ann arbor is overrated.

Uncritical (of the) Mass

Elliot Mallen writes about Critical Mass in today’s Daily. Ann Arbor drivers have been remarkably tolerant of the movement, two of its riders tell him. “[D]owntown Ann Arbor’s streets and the sheer volume of traffic make a bike a far more practical mode of transportation. Residents of Ann Arbor realize this, and so the rides continue without excessive hostility from motorists or police,” one of them says. Or perhaps because in a town as small as Ann Arbor, it’s fairly easy to turn off on to an alternate street and get on one of the major arteries out of town (unless you’re unlucky enough to be riding the bus.) The worst harassment they usually experience is “some aggravated frat boy looking to pass everyone as soon as he can while yelling ‘beatnik’ out the window,” another rider says. If we were riding the bus home from our job in Ann Arbor to the apartment in the townships that was the only place we could afford, only to have Washtenaw blocked by hippies chanting “We don’t need cars, we don’t need gas, to ride around town in a Critical Mass!” we’d probably have the urge to yell something a little stronger.

“The rapidly deteriorating weather could put a damper on Critical Mass,” though, he writes. Wait — does that mean that there’s some time when bikes aren’t the most practical form of transportation?

105 Responses to “Uncritical (of the) Mass”

“[D]owntown Ann Arbor’s streets and the sheer volume of traffic make a bike a far more practical mode of transportation. ”
I *love* to read things like this. The only thing I’m really curious about is if he believes it himself. It’s so much more practical to be on a bike and get hit by a car during an ice storm than it is to be in the car that does the hitting. Not to speak about personal comfort. I mean, this whole area was settled on bicycles. Caravans of them, heading West.
posted by Michael McC. on October 10th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Perhaps a place where one could avoid most of the aggravations of Ann Arbor would be a strip mall suburb?

Lots of cars, lots of cheap supermarkets, second hand stores open and cheap and a drive away, fairy doors pretty invisible on the vast concrete windowless walls of the nearby 24hr drugstore (especially when you’re driving by at 50 m/hr)? Not only that, but such places — which make up a fair proportion of the country — are almost never overrated!
posted by Anonymous on October 10th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
The reason that Ann Arbor is so aggravating is that everything useful is in a strip mall suburb-type area far from town. But you’re right, as long as you need a car anyway, living in an actual strip mall suburb would have some advantages: enough parking spaces to leave your car when you’re not at the supermarket, and less complaining about how certain members of the community shouldn’t have cars.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 10th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
I’m a pretty hard-core bike commuter, and I agree that for a short commute like mine (west side to UM medical center) the bike is a “far more practical mode of transportation”.

It’s much faster than getting in the car, getting stuck at every light on Huron, waiting to get into the gate-controlled parking structure, then endlessly circling the ramp looking for a spot, and finally walking another quarter of a mile to the lab. No thanks.

If I want to, I can pick up groceries for dinner at Sparrow’s on the way home. I’m surprised how much stuff I can haul with panniers on the back rack. And good rain/cold weather gear helps a lot, but I do switch to the bus when the ice and snow start in the winter.

If you are as brave (or stupid) as I am, you can even bike to strip malls like westgate or maple village. It’s not the riding there, it’s the navigating the parking lots that can really be deadly. But yeah, I do use the car for major grocery runs, and I’ve never tried to bike any farther out than the stadium/maple area. I did bike over to Kohl’s once, though, and that was surprisingly easy to get to.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on October 10th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
My favorite Ann-Arbor winter sight of all time was a guy on Observatory on a Schwinn, riding in the street, through slush about four, five inches high. He… wasn’t really going anywhere. Except about to be run over by the bus I was on. So not always practical, yes.

I’ve biked out to the Kroger’s on Plymouth from Kerrytown, and you called it, LVR - it’s the parking lots that get you.

Anonymous - don’t bring the godforesaken fairy doors into this. Christ.

PS - Anyone know the fine for not having your bike registered? I tried, but the police “ran out of permits” at the UM free-permit day, 4 hours ahead of when the free registration was supposed to end (A+ effort, AAPD). And the bike being all of $20 and rather un-stealable except by the more desperate indie kids, I’m not a fan of giving the city the $6 or so I heard it is for a permit. It’s a bike. Sheesh. I don’t care about benefits and being treated like vehicles, it’s rubber and metal and some oil on the gears and damned if I’m going to pay for a permit.
posted by Jen on October 10th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Um. Isn’t there some sort of Parade Permit ordinance that you have to get if you gather in large numbers on city streets?

And if not, are the bikers using the proper display of streamers and playing cards clothespinned to their spokes so the noise is deafening to pedestrians?

If you’re going to do it, do it right. - Nike.

Blog on!
Sam
posted by Sam on October 10th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
As a former bicyclist (bad knees and back forbid it now), I am dismayed at jerks like “Critical Mass.” Instead of drawing attention to the benefits of cycling around town, reducing traffic, parking problems, etc, they upset many drivers who would then be less likely in the future to give a solo bicylist a break.
posted by Garry K on October 11th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Um, Garry, I don’t know what you’re talking about…

Not too long ago the wife and I were headed back to Saline in our Land Rover when we saw a throng of loud (referring to both attire and volume) cyclists. I said to her, “dear, I now realize the benefits of man-powered two wheel travel. I’m selling this SUV, buying a single-speed, and never looking back.” Sure it’s only been a couple of weeks, but you can count me as a success story!

Or, you can count me as a sarcastic cyclist who thinks critical mass accomplishes nothing positive.
posted by FAA on October 11th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Jen,

I didn’t even know you were supposed to register bikes! For what it’s worth, I’ve been here 4 years and haven’t been cited for “illegal bike usage”. So you’ll probably be safe without the sticker. I thought the registration was voluntary and used mostly for stolen bike recovery anyway.

