There are a lot of complaints about bicyclists blowing through stop signs/red lights while drivers have to sit there, fuming. Here's the thing: the traffic laws are there to protect you, and the other cars. They are not handed down by God from Mount Sinai. They have no moral content.
Bicyclists should not proceed through lights and stop signs at top speed. But the stop sign is there to make the car slow the hell down to non-lethal speed. A bicycle rolling a slow five miles per hour through a stop sign, rather than coming to a complete stop, is not threatening anything except the temper of the jealous driver next to them. You will also have noticed that there is generally no question of their going out of turn at a crowded stop sign--when there's a car coming the other way, bicyclists stop, because they don't want to get killed.
Obviously, in crowded traffic, bicyclists should obey the same traffic laws as the cars, and most do; those who don't, get no sympathy from me when they are killed or sued. Bicyclists should yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, and again, most do, mostly because we tend to get thrown from our bikes when we run into them.
But cars are forced to stop and wait even at not-particularly-crowded intersections because if we didn't slow them down, they would inevitably be moving fast enough to severely injure or kill someone. Bicyclists do occasionally run into people and hurt them--though at least as often it's a case of one of those genius pedestrians on cell phones who dart out from between cars right when I'm passing by--but this is really rare. Even with the traffic laws, pedestrian deaths from automobiles are far, far more common. And a fast moving bicyclist crashing into a pedestrian is at least as likely to get hurt as the pedestrian, when their velocity hurls them off the bike and lets the ground exert its stopping power. The situations simply aren't parallel.
As for the people claiming that the roads were made for cars--well, actually, the roads I ride on were made for horses and trolleys and bicycles, not cars, which weren't invented when they were laid down. Nor, as far as I can tell, are DC streets paid for by your gas taxes; they seem to be paid for by my tax dollars, which is pretty damn generous of me considering I don't even own a downtown sandwich shop.
The sign says stop, there is no fine print. For example - unless you are a small animal, bird or bicyclist. San Francisco use to have and probably still do the rolling protests where a bunch of bicyclist would get together and ride around town in mass obstructing automobile traffic. They were not breaking the law but that kind of thing builds up some serious resentment and you grasp at anything to vent a little.
I do not believe there is a satisfactory answer to this. Two significantly different groups are not going to make a harmonious mixture. The key is, as in most human interaction, civility.
Given that every state in the union, and many foreign countries, select a group of their most arrogant, selfish and frequently short-sighted individuals to go live somewhere else (Washington DC), residents of DC should not be surprised that they have so many arrogant, short-sighted individuals among them.
Bicycles are supposed to follow traffic laws just like cars. And, mostly, I do, if just to avoid a ticket. Yeah, cops do ticket bicyclists. Ask me how I know. I haven't managed to get a speeding ticket on a bicycle yet, but I'm trying.
Coming to a complete stop, especially facing uphill, really sucks. You've got no maneuverability when stopped, so it's hard to avoid a dog that breaks free, or a car that cuts the corner directly at you. So I generally try to maintain just a little momentum, for my own safety.
In my mind there are two classes of bike scofflawism.
1. The truly hazardous to oneself and others. Things like riding the wrong way on one ways (bike salmoning), blowing stoplights/signs/crosswalks at speed, riding on the sidewalk (where you're 8x more likely to get in an accident on a bike).
2. Attempts to prevent being hit. Treating stops as yields and reds as stop signs gets you in front of traffic -- often for good in an urban environment -- where you're far less likely to be hit b/c you're more visible. Filtering to the front at intersections with backed up traffic (technically illegal b/c it's a pass on the right) b/c you're less likely to suffer a right/left hook.
I understand drivers upset at bikers who violate #1. They're scary, endanger themselves and especially pedestrians. Anyone upset at 2, however, is only upset because they're stuck in traffic and the bike isn't. Those actions aren't dangerous, they actually prevent accidents, and they rarely inconvenience anyone for more than 30 seconds.
In my experience, the common ways that people get hit on bikes are by right and left hooks in intersections, from close passes that cause people to lose control, and from opening doors that bikers either hit or swerve into traffic to avoid. I'm going to ride in a way that avoids those three, and if it means rolling stop signs and taking the lane (to be clear, not illegal), so be it.
So it'd be ok for a car to roll through a stop sign at 5 mph? They aren't lethal at that speed so are fulfilling the role of the stop sign, right?
Thank you, Andrew, for writing the comment that I would have, and for doing so more concisely than I could have. As you say, sometimes cyclists bend the rules to ensure their own safety, and we can't reasonably begrudge them that. Unless someone bikes on city streets regularly they're unlikely to be able to understand this point.
Your comment would hold water if not for the fact that in June alone I had to nearly lock up my brakes when proceeding through a green light (at speed, the limit was 40, I was going 45) because a cyclist decided to run the red and didn't look, or thought he could beat me, or something. You are riding on the road, you see a stop sign or a red light, you stop, Car, Truck, Tricycle, bike, motorcycle, pedestrian, I don't care. Obey the rules or stay off the road, the rules are there to keep everyone safe.
Wait, so part of the argument for bicyclists being on the road is that they're legally entitled to use the roads, but they're not actually legally bound to follow any of the laws regarding being on the road? At least be consistent. If you want to claim that bicyclists have as much right to the road as anyone else, then you better claim they have as much responsibility to follow the laws.
To paraphrase, well, Megan McArdle:
"Memo to bicyclists: whether it's a car or a bike, you're supposed to come to a full stop at a stop sign. Yes, I know that this means you'll get to your destination a full TEN SECONDS later, Princess Precious. We all have our crosses to bear; let this be yours."
