. . . like Sonny Bunch:
Though I am by no means an expert in jurisprudence, constitutional or otherwise, it seems to me that Wilkinson has created an entirely new concept of law, one rooted in choosing not to follow statutes…solely because they inconvenience you! Now, I don’t think every law should be followed blindly–there are times when a law is so unjust it should not be obeyed–but I don’t think civil disobedience extends to refusing to obey the law because it tacks three minutes on to your commute. Lest we think that this is an idea unique to Wilkinson, we see similar (though less obnoxiously phrased) thoughts over at Megan’s joint.
Which of you has never gone above the speed limit? Anyone, anyone? Don't bother, I don't believe you. Ditto anyone who says they've never jaywalked, which is, I assure you, against the law.
Coordination laws, like driving regulations--where the laws themselves have no moral content, but are merely a convenient way to enforce a common standard--are different from things like laws against stealing. Indeed, so different that you don't even think of speeding as breaking the law, allowing you to get morally outraged at bikers without even thinking of yourself as doing exactly the same thing on the highways.
The reason cops don't ticket bikers when they fail to observe stop signs at uncrowded intersections, etc, for the same reason that they don't ticket people going 5 mph over the speed limit--those people do not cause many accidents. That's because a bike going down a one-way street does not crash into cars. A bike passing through an intersection has neither the mass nor the velocity to hurt a car. A bike running a stop sign is maintaining a speed too slow to kill a pedestrian. Moreover, the fact that bike/pedestrian or bike/car crashes are at least as likely to hurt or kill the rider makes bike riders much more cautious than car drivers are likely to be.
I'm not excusing bike messengers who roar through stop signs at 20 mph--but I'm no danger to anyone proceding cautiously through a red light at an empty intersection. Furthermore, in my experience, drivers are much less likely to be enraged by a rolling bike stop than they are when I am obeying the law--driving in the middle of the lane in front of them, moving much more slowly than they are. If you're so hot on bikers not obeying the traffic laws, you should stop to consider that if we were obeying all the traffic laws, we'd ride like cars drive--right in the middle of the traffic lane. But I suspect that if bikers started obeying this particular traffic law, we would not be hearing applause from the drivers.
I got pulled over on my bike once for going the wrong way down a one-way street. It was in Portland, OR.
Megan,
Let's face reality. Following traffic laws DOES indeed inconvenience YOU! And you don't like it. So, you are jumping backwards through hoops to rationalize why bikers shouldn't have to follow traffic laws.
A bike going down a one-way street does cause cars to swerve to avoid them and they do indeed crash into people crossing the road looking in the direction of on-coming traffic. A bike passing through an intersection has neither the mass nor the velocity to hurt a car but they do have the mass and/or the velocity to hurt or kill a pedestrian. Maybe a bike running a stop sign is maintaining a speed too slow to actually kill a pedestrian but it can certainly hurt a pedestrian and maybe even cause lifelong disabilities.
But, you rationalize all that away because it inconveniences you to follow the traffic laws while you are riding your bike.
Danton, answer the question: do you obey the speeding laws strictly? And if not, why not? Does the answer sound something like "It would inconvenience me"? And would you be willing to accept a deal in which all bikes obey traffic laws, including driving in the middle of the traffic lane? Or do you just think we should obey the traffic laws which would make life less convenient for us, while leaving your commute unimpinged?
For the record, I rarely ride down one way streets, but when I do, drivers have to swerve exactly as much to get around me as they do when I am riding down the street in the direction of traffic.
Hey, maybe if you post on this issue enough times, the bikers and drivers will finally agree on who's more evil and resolve their differences.
Then you guys can move on to solving abortion.
Megan, just as a point of information, there are places (I-5 leaps to mind) where obeying the speed limit is a serious safety hazard. On I-5, the big trucks are doing at least 70 MPH -- and I assure you that the speed limit for them has NEVER been higher than 55 MPH. And the flow-of-traffic cars are doing 75-80. Go 70, and you are just asking to cause an accident as people try to dodge around you -- even if you manage to escape involvement yourself.
As for bikes and the traffic laws, as a driver I don't have that serious a problem with them skimming on a few laws. After all, if they crash into me, I'm inconvenienced but they are likely injured. On the other hand, as a pedestrian I think it would be very nice if they gave me the same consideration that they expect from cars. That is, not expect me to nimbly leap aside as they come roaring through. Sad to say, all too many of them do.
Megan: I'm no danger to anyone proceding cautiously through a red light at an empty intersection.
Where the intersection is empty, I'm in no position to see or to have an opinion on what laws a cyclist chooses to follow. My personal objections to cyclists riding through stop signs and red lights are in those cases where other traffic is affected, and the cyclist puts themselves and others at risk of a collision. Two examples from recent personal experience:
1) Late night, driving up to a stop sign on a road with a bike lane, I pass a cyclist. There's no other traffic I can see, but following the law I slow and stop at the intersection. After a full stop, I accelerate -- and nearly get hit by the cyclists, who had neither slowed upon approaching the intersection, nor had any second thoughts about turning left from the right-side bike lane in front of my car. Because I was following the law and he wasn't, he barely avoided ramming the side of my car as I proceeded. Had I been a split-second slower with my stop, the cyclist would have been briefly in front of, and then under, my car.
2) Mid-day, moderate-to-heavy traffic of all sorts at a stoplight. I'm the lead car in the right-hand lane, stopped and signaling to turn right. Pedestrian cross-traffic clears, and I start to turn -- and barely miss a cyclist who was traveling at top speed up to a still-red light. With the cyclist approaching on the right at 15-20 MPH, there almost wasn't enough time for me to register a fast-moving (in comparison to other stopped cars and slower pedestrians) vehicle on the right. Nor, apparently, was there time for the cyclist to register that I had my right-turn signal on. Had I a more restricted field of vision -- from within a garbage truck, for example -- that cyclist would have been knocked over at least.
I'm not going to excuse drivers speeding, including when I do it, but at least speeding drivers are following traffic conventions by going forward where one is expected to. Where that becomes a problem is when convention is broken (a child runs out from between parked cars, lead vehicle mechanical failure), and even there it's recognized that the speeding driver is at fault. Cyclists traveling through traffic-controlled intersections are breaking convention by going forward when the expectation is that vehicular travel will stop. This puts the cyclist and everyone else at greater risk of accident and injury.
I wonder if a comparison to seat belt laws is productive. Presumably, rational people will wear seat belts because it clearly increases their safety. But they don't, so states decided to step in and enforce seat belt wearing, despite the fact that not wearing doesn't increase the risk of collision. Assuming people are very aware of their own best interests on the roads and will act on it doesn't seem to be a very good bet.
Rational bicycle riders should generally obey traffic rules out of their own self interest. I agree that most typical bike violations are on a par with speeding or turning right on red - useful for coordination but not worth fetishizing for safety reasons.
However, the noble state has apparently decided that key concerns in enforcing driving rules are not just harm to others, but harm to ourselves. Given the higher likelihood of a bicyclist becoming damaged while rolling through an intersection against the light, it might make (as much) sense to strictly enforce minor traffic rules against them, as bicyclists' own common sense apparently doesn't restrain them as often as it should.
Of course, I generally oppose nanny-ish laws, but for comparison purposes it may be useful.
(No bike, no car, no dog in this fight.)
From Megan: "Danton, answer the question: do you obey the speeding laws strictly?"
Your only point is asking such a question is to use the justification that since others break the law, it is OK for me to break the law. Still just a rationalization on your part to make you feel better about violating traffic laws.
But, yes, we know you are special. When you bike you never put anyone else at risk and you never almost hit people crossing the street. You only blow through red lights and stop sign with the foreknowledge that there will be no car in the way or people trying to cross the street. You are the safest biker in the world. If anything happens, it is always the other person's fault.
I've gotten two tickets on my bike, both for a rolling stop at a stop sign when making a right turn. I slowed down, it was safe, but I didn't put a foot on the ground, which is how they defined a "complete stop."
Both tickets were within a block of my Jr. High, where the cops would hide out between parked cars and nail us kids. I suppose there might have been a legitimate safety issue; 13 year old boys don't necessarily have the best judgment on a bike.
In college, I had friends who got DUI on bikes.
MM>> Danton, answer the question: do you obey the speeding laws strictly?
But why specifically speeding laws? It's not a binary Yes/No range of values. Traffic regulations are a lot more than just speed. How about:
- Do you adhere to traffic lights strictly?
- Do you always drive on the correct side of the road?
- Do you always obey "no turn left/right here" sign?
Looking at just those 3 above I can tell you that not obeying them strictly (or at least 99.99% of the time) can easily lead to fatal accident.
Kathryn >> Rational bicycle riders should generally obey traffic rules out of their own self interest.
Kathryn wins the thread.
Looking at how Megan tries to dictate everything, from acceptable responses to the correct way of viewing lawbreaking, I wonder if her libertarian credentials have been left to lie in some dusty drawer. Of course, it might be that libertarians are essentially egotists demanding freedoms for themselves that they have no desire to see extended to others.
As for cyclists going the wrong way, I've been hit by one of those fools coming the wrong way round a corner at speed. I was on foot (yes, there are pedestrians who do odd things like crossing the street) and experienced some injuries. I have resolved that the next time I get hit by one of these cyclist jerk-offs, I am simply going to kick the crap out of them,rather than waiting for the law or their maturity to catch up with them. Libertarian enough, I think.
Megan,
I live in Boulder and am a pretty careful driver.
I came to a red light early this spring, then saw that it turned green (I was still about 20 yards away), so I kept going, but was luckily alert. As a got to the intersection, I saw a cyclist who didn't appear to be stopping and managed to break in time. This cyclist went against a red light with an iPod on and was blissfully unaware that if I had been just cruising through the light, he would have been a hood ornament.
In Boulder, there are mid-block pedestrian crossings that are frequently used. Cyclists sometimes zip through these at a 20MPH clip, a speed at which no car expecting a pedestrian could be expected to see and avoid them.
I don't care about cruising through stop signs when nobody is around, but I don't want to kill anyone and cyclists seem pretty unpredictable sometimes.
I too have a friend with a bike DUI. Crazy.
"Coordination laws" have no moral content?
It's ok to drive so fast you increase the chance of a fatality? It's ok to cross a street in a place where you're not supposed to, increasing the chance that a driver will not notice you and hit you, or swerve out of the way trying not to hit you and injure themselves and their passengers or someone else?
