I'm astonished there were 600 cyclists! Though Philly is a pretty big city.
2011-07-20 17:22:54
22
Cyclist Law Enforcement Crackdown in Philly....
As printed in the Centre Daily Times (State College, PA:
600 cyclists pulled over since start of crackdown by Philadelphia police
By MORGAN ZALOT — Philadelphia Daily News
Posted: 4:00am on Jul 20, 2011; Modified: 6:10am on Jul 20, 2011
Cyclists Justin Murphy and Greg Johnson, both 24, openly admit that they regularly break traffic laws while biking in the city.
"I never obey a single law," Murphy said flippantly, balancing his black Schwinn fixed-gear near 16th and Walnut streets in Philadelphia. "I'm not worried."
Maybe he should be.
As bike lanes spread around the city, the Give Respect, Get Respect campaign aimed at promoting and enforcing the peaceful coexistence of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians has started cracking down on rogue bikers.
A traffic-enforcement team of bike cops stopped 803 cyclists and motorists from its May 16 launch through July 14. Of those, 600 were cyclists, according to statistics from the Mayor's Office of Transportation and Utilities.
"Cyclists seem to be where the educational focus needs to go," said Capt. Alan Clark, who leads the patrol out of the Police Department's Center City District substation. He added that motorists received more tickets, while cyclists were mostly issued warnings.
"(Motorists) don't need education. If they ran a red light, they know what they did," he said.
Of the cyclists stopped, 590 were issued warnings, while three were cited for moving violations, which commonly include running red lights or riding against traffic and carry the same $120.50 fine as they do for motorists. Seven cyclists received code violations for riding on the sidewalk, which carry a $50 fine.
Andrew Stober, chief of staff of the transportation office, said he expects the number of tickets given to cyclists to increase in the near future.
"That's going to be at the Police Department's discretion, as they see particularly repeat offenders - and that's largely who's been getting the tickets that have been written already," Stober said.
During the bike patrols, which take place a few afternoons or evenings per week, a group of eight to 12 officers cruises Center City for three to four hours. The group either patrols a planned route or monitors busy crosswalks for violations.
In an average patrol, Clark said, officers generally make at least 40 stops.
Despite a push for equal enforcement as part of Give Respect, Get Respect, some cyclists said they feel unfairly targeted.
"Just because you give respect as a cyclist does not mean you're going to get it by some mysterious bicycle karma," said Julian Root, 24, a bike messenger for TimeCycle.
"As cyclists, we do have equal rights, and I do think equal rights come with equal responsibilities. (But) there's a big difference between a 30-pound bike and a 3,000-pound car."
2011-07-20 17:10:59
""(Motorists) don't need education. If they ran a red light, they know what they did," he said."
WHAT!!!!
Single stupidest thing I've read today.
2011-07-20 17:43:01
@edmonds: I *think* that statement was his justification for why motorists got tickets, while cyclists mostly got only warnings.
In other words, cyclists were (mostly) getting the benefit of the doubt; motorists were not.
2011-07-20 17:53:02
Aah. never mind.
2011-07-20 18:00:47
I agree it was worded poorly.
Seems like a fairly pro-active way at letting cyclists know that they will be watched, but not coming out of no where and issuing citations like NYC. Also like that they mention they are also going after cars.
I haven't lived in philly to know wether the 1/3 vs 2/3 proportion seems adequate for car versus bike law breakers. Legally, I would be one of those 600…
2011-07-20 18:05:36
part of the problem is that a lot of times, the safest thing to do is break the law.
2011-07-20 19:42:34
I can imagine some rare times when that might be the case, but the vast majority of the time the safest thing to do is to follow the law. What circumstances are you thinking of that happen a lot of the time where breaking the traffic laws is safer?
2011-07-20 19:57:00
mostly going through red lights is what i have in mind (though there are surely many more examples). i often turn left onto morewood from forbes during the pedestrian signal because when i'm in a line of traffic traveling down morewood away from forbes, there is always someone who wants to pass me unsafely, even when i'm doing the speed limit. i'd rather just get through that section without any automobile traffic, and "running" the red light lets me do that. same thing happens at the light turning from alder onto highland.
luckily, though, pennsylvania doesn't have a law, like new york, that requires bicycles to use bicycle-specific infrastructure when it exists. i hate those.
2011-07-20 20:03:50
Thanks for the examples. The Forbes-Moorewood intersection is certainly more bicycle-unfriendly than it seems like it should be while the Alder-Highland intersection is just confusing all around.
Given your safety concerns, do you choose to not turn left on the protected left arrow onto Morewood from Forbes because there would be cars behind you on Morewood, or do you go in either the case of a pedestrian signal or a green light?