I find the critical mass gang sort of amusing. Especially when the guy in the gorilla suit joins them. Of course, I only see them at Friday happy hour, and my beer consumption adds to my amusement.
posted by Anonymous on October 11th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
re: bike permits. my bike is unregistered and has been for at least 5 years. i got a $50 ticket about 3 years ago for locking the bike to a parking sign instead of a bike rack ($25) and for it being unregistered (another $25). this was at the UM medical campus.

of course, i ripped up the ticket– how were they going to find me?
posted by anonymous on October 11th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Couldn’t we reserve our cyclist-directed ire for the jerks who ride their bikes on the sidewalk, rather than the critical mass crew who follow traffic rules and ride in the street where bikes belong?
posted by Joy on October 11th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
There are a number of good reasons why bikes are supposed to ride in the street, but I would guess that most people find them far more of a nuisance there than on the sidewalk. Even though we know that we really shouldn’t, that they each represent one fewer car, and so on. But Critical Mass is specifically trying to be a nuisance.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 11th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Of course Critical Mass has made me rethink my concept of public space…obviously, they are to be used to annoy large numbers of people for the purpose of calling attention to one’s morally virtuous cause.

And…the capacity to inflict such an annoyance will make you feel EMPOWERED! (I love that word!) No doubt this will lead to other “meaningful connections with public space!”

Do you think a gorilla suit would help?
posted by Bklyn NY on October 11th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Once a month a big group of cyclists takes to the road, and suddenly we’re supposed to feel sorry for all the poor drivers who might be inconvenienced for ten minutes on that one day out of thirty because they have to share?

Good lord, I realize the fun of AAiO is that we get to bitch about stupid, inconsequential crap and take cheap shots at unfair targets, but since when have Ann Arbor’s SUV drivers been an oppressed population that must be defended from the big, powerful interests of bikers?
posted by Joy on October 11th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Gorilla suits always help.

Bikes on sidewalks = badbadbad idea.

All the near misses I’ve witnessed in town have been sidewalk bikers blatantly scooting off the handicapped ramps into the paths of oncoming cars. Or cars pulling out of driveways. No car driver expects something moving that fast to be on the sidewalk.

Most drivers around here are cool with bikes on the downtown streets, but I try to stay to the side streets and not annoy commuters on the main arteries out of town.
posted by Anonymous on October 11th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Ughh I hate sidewalk bikers. Especially when they expect you to move.

I’ve been here now for all of two months and the first thing i noticed was how there was nothing useful in walking distance, other than the bar. Is there an ordinance that prevents a small grocery($$$not the Coop) or hardware store to be located intown??? AA has alot of potential if the powers that be would just loosen the reins. It feels more like a planned community than a liberal oasis.
posted by murder on October 11th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
It is a liberal oasis. Albeit a wealthy one.
posted by JCP2 on October 11th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Right on Joy! I agree with you.

It’s not really a bike friendly town — it’s just a small town, and so not so incredibly uncomfortable for bikes as some big cities are. If there were a few more streets with real bike lanes, there would be fewer sidewalk bikers. And there might also be no critical mass.

Moreover, if we actually were a walk and bike culture, it would be easier for the Decker Drugs of the town, etc., to stay in business. And so, it would be possible to walk and bike to the kinds of places you need.

It would also be economically reasonable to run frequent buses and trains — even to the airport! or, dare I say it, Windsor!

Kate
posted by Anonymous on October 11th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Why does riding a bike or other ordinary activities always need to be a political statement? I don’t mind people riding bikes (sometimes I’m one of those people), but folks who always feel like they need to raise my “awareness” of such-and-such tend to just irritate.
posted by Dave on October 12th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Also, if you like your bike it’s a good idea not to ride it for about 5 months out of the year here. Between the effects of the extreme cold on a hydraulic suspension and the effects of moisture and road salt on everything else, the winter is no time to ride anything other than a really, really shitty bike.
posted by Nick on October 12th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
What about the not-in-shape bikers who can’t ride fast enough for some of the downtown streets without bike lanes? It seems safer to be very traffic/pedestrian consciencious and courteous biking on the sidewalk than holding up a phalanx of cars.
posted by ellen on October 13th, 2005 at 12:50 am
Yeah, about that hydraulic suspension… So are you one of those guys with an incredibly good trail bike that they only use for going to class? That’s the biking equivalent to a Porsche SUV soccer mom in my opinion.

As for me, I walk everywhere. Walking really shouldn’t be considered so odd, but it definitely is for some reason here (”oh my god, you *walked* to north campus?!” - which is a 25 min walk from my house, and it beats waiting for the bus half the time, but it always astounds half the people I know - people who, I might add, use treadmills when they work out).

So there’s no “critical mass” for me. I try to walk in the middle of the street whenever I have the chance though, just to do my part.
posted by Keith on October 13th, 2005 at 12:55 am
Downtown traffic doesn’t really move fast enough that a slow biker is going to hold everything up. And, believe it or not, most of the streets are wide enough that cars can pass, though they might have to wait for a few car-lengths. Ever see anyone try to ride on the sidewalk on a Friday or Saturday evening? It’s a nightmare for everyone - pedestrians, people eating on the sidewalk cafes, people walking their dogs….

That said, I’ve seen out of shape bikers holding up traffic going up the hill west on Jackson Road - that’s a case where sidewlk biking might be the better alternative.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on October 13th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Ellen, it’s called a sideWALK for a reason.

Even fatty cyclists belong in the street… And although it requires a great deal more effort, I won’t think twice about pushing your critically-massive and chunky self off the sideWALK and into the street should I see you two-wheeling towards me during one of my otherwise peaceful pedestrian journeys.
posted by FAA on October 13th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Some of AA’s official bike routes are sidewalks - along Fuller for instance.
posted by tom on October 13th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Destpite FAA’s breathtaking etymology, it is perfectly legal
to ride your bike on the sidewalk
as long as you yield to pedestrians. Although most of
us would not want to exercise
this right on crowded sidewalks, you can, and if FAA tries to push anyone off the sidewalks, or indeed push anyone anywhere, we can call the police (which are of course hair bugs that came from the river Po.) FAA, you have a point (though I think it’s not very well thought through), but you are a bully.
posted by Kate on October 13th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Joy -

How about we instead feel sorry for the poor Critical Masshole who’s loved one dies in an ambulance stuck in a traffic jam that he caused.