There is a moral component to jaywalking laws and speedlimits, etc.
It's just that we all disregard it. I'm increasingly disturbed by the people who attempt to alter the morality of a situation by saying "I do it and it's not wrong" instead of "I do it and ackwnoledge it's wrong."
Of course, rationalizing our way out of errors is not a common phenomenon...
the fact that bike/pedestrian or bike/car crashes are at least as likely to hurt or kill the rider makes bike riders much more cautious than car drivers are likely to be.
You must bike in a different universe than I do. Surely those facts mean that a biker should be more cautious, but many of them seem to be rather casual about gruesome death under the wheels.
The thing that freaks me out as a driver is right turns. It's hard to see a biker zooming up on you, and I really, really, don't want to hurt someone. Aside from which, I'd be put through the legal wringer for any accident, even if it wasn't my fault.
In college, I had friends who got DUI on bikes.
I live in a beach community, where biking home from the bars is the way the locals get home so I looked up the rules on it.
They tried the DUI on bikes in California, but a judge ruled that a bike is not a vehicle as defined by the code if it's 100% human powered. He also went on to say that driving drunk on a bike is nowhere near the safety hazard to others as driving drunk in a car is.
The result is that we have a separate bike code, but the main part is that you have to obey all traffic laws and rules set forth for reflectors etc. If you bike drunk it's punishable by a $250 ticket. Of course, I don't know anybody who's been ticketed for it since the police would rather us bike home drunk then attempt to drive.
As a serious and long time bike commuter, I really do try to obey the law on my bike. Really. However, after getting abused and assaulted just for being on the road (obeying the law), and getting injured trying to avoid cars (4 broken ribs, eg), I said screw it after about 20+ years of obeying the law. I get less hassles and complaints now that I go thru stop signs and red lights because I am not in the way of the cars or am clearly visible, not hidden in traffic. Its a matter of survival. If cars obeyed the traffic laws, I would obey the traffic laws. Since a lot of cars don't, cutting me off, not giving me room, parking in bike lanes, throwing things at me when I ride, etc, its a matter of survival.
It's ok to cross a street in a place where you're not supposed to, increasing the chance that a driver will not notice you and hit you, or swerve out of the way trying not to hit you and injure themselves and their passengers or someone else?
I'm not 5-years old, cars are easy to see and I can cross when I won't impede traffic at all. How is this a problem again?
I'm not going to excuse drivers speeding, including when I do it, but at least speeding drivers are following traffic conventions by going forward where one is expected to.
I was at a loss for a while, trying to figure out where Megan's logic was going off the rails, but I think this neatly captures it. Sure, differential size does play a role in determining the potential harm from a violation, and any violation is still a violation. But violations that are inline with the general traffic flow, within a reasonable band of variation, present a much less serious safety hazard than violations against the flow of traffic.
It's worth noting that a bicycle sailing into the side of a car could easily invoke $1500 in damage, but more to the point, any unexpected entity in the intersection has the potential to cause harm to the second parties who swerve or brake to avoid the obstacle, and further harm any unlucky third parties that get caught in the crossfire.
It's also worth noting that a low-speed collision between a bike and a pedestrian might be the worst kind, since the center of mass of the bike and cyclist will strike the victim at midtorso without enough force to push the victim laterally, basically throwing him straight to the ground like a trap door. If the victim falls backwards onto asphalt or concrete, serious neck and head trauma are guaranteed and death from a blood clot in the brain is very possible.
I also challenge the notion that cyclists are more aware of their mortality and surroundings. Perahps Megan "Mild-Mannered Commuter" McArdle is, and I certainly am, but I've seen way too many hardcore cyclists who were clearly adrenaline junkies with a one-track death wish on their mind and an iPod in their ears to serenade it.
Even if the bike isn't going to kill the pedestrian it hits, it can hurt him or her, and it can also cause a car to swerve, missing the bike, but hitting another car, or possibly a pedestrian, or a tree or other object.
If you're so hot on bikers not obeying the traffic laws, you should stop to consider that if we were obeying all the traffic laws, we'd ride like cars drive--right in the middle of the traffic lane.
That in fact is not the law in California. And I suspect it's not the law in most states:
VC 21202 a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations ...
Oh, and I, for my part, am no outraged by bikers disobeying traffic laws, I'm outraged by them doing stupid and dangerous things, some of which may be legal, and others illegal. I don't care if you run a stop light, I care if you blast by me while I'm trying to turn.
Megan,
I have no doubt that you personally are a careful and prudent cyclist who abjures distractions and makes no assumptions about what others will probably not do before you drive through the space they probably won't occupy. But if suspending the traffic rules harmlessly for you means also suspending them harmfully for the demon behind you, why would it be rational to suspend the rules?
I can't tell you how often I've been blindsided as a pedestrian by a cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street. Normally, I get a shout or a bell demanding that I get out of the way, or else a righteous glare if the cyclist has had to swerve to avoid me. Even if I'm jaywalking (which I assuredly sometimes do), aren't we merely equally at fault? Should the cyclist who violates the traffic rules have a right to proceed in the expectation that I will not violate the pedestrian rules?
The other major complaint I have against cyclists is that many of them can't seem to grasp that stopped cabs often discharge passengers, and they're all surprised when a door opens just as they're pulling up to shoot the gap to the right of the cab. Again, I'm sure you don't do things like that, but I don't think that generalizing from the threat posed by you will necessarily result in the best policy.
If you're so hot on bikers not obeying the traffic laws, you should stop to consider that if we were obeying all the traffic laws, we'd ride like cars drive--right in the middle of the traffic lane.
Actually here it's the law that cyclists must ride as close to the side of the road as is practical. The chair of the 'Ann Arbor Bicycle Committee' was ticketed for not doing so a few years ago in a case that was fairly widely publicized:
http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/Rt2Road.html#AArbor
The ticket was ultimately dismissed, but the rule is still there.
I'm actually surprised at Ms. McArdle's pro-bicyclist stance given her history as a New York resident. I know of virtually no one who hasn't been graced by the chance encounter with the bicyclist displaying absolute and utter contempt for both the law and the safety of others (flying through crosswalks against the light, zipping down the sidewalk, etc). And I doubt that New York is particularly extreme. Heck, a five minute web search will find you a host of videos of bicyclists engaged in behavior risking both themselves and the general public. Yet, on first principles, Ms. McArdle should, at least in theory, excuse these behaviors. I mean, after all, coordination laws don't have any moral content, after all. And hey, any pedestrian nailed by one of these guys is likely live, right?
Bike messengers are different from me and you. I used to bike to work from the Village to the West 50's for years. I would slowly go through stop light and red lights when it was safe.
However, I never learned how to knock over a pedestrian and keep going at 20 MPH. I never learned how to turn so fast that people would trip and fall down to get out of my way. I never hit anyone when I was avoiding a car when I was going the wrong way down a one-way street.
Suggesting that professional bikers deserve a pass when they are the most dangerous people on the roads of Manhattan (exceot drunk drivers) is just wrong.
I have heard the thunk of a head hitting the ground because they were hit by a messenger. Sometimes I was 30 feet away on a busy noisy street. It is a terrible sound.
I think the riders who cause those accidents should be charged with a felony. It was premeditated and people get seriously hurt.
Robert Ayers: what are the "following situations"? In TX, they include common urban road conditions like lanes
Mr. Wilson,
Please understand, I wasn't trying to level an attack against all bike riders with my comment. I have no doubt that you (or Ms. McArdle) are genuinely considerate and conscientious riders. But, the law cannot make such a distinction. We can only really regulate behavior. And to my mind, Ms. McArdle's argument in favor of indifference to the traffic laws for bicycle riders gives the goons a pass.
Sorry for piling on here but one more story;
I was driving through Back Bay in Boston at night on a one way street, towards another one way street with a stop sign ahead of me. I stopped, looked to my right towards the direction I could expect traffic to approach from, saw none and began to accelerate. You can more or less guess the rest. A biker came through the intersection going the wrong way. I braked in time to miss him and of course got the finger for saving him from significant injury since it was so clearly my fault that we almost collided.
And as for the notion that traffic laws have no moral content; of course they do. Many of these laws, like the laws against stealing, exist to prevent the one person from injuring or killing another.
Even if we confine the discussion to laws that only regulate traffic flow (which leaves out most of the laws that cyclists break), unregulated flow can have a serious impact. There are major streets in New York City that sometimes become gridlocked during rush hour. The light changes, the intersection is blocked by vehicles that pulled into the intersection but cannot get across and everything stops. Then emergency vehicles, police, fire, EMS any of much may be on a call dripping with moral content can't get through.
As for speeding; there are the posted limits and "real" limits. For anyone who drives faster than the posted limit and NEVER gets stopped, you are, as far as the police are concerned, within the "real" speed limit. In the Minneapolis area that means roughly the limit plus ten. Beyond that you're on your own. Those rules get tighter in dense traffic, construction zones and bad weather.
Finally, and with all due respect to the ability of riders to assume responsibility for their safety, breaking certain rules under certain circumstances puts your safety in the hands of total strangers who you then need to do the right thing in order to take care of you. If they don't, they don't, and more often than not the biker pays the bigger share of the consequences.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm not angry at bikers for violating the law. I'm angry at them for putting me at risk of hitting and killing one of them. I really don't want to do that!
And the bikers here in Santa Cruz, Ca. routinely ride up dangerous high speed roads with no bike paths, fly across busy intersections, and generally behave as if they are surrounded by a force field of righteousness that will protect them from evil drivers.
Bikers act as if they've never driven a car. We simply cannot see you come up along side. We have no idea what you are going to take it into your heads to do next. We suspect you have a death wish!
I think bikers and drivers should call a cease-fire, and both re-direct their hostilities toward pedestrians, and I'm not kidding.
Both driving and biking require a high level of focus, and 99%+ of drivers/bikers meet this requirement. Pedestrians, however, reserve the right to drift around in the street like zombies, 1/4 conscious, confident that those operating a motor or non-motor vehicle will somehow correct for their errors, which we cannot always do. Over the years, in the age of cell-phones and Blackberries, this problem has only gotten worse.
I'm writing specifically of Manhattan, where I work as a bike messenger.
