Are U.S. cities at crossroads on bicycle laws giving riders more rights?

October 12, 1:24 PMNY Cycling ExaminerGrace Lichtenstein

Robert Hurst, a bike messenger and author, offers provocative ideas in The Cyclist's Manifesto: The Case for Riding on Two Wheels Instead of Four (Falcon Guides, 2009, $16.95, paperback) about regulating bike riding in American cities.

Transportation agencies in various cities are going one way or the other regarding law enforcement, he says. “Some feel that promoting bicycling is a fiscal imperative; others are inclined to push bicyclists off at the same time. What they have in common is they want to do the right thing, don’t want to spend any money doing it, and don’t know what the right thing is….”

Thus cities are at a crossroads, he thinks. “Some agencies are leaning toward reining in the bicyclists; others decide to give ‘em more rope.”

He points out that in Idaho, the state legislature has decided to allow cyclists to “treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs,” which is how most riders treat these traffic indicators anyway. Meanwhile, (although he does not say it) some police officers and departments elsewhere go in the opposite direction -- they ticket cyclists for silly infractions, such as not having a bell.

Hurst thinks it is “okay to legalize some of the advantages that prudent bicyclists have always enjoyed. Of course, I’m biased.”

I’m on Hurst’s side. The problem is that so many riders here in New York City are anything but prudent. The result? Articles such as the one in the New York Times Metropolitan section yesterday blasting reckless cyclists for treating green-striped bike lanes like a Tour de France warm-up route. What do you think?

For more info: Buy a copy of Hurst's book from Globe Pequot Press.