Bicycling Safety isn't a Partisan Issue
A Puppet for the Regime can't acknowledge the problem is "his side."
Dissapointing but not surprising nonsense from a “journalist” with the local NPR affiliate in San Diego. (link)
For those who aren’t aware of what he means by “Idaho Stop1,” it’s typically a law that exempts bicyclists from coming to a complete stop at a stop sign (effectively treating it as a Yield sign). Depending on the jurisdiction, such a law might also allow for a bicyclist to come to a complete stop at a red light similar to how drivers (which include bicyclists) are supposed to use a traditional stop sign controlled intersection. Both behaviors do require the bicyclist obey the traffic control devices as originally intended however if they arrive at the intersecion and its already occupied by other road users.
For the more visually-inclined, here’s a video explaining the idea2 naturally from a bicycle activist’s POV.
The NTHSA “concensous” aside which is likely based on junk science as typical with a lot of bike-related studies, Bowen is turning bicycling ever more into a partisan issue which is the last thing anybody’s cause needs. This seems to be a thing with the Regime in CA and bootlickers such as Bowen as of late for sure. Yet these folks can’t seem to figure out why so many Californians are leaving the state for (checks notes) so-called “Red states3.”
He ironically cites CA Assemblywoman and the bill’s sponsor Tasha Boerner’s (D) statement in his tweet where she states this year’s bill to legalize the Idaho Stop (AB 73) and what does she say?
It received overwhelming bipartisan support.
The California legislature for what its worth overwhelmingly leans towards one party (guess which one) and has some time so that’s not really much of a statement but it proves Bowen wrong beyond doubt. Similar bike stop bills have passed both chambers of the state Legislature in the past and made it to the Governor’s desk - all those Governors being of the same party as the dominating party in the Legislature.
It could be true that other “Republican-led” states passed similar bills. Bowen left out, because journalism is hard, whether these states saw multiple attempts to pass these bills and whether they included both stop signs and traffic lights or just stop signs. Not all states permit treating traffic lights as stop signs.
So yeah, “the other party” sometimes sees “your side” too, even in these hyper-polarized times.
Bicycle advocates, and this likely includes Bowen, love to throw around the “bicycling should be for everybody” phrase (usually adding the “all ages and abilities” platitiude). If that’s the case, then bicycling should be for people who share differing political views too.
For what its worth, when Gov. Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2021, he his handlers cited the state’s traffic crash database, SWITRS, as a source of data indicating why such a law would not increase bicyclist safety.
For what its worth, in that same year he also vetoed a similar bill that would “decriminalize jaywalking.” A revised version of the latter bill went through the legislature the next year and was signed into law going into effect in 2023.
As typical with traffic-related issues, the CA Governor has always leaned on the advice of the CA Highway Patrol for a “yay” or “nay” on these bills. CHP are accused by many bicycling advocates of having a “windshield bias,” blinding them to points of view that are not car-centric. If that’s true, then those who want to pass such a bill need to come up with a persuasive argument to convince such people. Legimate bicycling advocates such as CABO’s Jim Baross, Gary Cziko, and Clint Sandusky have made signifcant ground with the state’s law enforcement agencies. Contrast that to [Insert X] County Bicycle Coalition and of course CalBike - both of who salivate of La Mierdita type projects, door zone bike lanes, and hazardous “protected” bikeways.
In all reality it’s not just the CHP either - it’s the majority of the population who drives automobiles and doesn’t bicycle. What’s in it for them? Can bicycle activists, especially the Cluster B(ike) ones who’ve pushed legtimate, principled ones out, think of anybody else but themselves? They can’t seem to see past their own shit-coated glasses: the bikelash (as predicted by John Finley Scott) is already here.
Whether an Idaho-stop law is safer or not is a surprisingly nuanced thing that most either in favor or against are not going to want to hear. But more on that in a later piece.