Brian,
With all due respect, if a pedestrian is obeying the law, they shouldn't have to maintain a high level of focus. The reality is that I've seen all too many bike riders treat the law as if it were optional for them. Heck, that's the very premise of this post. If you're violating traffic laws, I don't care that the pedestrian you almost hit wasn't paying enough attention to you.
Chris asks (in reply to my partial posting of the California vehicle code) Robert Ayers: what are the "following situations"? In TX, they include common urban road conditions like lanes
The situations are mostly the ones that you would expect, like making a left hand turn. Attached is the complete list (the next subsection "b" covers one additional case: the multi-lane one-way street). The last sentence of "3" is the normal defense used by cyclists. Note that the law as written suggests that a "standard" lane is wide enough.
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
With all due respect, if a pedestrian is obeying the law, they shouldn't have to maintain a high level of focus.
They need to maintain enough focus to notice when they're stepping off the curb. Portland pedestrians for the most part don't even look up when they do.
Megan,
I was once a bike commuter, though I now have to commute by car, and I have gone from being an enthusiastic supporter of bicycles to feeling like they should be banned from the rode. I don't want to run anyone over, and the shear unpredictability of bicycles makes that increasingly difficult.
I think though that changing that unpredictability is the key to finding a way for cars and bikes to share the rode comfortably. The rules don't have to be the same for both, and in fact probably shouldn't be, they just have to be known to both sides.
I try to be a very safe driver. I stick to the speed limit (especially in town), use my turn indicators, and stop for pedestrians at cross walks. My reactions times are based on going 25 or 30 miles an hour, knowing my safe stopping distance, and interacting with people doing the same. This forms a rhythm to the way traffic moves and flows. It is predictable and within that framework it is possible to drive safely. Bad drivers are the people who break that rhythm. Not using turn indicators, speeding, passing on the right, lane jumping and so forth.
Pedestrians have their own rhythm. Where they interact with cars at cross walks they form a counterpoint to the rhythm of the cars. Here in Seattle, that interaction is largely broken because pedestrians have started applying the rule for cars, "pedestrians have the right of way", to their actions. The rule for pedestrians used to be, "stop, look, and listen" but now they just walk into the street without looking right or left. When ever you hear a pedestrian standing in the middle of the street screaming, "it's a crosswalk! It's a crosswalk" you know you are looking at someone who stepped in front of a moving vehicle and was shocked, SHOCKED to almost get hit.
The disconnect, and why the two modes of transportation need their own rules, is that while the cars are supposed to stop for pedestrians, they need to see them to do so, and the pedestrians need to make sure the cars see them before they cross the street. The combination of drivers who don't stop and pedestrians who don't look is a big problem.
As a very little pedestrian I was taught you still look right and left even as when you have a walk sign, just in case. As a driver who constantly has to defy the laws of physics to keep from hitting pedestrians who go from facing away from traffic, pivot and step into the street as I am just about to enter the cross walk, I have been trying to figure out what I need from pedestrians in order to interact with them safely. What I have noticed is that at the speed that cars move, we need to see the pedestrians about four parked cars away from the intersection in order to stop safely. If you are standing there waiting when I am that far out, I'm going to stop. After that, while I keep an eye on the intersection, I'm looking for other cars and watching the car parallel parking in the next block and being distracted by the aggressive SUV driver following inches behind me. I can stop, but not safely.
This all takes a fraction of a second. If the corner is empty, I'm clear. A bike (or jogger) that was no where in site when I saw the intersection was clear, can be there at the same time as I am and my ability to drive defensively has been removed in the absence of a rule that says the bike has to yield. (the jogger will just run in front of me regardless since pedestrians have the right of way whether the car can stop for them or not....)
Bikes form another counterpoint to car traffic that is much more intimately connected given the shared space. It is made nearly impossible by the competing and poorly disseminate rules for interaction. "Bicycles have the right of way" sets up the same sense of entitlement that causes pedestrians here to walk into the street without looking. It is a not a set of guidelines for interaction, but rather a general principle. Possibly even a good one if it came with a set of complimentary rules that let cars, pedestrians, and bike riders know that when followed, the fabric of the commute will work.
I don't care what version of the rules of interaction are chosen. I can adapt to anything as long as it is coherent. I can't drive safely and defensively along side anarchy and that is what we have now. As one of your other commenters said, I really don't want to hurt anyone, but without a clear set of guidelines, I am at a loss on how to keep that from happening.
I'm sick of being flipped-off, yelled at, and/or glared at for the sin of taking my foot of the brake and starting to move forward at a green light, and I have no power to make it stop since there isn't some traffic rule for me to follow more stringently than I already do.
I shouldn't have sick feeling in my stomach each day as I take off for work wondering if today is the day I won't be able to stop in time.
They need to maintain enough focus to notice when they're stepping off the curb. Portland pedestrians for the most part don't even look up when they do.
No kidding, this problem is made worse in San Diego where we have quite a few bike/pedestrian paths along the water. The basic rule of them is slow traffic to the right. I nearly took out a pedestrian because she was walking on the right side, and then inexplicably veered hard to the left just as I was passing. Pedestrians rarely realize that they need to look before crossing this path.
On the question of pedestrians, when they start to feel entitled to the roadway is when they start getting hit. I think that the uncontrolled crosswalk may be one of the more dangerous things in the road for them Cars can hardly see pedestrians waiting on the sidewalk (with cars parked) in time to safely stop, and pedestrians should never assume a car is going to stop for them. I would much prefer a pedestrian jaywalking, because they at least pay attention.
I don't care what version of the rules of interaction are chosen. I can adapt to anything as long as it is coherent.
This is a very good point. While there is no moral content to traffic rules, it is essential that everyone know what the rules are and be able to plan their actions based on an assumption that the rules be followed. That's what makes breaking the rules bad--not that its inherently immoral, but rather that it makes it hard for others to plan their actions to safely mesh with yours.
A quick informational note for Rob Lyman and other drivers worrying about making a right turn across a bike lane: that bike lane is a traffic lane. You must merge right into it before making your turn. (Drivers always get this wrong.) You can't make a right turn from a middle lane.
If there is no bike lane, it's trickier. When I'm riding in such a situation, I move to the left as I approach the corner so drivers will see me. If the lane is narrow, I take it. If possible, when I'm waiting at the corner I leave room so that right-turning cars can go to my right. I never want to be pinched between a right-turning car and the curb, so I try not to put myself in a position where I will be.
Megan, I would say this: of course I have sped before. I've also been pulled over before, one time, for (wait for it) speeding.
Now, did I get sanctimonious because a state trooper pulled me over at 1:00 in the morning on an empty byway on which neither I nor anyone in my car posed a threat, safety or otherwise, to anyone on the streets? Nope. I was annoyed, sure, but I took my medicine. By going 67 in a 55, I was breaking the law. It sucked; I dealt with it.
That's the way breaking traffic laws work: you're taking a chance with the law, if not (necessarily) your life. Bikers have no right whatsoever to expect exemption from traffic laws, regardless of the reasons they wish to be exempt (like, say, their own convenience).
So, you know, welcome to the roads. But I kind of wish that cops would start writing tickets for people who roll through stop signs/lights, be they car driver or bike rider.
A quick informational note for Rob Lyman and other drivers worrying about making a right turn across a bike lane: that bike lane is a traffic lane.
In California you need to be as far right as safely possible when making a right turn. The rule on lanes is that if there is enough room to pass another car safely, it doesn't have to be done in a separately marked lane. So, if a lane is wide enough for two cars you can legally pass in the same lane.
If you turn right from the left side of the right lane(especially without signaling far enough in advance), and somebody coming up the right side hits you it's your fault.
Bill Dalasio states:
"With all due respect, if a pedestrian is obeying the law, they shouldn't have to maintain a high level of focus."
I agree.
If a pedestrian is on the sidewalk, or crossing on a green light, then he may remain in his dream-like state of I-Pod idiocy. What I'm speaking of, more specifically, is pedestrians who thread their way through slow-moving traffic to get across the street, hardly looking around them; who stand a few yards away from the curb waiting for the light to change, oblivious to bikers; who run like maniacs into traffic toward shelter when it begins raining, etc.
All of the above is common behavior in Manhattan; I deal with in about 100 times a day. What I'm objecting to is not technical violations of law. The standard I'm using is dangerousness, not legality. The problem is not jaywalking. The problem is that too many pedestrians grant themselves the right to be semi-conscious when entering the street, on the assumption, apparently, that drivers and bikers are the only responsible players.
What bothers me is bicyclists who both disregard the traffic laws which treat them as car at their pleasure, *and* get sanctimonious when drivers don't treat them as cars. Fact is, no one has any respect for that principle, and so there shouldn't be any expectation by cyclists that they'll be treated as anything but what they are; slow, unpredictable, and careless.
You're a little bit blithe about how dangerous bikes are. Bikes are silent, they have an unfortunate tendency to make illegal turns and go the wrong way on one-way streets, and they usually have enough momentum to break a bone or two (and view tamping down on that momentum for safety's sake as a personal insult in a way that drivers don't). In the last five years none of my circle of acquaintances have been hit by a car while walking, but five or six have been seriously hurt by bikes. (One of my friends was hurt by a car while biking, however.) Considering how many cars there are on the road versus bikes, that gives me no confidence that bikes are as safe as you think they are.
I'm 100% for more bicycle transportation. But bicycle commuters are, like most persecuted minorities (vegans, e.g.), snotty, self-righteous, and hypocritical; and they take this attitude with them on the road in ways that cause headaches for drivers.
I nearly took out a pedestrian because she was walking on the right side, and then inexplicably veered hard to the left just as I was passing.
If you are overtaking a pedestrian from behind, you MUST give audible warning before passing. Specifically, "On your left!" (or rarely, "On your right!"). A bell, or a verbal warning that does not tell the pedestrian what you are doing, is hardly better than silence.
Back when I was running a lot on shared trails, 95%+ of the bikers knew to do this.
Of course, this presumes that the pedestrian is not wearing headphones and can hear you . . . which is probably not common these days.
A quick informational note for Rob Lyman and other drivers worrying about making a right turn across a bike lane: that bike lane is a traffic lane. You must merge right into it before making your turn. (Drivers always get this wrong.) You can't make a right turn from a middle lane.
That's nice. I'm sure the bikers won't give me the finger if I block their lane for half a block while slowing to make my turn, won't try to squeeze through the narrow gap between me and the parked cars, and furthermore and the owners of the parked cars won't mind the scratches and dents associated with either bikers squeezing by or me "merging" into a lane one third the width of my car.
