Regardless of what Dean Powers told you, the reason why those of us who use the Arcade -- and the many other pedestrian areas of campus -- are relieved with the ban is because all of us have several times in our Stanford careers been bumped, bopped, bowled over, or downright clobbered by speeding bicyclists who are lost in thought and not paying the least bit of attention to what they're doing at 25 mph. Pretty much daily I see pedestrians having to yield for their own safety to bicyclists flying by on sidewalks (pedestrian territory, by the way, not bike territory), cruising mindlessly through occupied crosswalks (a violation of state traffic laws that can be punished with a hefty ticket), running stop signs and traffic lights, changing lanes without looking or signaling, riding at night wearing dark clothing without lights or reflectors, parking in front of public access and egress, and riding at high speeds dangerously close to buildings. I dodge dozens of thoughtless bicyclists a day.

Frankly, I'm sick of it. If you guys can't ride safely and share the way with pedestrians and motor vehicles, then get off and walk.

I think before ANYONE gets on a bike they should be required to pass a test and get a license. They should have license plates on their bikes and they should be required to insure themselves and their bikes against the damage they can do by operating their bicycles under the influence of their inattention or stupidity.

And I think that the Stanford Sheriff and the Police Department should be attentive to the hazards that bicyclists pose on the Stanford campus and handle the droves of terrible bicycle operators here the same as they handle poor automobile operators -- that is, by issuing tickets with fines, and suspending privileges for repeat offenders.

If you think I'm being harsh, go up to White Plaza one day around noon and dodge some bicycles. Once you get nailed -- and you will get nailed eventually, I guarantee it -- you'll understand what I mean.

Oh, Jim, I bumped you with my bike? Me so sorry. Next time I'll just walk the 2 miles from Mirrielees to the Quad. Asshole.

So, first, let me just say, what is the bike ban? Would someone mind informing the graduate students? And what are the arcades of the Quad? You know, there are more graduate students than undergrads, and we are totally left-out of ANY decision on this campus that affects us. On the topic of bikers...I am one. I bike every-day from my apartment. Some of us don't have the luxury of walking 20-30 minutes to get to lab, as we don't have time to sleep much less walk everywhere. I agree there is a huge problem with bikes...just today the bikes were parked solid across the steps in front of math corner of the quad and I couldn't take the stairs without moving the bikes. A lot of people weave erratically, bike on sidewalks, cut-off pedestrians, busses and other bikers and in general do illegal and dangerous things. On the other hand, I have been hit by cars that don't even bother to look for bikers, when I'm biking in my bike land in a perfectly straight line down the road. Some jerk backed-out of a spot on Escondido this summer and hit me when I was just biking along. The problem cannot be fixed by a ban in a particular location. Bikers need to be educated and taught how to bike respectfully and correctly. Another issue I see is that cops often set-up in front of all of the graduate residences and hand-out tickets at night, without targeting anyone else who is part of the problem. Who else would be biking at the intersection of Campus and Serra or Escondido by the 750? I have been "pulled-over" for stopping at a stop sign with my light on, and all the cop could say was, well, you already have your bike registered, good job, now you can go. Jerk. As is my life as a graduate student is already not stressful enough, I have to be harrassed and singled-out which only makes the Stanford experience all that much more pleasant.

Dear Mr Franich,

Wow. I didn't think it could get much worse than your last column about the village bicycle, but it did indeed. First of all, "if even one person with accessibility problems has more accessibility now, isn’t that enough?” is not only an argument, it's a valid one. If you can't see this, try rolling around campus in a chair for a day, or better yet, try sitting in a dark room for five minutes and thinking about someone other than yourself. I know it's hard.

Secondly, your use of false analogies is astounding! "If even one person bikes across grass and trips over unsteady ground, will we have security monitoring all the grass?" Yes, this is exactly the same argument, except for the small fact that the people parking and riding their bikes in the arcades weren't inconveniencing and injuring themselves, they were inconveniencing and injuring OTHERS. It's a fine line.

Again, the Daily does itself proud with this piece.

Stanford Student and Stanford Senior: nowhere, nowhere in my response did I mention the word "students." Nowhere. I used the word "bicyclists." The fact is that there are a lot of faculty and staff at this place who are crummy bicyclists, too. Even a few doctors and nurses from SMC rank up there with the mindless worst. So,I hope before more Stanford students shoot from the hip they'll read the opinion first. This isn't about staff vs. students. This is about traffic safety. PS: Nice language, people. I know they're not teaching you that here.

First off, Jim Collins, your name sounds like a whiskey. I like that. Frankly, I remain unconvinced that you are not a cranky old bottle of alcohol well past its prime.
Secondly, if anyone is pulling 25 mph in the arcades, that is FREAKING AWESOME and something to be applauded, not condemned. 25 mph is ridiculous. Calm down. Most Walmart bikes fall apart at 7.5 mph.
Thirdly, the whole, "if one person can't get in, isn't that enough" argument. How about this? Maybe get some stats! Fabricate them for all I care! Don't make laws based on rhetoric! That's what George W. Bush has taught us! No child left behind? Baloney!
As for Mr. Collins again, listen. It's a big campus. People need to bike. When I left soccer practice at 9:50 (unshowered) to get to my 10 AM spanish class, I didn't have the time to walk.
All that said, I just entered a flame war, even though I'm a year removed from stanford, and don't really care about this at all.