Wait, so part of the argument for bicyclists being on the road is that they're legally entitled to use the roads, but they're not actually legally bound to follow any of the laws regarding being on the road? At least be consistent. If you want to claim that bicyclists have as much right to the road as anyone else, then you better claim they have as much responsibility to follow the laws.
To paraphrase, well, Megan McArdle:
"Memo to bicyclists: whether it's a car or a bike, you're supposed to come to a full stop at a stop sign. Yes, I know that this means you'll get to your destination a full TEN SECONDS later, Princess Precious. We all have our crosses to bear; let this be yours."
Wait, so part of the argument for bicyclists being on the road is that they're legally entitled to use the roads, but they're not actually legally bound to follow any of the laws regarding being on the road? At least be consistent. If you want to claim that bicyclists have as much right to the road as anyone else, then you better claim they have as much responsibility to follow the laws.
To paraphrase, well, Megan McArdle:
"Memo to bicyclists: whether it's a car or a bike, you're supposed to come to a full stop at a stop sign. Yes, I know that this means you'll get to your destination a full TEN SECONDS later, Princess Precious. We all have our crosses to bear; let this be yours."
Megan, you realize that bikers going through stop signs and red lights make other cars slam on the breaks, thus causing rear-end collisions, right? And that if the bikers do get hit, it increase all of our insurance premiums and jams up traffic for a long time?
Traffic laws don't have moral content, but if you just leave them up to people's judgment, then there will be more accidents. That's why it's generally worth the inefficiencies of waiting at red lights when the intersection is empty, since if people disregarded red lights at what they thought were empty intersections, there'd be more wrecks overall.
Wait, so part of the argument for bicyclists being on the road is that they're legally entitled to use the roads, but they're not actually legally bound to follow any of the laws regarding being on the road? At least be consistent. If you want to claim that bicyclists have as much right to the road as anyone else, then you better claim they have as much responsibility to follow the laws.
To paraphrase, well, Megan McArdle:
"Memo to bicyclists: whether it's a car or a bike, you're supposed to come to a full stop at a stop sign. Yes, I know that this means you'll get to your destination a full TEN SECONDS later, Princess Precious. We all have our crosses to bear; let this be yours."
Following up on my earlier comment, I think that in D.C. bikes and cars might be separated as cars and commuter trains are in Chicago, by an elevated "L." The bikes could be in the elevated space. Access and egress could be by a mixture of ramps and lifts, DC powered to reduce shock risk in weather, possibly covered by a photovoltaic awning for powering the lifts.
Yikes. Excuse the highly multiple post. I thought the internet conked out.
Josh, the difference is mass. A ton or so of metal is more lethal--and harder to stop--at 5mph than a similarly speeding bike.
The other difference is creep. Bikes on a city street are never going at lethal speeds; cars usually are. If you let cars do rolling stops, you'd have some drivers who wouldn't stop. Bikes have to be more careful because they're too likely to die in a crah, and moreover, even if they don't stop, the fastest a bike can really do in DC is about 10 mph.
So where on this legality scale does weaving in front of a car that is already turning fall? Because I see cyclists do that a reasonable amount in Portland, with the car having to brake rather suddenly to avoid a lawsuit.
It's not about speed--as a commenter above noted, it's about getting ahead of traffic where the drivers can see you. We do not want to start off the red light at the same time y'all do, because we are very likely to get hit by someone making a right or left turn without paying attention. The time saved by doing a rolling stop at a stop sign is trivial.
I am taking criticism on this only from people who never, ever drive above the speed limit.
Treating stops as yields and reds as stop signs gets you in front of traffic -- often for good in an urban environment -- where you're far less likely to be hit b/c you're more visible.
Do I understand this right? It is your conscious policy to prevent automobiles from passing you, thereby making sure that nobody behind you can get where they are trying to go faster than you can pedal? A driver who is going 20 miles below the speed limit is expected to do everything possible to help others go around him. One who didn't would be regarded as a selfish jerk. Why should the standard for selfish jerkiness be different for cyclists?
Megan,
How do you feel when you encounter a pedestrian walking 3 mph on the side of the road? On a road with no sidewalk, this is identical to a biker on a road with no bike lane. And the effect on bike traffic is the same that a biker has on auto traffic - reduced speed, dangerous merging, etc. Do you get annoyed when you have to slow down for pedestrians? What if instead of passing one or two pedestrians on one or two roads without sidewalks you passed 100 pedestrians on essentially all the roads. Would slowing down for them annoy you then?
As the law goes....just slowing at a stop sign or stopping and then going through a red light are as illegal on a bike as in a car - and I'll break the law in either case when it is both obviously safe and impossible to get caught.
As ethics and etiquette go, MUCH more caution is required while driving a car.
Even though hitting somebody on the shoulder with a bullet from a Glock might be no more illegal than hitting them with a helium balloon (not actually true in many jurisdiction), you are much less likely to get a prosecutor interested in the latter.
Obviously, bicyclists aren't going to disobey traffic rules when they know ahead of time that doing so will get them killed.
But part of the function of traffic rules, signs and signals is to prevent surprises by creating a common set of expectations among people using the road. The couple times I've had close calls with bicyclists have involved surprises: bicyclists advancing into an intersection from a direction of traffic flow that had the red light and which I therefore expected to be stopped.
In general, bicyclists should be in the habit of obeying traffic rules, and drivers should be in the habit of facilitating that (e.g., by not interfering when bicyclists take the lane).