Seriously, the problem is not some legal technicality. The problem is that if I'm making a right on red, I'd like to be able to assume that a small, hard-to-see, and fast-moving biker isn't going to slam into me instead of stopping. Heck, that's a problem on green lights, too; cars need to slow down a lot to safely make a turn, and they can be taken by surprise quite easily. Regardless of who has the technical right of way, it's a scary situation.
Here's a counter challenge.
Next time we see a cyclist violating the law, we'll give her or him a 10 second head start, then floor it.
All your whining just makes cyclists a more attractive target.
Street fight! Conflict over the rules of the road has resulted in all out war in Portland. Including T.J. Hooker-style hood riding. Sweet.
I rode my bike to work for a couple of years in Pasadena. It was a great commute. A bit long (six miles) but there were bike lanes (7-9am, 4-6pm) almost the entire way. I pretty much obeyed traffic laws but not entirely. The roll through the intersection (an instinct born of the fact that you and not your wallet is accelerating the vehicle)is a bike classic but I've seen cars do it all the time. In general, most of my lawbreaking was in the interests of my safety and consideration of other drivers. As a bicyclist, I know I'm in the way and sometimes breaking traffic laws gets me out of the way. This benefits the motorist and the cyclist. For instance: riding on the sidewalk. Generally a no-no. Sometimes it is the right thing to do. If cyclists rigidly obeyed traffic laws they would encounter a lot more hatred from drivers than they do by ignoring many of them. Drivers should try to overcome their atavistic hatred of cheaters by seeing that the emergent, unspoken, rules of cycling benefit them as well as the cyclists.
Hey Ed. If ya wanna fight, how about getting out of the car? Or do you need 2000 pounds of body armor?
(This is, of course, offered in the same jovial spirit as your suggestion of running people over.)
One response here is that it isn't just drivers who get pissed off--it's pedestrians, who (go figure!) aren't thrilled about constantly having to dodge lawbreaking bicyclists. (Maybe in DC the bicyclists are better behaved; here, contempt for the rights of pedestrians is endemic.)
But there's also a broader point to be made in response.
One day I was riding the bus to work and ahead of us was a bicyclist with a placard on the back of her bike with the vehicle code section saying bicyclists have the right to a full lane.
And of course--do I even need to say it?--she blew through every single stop sign.
It's one of the very few instances I've ever seen where someone was simultaneously flaunting and flouting the law.
Bicyclists expect drivers to obey the law--in fact, their lives depend on it--but are unwilling to follow it themselves. The problem is that this unwillingness encourages everyone else (peds, drivers, everyone) to ignore the law, which makes life much more unsafe for bicyclists.
One day I was riding the bus to work and ahead of us was a bicyclist with a placard on the back of her bike with the vehicle code section saying bicyclists have the right to a full lane.
Do you live in Portland? Her kid goes to the same preschool as my kid.
Specifically, "On your left!" (or rarely, "On your right!"). A bell, or a verbal warning that does not tell the pedestrian what you are doing, is hardly better than silence.
The main problem with this instance, is that pedestrians decide to walk on whatever side of the walkway they feel like. We gave warning of coming (don't think she heard) but yelling out sides usually confuse the people who walk on the left side. We assumed she knew we were coming, because she was on the right side at first. This type of thing is typical in the summer, because there are a lot of tourists who aren't used to the idea of the bike/walk path or walking around a city in general.
Pedestrians just need to walk a bit more defensively in many cases. A crosswalk isn't a magical barrier preventing a car from hitting you. If you are on a bike/walk path then look out for bikes before crossing.
How conveeeeeenient these stories just happen to be. Not lets look at some real facts:
Gee. No mention about bikes being offenders. Could it possibly be because statistically speaking, they are insignificant here? Further:
But it's not the drivers fault at all. It's the pedestrians for failing to be sufficiently alert. At least, according to a lot of the crew here. Just like with those bicyclists.
Uh-huh.
The BBC reported last week:
A cyclist found guilty of dangerous cycling after knocking down a 17-year-old girl who later died from her injuries has been fined £2,200.
Jason Howard, 36, from Buckingham, hit Rhiannon Bennett as she walked through the town with friends in April 2007.
Aylesbury magistrates heard Howard had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" before riding into her. She died from head injuries.
A related BBC article titled "Cyclists Don't Obey Road Rules" stated:
A policeman involved in the case said the law which allowed Howard, 36, to escape a prison term, as he was only charged with dangerous cycling, may need to be re-examined.
The rules of the road are there for a reason - public safety - regardless of how inconvenient some individuals may find them. And public safety refers not only to the safety of the bike rider but anyone else them may come into contact with.
But it's not the drivers fault at all. It's the pedestrians for failing to be sufficiently alert. At least, according to a lot of the crew here. Just like with those bicyclists.
Really, find me one person here who says this.
Maybe. Here's another thought: on shared paths, slow the f*ck down. If you 'nearly took out' a pedestrian (however clueless she was, however abruptly she moved), you were riding too fast.
So, I should ride at the speed of pedestrians just in case? What's the point of riding a bike then? This is the exact problem with pedestrians, it's never their fault if hit. It's always somebody else's fault for their carelessness. Even a 6-7 mph crash with a pedestrian on a bike would knock both myself and them over. I ride either a mountain bike or a beach cruiser and I'm not a serious bike rider. I do it to go the few miles max between various areas in a beach town. It's not like I'm cruising at 25mph along those paths. My guess is that I only break 10mph when going downhill.
As for stopping at an unprotected crosswalk, I'm against them anyways. Studies have shown that marked crosswalks have more accidents than unmarked. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200009/ai_n8912574
This is the exact problem with pedestrians, it's never their fault if hit.
Hmmm...I think that drivers feel the same way about bikes.
I think the main reason that drivers get annoyed with bicyclists not following traffic laws strictly is the whole argument, "Share the road. It's the law!" This cry has been waved in the face of drivers by indignant bicyclists for many years now.
The backlash eminates from a feeling that goes like, "Well, if you're going to rely so heavily on THE LAW to make your point, then quit breaking laws so frequently yourselves."
The fact is that unreasonable laws are often broken, and can reduce overall respect for the law. (See the 55mph national speed limit in the 1980's and Prohibition in the 1920's for perfect illustrations.)
Is enforcing a full military stop for every bicycle for a stop sign at an empty intersection reasonable. Probably not. I wouldn't sweat it.
Is sharing the road with bicyclists reasonable? Generally, yes. I try my best to look out for them. But, the physical limitations of bicycles (e.g. they can't really go highway speeds even if you're Lance Armstrong), mean that "reasonably" sharing the road has limitations as well.
The hostility of drivers mostly comes from the militancy of bicyclists pointing to THE LAW that says "Share the road" while ignoring so many other laws in such a bald-faced manner.
You mean, like this:
Now, are you guys going to stop blaming non-auto traffic, and maybe take a little responsibility? You seem to be missing the point that several people have already made: that non-motorists who obey the law are oft times more at risk of injury or death than those who don't. And just why is this? It's because of the way motorists drive.
Spare me the anecdotes about 'you know about this one time . . .' sure, bikers can cause accidents, sometimes even fatal ones. But you know full well that most accidents and injuries are caused by drivers.
Oh, Christ. It's not about fault, it's about preventing accidents. You could see her, she couldn't see you. Under those circumstances, you have to assume she is going to do something flaky and know how you are going to react if she does it.
There are trails and trails. The one I was referring to is used exclusively for miles at a time by people who are out for exercise -- bikers, runners, rollerbladers, powerwalkers, whatever. All these people can be assumed to know the rules: keep to the right, pass on the left, give warning before passing.
Every so often, when the trail crosses a major road, it also goes through a park frequented, especially on weekends, by all kinds of people from grandmas to toddlers, any of whom may wander onto the trail at any minute. Sensible bikers pop out of Tour de France mode when they hit those spots.
Brian's a bicycle messenger. Quoting his contempt for pedestrians doesn't prove a point about the thoughtlessness of automobile drivers.
ScentOfViolets: blaming bicyclists for their bad behavior isn't the same as excusing drivers for theirs. It's entirely possible to condemn the bad behavior of both.
I see nothing in Brian's comment which suggests that drivers are incapable of causing accidents. Nor do I see anything in your comments which suggests that inattentiveness on the part of pedestrians isn't a contributing factor in at least some accidents. Have you never seen someone wander into the street against the light right in front of a column of traffic, preferably sending a text message at the time? It's the official city pastime in Portland.
non-motorists who obey the law are oft times more at risk of injury or death than those who don't.
I've seen that assertion, and I don't deny that it it's possible that it is, indeed, true. But evidence--or even coherent explanation of why running red lights or zooming up on the right between stopped cars, is just essential to cyclist safety--has been thin. Indeed, there seems to be some confusion about what the rules even are, no doubt stemming partially from differences across jurisdictions.
But you know full well that most accidents and injuries are caused by drivers.
I'm afraid I don't "know" this, at least for normal definitions of the word "know." I've seen you assert it, but so far the only thing we "know" is that some drivers don't stop for women in orange shirts at marked crosswalks.
If that's what it takes for you to avoid injuring pedestrians, then obviously the answer is 'yes'. I repeat: on shared paths you should do whatever is necessary to avoid injuring pedestrians even if it's not as much fun. I shouldn't even have to explain that; only a sociopath would behave otherwise.
I agree with the sentiment, but swap "pedestrian" for "bicyclist" and it's still true. The bike inevitably goes faster; on a shared path, the pedestrians have equal responsibility to be alert.
Once in a while, someone of either mobility does something stupid, and near misses or even accidents occur. Not all of them could have been avoided on the part of party who wasn't being stupid, creating understandable frustration. Life, etc. No sociopathy required.
so far the only thing we "know" is that some drivers don't stop for women in orange shirts at marked crosswalks.
Orange shirt with a bright pink hat? Shoot, at that point the mercy killing instinct can take some real work to supress.
Sigh. Read what he wrote: ". . .confident that those operating a motor or non-motor . . ."
And yet, strangely enough, this doesn't apply to cars in the case of bikes; if bikes are in traffic, following the laws of the road, they are often abused by motorists telling them to get the @$#@!$#! out of the way. Can you say 'double standard'? Operating a motor vehicle is privilege, not a right.
