Advocacy & Safety - Why should we have the same rules applied to us as car drivers?

I have read many items in this forum where bicyclists have said that bicyclists should follow the same rules of the road as car drivers. I disagree with this. The rules of the road were created for motorists, and not even with cyclists as an afterthought. But we are expected to act the same as those monsterously clad beasts? We are not driving cars! Our capabilities are totally different. I sail through stop signs if I can look both ways and be sure that the cross street is clear, because I know that I can stop my light, slow-moving vehicle in a matter of feet, if traffic is approaching. At stop lights I slow down and do pretty much the same thing.

We are light,agile,able to hear approaching traffic, and can see 360 degrees. Most of us don't follow the car drivers' rules, and we are safe!

Sure, run all the lights, speed, blow thru stop signs, merge w/o signal, cut across traffic, an even ride drunk.

Are you really serious with your question?

I think that the question is not whether you can maneuver your bike with greater agility than a car can be maneuvered and with much less frequency of accident. Rather, I think the question is who should be held at fault if you have been hit by a car or a car driver has made a sudden move either to avoid you or as a result of being startled by your movement on the road and an accident has resulted? I reframe your question to highlight the fact that driving is an interactive process, not something that you do by yourself in iscolation. It is not just a question of whether you can avoid being hit, but also whether other users of the road can predict your behavior so that they can avoid hitting you or someone else.

The technical term for riders such as iceratt is "the late..." (eventually)

I've come across the same attitude in the UK and, as a cycle campaigner for the last 9 years (and now a cycling officer for my local city council highways dept) I have to explain to elected members, members of the public et al, that people like him are, fortunately, in the minority. And that most of us want to see all road users abiding by the law.

I don't want to share an intersection with a rider going across my path because he/she is ignoring the law, rules of the road, traffic signals, stop signs, etc.

Iceratt, you may come across someone else, with your habits who is also quick of reflex, agile and can stop on a sixpence/dime, but, unfortunately, the same sizpence/dime as you.

You make things much harder for cycle campaigners by your behaviour and help to delay those much needed changes in the law and highway design which I'm sure you want as much as the rest of us

two words "Darwin Factor" keep the gene pool un cluttered for us.

When bicycles and cars follow the same rules it is easier for all involved, including the police most of the time, to undestand what the other operator is going to do.

I didn't expect such an overwhelming condemnation of my practices. My point was only that the rules were not made with the cyclists in mind, and possibly the rules could use an adjustment.

I don't want to die. I don't roll through intersections that I couldn't stop before entering, if there was approaching traffic of any kind. I always yield the right of way to traffic that legally has it. I'm not going to be weeded out of the gene pool any time too soon!

The point was well made that it is harder to see traffic when moving, and that drivers will respect cyclists who stop at lights and signs. I guess there are so many bad apples out there, however, that when I do stop the car drivers also stop until I go through, even if they got there first. Because I respect the rules of first there first go, I wave to them to go, then they wave to me to go, in a game of reverse chicken. Maybe, only in the land of Minnesota Nice.

Sorry for being the ambassador of ill will.

I didn't expect such an overwhelming condemnation of my practices. My point was only that the rules were not made with the cyclists in mind, and possibly the rules could use an adjustment.

I don't want to die. I don't roll through intersections that I couldn't stop before entering, if there was approaching traffic of any kind. I always yield the right of way to traffic that legally has it. I'm not going to be weeded out of the gene pool any time too soon!

The point was well made that it is harder to see traffic when moving, and that drivers will respect cyclists who stop at lights and signs. I guess there are so many bad apples out there, however, that when I do stop the car drivers also stop until I go through, even if they got there first. Because I respect the rules of first there first go, I wave to them to go, then they wave to me to go, in a game of reverse chicken. Maybe, only in the land of Minnesota Nice.

Sorry for being the ambassador of ill will.

Well, I too treat many stop signs as "yield" signs. In a motorized vehicle, I stop at all stop signs even if no one is coming and I am out there alone. It is just a policy. Autos are too dangerous and it is too easy to get sloppy to get into the habit of rolling through stop signs. On a bike, I can often see long before I reach an intersection that I can roll through it safely and I do. I will even roll through certain traffic lights the same way, if I know them well, I know I can see, and I know the sign will not turn for my bike (virtually none will).

But having different laws for bikes and autos would be a terrible idea. Laws tell us who has the right of way in certain situations. So if I roll through a stop sign, I am waiving all right of way arguments in that intersection. I know that. But if you gave cyclists the right to roll through stop signs, you would make determining the right of way awfully problematic.

