I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed:
A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. This means it's easier to assess safety and make a snap decision to keep going. Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety.
Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Cars kill people every day, so it is reasonable that they be held to a higher standard. If you started out with a bicycle-only intersection with a yield sign, and then started allowing cars through, wouldn't you want to increase the safety of that intersection by requiring a stop?
As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) and in general roads are safer when you require drivers to think and make decisions. I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
I'll also add that the anger of motorists towards cyclists rolling through stop signs is completely irrational when you take into consideration that approximately 100% of motorists also run through almost all stop signs, so long as they aren't blocked by an other car.
We just take for granted that cars will blast through stop signs at a pretty high speed (maybe 10 - 20 km/h?). But when we see a cyclist do it, for some reason there seems to be some sort of optical or logical illusion that makes it stick out to us more. If you look at the speed these cars are going at, a lot of them are probably actually going at around the full cruising speed of a casual cyclist. So, considering most cyclists would actually slow down somewhat to roll through a stop sign, they're probably actually going faster.
Totally this. I cycled for year in London - the amount of lorries, buses and taxi's that would sneak through when a light was turning/had turned red - blocking junctions and pedestrians from crossing safely at lights,
I stopped to watch a police fishing campaign at a set of lights that a lot of cyclists went through - and had to physically go to the police to get them to intervene when motorists did the same - as they were ignoring them (mentality seemed to be 'we are here to ticket cyclists, anything else that happens today isn't my problem').
LOADS of people break the rules of the road, let's focus were the biggest risks and dangers are. That said, I haven't run a red on a bike for a very long time - I'd rather not give drivers any more reasons to be annoyed with cyclists.
Are you seriously making the claim that nearly 100% of motorists run stop signs, and using a less than one minute long video of one specific intersection with less than 10 vehicles in it as some sort of proof? You're making a pretty bold claim about millions/billions of people.
> when you take into consideration that approximately 100% of motorists also run through almost all stop signs
Source, please. I live in an area where most people do this, but definitely nowhere close to 100% (not even "approximately" - maybe 80%).
It's definitely inconsistent to both roll through stop signs and get mad at bicyclists, but that doesn't apply to those of us that actually follow traffic laws. (although, I get far more upset over motorists breaking traffic laws than bicyclists, with exceptions for the rare cases where bicyclists do risky things around me driving)
Cyclists tend to be very letter of the law when it comes to the behavior of cars, then take a pragmatic approach to their own behavior when it suits them. If they were legalistic consistently they would stop at stop signs, if pragmatic they would keep the toys out of the road. Choosing one will draw less ire.
I probably bike more than drive but I will present driver’s argument. My main problem with Idaho stop is cyclist misinterpreting it as having right of way no matter what, especially on four way stops.
As a car, if I am stopping first at stop sign, honest ass to the ground, I am going through that intersection first. If you are a cyclist who is still rolling up to the stop line, you do what you got to do, whether it is full stop or slowing down just enough. I got into multiple arguments with cyclist who thought they should be able to just roll through the stop sign and I should have waited for them. That’s illegal even with the Idaho stop.
What people don't realize about right-of-way laws is that they are there for everyone's safety! This is because predictability is a huge part of traveling safe - for the pedestrians, the bicyclists, the cars. If you can't reasonably predict what someone is going to do, you have an emergency situation that has to be handled.
I almost got into an accident with a cyclist who did this while going down a steep hill towards a 4-way stop. I was already at a complete stop at the 4-way, and started to proceed through when I saw the cyclist moving at 20mph+ down the hill towards the intersection. Luckily I was able to stop in time. Predictability is important.
I was coming up to a non-intersection crosswalk slowly because there isn’t great line of sight to people approaching. I had a cyclist almost flip over because they panicked when trying to ride a bike (without stopping or anything) through that crosswalk. Then they were pissed at me, even after I stopped to let them across (I mean they were already in the middle of the lane anyways).
Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Did they learn anything? Probably not, based on their reaction.
I've seen cops give tickets to bicyclists for that. I happened to see the patrol car's number, and sent an email to the police department thanking them.
I will make it more technical: a cyclist doesn't have an windshield A-pillar blocking part of their view.
When two vehicles approach an intersection, if they do so at the same speed (including same variation in speed, like both decelerating), the relative view angle from one vehicle to the other stays the same. It's possible for another road user to be entirely hidden behind a driver's A pillar during an approach to the intersection. In spite of several glances in that direction, it is possible to fail to spot the other vehicle. A proper stop is the only sure thing.
Cyclists have pretty much universally better vision on the road, it's not just the front A-pillars.
- The pillars of every pane of glass in a car create blind spots, not just the the front - there's a reason changing lanes safely requires both a mirror check and a physical turn of the head.
- Drivers are set back relative to the front of the car, so they can't easily see cross traffic if there's any sort of obstructions.
- If a driver is right at the front of the vehicle (see euro trucks) they're necessarily lifted atop the engine and so have a blind spot immediately in front of them.
- Drivers have the advantage of being able to look behind without completely turning their head, but mirrors have their own blind spots and necessarily have to have either a restricted field of view or distort distances depending on their curvature.
None of these are problems for cyclists because they can just move their body and head without obstruction. The only real vision advantage drivers have is being able to see over the tops of other vehicles if they're driving something tall - which of course comes with its own blind spots (and impedes the vision of everyone else on the road).
I once almost hit a pedestrian because of the pillar in my car. Luckily caught it at the last second, and was going at a slow speed, but yeah those blind spots are no joke.
"I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through."
Not really. The anger I see is because they didn't stop at a stop sign when there are cars around.
The counter argument to this stop-check-go argument for bikes and not for cars, is that you could just as easily do this safely with a car vs a bike (some states even make exceptions for lights that are too long or for motorcycles), and a car would traverse the intersection more quickly than a bike (safer since the intersecting traffic doesn't stop, requiring a shorter line of sight than with a bicycle).
So there are really points on both sides. The biggest issue is that there need to be standardized rules, and road users need to know and follow them. I see so many near accidents at stop signs because people don't know who has the right of way. Stricter driver training and testing would by far provide the biggest safety increase given that the vast majority of accidents are due to driver error.
What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?
The most common cycling injury is a right hook, where a car drives past the cyclist then turns right (into the cyclist or without enough space for them to stop). At intersections, many cars will be turning right. Allowing cyclists to proceed past the intersection before the drivers do will increase their safety.
(as an aside, right turning vehicles at intersections are allowed to behave much the same as a cyclist doing an Idaho stop - turning right on red, rolling stop)
In my experience (as a regular biker) intersections are dangerous in two main ways:
1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me.
2. I'm very vulnerable when first starting up and it's easy for turning drivers to miss me or for my balance to push me slightly left or right.
