OC Register Column

[dstepper]

Cars and bicycles shouldn't compete

GORDON DILLOW
Register columnist
GLDillow@aol.com

I was driving along an open stretch of Pacific Coast Highway the other day, at or just under the posted speed limit of 50 mph, and every hundred yards or so I was passing groups of two or three or a dozen bicyclists pedaling along in the bike lane. And that's when it occurred to me:
I don't want to share the road. More specifically, I don't want to share a high-speed road with bicycle riders – not because it's that big of a problem for me, but because it's too dangerous for them.
As you may know, "Share the Road" is the slogan for the campaign to make car drivers cooperate with bike riders. The idea is to encourage motorists to be more aware of bicyclists and treat them safely and courteously.
That's certainly a laudable goal. And perhaps cars and bikes can safely share the roads in residential or other areas where the speed limits are 30 or 35 mph.
But on roads like sections of Pacific Coast Highway, where speed limits range up to 55 mph, it seems like utter madness to have 3,000- or 4,000-pound cars going 55 mph hurtle past 25-pound bikes going 15 mph – with nothing more substantial between them than a thin white stripe delineating the shoulder or the "bike lane." It's like allowing baby strollers on the freeway.
Yes, I know we've spent millions of dollars creating bike lanes – as opposed to separate, no-cars-allowed bike "paths" and "trails" – along our streets and highways. I also realize that in this day and age there are few things more politically incorrect than to suggest that cars be given preference over bicycles. After all, in the popular view, motor vehicles are pollution-spewing, gas-guzzling (and gasoline tax-paying) monsters, while bikes are benign, environmentally friendly little munchkins.
But the problem is that when monsters mix with munchkins, the munchkins are inevitably going to get stepped on – too often with tragic results.
Consider the numbers. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2005 there were 115 "pedalcyclists" – that's the NHTSA's word – killed in traffic crashes in California, nine of them in Orange County. True, bicycle fatalities were only about 3 percent of the total 4,300 traffic-related fatalities in the state, but if you factor in such things as "fatalities per miles traveled," it's pretty clear that statistically it's more dangerous to ride a bike on the roads than to drive a car.
And whose fault is that?
Stats on that are hard to come by. But I asked two veteran Orange County traffic cops that question, and both agreed that, based on their experiences, half or more of car vs. bike collisions are caused by the bicyclists. They veer into traffic lanes, they travel the wrong way on streets, they blow through stoplights – in short, they don't safely share the road.
Obviously, a lot of motorists do boneheaded things, too. They veer into bike lanes, cut across them into parking lots, don't keep their eyes open for bicyclists and so on.
But the point is that regardless of who is at fault in a car vs. bike collision, it's the bicyclist who's going to suffer, physically at least. Once again, no 25-pound bike is ever going to "win" in a collision with a 4,000-pound car – and yet we persist in trying to mix heavy, high-speed motor vehicles with light, low-speed bikes on high-volume, relatively high-speed roads.
Well, some people would argue that we'd actually be better off if we all slowed down to a bicyclist's pace of 15 mph or so – and who knows, maybe they're right. But in the real world, fast-moving cars and slow-moving bikes simply don't mix. Under those conditions, the only real solution is to physically separate them as much as possible with barriers or dedicated bike paths.
Now, I'm sure I'll be hearing from bicyclists who will explain to me – in a civil manner, I hope – just how wrong I am on this one. If so, I'll try to fairly present their point of view in a future column.
In the meantime, I'll continue to try to safely "share the road" with bicyclists, and I would encourage other motorists to do the same.
But I still can't figure out why any bicyclist would be crazy enough to want to share the road with us.

Contact the writer: CONTACT THE WRITER 714-796-7953 or GLDillow@aol.com

[mp3]

Someone invite this guy to the Thursday Fully Loop ride and give him a beer afterwards.

[maxwell]

Man, it's sad to say,(and feel) but I sorta agree with him.

I started commuting back to work a couple of weeks ago, and before I did, I actually searched for a route with less cars to worry about.
My old route was straight up Irvine Blvd. behind the back of the Marine base, where cars are driving at speeds over 65-70 miles an hour. it's only 9 miles, but to me, it's a freaki'n scary 9 miles! And there's not a whole lot the scare's me!
My new route hit's the bike path most of the way, until it dumps out on Sand Canyon. After that, I don't see much traffic until I hit Alton.

