This is what makes bicyclists blow through red lights
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
I wish there was a more practical way than increased surveillance to prove the pedestrian/cyclist at fault.
Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights.
>“every time a cyclist stops, they lose kinetic energy and have to work harder upon starting off in order to accelerate and restore that kinetic energy"
If this is an actual justification cyclists try to use, might I suggest investing in a car?
> http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-f...
It's sad that this level of entitlement doesn't seem rare among cyclists (incl. the ones I know/have spoken too). They matter more than everyone else, so they should be allowed to break the law. Then cyclists wonder why most other pedestrians dislike them.
Not that it helps, mind - many's the time I've passed and re-passed the same red light jumpers despite stopping at every single one.
Perhaps the physics definition of "work" isn't quite the right one to use?
I guess I could suggest they walk or jog - but being reasonable - biking is a lot more practical than walking or jogging when you have a 6 mile commute.
> Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights.
While the justification does not make any sense whatsoever, the way he explains it also doesn't, since it fails to capture the difference between cars and bicycles:
Cars don't fall over when they stop.
The thing that makes intersections a little annoying when you have to stop at them is not the effort of stopping and starting, it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the right one.
Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.)
That said, there are no justifications for running a red light as a bike, only excuses made by fuckheads.
Arses can leave the saddle, and - more importantly - bikes can tip (substantially shortening the distance from saddle to ground).
Getting out of the saddle is both a slightly strenuous thing to do, and also moderately dangerous, since you have to balance on a vehicle that is devoid of inherent balance at low speeds. Dangerous since you run a small risk of "tipping" into the car that's half a meter left of you, sometimes less. As for the tipping comment, yes, that is valid, but also highly depends on the anatomy of the rider. At 5'4" i'm small enough that it is impossible for me to tip my bicycle down far enough to put both feet on the ground in the space afforded me at an intersection.
Many intersections have affordances like light poles, rails or just the curb that i can use, but sometimes stopping at an intersection for me means i have to entirely get off the thing.
Why would you need to put more than one foot down? Front wheel, back wheel, and one foot provides a tripod.
EDIT: To expand, even most motorcycle advice I've seen advises using one foot except when necessary because you have a particularly heavy motorcycle; I don't imagine that it should ever be a necessity for a bike (I can see why it might be a preference at some times, but the cases where it would be a preference would also be times when you wouldn't want to blow through a red light if the opportunity present itself.)
And before you ask: Yes, i tried the next-smaller bike type, they're considerably slower for me in transit.
I wouldn't look so much at a smaller bike as a flat-foot design, but, yeah, there is still probably a performance tradeoff.
Stopping on one foot, with the other on the drive side ready to go, says I'm ready to go. Standing on two feet makes it clear I'm stopped, and going to remain stopped while I'm in this stance. It works out - if whoever I'm waiting for has to brake because they think I'm about to kill myself, they take longer to get out my way.
Generally the case for most (all?) participants in traffic!
For proper safety, practice tipping in the opposite direction of car traffic. Losing balance or misjudging your tip results with you falling onto a curb rather than in front of a car. I also question how often an experienced cyclist loses their balance when coming to a stop...
As a skateboarder, a single pebble that's impossible to see while in movement can get caught in my wheel and send me flying into traffic. Cyclists take for granted that a small pebble they can't see won't send them tumbling onto their faces and into traffic. Learning how to fall is extremely important and doesn't seem to be something practiced by cyclists.
Worse - a skateboarder doesn't have any practical way of stopping when going downhill or at high speeds. You can grind your heel onto the ground or jump off the board. This means you have to control your speed and make sure you're not going too fast, you don't always have the space needed to carve when you get speed wobbles. This is something many cyclists don't consider while they haul full-speed downhill: they're travelling at an unsafe speed and refuse to slow down until it's too late.
That is an amazingly dickish comment and shows me you're not even attempting to see my side. Then again, as a skateboarder you're likely operating at a completely different level of physical control in comparison to the average citizen that you couldn't see my side even if you tried.
Do note that the important point is not the question of "how to stop in time?" but of "ugh, the procedure of stopping here is quite annoying, i'd rather go on".
Edit: Actually, i have a question:
> Learning how to fall is extremely important and doesn't seem to be something practiced by cyclists.
How exactly do you propose a cyclist train falling?
The same way most people learn to ride without training wheels. Slow, wobbly, tilting, and falling often. Except this time, it's on purpose. I suggest using safety pads.