An Idaho stop law means that I'm able to proceed through a red light when there's no moving cars around which largely solves (2).
Additionally, in my area I can take a main street or side streets. I generally take the main road for the same reason drivers so: there's stop signs every 600ft on the side roads. If I could cruise down the side street without stopping constantly I'd be much more likely to take it which keeps me out of the traffic on the main road.
Not the OP, but here's my observation: When I have to stop at a light until it turns green, I have to navigate the intersection while the cars around me are entering it as well. Suddenly there's a car trying to pass me, a car in the oncoming lane turning left, etc. If I can skirt through the intersection while the light is red and there's no transverse traffic, I can get through without interacting with any other moving vehicles.
I've also been involved in car(-car, not car-bike) accidents before where some idiot at a light was looking at their phone while stopped, and did something stupid when they noticed others moving in their peripheral vision. Plausibly, such idiots could be the cause of a lot of accidents at intersections.
> What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed.
The study[1] where they stated that said it only decreased in the year after the law was passed. They didn't check what happened in subsequent years.
> At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?
The study they used to justify that conclusion compared two cities in two different states in different parts of the US. They didn't have before and after data after the law was enacted to make a direct comparison (since the law was enacted in the early 1980s). In my opinion, the study doesn't really support the conclusion that not coming to a full stop is safer. It would have been better had the study compared multiple locations with similar characteristics over the same time period.
The separate timing this law creates keeps cyclists apart from the rest of traffic.
Segregating cyclist traffic across space by using separate roads works best, but when the amount of cyclists is low, it turns out segregating across time works well enough.
Stopping a moving bicycle messes with the rider's balance and forces them to focus their awareness on balance and to look down at their feet to make a complete stop (otherwise they'd tip over). By allowing the rider to merely slow down it lets them maintain focus on the road and the hazards that might be around them.
Lots of good reasons here, another smaller factor that may come into play is that clipless and toe cage pedals lead to a non-zero number of injuries, especially when the cyclist is trying to stop in a stressful situation (eg President Biden a few months ago)
I'm pretty well known in my local community (and here) as a strong advocate for pedestrians and thus often a critic of cyclists, but even I support the Idaho stop as long as that's really what it is. Slow, look, then go? Great! Godspeed to you, fellow non-driver. Don't even look or slow as you blast across a sidewalk or through an intersection? Not such a fan. I wish there was a way to support the first (which I know is the common case by a long shot) without enabling the second.
> I wish there was a way to support the first (which I know is the common case by a long shot) without enabling the second.
I think if we can all take a deep breath and acknowledge that it is a relative majority who ride with situational awareness and understand right-of-way, even if sometimes the specific dynamics of a specific interaction means the rule won't be strictly obeyed in all scenarios, and that's fine.
There are many, many cases where I ride (SF bay area) where drivers are so extremely deferent and "nice" that they give up their right-of-way and just wait for a bike to roll through the intersection, even if it's clearly their turn and the obligation of the person on the bike to stop. But this gets back to the points made elsewhere about why right-of-way exists: for predictability. It's easier on everyone and conserves mental/decision-making effort to just do what right-of-way dictates. It gets to the point where I forcefully put both feet on the ground and stare through their windshield til they get the message and go.
While we're on the point of complaining about unsensible driving practices: do not stop for bikes who want to ride across the street in a crosswalk! They are not pedestrians, they have to use the road! They can wait for traffic to pass, it's fine. No, I don't care if it's a mom with her baby on the back, she has strong instincts around safety anyway and won't do anything dumb around cars. Relax and trust other people.
I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
I really hope there's some other reason besides drivers acting like babies over this.
I drive a lot more than I bike (leisurely, for exercise) and my personal hangup with the argument is that drivers are to treat cyclists as vehicles, but cyclists don't even want to act like vehicles. Stop signs are just that - road signs to signify traffic is to stop at the sign before proceeding. When I bike in my neighborhood, I come to a full stop in the cycle lane at every sign before proceeding.
Stop signs are a product of American driving culture. You see far less of them in Europe, where it's more common to require drivers to simply yield. Unfortunately I think the design of our roads, speed limits, and general car culture necessitates the need for stop signs in the US.
> This seems designed to start a bicycle argument.
Any time anyone talks about cycling outside of a venue designated specifically for topics on cycling, you can generally assume it's going to result in uncivil discourse. There should be an Internet law about that or something.
(But who are we kidding? Cyclists would find a way to break that law too. OH, SNAP!)
>I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
Nobody on/around the roads using any mode of transit cares at all about any other thing on/around the roads so long as it is not in their way or otherwise about to cause them to need to take action to avoid a conflict. They don't like you as a cyclist because your actions are hard to predict sufficiently far in advance relative to the speeds at which you move.
When you're walking do you care about the cars? No, of course not. Unless they're doing something that's likely to cause you to need to do something.
If we are going to have this debate than let's turn it into a three-way; which category should motorcyclist fall into, and why? They definitely have both the risk characteristics and manuverability of a bike, but also the speed and weight of a motorized vehicle. We already have special rules for them in the context of lane splitting & filtering, what about this one?
There really aren't any special rules for motorcyclists pertaining to lane splitting and filtering in the US in most states. The general rule most states have for roads with marked lanes is that drivers of vehicles keep their vehicle within a single lane as practicable and that they don't move out of that lane until they have determined that it's safe to do so. This is the law that's used against motorcyclists who lane split or filter to pass traffic. Interestingly enough, it's not used against motorists who lane split to pass pedalcyclists.
I roll through stop signs on my bike all the time. I don't however get mad at pedestrians or fellow cyclists for crossing the street or stopping. Too many cyclists view pedestrians the same way drives do, and I've seen the lycra set get red and mad about fellow cyclists exercising caution.
> The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too)
As far as the USA goes:
Absurdly, roundabouts in California (a relatively recent import, starting about 20 years ago) always have stop signs! In fact in Palo Alto there is precisely one roundabout with yields on all entrances. Makes me wonder why they bothered.
Roundabouts (called "rotaries" there) are common in Massachusetts and don't have stop signs. Not that it would matter much as traffic signs and other rules are optional and not enforced there.
> A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could.
There are two problems with that argument:
1. Very few intersections meet the criteria where a cyclist would be able to see approaching cross traffic significantly earlier than a motorist could. In over 30 years of motoring and over 15 years of on road cycling in various locations, I have not encountered an intersection where I'm not able to see approaching cross traffic when motoring but could see while cycling
2. No one argues for treating stops as yield for motorcyclists
> Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety
It really depends on the intersection. An intersection where one cannot really see approaching cross traffic until shortly before entering it would have a safety benefit if drivers came to a full stop and checked for traffic before entering the intersection. Other intersections where the roads don't intersect at near right angles or where cross traffic is moving at higher speeds also have a safety benefit by adding a requirement that traffic stop and check before entering.
> Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves.
Traffic control designating right of way isn't about minimizing harm. It's about preventing collisions in the first place by having a clear set of rules about who has the right of way and who does not and has to yield it. Just because a certain vehicle/driver combination has less mass compared to another doesn't mean that they shouldn't be following the same right of way rules. Regardless of the amount of damage caused or who gets injured, a crash still causes harm and costs money. In this particular case[1], the cyclists didn't get harmed, but their actions in terms of violating the established rules designating right of way resulted in significant property damage
> As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs.
This is the actual root cause of this issue in the US. But even so, if cross traffic is moving at higher speeds, it's best for drivers of all types of vehicles to stop and check before entering the intersection. In the US, this is the case for many types of intersections (a side road crossing or joining an arterial with traffic moving in excess of 40 mph). But for residential neighborhoods with sparse traffic and low traffic speeds, full stops are not required.
Two of your three points are equally true for motorcycles as they are for bicycles. Should they be allowed to do this too?
> I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit), but being treated differently than drivers other times (e.g., this), and both cases are always at drivers' expense.
> I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit)
Unless the road has a minimum speed limit posted, there's no requirement to drive at or near the speed limit. The rules of the road were designed to accommodate drivers moving at different speeds. Where traffic keeps to the right, the general rule is that slower traffic keeps further towards the right and faster traffic passes them on the left.
But when there are marked lanes, slower traffic just uses the right lane and faster traffic passes using one of the lanes to the left (even if that lane is normally for traffic moving in the other direction. Whether the slower vehicle is a bus, truck, or pedalcycle doesn't really matter. The lane isn't wide enough to share side by side anyway because lanes are really only wide enough for a single dual track vehicle. The only exception to that is two single track vehicles traveling side by side within the same lane.
This is what makes it possible for traffic moving at different speeds to share the road.
In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane), and how opposed those things often are to the law. As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe, while keeping my first priority never to endanger pedestrians or other cyclists. A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.
Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit. But people have become so inured to the constant threat and frequent (and often fatal) harm of motor vehicles, that they fixate on and exaggerate the threat of cyclists, and illogically insist that they need to follow the same rules of the road as cars.
Cyclists should follow rules of the road -- special rules created for a special vehicle.
Indeed. It feels unsafe to follow the "rules of the road" on a bike because the rules were created for an entirely different kind of vehicle.
I think about this a lot when approaching a stoplight or stop sign.
For any road user, where is the most dangerous part of any road? You guessed it, the intersection.
When is an intersection safest? When it's empty.
So, for a cyclist, it makes the most sense to cross through the most dangerous part of the road when it is devoid of danger; i.e., when it's empty, or when other cars are stopped.
This of course gets a little dicey when you consider protected turns, leading pedestrian intervals, jaywalking, or anything else which would make that "empty" intersection a little less empty and therefore unpredictable and dangerous. But generally speaking, I feel way safer running a predictable red light than crossing it with moving traffic.
> It feels unsafe to follow the "rules of the road" on a bike because the rules were created for an entirely different kind of vehicle.
The rules of the road[1] were first developed in the early 20th century before motor vehicles were very common. They were designed for operators of vehicles like animal driven vehicles, cyclists, and early motor vehicles (anything on wheels).
> So, for a cyclist, it makes the most sense to cross through the most dangerous part of the road [an intersection] when it is devoid of danger; i.e., when it's empty, or when other cars are stopped.
> [...]
>
> But generally speaking, I feel way safer running a predictable red light than crossing it with moving traffic.
I don't see how the second part follows from the first. Your assertion is that it's safe to cross an intersection when it's empty or when other cars are stopped, but then you say you feel safer running a red light. But when the light for cross traffic is green, cross traffic will neither be stopped or not in the intersection.
Statistically, you're far more likely to get hit by cross traffic compared to same direction traffic, so while you may feel safer, you're actually putting yourself in more danger.
Special rulesets can be set up for certain classes of vehicles provided that observable behaviour experienced by other road users is predictable and unchanged. Otherwise it’s just a new recipe for disaster.
Completely agreed. There's plenty of existing cyclist behavior that is not scalable and should be discouraged in whatever bike-specific rules of the road are considered.
I would hope that drivers understand how to interact with motorcyclists, trucks, emergency vehicles, and trains all of which have separate sets of rules and could interact with a car.
> In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane)
There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.
> As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe,
By breaking the law, you made yourself less predictable to other drivers and pedestrians. That actually decreased your safety because people were expecting you to do one thing, but you did something else. The key to safety is to be predictable and following the same rules of the road as drivers of other vehicles. When I rode my bicycle yesterday, I just stayed in the middle of the travel lane and complied with traffic control devices. I didn't have any close calls or threats to my safety even though I was riding in moderate to heavy traffic.
> Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit ... A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.
The current rules of the road require pedestrians to follow a certain set of rules when crossing or walking along a roadway and group cyclists with drivers of vehicles in that they have to follow the same set of rules in terms of right of way, signaling, and where to position themselves laterally when preparing to make a turn at an intersection.
Some cyclists want to operate in a manner similar to pedestrians (using side paths and crossing at crosswalks), but the problem with that is that even the slowest cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. This means that a cyclist a second away from entering the intersection would be much further away compared to a walking pedestrian. This makes it less likely a motorist or motorcyclist would see them and yield to them compared to the pedestrian. In fact, this is the reason why statistics show that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous compared to riding on the road with traffic.
Even if the rules were changed to match your proposal, that doesn't address the issue I brought up about cyclists moving too fast to really be seen by motorists so that the latter have time to see them and yield to them.
I respect that you feel safe in taking the lane and following the law. I agree with what you say about riding on the sidewalk.
One of my greatest fears when riding a lot in the city was being run over from behind. This is more common on country roads, where I believe it's the leading cause of cyclist fatalities in collisions, but I still saw it as a constant threat in the city. Especially when vehicles would intentionally tailgate me in the lane, rev their engine to speed toward me, slow down and repeat, etc.
In _Zodiac_, by Neal Stephenson, the author describes two opposing frames of mind that a cyclist must maintain simultaneously in traffic: 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me, and 2) I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over. Only by riding in a way that is defensive to both cases can I approach a guarantee of safety.
I do not trust drivers to respect my presence on the road. This is a perspective I have learned repeatedly through experience.
With pedestrians, I ride such that no matter what they suddenly decide to do, to respond weirdly to my presence, it doesn't matter. They can start running, they can stop on a dime and turn around, they can fall over, and I will have positioned myself not to be in their way.
I'll also say I don't really have a proposal. I'm not saying everyone should follow the way I ride. Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.
> There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.
Spoke like someone who has little experience of either.
I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.
As would like to remain alive and with all my limbs intact, I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.
