Davis has long been known as a bicycling mecca, it houses the US Bicycling Hall of Fame, and it continues to move toward “Beyond Platinum Status.” At the same time that Davis has finally finished renovations to make major east-west arterial Fifth Street more accessible to bikes, and is spending several millions on bike lane infrastructure inspired by European design techniques, there is also a growing backlash among sectors of the town.
This week, a story on CBS 13 in Sacramento highlights the Davis expansion of bike lane infrastructure with the European-Inspired design plan.
They report, “Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis says the improvements will be built along Covell Boulevard, a major road in Davis. Instead of white paint to distinguish a bike lane, barriers will be built to separate bikes and cars.”
“It’s about visibility and creating safe spaces for the crossings and also making cyclists prominent and in front of vehicles,” he said.
CBS 13 reports, “Two intersections will be transformed into Dutch junctions, which Davis says will help make bikes more visible to drivers.”
“The whole concept is really designed for bikes and pedestrians to be able to move across it and along it without coming into conflict with the vehicles that are traveling at higher speeds,” the mayor pro tem said.
CBS notes, “The infrastructure is needed, he says, to keep riders and drivers safe. He hopes it will also attract more bicyclists. Davis hopes the improvements will help more vulnerable groups like kids and the elderly feel safe enough making the switch to use bicycles as their major form of transportation.”
But there has long been concerns from the non-biking residents who are angered by what they see as the blatant disregard for traffic rules by bicyclists, mostly those who come to town while attending UC Davis. They blow through stop signs and occasionally traffic lights, and create a number of road hazards.
As one long-time resident told the Vanguard recently, who walks around Davis every day, the behavior of people using bikes is truly, in general, rude at best and dangerous at worst.
A recent letter to the editor noted, “Vehicle vs. bike problems have been increasing over the years, and it is time for the city of Davis to step up and take action to merge these two road users together.”
The writer noted a litany of complaints, starting with the failure to use lights after dark.
“I believe this is just the tip of unsafe riding in town,” they wrote. “It is obvious that riders are not following the rules of the road, yet they’re treated as equals when using our roadways.”
They suggested, “A license plate and registration should be required to own a bike and use it in town. Also, bicyclists should have to pass a written test on rules of the road and bike paths in order to obtain a license.”
“Our community is exposed to many students from UC Davis who are from different counties that do not have the same laws and requirements as we do. Let’s get everyone on the same page.”
While I am not sure the city can implement these types of changes, this letter illustrates what seems to be a growing or least persistent frustration that many drivers in Davis have.
A someone who works in the downtown, I see bicyclists ignoring pedestrians and stop signs, and sometimes dangerously cutting in front of oncoming vehicles in their haste or the desire not to hit their brakes.
Once, on a police ride-along, the officer simply stood at the corner of F and 3rd and pulled over countless bicyclists running the stop sign (with a uniformed cop standing on the corner). They were fortunate to get warnings, but obviously the problem continues unabated.
The city has taken a number of steps over the years to protect bicyclists. More than 90 percent of Davis roads have bike paths, which was one of the original progressive era innovations in Davis.
In recent years, we have seen the Fifth Street Redesign, which, while encompassing far more than just bicycle accommodations, remains a critical component.
We have seen the discussion of green waste containerization. There were and frankly remain concerns about bicycle safety when avoiding debris in the bike paths. The city temporarily attempted to accommodate those concerns with double stripping. There are accompanying concerns with storm water drainage, but the city is now moving toward a more full containerization.
In addition to the hundreds of millions that the city needs to invest in road maintenance, bike maintenance remains a critical need as well, with deferred maintenance costs in the tens of millions.
Finally, the city is investing millions into the Covell Corridor project which has a heavy component on bike safety.
However, if the bicycle advocates wish to see the public willing to pump further money into upgrades on safety and other infrastructure, the concerns laid out by many about rudeness, safety and following bicycle laws should be addressed.