Or not.

I stopped driving well before I became aware of these folks, and they still drive me absolutely crazy. The notion that you can just go out and meddle with other people’s lives because you don’t like something they’re doing is the height of hubris.
posted by ramsey on October 13th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Ramsey, well put. And even though I still don’t like the “mass” holes they are, at the very least, a display of cyclists where they should be - in the streets.

Kate, um, thanks, but I didn’t really have a point so much as violent animosity towards sidewalk riding cyclists. Oh, and I might just be all talk (for the record, I’ve never physically assaulted anyone in Ann Arbor…). I don’t believe Michigan has a case of the bicycle within the category of vehicular assault, a felony, as some other states do. So even if a cyclist on the sidewalk were to run me down, and I retaliated in the manner in which I’ve fantasized so many times, I would be punished severely and they would be slapped on the wrist. There… now I’ve thought it through…

Tom, something should be done to correct the oversight of having “official bike routes” ever sharing use with pedestrians. Multiple studies show sidewalk riding to be much more dangerous than street riding: http://massbike.org/resources/stats.htm#sidewalk
posted by FAA on October 13th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
I’m willing to bet that a whole lot more ambulances have gotten stuck in traffic jams caused exclusively by motor vehicles than traffic jams caused in part by bikes.
posted by Joy on October 13th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
I think it’s worth it to note that there is a difference between sidewalks and “sidepaths”, which is what is next to Fuller or Washtenaw. Sidepaths might be a better option for bikes, but they have to be wide enough to support both bikes and pedestrians. And they usually aren’t.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on October 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
FAA,
I agree that there should be no sidewalk bike routes. My point, and I do have one, is that AA encourages sidwalk bike riding, even though they shouldn’t.

I’m a sometime bike commuter, and find AA a little frustrating in its erratic accomodations for cyclists.
posted by tom on October 13th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
I ride my bike on the sidewalk when I feel like I’m in danger by riding on the street. If anyone wants to buy me a helmet, so be it, I’ll move. But I’ve gotten more close calls with being nearly hit on the street than only the sidewalk, and whichever I’m on I follow the rules that go along with it.

Also, I never ever ever expect pedestrians to move over for me. I don’t even ring my cute little bike-bell and expect them to notice - I’ve followed pedestrians walking for maybe a half block, if they were taking up the whole sidewalk and didn’t notice me behind them. No big deal. If I need to go really fast, I’ll get a helmet and a permit and ride in the street.

Now, the reason I was worrying about the permit was I was afraid of riding in the street and having a cop pull me over for being without a permit. Don’t know why that seemed more likely in the street than on the sidewalk - maybe ’cause then you’re officially traffic and not a pedestrian. Anyhow, for the fact that I due frequently lock my bike to random places, maybe I’ll keep to not registering the thing. I’ve had it three years now and haven’t had a problem, but at this point I couldn’t afford one should it arise.
posted by Jen on October 13th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I’m not sure that sidewalk bike baths are due to oversight so much as to the recognition that biking on the street can be pretty dangerous. It’s all very well
for the fiesty, the grown up, and especially drivers who can gauge how cars behave, but if I had a 12 year old child, for example, I wouldn’t want her riding on Ann Arbor roads to school. That’s sad.
posted by Kate on October 13th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
It should be noted that many sidewalk cyclists are generally less skilled than street-wise cyclists, and are prone to more mishaps because of this (see http://www.enhancements.org/trb%5C1636-011.pdf). That is, they may get into accidents, in part, because they are crap cyclists not necessarily because they are on the sidewalk. Sending them into the street will increase the number of street accidents. (Although I will admit that you are more likely to hit another pedestrian if you bike on the sidewalk because there are generally more pedestrians on the sidewalk.)
posted by Bklyn NY on October 13th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Jen,
My bike is unregistered (for one thing, I live outside the city borders), and I have never been stopped by the cops for riding an unregistered bike even though I ride on the streets all the time. I think the registration is more for tracing stolen bikes.

You should get a helmet no matter what kind of riding you do. You can seriously damage your noggin even if your bike is standing stock still when you fall.
posted by tom on October 13th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Joy-

Of course more ambulances are stuck in traffic jams caused by cars. What is this supposed to buy you? Does it somehow make an ambulance stuck in a traffic jam caused by folks who are intentionally mucking up traffic somehow more excusable to you?
posted by ramsey on October 13th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Would it be excusable if the ambulance is trying to get to/from a CAR accident?
posted by Keith on October 13th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Ugh, see what I mean?

Am I morally superior, a scumbag, or half-and-half if I sometimes drive a car and sometimes ride a bike? I’m so confused by this self-righteous pissing contest…
posted by Dave on October 13th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Bklyn NY, the study PDF you linked is cited by my link - but the Mass Bike Club also studies themselves, and found this:

“However, the studies of bicycle club members, who are much more experienced than average cyclists, reveal a higher crash rate on paths even for these riders.”

Sure, they’re just one group out of thousands, but I bet they have more Ph.D.’s with research experience than most bike clubs…

Lehigh Valley Refugee, read the studies - here’s a snippet which is against your thinking:

“Contrary to intuition, cyclists riding on bicycle paths (now called “shared use paths”) have a higher crash rate than cyclists riding on roads, although not as high a crash rate as cyclists riding on sidewalks”

That noted, sidewalk cyclists tend to injure both pedestrians as well as themselves - no matter how experienced they are. In the street the injuries are generally only to themselves. Also from the study:

“The data shows that only a minority of bicycle crashes are due to automobiles.”

So keep it safe, keep in the street.

