[sustran] Bicycles - Improving the image

[Obwon]

J.H. Crawford wrote:
> 
> >  Sidewalk cyclist:
> >
> 
> There's a really simple and perfectly legal solution: dismount and
> walk the bike. Now, I don't have a real problem if people ride
> slowly and carefully on sidewalks that aren't crowded and make
> a point of yielding to pedestrians, but how do you make this a
> point of law?
  
  I don't like reaching for legal solutions so fast!  That's probably
why we have laws that define in so much detail how you should butter
your bread.  In fact you don't even need a new law or any penalties
besides.  Police can give citations that have to be answered in court.
Even if there isn't a fine for the objectionable activity cited, it's
still a terrible chore to have to appear and answer. Since failure to do
so could result in much worse action - a warrant and possibly time spent
waiting in jail to see the judge.  That's more than enough punishment
for a first offender of such inconsequential rules.

  When I do ride through pedestrians (at street fair etc., because of my
bad feet) I straddle the bike center bar and 'leg' it along. I usually
don't even draw any attention.  But the key here again is not the simple
draconian impostion of a blanket prohibition.  I've found many sidewalks
in the city that are long 1/4 to 1/2 mile that are infinitely preferable
to the streets they abutt.  There are sidewalks in normally high traffic
areas that are so bereft of foot traffic that a biker might chose to use
them because the street itself is either under construction, blocked or
in disrepair.

  The key, again is judgement and failing that a bit of community
action.  I don't think that if several pedestrians simply addressed the
problem riders with a bit of verbal notice, that bikers would totally
ignore it.  If that attracted the attention of a nearby policeman, he
could issue a citation as well. Not the 100 dollar fines the Mayor here
has demanded. Taking that money away from the biker may make some
impression, I'm not sure. But at their rates of pay it's got to hurt the
people depending on that bikers wages even more!  

  Such inconsiderate actions I can hardly support. Our own Mayor, for
instance, has suggested that people on welfare who refuse work have
money taken away from them.  He openly theorizes that if their children
go without eating that will motivate them.  Right, punish the children
for the parents failings. Anyone see anything wrong with this picture? 
It would be fine if we all made good wages, had nice houses and plenty
to eat.  But to take money from people who clearly don't have it is
crude, rude and highly improper!  
 
  Obwon

 
> >  So these things need to be considered when rulemaking/traffic design
> >is under consideration.  Instead, the city council has threatened these
> >already struggling people with 150 dollar fines and the loss of their
> >bikes, for taking actions they deemed necessary to either keep their
> >jobs or make those jobs pay.  If the police had strickly enforced these
> >laws, thankfully they do not, the messenger and bike delivery industries
> >would be effectively closed down.  Delivery people could observe these
> >laws, but then they'd be seen by their employers as ineffective in
> >getting deliveries made properly.
> 

> Maybe not. If the laws were universally obeyed, then all
> courrier services would be on an even footing. Prices would
> rise some, demand would decline a little, but the total
> amount of work in the busines would probably stay about
> the same. What else are the customers going to do to get
> their stuff around? Not taxis, not pedestrians, so what's left?
> Bike courriers.

 That's the trouble!  When you put pressure on any economic or social
order that order tends to change in ways that seek advantages.  The
bosses have one set of objectives the riders another.  The bosses need
to move the same number of messages with slower riders will see the
solution as hiring more riders.  Even if they raise prices a bit, the
increase in staffing will cut the riders earnings.

  On the other hand even the best paid riders are poor by regular wage
earning standards, so it behooves them to take any increase in stride
and still attempt to deliver more messages to push their earnings even
higher. It's not like they're pulling down a thousand dollars a week and
trying to make 1,100. It's more like they are earning  300 to 400 and
taking home 200 to 300.  So, if they want even a taste of the better
things of life they've got to really hustle.  Their rent takes half a
month's pay.

  With every dollar so precious they'll individually come to whatever
conclusions they can about obeying the law while they try to make the
same income or more. It's a constant struggle and since the police can't
be everywhere they'll more likely be rewarded for breaking the law than
punished on that account.  Those who obey the law will suffer as the
faster riders take business away.  If the police get the faster riders,
they simply put them out of business because they're living at the
extreme margin of the workforce. 

  The slower law abiding riders won't earn much more money anyway and
messages will back up in the office! That means that the business that
uses only law abiding riders will be punished. So I'm sure that you can
see that the only way for the gov't to remedy the problem would be for
them to step in and regulate the rates that the services not only charge
their clients but what they must pay the messenger as well and the
number of deliveries that may be assigned to each.  Under such
regulation the whole bike messenger industry would collapse out of
hopelessness.  

  The police can no more reasonably regulate bike messengers/bikers than
they can control jaywalkers, they have much more urgent things that need
their attention and there's too many lawbreakers because people have
come to see it as their right!  I'm often amazed at how pedestrians will
call out bikers for sanctions as law breakers and then scream if they
get a ticket for jaywalking???  So what's all the hue and cry about
obeying the law?  The problem as I see it is, the law is entitled to
some obedience to be sure, but not "mindless obedience", even your
boss/minister/wife/president isn't entitled to that! <g>

 Obwon

> 
>                                           ###
> 
> J.H. Crawford    Crawford Systems    joel at xs4all.nl    http://www.mokum.com/