Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights
vox.com
vox.com
I spoke to an SFPD officer on Market and 2nd the other day, and he watched as five different cyclists ran a red light stopping vehicular traffic on Market. I asked him why he wasn't giving tickets to the cyclists, and he told me that he is specifically not allowed to. He reiterated to me that the official policy of the SFPD is not to enforce traffic violations by cyclists on Market Street. He told me that this is because the SF Bike Coalition has run a campaign vilifying police officers and accusing them of harassing cyclists. This is all at the cost of pedestrian safety.
I'm not making this shit up, either. I've been hit by two bicyclists in the last year who were running red lights while I was legally crossing Market street on foot. And let's not forget all the cyclists riding on the sidewalk or against traffic.
SF is a zoo enough without people gleefully ignoring all traffic safety laws to suit their own convenience, and I don't think we should make it any easier on the people who do it.
I imagine if the bike laws in SF were updated to the proposal in the articles SF cops would be more empowered to ticket bicyclists cutting off pedestrians at red lights.
How exactly does making bicyclists follow the laws of the road make things more dangerous?
Who decides what these "best practices" are?
Should cars be allowed to treat stop signs as yields in the absence of other traffic?
What's the point of signage if you create a broad exemption from following them?
So can lightning and banana peels. Are you arguing that bicycles are as deadly as cars?
>How exactly does making bicyclists follow the laws of the road make things more dangerous?
From the article: > If the Idaho stop were legalized, it'd get cyclists off these faster streets and funnel the bikes on to safer, slower roads. The Idaho stop, if legalized and widely adopted, would also make bikes more predictable.
This is bullshit and speculation. You really think it'd get bicyclists to take the small streets? It won't. They use the "big streets" because they're the most efficient, they don't give a shit about road laws regardless of the size of the street.
Yes, as I bicyclist who doesn't own a car, I do think that. I take back/small streets wherever the stop sign density is low enough (long blocks, lots of two way stops) and doesn't take me off course. It is far more safe and relaxing than blocking a lane of traffic on a high volume road.
> They use the "big streets" because they're the most efficient,
To a certain degree, yes. But that efficiency has a lot to do with having to stop at stop signs.
> they don't give a shit about road laws regardless of the size of the street.
Now you are just over-generalizing and projecting.
Don't have those numbers on hand any more (the former figure is so low that it's almost impossible to find), but per mile traveled within a city, there is no contest that cars are the biggest threat all other things being equal.
What I do have is that 12% of pedestrian injuries are motor vehicle related (3rd leading cause of pedestrian injuries) and that bikes don't even register in the top 6. 3 out of 4 of these accidents were in urban areas. For bicyclists, motor vehicles are the number one cause at 29% of injuries.[0]
I'm pretty sure that if we we doing this the smart way, we'd start with statistics when deciding what rules to create and which ones to enforce. The goal should be minimization of injuries and deaths. Cars majorly fail in this respect.
When a pedestrian gets killed by a cyclist it is news. We rarely even report motor vehicle pedestrian deaths unless it is notable in some way (like the Uber incident). I don't remember who said it, but the definition of news is something that happens so infrequently that it is notable enough to report on. (I think Bruce Schneier but can't find the quote right now)
http://i.imgur.com/JRQCRG9.png
The Saint Mary's and Mountfort street intersection in Boston. There's a very long red light for cars traveling east. A portion of the light is for traffic coming out of St. Mary's street (which is usually only a single car or two), the rest is for pedestrians (primarily BU students), who tend to move efficiently and are easy to see and avoid if you are on a bike.
While the light is red, the entire area marked in green almost always empty (safe). The smartest, safest move for a bicycle is to approach the red light and slow down, making sure there are no cars coming from the north or south, then proceed through the intersection (slowly, avoiding pedestrians), through the green area and onto park drive by themselves, without having to compete with the cars that will be merging (and while oncoming traffic is also conveniently stopped).
What's the point of signage if you create a broad exemption from following them?