Jen, what color do you want?
posted by FAA on October 13th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
I think pissing contests are the best part of ann arbor. It’s all a kind of comedy to me. Don’t take me seriously.

And I love idiotically extending already ridiculous “hypothetical situation” arguments. It reminds me of that introductory philosophy class I had oh so many years ago…
posted by Keith on October 13th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
I was hit and knocked over by a bike on the sidewalk on State Street once as I was coming out of Decker Drugs and my dog was hit (and also knocked over) by someone on the sidewalk on Main Street near Gratzi. We were both OK, but being hit by a bike is surprisingly non-trivial.
posted by Anna on October 13th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Could I be so bold to ask what a “fairy door” is?
posted by the bunny on October 13th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
They’re little mini doors made
by a guy who first invented them for his own toddlers and then
put a few around town. They were sneered at vigorously in a thread on this site. I must admit I haven’t seen one, but I think they sound like a pretty imaginative entertainment for small children.
posted by Anonymous on October 13th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
As a sometime fantasy geek, I’m torn between thinking they’re kind of cool and scorning them as the ultimate in A2 effeteness.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 13th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
By the way, if you read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, you’ll realize that the doors should be full-size. And that you don’t want them anywhere near you unless you want to be dragged into an eerie ballroom in another world every night.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 13th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Keep it in the street. On bike, I’ve been hit by a car twice in Ann Arbor–both times using their designated sidepath bikelanes. Both times it was where the bike paths intersect busy streets. Both times the stopped driver looked at me before proceeding to run into me (maybe I have that effect on drivers). Drivers don’t expect traffic on sidepaths moving faster than pedestrians and they definitely don’t expect bikes coming “against” the flow of car traffic as many of the sidepath lanes allow. Those rare times when I don’t ride in the street now and use a bikelane, I slow to walking speed–or less–at intersections.

Keep it in the street but off streets like Huron and Washtenaw where to add more lanes, they paint more lines. There are plenty of side street alternatives.

Unless your 12 or under (kinda the rule where I grew up) stay off sidewalks! I’ve commuted by walking at least 10,000 miles in AA over the years and it still pisses me off when a cyclist comes up behind me with their little bell or “on your left.” Ride in the street, wuss!
posted by crazy ate on October 13th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Why do cyclists in Ann Arbor think they own the sidewalks? On Stadium, I can see why you wouldn’t want to ride a bike on the road — but then the sidewalks become to pedestrians what the streets are to cyclists. Sunday afternoon I was walking down Stadium, when a cyclist literally ran me down, despite the fact that he could see me from a block away. I dived aside at the last possible minute, and as he passed — not even slowing down — he called over his shoulder, “I wanted to see if you would get out of the way.”
posted by Baltimore on October 13th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
I didn’t mind sidewalk cyclists when I lived in Ann Arbor. I rode my bike on the sidewalk a lot, but then I lived off of Plymouth Rd. at the time and there was hardly any Pedestrian traffic. I rarely rode around the Downtown area on my bike though. Cyclists in the street freak me out because any cyclist has a tendency to weave side to side naturally rather they are pretending to a bike messenger or a tour de france participant. Now that I live in Chicago, I don’t ride anywhere. It’s too congested and the cab drivers are insane! My German instructor was hit by a car while riding her bike here. Also, I remember over the summer a woman in my neighborhood was killed while riding her bike to work. She hit a bump and fell into the path of a truck. On her birthday too…
posted by the grass is greener... on October 13th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
Bicyclists in Ann Arbor, especially those who ride on the sidewalks on campus or nearby, would do well to follow the Dutch example and get warning bells for their vehicles. I have no problem walking around bikes, or following pedestrian rules with them, just so long as they’re courteous and give me warning of their approach. The ’speed’ factor also seems to be an issue. A more leisurely pace, both for bike and car traffic in the streets, would make most of the more well-traveled areas of town less hazardous.

On the note of ‘courtesy’ however, frankly some of the walkers in AA aren’t much better than their counterparts on bikes (or in cars). I can’t count the number of times I’ve been nearly pushed over or run off of the sidewalk by people walking shoulder-to-shoulder who refuse to move into single or double file to share the space. These individuals have literally looked me in the eye as I slosh into a puddle/pile of leaves/snowbank to get out of their way. I guess what it comes down to is that rude and careless individuals, regardless of their mode of transportation, are going to be a hazard for the rest of us.
posted by Heidi on October 14th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Heidi:

you should come to Manhattan and witness some truly courteous pedestrians.
posted by Real Big on October 14th, 2005 at 1:22 am
Real Big:

I’ve lived in Manhattan, and I didn’t love this particular quality there, either. Call me old fashioned for believing that human courtesy isn’t quite outdated. However, at least in New York you can expect people to be efficient in their brusqueness. Additionally, the persistent crowding of pedestrian walkways at least leaves Manhattanites some excuse - In AA I see no such rationale.
posted by Heidi on October 14th, 2005 at 1:47 am
FAA -

Are you serious? Wow. Um, blue or black or green all work. Coat’s blue, shoes are black, and the bike’s green.

I dug up the helmets from my kid-days, but mine’s now too small and my brother’s is still too big, and I can’t drop $20 on a new one until I get the disputed security deposit refund settled. I’ve checked the resale shops and never had any success.

Heidi - I have a warning bell, but since many pedestrians seem to get annoyed by it, I just wait for a large enough opening where even if they turn I’ll still give them a wide bearth.

I did try running most of my route today on the streets, though. I still don’t think I could do it going to North Campus - I can’t take the hills fast enough, and the paths are meant for bikes, I assume - but one thing I’m curious about:

What’s the official rule for a bike rider on the right side of the lane, wanting to go straight, and a car that wants to turn right on red? I’ve just been leaving enough room so they can go around me, but it doesn’t always work.
posted by Jen on October 14th, 2005 at 3:09 am
One of my favorite aphorisms applies here:
Fuck cars.