If you want to go with the pedestrian signal, I would suggest it would be easier to just stay in the right-hand lane all the way to the intersection, walk diagonally across the intersection and then get back on your bike to ride up Morewood. This would likely be on average slower.
The Alder-Highland intersection is just confusing and I think it's pretty important that everyone follow the lights just to keep track of who is supposed to be going when.
2011-07-20 20:19:26
I'm only bound by the law insofar as law enforcement chooses to enforce it upon me. Frequently, The Law runs perpendicular to common sense.
For example, if I come to a three way stop sign and have visibility a hundred yards in all directions and see no cars, why should I feel compelled to stop besides The Law?
Sure, it would be safer to stop, but could it also not be argued that it would be safer to just stay in my house all the time? Where's the line drawn between following the law for safety and following one's own common sense for convenience?
I could get into another whole discussion about why I should feel compelled to follow laws I had no hand in crafting, but I don't think anybody here is going to be arguing about social contracts when somebody gives us crap for running a stop sign. (I think I might have actually tried with a guy in Morningside, to no avail 
)
2011-07-20 20:31:38
One way to draw such a line would be a cost-benefit analysis.
The cost of stopping for the stop sign is 10 seconds. The benefit is that you are in the habit stopping for stop signs and don't roll through one and hit somebody that one time in 1000 when you read that intersection wrong.
One cost to staying in your house all the time is going crazy. The benefit is significantly reducing the chances of being in a traffic accident (cars through the living room does remain a remote risk).
Traffic laws are not some police-state control conspiracy. They are an attempt to allow lots of people to use a communal resources that allows more travel of goods and people than ever in history while trying to minimize the risk of those goods and people running into each other.
2011-07-20 20:45:03
Honestly... I feel more protected when I do follow the law. That way in the off-chance something crazy happens (accident, etc.) I'm absolved of guilt. Pittsburgh has some navigational challenges, but in my experience it's pretty safe and speedy just to follow the law.
2011-07-20 20:50:09
I feel more protected when I do follow the law. That way in the off-chance something crazy happens (accident, etc.) I'm absolved of guilt.
Wait until the driver lies about it and the cop with windshield vision writes up the report accordingly. I stop for every light, but the one time I was hit, the guy claimed I "blew through the light". Fortunately there was a witness that backed my side of the story, otherwise I might have had to pay to repair the dent my head made in his hood.
2011-07-20 22:11:56
::Fortunately there was a witness that backed my side of the story, otherwise I might have had to pay to repair the dent my head made in his hood.::
Only a complete d*** would lie about something like that. Glad to see you came out all right and I hope he got what was coming to him.
2011-07-20 22:26:27
I imagine most people lie if they messed up and ran into someone. Saving a bunch of money on insurance premiums is quite a motivator.
2011-07-21 00:55:14
@Astrobiker - i go when the light is green or during the walk cycle if i am at or near the light. i'm a confident cyclist, and i take the lane on morewood, and i usually don't have issues, but given the opportunity for a portion of my ride free of cars, i'm going to take it every time.
2011-07-21 15:12:40
We've had this conversation before on a dozen threads.
* Sometimes the law is wrong. We need an Idaho-like allowance on stop signs and red lights. That would eliminate half the irritation motorists have with cyclists "breaking the law".
* Safety trumps legality. Given a choice between what's legal and what's safe, I choose safe. I will tell that to a cop. I will tell that to a judge.
* Any reasonable LEO will understand that so long as you are not being a complete asshat, the law can be reasonably bent.
Please follow the law where it makes sense to. Please do not make an ass of yourself if you are not going to follow the law. (Passing two lanes of cars waiting on the city end of the 7SB on the left and cutting right onto FtDuqBlvd on a red light is making an ass of yourself.)
Be visible, be predictable, be courteous, be safe. I do not advocate anarchy, but if these four things are adhered to, we really don't need a lot of the laws we have.
2011-07-22 03:16:03
@swalfort (quoting teh Philadelphia Daily news, quoting some fool) "I never obey a single law,"
I'm not sure that this is possible. There are a lot of laws out there. You can't disobey all of them, all the time.
2011-07-22 05:18:31
@stu, you actually are advocating a bit of anarchy. remember folks, anarchy != chaos.
2011-07-25 05:36:49
Personally I find it most difficult to break the laws of thermodynamics. I only try when I'm in the most daring of moods, though, because I'm concerned that if entropy decreased chaos wouldn't happen.
2011-07-25 13:49:39
That made me giggle.
Being the old codger that I am I see people break the law every day, both motorists and bicyclists. Please, for the sake of my blood pressure, at least try to follow the rules.
2011-07-25 17:19:00