Comments on: Advocates Concerned That Cyclists Are Included in Distracted Driving Bill

By: cyclotronic

cyclotronic — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:05:29 +0000

“people in cars should be required to drive with all the windows down at all times, so they can hear what is going on around them. let’s make it a law.”

at least that’s what it sounds like to me.

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:11:22 +0000

“We are traffic!” “But give us special treatment!” Can’t have it both ways.

By: whir

whir — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:01:30 +0000

As a follow-up to this, the NYT reported that the law was passed with reduced fines for cyclists:

“Cyclists would now be required to abide by the hand-held cellphone and text messaging ban, but they would face smaller fines: $20 for a first offense, $50 for a second – with no additional fines or penalties tacked on.”

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/squeaky-bicycle-wheels-heard-on-proposal-to-raise-cellphone-fines/

By: Erica

Erica — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:54:14 +0000

Hmm…, okay I’m from the east coast but I have never ever seen a bicyclist on a cell phone. As a regular bicyclist (for transport and exercise) it sounds really uncomfortable and unpleasant to me. Then again, my handlebars are pretty low.

Also, where can you store your cell phone on your bicycle so that it doesn’t fall out of your pocket while riding but yet you can answer it without stopping? The pic above of the guy on the cell phone makes me think he’s going to put it back in his jean’s pocket and it’s going to fall out. What a waste of a good iphone.

By: bent_rider

bent_rider — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:03:32 +0000

I don’t even have a damn cell phone. The last place I want to be talking to someone is while enjoying my bicycle. I support the bill, but the fine for motorists should be $500 and the confiscation of the cell phone. For cyclists, just the confiscation of the cell phone, no fine.

By: Jurij

Jurij — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:37:38 +0000

We need TOUGH laws against cell ph usage, all classes of users.
2 years after getting knocked off my bike by a clueless cell user, my dislocated shoulder still is way less than 60% of what it was before.
Talk to another friend who had her ribs broken in another incident with a cell phone using cyclist.
Law Enforcement needs to step away from the donut shops , Judiciary need to come in from the golf course and finally pay significant attention to the threat to life from cell using motor vehicle operators and the injuries caused to others by cell user cyclists.
Lock em up!

By: david

david — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:03:03 +0000

In Amsterdam last year I saw a police phone trap for cyclists with cyclists calling each other to warn of the crackdown. When I get a call, I find it easier to pull over when cycling than driving.

By: Jym Dyer

Jym Dyer — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:55:36 +0000

=v= As the last 16 years (16 years!) of research has shown, hands-free operation of these devices is as distracting and no safer than hand-held operation. In fact the “be safe, use a hands-free kit” doublethink was marketing from cellphone companies that immediately saturated the media right after the landmark 1994 study in the New England Journal of Medicine which demonstrated that hands-free kits don’t help.

16 years later and we’re still codifying this lie as law. What’s more, the lie makes the law unenforceable, because in the face of cellphone log evidence the motorist can always claim that he or she was using a hands-free kit. A better approach would be to ban all use of these gadgets while driving, and that would actually be enforceable when a cop sees distracted driving in progress.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:14:11 +0000

Yes, a drunk cyclist is more likely to fall over and injure himself that a drunk driver. Disagree. There is loads of evidence that shows how dangerous drunk driving is -- not just to innocents, but to the drunk drivers themselves.

By: Alexei

Alexei — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:10:25 +0000

“Given that riding a bike requires more focus and attention than driving a car…”

I gotta say, this is absolutely nuts. Yes, a drunk cyclist is more likely to fall over and injure himself that a drunk driver. But a drunk driver–or a sober driver, for that matter–is far more likely to kill and maim. I’m not saying people shouldn’t drive, necessarily, but piloting a multi-ton vehicle at high speeds is a responsibility that is taken far too lightly by many.

