The other day I was riding my ebike on Howard street in downtown San Francisco, and came to a stop light at 4th street where pedestrians were walking in all 4 directions. It was just after 5pm, the traffic was starting to pick up, and a few people were walking across the intersection. With one push of my pedal I joined the flow of people and made my way through the intersection. As I exited the intersection and began pedaling again, I heard the rumble of a motorcycle next to me, and glanced over my shoulder to see a cop gesturing for me to pull over. I was cited for 3 infractions. Basically I rode my bike through a red light, (first two infractions) and I did so with my headphones in my ears (third infraction). After doing some digging through the DMV’s website, I found the specific legalese of the infractions I was cited for:
- CVC 21453(a)- A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
- CVC 21950(a)- The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
- CVC 27400- A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a headset covering, or earplugs in, both ears. (this I did not even know was illegal)
While I asked the officer to explain the infractions, he was not very forthcoming. I was told by the officer that as a cyclist, it was my job to be familiar with the rules of the road. Either way, the officer was in no mood to debate this, but he stated I could do so when I appeared in court. 12 days later the fine of $595 landed in my mailbox.
I rode my bike through 1 intersection, going at less than 10 miles an hour, and I got a $595 fine. How does this make sense?
According to the police officer who charged me its simple. I’m a vehicle, and like any other vehicle, I am subject to the laws of the road. Because I went through an intersection during a pedestrian-only time, I’m breaking the law. On its face, it’s a simple, clear argument.
In the eyes of the law, these are both vehicles.
What constitutes a ‘vehicle’ for this argument are some set of principle parts, its function as a mode of transport. Perhaps it the officer felt that because my bike has a motor, it tips it closer to vehicle than another bike. But whats missing from this concept of ‘vehicle’ is a sense of the scale of these different kinds of vehicles. Your average car is somewhere around 50x more ‘vehicle’ by weight than my ebike is. Compare my eBike with a small vehicle, say a Mini Cooper, and that’s still more than 12x the weight of me and my bike combined. Meanwhile, the combined weight of me and my ‘vehicle’ is only 20lbs heavier than the average American male. The reason why weight matters is in force of a potential impact; a car moving at 7 mph could still do some damage; maybe even lethal. But an ebike? Hardly. The closest ‘real vehicle’ in comparison to the weight of my ebike would be a scooter, which is still at minimum 4x heavier (typically ranging from 220-500lbs).
Why do we issue tickets anyway?
The law’s intent in this matter is to keep people safe, and slamming down a hefty fine is their method of enforcing it. Being a male in my 20's, I admit I’ve had my share of speeding tickets driving a car, but this fee far surpasses any ticket I’ve received. It feels egregious. What I found so strange about scenario is that I honestly believe that what I did was the safest interaction. I know that you’re not supposed to go through a red light, allow me to explain.
On a bike, I’m more ‘human’ than ‘vehicle’
That may sound like a peculiar statement, but when you compare the weight of these two vehicles at a human scale, it looks like this:
As a result of being exposed, I’m able to do things that people do to communicate with others, use body language, actually talk, all to coordinate our movement. That gets compromised when you’re in the contained environment of a car. I’m also far more likely to get injured than any other vehicle on the road, as tragically illustrated by this ongoing list of people who have died in San Francisco while riding a bike. Most of these cyclists were killed by much larger vehicles, (buses, trucks etc) as a result of not having a protected space to pass through.
While a bike does have the potential to be lethal to a pedestrian (sadly it happened not too long ago in SF when a cyclist struck an elderly man, resulting in his death) there is a key difference between that incident and my own. I was traveling at a reasonable speed, where I could easily stop. One irresponsible rider shooting down a hill fast enough that he had to ‘commit’ to not stopping is not equivalent to riding at 7 mph through an intersection. Being seen as a person over a vehicle comes with certain conditions, which I believe justify my action:
why I thought my ‘infraction’ was a reasonable and safe one.
- I was traveling at a speed no faster than a pedestrian could- I gave one push and coasted through the intersection. According to the officer who cited me, his estimate (which I asked him for, but did not put on the ticket) was that I was traveling 7-10 miles an hour. Traveling at that speed, I argue I’m more like an electric wheelchair than a ‘vehicle’. Would I have been ticketed to this extent if I was riding a Segway? What exactly is the cut-off point?