>That is an amazingly dickish comment and shows me you're not even attempting to see my side.
I'm sorry, but I don't think maintaining balance on a bike, even at slow speeds, is a problem for the majority of the population. It's a problem that usually only presents itself in children and those learning how to bike. If you suffer from an innate lack of balance (ie. most people would consider you a 'clutz') I would suggest walking over biking for you own, and other people's, safety.
>Do note that the important point is not the question of "how to stop in time?" but of "ugh, the procedure of stopping here is quite annoying, i'd rather go on".
Rotating the pedals backwards or squeezing in the right handle isn't what I'd call a "procedure" anymore than moving your foot from the gas to the brake in a car is. Does it suck to have to stop at intersections? Sure. That's not an excuse to blow right through it (not that it seems you think it's an excuse either).
Driving a stick-shift car is far more of a hassle to brake. Especially when going up hill. Yet cars are still expected (and often do) come to a stop.
> a problem
Me, earlier:
>> a little annoying
See the difference? You're arguing against something i never said, and you're being a dick while doing so, instead of stepping back and considering whether you misunderstood the seemingly unreasonable thing someone else said.
> The same way most people learn to ride without training wheels. Slow, wobbly, tilting, and falling often. Except this time, it's on purpose. I suggest using safety pads.
Not usefully feasible. Primarily because even a simple sideways fall would likely damage the bike, even if only a little. Training would definitely compound damage. And if you used something soft enough to protect the bike, the training would so far removed from reality to be useless. Plus, generally with a bike you don't fall all the way unless you've already completely lost control in such a way that you're already ouside the bounds of any training.
Honestly, i don't even know what movements you'd recommend bikers learn in "fall training".
Note also the lack of such videos on youtube. The only one i found to that effect even said "advice can be only very general, as every fall on a bike is different".
> The same way most people learn to ride without training wheels.
Also on that one: In all cases of this i've seen someone was holding the bike and making sure the learner won't just crash uncontrollably. I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike.
> Rotating the pedals backwards or squeezing in the right handle isn't what I'd call a "procedure"
You don't actually seem to have a mental model of what stopping on a bike at an intersection entails.
> Driving a stick-shift car is far more of a hassle to brake.
One last comment on this: Yes, it may be a hassle, but it never changes. The procedure is always the same. For a biker every intersection requires different steps, especially in cities with a wide variety of intersection types.
My argument against this is that it takes very little physical effort and almost no mental effort to come to a stop when biking for the majority of the population beyond the training stages of riding a bike, in which it takes a lot more mental effort to maintain balance and come to a safe and complete stop.
I wasn't focusing on your "a little annoying" statement but on this mountain of a mole hill you created after saying it was only "a little annoying" by making it sound like a long and arduous problem that was mentally straining and physically difficult where every possible option (what option besides "apply brakes" is there?) has to be considered while maintaining balance on the bike (something not difficult for the general population) and properly selecting from these many options (1?), selecting the proper course of action (of the only course of action?) and after all of that mental effort (that had to be done in mere moments!) to actually physically act upon it without screwing it up!
Now, I would like to repeat myself, I don't think many people find deciding whether to brake or not or the act of braking on a bicycle to be that mentally or physically taxing beyond the training stages. In fact, I would say it's more reflexive and "muscle memory" ingrained within them that their subconscious is able to take care of a majority of the process without much conscious thought of the cyclist.
>In all cases of this i've seen someone was holding the bike and making sure the learner won't just crash uncontrollably. I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike.
I was presented a bike on my 5th birthday. My father removed the training wheels on the 2nd day against my mother's wishes and offered no supervision beyond watching me fall. By the end of the day I was riding around, although rather scraped up. I still ride my 21 speed around the canyon I live in because skateboarding on these canyon roads is suicidal - too many rocks and there isn't even an official "bike lane" to ride in. You share the same lane as the cars. Really impatient cars who are going 80mph in a 55mph. I'd rather not risk hitting a rock.
>You don't actually seem to have a mental model of what stopping on a bike at an intersection entails
Slow down while approaching the intersection. Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod.
Braking a bike isn't rocket science.
It is laziness - and a sense of entitlement. "I'm on a bike so everyone else must wait on me and find a way to break the laws of physics (pun intended) to prevent their car from hitting me".
It saves a lot of time and energy until you get struck by a car. Which could result in the loss of all of your time and energy.
Not a worthy trade off.
It's not a giant problem, but it's also not nothing either.