Put another way, riding a bike may require more attention than driving a car, which can be done with your eyes closed (see: people falling asleep at the wheel), or dead drunk, but this is exactly why we need stiff penalties for distracted driving which are unnecessary for bikers. That and the massive damage you can cause to bystanders.

As far as legal limits go, I found that people would not hesitate to take the wheel after three drinks, or four, because they were confident, knowing where the cops liked to pull people over, believing in the superiority of their skills and their ability to remain unaffected. I was skeptical, considering alcohol’s known effect of increasing self-regard. Then, too, they liked to drive fast down isolated roads on their way home after a night out, which I don’t think they would have done if their judgment was totally unaffected, and which was not particularly safe, drunk or no. But it was the culture of the place– there was, after all, no choice in the matter: if you want to have a drink or two with your buddies, you had to drive to get there and drive home, and so they did, and justified it. Anyway, I’m happy not to have to deal with it anymore.

By: Andy Thornley

Andy Thornley — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:20:07 +0000

Let me say something out loud here before the comments run much further: The SF Bicycle Coalition hasn’t come out to oppose Senator Simitian’s bill, we’ve only just heard about it, and the concerns I expressed about the degree of penalty relative to the associated harm (bike perp / car perp) and the “out in the open” factor we already live with in bicycle scofflaw perceptions are concerns that we will voice to the senator. As the story notes, the SFBC teaches and preaches safe, respectful, and mindful bicycling, and we’re fully in agreement with the motives of this law, and its predecessor already in effect. We’re in favor of cell phone and “distracted driver/rider” prohibitions that create safe streets for all users, no special forgiveness for folks on bikes. We do wonder whether a texting SUV driver and a texting bicycle rider should both receive the same monetary penalty, and whether the state’s various police officers will cite the tinted-glass-enclosed driver as often as the out-in-the-open cyclist; from what we’re seeing now, there’s not a lot of enforcement attention paid to the already-well-proven damage caused by distracted driving, and invisible driver-distracting gizmos within autos will only make that worse.

And no, I don’t believe that this law would lead to a reduction in cycling, I really don’t . . .

By: JohnB

JohnB — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:23:42 +0000

Alexei,

I don’t think anyone is saying that the penalties for driving while using a cell phone should be the same as DUI. But rather that studies have shown that the degree of distraction is similar.

Also note that it is generally OK to have about 2 drinks and drive, because that puts you at or below the 0.8 limit. That limit being the generally acceptable point at which judgment begins to become impaired.

Given that riding a bike requires more focus and attention than driving a car, it is entirely possible that the safe alcohol limit on bikes might be lower. Ditto for using a cell phone, which is easier to use in a car than on a bike.

So I’m not convinced that fines for cyclists should be lower than fines for cars, but I do think fines for cell phone use should be less than fines for driving/riding drunk. The Courts appear to agree.

By: skippy

skippy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:16:36 +0000

Olympic Athens 2004 Road Race saw Leontin Van Moorsel(NED. “2000 GOLD”) crash with both hands on handlebars and at Tour de France Brad McGee also, countless others not SEEN on TV but professionals nevertheless experience the same misfortune!
Joe public is more capable and can “ride no hands”! don’t think so! Perhaps lucky to avoid misfortune most times but generally will wobble into a panic seizure of their handlebars.
Even with 5ft cycle lanes most cyclists on hand phone will cause grief to all road users, even themselves if texting. Art grabbing the phone or knocking it away can cause as much danger although it is the obvious solution when that dumbass is endangering you.
Visiting http://www.parrabuddy.blogspot.com you will see many examples of the need for more safety for cyclists but we need to help ourselves by obeying the Laws of the Community! Mass Monthly rides are not the answer as is anti social behaviour on many occasions. Cycle Clubs police their membership but it is difficult to deal with strangers and so the Police Authorities need the tools to be effective.
Pedestrians texting in a crowd are plain thoughtless and bring to mind a Tax Dodger in Sydney some years ago. Dr. Edelstein would appear on the Court steps with a mobile in either hand for media interaction, clear case of notoriously antisocial behaviour.
Mark bragging about riding Nohanded is what the driving community expects of cyclists & Andy Chow’s desire to ride DUI sets off another section of the “PYGMY COMMUNITY” who rail against all cyclists because of the actions of the few.
Any commuter who hates cycling should see what a monthly drive to work with lycra clad cyclists carrying their bike on the roof rack does to their journey that day, should be a change of their attitude within a short period !