If not, there will be a growing backlash by many non-riders that may impair future efforts to add infrastructure and safety features to our roads. As strong believers in multi-modal transportation and bicycling, we hope this can be avoided.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/9-things-drivers-need-stop-saying-bikes-vs-cars-debate/
Brings up one of those fantasies I have always had, when the Downtown like Davis reforms as a village like Whistler where no cars or trucks are allowed, EIRI (except in Rare Instances), all “commuting” and transportation is restricted to small electric or human powered vehicles.
Everyone parks outside of town, and changes over to a pool of vehicles suitable for their needs of the day. Delivery trucks unload to smaller loads and local employment booms to service this economy. Noise and pollution go down considerably. Parking lots accommodate larger numbers of these smaller vehicles alleviating the need for more parking.
Either that or elevate the whole downtown and park underneath it..
The implication in this article is that there is backlash against investing in safety for bicyclists, because “bicyclists” don’t obey traffic laws. Such as:
“there is . . . a growing backlash among sectors of the town.”
This is a ridiculous statement, attempting to relate two unrelated issues. Investment in bicycle infrastructure is incredibly important, and unless you are a selfish “car-ist” the city, however stellar, still is built for cars and there are a number of major infrastructure projects to even begin to put the two modes on equal footing. And yes, they should be.
The percentage of dumb-asses who blow through stop signs and don’t wear lights at night are a problem for bicyclists and pedestrians as much as for cars. Those on bikes hate those dumb-asses as well. Not that I stop at stop signs, I am a believer in a practioner of the Idaho stop, and it’s time Davis said (and I have testified this before the City Council): “F— he state of California”, our bicyclists can stop and proceed with the right of way”. Stopping at stop signs is as stupid as the 55mph speed limit, because no-one does it. The problem is people who blow through stop signs, and steal the right of way that isn’t theirs.
Now, as for the suggestions of doing something about it, let’s GET REAL people, there is like half a bike cop in town. If we double the budget, which we won’t, enforcement will cover 2% of the town, if that. We must instead change our culture and everyone, cars, peds, bicyclists, must yell, “YOU F–ing DUMB-ASS!” whenever someone blows a stop sign, and “DUMB F—, no one can see you, get a light, F— HEAD!”. This has to become part of our culture. We simply don’t have the police. SHAME and CURSE our way to enforcement. Do you have a better idea? I mean one that is REAL?
I’ve been in this town for 35 years. Guess what, about 25x as many people have bike lights as did 35 years ago. It’s MUCH BETTER. It’s just there are a lot of dumb-asses out there. And there always will be. Get over it. You can’t control them, you can swear at them and shame them.
As for all the bikes that disobey the laws? Guess what? There are tons of cars that break laws and make it hell of dangerous for bicyclists. I don’t go blaming all the cars and ask that we don’t invest in roads. I blame the dumb-asses in the few cars. Like the guy who did a U turn in downtown (illegal) and came across the road and almost hit me, or the a-hole who almost doored me last week because he didn’t look opening his door. So get off your high-horses, car driving “sector”. You aren’t one amorphous blob, and neither are bicyclists.
The problem for all of us is DUMB ASSES.
Like!
I wish you would not sugar coat your opinion pieces, and instead would just tell us how you really feel.
I think you mean bike lanes; to my way of thinking, a bike path is separated from the street and off-limits to cars. But even with that change, I’m skeptical about the 90% figure. Perhaps it’s a matter of definitions. How are you defining “roads” — arterials only, or every street in the city? And how would you define “bike lane” — room on the street for two cars and two bikes, or an actual striped lane?
As one with an approaching half-century of road cycling experience, I naturally become defensive with a pronouncement like what is found in this column. The tone and content embarrasses, shames, or offends folks like myself, and which combination of these emotions rise up depends on the individual cyclist.
