clue what they’re doing. I see a lot riders pedaling down lamar taking up whole lanes of traffic which not only is unsafe, its plain stupid-Just because the law allows you to take up a lane of traffic, doensn’t me you should.

By Passer By

October 22, 2009 5:45 PM | Link to this

Amused in Austin, we’ve had the 3ft. passing law in Arizona for a while now & I haven’t heard of any increase in side-swiping. Of course here in Tucson we aren’t allowed to PARK in the BIKE LANES, so I can see how the cyclists may have to veer farther left in Austin. What is with APD not enforcing that ordinance? They could clean up in parking ticket revenue and the bikes could ride where they belong in the first place. This is a good move, Austin. Now if you can just dedicate a couple of corridors for bikes only, your motorists could even stop griping about the passing law.

By Scott Unzicker

October 22, 2009 5:54 PM | Link to this

First, mandate some form of identification for the bicycles, just as autos have their license plates. That way, the hordes of aggressive, arrogant pedallers can be identified, and reported, JUST like the drivers of cars can be. Second, aggressively encourage the cops to enforce traffic laws on the bikers. Hell, if the issue is REALLY “public safety,” the bikers should be held to MUCH more stringent regulations, as their protection factor from their vehicle is effectively ZERO. Can any of your pro-pedallers argue against my assertions?

By Simian Pundit

October 22, 2009 6:06 PM | Link to this

Puleeze, I’m exhausted by careless bicyclists who blithely ignore all road rules on busy arterial roads and highways where they have no business. The ordinance was unnecessary for public safety, but commanded by political realities.

By Austincyclist

October 22, 2009 6:29 PM | Link to this

If you car-bound people want to know why cyclists are passing you and scooting up to the red light instead of patiently waiting behind your car then try this exercise: Pull your car into the garage, close the door, get on your bike or just stand behind your car (leave it running). Stay there until you can hardly breathe and you will get it.

By Dylan Spurgin

October 22, 2009 6:30 PM | Link to this

RE: Scott U.

I have no argument against registering cyclists in an effort to make them more accountable. I know there are plenty of cyclists with the wrong attitude (eg the critical mass riders). I hate seeing a cyclist go to the front of a line of cars at a red light just to make the whole line drive behind them.

And, cops are more aggressively ticketing cyclists lately. I don’t see any reason to hold cyclist to a higher standard, though. What, for example, do you have in mind?

By natrius

October 22, 2009 6:40 PM | Link to this

Chris Lohman: I bike to get pretty much everywhere I go, and I don’t think taking a lane on Lamar is a bad idea. To pass a bike, you’re going to need to take at least part of the lane next to you. Some drivers are too impatient to wait for room to pass, or they just don’t plan on giving enough room in the first place. Taking the whole lane convinces most drivers to switch lanes completely to pass, which is the safest option for everyone. If there is more than one full lane and no bike lane, I always take the entire right lane. I’m not trying to inconvenience anyone; I’m just trying to stay alive.

By Amy

October 22, 2009 6:57 PM | Link to this

Another example of governing for the minority rather than the majority!

By RonN

October 22, 2009 7:17 PM | Link to this

A few comments: 1) Bikes should require registration and a yearly fee.

2) Fees collected should only be used to create and maintain bike lanes and new bike trails.

3) Trucks are going to have a real problem downtown complying with a 6’ restriction, potentially halting traffic since they won’t be able to easily pass.

4) Compared to other cities, Austin has very poor established bike lanes and trails, which mean bikes need to share the road with motorized vehicles. Without this infrastructure, this kind of law can have adverse effects (slowing traffic, longer delivery times, etc). Creating more bike lanes and trails will help resolve a lot of these issues.

5) None of the comments here address motorcycles, which are also covered in this legislation. If a motorcycle comes up behind me and is less than 3’ away, who would get cited?

6) ROT next year is going to be real fun, since APD already turns a blind eye…

7) I’m waiting for Austin’s own Critical Mass

By Express43

October 22, 2009 7:32 PM | Link to this

I don’t mind sharing the road with cyclists. I just wish they would obey the laws of the road, like stopping at ALL stop signs. Many groups ride in the Hyde Park area on Sunday mornings. There is a stop sign at 40th and Speedway, and I can assure you that none have ever stopped there! If you want to share the rode, then obey the traffic laws.