A broad exemption should coincide with a recognition that the rules and signage are inadequate and need to be updated where possible. For example there's a one-way street a short way from the picture I posted (Essex St, Brookline) which was recently amended to say "One-way (except bikes)." That is, the signs and laws were adjusted to accommodate the unique characteristics of bicycles.
There are a lot of one-way streets that can easily accommodate bicycles. Meanwhile there are some one-way streets that really should not be taken in the wrong direction by either bikes or cars. But until the signage adequately distinguishes between the two, bikes are just going to ignore signs if they can get away with it. (And it does happen-- I forget which street but there's a street near Harvard Square that is clearly marked "NO BIKES THIS DIRECTION, USE <street> INSTEAD"
Aggressive cyclists are a problem. Assertive cyclists are not, and there is a clear and important distinction between the two.
All cyclists should follow the law and follow predictive traffic behavior! It's pretty simple.
It sounds like he DID yield, despite the pedestrians VIOLATING traffic law.
For your perusal:
http://nypost.com/2013/03/12/deadly-wipeout-van-jumps-curb-a... - "The driver was not charged with a crime"
http://nypost.com/2013/08/20/cabbie-fighting-with-cyclist-ju... - "the cabbie [..] was likely to be slapped with multiple summonses for the crash but not criminally charged"
As it turns out, unless you are hopelessly drunk or leave the scene, you can kill someone with your car (even with blatant recklessness) and you will not face charges of any kind. I think the fines don't even go above $1k. Oh, you'll be driving the day after.
Oh, Chris Bucchere got 3 years of probation. For killing a human being.
You seemed to be plenty enraged with Bucchere, when his case is an obvious outlier for the system as a whole.
This is why we discuss, to calibrate expectations and guide our understanding.
It is not obvious to me how you using italics in the term "outlier" makes his case an outlier.
It's obnoxious, but sometimes it's the only way to be noticed.
And a little noise will not kill anyone.
-Completely ignore bicyclists. This may perhaps cause them abruptly stop and not like me. I don't care, because I have the right-of-way, and they are in the wrong.
-Beat the living piss out of any biker that collides with me. (As a result of their vehicular assault, which is what recklessly hitting me with your bike in the crosswalk represents. This includes throwing their bike into traffic where it hopefully gets run over, for good measure.)
Fortunately, I haven't had to do the last step yet. I've cut off plenty of bikers as they attempt to zip past me in a crosswalk and have had them curse at me and just give them a 'fuck you' smile. :)
Listen bikers, the rules are simple and have been around forever: when you're in the roadway, conduct yourself as a vehicle. This includes obeying all traffic signs and patterns. If you ultimately have problems hitting people, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.
It helps when you can put a name on these things and auto-correct.
Aggressive assertion of one's legal rights isn't that.
You have literally been collided with by a guy on a bike?
Everyone, no matter their means of transit, should try to prevent collisions. You're endangering yourself and others if you don't.
To that end, I still feel the biker is compelled (and actually is, legally so) to, ultimately, stop for the pedestrian striding out into the intersection on a green, if necessary. And I feel no sympathy for the biker, should he hit the pedestrian.
That said, I think it's entirely in-line for the biker to give a chewing out to the lackadaisical pedestrian who's disobeying traffic regulations.
They shouldn't be hitting you, but just the same, the law says you shouldn't be hitting them, except in situations where you are under some imminent threat. I doubt a cyclist that has just collided with a pedestrian has plans to continue the attack.
As a cyclist, I would happily exchange the cyclist privileges the OP described in exchange for a city that cracks down heavily on drivers who flaunt the laws. More cars off the road the better.
This city is headed in the same messed up direction as São Paulo and Beijing (lived in both, only cycled in SP). The city is past the point where cars make sense, and is unwilling to jump the gulf to making walking, public transportation and biking the safest and most effective forms of transportation.
I do agree with a lot of this article about the uselessness of enforcing outdated road rules to cyclists. I personally will rarely completely stop at stop sign. I find the danger much higher to try to immobilize the bike, un-clip the shoe and start again with a very slow speed (potentially exposing myself for a much longer period of time in that dangerous crossing zone).