As a non-cyclist, a lot of us don't particularly care what keeps you safe if you behave erratically and not according to the written rules. We want you to behave in a way that keeps everyone safe. A lot of cyclists - and a lot of drivers - do not.
The right thing to do is to follow the rules as written and lobby for change rather than to go about doing things that the rest of us don't understand because you perceive them as safer.
I think the Idaho stop is actually a good rule as long as you have to slow down to 10 mph/15 kph as you go through the stop sign - I have lived in NYC and nearly been on the receiving end of an asshole on a 20 mph bike several times.
As a non-cyclist, it would behoove you to listen to someone with first-hand experience, and decline the opportunity to make yourself look like a dunce by speaking your mind.
> We want you to behave in a way that keeps everyone safe.
What evidence do you have that their behaviour significantly impacts the safety of others?
The statistics clearly show the drivers are largest cause of injury and fatalities on the road, and bikes cause so few injuries and fatalities that the stats are basically just noise.
Additionally if you look at UK police reports of incidents between bikes and cars, the police almost never attribute blame to cyclist behaviour. Only something like 10% of cases are cyclist found to be partially at fault, and never fully at fault.
You should care about other people safety no matter what. As a driver - if I can prevent an accident - it is my moral responsibility to do so - even if the other party is blatantly breaking the rules.
As a former bicycle commuter, I had to ride defensively because automobile drivers would behave unpredictably around me, but I can't be certain how much of that was because bicyclists are, as a whole, unpredictable. Commuters and tourists on rental bicycles behave very differently.
Rolling stop signs and lights when safe to do so is normal for bicyclists everywhere (when police are not present). Legalizing it so that automobile drivers become accustomed to it makes things safer. The principal hazard to surrounding traffic from a cyclist is when a car makes a sudden move in response to behavior by the cyclist that the car driver did not anticipate.
> automobile drivers would behave unpredictably around me
I wonder what the law is when I'm on a 40-50 mph 2 lane highway with a 1-2 ft margin and a bicyclist is in the margin going 20 mph and I have to swerve across the double yellow into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting them.
swerve across the double yellow into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting them.
Jeepers. You should probably take some classes on driving if you think this is the correct behavior in that situation. Any time you're behind another vehicle, you should stay behind them until it is safe to pass. If that means driving at 20mph for a mile, who cares? You're in a climate controlled metal box with a stereo system. All it requires is patience. But apparently you think you're better off putting another human being's life at risk instead of waiting until it's safe to pass?
I wonder what you would do if your mother, father, daughter or son was riding that same "bicycle in the margin". Would you be just as blasé about their life and limb?
This would depend on local laws, however in general, an automobile temporarily crossing a double yellow to give a cyclist more room is entirely predictable.
Automobile drivers who swerve (sudden steering input) in such a situation should give more attention to what lies ahead or, if visibility is poor, reduce speed. A relative speed of 20-30 mph with any hazard or obstacle should not require sudden inputs, but rather should be within the driver's control via smooth application of vehicle controls that are less likely to cause undesired behavior such as brake lock, and which also will not surprise other motorists.
Of course, the proliferation of cell phone use while driving vehicles of all sorts contributes to this sort of unpredictable behavior, since drivers who split time between observing the road and observing a cell phone's display will have reduced reaction time.
First off cycling in such a place is utter insanity and is resolved by dedicated cycle lanes and paths. As someone who cycles daily I would never cycle anywhere where the speed limit for cars is above 30mph unless the cycle path is separated by at least a median.
The law for passing cyclists should be to stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass. Just because you're in a car doesn't mean you have some immutable right to drive the speed limit regardless of circumstances. Of course when there's frequently cyclists on high speed roads that quickly becomes untenable, but for that situation re-read the first half of my comment.
> I wonder what the law is when I'm on a 40-50 mph 2 lane highway with a 1-2 ft margin and a bicyclist is in the margin going 20 mph and I have to swerve across the double yellow into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting them.
The same as any other slow moving vehicle on the edge of a road that doesn’t let you pass in the lane; I’ve run into that issue a lot more often with farm equipment than bicycles.
How many seconds do you reckon it takes to pass a cyclist if you are capable of going from 20mph to 40mph in about 4 seconds? Swerving and gunning it hardly seems necessary if you have any visibilty whatsoever.
These laws are fantastic, and much needed. Obviously we should prioritize pedestrian safety first, which these laws are neutral towards.
But biking, especially electric assisted biking, is loads more efficient in both space and energy. If a place refuses to build bike infrastructure, this helps make roads better for cyclists.
I live in sort of the urban shoulder of Seattle, and my bike rides go through a mix of trails, protected lanes, and suburban streets filled with stop signs. Compared to driving, and accounting for parking time, biking is generally faster than driving for short trips.
It's both, actually. In the US there are generally three classes of electric bikes.
Class 1 bikes only assist when the rider pedals. They make sustaining speeds and climbing hills easier. They are generally allowed wherever bikers are, and have speed limiters.
Class 2 bikes use a throttle, and do not require peddling, and are generally considered a motorized vehicle.
Class 3 bikes are fuzzier. They operate like class 1 bikes (pedal to get power) but they can get motor assistance up to 28 mph. These bikes are generally allowed to operate like class 1 bikes as long as they stay under 20mph, but may be banned from some mixed use areas.
Here is a thought experiment, in a world without cars and trucks, what would the laws be like? Would we even have stop signs or red lights? Maybe only in high traffic areas. I think motorists who argue against the Idaho stop have the idea it is unfair to have different rules, while ignoring the monumental difference between cars and bikes.
Hop in a time machine. The History of Road Safety by Gerald Cummins [1]
I couldn't find what I was looking for though, IIRC it was very much a rule of tonnage and pedestrians would originally be expected not to imped the progress of another person in a public throughway (i.e. move or be hit).
My beef is that cyclists increase traffic congestion but don’t pay taxes to fund the infrastructure they’re using.
People that drive cars pay taxes on gas and their vehicle to fund and maintain streets but city councils around the country are expropriating lanes for cyclist use.
Cyclists should be required to financially support the infrastructure they’re using in some way. Perhaps a flat tax on bicycle sales in a municipality would do it.
> My beef is that cyclists increase traffic congestion but don’t pay taxes to fund the infrastructure they’re using.
Not sure where you are, but where I am my property taxes go to road maintenance and gas taxes don't even come CLOSE to covering the cost of road/highway maintenance.
If anything, drivers are hugely subsidized by the state.
> My beef is that cyclists increase traffic congestion but don’t pay taxes to fund the infrastructure they’re using.
Okay, let's play the measuring game.
I have paid over $200,000 in income taxes this year so far, as well as another massive heap in property taxes. I also own two cars on which I pay various taxes.