I've ridden PCH, but I try to avoid it for the very reason G.D. wrote this colume for.

so, I guess that's why I'm NOT a roadie!

[gurp13]

There's a couple things wrong with his logic. First off, he implies that cars use gas and pay gas tax so they should get to use the roads more exclusively. That's goofy because I bet nearly all, if not all, of those bicylclists he passed own at least one car and pay plenty of gas tax.

Secondly, 2.6% of the traffic related fatalities were bikes? Okay, but what's with that "fatalities per mile traveled" stat? WTF? That makes no sense. A better statistic for me would be what percentage of bicyclists get in accidents in the first place? Only 9 bicyclists in OC were killed last year. (Yes, that's 9 too many, but let's go beyond that for a second.). So, that's 9 out of how many total bicyclists? If there were 900 bicyclists on the road in OC, that would be 1 percent. But, I think there's probably waaaay more bicyclists on the road in OC. So, less than 1 rider in 100 will be killed. Probably it's more like 1 in 1000 or 10000. Those are pretty good odds.

Oh, and anecdotal evidence from a couple of traffic cops? Yummy, my favorite kind of non-scientific crap. Anecdotal evidence is just about the worst thing to base decisions on. I bet I could find two other cops in OC who would tell me that bicyclists are usually NOT at fault in traffic accidents. So, what does that prove? Nothing.

So, basically, the gist of the column is that bicyclists could be killed (whoa, news flash!) and this guy would rather just not have the responsibility of driving more safely and carefully. He wants bikes off the busiest, fastest roads because it's just too much weight on his conscience and he wants to drive fast without paying attention?

You know what? If you ride on PCH, I think you know what you're getting into. It's madness to suggest that bikes should not be allowed on a public street of any kind. Think of the implications!

[Fired Yo Momma]

I agree with him as well. I ride about once a week to work and I take the SA river bike trail. It is kind of dangerous though when I get off by the Anaheim staduim and have to ride on state collage to get to work. I would never ride on PCH, no way.

Although after looking at this guy he kind of looks like a D-Bag

[RustyIron]

Yup. It's more dangerous to ride a bike. So what? I don't know why Dillow finds it necessary to interfere in something that doesn't directly affect him. His other writing doesn't give one the impression that he's a jerk-knee do-gooder.

This is just a guess, but I would think that the vast majority of the incidents do not involve serious riders, but children and adult yahoos behaving in an unsafe manner. I could be wrong, but it seems logical.

There are exceptions, of course, where some driver mows down completely innocent people, but that happens to riders, joggers, and people standing at the bus stop.

Life ain't safe.

Rob

P.S.
I'm gonna send a link to this thread to Dillow. You're gonna be famous.

[FFW]

He's got it backward; it's 15 lbs and 25 mph

seriously, it goes both ways. I 've seen some of us riding two or three accross in lanes, I've occasionally had to swerve into a lane to avoid a hazard and yes, I've performed some amazingly bone-headed maneuvers. But in my experience, the most dangerous encounters have been with angry or beligerant drivers who've intentionally swerved into me, thrown slurpies, bottle & cans & trash at me, spit on and punched me through the window and have even got out of their cars to confront me physically. Hardly anyone ever slows down when approaching a group of cyclists. And yeah, like anyone really drives the speed limit, let alone safely on PCH anyhow. Out here in Palmdale, 50 mph is the posted speed in front of the Vons shopping center - I'm serious!

Most bike lanes are infested with joggers, stroller-pushing joggers, are pot-holed and littered with trash, gravel, debis, and broken glass. They are unsafe because they are not maintained. I would love it if we had our own roads and trails but that will never happen. So if we are paying for our politicians to build bike lanes as well as roads for cars, shouldn't the bike lanes be maintained at least as well as the roads? Shouldn't the bike-only postings be enforced?

Rant off

[Nagaredama]

I wonder how many more cyclists there would be if more bike "paths" were available. We should study what the Dutch have done in regards to making a bike a form of transportation instead of just recreation. 30% of all trips in the Netherlands are done on a bicycle. If I could use my car 30% less that would be great. Shoot if my office had a shower I could ride my bike to work 4 days a week without ever riding on a street thanks to the bike paths along the beach and creek here in West LA.

How about doing what [SIZE=-1]Rio de Janeiro [/SIZE] and Sao Paulo Brazil do on Sunday...they completely close one or two major streets. It is pretty cool to see all the cyclists buzzing down the street, kids playing soccer in the middle of a major interections, and the old folks walking along enjoying a Sunday stroll.