To solve accidents between all of these actors, I think there should be a simple rule of giving the slowest vehicle always the right of way, which is what courteous people do. A pedestrians should always have priority over a cyclist and or a motorist. If accident happen, the cyclist/motorist should take the full responsibility for it. Likewise a cyclist should have priority over a motorist. The person at fault should be proven guilty unless proven innocent of some unpredictable situation.
It is a bit the same on the water, where motor boats have to give way to wind powered boat for the same logical reasons.
And you can't apply your courteous rule for traffic in places with many elder pedestrians like China: other people and vehicles would never move.
I think, however, that removing rules and applying common sense could work if we could use a communication network inspired from biological patterns.
The equivalent in the cycling example would be that trains have to give way to cyclists which was not my point.
On the flip side:
I have lost count of the number of time I have stopped for pedestrians at crosswalks in Oakland, only to have a car blow past me, sometimes coming close to hitting pedestrians I had stopped for.
As a pedestrian on MLK, I have to be VERY careful of when crossing crosswalks because many cars are NOT paying attention.
Clearly there are many incompentent and thoughtless bicyclists and drivers.
> I spoke to an SFPD officer on Market and 2nd the other day, and he watched as five different cyclists ran a red light stopping vehicular traffic on Market. I asked him why he wasn't giving tickets to the cyclists, and he told me that he is specifically not allowed to. He reiterated to me that the official policy of the SFPD is not to enforce traffic violations by cyclists on Market Street.
So why don't we tie a law legalizing the Idaho Stop, with a law mandating cops enforce traffic laws against bicyclists?
On the other hand, I was living in a city of about 70,000, pretty small. I am sure it all depends on the city and its size.
Are you kidding? "Why should I have to stop? Vehicles run red lights!" I'm seriously struggling to determine if I'm unable to pick up on your sarcasm... but really, I know you're absolutely sincere.
"So why don't we tie a law legalizing the Idaho Stop, with a law mandating cops enforce traffic laws against bicyclists?"
Your sense of cause and effect is seriously damaged. Are you honestly proclaiming with any sincerity that cycling "radical" groups like Critical Mass, etc, will be suitably satiated by the legalization of the Idaho Stop that they'll feel that they now receive fair and equitable treatment (when in the past, that wasn't necessarily not the case, but rather, 'everyone harasses us')?
Oi.
It does highlight just how much of an efficiency loss frequent stop/start traffic is. In my experience, my most efficient travel (long distance at ~90 kph) is about 1.7x more fuel efficient than when I'm driving surface streets with frequent stops, based on liters/100km (US MGP ratings obscure this relationship).
As a cyclist, in light traffic I tend to the Idaho Stop practice. There are a number of rationales:
• The injury a bicycle can inflict is generally vastly less than that of an automobile.
• Cyclists almost always have much better visibility and awareness of surrounding traffic, with the possible exception of traffic to the rear.
• Bicycles generally accelerate much more slowly from a stop than motor vehicles.
However, in traffic scenarios, I tend to fairly studiously adhere to the rules of the road. Why? Predictability, and my own risk. If I'm following RoTR, drivers have a much better sense of where I'll be, and I am less likely to get into an unpredictable (and likely harmful) situation.
One other item: stop signs outside the US are often substituted for with "give way" signs (you'll occasionally see "yield" in the US). Where it isn't necessary to always stop, cautioning drivers (and establishing legal rights of way) is considered sufficient. Replacing intersections with roundabouts also addresses this through traffic flow.
As a driver, THANK YOU! This is the #1 problem with bicyclists, predictability. I drive in DC and I have literally NO IDEA what the hell a bicyclist is going to do -- which makes them little road terrorists to me.
I have watched a rented bike (in DC) ride from pedestrian walkway -- onto street (along side) -- into middle of road, then slow down and ride through a red light -- then stop at the next red light. This was inside of 2 minutes. Very scary from a driver perspective.