Also it would be a legal recognition that cars and bikes were legally different and that would open up a loophole for legislatures everywhere to restrict the rights of cyclists on the road. We don't need to give legislatures that kind of idea. No telling what nonsense they would indulge in if we did. They would probably ban us from roads and from sidewalks. Afterall, everyone, meaning all non cyclists, knows you are supposed to hang a bike up in the garage and never ever ride it. It is a decoration.

Even with the present laws, there are some really stupid cyclists out there. My mother hit a cyclist once with her car. The idiot cyclist had sailed through a stop sign at high speed into a through street which my mother was driving on and went right in front of her. Fortunately, the fool was not hurt. Since she has two sons who are avid cyclists, this had a big emotional impact. She got out of the car, crying, and the cyclist yelled curses at her. A good samaritan, who had observed the accident, stopped and told the cyclist to shut up because he had run the stop sign and getting hit was his own fool fault. If cyclists had the right to run stop signs, idiots like that would only be encouraged. Of course, maybe that would be a way to remove them from the gene pool.

I've chimed in on this issue on a number of threads here, but since it's been a recurring theme throughout my entire cycling life, I'm going to summarize my views.

Despite their slow speed relative to motorized traffic, bicycles move fast enough to pose a risk to both the cyclist and others.

Cycling is a legitimate, first class mode of transportation.

Whenever traffic interacts on public roads there has to be a set of rules and principles for safe interaction.

The best place for cyclists to operate is in the normal flow of traffic.

Wrongway cyclists, sidewalk cyclists, cyclists who run redlights and stop signs, and other cyclists whose activities create unpredictability in the traffic flow pose a hazard to themselves and others.

Cyclists who disobey the laws and rules of the road trivialize the bicycle as a serious mode of transportation, and reinforce the notion that the bicycle is a toy.

Larry Felton Johnson

well, first i have to say i very much understand iceratt.. i think he raises some relevant questions ----- more than anything else, our roadways should not just be designed for cars, but also for cyclists as well as pedestrains (my sister in Philadelphia once lived directly across the interstate from a huge shopping mall, but because of ridiculous design, it was virtually necessary to DRIVE because the only way to get there was to travel on the service road where high-speed traffic was exiting the freeway so UNSAFE for pedestrains and cyclists over 1 mile, then through heavily congested 2-3 intersections and back on the serivice road --- ridiculous!)


Also it would be a legal recognition that cars and bikes were legally different and that would open up a loophole for legislatures everywhere to restrict the rights of cyclists on the road. We don't need to give legislatures that kind of idea.

i agree that there is a danger of bicylces not receiving the same "rights" as cars but really this is already the case and it's just a matter or WHERE this line is drawn. for example, bicycles do NOT have ALL the same rights as motorists - 2 examples:
1) Interstate highways where bicycles are prohibited
2) bicycles in almost all states are required to "ride to the right" although that is open to interpretation
3) you don't need a bicyclist's license to operate a bike like a car (although education is not a bad thing, MANDITORY licensing is not good and more education of MOTORISTS would more help cyclists than cyclist licensing)


I didn't expect such an overwhelming condemnation of my practices. My point was only that the rules were not made with the cyclists in mind, and possibly the rules could use an adjustment.

yes, this is a good point.

as i see it, it should be so:
* yes, bicyclists need rules/laws just like motorists for safety and conformity in a social setting with potential damage to others
* yes, bicylcists need to have the right to use almost all roads
* and cycling needs to be respected as a REAL transportation mode as it is, not as merely a toy or something subordinate to the auto

* BUT there are many cases where the treatment of bicycles and motorists could/should be different - a few examples:
1) in traffic bicycles should be able to split lanes and do other things to get around traffic jams. here cars and bikes are just not the same and a bike required to sit for minutes on end in traffic when there is room for the bike to ride on is just impracticle -- the State of Oregon for exmaple allows passing on the right for cyclists
2) in penalties -- driving drunk is a serious crime, bicycling drunk is just not nearly as much of a danger to others.