What's you income and property tax bill to date?
Regarding gas specifically:
1. There are zero states where gas taxes pay for all road construction and maintenance. Zero. None.
2. More importantly, motorists generally have no sense of how much their gas is subsidized. For example, a huge portion of that $200K of income taxes goes towards our military, who spend a lot of money to kill people and/or maintain the threat of killing people. That violence and/or threat of violence is absolutely necessary for you to maintain your petroleum-dependent lifestyle. (Of course, my taxes are trivial compared to other costs, such as those to the victims of the violence necessary to maintain US energy needs.) And that's before other issues like the environment and climate change (separately), the SPR, etc. etc.
Road damage is proportional to the square of vehicle axle weight. The difference in weight between a bike and a car is so great, that bike do effectively zero damage to roads.
A high quality segregated cycle lane requires effectively no maintenance. It won’t develop potholes, it won’t need resurfacing, it just needs cleaning. A standard road will need regular maintenance and resurfacing for its entire life.
You could make cyclists cover the full cost of their infrastructure usage, but you would spend far more on collecting the money, than would actually collect. Off normal road, cycle damage is measured in cents/pence per year.
> cyclists increase traffic congestion
So you think putting that person in car is going to reduce congestion? Cyclists are people too, many of them cycle to go somewhere, if they didn’t cycle they would drive.
> People that drive cars pay taxes on gas and their vehicle to fund and maintain streets but city councils around the country are expropriating lanes for cyclist use.
No municipality in world makes drivers pay the full cost of externalities they create. Most municipalities don’t even make drivers cover the cost of road building and maintenance, zero make them cover the costs created from the pollution and environmental damage they cause.
Again, the "bikes don't pay taxes" argument is another example of a motorist's sense of unfairness without acknowledging the vast difference between cyclists and cars. If you were to compare the mileage, width requirements, safely concerns, noise and emissions pollution between the two, cyclists would represent about about 1% of the total cost. So sure, charge a $1/year to own a bike.
We have these [0] in the Netherlands. Those arrows mean all cyclists at the same time from any direction. Tbh I never saw that in practice yet, normally it's one/two lanes at a time, like this: [1].
People riding bikes are still expected to yield to people crossing.
In many U.S. cities the Idaho Stop, while not technically legal is already what most cyclists do, myself included. Either the crossing volume is low enough that it is trivially easy and safe to find a gap to fit through, or high enough that you simply wait for an opening, or dismount and squeeze through on foot.
In the US pretty much every pedestrian crossing gets a walk signal while there’s still traffic, thanks to right-turn-on-red for cars.
Big difference is being hit by a 90kg human on a 10kg bike going 15mph is much less likely to kill you than a 2000kg SUV doing 20mph.
Additionally bike still have to yield to pedestrians, not to mention a bike is only 50-90cm wide, compared to 1500cm-2000cm for a car. Makes it much easier for both bikes and pedestrians to evade each other, should one or the other be behaving irresponsibly.
Sure, it's not a car crash but this is still equivalent to someone throwing a full bodyweight punch which can easily knock you unconscious and kill you when your head bounces off the pavement.
Also left turn yield on green lights. I’ve found that to be especially dangerous both as a driver and pedestrian at night, where it can be hard to see whether there is anyone crossing on the far parallel crosswalk when you yield left on a straight green light.
The vast majority of these are the stop->yield. The US "overstops" in that there are thousands of 4 way stop intersections that should be either 2 way stops or 2 way yields.
We also have speed limits that are rarely followed because they are often set far below safe driving speed on a road, so without the stop signs many people have the impulse to drive 10+ mph over the speed limit.
Interesting statement. Do you have some data? I’ve often mused anecdotally that the initial acceleration from the first pumps on the pedals give a pretty abrupt change in momentum.
I don't know what it's like where you live, but in Berkeley, CA you are more likely to be hit by a meteor than see a driver make a full and complete stop at a stop sign in the absence contention from another car. Cars, for the most part, roll right through a stop sign at the same speed that a bicyclist would. The difference is it seems superficially as if the driver slowed when they were speeding at 40 in a 25, slowed to 5-10 for the intersection, and then blew through the sign. Whereas a bicyclists who just proceeds at a steady 8 MPH through an intersection will leave nearby drivers foaming at the mouth.
That was part of the argument for right-on-red, but given that both of these frequently kill people, and rampant deaths-by-car are a powerful disincentive to walk or bike, I don't think the math works out in favor of this argument.
Readit News
I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed:
A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. This means it's easier to assess safety and make a snap decision to keep going. Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety.
Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Cars kill people every day, so it is reasonable that they be held to a higher standard. If you started out with a bicycle-only intersection with a yield sign, and then started allowing cars through, wouldn't you want to increase the safety of that intersection by requiring a stop?
As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) and in general roads are safer when you require drivers to think and make decisions. I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
This twitter video exemplifies it pretty well https://twitter.com/toddnickel/status/1560358628707618816
We just take for granted that cars will blast through stop signs at a pretty high speed (maybe 10 - 20 km/h?). But when we see a cyclist do it, for some reason there seems to be some sort of optical or logical illusion that makes it stick out to us more. If you look at the speed these cars are going at, a lot of them are probably actually going at around the full cruising speed of a casual cyclist. So, considering most cyclists would actually slow down somewhat to roll through a stop sign, they're probably actually going faster.
Oh the Urbanity! Recently had a great episode on this as well https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc
I stopped to watch a police fishing campaign at a set of lights that a lot of cyclists went through - and had to physically go to the police to get them to intervene when motorists did the same - as they were ignoring them (mentality seemed to be 'we are here to ticket cyclists, anything else that happens today isn't my problem').
LOADS of people break the rules of the road, let's focus were the biggest risks and dangers are. That said, I haven't run a red on a bike for a very long time - I'd rather not give drivers any more reasons to be annoyed with cyclists.
No, we don't. This doesn't happen, at least where I live.
This sounds like a made up statistic, to justify bad behavior.
Source, please. I live in an area where most people do this, but definitely nowhere close to 100% (not even "approximately" - maybe 80%).
It's definitely inconsistent to both roll through stop signs and get mad at bicyclists, but that doesn't apply to those of us that actually follow traffic laws. (although, I get far more upset over motorists breaking traffic laws than bicyclists, with exceptions for the rare cases where bicyclists do risky things around me driving)
Cyclists tend to be very letter of the law when it comes to the behavior of cars, then take a pragmatic approach to their own behavior when it suits them. If they were legalistic consistently they would stop at stop signs, if pragmatic they would keep the toys out of the road. Choosing one will draw less ire.
As a car, if I am stopping first at stop sign, honest ass to the ground, I am going through that intersection first. If you are a cyclist who is still rolling up to the stop line, you do what you got to do, whether it is full stop or slowing down just enough. I got into multiple arguments with cyclist who thought they should be able to just roll through the stop sign and I should have waited for them. That’s illegal even with the Idaho stop.
Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Did they learn anything? Probably not, based on their reaction.
When two vehicles approach an intersection, if they do so at the same speed (including same variation in speed, like both decelerating), the relative view angle from one vehicle to the other stays the same. It's possible for another road user to be entirely hidden behind a driver's A pillar during an approach to the intersection. In spite of several glances in that direction, it is possible to fail to spot the other vehicle. A proper stop is the only sure thing.
- The pillars of every pane of glass in a car create blind spots, not just the the front - there's a reason changing lanes safely requires both a mirror check and a physical turn of the head.
- Drivers are set back relative to the front of the car, so they can't easily see cross traffic if there's any sort of obstructions.
- If a driver is right at the front of the vehicle (see euro trucks) they're necessarily lifted atop the engine and so have a blind spot immediately in front of them.
- Drivers have the advantage of being able to look behind without completely turning their head, but mirrors have their own blind spots and necessarily have to have either a restricted field of view or distort distances depending on their curvature.
None of these are problems for cyclists because they can just move their body and head without obstruction. The only real vision advantage drivers have is being able to see over the tops of other vehicles if they're driving something tall - which of course comes with its own blind spots (and impedes the vision of everyone else on the road).
Neither does a motorcyclist, but no one claims it's safer for motorcyclists to treat stop as yield compared to motorists.
Not really. The anger I see is because they didn't stop at a stop sign when there are cars around.
The counter argument to this stop-check-go argument for bikes and not for cars, is that you could just as easily do this safely with a car vs a bike (some states even make exceptions for lights that are too long or for motorcycles), and a car would traverse the intersection more quickly than a bike (safer since the intersecting traffic doesn't stop, requiring a shorter line of sight than with a bicycle).
So there are really points on both sides. The biggest issue is that there need to be standardized rules, and road users need to know and follow them. I see so many near accidents at stop signs because people don't know who has the right of way. Stricter driver training and testing would by far provide the biggest safety increase given that the vast majority of accidents are due to driver error.
(as an aside, right turning vehicles at intersections are allowed to behave much the same as a cyclist doing an Idaho stop - turning right on red, rolling stop)
1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me. 2. I'm very vulnerable when first starting up and it's easy for turning drivers to miss me or for my balance to push me slightly left or right.
An Idaho stop law means that I'm able to proceed through a red light when there's no moving cars around which largely solves (2).
Additionally, in my area I can take a main street or side streets. I generally take the main road for the same reason drivers so: there's stop signs every 600ft on the side roads. If I could cruise down the side street without stopping constantly I'd be much more likely to take it which keeps me out of the traffic on the main road.
I've also been involved in car(-car, not car-bike) accidents before where some idiot at a light was looking at their phone while stopped, and did something stupid when they noticed others moving in their peripheral vision. Plausibly, such idiots could be the cause of a lot of accidents at intersections.
The study[1] where they stated that said it only decreased in the year after the law was passed. They didn't check what happened in subsequent years.
> At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?
The study they used to justify that conclusion compared two cities in two different states in different parts of the US. They didn't have before and after data after the law was enacted to make a direct comparison (since the law was enacted in the early 1980s). In my opinion, the study doesn't really support the conclusion that not coming to a full stop is safer. It would have been better had the study compared multiple locations with similar characteristics over the same time period.
[1] https://meggsreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/idaho-law-ja...
Segregating cyclist traffic across space by using separate roads works best, but when the amount of cyclists is low, it turns out segregating across time works well enough.
I think if we can all take a deep breath and acknowledge that it is a relative majority who ride with situational awareness and understand right-of-way, even if sometimes the specific dynamics of a specific interaction means the rule won't be strictly obeyed in all scenarios, and that's fine.
There are many, many cases where I ride (SF bay area) where drivers are so extremely deferent and "nice" that they give up their right-of-way and just wait for a bike to roll through the intersection, even if it's clearly their turn and the obligation of the person on the bike to stop. But this gets back to the points made elsewhere about why right-of-way exists: for predictability. It's easier on everyone and conserves mental/decision-making effort to just do what right-of-way dictates. It gets to the point where I forcefully put both feet on the ground and stare through their windshield til they get the message and go.
While we're on the point of complaining about unsensible driving practices: do not stop for bikes who want to ride across the street in a crosswalk! They are not pedestrians, they have to use the road! They can wait for traffic to pass, it's fine. No, I don't care if it's a mom with her baby on the back, she has strong instincts around safety anyway and won't do anything dumb around cars. Relax and trust other people.
Bike cops, perhaps.
I really hope there's some other reason besides drivers acting like babies over this.
Any time anyone talks about cycling outside of a venue designated specifically for topics on cycling, you can generally assume it's going to result in uncivil discourse. There should be an Internet law about that or something.
(But who are we kidding? Cyclists would find a way to break that law too. OH, SNAP!)
Nobody on/around the roads using any mode of transit cares at all about any other thing on/around the roads so long as it is not in their way or otherwise about to cause them to need to take action to avoid a conflict. They don't like you as a cyclist because your actions are hard to predict sufficiently far in advance relative to the speeds at which you move.
When you're walking do you care about the cars? No, of course not. Unless they're doing something that's likely to cause you to need to do something.
Deleted Comment
As far as the USA goes:
Absurdly, roundabouts in California (a relatively recent import, starting about 20 years ago) always have stop signs! In fact in Palo Alto there is precisely one roundabout with yields on all entrances. Makes me wonder why they bothered.
Roundabouts (called "rotaries" there) are common in Massachusetts and don't have stop signs. Not that it would matter much as traffic signs and other rules are optional and not enforced there.
On the streets with little or no traffic it doesn't matter, it's the larger roundabouts on already difficult to walk highways.
There are two problems with that argument:
1. Very few intersections meet the criteria where a cyclist would be able to see approaching cross traffic significantly earlier than a motorist could. In over 30 years of motoring and over 15 years of on road cycling in various locations, I have not encountered an intersection where I'm not able to see approaching cross traffic when motoring but could see while cycling
2. No one argues for treating stops as yield for motorcyclists
> Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety
It really depends on the intersection. An intersection where one cannot really see approaching cross traffic until shortly before entering it would have a safety benefit if drivers came to a full stop and checked for traffic before entering the intersection. Other intersections where the roads don't intersect at near right angles or where cross traffic is moving at higher speeds also have a safety benefit by adding a requirement that traffic stop and check before entering.
> Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves.