You'll find them all over bike paths in particular, which tends to make those less attractive than they might otherwise be -- at least on busy weekends.
Even (or especially) on country rides, where I can see the road ahead but a car following me can't, I'll signal when it's safe to pass, or more critically, when it's not. Dropping my hand with fingers to indicate how many cars are oncoming, and signalling all clear almost always helps the driver behind me (who understandably wants to pass) know what to expect, and most respond with a friendly toot after they've overtaken me (honking from behind a bike tends to be startling, don't do that).
Bingo. I can believe this is an issue for discussion in Idaho, but in urban environments (where I assume most reside)? A bicyclist is a bag of calcium and water perched on some welded aluminum pipes swimming in a sea of tanks. When you're driving a car, predictability and muscle memory are pretty much the only thing that keeps you alive and anything out of the ordinary is a danger that you must prepare for and avoid.
As an LA bicyclist who learned to drive after moving to SF (oh the irony), I find behavior like this absurd. Physics doesn't care about your right of way and while a crumple zone can protect a driver in even some of the most gruesome accidents, few 150 pound blobs of jelly can survive getting flung across the street.
The worst part is that in some situations, there is nothing you can do to avoid hitting a biker who runs a red light through the intersection. I've been in a situation twice now where swerving to avoid a biker put other people in the intersection in danger, people who were innocent and could have lost their lives. One of my worst nightmares is hitting someone, anyone, with my car but at the end of the day, it is my responsibility to keep my car under control and everyone else on the street out of unnecessary danger. When a bicyclist flaunts the basic rules of traffic, rules meant to keep people safe in a world of multi-ton vehicles, they force drivers into situations that often end badly only for the person without the airbags.
> few 150 pound blobs of jelly can survive getting flung across the street.
Which is why I put more effort into riding safely and defensively than I do in riding predictably. This is why (depending on traffics, shoulder, lighting, pedestrian visibility and driveways) there are many situations where I will go onto the sidewalk with my bike. (The main reason I do this is to use walk signals rather than risking following traffic laws and using the left turn lane.)
> a biker who runs a red light through the intersection.
They did not follow the idaho stop law. I think you are arguing against a strawman.
> When a bicyclist flaunts the basic rules of traffic, rules meant to keep people safe in a world of multi-ton vehicles, they force drivers into situations that often end badly only for the person without the airbags.
Which is why we should establish rules of the road for bicyclists that make sense, and will be easily followed by the majority of bicyclists. Then we enforce those rules against the 5% of arrogant jerks.
> When you're driving a car, predictability and muscle memory are pretty much the only thing that keeps you alive and anything out of the ordinary is a danger that you must prepare for and avoid.
Predictability helps, but:
Paying attention to your surroundings and not relying too heavily on predictability is how you avoid accidents and hurting people. This is true with or without bicyclists on the road.
Solely relying on muscle memory and predicability means you are a very BAD driver.
These aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is situational awareness, which you mention.
I'll hog the lane if not doing so increases risks or increases the likelihood I'll have to respond unpredictably to sudden events (doors opening, pedestrians, vehicles entering or leaving the lane).
I do agree generally that a slightly laxer set of regulations for bikes may well apply. My experience with urban cyclists suggests that the line is rather short of where many of them place it.
I have a suspicion that this is the case of a few bad apples and selection bias. I don't think the majority push the rules much past what is described in the article.
> I do agree generally that a slightly laxer set of regulations for bikes may well apply
What do you think of the specific rules proposed in the article?
Idaho can have it's Idaho stop, but in my big congested city I believe it's better and safer for everyone to keep green lights clear of any and all orthogonal traffic, especially when the odds of survival are so one sided and the gains so inconsequential.
> Paying attention to your surroundings and not relying too heavily on predictability is how you avoid accidents and hurting people. This is true with or without bicyclists on the road.
> Solely relying on muscle memory and predicability means you are a very BAD driver.
I can't even... what are you saying?