In my case, I’m embarrassed and shamed–because the criticisms of cycling compliance with intersection as described above– is totally accurate. Within the cycling culture, my views are shared, but they are more often rejected outright or mitigated. Defensive responses include irrelevant and irrational issues like motor vehicles consume natural resources and pollute the air, while we don’t. Motor vehicles are many times heavier and faster than we, so that gives us special dispensation in obedience to traffic laws. Because we use muscle power, we don’t have to complete full stop. It’s not energy efficient and discourages others from becoming cyclists. Like I said, “irrelevant and irrational,” but cited shamelessly all the same.
I’ve had a open bet within our bike club that we go to a major downtown intersection controlled by stop signs. We count the number of traffic violations by bikes and motor vehicles. If the ratio was not 20-1 or more, I’d buy dinner. No takers.
This comment is certain to bring wrath on me, but I’ve said it before, publicly: Too many cyclists are arrogant, feel a sense of entitlement while on public roads, and exceedingly sanctimonious when it comes to road courtesy and law compliance and comparison between bikes and cars. Frankly, I await with some perverse pleasure the organized powerful reaction from other road users to correct our collective inexcusable road behavior and blindness to common courtesy and safety. We deserve it.
Thanks Mr. Coleman, my feelings exactly. Every time I drive around this city I hardly if ever see any car driver completely blow through a stop sign, yes you will see some Hollywood stops. On the other hand I see bikers blow through stop signs all the time.
It is “more legal” to “not completely blow through” stop signs?
How many cyclists do you see speeding through school zones? Heck we could go about this all day. I guess I’ll never understand why cyclists need to be held to the exact letter of the law, when ALL road users break the laws that are convenient for them to break.
Barack, you don’t live on my corner. I rarely, if ever, see a car come to a full stop instead they do a ‘bicycle stop’ which is to say slow down, look both ways and carry on. The dangerous ones are just like the dangerous cyclists: they just blow through the intersection. Lived here 26 years–seen countless non-stops..
Then take Mr. Coleman up on his bet, go downtown with him sometime and do a comparison of how many cars run stop signs compared to bikes. If you’re so sure of yourself you’ll get a free dinner out of him. Mr. Coleman is waiting.
I’d also suggest that you bring your wallet.
Barack–as a daily cycler to UCD and back to east davis thru downtown; in my experience about 1/3 of bikers do come to a complete stop (or less than 1-2 mph) at stop signs, about half slow down substantially and do a kind of ‘California’ stop; and will yield right of way to a car coming thru crossways (or left turn); and about 1/6 do blow thru without slowing down much (or at all) and do not yield to cars that arrived at the intersection first.
I don’t know, its kind of a wild mix, but I kind of enjoy it (I’m in the middle 50% of california stoppers, and I do make a point of yielding to cars that arrived first at the intersection). Perhaps we’ve been lucky there haven’t been many serious accidents lately (or have there?). I kind of like the sense of people relying on their intuition & temperament to guide their stop-sign style; even though I don’t really feel at ease around bikers that blow thru stop signs without slowing down or yielding–seems pretty rude; on the other hand if they hit a car, the fault (and injuries) is theirs and they must take ownership of any injuries to themselves!
Yes Tribe, your numbers sound realistic to me.
And do you then agree that until cyclists start obeying the infrastructure and laws that are designed for automobile drivers, that we should withhold proper cycling infrastructure (and laws)? Isn’t that a bit circular?
The beatings will continue until moral is improved.
I couldn’t disagree with Phil Coleman more.
Stand on the corner of Third Street and J Street with a radar gun. You will find almost NONE of the cars driving by are going 25 mph or less. Some are doing 45 -50 mph in the middle of the five blocks between G and L with no stop signs. Cars are dumb-asses too, and there is no collective, it is what individuals do.