Motorists should be more severly restricted/limited in what they can do because their vehicles are larger, go faster and have much more potentail to CAUSE damage to others.

i personally do the following:
* i ride safely and predictable - this means no wroing-way riding, no "blowing lights", no swerving on the road, using lights and reflectors to be visible, signalling when appropriate, avoiding sidewalk riding, yielding to pedestrians, etc.
* but i do:
-- treat signal lights as stop signs (stop and go only IF safe - in this case also if i won't interfere/startle any other road users)
-- treat stop signs as yield signs -- this means i go slowly, track-standing if necessary, but i RARELY come to a complete stop and put my foot down.
-- if there is a particularly "inconvenient" road design i may shortcut it --- for exmaple, a place where cars are routed way around something and end up going an extra mile or so for traffic reasons i might cut short (i.e. jump a median or something) as the design probably did not take cyclists into account and was designed for motorists.

i also think that bike lanes and *sometimes* bike paths can be a good thing --- very good examples are on bridges or places where access is only possible via interstate/highways. but there are also other cyclists who may prefer riding on such paths (i generally stay off of "multi-use" paths as they are dangerous but will use most bike-only lanes unless dangerous)

I've chimed in on this issue on a number of threads here, but since it's been a recurring theme throughout my entire cycling life, I'm going to summarize my views.

Despite their slow speed relative to motorized traffic, bicycles move fast enough to pose a risk to both the cyclist and others.
yes, although this risk is much less than the risk by motorized vehicles and the responsibilities and penalties should be adjusted accordingly (i.e. penalty for drunk driving, licensing, etc)

Cycling is a legitimate, first class mode of transportation.
yep.

Whenever traffic interacts on public roads there has to be a set of rules and principles for safe interaction.
yep. this does not mean that there should be different rules for bicycles and cars (there already are with things like Interstates, etc)

The best place for cyclists to operate is in the normal flow of traffic.
yes, in general. occaisonally this may not be true - like on a highway or a high-traffic bridge with no shoulder.

Wrongway cyclists, sidewalk cyclists, cyclists who run redlights and stop signs, and other cyclists whose activities create unpredictability in the traffic flow pose a hazard to themselves and others.
yes. (i would add those who ride without lights or high visibility)

Cyclists who disobey the laws and rules of the road trivialize the bicycle as a serious mode of transportation, and reinforce the notion that the bicycle is a toy.
there is a difference between following the law to the letter and blantantly breaking the law and/or being unsafe. rules that are inappropriate for cyclists should be changed and a cyclist treating a red light as a stop sign (note this does not mean "blowing the light") can still be a responsible cyclist. of coure, the goal should be to get the innappropriate rules changed (which i advocate - like Oregon's pass on the right law for bicyclists)

"there is a difference between following the law to the letter and blantantly breaking the law and/or being unsafe. rules that are inappropriate for cyclists should be changed and a cyclist treating a red light as a stop sign (note this does not mean "blowing the light") can still be a responsible cyclist. of coure, the goal should be to get the innappropriate rules changed (which i advocate - like Oregon's pass on the right law for bicyclists)[/QUOTE]


Not sure what you mean here by treating a red light as a stop sign. Unless you're referring to a light that doesn't sense the bike and won't change, I'm against not waiting for the light to change. If it's clear enough for a bicycle to get through, it would be clear enough for a car to go through also.

Nathan, I pretty much agree with your approach.

This is so true:



2) in penalties -- driving drunk is a serious crime, bicycling drunk is just not nearly as much of a danger to others.


Natural consequences should be a sufficient deterrent for the drunk bicyclist -- also known as natural selection, or the Darwin factor.

more than anything else, our roadways should not just be designed for cars, but also for cyclists as well as pedestrains (my sister in Philadelphia once lived directly across the interstate from a huge shopping mall, but because of ridiculous design, it was virtually necessary to DRIVE because the only way to get there was to travel on the service road where high-speed traffic was exiting the freeway so UNSAFE for pedestrains and cyclists over 1 mile, then through heavily congested 2-3 intersections and back on the serivice road --- ridiculous!)

Shouldn't your focus be on the bad road design rather than wanting different laws for the different types of vehicles?

2) in penalties -- driving drunk is a serious crime, bicycling drunk is just not nearly as much of a danger to others.

I would have to argue that cycling while drunk can be just as dangerous as in a car. Perhaps the frequency may change, but the consequences are the same, IMO.

ehenz

I would have to argue that cycling while drunk can be just as dangerous as in a car. Perhaps the frequency may change, but the consequences are the same, IMO.

When is the last time you read of a drunk cyclist killing a car full of people when they crossed over the center line into oncoming traffic.

-s

When is the last time you read of a drunk cyclist killing a car full of people when they crossed over the center line into oncoming traffic.

-s

That still dos not make no less safe, just less casualties

iceratt, you are the worst kind of advocate!!! Its because of cyclists like you that motorists hate the rest of us!