"Bikes on a city street are never going at lethal speeds"
Never? Really?
I've been crossing the road and almost been hit a number of times by biker blowing through stop signs and red lights going 20-25 mph. If I had been hit, I pretty sure I wouldn't be here typing. Bikes can kill.
roac said:
Do I understand this right? It is your conscious policy to prevent automobiles from passing you, thereby making sure that nobody behind you can get where they are trying to go faster than you can pedal? A driver who is going 20 miles below the speed limit is expected to do everything possible to help others go around him. One who didn't would be regarded as a selfish jerk. Why should the standard for selfish jerkiness be different for cyclists?
To be clear, I ride in an urban environment, mostly from Brooklyn to Manhattan and back, on routes with one way streets, with lots of stop lights and signs. (Lower Bway to one of the bridges, then through the Heights toward Park Slope and vice versa). Most of the time I ride @ around 15/20 mph between stops. Once I'm through the light/sign, very little of the traffic behind me ever catches me. But if they do, I know they see me, rather than waiting and riding in the limited visibility amidst 30 cars, 5 cabs changing lanes to pick up fares, 2 delivery vans, and a panel truck at Broadway and Spring.
Were I riding on multi-lane, suburban road with broad stretches between stops, I would likely ride differently, with less light/stop rolling, because it wouldn't have much benefit in terms of safety (though I'd still filter to the front @ intersections with stopped cars).
And if I'm a selfish jerk for running that light at Broadway and Spring to make myself safer, so be it.
Of course I get annoyed when people in front of me go slower than I do. I also recognize that the purpose of public policy is not "preventing Megan from being annoyed". A much larger priority is "preventing people from getting killed".
The streets are not there for the primary convenience of drivers, and the secondary convenience of anyone who will agree not to annoy the drivers; they are there for everyone. The idea that people who cannot afford a car shouldn't be allowed to annoy you on your commute is . . . weird. I could as easily say, "If you want to drive fast, you should get a job in the suburbs where you can whiz around the highways to your hearts' content."
The primary fact here is that you are trying to shorten your commute, while the bicyclist is trying to avoid getting killed or severely hurt. In my book, priority goes to the bicyclist--especially since bicyclists doing rolling stops do not, in fact, slow down your commute. You'd have to stop at the light anyway. There's no evidence that bicyclists do anything except make drivers rage with jealousy.
I quite agree that bicyclists shouldn't run lights when there are cars coming the other way, and I am not supporting any who do so. However, having driven and biked, I've seen a lot more drivers do illegal and threatening things to both cars and bicyclists thank bikers--even as a % of their respective populations.
Here is an example of a killer biker:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/08/speeding-cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-on-pavement-after-refusing-to-swerve-89520-20635650/
Hmmm.
A young woman in the UK was struck by a speeding cyclist who refused to use his brakes and instead shouted at her to get out of the way.
She died from having her skull bounced off the curb.
I live in Old Town Alexandria and see these yahoos blowing through stop signs all day long. They will go from one end of town to the other (that's about 16 stop signs) without even thinking about stopping for a light or a stop sign, blowing through like it's the Tour de France.
If you don't think a bike is lethal at full speed, tell that to my 15-pound dog when I'm out walking her and have to be on high alert for these knuckleheads.
I used to get really mad and scream "Stop Sign" at them, but now I just shake my head and remember Darwin. I figure eventually natural selection will take over and these clowns will be thinned from the herd courtesy of a Lincoln Navigator.
I will shed no tears.
I've been a competitive triathlete and cyclist for the past 20 or so years. Here are a couple of tips for cyclists. Number One: Pay F**king Attention! You are on a 20 lb. vehicle competing for limited space with several hundred 3000-8000 lb. vehicles. The odds are not with you. No one cares about you're cool $5,000 bike or the fact that you're helping the planet. In fact, no one knows you exist. To survive, you need to be intensely focused on all aspects of your environment at all times. This means no iPods, no Bluetooth, no checking out the girls or boys at the coffee shop patio. You have two senses when riding, sight and sound. If you think you can ride while listening to an iPod, try riding with your eyes closed sometime. Focus. Number Two: Obey ALL traffic rules and then some. Assume that someone will turn in front of you at every intersection. Slow down on all green lights; never go through a yellow at speed. Assume that every driver is lost, sightseeing or fleeing the police. Number Three: Never ride in packs. There are about 200 people in the world who know how to ride in a peloton, and they're all in France right now. You do not know how to do this. Neither does your buddy from the bike shop. Pack riding is unbelievably stupid and unbelievably annoying to anyone behind you in a car. And you will eventually have a painful crash. Number Four: Don't be an ass. Don't yell or flip people off or pound on car windows as they go by. Don't block traffic. Don't run lights or Stop signs. Again, no one sees you, no one cares about you. Deal with it.
You are an antelope on the veldt. There are several hundred predators looking to kill you every time you venture outside. Understand this and act accordingly.
"So it'd be ok for a car to roll through a stop sign at 5 mph? They aren't lethal at that speed so are fulfilling the role of the stop sign, right"
Actually Josh, they probably are lethal if they run over a pedestrian and crush their skull like a mellon.
I don't have a car anymore, but when I did it never bothered me that cyclists take advantage of being on bikes to avoid traffic jams and roll through red lights (or, I should say, it only bothered me in the sense of, "Damn, I wish I were on a bike, too"). I don't doubt that there are safety concerns involved, but to me the primary concern always seemed to be practicality--if it's safe, why not do it and get where you're going a little faster?