By Mike D

October 22, 2009 7:59 PM | Link to this

As a longtime cyclist and resident of Austin, I actually believed the community would embrace laws that provide a better, safer city. Oh wait… did I say “embrace” laws?… how unTexan of me. I forgot this is Texas, a place designed for cars and the egos that drive then, not a place for real human beings without sociopathic disorders. It’s obvious from the majority of comments here that the once remarkable city of Austin is now nothing more than another fast-widening Texas highway. All I can say is… fellow cyclists - come to Oregon - the American mecca of bikes, mass transit, humans and nature. Life is too valuable to waste sitting in Texas traffic.

By Keith

October 22, 2009 8:35 PM | Link to this

When is the city to to balance this by requiring riders to observe an “act like you have a brain” ordinance? 99% of the reasons why bike riders get killed is because they refuse to use any sense.

By Stephen

October 22, 2009 8:46 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure if this will make things safer for cyclists, but hopefully it will raise awareness for all roadway users (cars, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.). I think we all need to look out for each other out there and put the cell phones down (I’ve even seen cyclists on phones!). I feel like the 3-foot passing distance and the texting ban were no brainers. I don’t really understand how it could be argued that giving a cyclist a little more than an arms length when passing is such a bad thing? There are definitely some bad apples out there cycling, and they should be ticketed the same as speeding (or texting) motorists. The point is, if you use the public streets, you should do so in a safe, respectful manner.

In a related matter, all of this would have been moot if Rick Perry wasn’t such a DB. Thank you.

By dana

October 22, 2009 11:32 PM | Link to this

Great work, Austin.

I’m happy you passed the law that Perry didn’t.

I want to move there, bring my bicycle and tax dollars with me.

By Zorro

October 22, 2009 11:50 PM | Link to this

So the bicyclists can continue to ride in the middle of traffic lanes with impunity….weave in and out of traffic, run red lights, ride on sidewalks and in crosswalks….only in Austin would that make sense…..so much for cars and pedestrians…

By tim

October 23, 2009 12:11 AM | Link to this

I live in NY and keep getting chased and almost killed by people in cars. From now on I’m carrying Pepper spray, a blackjack, and a sliletto.. If you try and kill me with your car I’m gonna spray your ***. If you come any closer I’m gonna sap you with the blackjack, and if you don’t **** off I’m gonna stab with the stiletto.. Seem extreme? Your car is a deadly weapon.. If you attack me with it.. game on ****…

By an out

October 23, 2009 12:19 AM | Link to this

All those concerned about the enforcement on narrow or single lane roads, don’t be. The ordinance clearly says “when road conditions allow”. Any decent attorney can argue that on a 1 1 lane road, the road conditions don’t allow for giving the bicycle 3 feet.

So, if the road conditions don’t allow you to give them safe distance, pass as close as you need to.

By drpal181

October 23, 2009 12:20 AM | Link to this

I would guess that there would be an ordinance brought to the voters next year that would ban cars from driving on the road?

By quit whining

October 23, 2009 12:21 AM | Link to this

You know it doesn’t really matter. People aren’t going to give any more distance than before because they don’t have a clue as to what 3 feet is. And the few unfortunate cyclists who get hit, are still going to die and there will still be outrage. This law does absolutely nothing to bring their life back or prevent the accidents.

By NewsHound

October 23, 2009 12:38 AM | Link to this

Well, how about all bicyclists have to register there bikes every year, make sure they are safe to be on the public streets (yearly inspection)and be required to carry liability insurance in the event they cause an accident or damage to automobiles or pedestrians.

By Steph

October 23, 2009 8:24 AM | Link to this

My love of Austin has been greatly diminished by this ordinance. I have never been among so many people who just cannot or will not see the big picture of any situation. This ordinance has put more drivers at risk of getting into an accident, and is going to bring out the monster in cyclists. Some smarty pants is probably going to reply that I should just move. Maybe those of us that actually use common sense should move since we obviously have no place here.

By Free Bike!!?

October 23, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

To Dylan Spurgin - I don’t happen to be against the new ordinance, but I’d love the free bike!

By Eddie

October 23, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

Why don’t we just have an old fassion brawl. Get all the tough talking motorists out from behind their vehicles, cyclists get off their bikes and everyone just work things out on Zilker. My money is on the fit cyclists.

By Pam LeBlanc

October 23, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this

Just an FYI. If you can’t give a vulnerable road user a 3 foot buffer when you pass, wait until it’s safe. You don’t HAVE to drive your car into oncoming traffic to protect a cyclist.

By Ridiculous

October 23, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

Dana - Stay in Cali or wherever you are, we don’t need more LIBS with bikes on the roads here. Your tax dollars aren’t worth it to us.

Why are bikes considered vehicles when its convenient for you all but also vulnerable at the same time?