That's as may be. But then let's see a little more condemnation of motorists, eh? Particularly since they are by far the more egregious offenders. Don't try to pull this "we're not talking about my faults, we're talking about yours" sort of misdirection.
As long as we're trading anecdotes, since starting bike commuting in Dc less than a year ago, I've had at least five very near brushes with death. All of them occurred when I was strictly obeying the traffic laws. I drive right now, and I get to observe the behavior of bikers, pedestrians, and drivers from the comfort of my 2,000 pound metal box--I'm not having this argument because I want to do my commute faster, as I at present have no bicycle on which to commute.
The fact is, at least in DC, the bikers are by far the safest of the three groups. I rarely see bikes do anything dangerous, whereas I frequently witness pedestrians dart out into the path of my moving car while wearing headphones, not in the crosswalk but in the middle of the street. I also frequently witness drivers running red lights, initiate turns when they have a bike to their right that is going straight (off the light), refusing to let anyone merge (I'm talking about cars, now, not even bikes) when the alternative to merging is slamming into a traffic barrier, and assorted other forms of merriment. The bicyclists occasionally act like self-righteous jerks, but I don't think I've ever seen one do anything dangerous--and obviously, I watch pretty closely for dangerous behavior. Of course, the biking culture of other cities may be different, but my experience here is that the bikers are by far the safest things on the road. Again, I'm driving not biking right now, so this isn't self-righteous demand that other people yield. I too am annoyed when I'm stuck behind a biker going slowly, but I put up with it, because they have a perfect right to be there.
Biking in DC (in any major urban area, but especially DC) is a health risk far more potentially harmful than poking one's self with every needle you come accross while having a 24-7 McDonald's Big Mac IV and smoking (crack!). I'm quite libertarian about what one is allowed to do to one's body, but don't expect any sympathy about the consequenses. Bikers have every legal right to expect safety and maybe even, on a human level, some courtesy. However, I expect that at least a robust minority of blog readers will have some common sense and know that neither of these will be forthcoming. The risk you take isn't only your own and, quite frankly, if you're going to take a risk so patently foolhardy, I want to make sure that you're segregated into the Darwin Awards section of the insurance pool, far apart from risk averse ol' me.
I can read. You were arguing that motorists are inclined to blame non-motorists for problems on the road. Here you are at 7:17:
Spare me the anecdotes about 'you know about this one time . . .' sure, bikers can cause accidents, sometimes even fatal ones. But you know full well that most accidents and injuries are caused by drivers.
You ascribed the following attitude to motorists:
But it's not the drivers fault at all. It's the pedestrians for failing to be sufficiently alert. At least, according to a lot of the crew here. Just like with those bicyclists.
Rob replied by asking you to find someone who'd actually said something like that. You "won" by finding a bike messenger who argued that cyclists and motorists should join forces against pedestrians.
The content of Brian's post is immaterial--the fact that you quoted a bike messenger as an example of the thoughtlessness of motorists is the problem.
I think the solution here is for all three parties, drivers, bikers, and pedestrians to collectively stop being stupid and stop being a$$holes.
Don't worry folks -- I am applying these problem-solving skills to larger issues too. I'm working on solving the world's hunger problem and resolving the conflict in the Middle East next.
> I rarely ride down one way streets, but when I do,
> drivers have to swerve exactly as much to get
> around me as they do when I am riding down the
> street in the direction of traffic.
But they are more likely to pull out from a side street right in front of you since they will be looking the opposite way for car traffic.
Sigh. Isn't this sort of semantic legalism beneath you? And haven't you accused of this before? Whatever. But if you want to claim that you don't see the word 'always' in there, that's okay; you don't see me using that word either. So either be equally legalistic with us or drop it. Preferential tactics is the sign of someone who doesn't have a better argument.
Um. No one here has been defending running red lights as safe that I can see. Some people have said that rolling through stop signs is safer, and I agree. 'Zooming up on the right', now that's just bogus. They've been forced out of the regular traffic lane. Are you saying they should stop now, even though legally the obligation is yours to check for traffic before making a right turn?
We also know that no bikes were stopped for this sort of behaviour. And that the pedestrian was not at fault 100% of the time in this setup. That doesn't suggest anything to you?
It also seems from some of the comments here that at least some drivers do not know that pedestrians have the right-of-way in a lot of the more common circumstances. So I'm guessing that when they're talking about these inattentive pedestrians, they're actually describing their own ignorance of the law.
I guess this is where motorists are going to fall back on the 'might makes right' argument now, eh?
Gee Charlie, Yuh don't think that maybe he also drives as well? Since that part is also mentioned? Or is it a truism that bike messengers don't drive?
Use some common sense.
I'd also point out that this:
seems to be what the thread is about. Damn my eyes, but it seems that this is _exactly_ what the motorists are doing. Can you point to any one of the motorists taking responsibility? No, I thought not.
Me to a Tee. I don't bike, btw, I'm a runner. With _very_ few exceptions, I scrupulously obey the law with regard to traffic signs and signals, right of way, etc. One of those is taking off as soon as the cross-traffic light goes red, because otherwise there is an excellent chance some hot-rodder will grab the right-of-way.
Yes, I always yield. I'd rather be indignant and whole, than vindicated and parlyzed. But that doesn't decrease my ire any. And my beef is with motorists. I've never had problems with cyclists not seeing me or refusing to yield.
That tells me something right there.
I can't read his mind; if Brian wants to chime in and discuss whether he's also drives a car then he can do so. None of his comments in this thread indicates that he drives a car; several of them either refer directly to his experience on a bicycle or take the cyclist side in this bikers-versus-motorists battle royale.
It's perfectly possible that he also drives a car. I don't disagree with you that there are many, many, careless and aggressive motorists out there who put cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists at risk.
The fact remains that you accused motorists posting in this thread of blaming pedestrians for endangering themselves in their interactions with automobiles. When challenged to find an instance in this thread of someone actually expressing that view, you seized upon the comments of a bicycle messenger. Nicely done.
By the way, you write:
...seems to be what the thread is about. Damn my eyes, but it seems that this is _exactly_ what the motorists are doing. Can you point to any one of the motorists taking responsibility? No, I thought not.
I wasn't making a claim about what people in this thread were saying. You were the one ascribing a particular point of view to motorists and then, when challenged, illustrating your point with a quotation from a guy who identified himself as a bike messenger and has taken the cyclists' side in this thread. You then, when challenged again, pointed out that the bike messenger could also conceivably drive a car. Then, possibly realizing that your attempts to defend yourself were descending into self-parody, you accused me of not backing up my own assertions, even though all I've done in this thread is ask you to make some sense.
Have a nice night; you're amusing but I have a feeling I've wrung all the entertainment value out of you.
Do I have to quote the relevant passage again? Then you can pretend to misunderstand again, I suppose:
Let me repeat this especially bizarre part:
Ya, know, Charles, I also drive. And you don't notice me defending motorists now, do you? You seem to be suggesting that since I excoriate the drivers, that I must not be driving. Hmmm . . . looking back, I see that Megan also drives. You know, the person who started this thread about unsafe drivers?
Iow, you seem to be saying that unless someone explicitly mentions that they are a driver, we can safely assume that they don't drive if they say they don't much care for the behaviour of motorists.
That is just . . . well, I'll leave it for you to insert the proper word. Me, I'm going to guess that most cyclists do in fact drive at least some of the time. Call it stubbornly clinging to an outdated worldview if it makes you feel better :-)
I saw the word "always," and it doesn't mean to me what you seem to suggest. Brian says drivers can't "always" compensate for pedestrian errors. This does not mean that drivers do not make errors.
Are you saying they should stop now, even though legally the obligation is yours to check for traffic before making a right turn?
Well, yes. I'm saying that the least-cost avoider should avoid the accident, regardless of legality. A cyclist who passes on the right should be very aware of turn signals (and motorists should be diligent about it them) for the simple reason that a turn signal on a car is several hundred times easier to see than a cyclist. Such cyclists should also avoid self-righteousness even when technically in the right because it is hard to see them; even diligent drivers aware of the rules can cut them off.
Likewise, even if pedestrians have the right to cross and expect cars to stop, it's a stupid and irresponsible thing to do. It's much easier to not step into the street than to halt a two-ton car, and the law doesn't help the driver to stop.
And that the pedestrian was not at fault 100% of the time in this setup.
We know nothing of the sort. We know (or at least can surmise) that the pedestrian was legally in the right 100% of the time. That is by no means the same thing.
As I said above, I'm opposed to unsafe behavior, whether legal or illegal. The legal rules for particular situations don't interest me all that much in this dicussion.
And finally, I do not support drivers who do stupid and unsafe things any more than pedestrians or cyclists. My point is principally that it's harder to drive safely around cyclists than they seem to realize.
Oh gee, now we're to the point where Charlie is selectively snipping posts. Chuckle.
Of course, we knew it was going to end this way, didn't we? Good night, Charlie.
I've never had problems with cyclists not seeing me or refusing to yield.
Is there any chance that's because they move slower and are less enclosed?
I run, too, and I've encounterd my share of bad drivers. But runners don't scare me the way bikers do because they so efforlessly combine speed, invisibility, and the force-field mentality described above.
but I don't think I've ever seen one [bike] do anything dangerous--and obviously, I watch pretty closely for dangerous behavior
One anecdote of course proves nothing, but the last accident I witnessed was the result of a bike flying through a 4 way stop sign on Sargent, with cars waiting in line from the other three directions, and plowing into the side of a car crossing the intersection. Fortunately the bike took a lot more damage than the car. I've never seen a car do anything that dangerous in DC.
M,
I'm totally in your camp normatively, but I do not have a dream, as do so many others, that my two little children will one day live in a nation's capital where they will not be highly likely to become roadkill, whatever the content of their character. In the pissing contest between motorists, bikers and pedestrians, it does not really matter which group is least morally blameworthy as this matter is neither correlates nor causally relates to higher life expanctancy.
Whereas I think that cars that do cut people off when they're in the wrong should be heavily fined and penalized a point or three. Part of the problem - a big part of the problem - is that when drivers behave illegally, they are seldom punished for it. I suspect that consistent and firm punishment would modify this behaviour. Given what is becoming a standard practice of installing cameras at intersections to award traffic tickets, a very lucrative one as well :-)
Iow, no, whining that they're hard to see is no excuse. Be _sure_ before making a move.