As I mentioned in the last thread, I think the difference here is less "drivers vs. cyclists" and more a distinction between people who are safe and courteous, on the one hand, and people who are unsafe and discourteous, on the other. Andrew's posts are straightforward and polite, which makes me think he conducts himself well on the road.
What bothers me about Megan's posts isn't the arguments she's making--it's that the tone is angry, sarcastic, and dismissive. If her writing about cycling bears any resemblance to her conduct on the road then she's part of the problem. I realize that discourteous cyclists are far less of a hazard than discourteous motorists. But discourteous cyclists endanger themselves and others by creating an environment where people are inclined to drive/ride offensively instead of defensively, and to view the road as a place to vent and settle imaginary scores.
Some states have laws on the books that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop lights.
I'm too lazy to look up the references at the moment, though.
JB, I'm in a car, not a bike, right now, and I'm extremely courteous in both. I defer to the drivers because I don't want to get killed, and to the bikers because I don't want to kill someone.
DC drivers are appalling no matter what kind of vehicle you're in--they refuse to let people merge, stop in odd places, and otherwise behave antisocially. (This from someone who learned to drive in Manhattan, with her father cheering as she cut off her first cab). But they're particularly callous about bikers, presumably because they resent having to share the streets.
More generally, the suburban commuters here act as if they're supposed to be able to drive in DC the way they do in the suburbs. Or rather, they seem to think that because they don't live here, they should be permitted to drive as if no one else does, either. They behave in ways that they wouldn't dream of acting if they were in a suburban cul-de-sac, because they've stuck Dc into the mental "work" basket rather than "residential" basket. If you imagine how you'd feel if you had a bunch of cars roaring at unsafe speeds through your neighborhood, you can iimagine how dc residents feel about the commuters.
Jesus. The only thing worse than a selfish jerk is a selfish jerk who not only feels no shame about it, but gets self-righteous when challenged.
I am not a utilitarian, surely the goal of any transportation system is to get the largest number of people to their destinations as quickly as possible. Everywhere I have been there are hundreds of drivers for every cyclist. The cars are capable of moving much faster than the bicycles. If the cyclists exercise ordinary courtesy -- which most of them do -- the system is optimized. If the cyclists refuse to move of the way when they can, thereby forcing all the cars to conform to their speed, then NOT.
For the record, I don't commute by car, I commute by bus. I do drive some on the weekend. When I do, it is for a purpose and I want to spend as little time behind the wheel as I can, because that is time wasted.
alkali: But part of the function of traffic rules, signs and signals is to prevent surprises by creating a common set of expectations among people using the road.
This is a good point. But if you bike you realize that automobiles don't hold up their end of this bargain. They aren't looking for bikes and they don't know how to drive when they're near them. This breakdown in shared behavioral expectations is not only more commonly experienced by bikers, its consequences are also potentially more severe. In short, it's not currently safe for us to count on this particular social contract. Hopefully more people will bike, drivers will get smarter and this can all change. But at the moment cyclists are forced to take their lives in their own hands; sometimes that necessitates a similar approach to traffic laws.
roac: it's not a question of forcing cars to pass you. It's a question of making them see you -- something that is best done by advancing to the front of the line of cars when waiting for the light. It gives drivers a longer chance to see you. I don't mind cars passing me, and I hope that they do. I know it's a slight inconvenience to them, but it's extremely important that I assert my presence and register myself on their mental landscape.
I used to commute by bike for a while, by the way. I had a route (no longer open to me since 9/11) that let me avoid riding on any heavily traveled streets. I would never consider riding on such a street; mostly because it would scare me to death, knowing that any of the 3000-pound monsters coming up behind me could kill or maim me with a monetary lapse of attention on the part of the driver. But ALSO because I could never justify to myself making hundreds of people even a minute apiece later in getting home to their families.
(I never stopped for stop signs, because I only rode on streets where there was hardly any traffic. I didn't stop for red lights either, if there was nobody coming. Traffic lights are stupid.)
Jeez, now I can't figure out if I'm straightforward and polite or a self-righteous jerk. How will I ever survive the commute home tonight while pondering that?
OK, let me simmer down here. I was coming at this discussion in the framework of the following, which I had posted on the previous thread just before it died:
.I read Andrew's post about "feeling safer if the cars are behind me" as if he had said "I will never let a car pass me if I can help it because I am safer that way." If there is agreement that we are talking about different things, I will happily climb down and apologize.
MM:
DC drivers are appalling no matter what kind of vehicle you're in--they refuse to let people merge, stop in odd places, and otherwise behave antisocially. (This from someone who learned to drive in Manhattan, with her father cheering as she cut off her first cab).
Manhattan is an interesting case. It occurred to me the last time I was there on a weekday during the day that a really large percentage of the drivers there are professional drivers (cabs, limos, trucks, delivery vehicles, etc.) and are more likely to adopt a set of shared conventions that work. Being aggressive 100% of the time is one of those conventions. So is paying attention. DC, as you say, is different.
But they're particularly callous about bikers, presumably because they resent having to share the streets.
I bet there's some simpler explanation that doesn't actually require that these people be evil. This "resentment" is exactly what anyone feels when something gets in their way -- the consequences are potentially more lethal when one party is in a car and the other party is on a bike, but I doubt there's much of a measureable difference in the intrinsic evil level of a driver vs. a biker. If you disagree with that (and I suspect you might), maybe you should say that at the start of your discussion of issues of this type.
They behave in ways that they wouldn't dream of acting if they were in a suburban cul-de-sac, because they've stuck Dc into the mental "work" basket rather than "residential" basket.
