FYI- The police stopped two cyclists and gave them warnings for riding two abreast. Actually they were at the end turning and overlapped wheels, according to one of the cyclists. The police pulled in behind them and flashed his lights. As they started down the road they evidently did not get directly behind one another soon enough. The police pulled them over and issued them warnings. Supposedly the cop was "real nice" but he kept them for 35 minutes writing the warnings.
During this time home owners drove buy honking and even applauding, according to one of the cyclists. The officer said he normally would not have been there, but he was "dispatched" to the area because a homeowner complained. Funny, in the past month there have been less cyclists than normal. They have been following the rules. As a homeowner on Columns, I drive up and down Columns on a daily basis. I have seen no trouble. Yet, homeowners are still calling.
Do we now understand that the few bike hating, bitter, full-of-crap homeowners who are pushing this crusade against cyclists are not going to quit? They wanted to ban all cyclists and shut down the parking lot at the end of Columns. This is not going to stop. They are going to keep calling the police and trying to get more restrictive ordinances passed. How about we quit being nice and start demanding that as taxpayers we get to use the road that was paid for and is maintained by taxpayer money? How about we start working on getting this ordinance overturned and getting Georgia law to be the law?
More later, but two ideas to plant:
1) Three of the commissioners who voted for this dog come up for reelection in 2008. We need two Republicans and one Democrat to try and defeat these people during the primaries. These need to be bike friendly folks, or hell, just folks other than the pinheads now holding office. Since this type of restrictive ordinance can have an impact locally, statewide and perhaps nationally, I believe we can raise funds nationwide. A lot of people giving five or ten dollars can have a huge impact on a local race. This was done during the 2006 in many races. We can also make some alliances with other single issues groups. At the same time BS ordinance was passed, the commission voted to allow outdoor burning. Many people spoke against this during the meetings I attended. These people and others concerned about other issues could certainly help. A grassroots effort can work. I am going to do more research on this.
2)"I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. We're just the guys to do it." A Critical Mass type ride on Columns? The first Thursday in May? (Can't do it during the Tour de Georgia.) How many cyclists can we get on Columns at 6:30 on a Thursday evening?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Thanks for your continuing posts on this topic and tireless work for cyclists rights.
It certainly is poor behavior on the part of the gloating homeowners, but would we be doing our best to battle them on their terms? I'm afraid the poor attitude would be condoned if we treat this as acceptable adult and polite behavior. Is there a high road we can take?
My question is - is there anybody getting ready to challenge this ordinance in court or what? What is the situation on that? I'd say that would be the high road. And a win in court would send a message to other communities that may be watching...
Drago, I like your fire. It sounds like you are probably as enraged as I was. Let's step back and take a look at what we're saying.
The ordinance that was passed is pretty much the result of a meeting and discussion between neighbors and cyclists, right? What message would be sent by backing out of that agreement? Who does it appear is farther outside the agreement?
From what I understand the ordinance was not a result of any agreement between neighbors and cyclists. I know there were talks, but those talks were disregarded by commissioner Thompson's latest proposal that ended up being adopted. From what I read nobody was happy when the ordinance was passed.
That's nor here nor there though. Assuming that there was an "agreement" - could you really honestly say there could be an agreement when somebody is threatening you with more or less banning cyclists off that road. Talk about equal bargaining power :) Sounds to me like blackmailing is a more appropriate word here. A group of people with enough connections flexing their muscle and thinking no one can tell them anything.
What is going on here is this: this ordinance is the first step in a wrong direction - this one may not have any teeth - the next one (either in Cobb or somewhere else) will. Never mind the number of obese people is skyrocketing and the generation of today's children may be the first one to die younger than their parents. Apparently we need to do all we can to make it harder for people who are even willing to exercise to actually do so. I think this is a badly mistaken crusade with the added danger that it is a bad example that has a potential of spreading to other communities.
This is the first ordinance of its kind in the nation. I think getting rid of it would be the best thing to do. It would send a definite message that this was a badly misguided action on the part of owners and commissioners. Otherwise the ordinance will linger there and serve as an encouragement to other communities to do the same or worse.
Why do you think Commissioner Thompson made the ordinance somewhat toothless? Let me make a wild guess: He knew the ordinance is illegal. He feared a lawsuit. He made it toothless hoping none of the riders will be on their individual level actually bothered enough to file a lawsuit. Yet we see police harassing the riders anyway...
Could I really honestly say there was an agreement when somebody is threatening us with more or less banning cyclists off that road?
I think you're making my point.
The neighbors are already stepping outside of what was politely agreed upon. Why should we validate and condone childish behavior by allowing ourselves to be pulled down to their level? I have a choice and I refuse to go there.
I like Tim's idea about turning this into a political issue in the upcoming elections. This is an excellent venue for airing these issues and points you bring up:
- Setting a bad precedent with this ordinance,
- Obesity on the rise and counteracting the increased time kids spend indoors,
- Potential for this poor decision spreading.
The political arena is also an excellent place to show that the interests of the majority have been trumped by the narrow desires of a few. Has Democracy failed us?
Thanks for this discussion. Some good stuff could come out of this.