- I could stop at a moment’s notice- I was in complete control of the bike, and if needed I could come to a complete stop with less than 1 ft of space. In fact, when a woman came a little close to my bike I began to stop, looked at her and said ‘sorry’, and she gestured for me to pass through. We we able to negotiate the potential bump in with no harm.
- There were no cars in the intersection- Because it was an all walk intersection, no cars were there, and this in fact was why I went. I knew that I could cross this usually car-heavy intersection with no chance of getting hit by a car. So long as I stayed a responsible rider, I presented no danger.
- The behavior I chose is acceptable in other intersections- (3.17.14)
I discussed this issue with friends and realized that this was a reason I had not initially posted. My point is, that at other intersections within the city of San Francisco, the rules change. At the intersection of Oak and Baker, pedestrians and cyclists move together, then the cars get a second light. As a cyclist, you have to look out for people when walking, and its better if you meet them at their speed where you can come to a full stop at a moments notice. The same is true of any intersection you cross along the upper haight; there’s a sea of pedestrians that will cross whenever, and as a cyclist the way you navigate that is by going at their pace, and just being careful. That behavior is acceptable there, why is it not acceptable at this intersection? I’m not denying that what I did is measurably illegal (there was a red light, I went through it) but I am questioning if my behavior can be compared to any other vehicle doing the same thing.
Should eBikes be seen as vehicles?
Bikes are kind of in the ambiguous space where you are expected to know what the rules of the road are, but there’s no license, no regulated instruction to what those rules are, yet they are still subject to the rules of the road. According to law, all bikes, motorized or not are considered vehicles. Unlike all other vehicles, where the DMV issues a series of tests to judge your abilities, anyone can ride a bike. eBikes could potentially be seen as more like a vehicle, after-all they have a motor, but allow me to put that notion in perspective:
a KitchenAid mixer has a bigger motor than my eBike
Yes, I have a motor attached to my bike, but does this really make it more dangerous? It’s motor is designed to get me to a cruising speed of 20mph, it even cuts off when I’ve reached that speed.
As the law stands, its simple, what I did was illegal. But what I question is why. What is the intent of having this be illegal? The law’s intent in this matter is to keep people safe, myself included. I argue that the safest time for any person who is exposed to the road (cyclist or pedestrian) to enter an intersection is when there are no cars in it, and that moment happens when people are crossing in all directions. Yes, it is possible for a bike to hurt a pedestrian, but in that moment, was I a risk to pedestrians? There is some ambiguity to the law, in CVC 2190, there’s a few sections, and in section (c), it states The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. I exercised every precaution, reduced my speed, and made my way through the intersection without issue. I feel this should be taken into consideration when reviewing my case.
I get that the police officer who ticketed me was ‘just doing his job’ but what does that mean exactly? I would hope it means keeping people safe, and knowing when to use discretion and reasoning, in order to focus on what really matters.
To me, a $595 fine in this case is just egregious. If you have ideas on how this could be resolved, or a difference of opinion you can articulate without resorting to shouting, I’m all ears. As a citizen, I ask that you join me in thinking about this to find what might be the best answer.
A few afterthoughts:
As for the issue with having my Earbuds in:
- I had no idea this was an illegal. Frankly I feel that rather than being ticketed, the more decent thing would have been for the cop to inform me of the infraction, and let me off with a warning.
- I could hear and interact with everyone around me. While I had my headphones in, it was not a conflict with my ability to interact with traffic, (or notice a cop on motorcycle hovering a little too close). This however is not appreciated by the current law; which makes it perfectly legal to be in a car with windows rolled up, blasting music, but illegal to have your earbuds in listening to Ira Glass talk about This American Life.
Oh, one more thing.
To the officer who ticketed me, if you wish to be a real stickler to the rules of the road, you should know that you had your own infraction. You’re not allowed to drive your motorcycle in the ‘bike only’ lane unless you are making a right turn within 200 ft. According to the photo I took (and using google maps to verify), you were 520ft away from the corner, but that didn’t stop you from sitting in the bike lane till the end of the block. I guess you figured there’s no harm, and you just proceeded with what felt sensible.