Your premise is flawed. “We” deserved a collective nothing as bicyclists. There is no collective. I “go through” but do not “blow through” stop signs. I always give the right-of-way. Always. But if there are no cars or peds, I slow, look twice, and then proceed, AS DOES EVERYONE ELSE. We don’t deserve to be lumped into law-breakers because we go throught stop signs. In fact, it was a Davis cop 30 years ago who gave me a ticket at 3rd and A streets, because I “blew through” the stop sign, and I deserved that ticket. He said, “slow down, look both ways, and I don’t know a cop in this town that will give you a ticket.” And in the years 1984-2014 I have NEVER got another ticket on my bike, even thought I have “proceeded without stopping” through stop signs TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.S
So stop beating yourself and all of us up in your own mind. The problem is people who blow through stop signs without stopping, period. Blaming courteous people and lumping us in with dumb-asses is not constructive.
Phil was talking about blowing through stop signs, not speeding. You are changing the point.
Read again what Phil Wrote. Here, I’ll help you:
“We count the number of traffic violations by bikes and motor vehicles.”
There are many ways to violate our traffic laws at intersections besides “blowing through stop signs.” Why do so many folks consider stopping at stop signs as the ONE metric of cycling traffic violation?
That may be true for non organized cycling. I’ve been on the Davis Double and had police cars posted at stop signs to make sure we unclipped pedals and and put a foot on the ground. It’s been a while so maybe they don’t do it anymore. I always thought I’d be happy to put my foot on the ground as soon as car drivers opened their doors and put a foot on the ground.
Car drivers don’t have to put their foot on the ground to come to a complete stop, most bikers do.
Well said. I agree.
If you think about it, this is just the good-guy, bad-guy PC-pop-culture filtering that we see.
Bikes = good
Cars – bad
You see, if you align yourself with the good stuff, you get a free pass for bad behavior. That is how it works.
What happens when a Prius runs over a biker? Is that slightly worse guy versus mostly better guy? Or what about the bike that runs over the pedestrian? Or how about a runner knocking down a walker?
Is a Prius with two car seats equal to an expensive racing bike? What about my truck loaded up with bikes in the back… I would see that at last giving me a few good-guy points to offset the very bad guy badge given to me by the PC police.
The only reason the city is spending money on bike lane infrastructure is the development of the Cannery housing project. No one just thought it might be a good idea to improve safety for cyclists on Covell. I don’t even think we are doing this for cyclists in general. We want parents who live in the new project to feel like its safe to let their kids ride bikes out of the new housing development. Even the ingress and egress for motor vehicles is problematic. New intersections are necessary because of the new housing so do not pretend the money is being spent just for the benefit of cyclists. Intersections must be improved. Shall we accommodate cyclists and pedestrians or ignore them and build for automobiles only. The Dutch junctions will allow cyclists and pedestrians a measure of safety AND THEY ARE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN OTHER ALTERNATIVES. If the public prefers to spend more money for an American style solution, we can add a couple of very expensive crossings not-at-grade.
When pedestrains disobey traffic rules and are rude, do we stop building sidewalks and crosswalks and tell them they can’t walk in the public roads because they are built for cars only? This is an example of General Motors mentality. Public roads are NOT primarily for the use of cars. They are public roadways paid for by the public and intended to be used by the public. As long as we assume the roads belong to car drivers we allow ourselves to believe the cars have the rights and all other users have to beg for the privilege of using the roads. Can you say ‘separate but equal’? I assure you automobiles are the white separatists and the bike and walkers are the n***ers who get the outdated textbooks. The question is not about the need for infastructure to improve bike safety, the question is do bikes have equal rights under the law to use the public roads. Except for freeways, the answer is yes, they are public roads.
Davis Burns wrote: “Except for freeways, the answer is yes, they are public roads.” And, in fact, of California’s roughly 4000 miles of restricted access freeways, about 1000 miles are perfectly legal for cyclists, including our own State Hwy 113 between Roads 29 and 25A. Note that there are only “Pedestrians Prohibited” signs at the on ramps and “Bicycles Must Exit” signs at the off ramps.
“I assure you automobiles are the white separatists and the bike and walkers are the n***ers who get the outdated textbooks.”
Harshly said, but well put.
interesting, i disagree with those who don’t see these related. i think bicyclists risk turning off the population through poor behavior.