By: Alexei

Alexei — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:00:57 +0000

I support this too, and I say that as someone who fell off my bike while talking on the phone. It’s also fine that drunk biking is illegal.

That said:

I’ve been surprised to find in recent years that drunk driving is common in some places (any place where you have to drive to get anywhere, really), and driving after ‘a couple of drinks, but I’m not drunk’ is a way of life, to the point that nobody even comments on it. This seems nuts to me. So I ask: would you rather have a guy heading home, past your house, from a bar, on a bike or in his car? The answer’s obvious to me, and the penalties should reflect that. To have the same penalties for drunk riding as for drunk driving, and for distracted riding as for distracted driving, is nuts.

By: icarus12

icarus12 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:30:47 +0000

But if this bill passes, where will I find my local stories to tell at dinner? To wit: the cyclist dad talkinf on mobile phone crooked to ear while smoking cig in hand with other hand on handlebars, and toddler in child seat behind. Priceless on Polk St.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:28:16 +0000

“I’m not sure I need a study to tell me that riding a bike on Market street while texting is distracting and dangerous”

That, of course, depends on the conditions. Like most users of handlebar mounted GPS devices, I’m perfectly comfortable using mobile device while riding. That is because I’m capable of making common-sense decisions for myself.

We are at the beginning of major revolution in mobile communication technology for cyclists. Real-time transit data, online bike maps, and the innovative “CycleTracks” iPhone application used by MTA for sophisticated bike surveys. Sure, the user’s of this technology have to act responsibility — but Simitan’s attempt to outlaw this technology can only be seen as anti-bike.

By: patrick

patrick — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:43:53 +0000

@Nick, I understand your concern against selective enforcement, but rider has to be using the phone before it can be enforced. They have to choose to do something that is hazardous to themselves and others before a cop can ticket them.

It’s a safety issue, but it’s also a perception issue. We cyclists oppose laws that we know to be ineffective and no benefit to safety (such as requiring cyclists to come to a full stop at a stop sign, or bicycle licensing requirements). To have any credibility there, we should support laws that do have clear safety benefits.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:37:04 +0000

As a cyclist myself, I can attest to the dangers posed by idiots on bicycles who don’t pay attention and who don’t obey the law.

Seriously, isn’t it bad enough that we have to avoid getting killed by motorists, that we shouldn’t have to worry about getting rear-ended by some jack*** rider running a light (it’s happened to me) or to avoid hitting the clown using a mobile and swerving all over like a skater?

Cripes, the bike lane isn’t big enough to accommodate stupid.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:46:01 +0000

Does anyone remember the police stings along the Wiggle last year? Arbitrary, random, and vindictive- just like this law would be.

But go ahead and support it if you like. Just know the people enforcing it don’t really like you to begin with.

By: JohnB

JohnB — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:56:22 +0000

Eric/Andy et al,

It seems a clear majority exists here in favor of supporting the inclusion of all road users in the Bill. Most reasonable folks would need to see a compelling reason to include just one very specific type of road user.

The Danish study is interesting but I’m not sure I need a study to tell me that riding a bike on Market street while texting is distracting and dangerous. Much like I don’t need to stick a knife in my hand to know it will hurt.

Having said that, I’m not convinced that all road laws should apply to cyclists. After all, cyclists are not currently required to take a test, to be licensed, to insure their “vehicle” or to register it.

So there is a precendent for excluding cyclists from legislation that covers other road users.

But to me the DUI/DWI equivalency argument trumps all others. I’ve never had a cell phone call or text that wouldn’t wait.