That's an excellent point.
On the other hand, are you saying it's appropriate to apply suburban standards to the city?
Roac, not everyone has the choices you do. I suppose I could change three trains and walk a mile to commute by train to the Watergate, but by that logic, all the car commuters could also cram themselves into the metro. Most of the bike commuters I know in DC either can't afford a car, or can't afford parking for it at their office, or are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, or two out of three.
Bicyclists who deliberately slow down drivers just for the hell of it may exist, and if so, they're jerks--I certainly don't endorse stunts like riding three abreast in some sort of show of power. But when I ride in the lane, it's because it's too dangerous to ride somewhere else, or there's no option (ie traffic circles; I pass through three of them on the way to work). I rarely do ride in the car lane, but when I do--I am genuinely sorry that I'm going slower than you, but I'm not so sorry that I'm going to risk being killed in order to speed up your commute by a fraction of a second.
The most important thing to note, though, is that bicyclists rarely are slowing down cars; they're just giving the illusion of doing so. The speed of traffic in a crowded city is driven by the number of cars, not the number of bicyclists. Most of the time, once you get to the intersection, you're behind exactly the same car, going exactly the same speed, as you would have been if the bicyclist hadn't been there.
I think we're talking about different things. The situation you describe sounds pretty annoying. I'll certainly let a car pass me when it's safe, and there are only a few locations where I consciously move to the middle of the lane because there's not enough space for someone to safely pass me. (And I'm rarely riding at 10 mph, so I don't experience much of the yo-yoing you describe). My main point is that there are some situations where running reds increases the bikers safety, rather than just being an attempt to annoy drivers or flaunt the law.
I'm still baffled why anyone thinks that it's a good idea to mix bicycles (~200 lbs total, driver armors the bike, speed 10-20 mph) and cars (3,000+ lbs, vehicle armors the driver, speed 30-80 mph) on the same set of roads. Bicycles look a lot more like pedestrians (weight ~180 lbs, no armor, speed 1-3 mph).
Bicycles make sense on neighborhood and back streets but on major streets cause a hazard and disrupt the flow of traffic. I've driven along with a bicyclist who passed all the cars at each light only to get passed in return when the light turned green. I've also seen bicyclists riding on major streets where cars normally go around 40 mph. When the bicycle is there, traffic temporarily slows down as it passes the bicyclist (as it should). This slows down a huge number of people to benefit one person.
As a driver, it's hard to see bicycles because they are small, look kind of like pedestrians, and move much slower than traffic. They also move through traffic differently from a car. I try to watch for them, but I'm more concerned for seeing other cars as they are much more common.
Megan, I'm not sure what I have said that you are responding to. I'm all in favor of everybody commuting by bike that can (though there are many, many people who can't, because of their age, their physical disabilities, because they have kids to drop off at daycare . . .).
Most of the bike commuters I know in DC either can't afford a car, or can't afford parking for it at their office, or are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, or two out of three.
The first two of these apply to me. Which is to say, we have a car, but my wife drives it to work (in a suburb). No way I would buy another. Even if I had a car to use the cost of parking would stop me using it to commute; and even if I had free parking, I'd still prefer my 20-minute bus ride, because it's about as fast as driving would be and I can read on the bus.
Most of the time, once you get to the intersection, you're behind exactly the same car, going exactly the same speed, as you would have been if the bicyclist hadn't been there.
Could well be true, most of the time. For a counterexample, see my post at 1:27. Most of my driving is done on the weekends when the roads are not at capacity. I have certainly been slowed down more than once by cyclists who could have moved over enough to let me pass, but refused -- either to make some kind of point about their rights, or because they just didn't give a damn.
The roads where I live were built for automobiles and not for anything else. Bikes should stay off them.
EI, given that most of the bikers are local taxpayers, and most of the drivers are not, I don't think that's a discussion the drivers want to have.
Megan, I think you are responding to Brian, not EI. I also think that DC-taxpaying car commuters almost certainly outnumber DC-taxpaying bike commuters by a substantial margin, so I don't think the outcome of a confrontation is a a foregone conclusion. Instead of having one, why don't we all just get along?
"Treating stops as yields and reds as stop signs gets you in front of traffic -- often for good in an urban environment -- where you're far less likely to be hit b/c you're more visible."
Until you get crushed by a car passing through that intersection. A bicylist who rolls through stop signs or red lights because they don't see anyone coming is no different than motorists who do the same thing.
Mike
R Pointer:
I was assuming that we were talking about avoid mid-intersection collision, since that's the main issue with bikers continuing through reds/stop signs. Besides, the stopping distance of a bike and a car at 5 mph are pretty much the same.
However, I'm apparently approaching this from a very different perspective from most of you folks, as there isn't much in the way of traffic congestion along my commute though there are a pile of bikers. Gotta love Vermont.
So it'd be ok for a car to roll through a stop sign at 5 mph? They aren't lethal at that speed so are fulfilling the role of the stop sign, right?
It's pretty standard in San Diego to roll through stop signs, instead of coming to a full complete stop in a car. Unless it's a intersection where the cross-traffic doesn't stop.
Given that the majority of funding for local roads in the District of Columbia comes from motor vehicle, motor carrier and fuel taxes, I would think that drivers would be more than happy to have that discussion.
I've always been convinced that the real, underlying cause of bicyclist lawlessness on the roads is their anonymity. Require visible license tags on any bike ridden on city streets so that victims and witnesses to lawless behavior can report the offenders, and most of this behavior will get deterred out of existence.