> canyon roads
So, nothing like this? https://goo.gl/maps/gYhhk https://goo.gl/maps/NxGza https://goo.gl/maps/YcGHN
> Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod.
You're making the mistake of assuming that that kind of condition is universally present. See above for a non-exhaustive list that may change your situation wildly.
What that translates to is I go faster on the open canyon road and I go slower in areas with more pedestrians. It isn't more physically or mentally taxing, but simply requires me to maintain a safer speed. Similar to how the speed limit on a freeway is 100-120km/h but on a residential street is 40km/h.
To me, your argument sums up to "I want to go 120km in the residential". Which indeed would make safety more difficult.
You should treat your bike like a car. Sure it doesn't weigh 1,500 kilos and won't necessarily kill someone if you strike them; you're still a potential hazard for walking pedestrians and should respect that by maintaining a safe speed. Not the one you desire to go simply because you aren't in a car. (That's the entitlement I was mentioning earlier.)
Are you saying you've biked on that intersection in Akiba and didn't find it difficult? Are you saying you were in that place in Nara and were still enable your "tilt right" protocol?
How would you deal with the intersections in my links?
Edit on your edit:
> To me, your argument sums up to "I want to go 120km in the residential".
Holy shit, how did you even get that. I bike on average between 15 and 21 kmh. I'm saying that on some intersections the situational complexity can be so high that simply going on is actually tempting.
You brought up pedestrians and "more complex intersections than canyon roads". I brought up examples of streets I've cycled on that weren't a canyon road and were packed with pedestrians.
You mentioned that (1) I had never learned how to bike and (2) That town/city intersections greatly differ from canyon roads.
I demonstrated (1) to be false and asserted that I continue to bike to this day. My mental model of what it is like to stop is still fresh, not 10 years outdated. My argument is that (2) is false, the only difference between the two is the acceptable safe speed of travel; hence the speed limit reference.
Braking (and the "difficulty of doing so" being even a "slight problem") is bullshit. That's my assertion after nearly two decades of biking. It's a slight inconvenience that the cyclist should respect laws that are in place to prevent them from being hit by a car or prevent them plowing into a pedestrian/other cyclist. But because of laziness or entitlement they choose to ignore these laws and don't brake where and when they should.
There is a reason why cyclists are perceived as "entitled pricks". It's because, as a whole, they generally act like entitled pricks and then try to explain away why they act so entitled.
I've approached intersections where a pedestrian can walk in front of me from behind a bush. I exercise caution and slow my speed as I approach; such that in the event a pedestrians walks in front of me at the last moment I can brake in time to avoid hitting them. I've had to bike on a single-width bi-directional street where I have to avoid cars turning in blind T-intersections and avoid getting in the way of other pedestrians and cyclists. Intersections where my only knowledge of upcoming potential hazards comes from an intersection mirror [0] 15 meters ahead.
None of these scenarios change the difficult of coming to a safe and complete stop when exercising one's best judgement to maintain a reasonable and safe speed. If one isn't going "120 in the 40" there is no reason why they cannot come to a safe and complete stop.
It isn't. I ride a bicycle. I don't run red lights as a general principle, but if I'm at a quiet intersection which I can see to be clear, I don't think coming to a stop and then cautiously proceeding is a terrible thing to do. It's significantly safer than breaking the speed limit on city streets. I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars. The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car.
I agree with you about taking a common-sense view to it. Whenever I've used this defense drivers typically state the rules are the rules and common-sense is subjective and we can't have people making up things as they go along. I never like this, it just seems typical of the times we live in.
If you mean the posted speed limit, it usually legally is since the posted speed limit is, in many legal regimes, not actually a mandatory limit, whereas the red light is.
> I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars.
Yes, particularly, the relation between normal speed on the road, the distance at which the signal is clearly visible, the timing of the signal, etc., are designed to provide cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc., crossing the intersection safety from, particularly, cars passing through the intersection in other directions. Bikes, pedestrians, cars, etc., violating the rules governing entrance to the intersection are negating that design.
> The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car.
There's probably an argument that it is in some circumstances safer for a bike to behave like a pedestrian than like a car, sure, as both the size and speed regime may be closer (especially, in the latter case, when coming off a stop) to the former than the latter.
OTOH, there's a reason that pedestrians generally aren't supposed to cross against lights, either, so that doesn't really justify blowing through a red light.
In most states, yes; OTOH, many of the exceptions are large (both geographically and by population) states like California and Texas, so "most areas" is a little bit less clear.