In terms of realpolitik he hit the nail on the head. Regardless of whom is at fault in a bike-car accident the cyclist will always lose.

[project_d]

Originally Posted by gurp13

...2.6% of the traffic related fatalities were bikes? Okay, but what's with that "fatalities per mile traveled" stat? WTF? That makes no sense.

That's exactly what I thought when I read it. That has no real correlation on the topic at all. He reminded me of when Homer Simpson said something to the effect of: "Anybody can come up with statistics to support their ideas; 42% of Americans know that!"

[0gravity]

I'm just scratching my head on this one.

So some major roads like PCH are more dangerous to bikers because cars go whipping by at 50+. Sure, we all know that, but some of us (OK, probably mostly roadies) are still willing to take that chance because they're our roads too and sometimes these roads need to be used to get to other, safer roads. I do ocassionaly ride PCH from Santa Monica up through Malibu and it's fine. I don't like it much, and I don't go out of my way to do it, but sometimes I have to take it. And I'd be super-pissed beyond belief if I wasn't allowed to.

I think any move towards dis-allowing bikers on even major, fast, dangerous roads, would set a terrible precedent. Not to mention, it would require a major change in the law that just won't happen. So drivers on these roads should simply have to keep their eyes on the road and keep from veering off the road into the bike lanes and/or shoulders. Is that really too much to ask?

With all of California's traffic congestion, pollution, and astronomical gas prices -- and the fact most Americans are overweight and could use the excercise -- we as a society should be making it easier and safer for bikes to ride on all roads. Not questioning whether they should be there in the first place.

And I agree, Dillow isn't interpreting those stats right. In fact, as a columnist, he should be finding experts to interpret those stats, not him. He says "True, bicycle fatalities were only about 3 percent of the total 4,300 traffic-related fatalities in the state, but if you factor in such things as "fatalities per miles traveled," it's pretty clear that statistically it's more dangerous to ride a bike on the roads than to drive a car." Ballocks. Since cars clear so much more ground than bikes over a given period of time, of course it's going to look like riders are more prone to injury based on injuries over total mileage travelled. Whatever. That's just not a relevant stat.

I'll still scratching my head over that column.

[ericfoltz]

Lets see, there were 115 bicycle related deaths out of 4300 traffic related deaths in California. Somehow it seems like driving your car on the road is more dangerous than riding your bike. Funny that he doesn't have any problem with motorcycles since they tend to lose in any car related accident also.

[OMR]

Originally Posted by hbfrdh

"Anybody can come up with statistics to support their ideas; 42% of Americans know that!"

The cigarette companies use to advertise (before many of you were born) that 2 out of 3 DOCTORS smoked & recommended Camels ... funny thing about this was they could never find those 2 doctors... probably now dead!

Becareful of statistics and actors...

OMR

[SAR_boats]

Although some of my thoughts on this article will mirror some things that have already been said I am compelled to throw my 2 cents into the well of opinion...

First, I have been biking for quite a while. I have been hit by cars twice and both times it was the driver's fault. The first time I was riding in the street with the flow of traffic, and some moron gunned it out of a tacobell drive thru, apparently too busy worrying about stuffing his face with the burrito he just bought than looking where he was going. I ended up halfway under the car. The bike was totaled and I had deep muscle bruises all up and down my right leg. That ended my XC racing career with GT bicycles. Not that I was that great at it but I never came in last and it was nice to not have to pay for bikes and parts.
The second time a van cut me off to get into a gas station. I only suffered cuts and bruises but I put a big dent in the side of the van.

All that being said, I highly doubt that Dillow has the best interest of bikers in mind. I also doubt that he even rides a bike at all. So, what the f@ck does he know?
He is the typical wide in the a$$, narrow in the mind d!ckhead who claims to be an expert on everything. My concern is that when enough people like him write articles like this, some legislator reads it and passes laws based on the misinformation contained in it. (I was a congressional aide for a while. Trust me, it happens)

So Dillow is going to sit there and tell me that with all the drivers who are decrepit, incompetant, putting on makeup, eating, talking on the cell phone, typing on a laptop, fiddling with the stereo, drunk, stoned, yelling at the kids in the back seat, yelling at their wife/husband in the front seat, not tall enough to see over the dash board, and trying to find the nearest McDonalds; that cyclists are the ones to blame for most of the accidents. I don't know about y'all but when I ride, I concentrate on riding. I don't do any of the stupid $hit that drivers do, but cyclists are the ones to blame because they swerve into traffic now and then. I'll bet more cars cross into the bike lane than bikes swerve into traffic.