It's not as if bad the bad behaviour of motorists is confined to non-motorists, btw. It seems that aggressive and presumptuous driving is _way_ up over what it used to be twenty years ago. People routinely don't signal their intentions (giving information to the enemy I guess), they run fresh red lights, they won't yield or merge unless they absolutely have to.
They don't pay attention.
And a large part of this, I am convinced, is the odious practice of talking on the phone while driving. If it was up to me, I'd hoss-whip these malefactors in the public square. But it's not, sigh. This is another behaviour I'd like to see heavily penalized by the law. There is absolutely zero need to be talking in traffic. If you must make or receive a call, pull off the road and into a parking lot. That's what I do.
The simple challenge is to ask all the bike-hating car drivers to spend ONE week commuting on a bicycle.
I guarantee each person who takes the challenge will come away with at least one story of the "crazy" driver who nearly killed them. Many times, you "nearly" die (or feel like that) on almost a daily basis as a cyclist.
And cyclists aren't completely ignorant to the plight of drivers.
Believe it or not MANY cyclists also drive (shockingly, I do both regularly). I drive in summer and winter and bike in the spring and fall due to local weather. I'm not pro-cyclist out of ignorance. I cannot imagine anyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a road as a cyclist thinking that drivers get the short end of the stick. Yes, as a driver, cyclists annoy me and yes, as a cyclist, drivers annoy me, but only in one of those two situations do I feel that the mistakes of the other might end up with me DEAD.
Having had three bad bike accidents and having seeing the blood of a cyclist rush past my feet from his split open skull (not sure if he lived or died, just saw him put in an ambulance and driven away), you should be able to guess which is which.
And, for the record, in most places, it is entirely legal to bike in the middle of a lane at any speed. I find it truly disturbing that most people think that getting the desire to run over and kill the cyclist is a normal reaction to this minor inconvenience. How cruel and heartless do you have to be to think that murderous thoughts are justifiable by slowing down a commute by a few seconds to a minute.
And don't bother writing a comeback as a driver until you've spent a full week commuting by bike. Otherwise you are speaking entirely out of ignorance as to the plight of the other side. There is nothing you can say about the driver side that I don't already know because I DRIVE TOO.
Nylund, I agree that cycling in city traffic is a frightening experience. I perceive it as being very dangerous, which is why I only cycle in parks or trails or on the city streets for as long as it takes to get to such a destination. I really sympathize with the trauma cyclists experience, which is why I cannot fathom why it would strike them as a good idea to disobey traffic regulations.
"Wow, cycling between a row of parked cars --anyone of whose doors might suddenly open and send me flying over my bicyle -- and dozens of cars whizzing within a foot of me is terrifying," the cyclist thinks. "I know what will help ease my mind. Why don't I just RIDE THROUGH A RED LIGHT? Who KNOWS at what speed a car may be traveling through the intersection, coming seemingly out of nowhere?"
Hypothetical change in the laws (all-or-nothing package):
1) Bikes can treat stop signs as yield signs where traffic allows it.
2) If there's no bike lane, you can't ride a bicycle on streets with posted speed limits above 25 MPH.
Discuss.
2) If there's no bike lane, you can't ride a bicycle on streets with posted speed limits above 25 MPH.
Flying pigs. You forgot to include those in your proposal.
Another anecdote to add to the pile: while cycling through the city recently, a motorist decided to turn a corner directly in front of me without using his indicator, forcing me to brake hard in order to (narrowly) avoid being mashed between his vehicle and the curb. Nothing unusual there; as I ride in the city every day, this sort of thing is unremarkable. The interesting part was that in this case there was a police car right behind me. I looked at the cop, he looked back and gave me a little wave before going ahead and pulling over the driver in question to have a little chat.
Now, there have been many occasions on which I have seen cyclists being pulled over and fined or (usually) warned for violating the road rules. However, in my long history as a cyclist and a motorist, this is the first time that I have seen a driver get pulled over for behaving in a way which is specifically dangerous to cyclists. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and maybe other places have different law enforcement practices, I can only speak from my own experience.
Knowing that the law will not protect me as a cyclist, I put safety first (others' as well as my own) and yes, I violate the road rules on occasion. If I get stopped and fined for it, I will take it on the chin, not whine about it and be glad that the cops are at least doing something to protect the safety of road users. Furthermore, I vow that I will begin stringently obeying the road rules the day that I see the road rules as they apply to my safety with respect to others' behaviour being enforced. As long as bike lanes are in common use as car lanes/pedestrian lanes/taxi zones/impromtu meeting rooms/alfresco cafes/do whatever the hell takes your fancy areas, as is currently the case, I will continue to (carefully) break the law.
I'll throw out my unpopular opinion again... bikes have no business being on any roads except neighborhood streets. They are too small, too slow, and too fragile to be mixing with cars. No matter how conscientious a driver is, bikes will always be harder to see than other cars AND will the consequences of failing to see them will be much worse.
If we really want to encourage people to bike to work, we should build dedicated bike paths.
I remember as a child being told to stop and walk my bike across the street for safety... now we're encouraging bikers to mix it up with cars? During rush hour?
It's kind of odd that we have all these safety requirements for cars but motorcycles and bicycles would fail almost everyone... In order to sell a car in the US, it must undergo destructive crash testing and pass a fairly stringent set of requirements for performance and safety. So why do we bother will all of this if we then let motorcycles and bicycles on the road? I'm picturing the inspector... "Oh, well, if you're going to make the vehicle EXTRA dangerous, then we'll just wave all these safety requirements."
Most, especially danton, seem to have ignored/dodged MM's original challenge...
I feel like the law is what's enforced. If I drive
That post was jacked. 1st graph should continue: If I drive fewer than 10 mph over in 90 percent of the country, I don't feel like I'm breaking the law because I know I won't get pulled over. If I went 11+ over, I would feel like I was breaking the law and even doing something morally reprehensible (though on a different level from say theft).
Simple rules for bikers, which I obey scrupulously.
Stop sign: stop, or a rolling stop if there are no cars around.
Red light: treat it like a stop sign. Don't roll through; stop, slide into the intersection, roll through if no cars are coming.
Tailgating: if you tailgate me in a car, I downshift. You want to be 4 feet behind me in your gas powered death machine? I'll go slow enough that I know you can stop if you need to.
Hostility = # of wheels they have - # of wheels I have. Yes, hostility is negative for pedestrians and unicycle drivers.
I wonder posters upset at cyclist have noticed more bad behavior in recent years, or has it always been the same. The reason I ask is because I've read on iBOB that there are stages to driver attitude towards cyclist. 1) There are so few cyclists that drivers are amazed when they encounter one, like meeting an exotic animal "you actually choose to ride?" 2) Sufficient cyclist exist, considerate and inconsiderate, safe and unsafe, but bellow some critical mass that drivers get upset at having to "share the road", pass giving too much of too little space, outraged at all the rule breaking inconsiderate cyclists. This is the stage that road rage against cyclist occurs. 3) Sufficient cyclists and enough interaction between drivers and riders occur (Hey John, saw you on my drive to work today! How far did you go?) that the tension eases. Drivers might still get annoyed at witnessing someone running a stop sign that did not stop traffic and mutter "Dam idiot" but otherwise let it and won't attribute this to all cyclists.
I wonder if combination of a lot of new cyclists (commuters due to high gas prices) who are inexperienced riding in traffic themselves and the hipster messenger trend is causing all the tension. All these rule abiding, rule bending, rule ignoring riders are a big disruption to driver expectations. Hopefully with more interaction drivers and riders will settle into behavior that the other expect and accept. I can only hope.
After all, there are more cyclist in Europe and I hear that they have a lot less problems there.
I'm not excusing bike messengers who roar through stop signs at 20 mph--but I'm no danger to anyone proceeding cautiously through a red light at an empty intersection.
Just a note--Here in Nashville, the cycling code specifically permits this. In cities that have lights with trigger sensors that pick up heavier vehicles but not bikes, one can get stuck forever at a red light, so some provision that allows cyclists to ignore a light that's ignoring them is important. The statute was recently adopted and is reflective of best practice, so I'm sure laws of this sort are quite common.
Carl Lin writes:
After all, there are more cyclist in Europe and I hear that they have a lot less problems there.
I don't know if it is true now but when I cycled in Europe I, and pretty much everyone else, was pretty scrupulous about obeying the traffic laws. Riding at night without lights was a complete no-no, for example. People always assumed it was easier to walk a bike home than walk from some arbitrary police station.
The problem arising from ignoring prohibitions on rolling stops comes from the the way people assume other prohibitions will also be tolerated. While there is probably not much wrong with rolling through a stop at a speed where the bike can stop almost immediately there are very serious problems with riding against traffic on a one-way street and riding at night without lights. The latter two are inherently dangerous both to the bike rider and other road users and I see no reason why they should not be viewed as absolute no-nos by bike riders.
2) If there's no bike lane, you can't ride a bicycle on streets with posted speed limits above 25 MPH.
I'm a cyclist and I agree wholeheartedly. Once we change the speed limit on *all* non-interstate roads in the country to 25 mph. Surely you can't have a problem with that, right?
I'll throw out my unpopular opinion again... bikes have no business being on any roads except neighborhood streets.
Here's my opinion: no auto traffic faster than 25 mph outside of the interstate highway system, and speed limiters in all new cars that enforce this limit.
Also a pony in every pot.
Why do many bicyclists assume that they are allowed to routinely take up an entire lane of traffic? The fact that you legally have to follow the same traffic regulations as cars and motorcycles does not mean that you have all of the same privileges. Here's the law for New York:
Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skates shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skates lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skates lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.
Yes, some drivers are assholes and won't allow you even the exceptions provided. That doesn't change the fact that in most cases, the law is on their side.
Yes, but asshole bike riders don't pollute, which makes their behavior somehow...
OK.
Go figure...
The solution here is simple; cyclists carrying guns.
Howard,
At least in my municipality (DC), your point is absolutely *not* correct.
http://tinyurl.com/dcbikelaws
In DC, there is no legal requirement for cyclists to use the bike lane, if there is one:
Title 18 (2220.6) states that the existence of Restricted Lanes on any roadway does not limit those vehicles for which the restrictions are established solely for use of the Restricted Lanes unless specifically indicated by signs.
