Mangiaracina: Are bicycles the same as all other motor vehicles?
Published on Mon., September 15th, 2008
Here we go again, another year and another bicyclist receiving a $120 fine for running a stop sign.
It’s not unreasonable to expect bicyclists to follow the same rules of the road that other motor vehicles follow, but it is unreasonable to apply the same punishment to bicyclists as it is to cars, trucks, SUVs and semis because a bicycle is radically different.
My cousin almost died from getting hit by a car that rolled through a stop sign. He lost about half his teeth and broke his arm. It took him a year to recover.
The car wasn’t traveling more than 10 miles per hour. However, had he been hit by a bicycle he would have been able to walk away — bruised and angry, but in a lot better shape.
A typical car weighs more than 2,000 pounds and travels 30 mph on city streets. A typical bicycle weighs about 20 pounds and typically travels about 10 mph. Because a bike travels at a much slower average speed, the cyclist has far more time to react than the driver does to avoid an accident.
Though technically a vehicle, a bicycle is not a car, truck, SUV or semi, or even a motor vehicle. If a bicycle was the same as a motor vehicle, then bicycles would be required to register with the DMV, get a license plate and pay a property tax.
Since the state does not consider them a motor vehicle, they are not required to do any of this. So why does the University consider them the same as any other vehicle when the state of Kansas doesn’t?
In fact, the state doesn't even consider all motor vehicles the same. If it did, then there would be only one kind of license, but there isn't. If you want to drive a motorcycle instead of a car, you have to get a motorcycle license. If you use your vehicle for commercial purposes, the state requires a commercial license.
Different rules should be applied to radically different vehicles. The most a bicycle has in common with a motor vehicle is that both are forms of transportation, both have at least two wheels and both run on the ground. Other than that, they don't have much in common.
Since the mass of a car is more than 100 times that of a bicycle, twice as wide and travels at more than double the typical speed of a bicycle, if you get hit by a car you're going to be in far worse shape than if you get hit by a bicycle. I've never heard of anyone dying from getting hit by a bicycle.
Once I even hit someone while on my bike, though not because I ran a stop sign, but because the pedestrian was talking on his cell phone, looking at the ground and jaywalking across Jayhawk Boulevard within minutes after the campus whistle had blown. I rung my bell at least five times and swerved, though I still ran into him. I regret to say that I went from 6 to 0 in less than three seconds. He was annoyed, though I was able to grab him before he likely would have fallen over.
If cyclists are to going to be fined at all for running a stop sign, $30 would be a fairer fine, as for the law to be just the punishment needs to fit the crime.
Another reason we should punish cyclists less is to encourage more bicycling and less driving. After all, bicyclists are already saving us money through fewer road repairs, cheaper gas and lower health care costs due to fewer sick people.
Sometimes two wheels are better than four — though two are certainly better than the one this law is balancing on.
Mangiaracina is a Lenexa senior in journalism.
Discussion
The Kansan.com staff reviews comments regularly. Please be respectful of your peers. For our full user policy, click here.
I agree with most of this article. It's ridiculous for me to stop when I am on my bike at the traffic booths. A Yield sign, or a change of laws allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, would alleviate the problem of $120 tickets. Some states actually have laws allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs...
As a cyclist it is important to look out for cars. sometimes it is great to use our small size to our advantage to get around traffic, but we must realize that most accidents between vehicles and bicycles occur because people "didn't see the cyclist" even though we had on reflective clothing, two front lights and 5 red flashing lights on the rear. The burden is on us to "ride like we are invisible to cars" because most of the time, we are invisible to cars.
I like the idea of turning stop signs in to yield signs. And lowering the fines because bikes are more environmentally and economically friendly is a productive, creative idea that warrants serious consideration. Well done.
But, you missed the greatest similarity between cars and bikes. They all are using the same roadway. It's not the impact the bike will have on the car that's the problem, it's the impact the car will have on the bike. Laws are to protect everyone, including the bike rider. You roll through a stop sign on a bike and hit a car, you will get hurt. This is the same reason we don't let cars roll through stop signs. Also, bike riders don’t always consider their actions’ effects on other drivers. Just because you didn’t collide with that car you swerved around or rode right next to, doesn’t mean you didn’t make it more dangerous for that car dealing with other cars on the road. If you want to ride in the street, follow the rules.
Very good article. I commented on the similar article last week (I think it was Friday) about how bikes should stop at stop signs like cars are expected to. There is no legitimate reason they shouldn't, its a safety issue first and foremost. You want to be on the road, you have to follow the rules just like anyone else on the road. However, it is a little ridiculous to charge a cyclist the same as a motor vehicle driver for not stopping because obviously the repercussions of a car not stopping could be severly worse than those of a bike not stopping.
No, actually I didn't miss the point that you're more likely to be injured in a bike than on a car. I intentionally left it out because if this happens because the cyclist ran the stop sign, then it's obviously the cyclist's fault. The cyclist is hurting no one except him or herself and possibly damaging the car's windshield by running a stop sign. Apparently, requiring the cyclist to pay for the damage is not enough, but we should also fine them the same as a motor vehicle for running a stop sign.
I know that MOST pedestrians that get hit by a bicycle walk away uninjured, but what about the ones who don't? Because of the flaws of the traffic laws in most states, if someone gets hit by a bicycle and gets seriously injured, they usually aren't entitled to anything. If it's a "hit and run" (I know a bicycle hit and run sounds absurd) the police aren't even going to make a report of it, because a bicycle rider leaving the scene of an "incident" isn't committing a crime; just an act of bad faith. So my point is, these ridiculously high fines exist as a way to encourage riders to follow traffic laws to keep themselves and pedestrians safe.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.