*Update* 3.17.14
I shared this article with friends on Facebook, and a number of people contributed in a healthy debate. Through that process, I learned more about some of the concerns people had about my action, they shared differences in perspective, and I explained further my perspective. In an effort to communicate more thoroughly, I’m positioning the statements and questions posed to me by friends and pasting in my response. I’m editing some of the wording to make it as concise as possible, my intent is showcase the structure of the issues best, and to also keep it anonymous because I haven’t gotten permission from them to repost it.
- Is this worth debating in court? You might get charged with more, because what you did was in fact illegal, and it could even add up to being time that you could have spent working.
A: For me, it is worth debating. I do run the risk of gaining an even heftier fine, but I think this is an issue worth debating because I believe that in the next coming years, we are only going to see more cyclists on the roads, and we should understand what went wrong here, how to keep everyone safe, and what even what can be done to make the laws reflect that. My intent is not to change the law overnight, but to question whether this fine reflects the reason why the law was written.
2. You need to follow the same laws with the all the motor vehicles. This is the flip side to wanting to use a bicycle on the road with all the rights the CVCs gives us. This means crosswalks are off limits. Your weight and speed are irrelevant. I know this is hard. I get confused looks for stopping at red lights at T intersections where there is no road and a crosswalk on the right side. But if I want my right to ride on the street, I need to follow the same rules. So the red lights that kept the crosswalks safe for the pedestrians was meant to keep you out of the crosswalks, unless you dismount and push.
A: I disagree, weight and speed is entirely relevant. I can accept that I did something that was wrong, but why is my bike different than an electric wheelchair traveling at the same speed? I get that at a certain speed, it becomes an issue, but it seems egregious to suggest that I am the same as a car.
(not in the original facebook thread)
Consider this, a Honda Accord weighs more than the San Francisco 49ers defensive line (2,600lbs). Anytime that much weigh gets moved around, it’s not to be taken lightly. By comparison, My bike is about the weight of a 3rd grader. Wouldn’t you think that the dangers of a metal-clad defensive line moving would be far greater than that of a 3rd grader moving at the same speed? Why do we treat the two as if they are the same?
3. It sucks, but you did do something illegal, and it could have been dangerous. This is a hard one and I’d be pissed too, but as a fellow cyclist, I am 100% in agreement with the laws about not running red lights and not being allowed to wear earbuds. While yes, us on bikes are much less dangerous than other people in cars, bikes weaving through pedestrian traffic at a crosswalk — with people walking from “all directions” — are absolutely a danger, and even moreso with headphones in (regardless of how low the sound is, it’s still a further distraction). As annoying as it is, I and many others now make it a point to wait at red lights for a variety of reasons — namely, the chance of exactly what happened to you happening to me, and the very SMALL chance that someone could dart out in front of me on foot and I could be responsible for their injury. Yes, cars are infinitely more dangerous than bikes, but a person on a bike can still do serious damage to a pedestrian even at low speeds. Super duper bummer and I’m sorry about the fine, but I would actually support the city ticketing more cyclists who ride through pedestrian-filled intersections. (Stepping off the soapbox, I do really hope you get it reduced, as that’s a b*tch!) ☺
A: Bicycle danger is dependent on behavior -I appreciate the sincerity, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of how you explained while having a difference of opinion.
Let me first explain what I mean by ‘all directions’. What I meant was that of the 4 possible paths people could take, there were people walking on them, in the crosswalks. It was not a dense intersection, but there were people walking on all crosswalks. If I were to estimate, I might have passed 4-6 people on my right who were walking in the cross walk while I road along side them, but not in their path.
When I was exiting the intersection, I was then crossing into a walk way, and I saw someone approaching, so I slowed down to almost a full stop, but the woman gestured to me to pass, and so I did. I’m not denying that what I did is illegal, but I think that it is entirely reasonable in how I did it, and I do not see how I was a risk. I can see how it could be a risk, but in the specific example it did not feel like I was being aggressive, or dangerous.
I also can see why the cop wanted to stop me, I can imagine how a cop half a block away does not see my facial expression with the woman on the other side, he only sees a cyclist going when he shouldn’t, and even if I was going slow, it was not when a ‘vehicle’ is supposed to go. I think this is an issue because it gets down to some nuanced behavioral choices where in one instance it might be perfectly safe, but in another it seems questionable, or even downright dangerous. As someone who rides regularly, daily, I would not have characterized my behavior in that moment as even remotely dangerous, and it is in that where I find the ticket egregious. I wish I had just thought to dismount, it seems so simple, but that for some reason I didn’t even think to do that.”