Granted some of motorists don't reat us very well on the roads. And some take things to the extreme but that does not give you or any other cyclist the right to behave on the roads in the manner as you described! By doing this you just perpetuate the motorists bad opinion of the rest of us of even more.

If you choose not to change your behavior on the roads then do the rest of us cyclists a favor, stay off of them when riding your bike! The last I want to see happen is a motorist hit and possibly kill another cyclist because of behavior like yours!

Oh and the traffic are for everyone to follow, not just motorists and not just cyclists. They do not favor one group more then the other.

If you choose not to change your behavior on the roads then do the rest of us cyclists a favor, stay off of them when riding your bike!

or we will take you out ourselves, so watch your back ;)

One word: Predictability. If we all follow the same rules, we're all predictable. That alone could reduce accidents out there. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream... we can't even get drivers to behave the same (especially down here in DFW - you just never know what someone's going to do!!).

A couple of examples. You roll up to a stop light and intend to go through because you can see the cross street is clear. As you start through, the car sitting at the light, checking both ways starts to turn right on red. He didn't expect you to slide by and be in front of him as he starts his turn. Your fault.

Extreme example of the benefit of predictability. Ever see a military aircraft formation flight? Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Snowbirds? Everything is predictable. That's how they can do what they do. If someone does something unpredictable, it usually ends in disaster.

Drunk driving. No, a bike has never crossed the center line and taken out a family. But I'd bet somewhere a car has swerved to miss a (drunk) cyclist who swerved into the traffic lane and has hit an oncoming car. Results: just the same.

Follow the rules of the road.

iceratt, you are the worst kind of advocate!!! Its because of cyclists like you that motorists hate the rest of us!

I couldn't disagree with that statement more. Have you ever taken the time to actually ask a motorist what they have against cyclists? Even if you had, I doubt you'd get the real answer to that question. When a motorist shouts abuse at a cyclist, it isn't always just because he has been annoyed by some ohter cyclists previously (and if it is I don't particularly want respect from someone who can't tell the difference).

I'm not advocating breaking the road rules here, however, I do have a problem with your reasoning. Just imagine what would happen if we let others' perceptions of us guide our actions in all facets of life.

I couldn't disagree with that statement more. Have you ever taken the time to actually ask a motorist what they have against cyclists? Even if you had, I doubt you'd get the real answer to that question. When a motorist shouts abuse at a cyclist, it isn't always just because he has been annoyed by some ohter cyclists previously (and if it is I don't particularly want respect from someone who can't tell the difference).

Yes I here it all the time I have been a commuter for almost 15 years now and I work with professional drivers. Things that top the list BREAKING TRAFFIC LAWS ie running red lights, stop signs, riding down the wrong side of the street blocking traffic, no lights, not yielding to the right of way etc etc.

Some of their complaints are not deserved but a lot of them are . But whether you like it or not or agree with it or not it is a FACT OF LIFE that a small minority of the group can taint the image of the whole group, doesn't mater whether you ride bike, skateboard, or even some of this forums favorite b!tches like driving SUV's, Pick up trucks, talking on cell phones, rude drivers etc etc Most the abusers in those cases make up a minority of the group but on this very forum almost on a daily basis get lumped into the same class.

I have said it before and will say it again it is the elitist who thinks they are better and above the law. It was mentioned above and I have before in other threads that the laws are not designed to be biased against cyclist they are for EVERYONE who uses the road. If you decide the law is stupids and can break it then what is to stop a driver who decides the law is stupid when it comes to us being ont the road? When you think you can decide to break the law you are no different then the driver who infringes on my ride because he has decide I should not be there.

"there is a difference between following the law to the letter and blantantly breaking the law and/or being unsafe. rules that are inappropriate for cyclists should be changed and a cyclist treating a red light as a stop sign (note this does not mean "blowing the light") can still be a responsible cyclist. of coure, the goal should be to get the innappropriate rules changed (which i advocate - like Oregon's pass on the right law for bicyclists)

Not sure what you mean here by treating a red light as a stop sign. Unless you're referring to a light that doesn't sense the bike and won't change, I'm against not waiting for the light to change. If it's clear enough for a bicycle to get through, it would be clear enough for a car to go through also.[/quote]

treating a red light as a stop sign means just that: when the light is red, others road users have the right of way, you stop and at your own risk can proceed through the intersection while yeilding to others (this is EXACTLY what a normal 2-way stop sign is). the reason why biclycles and not cars should be allowed to do this is that IF the person who is supposed to yield does not: in the case of a motorist it is likely to severely injure OTHERS whereas the cyclist will MOST LIKELY only injure himself!