Paying attention to your surroundings is how you predict (which is why the predictability of other animate actors is important) and muscle memory is how you get better at dealing with all situations, mundane or extreme, through practice and experience.
I said: >They did not follow the idaho stop law.
The straw man is equating someone who runs a red without stopping or checking for traffic with someone who follows the idaho stop law.
> Paying attention to your surroundings is how you predict
Huh? Making assumptions based on past experience is how you predict.
If you are relying on your assumptions about what people are doing and not carefully watching what they are doing is a danger.
Obviously, all three (attention, prediction, and muscle memory) contribute to safe driving. However, I would rather have a driving that is watching what I am doing than a driving that thinks he can predict what I am doing. That is why I objected to this line "When you're driving a car, predictability and muscle memory are pretty much the only thing that keeps you alive".
>>> Solely relying on muscle memory and predicability means you are a very BAD driver.
This is how I see most drivers operate. This is why there are certain areas where as pedestrian I have to yield to traffic even though I have the right of way. Very few drivers pay proper attention to their surroundings.
After a while it's enough to convince even an enthusiastic cyclist to slow down, check things over carefully, and wear a helmet.
NB: it's "flouts", not "flaunts".
Usually ( and I say this as a cyclist and pedestrian with no driving license ) that's because the majority of cyclists stop in a high gear, and then have to 'tread molasses' to start moving again.
It takes very little effort to shift-down when approaching a stop, which means that on my bicycle I'm ready in the lowest gear and can move off much faster than the motor traffic and have 20 metres or so lead by the time they clutch / gear / brake-off / move.
And I write this as someone who's drafted behind tractor trailers at highway speeds, ridden in 30+ mph pacelines, and topped 60 mph on descents.
There's a reason the word "generally" was loitering near the opening of that sentence ;-)
Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations. Adding a new class of movement patterns for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict for everyone. There's no way this would be safer in dense, highly trafficked cities.
Even though I hate aggressive cyclists, I wouldn't want to hit one even if the bicyclist were 100% at fault and somehow magically had insurance to pay for all damage to my car, as the bicyclist would probably be seriously injured if not killed. So I'd end up braking, potentially getting hit by a car behind me.
I got rear-ended by the athletic director for the SF city schools a decade ago when I stopped at a crosswalk for a pedestrian (coming down Twin Peaks into the Castro). That exact layout -- no stop sign, but stop signs on the cross street (and a crosswalk).
(It was an interesting experience for me because I was driving a to-me huge rental car (Kia Amanti) and he had some old Honda civic; since it was on a hill the heights were accentuated, so his car basically went underneath my rear bumper and stopped when it hit the axle. At ~35mph I guess, and really massive damage to his car and <$2k to mine.)
So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway?
> Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations.
True, but the current disregard to those laws means that expected behavior is inconsistent with the behavior mandated by laws.
> Adding a new class of movement rules for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict and anticipate for everyone.
Bikes already move and behave differently, just due to mechanics and physics. Bringing expectations in line with this and normalizing behavior INCREASES predictability.
You can't drive a car at 20mph on the highway either.
Edit: To be clear, I intending to point out the ridiculousness of this language:
> exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions.
There are different rules of the road for Semis, for cars pulling trailers, for motorcycles, for tractors, for public transit.
FWIW, if your car is not capable of traveling at the "speed minimum" (typically 10-15 miles below the speed limit on a highway; though I guess some states don't have this concept), then it also is not allowed on the highway.
Do you live in a dense city with a large number of cyclists? I think there's merit to the argument that automobile drivers are already predicting that cyclists will run through intersections, so this clarification would be a significant improvement.
The system is composed of individual interactions, and the rules they suggest (and which research seems to indicate reduce collisions) seem sensible in the context of those individual interactions. What specifically do you disagree with?
So why is this a bad idea? Especially if we can tie this with stronger enforcement against rogue bicyclists?
This lack of "normal" behavior is very scary for people in cars and even on motorcycles. We don't want to kill bicyclists! Bicyclists make up 2% of road fatalities in DC, vastly disproportionate to their numbers.