Here's the outcome of the killer cyclist case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Parents-anguish-killer-cyclist-walks-away-just-fine.html
Meagan's 100% right here. The logic is simple:
1) Cyclists don't want to die.
2) Cyclists don't want to kill.
3) Bikes are unlikely to kill.
4) Cyclists are easy to kill.
Those facts (and the VERY rare case where bikes do kill don't change the probability) are why it's not actually a problem for cyclists to run stop signs. Running a stop sign is most likely going to kill the cyclist, not a pedestrian and certainly not a driver. If a cyclist goes through a stop sign it's because they a) want to die or b) think no one is coming. They might be wrong, but that doesn't make them anywhere near as dangerous as a car going through a stop sign.
Bike enthusiasts, help me out with this. Every day I commute 20 miles each way on a two-lane state highway with a 55 mph speed limit. Big wide bike lane on both sides. But half the bikers appear to believe that the "bike lane" consists of the white paint stripe, and they are diligent about staying locked on that paint. The bike lane is 6-8 feet of pavement to their right, but no -- they've got to have the challenge of keeping those tires on the paint.
Can somebody explain this to me? Is there something about the painted stripe that smooths out the road for the bike tires, or something? Because if the bikers would stay in the actual bike lane, they'd be a whole lot farther away from the 55mph traffic that's trying to get past them; as it is, I have to go into the oncoming lane to make sure to keep them safe from my car.
Help me, bike people!
Can somebody explain this to me? Is there something about the painted stripe that smooths out the road for the bike tires, or something?
The thing that drives me out of bike lanes is usually broken glass. The constant auto traffic on the main part of the road keeps it relatively clear.
"Obviously, in crowded traffic, bicyclists should obey the same traffic laws as the cars, and most do...Bicyclists should yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, and again, most do, mostly because we tend to get thrown from our bikes when we run into them."
I love this. I was thinking about the news of this girl being killed yesterday as I was walking home in New York, and feeling an odd mix of sympathy and "I hope bicyclists stop breaking traffic laws" because nothing pisses me off more than watching for traffic, thinking I'm safe, starting to cross the street, and having some errant bicyclist whip up the street (when they should be stopping at a red light) and scare the crap out of me.
As if to drive the point home, I was crossing the street (yes at a crosswalk), and as I stepped into the street, a bicyclist RAN INTO ME. I didn't see him as he was going the WRONG WAY on a one way street. He did not get thrown from his bike; nor did he apologize...and he was going way faster than 5 miles an hour, whipping (the wrong way) through a red light...
I don't think most bicyclists do what you suggest, Megan. Maybe you do, and maybe your friends do too, and I sure appreciate it. But I think bicyclists think they're incredibly special and self-righteous because they can't get a ticket for doing something so obviously stupid.
Tim Harford has a post up on the safety of biking. Basically, the health benefits of bike commuting outweigh the risks and bike helmuts are useless if not risk increasing (unless you do high risk biking).
Permalink: Should We Cyclists Bother to Wear Helmets
See the comments too. One person did a study and found that cars gave less leeway when a biker wears a helmet (they gave women with curly black hair the most room).
Mike: I thought about that, I really did; but most of the time I end up pacing the stripe-riders for a few hundred yards until it's safe for me to move into the opposing lane to get around them (over a double yellow line, I might add).
Much of the road has poor visibility because of curves and tall trees, so I don't dare scoot over until I have a clear view. That would be an awful lot of broken glass, to keep them on the stripe for that long! And it's maddening, because the road is not all that safe for cars, either -- there have been three fatal head-on collisions that I know of in the four years I've been driving it, and I've had to swerve into the bike lane myself to avoid a car taking a curve too hot and drifting into my lane. (Yes, I checked first.)
Tragic anecdotes about cyclists killing pedestrians? Come on. Bike-caused fatalities are extraordinarily rare. Let's have some perspective. U.S. drivers cause 40,000 deaths annually. That's more than 100 people a day, right here at home.
I was going to ask whether Megan thinks it is proper for her to break the law when doing so seems to be proper and effective. But she seems to have answered "yes" in her comments.
I wonder if she a) believes this rule applies to the entire citizenry and to all laws and b) whether she will feel victimized if/when a policeman doing his job arrests her for breaking a law that's on the books.
(Reading the comments, I was struck by the lack of comments of the form "we should work to get these ineffective or harmful laws modified". These laws were created by our representatives.)
Robert: I'll repeat what I said earlier. Do you ever drive faster than the speed limit? And if so, how come that rule isn't a real rule that you are morally obligated to obey?
I haven't owned a car in five years. I live in Honolulu and bike to work and school. I signal (making me one of about 2% of people on Hawaii's roads doing so), stop at red lights, and at stop signs.
I recently got taken out by a car on my way to school. I was biking straight downhill and a driver pulled a sharp left turn across my lane and hit me almost head on. She didn't signal, and evidently didn't look.
I smashed her windshield, and was taken to the emergency room by ambulance. I was also ticketed by the police for not having an unregistered bicycle. The driver who hit me? No citations. Not even a "failure to signal". Fair application of the rules?
Megan replies to my query with a query of her own: "Do you ever drive faster than the speed limit? And if so, how come that rule isn't a real rule that you are morally obligated to obey?"
Sure I do, as you do -- I saw your remark. I was hoping that you could provide a bit of clarity, since my moral position, when I examine it, seems to be
It is all right for me to disobey laws that I think are silly (perhaps as governed by circumstances), but it not all right for him to disobey laws that he thinks are silly unless they are the same ones I think are silly.
and that is a fairly indefensible position.