Traffic control designating right of way isn't about minimizing harm. It's about preventing collisions in the first place by having a clear set of rules about who has the right of way and who does not and has to yield it. Just because a certain vehicle/driver combination has less mass compared to another doesn't mean that they shouldn't be following the same right of way rules. Regardless of the amount of damage caused or who gets injured, a crash still causes harm and costs money. In this particular case[1], the cyclists didn't get harmed, but their actions in terms of violating the established rules designating right of way resulted in significant property damage
> As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs.
This is the actual root cause of this issue in the US. But even so, if cross traffic is moving at higher speeds, it's best for drivers of all types of vehicles to stop and check before entering the intersection. In the US, this is the case for many types of intersections (a side road crossing or joining an arterial with traffic moving in excess of 40 mph). But for residential neighborhoods with sparse traffic and low traffic speeds, full stops are not required.
[1] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches...
> I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit), but being treated differently than drivers other times (e.g., this), and both cases are always at drivers' expense.
Could you expand on this? And explain why this expense is so great, that it’s more important that the life and safety of someone on a bike?
Unless the road has a minimum speed limit posted, there's no requirement to drive at or near the speed limit. The rules of the road were designed to accommodate drivers moving at different speeds. Where traffic keeps to the right, the general rule is that slower traffic keeps further towards the right and faster traffic passes them on the left.
But when there are marked lanes, slower traffic just uses the right lane and faster traffic passes using one of the lanes to the left (even if that lane is normally for traffic moving in the other direction. Whether the slower vehicle is a bus, truck, or pedalcycle doesn't really matter. The lane isn't wide enough to share side by side anyway because lanes are really only wide enough for a single dual track vehicle. The only exception to that is two single track vehicles traveling side by side within the same lane.
This is what makes it possible for traffic moving at different speeds to share the road.
Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit. But people have become so inured to the constant threat and frequent (and often fatal) harm of motor vehicles, that they fixate on and exaggerate the threat of cyclists, and illogically insist that they need to follow the same rules of the road as cars.
Cyclists should follow rules of the road -- special rules created for a special vehicle.
I think about this a lot when approaching a stoplight or stop sign.
For any road user, where is the most dangerous part of any road? You guessed it, the intersection.
When is an intersection safest? When it's empty.
So, for a cyclist, it makes the most sense to cross through the most dangerous part of the road when it is devoid of danger; i.e., when it's empty, or when other cars are stopped.
This of course gets a little dicey when you consider protected turns, leading pedestrian intervals, jaywalking, or anything else which would make that "empty" intersection a little less empty and therefore unpredictable and dangerous. But generally speaking, I feel way safer running a predictable red light than crossing it with moving traffic.
The rules of the road[1] were first developed in the early 20th century before motor vehicles were very common. They were designed for operators of vehicles like animal driven vehicles, cyclists, and early motor vehicles (anything on wheels).
> So, for a cyclist, it makes the most sense to cross through the most dangerous part of the road [an intersection] when it is devoid of danger; i.e., when it's empty, or when other cars are stopped.
> [...]
>
> But generally speaking, I feel way safer running a predictable red light than crossing it with moving traffic.
I don't see how the second part follows from the first. Your assertion is that it's safe to cross an intersection when it's empty or when other cars are stopped, but then you say you feel safer running a red light. But when the light for cross traffic is green, cross traffic will neither be stopped or not in the intersection.
Statistically, you're far more likely to get hit by cross traffic compared to same direction traffic, so while you may feel safer, you're actually putting yourself in more danger.
[1] https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/RulesOfTheRoad.j...
Motorcyclists have the colloquialism "cager" for automobile drivers for the big steel cages they are contained in.
Dead Comment
There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.
> As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe,
By breaking the law, you made yourself less predictable to other drivers and pedestrians. That actually decreased your safety because people were expecting you to do one thing, but you did something else. The key to safety is to be predictable and following the same rules of the road as drivers of other vehicles. When I rode my bicycle yesterday, I just stayed in the middle of the travel lane and complied with traffic control devices. I didn't have any close calls or threats to my safety even though I was riding in moderate to heavy traffic.
> Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit ... A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.
The current rules of the road require pedestrians to follow a certain set of rules when crossing or walking along a roadway and group cyclists with drivers of vehicles in that they have to follow the same set of rules in terms of right of way, signaling, and where to position themselves laterally when preparing to make a turn at an intersection.
Some cyclists want to operate in a manner similar to pedestrians (using side paths and crossing at crosswalks), but the problem with that is that even the slowest cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. This means that a cyclist a second away from entering the intersection would be much further away compared to a walking pedestrian. This makes it less likely a motorist or motorcyclist would see them and yield to them compared to the pedestrian. In fact, this is the reason why statistics show that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous compared to riding on the road with traffic.
Even if the rules were changed to match your proposal, that doesn't address the issue I brought up about cyclists moving too fast to really be seen by motorists so that the latter have time to see them and yield to them.
One of my greatest fears when riding a lot in the city was being run over from behind. This is more common on country roads, where I believe it's the leading cause of cyclist fatalities in collisions, but I still saw it as a constant threat in the city. Especially when vehicles would intentionally tailgate me in the lane, rev their engine to speed toward me, slow down and repeat, etc.
In _Zodiac_, by Neal Stephenson, the author describes two opposing frames of mind that a cyclist must maintain simultaneously in traffic: 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me, and 2) I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over. Only by riding in a way that is defensive to both cases can I approach a guarantee of safety.
I do not trust drivers to respect my presence on the road. This is a perspective I have learned repeatedly through experience.
With pedestrians, I ride such that no matter what they suddenly decide to do, to respond weirdly to my presence, it doesn't matter. They can start running, they can stop on a dime and turn around, they can fall over, and I will have positioned myself not to be in their way.
I'll also say I don't really have a proposal. I'm not saying everyone should follow the way I ride. Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.
Spoke like someone who has little experience of either.
I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.
As would like to remain alive and with all my limbs intact, I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.
The right thing to do is to follow the rules as written and lobby for change rather than to go about doing things that the rest of us don't understand because you perceive them as safer.
I think the Idaho stop is actually a good rule as long as you have to slow down to 10 mph/15 kph as you go through the stop sign - I have lived in NYC and nearly been on the receiving end of an asshole on a 20 mph bike several times.
What evidence do you have that their behaviour significantly impacts the safety of others?
The statistics clearly show the drivers are largest cause of injury and fatalities on the road, and bikes cause so few injuries and fatalities that the stats are basically just noise.
Additionally if you look at UK police reports of incidents between bikes and cars, the police almost never attribute blame to cyclist behaviour. Only something like 10% of cases are cyclist found to be partially at fault, and never fully at fault.
As a former bicycle commuter, I had to ride defensively because automobile drivers would behave unpredictably around me, but I can't be certain how much of that was because bicyclists are, as a whole, unpredictable. Commuters and tourists on rental bicycles behave very differently.