And not even a legal requirement to "stay right":
Title 18 (1201.3) says that a bicyclist riding on a highway shall not unduly or unnecessarily impede or obstruct traffic. However, according to Title 18 (1201.2) a bicyclist does not have to ride to the far right if the lane is narrow or if he/she is trying to avoid car doors, pavement hazards, or similar hazardous conditions. A narrow lane is defined as one 11 feet or less. Most lanes in the District are 11 feet or less.
My guess is that in NY, many lanes are not at least 11 feet wide, which would mean a cyclist would have no legal requirement to "stay right".
You may want to contact your local bike advocacy group to learn about the local bike laws in your area.
The argument here is...
Don't get so mad when bike riders do dangerous thing X, because imagine how mad you'd be if we also did dangerous thing Y.
Good. Solid stuff.
imagine how mad you'd be if we also did dangerous thing Y
You're really unclear, what is "dangerous thing Y"?
You can't be talking about "riding like cars drive--right in the middle of the traffic lane," can you?
Because statistically that's one of the safest ways to ride a bike. The reason most cyclists don't ride that way *all* the time is because we're being nice.
ibc - You're right that there are generally several exceptions to the "stay right" laws, but when you see people write things like this: if we were obeying all the traffic laws, we'd ride like cars drive--right in the middle of the traffic lane, it sets off your BS detector. Maybe I shouldn't have said "in most cases," but "in many cases." In general, you can't assume that you have the right to a full lane of traffic. That's why most laws specify that the default is to "stay right," unless certain conditions are met. Apparently in DC, in *most* lanes are considered narrow. That doesn't mean that you are automatically entitled to ride in the middle of any given lane as Megan implies.
This isn't to say that I've actually encountered a problem with this; in NYC it seems like most problems are riding the wrong way down a one-way street or speeding across crosswalks. Also, the vast majority of dangerous situations here are caused by messengers and food deliverymen, not commuters.
ibc- Yes I was being flip and a bit unclear. Howard articulates what I would have argued more explicitly. I think both drivers and bikers are guilty of a selective attitude towards rules of the road enforcement, but I'm particularly sensitive to the "bikers rolling through red lights and stop signs" scenario, which happens all the time in NYC and drives me nuts. In the hierarchy of the road, I understand that bikers are extraordinarily vulnerable and I am very much behind any and all efforts to make bike riding safer, easier, more efficient, etc. But people on bikes are really dangerous to people on feet, and I wish that bikers (especially here in NYC) actually obeyed stop signs and red lights, which in my experience here in the city they rarely do.
Rob Lyman:
Rob, speaking as a bike commuter, I wouldn't give you a finger for making that merge. In fact, I'd appreciate it. When I see a car ahead of me signaling for a right turn that might conflict with me, I immediately check to see if I can safely move out into the traffic lane and pass them on the left (9 times out of 10 I can). This immediately eliminates the potential conflict and lets everyone proceed without further disruption. If you merge into the bike lane before your turn, it just makes it that much easier for me to get around you on the left.
(And hey, if motorists start doing this, then maybe folks getting out of the driver's side of parallel-parked cars will get more careful about checking the mirrors before flinging open their doors, which would help address one of the other major fears of the urban cyclist.)
But I get your point -- most cyclists are a lot more territorial about the bike lane than I am.
Um, so I didn't read all the comments, but I read enough to understand that some people are wandering off into the Land of Lost Wonkery, where we ask the question: "sure, it works in reality, but does it work in theory?"
Those in Wonkery seem to forget: a bicycle is not a car. Anyone who has ridden a bicycle in traffic knows that sometimes the safest thing to do is to disobey traffic laws because those traffic laws were written for cars not bikes (and that is right and good: most vehicles on roads are indeed cars).
I am not (nor is Megan) excusing cyclists who do Very Stupid Things, VST to all you in Land of Lost Wonkery, or LLW for the TLA. VSTs eventually get you killed (as all your war stories suggest). VSTs include blowing through red light with iPod blasting, riding a bicycle on an interstate highway, or failing to look for pedestrians. If you see a cyclist doing this, honk your horn, berate him, he deserves it. Moving on...
Besides the basic fact that bikes are not cars, people in these comments seem to be ignorant of, or forget the fact that most bikers ride the same route every day - to work, school, or the grocery store. They ride it more slowly and with better visibility, so reality, they know everything about that theoretical one-way street we are all discussing. Is it busy? Does the rainwater come across it or drain properly? Did the works crew fix that pothole at the seam of the curb and the road? Does it have a blind corner I need to worry about? Are there kids on the street?
So we are talking about people who are making decisions in full evidence of fact, knowing the terrain, and coming to terms that they are not the same as those around them. And some people are angry about this? Really? Or am I just misreading?
If I've got that right, then Father forgive me, for I have sinned. I do indeed go the wrong way down a very tangible one-way street, usually waving to the man in front of his house, constantly attending his garden. I break a traffic law five days a week to avoid a dangerous intersection where two ton heaps of steel rocket through pink lights without looking. I do it cautiously, knowing that a car traveling at 15 miles per hour probably isn't looking for me, but the alternative is to fight the intersection where cars are going 50 miles per hour and not looking for me. Sure, going the safe way adds time to my commute, but it also adds days to my life.
God gave you brains so you could use them. Please, protect them with a helmet and use them. What the hell kind of over-regulated, brain dead society are we becoming?
I agree with ndm that riding wrong way and/or at night without lights is dangerous and very probably practiced by a smaller percentage of riders in Europe.
I would attribute this (based on nothing) to cycling being mostly a fringe activity in the U.S, racers, kids on bmx in the suburbs, undocumented/illegal aliens, fixed gear messenger/wannabes. Roads and cities are also designed mostly for automobiles.
However, if petro prices continue to rise long term and drivers are forced to drive less, there is the possibility that the cycling behavior will "mature" for lack of a better word. Hopefully motorist will see a lot more careful cyclist for every 20mph red light runner. Correspondingly, drivers will be more tolerant when getting stuck behind a cyclist or see an occasional cycling violation. Laws will be updated. For example, requiring lights to ride at night instead of those useless reflectors.
But even with an unfriendly environment, cycling is still a safe activity. From http://brenthugh.com/piano/bikesafetyfactsheet.pdf
Relevant info
Bicycling is a Safe Activity
• Bicycling on-street (whether measured per hour, per mile, or per trip) is about as safe
as driving.1,2,3,4
• Bicycling on-street is safer than common activities such as swimming, water skiing,
on-road motorcycling.5
• Bicycling on-street is at least 12 times safer than playing soccer, 22 times safer than
basketball, 38 times safer than football.6,7
• Experience and education make bicycling safer yet: experienced club cyclists are 5-10
times safer than the average bicyclist.13
• Health benefits of bicycling outweigh risks by 20 times.8 Bicycle commuters have a
40% lower overall mortality rate.9
• Compared with motor vehicles, bicycles are far less likely to kill or seriously injure
others,3 and they don't pollute. So for the vehicle operator, driving and bicycling share
the same low accident risk. But for bystanders, the bicycle is the far safer option.
By the way, "the conclusions below are not controversial, are well known and accepted by highway safety engineers, and are encoded into national standards such as AASHTO guidelines and the Uniform Vehicle Code."
Which suggest to me at least that a lot of driver anger, even with all the dangerous activity they witness, is due in large part with their perception that cyclists are invading their "turf" and they are not used to interacting with cyclists on a regular basis.
You say: A bike running a stop sign is maintaining a speed too slow to kill a pedestrian.
Hmm. Not to change the basic hum of your argument (drivers v. cyclists) but here in D.C. I while out walking have been hit by cyclists many a time. I've even ridden down the sidewalk myself and clunked a few people but won't do that anymore. Caused a mutiny. And I deserved the reaction I got.
Brian -
I posted upthread with the following from a BBC news story from last week:
A cyclist found guilty of dangerous cycling after knocking down a 17-year-old girl who later died from her injuries has been fined £2,200.
In several heated conversations with bikers who are violating the law two things come up in their defense. One their time and life is far more important than anyone else, if they inconvenience anyone, or make it unsafe to pass when they are riding two abreast drivers should just slow down after all their lives time and safety are far less important than the conversation these two bikers are having. Two they are either liars or intentionally uninformed about the law. (as is the writer of this blurb) the law says stay far right, in bike lanes stay far right. NOT IN THE CENTER OF THE LANE. You are not a car, the laws are different.
My life, my time, my safety are far more important to me than your codependent relationship with your fellow rider.
I live in London and I don't drive, or cycle. I walk everywhere. I have been hit several times, once causing severe bleeding. Never by motorists, always by cyclists. They don't stop in what are called "zebra crossings", where all bikes and cars are supposed to stop. Yes, of course I look, but they are supposed to stop and they don't ever stop for me, or any other pedestrian I have seen.
I have no problem with cars, even taxis, who have always been courteous to me. I don't jaywalk - I cross only when the light permits or on a zebra crossing.
It is utterly obscene that a teenaged girl has been killed because a cyclist decided that his right to refrain from braking was more important than her right to continue walking with her friends. ndm's link has struck a chord with a lot of us over here, and I hope that our American friends will join us in trying to protect those of us who choose the greenest option possible - walking.
It seems unwise for bikers to provoke the anger of drivers. Keep doing it if you wish, but it's hard to see how you come out ahead. Arguments don't matter. The laws of physics do.
No one has yet mentioned that most wretched display of bicyclist self-righteousness that occurs every year in New York City ... Critical Mass. It is more than just the odd breaking of trivial laws that hurt no one. It is the collective (hundreds) abuse of traffic laws in order to deliberately stick it to motorists, who now know they must not commute on this day, and pedestrians would be wise not to walk either. If you don't know what it is, Google it. I dare you to defend this foul practice.
One problem with having cyclists staying to the right when there's no bike lane and the regular lane is wide enough to accommodate a car and a bike going straight is that if a car is making a right turn, it will cut off or hit the bike if the driver hasn't been paying attention, which is something that happens all to often, especially for cars turning right and not expecting anything to be to their right. This is also a problem when there's a lot of slow traffic on the road, or there's a recently-green light that cars are starting out of, and so bicyclists between the driving cars and the parked cars or sidewalk are actually going faster than auto traffic (which is perfectly legal under the laws that have been pasted in on this thread, provided that the lane is wide enough for the cyclist to avoid dangers to the right and to clear the cars on the left). When I've biked in cities, this is by far the scariest situation--when I'm obeying every law and being vigilant, but I nervously wonder whether that car in front of me is about to turn right with no warning. Unless you propose that at every cross street, a cyclist dismount and act as a pedestrian, crossing at a crosswalk, the only reasonable way to go about things is for the cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane so that right-turning drivers won't run into him or her. Of course, the best solution would be for drivers to use their signals and to look before turning, so that neither party is inconvenienced. Sadly, though, we can only change our own behavior, so until cars start signaling and paying attention before turning right, I'm going to ride where drivers will see me.