4 continued. The law is the law, and for a reason. Totally see your point on the above, but at the end of the day we have all seen the a-holes who plow right into crowded crosswalks on their bikes and expect the crossing pedestrians to yield to them or risk injury. And we would all agree that is wrong, so the codes exist. It’s black and white and rightfully doesn’t rely on an officers judgment of how safely a bicyclist was crossing an intersection on red. I’m sure you were being safe and it sucks but it’s the many dangerous cyclists out there that give us reason to have these laws in the first place rather than relying on judgement.
A: For me it’s not that clear, neither is actually that clear in the city. There are intersections that behave differently, where cyclists and pedestrians go together (when you’re on Oak st and crossing Baker st). In that intersection there’s a pedestrian/bike light that gives the OK for both to go, in designated lanes. I’m on the road, they are in the crosswalk, but we move together because it makes sense, and they designated it that way to reflect it.
If you’re crossing over Haight Street, you’re always negotiating with pedestrians, so you go slowly. I don’t think the law is that simple, I think its simple to tell that what I did is verifiably illegal (red light, wrong) but it’s not irresponsible, or discordant to how you would behave when you do inevitably interact with pedestrians. It is with that thought that I can accept that it was illegal, but the penalty does not reflect the crime. The penalty is that of an dangerous interaction, one where someone acted irresponsible, and I don’t think that is an appropriate characterization.
5. What if it was the other way, and you were in a car? Sometimes, when I’m in my car and at a red light and there are literally no cars or people around. If I had treated the intersection as merely a 4-way stop and ran through it (because I deemed that it was safe and nobody would get hurt), would you consider it the same situation as yours and undeserving of a fine? Should all vehicles be allowed to make that call as to whether or not they should heed red lights without penalty?
I don’t see how it’s different, if your main point is that you didn’t hurt anyone. I can’t hurt anyone if there is no one to hurt, even in a car. I wouldn’t consider that as acting anymore irresponsible than you did. But if we let everyone make judgement calls, then traffic will start looking a less safe, especially as people make poor decisions. I ran a red once, got a $300 fine and had to go to traffic school., which I also had to pay for. Nobody was hurt—I just caught the tail end of a yellow light and entered too late. I was captured on camera and mailed a ticket. Just because you rode slow, doesn’t mean that cars can’t ALSO drive slowly and safely.
A: Actually, it makes a big difference being in a car, the two are not comparable. How a car is different: Because you are inside something, you literally do not have the same field of vision. You may think you’re on your own, but you might not be, and it’s possible that you could miss someone in a blind spot.
6. Bikes can still hurt/kill people: it even happened in San Francisco.
A: They can, when they are traveling at a speed where they can not react safely. Your case example of Chris Bucchere is the rare exception to the rule that you are using to say that all vehicles are the same, they are not, cars are drastically more dangerous and can be far more dangerous at low speeds. The very article you point to acknowledges that bikes hurting people are scarce, that cars injure far many more.
There is a behavior where a bike is no different from a person in an electric wheelchair, or Segway, and neither of those are considered vehicles, the way I behaved, while specifically illegal in that particular intersection, is a behavior that is perfectly accepted in other parts of the city, so what is it about my behavior that makes it dangerous? I think the answer is the potential, I could have gone faster, but I did not, and that what makes it seem like an egregious charge. On its face, I’m being treated equivalent to the danger of a car, when the two are not even remotely comparable.
You know how you can tell their different? Because cars require mandatory insurance to operate, their accidents are more frequent, and more costly. There are a few exceptions where you start to see bike insurance is usually for professional cyclists, but it’s certainly not the norm. Car insurance is a multi-billion dollar industry because of how probable cars are to accidents that result in serious consequences.
I’m not denying that what I did was illegal, I’m questioning that a bike infraction is not the same as a car, and should not be treated as the same risk, and that the behavior I used has been considered acceptable in other places within the city.
Email me when Thoughtfully Reasoned publishes stories