The SF Bicycle Coalition has dedicated its latest journal to the issue of scofflaw. It makes a typical plea for everyone to be perfectly law-abiding in shared space.

We’ve been hearing from an increasing number of our own members, as well as political and community leaders, about this issue.

We know that most people are riding safely and courteously, but those who are not are making it less safe for all of us. Following the rules of the road and yielding to pedestrians is paramount to keeping our streets safe and inviting places for everyone.

A few tenants impact the safety of others and cause concern about all tenants. When enough tenants complain then law enforcement will step in to perform a typical show of force or a checkpoint or a sting. That seems like the usual cycle of things (pun not intended).

What is most interesting in the journal is the guidance to law enforcement by the SFBC:

The SF Bicycle Coalition is urging the SF Police Department (SFPD) to focus their efforts on the most dangerous behavior by road users at the known, most dangerous intersections. We know that drivers are responsible for the huge majority of injuries and fatalities to pedestrians on our streets, so this problem should receive the huge majority of enforcement attention.

We’ve heard troubling accounts of the SFPD setting up stings to catch people on bicycles rolling through stop signs on quiet streets where no one else is around. This isn’t focusing on dangerous behaviors at dangerous intersections, and these tickets are not prioritizing the actual goal of making our streets safer for everyone. We agree with your phone calls, e-mails, tweets, Facebook posts, etc, complaining that these tickets should not be prioritized at a time that limited enforcement resources should be aimed at actual dangerous behavior.

There should be an easier way to differentiate what is meant by “actual” dangerous behavior.

Data driven analysis is one way. The data on cars, in other words, shows a high rate of pedestrian accidents and fatalities treated as normal.

…none of these fatalities caused by people driving received even one-tenth of the attention that the high-profile Market/Castro incident involving a person biking fatally hitting a pedestrian last March drew. Why? Precisely because the latter is so rare. Equally tragic, absolutely heartbreaking, but undeniably rare.

Within just one week of that crash at Market and Castro Streets, there were two other pedestrian fatalities, both reportedly caused by people driving. Did you read anything about those?

This is not to say that cyclists should kill more pedestrians to make people forget about the risk. No, it actually brings to light the classic dichotomy of civil disobedience during segregation. Those practicing scofflaw may increase resistance and fear, but at the same time open up a path to reform that is far less troubling than continuing down the same road. Perhaps scofflaw cyclists will be the catalyst that helps pedestrians throw off the shackles created by drivers. Did Martin Luther King practice “actual” dangerous behavior by dreaming? Was Rosa Parks “actually” a dangerous person when she resisted segregation?

[Kyra Phillips on CNN] asked Reverend Joseph Lowery, an African American civil rights advocate, how Parks’ memory made him feel about all the current-day commentators who are “always on the TV set complaining and shouting.” […] “It takes all approaches,” Lowery said. “I do not condone violence, but I do condone militancy.”

The bottom line is that stop-signs and stop-lights are not intelligent controls for segregation of traffic. They also were not designed with the best interests in mind for pedestrians or cyclists. In fact, red and green signals are a poorly thought-out adaptation from sailboats in the water (starboard and port). The colors operate smoothly when used on the water without stopping anyone; boats have no real brakes. Traffic signals should be about flow such that we can define “actual” dangerous behavior by harm (severity) but also obstruction (likelihood).

It would seem that cyclists are bringing to light (pun not intended) that relics of an endless-petroleum model of energy consumption can not last forever. Idling on empty streets with an engine that burns $5/gal gasoline in a new 10mpg engine seems like an incredibly bad idea today. Likewise, pushing pedals only to have to pull on the brakes and wait on an empty street makes little sense.

The modern round-a-bout was supposedly invented in America. Why not reconsider them with their modern improvements such as yield-at-entry?

The solution is undoubtedly in thinking about the purpose of signals and controlling movement. Avoiding collision is the goal, not re-enforcing wasteful and inefficient designs or in trying to develop an artificial and contrived definition of “good” behavior. I have personally watched the SFPD chase down and hand out tickets to cyclists that coast through stop signs yet they allow vehicles to run through the exact same signs without a reaction. At one point I approached the officers and asked about the inconsistency in enforcement. They simply said the department was responding to public concern about cyclists.

NASCAR lately has handed out some stiff penalties to competitors for infractions. Yet the Bleacher Report tells us that among the top quotes in NASCAR history there is much evidence that rule-following may be the exception for drivers:

“If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin'” is an old NASCAR expression. Junior Johnson had this to say about his creativity when it came to building cars:

“I loved the game. Maybe I’d have four of five new things on a car that might raise a question. But I’d always leave something that was outside of the regulations in a place where the inspectors could easily find it.