Today for example, I seen an experienced bicyclist in downtown move his bike and start driving on the sidewalk. Thats illegal right? Or can they do that when its good for them?

And last week I got hit in downtown by a biker on the sidewalk while I was walking. I was fine but why wasn’t she ticketed? Why was she even on the sidewalk?

Pam what do you have to say about that? What if I suffered a serious injury because of this accident? Who is going to cover my medical bills? The slacker biker with no job who can’t afford a car?

I find it hilarious that the Statesman gives a Blog to any left winger with a health cause or exercise regiment. Its typical LIB indoctrination by the media.

By Pam LeBlanc

October 23, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

Hi Ridiculous, It’s illegal to ride a bike on sidewalks in downtown Austin, correct. The cyclist you saw was breaking the law. Perhaps she wasn’t ticketed because a police officer wasn’t at the scene. Sometimes motorists aren’t ticketed when they break the law, either. Doesn’t make what either one does right or responsible. As a reminder, not all cyclists are slackers. Many of us have jobs and can afford cars but choose to ride our bikes.

By cry me a river

October 23, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this

The only thing that’s ridiculous is your ridiculous arguments, Mr. ridiculous.

By Ridiculous

October 23, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

Cry Me a River - Back to work your 10 minute break is up and the French Fry grease needs to be changed.

Hang in there, maybe one day you’ll get a promotion and get to work the cash register. It may take a couple of years but have some “Hope”.

Pam - I understand not all bikers are slackers, most are pompous Lib windbags who think that the world owes them something because they have a weird fear of a carbon footprint. I wonder when someone will do a study on how much CO2 you all expell in riding to work and how much they make other drivers put out while going behind them at 20 mph.

Also why is it that bikers also think its “cool” to smell up their workplaces after they drive to work. Take showers folks, you’re no better than the “rancid” homeless people downtown. At least they have an excuse…

By Pam LeBlanc

October 23, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

Hi readers. Just a quick reminder to please keep it civil and please refrain from using offensive language. I can’t approve comments that include naughty words. Thanks! Pam

By RedN

October 23, 2009 4:20 PM | Link to this

WOW! Where is all the common sense here.. This ordinance is about safety, everyone’s, pedestrians, cyclist and motorists. Many are pointing out how cyclist violate traffic laws by running stop signs, red light and what ever else they can think of. Well those cyclist should and do get citations. But in the grand scheme of things for every one cyclist who breaks the law there are at least 10 motorists who do the same. Want proof. Just go spend a week in Traffic Court. If you can’t understand this is about everyone’s safety I feel sorry for you.

By Alex

October 23, 2009 5:23 PM | Link to this

Hey Ridiculous,

What’s your real name buddy? Where do you work? Company name/address/sad little cubicle number…

By SanityPlease

October 24, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

I’m wondering why the highway department and city don’t spring for some bike lanes on the shoulders? That way, bikes, who cannot keep up with the traffic patterns like cars are expected to, would have a designated safety lane and such laws wouldn’t be necessary. Many of us would like to bike to the store or work but it’s too unsafe to get on the road without a lane.

Riding single file on the right just makes sense, especially when you’re a vulnerable slow-moving “vehicle” and drivers aren’t expecting to round a corner and encounter a hazard. Why set people up for disaster?

By Dave

October 28, 2009 5:19 PM | Link to this

I’d love to know how many of the idiots spouting hate and a lack of respect for human life consider themselves Christians. I see them mention ‘commies’ and ‘liberals’ so I assume they consider themselves ‘defenders of freedom’. Do I need to go on to point out the irony of this? So far, the funniest argument is that the bikers are causing greater CO2 emissions by slowing drivers down. Maybe all of the suburban posers in pick-ups need to re-think their vehicle choice. I bet Mr. F150 has never really worked a job where a pick-up is required in his whole life. Coming from a farm background, it’s hilarious how many pick-ups I see that have never seen a cow pie. Just over compensating for something lacking in the gender department, I guess. The funny thing is that the people who legitimately own pick-ups and work for a living, tend to have a greater respect for life that the F150 posers of the world. Don’t scratch that white bed cover!

By Benji

November 25, 2009 12:26 AM | Link to this

Ok, so maybe some of my friends don’t follow the rules of the road, but I do my best. I’m a student and I’m generally riding my bike because I can’t afford an F150 and it feels great. I’m generally concerned enough about my life to follow the guidelines, and in turn I hope that motorists are fairly concerned about my life too. Yes, bikes are considered vehicles, so I try to act responsibly and respectfully. There are drivers that seem to forget I’m on the road though. Is it because some cyclists are jerks? I don’t get it.