I agree that this is a political issue, and it should be strongly expressed during elections. It is equally important, however to utilize other legal avenues - such as a lawsuit - that are available in a democratic society. The reason courts have jurisdiction to review and throw out an ordinance is precisely because the majority sometimes crosses the line and violates the law. If that has happened there is no reason to wait until the elections. That's what courts are there for and we should use them.
I don't share the opinion that courts are somehow un-democratic or that resorting to a court of law would somehow allow us to be pulled to "their" level.
If your rights are violated you go to court. Plain and simple. It is a very civilized process. The bigger point, though, is this: if you wait until elections and not go to court you are tacitly acknowledging that no law has been violated, and that the only problem here is that the commissioners chose the ordinance that some people don't like, so they will be voted out. That's like saying if the county took your property without just compensation - don't go to court - just don't vote for the commissioners the next time.
Also, I wouldn't call the neighbors' behavior childish. It is a very calculated response to something they don't like. You can't blame them for that. The problem is that response that was chosen and sanctioned by the board of commissioners is bad and unacceptable.
Let's take a different approach to this discussion.
Let's say the ordinance never passed.
Would you feel the same way if the neighbors called repeatedly asking that existing laws (two abreast) be upheld and that these were vigorously enforced? Would you feel the same outrage when three cyclists had their wheels overlap and they got a warning and the motorists honked their horns in jubilation?
Exactly! If you think the law is being violated - ENFORCE IT! And enforce it even handedly against bicycles and motor vehicles. When you go out and adopt a special law that takes away bicyclists' rights it lets me know that you couldn't find anyone to ticket under the previous law. So yeah, you made my point: if someone is violating the law enforce it againts them - and leave others alone.
That's like passing a special law for I-285, I-75 and I-85 making it exclusively a bicycle highway and allowing cars to pass on the shoulders only (or something like that) based on the fact that at the present time "some" cars drive over 55mph. Not that I wouldn't like that, lol! But also kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it?
I think we've found some points of agreement.
It looks like we agree that the current single-file law is unnecessary, and that it should be repealed. I think we also agree that if the previous laws had been enforced, we wouldn't have the issues we had been having.
Do you think the neighbors would be happy if no more than the previously existing laws were enforced? Do you think they were ever educated enough about GA traffic law to understand this was an option?
Tim, thanks for hosting our discussion ;-).
Personally I'm not as much bothered by what the ordinance says (single file) as I am by the fact that it is chipping away from something that we as cyclists are allowed to do.
Not everything that is allowed is always smart or a good idea to do. Personally I get nervous riding anything but single file on Atlanta roads - and would do two abreast only if I feel the group is large enough or likely to be visible from good enough distance.
But that is not the point here. What I am trying to say is this: I think this ordinance is sending the wrong message on how to fix the problem. Let's face it - the cyclists are a minority - and once we give up some ground we won't get it back. There's a reason why Atlanta is one of the most bike unfriendly cities and it is not because there is an army of voters there ready to take out the county commissioners.
You don't solve a problem of overcrowded GA-400 by making it a two lane road (single file) no more than you solve a problem of an overcrowded airport by letting people travel only once a month. Of course that logic has not made it through most people's minds yet - and if you ask me - it won't for at least a generation.
That's why I think a lawsuit is important. It is a very civilized way of showing that what the county has done is wrong. Nobody loses anything - just the ordinance is thrown out. It is conducted away from passing cars, honking horns and flashing blue lights. And it is way less confrontational than some "critical mass" type display. It lets everyone know that we play by the rules but we demand the rules are to be applied to us equally as well.
As to whether the neighbors would be happy "if no more than the previously existing laws were enforced," I would say if their concern were genuinely about those who violated the law - then they should have been happy. If, of course, their concern is something else - such as the resentment of cyclists as a group - then I don't expect them to be happy by mere enforcement. The fact that they chose the option of adopting a new law over the option of enforcing the old one pretty much tells me what they were really concerned about. I don't think that's rocket science.
Which brings me to your second question: "Do you think they were ever educated enough about GA traffic law to understand this was an option?" I am not sure exactly how educated one needs to be to understand that enforcement of a law is an option. I would say once someone gets a ticket or sees a show on TV where someone gets put in jail - they would more or less get the idea that it is possible for the laws to be enforced - at least from time to time. As for myself - when I was little - and my mother told us kids we were not allowed to do something - and my brother did it anyway - I would sometimes tell on him. That's how I learned about enforcement. :)
Now the Columns residents may be special in that respect. I am not going to speculate about that. :)
All jokes aside - I do appreciate you engaging in this discussion and Tim for hosting it. I think it is important for certain issues to get aired out to see what it is that is really bothering us, and what to do about it.
I guess one of my greatest concerns is that people should be encouraged to exercise - not met with hostility when they do it. I have been cycling for many years, so things like that don't phase me. But imagine the younger generation that may be on the verge and decide that this swimming against the tide and dealing with all other accompanying dangers is just too much trouble to put up with.
Or maybe the rebel thing would be what appeals to the young? Come to think of it - who dominates the critical mass anyway? Is this, though, really a better way to go about it?
Wanna cycle on the ONLY street that drivers use to get back and forth to homes? Try it on your own street...you'd cry and call the cops if it were your neighborhood!! Come on...wanna cycle on the street...get on the highway/high road its the same risk...
Post a Comment