“They’d tell me it was illegal, I’d plead guilty, and they’d carry it away thinking they caught me. But they didn’t check some other things that I thought were even more special.”

BR also cites driver Darrell Waltrip in 1976 after his team was caught cheating with nitrous oxide.

If you don’t cheat, you look like an idiot; if you cheat and don’t get caught, you look like a hero; if you cheat and get caught, you look like a dope. Put me where I belong.

Waltrip’s best story might be the time he was caught filling his car frame with BBs to cheat the weight test before a race. Because cars weren’t weighed afterwards he simply pulled a plug and all the weight would disappear on the track without detection. Unfortunately one day the balls jammed. The BBs sat in his car, keeping him at regulation weight, until Waltrip’s car entered the pit. Then, as he approached the other crews, the entire payload came free and pelted them.

That story comes from Popular Mechanics’ article called “The Greatest Cheats in NASCAR History,” which has many other examples:

• Fuel capacity: Yunick inflated a basketball in the tank during tests, then deflated it before the race
• Fuel capacity: Yunick quadrupled the 11 ft fuel line diameter to carry 5 extra gallons
• Aerodynamics: Johnson’s crew chief Knaus altered rear window angle
• Weight: Flock painted wood to look like metal roll bars

I especially like the fuel line cheat as Yunick argued the line was not technically part of the tank and therefore should not be included in measurement of capacity. Popular Mechanics also quotes a famous cheater who thought “stock” cars meant a challenge to make some stock “better” than others.

“It can be frustrating,” says Chad Knaus, crew chief for four-time champion Jimmie Johnson…. “But it would be more frustrating to give up trying to make our car better.”

I suppose you could excuse failure to follow a rule when a rule is first introduced. There might be confusion and not everyone would be able to interpret the same. That is especially believable when NASCAR found that almost no one passed:

To help cut down on cheating, NASCAR introduces body templates, which race cars must conform to, Prior to the Firecracker 400 at Daytona, 49 of 50 cars entered flunk initial tech inspection.

But that sad tally was decades ago in the 1960s, as reported by Something About Everything Racin’, which also retells a story of Petty’s winning engine. The cylinders apparently had wax in them before a race to pass inspection. During the race it melted so after the race the engine measured much larger than the maximum allowed; it went from just over 350 to 392 cubic inches. At the end of the race, despite all the penalties and warnings, it seems that the winners in NASCAR are cheating all the time.

The names of those caught skirting the rule book read like a “Who’s Who” in NASCAR history: Tim Flock, Smokey Yunick, Junior Johnson, David Pearson, Bobby Allison. Richard Petty, Roger Penske, Jack Roush, Ray Evernham … the list goes on and on, almost as if it’s some kind of badge of honor.

Indeed, the badge of hacking just has been bestowed to teams No. 14, No. 3 and No. 18 according to a NASCAR press release:

The No. 14 team in the Sprint Cup Series was found to be in violation of Sections 12-1 (actions detrimental to stock car racing); 12-4J (any determination by NASCAR officials that the race equipment used in the event does not conform to NASCAR rules detailed in Section 20 of the NASCAR Rule Book); and 20-2.1J (unapproved open vent hose inside of the car).

Imagine if computer security regulations had something like “Sections 12-1 (actions detrimental to stock car racing).” Actions detrimental to the industry? The FTC is probably the closest thing.

That vague catch-all 12-1 rule was really meant to help prevent fist fights and other unsportsmanlike behavior. Ironic, since some say the reason NASCAR became so popular in America was a 1979 televised fight.

Oh, and note the NASCAR typo. That should be rule 20A-2.1J. Is the fine removed if there’s no 20-2.1J?

Anyway, with all that background, I’m going to take a guess and say that the vent hose was intentionally routed inside to reduce air resistance. A fairly boring hack and the finding doesn’t seem to be an isolated instance.

The No. 3 team in the Nationwide Series was found to be in violation of Sections 12-1; 12-4J and 20A-2.1J (unapproved open vent hose inside of the car).

As fun as it is to read the infraction reports and the odd-ball excuses or theories of disobedience from the teams, it really just makes me yearn for something more meaningful in development and innovation — where’s the bump in the power to efficiency ratio we could all use?

It will be years before the IndyCar innovation trickles down into NASCAR, despite all the stories of cheating. I wish the car racing regulatory bodies would just speed up the process and let someone race a diesel again.

Now THAT was an impressive hack that translated directly to stock benefit.