lostarchitect 

This is a lie you tell yourself--and us, apparently. Have a nice day!

Bekologist

the public's ethical responsibility to others to follow the rules when using public rights of way is a lie i tell myself?



the traffic laws of your state indicate otherwise - you've got duties to others when you exercise your use of public rights of way.

VTL § 1231 Bicyclists are granted all of the rights and are subject to all of the duties of the driver of a motor vehicle.

a handy guide for those confused about the 'code', the 'rules', 'the law' or the 'ethical behavior' expected of bicyclists should take a look at the handy online guide from NYC's own Transportation Alternatives...

new street code for NYC cyclists, brought to you by Transportation Alternatives

lostarchitect 

Ooo, "duties!"

KonAaron Snake 

PA and county laws contains some of the following duties:

It is illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator outside.
Any motorist driving along a country road at night must stop every mile and send up a rocket signal, wait ten minutes for the road to be cleared of livestock, and continue.A special cleaning ordinance bans housewives from hiding dirt and dust under a rug in a dwelling.
You may not sing in the bathtub.
Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.
Motorized vehicles are not to be sold on Sundays

Bekologist - if you drive in PA, make sure you bring your fire works and blankets.

Bekologist

sounds like pennsylvania needs to update their traffic code, not that it's okay for cyclists to disregard traffic signals for personal convenience!

Bekologist

yep. exciting, eh? A novel concept, perhaps....


your duty as a bicyclist, an ethical responsibility to others to follow traffic regulations. Duties that you agree to abide to when you move about in public. Don't run red lights, stop at stop signs, ride on the right side of the road, use lights at night. Duties are an inexorable part of living in an organized society, travelling on paved surfaces and interacting with other vehicles in public space.

duties. yep. ethically and practically both.

lostarchitect 

Yeah, no.

Bekologist

the 'anarchist' approach to the social contract.

I can drive just fine while drunk, technically. so hey, it must be ethical? and what's a little speeding in a school zone if I can't see any kids, right?

I've driven, really, REALLY fast, across the american southwest, for hours at a time. crossing entire states in half the legal time required - safely, though.

And honestly, at one time in my life i had myself convinced I could treat stoplights like stopsigns in my car. just like i would if i was on my bike. Cause hey, no harm, no foul, right?

at no time would any of these aforementioned behaviors be considered 'ethical.' neither is disobeying a traffic signal for expedience by a bicyclist simply because the act appears to not affect others. Travel in public space is an exercise in restraint. it's ones ethical duty to follow the 'rules' when choosing to travel in public.

Bicyclists can choose to disregard a stop light out of concerns for their personal safety, their momentum, their commuting time. cyclists can frequently do so in perfect safety without affecting others - but they can't choose to call it 'ethical'.

KonAaron Snake 

Do you make an effort to be this dense, or is it natural? I would assume it would require the constant repetition of mantras in order to stop your brain from working.

"I must not think about things rationally, it must be in black and white and selectively repeated."
"I must not think about things rationally, it must be in black and white and selectively repeated."
"I must not think about things rationally, it must be in black and white and selectively repeated."

Bekologist

you think my approach to cyclists ethical responsibilities as they relate to traffic regulation isn't rational?



confused why the 'ethicist', or anyone else, thinks traffic laws aren't intended to apply to bicyclists - the historical record clearly shows bicyclists as a primary driving force behind New York City drafting modern traffic regulations. A 'clumsy misaplication of motor vehicle laws -'? Hardly!

an ethical responsibility to follow the rules by bicyclists is well established as the very foundation of modern traffic laws in New York City.

Again, for those of us still perplexed, confoundedly confused about the new 'street code' for bicyclists in NYC

KonAaron Snake 

No - I don't think your rational at all. I think you're absurd.

How about you tell me what state you're in and I can show you the parts of the social compact you're breaking on a daily basis. The only argument you've made is "these are the rules". In that case, all rules must be applied. Let's find out what your social compact truly looks like.

Bekologist

my personal adherence to my social contract has absolutely no bearing on NYC cyclists adhering to the public code of conduct governing public travel

however, I do i wait at red lights and stop at stop signs even though no one is around to be affected by my stopping.

i've advanced significantly more reasons to follow traffic laws than simply 'these are the rules.'

1)social contract
2)duty of care
3)cyclists are the original cause for modern traffic laws in NYC
4)orderly traffic flow is predicated on adherence to traffic regulations
5)cyclists have ethical responsibilities to follow the applicable rules
6)there are public safety enhancements involved in uniformity of traffic operation and road users following the rules, like riding on the correct side of the road, using lights at night, and obeying traffic control devices.

it's the only ethically correct way to operate a bike - in adherence to the legal responsibilities inherent with public travel.

Rollfast

You know about ethics. It's his right to be the victim of his own ethics.

We have some right to self determination even if we don't have a right to determine for others.

How is that for ya.

lostarchitect 

I believe in following logic and care, not arbitrary rules that endanger me. Sorry, bek. Get over it.

Bekologist

ah, the 'righteous anarchist' approach to the social contract - how emma goldman of you.

Still doesn't turn disregarding traffic signals into an ethical behavior.

ostensibly possessing the ability to run red lights without endangering people isn't an ethic metric. there are public safety enhancements involved in uniformity of traffic operation and road users following the rules, like riding on the correct side of the road, using lights at night, and obeying traffic control devices.

I know it's tough to grasp, lostarchitect, but it really isn't about you. A bicyclist Salmoning at night without lights because they possess the confidence they aren't going to hit anything doesn't make it ethical.

Bekologist

actually, ethically, you don't have the right to self determination to disregard traffic signals while travelling on public rights of way- a person cedes their 'self determination' for the greater good by choosing to travel on public byways - you implicitly agree to abide by legal and social traffic conventions when choosing to travel the public thoroughfares.

As far as riding in NYC and the 'ethicist' deciding the traffic laws don't apply to him, the ethical responsibility to follow the rules by bicyclists is well established as the very foundation of modern traffic laws in New York City.

lostarchitect 

njkayaker

???

What do you mean by "blowing through" a red light?

Merely going through a red light without waiting for the green is not what most people think "blowing through" means.

njkayaker

???

So, the requirement that drivers stop at red lights is like this? Really?

Anyway, you really need to provide links/references to support that such nonsense is current law (I'd bet that this one is not in the PA traffic code).

EsoxLucius

I edited my post for you and lostarchitect.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14585939

njkayaker

That's better.

So, you've established that you understand that there is a difference between "blowing through" and "rolling through with no opposing traffic".

Why do you think that "rolling through" in an SUV is the "same" as doing it on a bicycle?

jon c. 

Ethically speaking, if there is indeed no traffic, why would it be different?

njkayaker

What if you are wrong about there being "no traffic"?

In some cases, it's appropriate (safer) to travel at the speed of prevailing traffic even if it is exceeding the speed limit. Speeding (in that case) or abiding the law? What is the most ethical act?

jon c. 

As it's hypothetical, we can stipulate that there really is no traffic.

I believe that following the standard in such cases is the more ethical option. The unspoken compact with the rest of the drivers is that everyone should do what they are supposed to do to avoid surprises. If everyone is doing 70 in a 55, you should comply with the standard. Or at least keep to the right lane given that option.

adamhenry

Here in CA, that is often referred to as traveling with the flow of traffic and the CHP will excuse speeding within reason in that case.