Let the Critical Massers have their day, hippies or no (and the folks I know who ride in Critical Mass aren’t really hippies, just slightly more idealistic and perhaps carefree than my cranky self).
posted by Brandon on October 14th, 2005 at 4:46 am
I love bells. My girlfriend has one on her bike and I’m regularly haranguing her to use it instead of waiting for pedestrians to notice her riding patiently behind them and get out of the way.
posted by Dale on October 14th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Jen,

Theoretically, a bike in the street has the same legal right to the space as a car. So if you’re in front of a car that wants to make a right on red, they’re supposed to wait.

In practice, the car driver (or, in my case, the AATA bus driver) honks the horn and edges up behind you in order to scare you out of the way and onto the sidewalk. Alternatively, if the path is clear, you can run the red and get the heck out of their way.

And that right there is why people feel the need for Critical Mass.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on October 14th, 2005 at 10:44 am
A pedestrian who’s minding his or her own business on the sidewalk isn’t obligated to get out of the way of a bicycle. I always thought bells were obnoxious. Your girlfriend is right to ride patiently behind the pedestrians.
posted by Anna on October 14th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Jen, Yes, and I’d pick blue. If $20 is the cost of a creating a good rider I can’t afford to turn all of Ann Arbor around, but I can start with you. If you have no fear of the spambots post your email…

Brandon, your statement reminds me of the Cars-R-Coffins crowd out of Minne: http://www.carsrcoffins.com/

I hate bells. As Kate pointed out, a cyclist on the sidewalk must yield to every pedestrian. A bell marks the sound of an impatient, improper rider about to yield no right of way at all (if you want to go around pedestrians with little chance of hitting them, I highly recommend the 30 or so feet of blacktop just the other side of the curb…). Perhaps that is why many pedestrians seem to get annoyed by them.
posted by FAA on October 14th, 2005 at 11:06 am
I believe that bells or some other noisemaking device is required for bikes on sidewalks by the city of Ann Arbor. Yes, the city actually encourages sidewalk biking.

Bells are useful in situations like Gallup Park, where bikes can really fly up behind people. I rollerblade there, and I’m happy to move to the right to let a bike pass, but I need to hear them behind me first.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on October 14th, 2005 at 11:20 am
“the city actually encourages sidewalk biking.”

it does?
posted by peter honeyman on October 14th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I think so. Examples: They clearly state that bikes are OK on sidewalks, as long is there is a “noisemaking” device on the bike.

Look at the “sidewalk bike route” all the way along the east end of Packard road. How stupid is that?

Ride the bike lane on Liberty going west. Nice bike lane, but what happens at the 7th street intersection? Oh, two blocks of “sidewalk bike route” again. Why? Cars need more room for a left hand turn lane. So instead of just sharing the lane, bikes are supposed to weave on and off the street at that intersection. Dumb.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on October 14th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
“They clearly state that bikes are OK on sidewalks, as long is there is a “noisemaking” device on the bike. ”

The Ann Arbor language: “No person when riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall fail to yield the right of way to any pedestrian.” The state also requires giving “an audible signal before overtaking and passing the pedestrian.”

See http://www.wbwc.org/regulations.htm for comparison of and links to the relevant state and local code.

Personally I always ride in the street and walk my bike if I ever want to use the sidewalk. And I don’t appreciate cyclists brushing past my shoulder at top speed or expecting me to jump out of their way. But I don’t think that making sidewalk cycling illegal, as some local communities have done, is necessarily the right thing to do.

“So instead of just sharing the lane, bikes are supposed to weave on and off the street at that intersection. Dumb.”

Yeah, agreed that the sidewalk bike route signs are dumb; some day they’ll come down…. However, note that they do not have any legal force–while the state does (unfortunately) permit local governments to mandate use of sidepaths, Ann Arbor has never done so. So please feel free to ignore them.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 14th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Bikers want the same right as vehicles?!? Then stop blowing stop signs. Stop blowing through red lights. Obey posted speed limits Greg Lemond wannabe. It’s not 25mph for me and 35mph for you because your wearing bike shorts and your going down a hill. Drivers in this town are bad, granted. However bikers seemingly take pleasure in slowing down an entire lane and then shooting you a nasty look when you pass. No wonder drivers heat on them so badly.
posted by Stephen Haas on October 14th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Haas, turn your Michigan law book to page whatever it’s on - bikers already have the same rights as vehicles.

Now, we just want the same respect. It is unfortunate that many don’t follow all traffic laws, but that doesn’t give one the right to “heat on them so badly…”

By the way, don’t date yourself as a cranky old driver with your Lemond references - us kids only know that Lance guy.
posted by FAA on October 14th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
“What’s the official rule for a bike rider on the right side of the lane, wanting to go straight, and a car that wants to turn right on red? I’ve just been leaving enough room so they can go around me, but it doesn’t always work.”

I don’t know of any “official rule”. If you scootch way over to the right then there’s some chance of a conflict if you go straight at the same time as someone passes you on the left in order to turn right. So the sources I’ve seen recommend moving further left in that case, to encourage right turners to pass on your right. See, e.g., the “going straight through” section of http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter3a.htm.

When I’ve tried that I’ve found people rarely take me up on the offer so I’ve mostly just given up and let them wait.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 14th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
i think it is unwise for a bike to hug the right side of the road. while it may feel polite, it is very dangerous.

if there is not enough room for a car to go around a bike without putting the bike in danger, then the car has to wait. that’s the law.

hugging the right to make room for cars puts bikes in a situation with few options in case of trouble, e.g., if a parked car suddenly opens the door.

for safety, i ride much more toward the middle of the lane. of course, i avoid busy roads.

and i wear a helmet.

and i pray.
posted by peter honeyman on October 14th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
After a suit brought by local biker Ken Clark, the county court decided bikers could make their own decisions about where in the lane was safest to bike.
posted by Dale on October 14th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
I just saw the Los Angeles Critical Mass tonight. Seriously, you cannot argue with bikers taking over Broadway at 11 p.m. And there’s nothing like seeing a few LA drivers stuck behind bicycle traffic for blocks.