No, that is not what she said, Robert. She said that strictly obeying the laws makes her less safe. Did you really not see this? I find that hard to believe.
Otoh, when you go over the speed limit, you are _not_ driving more safely than if you obeyed it. No, don't tell me about people blowing past you on the right-hand side; just get over into the right lane.
Another example where not strictly obeying the rules makes me safer: I stop at red lights, the same as anyone else. But when the cross-traffic light goes red, there's a not quite two second interval before the light in my direction turns green. Yet I take off as soon as the cross-traffic turns red (assuming the lane is clear.) Why? Because if I don't, I'm as likely as not on a collision course with the people turning right. And if the first guy goes through, then the second, third, and fourth guy will go through, most of them giving me the evil eye - "yeah, I'm being a bad guy, I know it's not my turn; what are you going to do about it?"
This happens with left-turning traffic too, btw. Now as often, but by the time the car swings around it's going considerably faster and is correspondingly more dangerous.
ScentOfViolets suggests to me that Megan is only in favor of "not strictly obeying" laws that make her less safe, and that Megan said so. That would be relevant, but it's not true.
Here is Megan in the original post: Bicyclists should not proceed through lights and stop signs at top speed. But the stop sign is there to make the car slow the hell down to non-lethal speed. A bicycle rolling a slow five miles per hour through a stop sign, rather than coming to a complete stop, is not threatening anything except the temper of the jealous driver next to them.
When I ride a bike I in fact follow Megan and roll stop signs. But it isn't safer than stopping. It is just more convenient and less tiring. (And, per Megan, does not threaten the lives of others.)
elmo,
Mike is right. It really is all about avoiding the debris that builds up in the bike lane. You state that the road has trees along the side - that means there will be a non-trivial number of small branches (which can puncture a tire) in the bike lane. Couple this with the usual road debris of glass and small sharp rocks and this is why many (stupid) cyclists just say screw-it and ride along the stripe.
I bike along a similar road here in Austin and I see cyclists riding the stripe all the time instead of just focusing on the bike lane and weaving a little bit.
As for running red lights - no thank you. But rolling through stop signs in residential areas with good visibility when there's no traffic - sure thing. Let's be honest, virtually everyone (cars/bikes) rolls through high visibility stop signs when there is no approaching traffic. Again though, I would never roll through a stop sign just because I knew that the cross traffic was supposed to stop at the sign. I think most sane cyclists who value their lives would only roll through a stop sign when they see there is no cross traffic since you never know when some car will *gasp* blow through the sign.
I'm a non-driving, non-cycling pedestrian in Megan's former home who also takes public transportation including, sometimes, the B-U-S (do they have those in D.C.?). I've had far more near misses with bikes than with cars.
I am used to avoiding cars. They are large and loud, and they generally obey traffic laws. We expect them to do this. Bikes are small and quiet and do not have headlights, and often do not obey the traffic laws that I care about, which are really just stopping at red lights and stop signs. If I can't get you to put playing cards in your spokes and paste shiny stickers all over, can I at least ask you to behave predictably?
This is also why skaters are far more annoying than bikers, though less dangerous. They take up lots of horizontal space, and do so unpredictably depending on when they kick and when they coast, which are usually random unless they are out for serious exercise.
To those in the third category, I'd just like to take you aside and say, "Hey, thanks. Sincerely, The Earth.”
To hear the motorists complain in these comments, you'd think they have to creep behind a cyclist every block of the way to and from their destinations every day.
Honestly, how often do most drivers really encounter a cyclist THAT SLOWS THEM DOWN while out on their daily drive? If it happens even three times a day (which I have to believe is a liberal estimation), every day, how much time, if any, is really "lost"? Three minutes? Five? Is it worth it to get so enraged over a few minutes? Fate and random circumstance will add or subtract five minutes from any drive on any given day.
I think the problem here isn't the time lost (or even the perceived time lost), or the fear of harming another human being. Rather, I believe it's that cyclists end up being a focal point for all the frustration motorists feel when they drive--frustration over gasoline prices, congestion, red lights, having to obey the rules, the helplessness of being trapped in traffic, discourteous and aggressive drivers--even personal issues unrelated to their driving. Most drivers experience these things all day. Any cyclist they come upon is an easy, vulnerable target on which to vent their anger and frustration. And cyclists who "beat the system" with any number of behaviors--whether rational and logical, reckless, or some mix thereof--are the easiest targets of all, because they've "done something wrong" and thus deserve any negative repercussions.
When you slip behind the wheel, your personality changes and your actions follow suit. I can't count the number of people who instantly grow auto-balls the moment they turn the key in the ignition...otherwise calm, timid people become belligerant thugs inside their cages, capable of hurtling the most unbelievable invective and making all kinds of aggressive threats and gestures, not just to cyclists, but to each other! It's as if the automobile is their alter-ego, like donning a Hulk costume that actually comes with Hulk power (and mentality). And, as the cliche goes, with great power comes great responsibility. I'm a cyclist who owns a car, and I actually drive it occasionally, which gives me input from both perspectives. And yes, without a conscious effort, it's easy for me to give in to the metal machismo afforded me so easily by my car.
I don't know for certain what the answer is--sure education for both motorists and cyclists is a good idea, but aggression can't be educated away. A change of culture sounds promising, but that's a long way off in a country built on the primacy of self-interest.
What I do know is that the number of cyclists is increasing each day, and will continue to do so. We're not going anywhere, and all we ask is that motorists try to see us as human beings, and respect us accordingly. We'll do the same.
