Hacker News Reader

I take issue with the idea of "giving bicyclists any special treatment above the behavior of cars." Bicycles are not cars and treating them as such creates perverse incentives that make both biking and driving more inconvenient and dangerous. The law should align with best practices of bike - and it should not be changed only on contingent that a group of users meet some moral code.

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.

I totally agree with this. In the US (and probably most other countries) bike laws and infrastructure at at best an afterthought shoehorned into the existing automobile/pedestrian setup. Lots of cyclists are reckless and inconsiderate, and they should be held accountable for that. However, I think the only real way to fix the problem is to address the underlying systemic deficiencies.

Bicyclists can injure pedestrians. Bicyclists can kill pedestrians.

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?

> Bicyclists can injure pedestrians. Bicyclists can kill pedestrians.

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.

>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.

> You really think it'd get bicyclists to take the small streets?

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.

Can you point me to the bicycle-pedestrians injuries and deaths per capita versus car-pedestrians injuries and deaths per capita?

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)

[0] http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

I could take you around Boston and identify a number of scenarios where a bicycle following different rules makes things more dangerous. Here's one:

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"

Bicycles are not multi-ton hunks of plastic and steel and treating them as though they have crumple zones creates perverse incentives that make both biking and driving more inconvenient and dangerous.

I live in Australia and the debate here is pretty heated between cars and cyclists. The main reason pedestrians are not really mentioned is, in my opinion, because Australia does not have many pedestrians centres and they don't coexist with bikes all that much.

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.

Wow, no, sail boat will not cut the path of a super tanker, if I remember correctly (I have navigation permit).

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.

Yes there are some logical exceptions to the motor boat always give way. These are however exceptions. http://www.gosailing.info/Navigation%20Rules.htm

The equivalent in the cycling example would be that trains have to give way to cyclists which was not my point.

Man, this guy is going to be REALLY upset when he hears about how cars constantly speed, roll through stop signs, and text on their cell phones. I say until we get those problems stopped, we don't give cars the special treatment of having use of all lanes. We'll just shove them in the far right like we do with bikes.

Not to mention that cars aren't even supposed to turn across a crosswalk if there is a human in the crosswalk. It doesn't even matter that the human has passed. Legally they need to wait until the human reaches the other side. IIRC, this is actually one of the few moving violations where you lose your license on the spot. One of the others is passing a stopped schoolbus.

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.

So, I hear you hate bicyclists?

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?

I have had this happen repeatedly just because the driver wanted to roll through a stop light to do a right hand turn. One thing I don't think car drivers realize is how much of what bicyclists do out of self-preservation rather than convenience. I learned pretty quick when to break traffic laws so I had less of a chance of dying at the hands of an inattentive driver.

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.

"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."

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.

My policy, when on foot, is such:

-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.

You seem to be suffering from an obnoxious case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier

It helps when you can put a name on these things and auto-correct.

Esprit de l'escalier applies to the retort you'd apply after an encounter ... but didn't.

Aggressive assertion of one's legal rights isn't that.

Vehicles should avoid pedestrians in crosswalks regardless of right-of-way. After all many pedestrians are senile or otherwise of diminished capacity. I certainly wouldn't want anyone running over any of my elderly relatives. However, I recommend against deliberate "cut off" attempts. You might find them quite entertaining most of the time. The rest of the time someone will be injured, and it won't necessarily be the cyclist.

Since I am hardly ever a pedestrian, I really didn't give consideration to what a horror the lack of standard behavior of bikes would be for people on foot.

You have literally been collided with by a guy on a bike?

As someone who both walks and bikes a lot (currently in NYC): Bikes often run lights when they shouldn't, and that's dangerous and shitty. But even more often than that, pedestrians stride out into the intersection against the light in front of a bike that's riding through with a green light. Pedestrians stop for cars, but many don't think bikes are worth stopping for no matter what. The problem is on all ends (and as I said in my other post, systemic)

Everyone, no matter their means of transit, should try to prevent collisions. You're endangering yourself and others if you don't.

So, I like to fall back to the law here, which says something along the lines of '[all vehicles should conduct themselves in a controlled manner, in which they can stop for a pedestrian at any time]'.

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.

It's funny that you fall back to the law here but ignore it when you plan to beat the living piss out of people.

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.

I can get angry and hit a cyclist in the face if he tries to hit me. I can't do the same to a car driver.

I know - its not just market street, its all of SF. As a cyclist, i regularly get near misses from cyclists going through the red light - specially because im in the cycling lane and thats where they aim. Fucking assholes if you ask me :)

Not in SF but in London, I had a cyclist run a red whilst I was on a green crossing who almost bowled me over. I kind of tried to push him out of the way of me. He then tracks me down and follows me and wanted to fight.

Bike lanes are a great example of one of the last socially acceptable young white man's privilege.

Where I live most cyclists are poor and Hispanic. But sure, why not!

On the flip side, I've nearly hit two pedestrians on Market Street who were not paying attention, and jay-walking right in front of me while it was my right of way (traffic light was green). As a cyclist, you have to be aggressive, or people (including those driving cars) don't notice you.

I remember walking across a four-lane major road with the last moments of the pedestrian walk signal allowing me the right. A cyclist was turning into the four-lane road, all lanes of which were empty and available for him to choose from, with only light traffic waiting for the lights to resume. Despite this bevy of selection, his chosen course of action was to buzz the single pedestrian crossing and abuse him for being in the way.

Aggressive cyclists are a problem. Assertive cyclists are not, and there is a clear and important distinction between the two.

The point is there shouldn't be such a thing as an 'aggressive' OR an 'assertive' cyclist.

All cyclists should follow the law and follow predictive traffic behavior! It's pretty simple.

However, the law says you still have to yield to these people. So why not follow the law and stop?

Stopping at a green light is the law?

It sounds like he DID yield, despite the pedestrians VIOLATING traffic law.

I don't know if you've ever ridden a bike, but they don't exactly stop on a dime. The point is these people don't notice you and will walk right in front of you within a few feet when the light is green for you.

Good job on being so aggressive. I suggest you go even further like Chris Bucchere [1] who killed someone and then proudly posted about it online. Maybe one day, you will even make CEO. Asshole.

[1] http://abc7news.com/archive/8635496/

This is a wonderful moment to face the beast that is cognitive dissonance.

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.

How in God's name did you leap to the assumption that me pointing out that an aggressive cyclist is a dangerous thing is me assuming that an aggressive car driver is an OK thing? Or are you participating in the classic but oh Car Drivers also kill people so it is OK if a biker kills someone? Let us be clear here. As a pedestrian, I don't want any one fucking killing me.

Oh, Chris Bucchere got 3 years of probation. For killing a human being.

As you surely read, plenty of people get zero years of probation for killing a human being (or multiples).

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.

No, I am enraged by the idea of road aggression and pointed out that there are cases where similar things can be dangerous.

It is not obvious to me how you using italics in the term "outlier" makes his case an outlier.

I am not the asshole, buddy. The point is that people don't see cyclists. In my case, people would walk in front of me without looking, barely giving me time to swerve or break. Yes, cyclists should be careful not to hit people and should not blow through stops where there are people crossing. But cyclists don't exactly have it easy amongst aggressive cars and oblivious pedestrians.

You can be extra noisy.

It's obnoxious, but sometimes it's the only way to be noticed.

And a little noise will not kill anyone.