There were no ambulances.
posted by Joy on October 15th, 2005 at 2:04 am
At least we can all agree that skateboarders are idiots, right?
posted by Keith on October 15th, 2005 at 2:51 am
Amen to Stephen Haas. Even if there isn’t any traffic, make the damn stop. It’ll cost you maybe 2 seconds — but it’ll buy you at least some respect from the car behind you.

And drivers: it won’t hurt you to slow down to 18MPH for a second or two until there’s enough room to pass.

Ok, rant off.

“What’s the official rule for a bike rider on the right side of the lane, wanting to go straight, and a car that wants to turn right on red? I’ve just been leaving enough room so they can go around me, but it doesn’t always work.”

Depending on the light, I’ll glance back and motion forward. If I know the intersection, I’ll look back before the light and let the car pass before the stop.
posted by Matt Hampel on October 15th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Jen,
posted by Peter on October 16th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Jen,
Do yourself a favor and get a helmet. I have been riding for years and for thousands of miles. I have rarely fallen since my first ride in 1975. But when I did fall, the scrapes and bangs were on the outside of the helmet, not the inside.
Concerned for your welfare, Peter
posted by Peter on October 16th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Man, Honeyman, fuck that noise about waiting behind bikers while they negotiate a hill. It may be the law, but it’s bullshit to be stuck behind someone going six miles an hour for two miles because they’re too stuck on the “equal rights for cyclists” line of crap.
Look, bikes and cars are different. Both are meant to allow people to get where they’re going with a minimum of dicking around. I ride my bike, I love riding my bike. It also makes me apopleptic to idle behind some jackass in spandex all the way up Pontiac Trail because he’s too much of a dipshit to just hop on the damn sidewalk and not create a mile long block of traffic behind him.
That’s what I hate from cyclists: the smug insistance on being treated exactly the same as cars. Look, when I ride back home, I either take the sidewalks or a sidestreet because even though I know I’m in the right to be on the street, I’d rather not be a dick to everyone behind me who can’t get through.
A car is not the same as a semi, either. When trucks pass each other, even though they’re legally allowed to do it, it backs up traffic for miles and drivers who do that without being able to pass the other truck quickly are assholes who deserve the renal failure they court in their travels.
posted by js on October 17th, 2005 at 12:45 am
js, like i said, i avoid busy roads, so you won’t have to wait long to pass me.

i’ll leave it others to tell you to take your adolescent outburst and shove it up your tailpipe.
posted by peter honeyman on October 17th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Oh, Peter, did I forget to keep the high-minded tone that will allow you to discuss things with me?
I will now weep softly, having lost the affection of the bike rider in Ann Arbor.
posted by js on October 17th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Haven’t seen this much controversy/excitement over a topic here since the halcyon days of the GSA strike. Dude!
posted by Dave on October 17th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
“it’s bullshit to be stuck behind someone going six miles an hour for two miles….”

That would be 20 minutes continuously following a single cyclist? Does that really happen a lot? Sure, that’d be pretty rude. You can ride on the road and still pull over if people are stuck behind you for a long time–the same sort of protocol any slow-moving vehicle follows.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 17th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
There are spots in town where motorized traffic is allowed/forbidden to do certain things at certain times or on certain days. I’d like to see the same thing for cyclists: I’d like to forbid cyclists riding in the street on Division between Liberty and Broadway from 4:30 to 6 pm M-F. The vehicular traffic at that time/place is so intense it is extremely hard to maneuver around cyclists safely, there are few places to turn aside that don’t take you radically out of your northward direction, and the road is sufficiently challenging that a fair number of cyclists find it difficult to go at anything like an appropriate speed.
posted by ann on October 17th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
or make one of the auto lanes a bicycle-only lane.
posted by peter honeyman on October 17th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
FAA - I hate the term “THE wife” - sounds so degrading. How about “MY wife”.
posted by Buck on October 17th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Bruce: Yeah, it happens two or three times a month. There’s a guy who lives on Pontiac Tr. somewhere who refuses to move out of the way of cars, and since that road’s two lanes, it’s hard to get past him. It’s not always that bad, but when the capacity of the road gets near its limit (which it does frequently, since it’s the best route to an M-14/US-23 interchange), it can get choked to a crawl. Don’t get me wrong— occassionally cars go that slow on that road, I’d imagine because they’re looking for an address or a turn, and I’d gladly see them executed too. But that the cyclist does it regularly enough to realize what’s going on, and could reduce the problem so much by simply hopping on a side street or the sidewalk makes me want to see him eaten alive by bone-stripping beetles.
posted by js on October 18th, 2005 at 1:16 am
Peter: Right, because the volume of bicycle traffic totally justifies that. Perhaps after that, we can put in a lane for people riding hover skateboards from the future and people who ride three-toed sloths to work. Because they’re vehicles too!
posted by js on October 18th, 2005 at 1:19 am
Ann - you are absolutely right, let’s ban cycling on certain roads at certain times of the day! And then, let’s find out a way to tax walking - the revenues of which the state can use to offset the ever-increasing price of gasoline! Yay! You could then drive cheaper than ever without being slowed down for seconds by a pesky bicycle between 4:30PM and 6:00PM! Yay again!

Buck - I don’t really speak like that nor am I, but for the sake of my highly satirical scenario, married. Regardless, what’s so degrading about a definite article? Are you that politically-correct and grammatically-sensitive?
posted by FAA on October 18th, 2005 at 11:16 am
“I’d like to forbid cyclists riding in the street on Division between Liberty and Broadway from 4:30 to 6 pm M-F”

My regular bike route home is William to Division to Broadway; usually I leave work a little later than that, but I’ve ridden during that period plenty of times. Cycle commuters have the same schedules as everyone else, so 4 to 6 M-F is going to be a popular time for that.