Most of the time it happens on one-way-crossing-one-way where the driver next to me is looking left, not thinking they need to look right because traffic on the cross street is one way.
VA also notes this in the law[0]. If the lane is a turn only, you don't have to ride near the curb of the turn only lane.
[0]http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-905 p4.
(I know this reads as "if no one sees you, it's ok". But it actually is on the books)
[0] http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-833 section B
I don't personally care if bikers run reds, but be safe about it. I see plenty of them weaving between pedestrians or weaving around moving cars. That behavior is just dangerous as can be, and not just for you.
At the end of the day, it's not my spine that will get crushed if you run the light.
I always stop for red lights. It waaay too dangerous not too. Multiple times I've had pick up trucks hit their horn and blow by me traveling waaay over the speed limit, when I'm following all the rules.
Conversely, some cyclists zip in and out of traffic, hit people and scrape cars, and create unsafe situations around them. Pick up trucks routinely give me a few feet when they pass, and even yield at bike path crossings.
Just treat everyone respectfully and stop blaming every bike or car for that bad situation the other day. Everyone is different.
This is what baffles me the most. The same could be said for cars, not to mention that every red light/stop sign stop-and-go wastes a lot more fuel/creates more pollution. This is a ridiculous excuse for cyclists.
I'm not saying it's ok or that it's a good justification. I'm just saying that there's a clear difference in the way people will weigh one against the other under different circumstances.
Please. When you choose to ride a bicycle, expending energy is part of the bargain. And part of the point! Stopping means that you're getting more of that exercise that you're so smug about.
Yet if a driver of automobile obeys all the laws and hits this person, they get sued. This flagrant attitude is the primary cause of tension between bicyclists and motorists.
You can't behave like that and then get angry when drivers are rude. This seems like pretty base level common sense.
Is this really true? and if it has happened, who won the court case?
As it is, too often a cyclist is seen as a slow, narrow car in the rules. If you are gracious about it as a cyclist, by not actually occupying the entire lane as the rules suggest you do, you get doored from one side, (nearly) swiped off the road by passing cars on the other, and at traffic lights right-turning cars blindly run into you.
Also note: while a high-speed cyclist can kill or seriously injure a pedestrian in an accident in rare cases, a car going at a typical urban-road speed will kill or seriously injure a cyclist or pedestrian in most cases. I think that, as with guns, the onus is on the person wielding the deadly device to handle it with sufficient care in the circumstances they find themselves in.
If you think this is a good thing, ask any immigrant from outside Europe if they like our well ordered system or if they prefer driving at home.
Unfortunately, some personality types just can't handle the fact that cyclists openly subvert "the rules". I don't think that explaining _why_ cyclists do this is going to work on them, regardless of how pragmatic the cyclist behavior is.
(Note that I am not saying that anything in particular follows from this, just that it seems to be missed in the immediate parent.)
It is not my intent to say whether a "Right-Hook" or a "Left-Hook" presents a greater danger to the cyclist, merely that I find it greatly aggravating to hear someone use the avoidance of a cycling situation in which the driver would be at fault, to justify a situation where the cyclist would be at fault and still be in what I consider a dangerous situation.
Edit: To be honest I have many more issues with other drivers in MA than I do with cyclists, besides awareness of left turns needing to be more widespread among cyclists, I think they are doing as good a job as can be hoped for on the roads around here.
1.) Bikes are not registered. You can't "get my plate number". I can ride away without receiving any kind of retribution. Not as common in a car now that we have things like vehicle registration and licensing.
2.) Bikes, on average, move much slower than cars. Therefore, the damage that they could potentially cause to innocent bystanders is much less pronounced than if they were driving a car. Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in general bikers cause more damage to themselves than to others.
Personally, I stop at red lights unless it's pretty clear there's no one coming. I almost always wait a few seconds either very slow or stopped at a red light before proceeding if I can't see around the corner coming up. I'm not going that fast so stopping at a moments notice isn't going to throw me over the handlebars.
Bicycles can kill pedestrians and don't make a whole lot of noise or provide the large visual indication they are coming like a car. Look up the disease code E826.0 [edit: I guess they are changing codes this year - I swear coding is a scam] for some stats.
I tried to look up the injury code and didn't really get any statistics on people killed by bicyclists. Do you have any further information?
Bicyclists running red lights never kill anybody (other than maybe the cyclist). Bicyclists going too fast and too close to pedestrians (red lights or not) can injure pedestrians, but that has nothing to do with "obeying the law", rather it just tells that those people don't consider other people (and we can be lucky they were on a bike and not in car, right?).