I think for all involved, the cyclists need to become more normalized and less random. Standardizing the (IMHO) bad behavior doesn't seem like the right(tm) answer.
The article has this insane circular logic, "because bicyclists already break the law a bunch, it should be made the law" -- rather than how we deal with it in other spaces "time to crack down on people who break the law". The result is the same, normalized behavior. The author wants to normalize to TWO sets of rules, one for bicyclists -- one for everyone else (so everyone has to know TWO sets of rules) -- I want to normalize to ONE set of rules, the current rules of the road, so everyone can follow ONE set of rules -- and punish bicyclists for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. I believe this will be safer for everyone, both in the short term and the long term.
So what is? Do we charge drivers that kill bicyclists following the rules with manslaughter then? Killing people is (IMHO) bad behavior.
I think the answer is a obvious combination of: 1) Make the rules of the road for bicycles make sense given the limitations of bicycles. 2) Make the enforcement of the rules of the road for bicycles more severe.
The combination of these two will help normalize the behavior and save lives. Why are you opposed to this?
2. Absolutely, this is a HUGE part of it -- bicyclists need to start getting FULL FLIGHT tickets for blowing stop signs and such. Few $150 dollar tickets might get them to stop. Policy departments generally hate dealing with bicyclists for tickets, and this needs to be rectified.
I am OPPOSED to TWO SETS OF RULES. It seems insane to retrain the entire population that bicyclists do X at stop signs while you do Y. At a red light, bicyclists do X and you do Y. I think this will amplify confusion and danger.
The differences in driving laws between states is far greater than the proposed differences for bikers vs. drivers. People seem to muddle along fine.
You trust drivers to maneuver deadly boxes of metal at high speeds but not to learn two new rules? I think you are just lazy.
Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error.
> Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver.
However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi...
There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault.
I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers.
I said: >It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible.
What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.
It is my understanding that a new study is underway to see how Capitol Bikeshare (2500+ bikes rented from like little bike vending machines) has impacted this number (very new). Nothing will be publicly released for another year or so, but I suspect the outcome will be a much higher "at fault" rate for unskilled tourist bicyclists making that number even more skewed.
EDIT: Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
Care to dispute any of my points, and not a strawman assumption?
EDIT: > Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
No, reckless bicyclists are a terror. But still less than reckless drivers.
A bicyclist that slows at a stop sign and carefully checks for traffic before rolling through it is not a terror.
Are you done with strawmen yet?
This second point is very important. There are significant differences between a car and a bike. Cyclists have a much better field of view, on account of not having blind spots and being situated much higher. Cyclists are far more invested in avoiding collisions since they have more on the line. Bicycles are significantly less massive and travel at much lower speeds. Bicycles are narrower and more nimble and are therefore better able to avoid collisions in tight traffic.
Any regulatory regime that ignores the differences between these two vehicles is just as nonsensical as one that ignores the differences between a car and a pedestrian. As the article points out, you wouldn't expect a pedestrian to be required to stop at each and every stop sign.
The whole "two sets of rules" argument is not particularly compelling. You already deal with many distinct sets of rules in all sorts of contexts: besides the aforementioned difference in rules between pedestrians and cars, there are fifty states and innumerable other jurisdictions with drastically differing laws, there are rules that apply only to semis or commercial vehicles, there are different rules for highways and surface streets, etc. etc.
Seems we need AT LEAST 3 sets of rules. One for slow bicycles, one for fast motorcycles and one for cars? What other separate rule-sets should we have on the road?
Not exactly the horse I'd hitch my carriage to...
[0]: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25600/25603/DOT-HS-806-182.pdf
Which makes me wonder, what's the difference between "yielding while preserving some speed" and "blowing through"? Is there a defined speed that is still allowed?
It's common sense: you slow down enough so that you can safely stop if you see crossing traffic.
I come across these kinds of arguments a lot on boards.ie (Irelands main internet forum) and in general public discourse.