I agree that Dillow just wants to clear his conscience and make himself feel better, should he run into a biker. After all, he looks pretty geriatric and you know how they drive...(no offense to OMR or any of the older bikers out there)

[Winger]

Admittedly, I hate sharing the road with bikers for the same reason. I fear for the safety of the bikers. I fear that I'll be distracted for a split second and veer off the road.

As I drive on Santiago Canyon Road with my mtn bike in the back of my car on the way to a trail, I notice that most roadies ride ON the white line. Many times they cross over it into the lane of traffic. I can never understand why they don't use the far right hand side of the 6 foot bike lane. A flat tire is better than being flat.

On PCH from Santa Monica to Malibu, I witnessed a large group of maybe 50 roadies taking up 1 of 2 road lanes because they were stacked 4 wide. Why can't they ride single file and use the shoulder? The road is so dangerous & curvy that they are asking for disaster. Plus, they were completely disrupting the flow of car traffic on a Saturday morning.

But then I always tell myself that I should try out road riding before passing judgement because there's probably another side to the story.

[Pilas]

Let's see, he is a columninst, from the Register. What do you expect?
I don't know what point he is trying to make anyways.
I ocassionally read some of his columns and he should not be taken seriously. Last week he even wrote a column that had grammatical errors. I guess the are not big on proof reading.
I used to get upset about some of his columns. Now I don't
take him seriously. In fact, the whole paper can't be taken seriously. Not only I don't share their political agenda, but also the quality of most of their columnists is pretty mediocre, to say the least.
By the way, I completely agree with SAR_boats comments. I think that all of my riding buddies that have been hit by cars, were victims of reckless or distracted drivers.
There are too many drivers out there with the mentality that the road is only for cars, and that bikes are just an obstacle that makes them two minutes late to their very important appointments.
Bikes are not the problem. The problem is bad drivers who feel entitled to speed through residential streets, while talking on the phone, or eating their breakfast burritos. The last think we need is another "journalist" giving excuses and justifiying the behavior of these drivers.

[0gravity]

Originally Posted by Winger

On PCH from Santa Monica to Malibu, I witnessed a large group of maybe 50 roadies taking up 1 of 2 road lanes because they were stacked 4 wide. Why can't they ride single file and use the shoulder? The road is so dangerous & curvy that they are asking for disaster. Plus, they were completely disrupting the flow of car traffic on a Saturday morning.

But then I always tell myself that I should try out road riding before passing judgement because there's probably another side to the story.

By law, cyclists are entitled to take up a whole lane if they deem it necessary for safety. Even if there's only one lane for traffic. This can make sense if you're going through a section of construction or an area with no shoulder. This can also make sense when there's a large group and two lanes for each direction. I sporatically ride with a West side road group and there's a section of Ocean blvd. where we take up a whole lane. We do it because the group is just too big to single file it, we're going roughly the speed of traffic, and cars still have one lane, which is usually enough.

PCH is different than Ocean, which is a city road. I'm not certain I'd advocate taking up a whole lane on PCH because there's a good shoulder up here on most of it. But I can see it being done there too. I wouldn't, however, call it curvey by any means. I could also care less if our riding disrupts traffic, particularly on a Saturday morning when people should chill out. The big group you saw was probably doing it partly to be a tad defiant towards vehicle traffic. It doesn't win riders many friends in cars, but I'll still all for it.

[OMR]

Originally Posted by dstepper

Cars and bicycles shouldn't compete

GORDON DILLOW
Register columnist
GLDillow@aol.com

But I asked two veteran Orange County traffic cops that question, and both agreed that, based on their experiences, half or more of car vs. bike collisions are caused by the bicyclists. They veer into traffic lanes, they travel the wrong way on streets, they blow through stoplights – in short, they don't safely share the road.

Tell this sh*t to Christy who was killed several months back by a motorist that took her out in the bike lane on Santiago Canyon Road as she was riding the back way out of Whiting to the STT/Luge. Debbie, who was riding right next to her on the inside at the time of the accident said that they were well within the wide bike lane. She's still in a state of shock of this... as are most of us who knew this wonderful person. Sorry... just doesn't cut it!

OMR

[dstepper]

George, do you think we should