I mean really, a cyclist running a red light in an empty crossing (after stopping and seeing that the crossing is clear) is some kind of danger to anybody? Suddenly getting to fast enough speeds after take off to kill someone??
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/03/12/bicyclist-senten... and I think this link made HN http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bicycle-crash-kills-...
That's the first search result - there are others
an old 2011 study https://www.scribd.com/doc/65531772/Hunter-Bike-Accident-Stu... which has the pull quote:
"This present study, based on every hospital in New York State, hasfound that in New York State alone, there were approximately 1000 pedestrians struck by cyclists each year necessitating medical treatment at a hospital. Even this figure grossly underestimates the frequency with which pedestrians are injured in collisions with cyclists."
I agree with the article -- It takes a lot more personal effort to get yourself moving than it does to step on a car's accelerator pedal. It takes even more effort when you come to a full stop on a bicycle. Once you get moving it's not as big a deal to keep accelerating until you get to your cruising speed, though, so there is more of an incentive to just slow down a bit and run stops/lights.
Ever since I got a ticket for running a stop as a kid I've been strict about coming to a full stop at all stop signs and red lights. It bugs me to see people blow through stops on bicycles, mostly because of safety reasons -- it's just asking to get hit by a car.
But I'm also super-paranoid when I'm on a bike. If I get in an accident I may have had the legal right to do whatever, but I'm still the one going to the hospital (if I'm lucky).
There's an intersection near me with heavy biker commuter traffic and they blow through the light all the time, I keep expecting to witness a death one of these days.
1. Driving culture and infrastructure are different from city to city
2. Individuals behave differently
3. People are very passionate and emotional
4. The data is difficult and everything is very situational
As a cyclist in Portland Oregon, I do feel it is safe to run red lights and stop signs in certain scenarios without being an ass about it. The key to it is awareness and agility. Cyclists have more awareness than car drivers, they can see and hear more than a driver. Second, a bicyclist is going slower and is able to turn out of the way and stop much more easily.
Of course cyclist don't want to stop their momentum, that makes sense. Of course there is risk involved. I'd rather focus on how to educate people to ride and drive safely. Our driving culture in the U.S.A is very aggressive and dangerous. We need safer streets and everyone needs to make an effort.
I get mad on the rare occasion when vehicles intentionally try to run me into parked cars.
I never understood, other than impatience, why a cyclist would run a red. Preservation of momentum is just a relinquished opportunity for good exercise. Running a red is literally shortening the cyclist's life by depriving him or her from the foregone physical activity.
Actually there's only evidence to say one is more likely to break _that particular_ law.
If you find any justification for this you're just a selfish idiot.
Edit: Counted 6 downvotes so far. At least explain yourself. I want to hear the reason.
Unfortunately he was dishonest and arrogant and knew he was going to get away with it because identifying a cyclist is near impossible.
Come to think of it I saw one getting stopped in Brentford the other day. When he saw the police car he pedalled harder until he realised they were going to cut him off.
To be clear, I've been cycling on the streets of London since I was about 6; this comment isn't coming from a place of cycle-hatred.
I'm was also a cyclist but I wont get on the things now.
If I wasn't so hungover and with a heavy full backpack with laptops in it I might have. But I just walked away whilst he was yelling insults.
He had no time so had to run the red, but he had lots of time to take out his road rage on a pedestrian.
Sorry to hear of your accident, but the anecdote isn't statistically significant. (nor has the OP in any way causally linked his own quoted statistics on accidents to his examples of red light running).
- Some accidents are definitely caused by road users (including cyclists) running reds
- Many! cyclists do behave (extremely!) dangerously in different ways on the road
- Many accidents are caused by dangerous behaviour of road users
- Many accidents are also caused by unfortunate chance
One cyclist running a red and causing an accident doesn't translate to any conclusion whatsoever about the behaviour of all cyclists, nor is it an analysis running reds in general.
Because the press on cycling is mostly negative and as a responsible cyclist myself, who has never ran a red light, wears all mandated safety gear and knows the road code, I feel I must stifle negative speech as much as possible, to raise our public image - to have people regard us as safe and responsible and therefore be outraged at the person who ran you over and not the bicycle he was on, and to have drivers not carelessly run us over thinking "fucking cyclists".
I'm only arguing against the attitude, not the machine. I rode one myself for 20 years.