Rolling stop signs and lights when safe to do so is normal for bicyclists everywhere (when police are not present). Legalizing it so that automobile drivers become accustomed to it makes things safer. The principal hazard to surrounding traffic from a cyclist is when a car makes a sudden move in response to behavior by the cyclist that the car driver did not anticipate.
I wonder what the law is when I'm on a 40-50 mph 2 lane highway with a 1-2 ft margin and a bicyclist is in the margin going 20 mph and I have to swerve across the double yellow into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting them.
I wonder what you would do if your mother, father, daughter or son was riding that same "bicycle in the margin". Would you be just as blasé about their life and limb?
Automobile drivers who swerve (sudden steering input) in such a situation should give more attention to what lies ahead or, if visibility is poor, reduce speed. A relative speed of 20-30 mph with any hazard or obstacle should not require sudden inputs, but rather should be within the driver's control via smooth application of vehicle controls that are less likely to cause undesired behavior such as brake lock, and which also will not surprise other motorists.
Of course, the proliferation of cell phone use while driving vehicles of all sorts contributes to this sort of unpredictable behavior, since drivers who split time between observing the road and observing a cell phone's display will have reduced reaction time.
And when you get home, advocate for better cycling routes in your area.
The law for passing cyclists should be to stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass. Just because you're in a car doesn't mean you have some immutable right to drive the speed limit regardless of circumstances. Of course when there's frequently cyclists on high speed roads that quickly becomes untenable, but for that situation re-read the first half of my comment.
It also says that when the lanes are too narrow, the bicyclist is supposed to "take the lane" but that never happens.
However the roads that are 40-50 mph are much wider than people think.
The same as any other slow moving vehicle on the edge of a road that doesn’t let you pass in the lane; I’ve run into that issue a lot more often with farm equipment than bicycles.
As a driver you should already know what the law is in that scenario
But biking, especially electric assisted biking, is loads more efficient in both space and energy. If a place refuses to build bike infrastructure, this helps make roads better for cyclists.
I live in sort of the urban shoulder of Seattle, and my bike rides go through a mix of trails, protected lanes, and suburban streets filled with stop signs. Compared to driving, and accounting for parking time, biking is generally faster than driving for short trips.
Class 1 bikes only assist when the rider pedals. They make sustaining speeds and climbing hills easier. They are generally allowed wherever bikers are, and have speed limiters.
Class 2 bikes use a throttle, and do not require peddling, and are generally considered a motorized vehicle.
Class 3 bikes are fuzzier. They operate like class 1 bikes (pedal to get power) but they can get motor assistance up to 28 mph. These bikes are generally allowed to operate like class 1 bikes as long as they stay under 20mph, but may be banned from some mixed use areas.
I couldn't find what I was looking for though, IIRC it was very much a rule of tonnage and pedestrians would originally be expected not to imped the progress of another person in a public throughway (i.e. move or be hit).
[1]: https://archive.ph/ECDkB
Obviously not, but it still behooves cyclists and pedestrians to wait at the crossing guard until the train passes.
There are certain physical momentum differences that the laws are trying to balance.
People that drive cars pay taxes on gas and their vehicle to fund and maintain streets but city councils around the country are expropriating lanes for cyclist use.
Cyclists should be required to financially support the infrastructure they’re using in some way. Perhaps a flat tax on bicycle sales in a municipality would do it.
Not sure where you are, but where I am my property taxes go to road maintenance and gas taxes don't even come CLOSE to covering the cost of road/highway maintenance.
If anything, drivers are hugely subsidized by the state.
Okay, let's play the measuring game.
I have paid over $200,000 in income taxes this year so far, as well as another massive heap in property taxes. I also own two cars on which I pay various taxes.
What's you income and property tax bill to date?
Regarding gas specifically:
1. There are zero states where gas taxes pay for all road construction and maintenance. Zero. None.
2. More importantly, motorists generally have no sense of how much their gas is subsidized. For example, a huge portion of that $200K of income taxes goes towards our military, who spend a lot of money to kill people and/or maintain the threat of killing people. That violence and/or threat of violence is absolutely necessary for you to maintain your petroleum-dependent lifestyle. (Of course, my taxes are trivial compared to other costs, such as those to the victims of the violence necessary to maintain US energy needs.) And that's before other issues like the environment and climate change (separately), the SPR, etc. etc.
A high quality segregated cycle lane requires effectively no maintenance. It won’t develop potholes, it won’t need resurfacing, it just needs cleaning. A standard road will need regular maintenance and resurfacing for its entire life.
You could make cyclists cover the full cost of their infrastructure usage, but you would spend far more on collecting the money, than would actually collect. Off normal road, cycle damage is measured in cents/pence per year.
> cyclists increase traffic congestion
So you think putting that person in car is going to reduce congestion? Cyclists are people too, many of them cycle to go somewhere, if they didn’t cycle they would drive.
> People that drive cars pay taxes on gas and their vehicle to fund and maintain streets but city councils around the country are expropriating lanes for cyclist use.
No municipality in world makes drivers pay the full cost of externalities they create. Most municipalities don’t even make drivers cover the cost of road building and maintenance, zero make them cover the costs created from the pollution and environmental damage they cause.
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...
[0]: https://media.indebuurt.nl/enschede/2019/01/10155835/2019011...
[1]: https://www.verkeersnet.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fietse...
Seems dangerous to get a 'cross' / 'walk' signal when there's still traffic.
In many U.S. cities the Idaho Stop, while not technically legal is already what most cyclists do, myself included. Either the crossing volume is low enough that it is trivially easy and safe to find a gap to fit through, or high enough that you simply wait for an opening, or dismount and squeeze through on foot.
Big difference is being hit by a 90kg human on a 10kg bike going 15mph is much less likely to kill you than a 2000kg SUV doing 20mph.
Additionally bike still have to yield to pedestrians, not to mention a bike is only 50-90cm wide, compared to 1500cm-2000cm for a car. Makes it much easier for both bikes and pedestrians to evade each other, should one or the other be behaving irresponsibly.
Sure, it's not a car crash but this is still equivalent to someone throwing a full bodyweight punch which can easily knock you unconscious and kill you when your head bounces off the pavement.
A bike has less mass than a car, but I'd rather not be hit by a bike at all, to be honest. Let alone a child or someone more vulnerable.
We also have speed limits that are rarely followed because they are often set far below safe driving speed on a road, so without the stop signs many people have the impulse to drive 10+ mph over the speed limit.
E-bikes are changing this dynamic pretty quickly. And unpredictably. They can get from 0 to 20 faster than a car.
Interesting statement. Do you have some data? I’ve often mused anecdotally that the initial acceleration from the first pumps on the pedals give a pretty abrupt change in momentum.
How cold is the sun? How shallow is the ocean? How dark is a light?
The question makes no sense when applied to an area the size of a state.