To the several students who "don't get it"
This has nothing to do with politics. I am a grad student too (3rd year). Nobody is asking that bicycles are banned altogether on campus. All I am asking is that bycyclist use the bycyclists' lanes ALWAYS. I am really asking too much? Why is that I, as a pedestrian, cannot be safe when I walk on a PEDESTRIAN sidewalk? If bicyclists are not reasonable with the rules, then they will have to face the same consequences as other non reasonable drivers face: cash fines. I am sure that most unreasonable bicyclist would become reasonable if every time they were caught using the pedestrian sidewalks they faced fines of $200 and over.

I am fed up with having to be more careful when I walk on Stanford pedestrian sidewalks than when I walk across a road like Foothill.

Best,

When does the crying stop?

I've been walking, biking, and driving on campus for 13 years, and quite frankly, EVERYONE needs to be more considerate. Pedestrians walk all over the road, cross whenever and wherever they feel like it WITHOUT LOOKING and want to blame bikes for almost knocking them over. Bikers do run stop signs and don't signal. Cars do rolling stops, don't signal, and don't yield right of way. (I know - I get almost run over about 2-3 times a year.) Everyone needs to start paying attention.
As for solutions, what the administration really needs to do is provide better alternatives for parking bikes. There isn't enough convenient bike parking around the Quad, which is what causes people to park on the arcades. They solved one problem without thinking about how to deal with the effects of their solution.
To address Mr. Collins's statements, he clearly has little experience riding bikes. 25 mph is difficult even for seasoned cyclists on super-expensive racing bikes riding on open roads, so there's no way Joe or Jane student is going 25mph in the arcades. He has some valid points, but this particlar exaggeration is totally unreasonable.

An article from the Stanford Daily, September 25, 2003, bears repeating. The article was authored by the Daily Staff:
"Yesterday’s bloody bicycle accident outside the History Corner underscores the importance of bike safety on campus. As students return to class, White Plaza and the Quad become more perilous because of the thousands of bikes that flood through central areas of campus every day. Often bicyclists speed through crowded areas of campus and disregard the rules of the road. With one wrong turn, this carelessness can lead to injury.Bicyclists should realize that they are not pedestrians. They are operating a vehicle, and must show the same regard for driving conditions and road signs as someone driving a car. In the state of California, penalties for violating the rules of the road on a bike are sometimes the same as those for violators driving motor vehicles. If for no other reason than to avoid costly fines and possible hikes in vehicle insurance rates, bicyclists should demonstrate caution and care when hitting the road. As dorky as it may sound, or look, a helmet can make a substantial difference — as far as injuries are concerned — in a bicycle accident. Helmets can be purchased on campus at the Bike Shop, and off campus at any athletic store. And perhaps the easiest way to make your riding experience safer is to use a bicycle light. Bike lights are distributed free when you register any bicycle. Finally, it’s important to be courteous to fellow bicyclists and pedestrians. Getting to class seconds earlier matters little when it puts the safety of others at risk. Bike carefully. Your friends will thank you."

PS: Mr. T, read my early posts more carefully. Again, I never used the word "students." I used the word "bicyclists." So, I wasn't referring to "Joe or Jane student." I was referring to bicyclists in general. And yesterday evening as I was driving Palm Drive, I was passed by a bicycle on the right. I was travelling 21 MPH. How fast was the bike going? 22? 23? Don't know. But he was going fast. And no, I don't think he was a student, but again, I never mentioned the word "student" in my posts. Check this website: http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm for a bicyle speed calculator. Also, I didn't say that bicyclists were going 25 MPH in the Arcade. I said they were going 25 MPH in "many other pedestrian areas of campus."

"Everyone"
"Often"
"Most"
"Almost"
"Sometimes"
If I've learned anything in my three years and three weeks at Stanford, it's that you simply cannot get away with these bullshit words without at least some semblance of due diligence. My main concern as a student at a top research university lies with the lack of evidence released by the panel who allegedly spent a considerable amount of effort studying the bike problem. It seems to me that the administration has adopted a stance of "we know what's best for you," which certainly does not sit well with a campus full of mature, intelligent adults. From what I gather, there has not been a legitimate, scientific study on the effects of biking in the Quad. How such a decision was made without hard evidence to back it up is completely beyond me. Every single Stanford undergaduate is required to go through three quarters of IHUM and two quarters of PWR, the main focus of which is to teach you to a) conduct research to back up your theories and b) cite your sources. To be completely lucid, I am not suggesting that the university has crossed some uncrossable line. As has been mentioned before, private universities have an entirely legal right to establish any policy they see fit as long as they do not conflict with state and Federal law. An example of this is the UC ban on drinking in freshman dorms. But the UC policy has legitimate reasons backed by state law and research on the dangers of binge drinking. Stanford's bike ban has no such justification. What really ticks me off about Stanford's stance is not so much the ban itself, but that the policy is based on heresay and conjecture. And to everyone who has taken the university's side: while your near-accident ancedotes and support for accessibility are not to be ignored, it should be noted that not a single person affected by such accessibility issues has weighed in with their opinion. I'd like to hear from those people this policy is benefitting. Was the pre-ban atmosphere really that intimidating? I mean, you have had to overcome discrimination and prejudice, and I have nothing but the utmost respect. But I do not think Stanford students on bikes are a considerable threat.

Let's also get rid of all of the handicap parking spots on campus, because, after all, I've never really heard a handicap person complaining about not finding parking. Perhaps when the school shows us some statistics on that, they can bring back their parking spots.

Darren Franich LOOOOOVES outraging the masses!