“i think bicyclists risk turning off the population through poor behavior.”
What a stupid, selfish, self-important, car-centric comment.
I think cars risk turning off the population through poor behavior.
But you are probably don’t see my point, do you?
i’ll add that your boorish behavior on here turns me off to any position you take.
Thank you. I am booring but never boring . . . . . and . . . scene.
Regarding cyclists been rude and ignoring traffic laws; since the problem has been identified as primarily a problem with university students, they city needs to work to get the university to provide MORE mandatory instruction on how to use the roads legally. They do offer some training. The city could do the same but really it’s a policing problem. Have the police enforce the laws, give them tickets starting with $25 and increasing with each violation. I agree cyclists should carry ID and have their bikes registered so tickets can be tracked. We live in a university town. When students create problems, we deal with them but we look for constructive solutions. If student renters are a problem, we don’t consider providing less housing or refusing to upgrade rental housing. Your article is just wrongheaded.
I, too, am bothered by cyclists without lights who disobey traffic rules but I see pedestrians do the same thing–they wear all dark clothing, have no lights and dart in front of cars and bikes. Shall we have a black lash against pedestrians?
Regarding cyclists running stop signs, if we used Dutch junctions at all intersections, they would not have to stop because they have the right of way. Now there is a change I can support because I resent car drivers who are rude, who cut me off, who put my life in danger by ignoring the rules of the road because their vehicle is more dangerous than mine and can inflict more damage than mine. I resent the way drivers run cyclists off the road resulting in serious injury or death and get a slap on the wrist because they always claim the cyclist came out of nowhere or swerved in front of their car. When a car hits a cyclist it is assumed they aren’t at fault but that isn’t my experience. Car drivers feel entitled to the road and believe they are being generous to share it with cyclists and when they don’t feel generous, they just take a little more room than is safe for the cyclist and we get hurt and they step on the gas.
“Have the police enforce the laws, give them tickets starting with $25 and increasing with each violation. I agree cyclists should carry ID and have their bikes registered so tickets can be tracked.”
Impossible. There isn’t and never will be a budget for the bicycle-cop army this would require.
$20 license and traffic violation fees would create a big pool of money to pay for bike cops. I’m personally against that but watch what you say is impossible. Remember, a town full of liberals love taxes and fees.
Point taken!
Let’s see, $20 a bike license at let’s say @ 60,000 bikes in Davis gives us a nice little tidy sum of $1,200,00. That’s got to be good for at least a dozen bike cops. Add to that the extra revenue from the tickets they write and maybe we could knock off a big chunk out of our city budget deficit. A new fee and a liberal’s dream.
BP wrote:
> Let’s see, $20 a bike license at let’s say @ 60,000
> bikes in Davis gives us a nice little tidy sum of
> $1,200,00.
UC Davis already makes the kids pay $10 (per bike) for a license, I wonder where all that money goes?
“All bikes on the UC Davis campus must have a current California Bicycle License. A new license costs $10 and a renewal is $5.”
http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/licenses
“Let’s see, $20 a bike license at let’s say @ 60,000 bikes in Davis gives us a nice little tidy sum of $1,200,00.”
Yes, but could illegals get bike licenses?
Don’t worry Alan, we’re a sanctuary city, illegals don’t have to follow laws in Davis.
That’s not what being a sanctuary city means.
Sometimes my sarcasm goes right over your head.
Dutch junctions look very dangerous and will result in more accidents. Bikers blowing through intersections will create havoc.
“Dutch junctions look very dangerous and will result in more accidents. Bikers blowing through intersections will create havoc.”
they won’t be able to blow through intersections. you don’t see a whole lot of bikes going against traffic lights, just stop signs.
Did you see the Dutch junction video at a four way corner? Even in the video that was promoting the Dutch junction one car had to come to a somewhat abrupt stop because a biker blew through the intersection right in front of the car while they were making a right turn. That format looked like an invitation to death.