Signs, Signs, Everywhere There's Signs

Why Bike People Keep Breaking the Law and How We Can Put a Stop to It

Invasion of the Bike People

Last week I discussed the rise of Entitled Driver Syndrome caused by the design of modern automobiles and car-centered infrastructure. But let’s talk about the 150-pound gorilla in the room— bicyclists. Ever since they got their own sliver of asphalt running through this town, these pedaling primates have become inveterate scofflaws! Behold:

The general complaint by my neighbors here is that people riding bikes on the bike path aren’t stopping at the Stop signs on the path placed at every cross street. Yes, the same signs that opponents of the bike path said made the path look like “Lollipop Lane.” And you know what? They’re absolutely right! I am guilty as charged. So is pretty much everyone else. Probably 98% of people biking on the bike path do not come to a full stop at these signs unless there is approaching traffic.

Don’t believe me? I sent a StrongHaven reporter with a hidden camera to capture this flagrant law-breaking. This was recorded over a span of half an hour today:

Hammer Time

It’s clear that the sheer volume of criminals on the bike path calls for an aggressive crackdown! Left unchecked, this stream of lawlessness will surely become a fetid river that threatens the very fabric of our community. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!

Before FPD initiates Operation Full Stop, however, we might benefit from doing a quick analysis of why all of these otherwise law-abiding folks are pedaling down the path of crime. To understand these deviants, you need only ride your bike along the path. It’s less than a third of a mile from the start of the path on Main St. through its intersection with Pleasant St. There is a Stop sign at each intersection of this stretch, which means a total of five Stops on this short span. Anyone who rides a bike with any regularity conserves energy and momentum by avoiding full stops whenever possible— pedaling to start a bike generally takes more energy than pedaling to maintain commuting speed. It stands to reason, then that I and my fellow riders on the path treat these Stop signs as Yield signs. We stop when there are cars, peds, or bikes at or approaching the intersection. Otherwise, we slow down, check for oncoming traffic, and proceed across the intersection without coming to a complete Stop. Is this behavior deviant? Here we turn to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO):

In other words, the 98% of people who have been treating these Stops as Yields are behaving pretty consistently with what people do everywhere. Even these American traffic engineers agree that rather than attempt to force trail users to conform to an overly restrictive and outdated design, we need to update the design. That would likely mean removing the Stop signs on the path and replacing them with a less-restrictive system, likely Yield signs.

In the Name of Love

A more wide-reaching fix to this behavior/infrastructure mismatch is to just adapt state law to allow cyclists to treat all Stop signs as Yield signs. This is called the Idaho Stop,  named for the first state to adopt it, the deep-blue liberal bastion of Idaho. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, states that have adopted the Idaho Stop have seen significant decreases in bicyclist injuries from crashes. Here are all of the states where “Stop as yield” is law:

Source: Wikipedia

I’ll leave it to my bike advocate friends to make this happen here in Mass. In the meantime, I’d like to see the Haven adjust our signage to reflect reality (and make our streets safer).

Children, What’s that Sound?

Similarly, drivers approaching an intersection with the path should be directed to Yield to path users, just as with any crosswalk. My preference for accomplishing this would (you guessed it) be to effectively reduce the design speed of the road and avoid relying on Stop control. When there’s a Stop sign on the street approaching the path, as is currently the case on Green St. (but not elsewhere) is generally treated as a Yield by most drivers for similar reasons to those outlined above. In the cases where drivers do come to a full Stop at the Stop sign approaching the path, they are then induced to accelerate just as they cross the path. As it stands, drivers approaching the path from the North on Green St. tend to treat the Stop sign preceding the path as a Yield. This makes sense.

Treating Stops as Yields works as long as cars are driving at safe speeds in our neighborhoods. If cars are actually driving at non-fatal speeds (at or below 20 mph), interactions at intersections become much easier to navigate and much lower stakes. The Facebook posters I cite at the top of the article clearly express that they really don’t want to kill or injure people. Inducing them to drive at chill neighborhood speeds through effective street design dramatically reduces the risk of them doing that.

Collaborate and Listen

The bike path is being repaved starting next month (thank you, Vinnie and town officials!) I asked Fairhaven Highway Superintendent Josh Crabb if, as part of that work, they would consider updating the signs along the bike path. He sounded optimistic that at least some of these Stop signs could be replaced with Yields, but that he’d have to vet the idea with the Board of Public Works as well as Fairhaven PD. Hopefully, at least some of the people vetting the idea are bike riders (and of course StrongHaven readers!)

Draggin’ My Heart Around

I’ve spent a lot of space on a topic that’s not terribly consequential in and of itself. If the Stop signs remain, people will just continue to treat them as Yields. To my knowledge, this hasn’t created any major conflicts (other than some FB chatter). The reason I wanted to zoom in here is to get at the larger principle: we should be prioritizing the ease, comfort, and safety of our most vulnerable road users. Doing this makes our streets safer and more productive for everyone.

Whatcha Doin’ (Cause I’m About to Ruin The Image and the Style that Ya Used To)

Two short generations ago a large number of people in this town, including kids and teens, walked or rode their bikes frequently. This pattern of mobility went hand in hand with a thriving town center and the viability of a greater number of local businesses spread throughout our neighborhoods. The misguided push of the suburban experiment led our town to attempt a development pattern similar to that of more far-flung suburbs (like Dartmouth). The design of our streets shifted to prioritize the comfort and ease of driving at higher speeds through town and ensuring abundant free parking everywhere. This experiment was a big bet and not a winning one. While we increased commercial activity at our big box stores and strip malls (at the expense of other businesses), land value in these areas on a per-acre basis still doesn’t come close to the value of our more traditionally developed areas. We’re left with override battles that are the predictable result of the long-term liabilities inherent in an unsustainable pattern of development. What’s more, the suburban experiment has forced a lot of tradeoffs around the quality of life here, many of which are not favorable. Kids are more isolated. Someone gets killed every year or two on our stroads. Senior citizens feel the need to wear bright colors and lights just to walk down their own streets.

The good news is that, unlike other towns, much of Fairhaven still has the bones of the street-car suburb it used to be. Narrower streets in a grid. A mix of housing in various neighborhoods. Two downtown commercial areas with the potential to thrive as they have in the past. Some beautiful old buildings that haven’t been razed to create more parking (as has been done in so many U.S. downtowns). The suburban experiment came about as the result of a series of decisions that prioritized certain varieties of growth and movement over others. Undoing its worst aspects requires us to start making decisions based on a set of priorities that might feel new but is actually ancient and time-tested. When making decisions about our streets, this type of thinking starts with prioritizing our more vulnerable neighbors— kids, seniors, pedestrians, people on bikes.

It’s not a zero-sum tradeoff. When we design outward from the needs of our most vulnerable, it makes our streets safer, more comfortable, and enjoyable for everyone. Accessible curb cuts are vital for our neighbors in wheelchairs, but they make life much easier for parents pushing strollers and anyone else who wants to just walk and talk without rolling an ankle. Slower car speeds make driving in our neighborhoods safer and more enjoyable. More people biking and walking for transportation means fewer people making short trips by car and potentially less congestion at peak hours for the people who are driving then. I don’t think it’s crazy to think this could be a town where kids could bike to the toy store without it being newsworthy and my sense is that most of us want this kind of liberty. So drivers, the next time you see someone on a bike roll through one of those Stops on the bike path, try not to see red— see the red, white, and blue of freedom!