“The vehicular traffic at that time/place is so intense it is extremely hard to maneuver around cyclists safely”

It’s not really that “intense”–if you’re driving it may look like it, but that’s because you’re in the middle of a clump of a dozen cars or so that the light timing creates.

Division has lots of lanes, so there’s plenty of room to pass. All you need to do is slow down till you have time to make the lane change. This is a trivial maneuver for any competent driver.

“the road is sufficiently challenging that a fair number of cyclists find it difficult to go at anything like an appropriate speed.”

Challenging? Except for the (now fairly gentle) bridge grade, that’s mostly downhill northbound. Bike riders can easily exceed 30mph going down Division–try doing that safely on the sidewalk. And for slower cyclists, I think it’s much more reasonable to ask drivers to slow down for the time it takes to pass, costing them a few seconds of their commute, rather than making cyclists switch to the sidewalk, costing them many minutes.

There are two main routes across the river, Broadway and Fuller. Because of this, the area around the Broadway bridge gets a lot of cyclists, and has (according to the police) a relatively high bicycle accident rate.

That area is much easier to navigate if you just take the straight simple route over the road. We could make a lot of cyclists commutes safer, easier, and more efficient by encouraging them to do that.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 18th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
“Yeah, it happens two or three times a month. There’s a guy who lives on Pontiac Tr. somewhere who refuses to move out of the way of cars, and since that road’s two lanes, it’s hard to get past him.”

OK, but I want to make sure I understand by “refuses to move out of the way of cars”. Do you agree with me that pulling over periodically to let lined-up cars by would be a reasonable approach?

I also want to make sure I understand: you’re saying that two or three times a month you find yourself waiting behind the same cyclist for 20 minutes (2 miles at 6mph) at a time? Have you timed this? It’s just that a) I’ve never seen anything like that extreme a delay myself, b) 6mph over 2 miles is a pretty slow cyclist speed, and pontiac trail isn’t *that* steep, c) 20 minutes is an awfully long time to wait without finding gaps in oncoming traffic to allow passing, and d) I’ve heard people say things like “why should I have to wait half an hour behind some cyclist” but intending it as hyperbole–if you press them on it they can’t remember actually waiting longer than maybe one minute.

The details matter here.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 18th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
FAA - I guess that’s the point - I don’t consider a wife a “definate article” - ie - a thing. Maybe that’s why you are not married.
posted by Buck on October 18th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Definite articles have nothing to do with things (any more than people or places, that is).

Example: The brother of my mother is the father of my cousin.

Another example: The guy posting thinks the other guy’s lack of a wife has nothing to do with his use of articles.

Otherwise, this poor fella has had some bad luck socially, and has managed to surround himself with really uptight folks.
posted by ramsey on October 18th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
indeed, anyone who has been married knows that a spouse is an extremely indefinite article!
posted by peter honeyman on October 18th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Enough about articles and wives. This blog is about bikes.

What about the bicyclist who acts like he is a car and bikes in the middle of the car lane expecting everyone to go his 10 mph speed. I can’t get behind that.

Ann Arbor needs to have bicycle lanes.
posted by trojanhorse on October 18th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Buck - if you prefer to call a spouse via a possessive, i.e. a thing you own, I don’t care. No winning a pointless internet grammar argument today. But the attempt at a personal jab was childish and uncalled for. Your mom.
posted by FAA on October 18th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Fair enough FAA. Peace.
posted by Buck on October 18th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Trojan,
You were concerned “What about the bicyclist who acts like he is a car and bikes in the middle of the car lane expecting everyone to go his 10 mph speed.”
I take up a car lane all the time. It is the only safe way to travel on some roads.
Most of the time that I do this, I am going the same speed as the cars, and am eager for them to pull over so that I can pass them. So, move over next time I am behind you!
posted by Peter on October 18th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
Give me a break - what roads do you travel where cars are going 10. Maybe main street and some surrounding streets, but that is about it.

I never see bikes behind me wanting to pass - they are always in front of me - pedaling their hearts out - only to slow down all of traffic on roads that are meant for cars.

I admire that you bike. All I am saying is that AA really should have more bike lanes so that bikers can travel safely and cars can be concerned about cars going car speeds vs. bicyclists going too slow too.
posted by trojanhorse on October 18th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Shout outs due to recumbant bicyclists, weird dude w/ hat on unicycle and most especially that couple on the tandem who wobbled and toppled over waiting at a red light (ah that was priceless). You guys make it the world a goofier-looking place.
posted by Snuffy on October 19th, 2005 at 12:54 am
“All I am saying is that AA really should have more bike lanes so that bikers can travel safely and cars can be concerned about cars going car speeds vs. bicyclists going too slow too.”

I haven’t seen a single street in Ann Arbor without at least one bike lane. Some have multiple bike lanes. We’re also gracious enough to allow cars to share them, as long as they’re nice about it. On the major arteries with multiple bike lanes, you can sort yourself according to speed and intended direction of travel and speed to your heart’s content. If you really want us to make some of those lanes bicycle-only, well, it’s not a problem for me, but I don’t see why you think that’s going to improve traffic flow particularly. Since you can make bike-only lanes narrower, in theory you could get more of them on the road; in practice depending on available width you’ll probably end up replacing a wide lane or two.

Note bikes and cars end up sharing lanes either way. I’m going to take the leftmost lane before a left turn, not try to cut across traffic suddenly from the right-hand curb. And I’d very much appreciate it if cars would merge into the rightmost lane (even if you can only get partway into it because it’s too narrow for you) before turning right, instead of passing me on the left and then cutting suddenly across my path.

“roads that are meant for cars.”

Get your history straight:
http://www.bikeleague.org/about/goodroads.htm
posted by Bruce Fields on October 19th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Bruce, the link doesn’t work.
posted by Tim on October 19th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
“OK, but I want to make sure I understand by “refuses to move out of the way of cars”. Do you agree with me that pulling over periodically to let lined-up cars by would be a reasonable approach?”
Or to hop onto the sidewalk and ride there, letting the cars pass them without having to wait for the bicyclist’s whim.