What I find interesting in these kinds of arguments/discussion is, basically, how bigoted people are, without realising it. In almost all cases I have seen, people who cycle are in favour of cyclists rights, poeple who drive are in favour of drivers rights, people who do both are in favour of a compromise. Very rarely do you see any impartial evidence based assertions on the matter. All of you here: Read back your comment and think about that, are you biased?
i disagree with the pro cyclist stuff like not stopping at red light. its stupid imo. :)
That said, I find that the cyclists come across as the most irrational and biased in these discussions.
In Seattle, I've found a cyclist approaching an intersection is at least 10-100x as likely to dangerously run through a red light or ignore a stop sign than someone in a car. When cars run red lights, it tends to be within 1 second after the light was yellow. Cyclists will blow through without slowing at any time they please. I can safely claim that cyclists are at least an order of magnitude more likely to blatantly violate traffic laws than drivers are, and the argument that "drivers are just as bad as cyclists" holds zero weight to me.
Except that the most commonly, blatantly violated traffic law is the speed limit. This is one that is almost never violated by bicyclists.
As such, any policy must concentrate on the risk that radiates from them if it wants to be effective in controlling injuries and fatalities.
What many people fail to realize is that the first action is largely unnecessary when there is sufficient visibility to check for conflicting traffic prior to actually reaching the intersection. As long as one yields to conflicting traffic, coming to a full stop is immaterial to intersection safety.
I've seen way too many cases where cyclists make the roads more dangerous for everyone.
I've seen way too many cases where drivers make the roads more dangerous for everyone.
I believe the initial reason for registering cars was about accountability and costs. Cars are dangerous because of their weight and velocity. They need to be respected because they can easily kill people. They also need infrastructure that is built to accommodate their size and weight.
I believe most calls for bike registration are about revenue and fairness while using public infrastructure. If bikes were taxed like cars, the yearly registration fee would be in the single digits (based on original purchase price, age, curb weight) and not worth collecting. Bike infrastructure costs much less than vehicle infrastructure to build and maintain.
Pedestrians do not pay tax to use the infrastructure (sidewalks). I don't think they should pay.
In my ideal world bikes would be registered and pay taxes. They would be required to follow vehicle rules when on a road. However, cities should eliminate almost all roads in urban areas with high density and replace them with public transportation, bike highways, and pedestrian sidewalks. Density + cars is dangerous.
I'm live in Colorado and build software that helps cyclists avoid streets with heavy vehicle traffic.
Cars too.
Northern Virginia has some of the worst drivers I've seen anywhere in the country but you can predict that they're going to run a red light up until 5 seconds after it's changed or that they're going to race past a line of stopped cars and try to cut into an exit at the last moment while texting.
Cyclists here are a completely different breed and are in no way predictable. I've seen them riding into on-coming traffic, ditch off a road onto a sidewalk to cross an intersection only to jump back onto the road after the intersection. I've seen more near misses with pedestrians in cross walks and cars making a right on red than I can possibly count.
Because they don't consistently follow any rules whatsoever they're dangerous and the majority of them have an holier than thou attitude because they're not ruining the environment. They're just ruining every driver and pedestrian's commute.
I think a more generous reading of the situation is that there is no generic norm for how cyclists should act. They don't actually know how to best act. They are not cars. They are not pedestrians. Laws themselves are both inconsistent and unnatural between various cities (precisely because there is no generic norm for cyclists...).
It's no so much that bikes should conform to rules which make no sense, but that the larger complex of cities as a whole should adapt to the fact that bikes have become part of their character. There needs to be predictability, certainly, but you're not going to get that by forcing bikes to act like vehicles that they are not.
never.
If you are going to make an argument for the rule of law, it does have to be applied as a whole, not just to the groups you hate. If that sounds so unpalatable, perhaps the law needs to be changed. That is the case which this article is making.
For whatever it's worth, I don't hate cyclists. I have a bike that I ride around neighborhood streets and through local parks for recreation. I don't ride it on highly-traveled roads or as a transportation device because I think I'd be impeding motorized vehicles and I'd really rather not be killed.