To hear the motorists complain in these comments, you'd think they have to creep behind a cyclist every block of the way to and from their destinations every day.
Honestly, how often do most drivers really encounter a cyclist THAT SLOWS THEM DOWN while out on their daily drive? If it happens even three times a day (which I have to believe is a liberal estimation), every day, how much time, if any, is really "lost"? Three minutes? Five? Is it worth it to get so enraged over a few minutes? Fate and random circumstance will add or subtract five minutes from any drive on any given day.
I think the problem here isn't the time lost (or even the perceived time lost), or the fear of harming another human being. Rather, I believe it's that cyclists end up being a focal point for all the frustration motorists feel when they drive--frustration over gasoline prices, congestion, red lights, having to obey the rules, the helplessness of being trapped in traffic, discourteous and aggressive drivers--even personal issues unrelated to their driving. Most drivers experience these things all day. Any cyclist they come upon is an easy, vulnerable target on which to vent their anger and frustration. And cyclists who "beat the system" with any number of behaviors--whether rational and logical, reckless, or some mix thereof--are the easiest targets of all, because they've "done something wrong" and thus deserve any negative repercussions.
When you slip behind the wheel, your personality changes and your actions follow suit. I can't count the number of people who instantly grow auto-balls the moment they turn the key in the ignition...otherwise calm, timid people become belligerant thugs inside their cages, capable of hurtling the most unbelievable invective and making all kinds of aggressive threats and gestures, not just to cyclists, but to each other! It's as if the automobile is their alter-ego, like donning a Hulk costume that actually comes with Hulk power (and mentality). And, as the cliche goes, with great power comes great responsibility. I'm a cyclist who owns a car, and I actually drive it occasionally, which gives me input from both perspectives. And yes, without a conscious effort, it's easy for me to give in to the metal machismo afforded me so easily by my car.
I don't know for certain what the answer is--sure, education for both motorists and cyclists is a good idea, but aggression can't be educated away. A change of culture sounds promising, but that's a long way off in a country built on the primacy of self-interest.
What I do know is that the number of cyclists is increasing each day, and will continue to do so. We're not going anywhere, and all we ask is that motorists try to see us as human beings, and respect us accordingly. We'll do the same.
I thought I had dropped out of this. But I was moved to come here and put up a quote from a cyclist on the parallel thread on Yglesias's blog: Do what I do. Take up a whole lane. Ignore the honking from behind.
Comments?
Cyclists are legal road users, driving legal vehicles. They are, in most places, allowed to take up a traffic lane, if there is no safer alternative for them like a shoulder or a bike lane. Most drivers don't understand this law.
If you are riding in the middle of the lane to be a jerk, that's one thing. If you are doing it to preserve your safety, that's called smart.
If you are riding in the middle of the lane to be a jerk, that's one thing. If you are doing it to preserve your safety, that's called smart.
Right, to take it a step further, it's the *cyclist* who gets to decide which is which. Not the car driver.
But basically this whole scofflaw cyclist thing is there to create a false equivalence for the benefit of drivers who have no respect for non-auto road users. Entering into an argument just serves to legitimize it.
Here's the bottom line: I'm going to be on the road on a bike. Often times, I'm going to be taking the lane for my own safety. When *I* feel it's safe to move over, I'll do so.
The fact that you saw some asshat wearing flip-flops almost get killed blowing through a red-light this morning is not something that concerns me in the least.
Cyclists are legal road users, driving legal vehicles.
If I am to believe this, then I expect cyclists to obey the same rules that drivers do.
Yes, we should all obey traffic laws at all times, and also eat our vegetables. Many drivers speed and fail to signal. Many cyclists roll through stop signs without coming to a full stop.
The point is that when a bad-actor driver speeds, or changes lanes erratically, or runs a light, or kills a cyclist, no one calls for the prohibition of motor vehicles on public streets.
What about the danger caused by me seeing a grown man (or woman) on a bicycle when I'm behing the wheel of the car? Sometimes I laugh so hard at the inherent ridiculousness of the sight that I spill my beer. Someone could get hurt.
I have a question for the people who both bike and drive regularly: when going from point A to point B, do you generally take the same route with your bike as you do with your car, or do you use different routes "as appropriate"?
This just in:
"Angry bicyclists gang up on wrong guy"
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/angry_bicyclists_gang_up_on_th.html
Wow, that's awesome, brandon. The anonymous passerby who stepped up and knocked the crazy drunk bicyclist to the ground with one punch is my personal hero for the day.
Scott M,
I take two very different routes for biking/driving to work. In fact I have to take two semi-different routes just for going and coming from work on bike. I think most bikers, unless they only ride downtown, will take two different routes, but I may be wrong.
All the regular bike riders I know here in Portland say that drunk cyclist was a nut, and they are glad he is in jail for DUI and assault.
I biked to work today without incident and without violating any traffic laws that I am aware of. Do I get a cookie?
benschon, I'm not here to judge - only report.
Congrats on your successful commute; enjoy whatever dessert you'd like.
Thankfully, in Austin, TX the bicyclists pretty much stop at stop signs and red lights and wait their turn with the cars. It's smart on their part to do so. Public opinion can be worse than a woman scorned when it's a hot day in bad traffic at 5:00pm and a bicyclist flaunts the laws.
Just remember that we have rear view mirrors. Keep that in mind when we're stopped in a traffic jam and you decide to ride your bicycle to the front of the line between two lanes of cars. Oops, I dropped the lid to my water bottle and just happened to have opened my car door to retrieve it.
So solly.