A challenge to drivers who are angry at bikers for selectively disregarding traffic laws

. . . 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.

Comments

I got pulled over on my bike once for going the wrong way down a one-way street. It was in Portland, OR.

Posted by eohippus | July 14, 2008 12:13 PM

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.

Posted by dantonj | July 14, 2008 12:19 PM

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.

Posted by Megan McArdle | July 14, 2008 12:34 PM

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.

Posted by mike | July 14, 2008 12:41 PM

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.

Posted by wj | July 14, 2008 12:43 PM

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.

Posted by gerrymander | July 14, 2008 12:44 PM

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.)

Posted by Kathryn | July 14, 2008 12:51 PM

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.

Posted by dantonj | July 14, 2008 12:56 PM

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.

Posted by alan | July 14, 2008 12:59 PM

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.

Posted by ClockworkOrange | July 14, 2008 1:04 PM

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.

Posted by fraterlibertas | July 14, 2008 1:16 PM

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.

Posted by Chris | July 14, 2008 1:19 PM

"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...

Posted by sam | July 14, 2008 1:20 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 1:23 PM

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.

Posted by JordanT | July 14, 2008 1:24 PM

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.

Posted by SJE | July 14, 2008 1:29 PM

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?

Posted by JordanT | July 14, 2008 1:31 PM

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.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 14, 2008 1:38 PM

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.

Posted by Tim Fowler | July 14, 2008 2:02 PM

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 ...

Posted by Robert Ayers | July 14, 2008 2:10 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 2:24 PM

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.

Posted by PJ | July 14, 2008 2:31 PM

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.

Posted by Slocum | July 14, 2008 2:33 PM

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?

Posted by Bill Dalasio | July 14, 2008 2:40 PM

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.

Posted by neil wilson | July 14, 2008 2:45 PM

Robert Ayers: what are the "following situations"? In TX, they include common urban road conditions like lanes

Posted by Chris | July 14, 2008 2:51 PM

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.

Posted by Bill Dalasio | July 14, 2008 2:57 PM

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.

Posted by davido | July 14, 2008 3:02 PM

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!

Posted by Michael | July 14, 2008 3:03 PM

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.

Posted by Brian | July 14, 2008 3:10 PM

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.

Posted by Bill Dalasio | July 14, 2008 3:23 PM

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.

Posted by Robert Ayers | July 14, 2008 3:35 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 3:37 PM

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.

Posted by Troy Johnson | July 14, 2008 4:12 PM

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.

Posted by JordanT | July 14, 2008 4:33 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 4:35 PM

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.

Posted by Cardinal Fang | July 14, 2008 4:59 PM

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.

Posted by Sonny Bunch | July 14, 2008 5:06 PM

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.

Posted by JordanT | July 14, 2008 5:23 PM

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.

Posted by Brian | July 14, 2008 5:28 PM

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.

Posted by andthenyoufall | July 14, 2008 5:36 PM

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.

Posted by roac | July 14, 2008 5:40 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 5:41 PM

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.

Posted by Driver Ed | July 14, 2008 5:42 PM

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.

Posted by benschon | July 14, 2008 5:42 PM

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.

Posted by themightypuck | July 14, 2008 5:49 PM

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.)

Posted by Brian | July 14, 2008 5:50 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 14, 2008 5:55 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 6:17 PM

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.

Posted by JordanT | July 14, 2008 6:18 PM

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.

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.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 14, 2008 6:39 PM

How conveeeeeenient these stories just happen to be. Not lets look at some real facts:

Crosswalk sting: 78 vehicles fail to yield to pedestrians in just two hours By Don Babwin THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 07/14/2008

CHICAGO — One driver saw the pedestrian in the crosswalk but hadn't heard about the "new" law requiring him to stop. Another knew about the law but didn't see the pedestrian.

Motorists offered all kinds of explanations after being pulled over recently by Chicago police for driving past, around — and a few times nearly through — an undercover officer posing as a pedestrian trying to make her way across a busy street.

So, why did officer Grace Delgado try to cross the road? To remind motorists that the law requires them to yield whenever anyone takes a single step into a crosswalk.

Chicago this year joined a growing number of big cities and small towns that are sending undercover officers into traffic to get drivers to start looking out for pedestrians and start caring about them — or at least about their own wallets.

Gee. No mention about bikes being offenders. Could it possibly be because statistically speaking, they are insignificant here? Further:

Two hours after Delgado started, 78 cars, trucks, vans and cabs had been pulled over for failing to yield. That number easily could have been doubled, but police stopped only motorists who kept driving after Delgado had made it four or five feet into the road.

"People, they don't care," said Delgado, whose bright pink baseball hat and orange blouse made her especially tough to miss. "It's 'Get out of my way.' The whole mentality is 'Get out of my way.'"

She may be on to something. According to the most recent statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 4,800 pedestrians were killed and 61,000 injured in 2006. In Chicago alone, 65 pedestrians have died annually in recent years.

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.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | July 14, 2008 6:39 PM

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.

Posted by ndm | July 14, 2008 6:40 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 6:52 PM

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

Posted by JordanT | July 14, 2008 6:54 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 6:59 PM

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.

Posted by John Bejarano | July 14, 2008 7:12 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman

You mean, like this:

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.

Posted by Brian

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.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | July 14, 2008 7:15 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman

You mean, like this:

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.

Posted by Brian

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.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | July 14, 2008 7:17 PM

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.

Posted by roac | July 14, 2008 7:21 PM

Brian's a bicycle messenger. Quoting his contempt for pedestrians doesn't prove a point about the thoughtlessness of automobile drivers.

Posted by Charlie | July 14, 2008 7:21 PM

So, I should ride at the speed of pedestrians just in case?

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.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 14, 2008 7:22 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 14, 2008 7:28 PM

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.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 14, 2008 7:31 PM

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.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 14, 2008 7:31 PM

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.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 14, 2008 7:35 PM

Brian's a bicycle messenger. Quoting his contempt for pedestrians doesn't prove a point about the thoughtlessness of automobile drivers.

Posted by Charlie

Sigh. Read what he wrote: ". . .confident that those operating a motor or non-motor . . ."

Posted by ScentOfViolets | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Hilton

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.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | July 14, 2008 9:03 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Hilton

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.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | July 14, 2008 9:07 PM

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.

Posted by Megan McArdle | July 14, 2008 9:11 PM

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.

Posted by VasyaDC | July 14, 2008 9:13 PM

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.

Posted by Charlie | July 14, 2008 9:15 PM

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.

Posted by M | July 14, 2008 9:23 PM