Barring the stereotypes aside about bicyclists, there’s one dedicated entirely to California motorists. A strange stereotype in Colorado too is the assumption that all Californians run red lights. From my observations (and being almost guilty as charged) Colorado cities time the yellow phases of their lights much shorter than do California cities. California drivers are accustomed to entering an intersection on the yellow and don’t expect it to change to red so quickly.
“Drivers already do it” is not a valid reason and is likely NOT going to persuede the non-bicycling majority or support such laws. Bicyclists are also by definition drivers too. Most bike activists who are unable to see this likely have signifcant flaws in their worldview
Most are not, contrary to the propaganda, “MAGA” or similar “other tribe” types
I previously lived in Idaho and have cycled extensively in California and Washington State. I also ride motorcycles, and there are different laws for them in California than in other places, lane-splitting being the biggest. I've seen motorcycle advocates take a similar approach that cycling advocates take, which is one of painting with a broad brush. Motorcyclists want lane splitting legal everywhere. Bicyclists want bike lanes and the "IdahoStop" everywhere. Mountain bike advocates all want the same trail-building guidelines everywhere. Like most things, trying to appeal to everyone ends up appealing to no one. In many of the small, sparsely populated Idaho communities, the Idaho Stop makes perfect sense. In Boise, not so much. I wish in every example I listed that, the advocates were open to making rules that worked based on the local communities needs, not some set of guidelines broadly applied to all of society. I understand the appeal of one set of rules, but in practice, it cannot account for the individual needs of a particular local dynamic. In almost every case, following the money points to some organization trying to monetize the issue that pushes for guidelines and then carries on under the assumption that said guidelines are the gospel truth. Usually, the guidelines originate through a contentious committee where the loudest, most deranged voice wins.
In the mountain bike world, especially in less populated areas, the "rules" state that the uphill rider has the right of way. The rule was adopted because many of the single-track trails were narrow, steep, and difficult. It was an acknowledgment that the uphill rider had a difficult task, and the descending rider was to step off the trail, let the rider pass, and carry on. Stepping off the trail also prevents the widening and braiding of the single track, which in many cases in the backcountry, can be well over 100 years old. However, in all of my riding in California, riders adamantly believe the downhill rider should have priority because "I worked hard to get to the top, and I should be able to descend unimpeded." For quite some time, I tried to explain why that is dangerous and unsafe until I recognized I was fighting California's entire mountain bike population. Having riders bomb past me by going off trail, buzzing me at close distance, or generally being jerks about it, I accepted that was local custom and the will of the cycling community there. While I think it is wrong, the community opinion wins. No amount of education or policy will change that.
Conversely, lane splitting on motorcycles is generally accepted in California, and most drivers in areas where that is everyday practice understand and act accordingly. Many drivers hate the practice and are caught off guard or scared when a motorcycle passes them on the left between lanes of traffic. But, the CHP has laws on the books recognizing lane splitting, and the onus lies with the motorcyclist to be safe. Try lane splitting in Idaho, Washington, or Oregon; motorists will lose their minds. While some recent attempts have made some aspects of lane splitting legal in some states, the community is generally not on board, and the driving conditions in many places are not conducive to splitting safely. Drivers are not accustomed to the new rules and do not accept the practice.
It is a disservice to the nuance of cycling in different areas to apply a single rule to every community. Those pushing for that in almost every case are attempting to monetize their involvement with the issue or are advocates of the Cluster B variety. Cycling safely is 100% reliant on the rider. In almost every scenario, accidents are preventable based on a cyclist's behavior, not the driver's. Except for separate bike paths, cycling oblivious to the dangers around you is a recipe for accidents or death. The advocates pushing for cyclists of every age, skill level, and demeanor to take to the roads are delusional if they believe that can happen without issues. But, those advocates either have a job in the industry or get power and prestige from the role of "advocate." The politics of the issue is just another power grab to stand out to your electorate. In our polarized society, any stance against the other side aligns those on your side to your cause. In almost every case, the promoted issues have little to do with improving safety and everything to do with aligning people behind the cause that elevates your status.