Two they are either liars or intentionally uninformed about the law. (as is the writer of this blurb) the law says stay far right, in bike lanes stay far right. NOT IN THE CENTER OF THE LANE. You are not a car, the laws are different.
I'm glad you had the opportunity to vent, but clearly your reading comprehension skills are not the greatest. As I posted further up the thread, in DC (the municipality Meghan is writing about) bikes are fully entitled to take the center of the lane. In all circumstances. Even if there's a designated bike lane.
Please familiarize yourself with your local laws before commencing to yammer about that which you know nothing about.
Thx...
This one's for "dan s", since he clearly wasn't able to process it the first time around:
In DC, there is no legal requirement for cyclists to "stay right":
Title 18 (1201.3) says that a bicyclist riding on a highway shall not unduly or unnecessarily impede or obstruct traffic. However, according to Title 18 (1201.2) a bicyclist does not have to ride to the far right if the lane is narrow or if he/she is trying to avoid car doors, pavement hazards, or similar hazardous conditions. A narrow lane is defined as one 11 feet or less. Most lanes in the District are 11 feet or less.
And not even a requirement for cyclists to use the bike lane, if there is one:
Title 18 (2220.6) states that the existence of Restricted Lanes on any roadway does not limit those vehicles for which the restrictions are established solely for use of the Restricted Lanes unless specifically indicated by signs.
I did run into a jaywalker once at full speed. She looked right at me and I expected to zoom right by. Then she stepped into the street directly in front of me. I managed to steer the front tire away from her, and I hit her with my shoulder. The impact threw her a good ten feet. She landed in a mud puddle and tried not to cry. Fortunately neither of us was more than bruised and angry. My bike was OK too.
I will admit that as a motorist and pedestrian (I cannot ride a bike) that I'm often astounded by the behavior of cyclists. It's not so much that they break the laws as they are rarely courteous and often oblivious of their surroundings. Of course many cyclists are perfectly nice people, and of course I realize that the bad incidents stick in my mind far more often than the good ones.
And, my biases aside, the fact remains that the cause of many, even probably most, traffic accidents is not a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian, hovercrafter or gymnast violating the traffic laws. The cause is the law itself. Believe it or not, people really do behave responsibly and rationally when they are forced to. Experiments in alternative traffic, even in cities, have yielding both faster commutes and less-dangerous streets. Interstate speed limits are one of the greatest killers in the world, even though traffic engineers have long held (and Montana's various experiments with alternative speed limits has proven) that the only things necessary to prevent most interstate fatalities are seat belts and "lane maintenance" (whereby slow-moving traffic stays to the right, instead of cramming the left lane at the speed limit and feeling self-righteously proud of themselves.) Even on city streets, street lights tend only to slow down the over-all pace of a commute. If all cars knew they had to yield to oncoming traffic from the right at every intersection, over all speeds would be reduced while shortening travel time and virtually eliminating the ordinary "fender bender," and would almost certainly reduce serious injury.
Bickering about who obeys the laws more often misses the entire point, which is that these very laws are exactly the thing that is killing us. Common sense would mandate that cyclists keep to the right, avoid the most heavily trafficked streets and watch where they're going. Likewise, it would mandate that motorists look over their shoulder before turning right, cross the center lane to make sure there is ample room for the cyclist on the side of the road and move cautiously through narrow, residential side streets likely to be populated by pedestrians, children, animals and cyclists. Unfortunately, laws in most jurisdictions either make these actions impossible, impressively inconvenient, and dangerous.
Whose more dangerous at a red light? A car or a cyclist? I say neither. It's the red light you have to be wary of.
"So we are talking about people who are making decisions in full evidence of fact, knowing the terrain, and coming to terms that they are not the same as those around them."
The blanket assumption that bikers are more aware, more responsible and more proactive than drivers is likely what's really at the bottom of this whole dispute.
There has not been a single argument raised for bikers ignoring traffic laws that does not equally apply to drivers who also think that violating the law at a particular time and place will benefit them and hurt no one else.
Mike
ibc - As I posted further up the thread, in DC (the municipality Meghan is writing about) bikes are fully entitled to take the center of the lane. In all circumstances. Even if there's a designated bike lane.
Close, but the law you posted says this:
Title 18 (1201.3) says that a bicyclist riding on a highway shall not unduly or unnecessarily impede or obstruct traffic. However, according to Title 18 (1201.2) a bicyclist does not have to ride to the far right if the lane is narrow or if he/she is trying to avoid car doors, pavement hazards, or similar hazardous conditions. A narrow lane is defined as one 11 feet or less. Most lanes in the District are 11 feet or less.
You are allowed to take up a full lane under certain conditions, not "in all circumstances." Maybe 99% of the lanes in DC are 11 feet or less, but that still does not mean that you are automatically entitled to a full lane under every condition. By all means do it when your safety requires it, but the attitude that you can do it whenever you want just to teach someone else a lesson is both wrong and off-putting.
I absolutely ride in the middle of the traffic lanes -- but when I do this, I also stop at red lights and stop signs. I feel like it's one or the other -- either you're under-the-radar, to-the-side, out-of-mind, and you can do what you want... or you're law-abiding and entitled to the law's protection. One of those protections is, you get to ride in the middle of the lane.
And considering how many cyclists get killed in Boston each year due to getting doored, I think it's pretty damn reasonable for me to insist on my own lane. If it's a single-lane road, I'll let cars pass, if they're not being obnoxious, because that's just polite. But if there are two lanes, the right one is mine. That way I'm more likely to survive to annoy drivers another day.
But if you honk at me from behind, or pass me without moving all the way into the other lane, don't look back or you'll see my middle finger extended, and if your window is open you'll hear me call you a jackass. Because how else are these motorists gonna learn? We're the goddamn future. We're too important to die in a random dooring because some bastard SUV driver or cabbie didn't understand that we are just as important as they are, regardless of our speed.
If you were obeying ALL the traffic laws, you'd be prohibted from ridng at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Another reason why bikes on the road are a PITA.
Jon, there's nothing abnormal about the speed of bike traffic. It's cars that move unnaturally quickly.
I feel like it's one or the other -- either you're under-the-radar, to-the-side, out-of-mind, and you can do what you want...
Do you honestly think that "behaving" is going to win any points w/ folks like Jon or Howard. Your very presence on the road is a provocation to them. Charges of "scofflawism" are just a convenient cudgel.
Heck, Howard actually thinks that when you're riding through the city, taking your traffic lane, that you're trying to "teach someone else a lesson."
The only thing you can do in the face of that kind of solipsism is to take the lane, and ride your bike.
You're absolutely right, IBC, although I wrote my initial comment without prejudice as to the audience (fellow commenters included). Folks who love their cars so much that they've turned them into "normal" will realize that they are living in a fantasy world soon enough.
Jon, my point exactly :)
ibc - The whole premise of this post is that "If I follow all traffic laws, I'll ride in the middle of the lane to teach you a lesson." I don't care if you're taking a whole lane because your safety requires it, but the attitude that you are entitled to a full lane in all circumstances contradicts both the law and common courtesy. The very law you posted lists specific conditions that allow you to take a full lane. It's the exception, not the rule.
Once again, I don't care if you take a lane because that's the only way you can safely ride. Like I said before, I've never really had a problem in meatspace with bicyclists. But your entitlement doesn't really jive with the law you're citing.
I don't care if you're taking a whole lane because your safety requires it, but the attitude that you are entitled to a full lane in all circumstances contradicts both the law and common courtesy. The very law you posted lists specific conditions that allow you to take a full lane. It's the exception, not the rule.
Look, for practical purposes, I only take the full lane when I don't want cars to pass me traveling in the same lane. I'm pretty "militant" about cyclists rights (though not a tree-hugger), and I don't sit in the middle of a traffic lane for no reason. Most of the time, if the lane's wide (even if there's not room for a car to pass safely in the same lane of traffic) I keep somewhat to the right.
But I think what many drivers don't seem to "get" is that it's the *cyclist* that makes the decision as to whether it's safe or not. Not the *driver*.
But I certainly don't take up a traffic lane just to "teach drivers a lesson". I think most of that is just projection from drivers onto cyclists. Why the heck would I or anyone else want to gratuitously inconvenience a stranger?
I love it when motorists burn and rage at scofflaw cyclists. It's like a slapdash militia armed with AK-47s telling four teenagers not to point their BB guns at each other.
Re: I have been hit several times, once causing severe bleeding. Never by motorists, always by cyclists.
Weird. I've never seen a bicyclist hit a pesdestrian. I've never even seen anyone come close. How do such things occur? Are one of both parties drunk?
Re: One problem with having cyclists staying to the right when there's no bike lane and the regular lane is wide enough to accommodate a car and a bike going straight is that if a car is making a right turn, it will cut off or hit the bike if the driver hasn't been paying attention,
Actually, it's the cyclist who isn't paying attention in nearly all such cases. First off a cyclist should NEVER be in a right turn only lane if he intends to go straight. Secondly when approaching an intersection in a lane that both turns and goes straight the cyclist should pay close attention to what the traffic ahead of him is doing: many drivers actually do use turn singles, and even those idiots who don't must generally slow down before turning (unless they are starting from a stop in which case the cyclist should be going very slow too, not rocketing past them on the right). I ride a lot and I have never had a problem with cars turning right. Not once has anyone ever cut me off, because I refuse to allow that to happen: if a car ahead of me is showing signs of turning I slow down. As I approach the intersection itself I crowd the lane enough where right-turners have to slow down and turn behind me. Problem solved.
Re: But if you honk at me from behind, or pass me without moving all the way into the other lane, don't look back or you'll see my middle finger extended
IMO, this is asinine. As long as a passing car clears you by at least a meter you should be unconcerned. Insisting that they clear you by an entire lane width is severe arrogance.