“I also want to make sure I understand: you’re saying that two or three times a month you find yourself waiting behind the same cyclist for 20 minutes (2 miles at 6mph) at a time?”

No, though I can say that I’ve waited at least ten minutes (and that I have timed) behind a bicycle going (by your math) 12 miles per hour. And I have waited for a few minutes behind bicyclists going six miles an hour before shooting off onto a side road to pass them.
But frankly, this emphasis on finding “the details” seems to be a way of weaseling out of accepting that vehicles, all vehicles, should be travelling at right about the speed that traffic flows for the purpose of common courtesy. If you’re not able to do that on a bike, and I am certainly rarely able to do that, then I should make myself as unobtrusive as possible. It’s the same reason that I don’t drive my car at 12 mph on roads, even though I could legally. In a car, the recourse is to speed up. On a bike, the recourse is to move to the sidewalks.
Oh, and for a street that has a fair amount of traffic and no bike lane for the vast majority of it: Pontiac Trail. We have about an eighth of a mile of bike lane and then it disappears.
posted by js on October 19th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
js - please accept an apology from me on behalf of cyclists everywhere who have wasted 10 minutes of your precious time. Shame on us all for stealing those precious moments from you with our use of the world’s cleanest, healthiest, most economical and most efficient form of transportation. I will speak personally to every two-wheeler I know, and beg them to use as much money and fossil fuel as possible in their future traveling between points “a” and “b” for the sake of those seconds of yours which we now know to be invaluable.
posted by FAA on October 19th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
“But frankly, this emphasis on finding “the details” seems to be a way of weaseling out of accepting that vehicles, all vehicles, should be travelling at right about the speed that traffic flows for the purpose of common courtesy”

I’m not weaseling out of it, I’m flatly denying it. The traffic rules have never assumed that all vehicles could or would travel at the same speed. The ability to handle traffic at varying speeds has been built in from the start, in fact: that’s why we have multiple lanes on arterials, rules about passing, etc.

If there are improvements we could make to get people where they’re going faster, fine, we can consider them if we think they’d make a big difference.
A less-than-ten-minute delay on one occasion doesn’t sound like sufficient evidence of the need for any big reengineering of either the road in question or of the traffic law, especially when it could be handled by the slower-moving cyclist pulling over and letting traffic by, instead of switching to the sidewalk, which is slower and less safe.

“I can say that I’ve waited at least ten minutes (and that I have timed) behind a bicycle going (by your math) 12 miles per hour.”

And what was your estimate of the traffic speed at that time? (In other words, what speed would you have been travelling at if the cyclist hadn’t been in front of you?)
posted by Bruce Fields on October 19th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
I think tomorrow I will walk or roller skate down the middle of the street and let the cars behind me just wait. After all, there is no minimum speed on surface roads…
posted by trojanhorse on October 19th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
wear a helmet
posted by peter honeyman on October 19th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
“I think tomorrow I will walk or roller skate down the middle of the street”

There’s an important difference skating and walking: if you’re skating at a high speed, then you need a significant distance to come to a stop. The street has right-of-way rules that make it safe for people with long stopping distances, whereas on the sidewalk people can step in front of you at any moment.

So yes, if you really want to skate fast, please do it on the street, not the sidewalk. I don’t know what the law would say.

And please avoid “the middle of the street” unless you’re about to make a left turn or something. Ride on the right like everybody else.

“and let the cars behind me just wait.”

They’ll find a way around you soon enough.

“After all, there is no minimum speed on surface roads…”

Right. And it’s been that way forever, because it doesn’t cause a problem in practice.

Maybe some day we’ll find ourselves in the enviable situation of having “too many” cyclists, and maybe then they’ll start delaying lots of motorists. Or maybe they won’t–on wider streets the main effect might be just to free up lanes–bicycles take up less space than cars, after all.

If and when this actually becomes a problem, we can look at solutions. There are lots of solutions that don’t involve forcing cyclists off the street.

But the fact is that right now people are complaining about a “problem” that is almost entirely theoretical. I just don’t see evidence that this is a big problem right now.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 20th, 2005 at 11:36 am
“I’m not weaseling out of it, I’m flatly denying it. ”
I’m sorry, but keeping up with the flow of traffic is both the law and common courtesy. And bikes that violate that are just as obnoxious as semis that don’t keep up with the flow of traffic on highways. You can deny that, but it makes you an asshole and makes me (and other drivers) less likely to be courteous to bike riders.
And since I do about half of my transit by bike, you being an asshole on one means that I’m more likely to get crap from drivers because of it.
posted by js on October 20th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
“keeping up with the flow of traffic is both the law”

No, it’s not. That would also forbid tractors, people looking for street addresses, etc. A couple example cases:

http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz_Rt2Road.htm
http://michiganimc.org/newswire/display/88/index.php

“and common courtesy.”

I agree that unnecessarily delaying someone for a significant period of time is rude. The pontiac trail example may be an example of such, but I’m skeptical.

In my own riding I think the longest I’ve delayed anyone by is 30 seconds or so, and that’s very rare. I’m also delayed sometimes by people parallel parking, looking for an address, etc., and it’s not a problem.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 20th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Peter, hey, I had my heart set on #100. No fair takingit for a lame helmet post.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 20th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
just so you cats are aware, i have tested it, and riding at a decent clip, going from my house in kerrytown to, say east quadrangle for classes, it is far faster to take a bike. even just riding down state street, and being and taking some liberties with the street signage (like i do with your mom,) i pass quite a large number of cars.

regarding critical mass, you’d be amazed at how many FRIENDLY waves, honks, and shouts of glee we receive… come some time, it’s fun as fuck.

.the guy with the pirate cape and wine hat who knows the guy with the gorilla costume.
posted by Andy on November 3rd, 2005 at 4:42 pm

Uncritical (of the) Mass

105 Responses to “Uncritical (of the) Mass”

Leave a Reply