I would have to argue that cycling while drunk can be just as dangerous as in a car. Perhaps the frequency may change, but the consequences are the same, IMO.


When is the last time you read of a drunk cyclist killing a car full of people when they crossed over the center line into oncoming traffic.

ehenz, i have to agree with slider... i mean really, how can anyone with a straight face say that cycling while drunk is as bad or even close to driving while drunk? driving while drunk kills thousands of people each year - a large WEAPON with high speed and mass is being operated in public space. i'm sure there are rare cases, but i personally have NEVER even heard of a drunk bicyclist killing others --- laws are primarily there to PROTECT people from damaging others --- a motorist is MUCH more of a threat to others and thus should receive stricker rules and stiffer penalties.

One word: Predictability. If we all follow the same rules, we're all predictable. That alone could reduce accidents out there. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream... we can't even get drivers to behave the same (especially down here in DFW - you just never know what someone's going to do!!).
Predictability: i agree with you here to an extent --- that predictability is important and aids safety. i try to ride predictable and not surpirse drivers or swerve in and out of parked cars or suddenly "appear" on the road...

but, as bicycles and cars are obviously different (i used to ride motorcycles so i can tell you the difference between motorcycles and autos is HUGE and people just don't see motorcycles/bicycles like they do cars) --- bicyclists can act predictably for bicyclists and motorists predictably for motorists

I have said it before and will say it again it is the elitist who thinks they are better and above the law. It was mentioned above and I have before in other threads that the laws are not designed to be biased against cyclist they are for EVERYONE who uses the road. If you decide the law is stupids and can break it then what is to stop a driver who decides the law is stupid when it comes to us being ont the road? When you think you can decide to break the law you are no different then the driver who infringes on my ride because he has decide I should not be there.

hi nateguy, you make a good point and i admit it is a fuzzy line "when you decide to break the law".

i think where we disagree is here: "laws are not designed to be biased against cyclist they are for EVERYONE who uses the road." no, the laws are probably not INTENTIONALLY designed to be biased against cyclists, but in effect they are as the road design and the laws are designed almost exclusively with ONLY motorists in mind ---- examples are easy: auto-trigger lights which must be retrofit for cyclists (this is an afterthought fix), wide lanes (lanes are obviously designed to accomodate cars, not bikes or motocycles as they need less space), when a new traffic control device is intorduced, it is usually "necessary" because many people were killed by cars, minimum speeds, maximum speeds over 45mph... all of these things are designed for cars, not bicyclists

we've had this discussion before, but if you bike in a HEAVY traffic area, you will soon see why it is not appropriate to hold bicyclists to the same rules as motorists:
* in heavy traffic, each car contributes to more congestion, so each person who bikes or walks in the future REDUCES traffic - so cycling/walking should be encouraged
* in heavy traffic, cars are backed up and have to wait minutes on end to get by. if a car "broke the law" and jumped ahead he would delay others so this is "wrong". if a cyclists decides the same (that he will not wait for 15+ or 30 minutes in a traffic jam) and splits lanes or rides on the median or sidewalk, he does not slow anyone else down and in real terms actually _helps_ reduce the congestion.

---> i have many years experience cycling (7 years as year-round commuting + about 13 years occaisonaly commuting) in many areas in a few different countries/regions (Texas, Oregon, Massachusetts, western Canada, Germany, Italy, Austria), but the majority of my experience is in one of 2 types: 1) areas like Texas designed EXCLUSIVELY for the auto so a cyclist has to "fight" to stay alive, and whether or not he follows the laws is of very little importance b/c no one expects a cyclist and it can be often be dangerous to follow the laws (again, i'm not advocating haphazardly breaking laws or acting unpredictably, i just mean NO ONE expects a cyclists and "just" following the laws means you are VERY vulnerable) and 2) in highly congested areas where it makes no sense to "act like a motorist" and sit in traffic as i described above.

perhaps some of you who anwsered either a) don't cycle all that much or b) cycle in places that do generally accomodate cyclists. even here would argue that some special rules are appropriate as the "Oregon pass-on-right law"

additionally, i have to admit that my time in Europe has also affected my views on cycling and cyclists in Europe do usually get many special priviledges (streets are closed to motorists, but cyclists excepted, one-way streets often have a "wrong-way" lane FOR cyclists, etc.) --- i think this a) makes sense and b) encourages more people to cycle (and yes, i know there are other reasons why more Europeans cycle than Americans, but it is still true that VASTLY more Europeans cycle, especially for commuting, than Americans)

Yes I here it all the time I have been a commuter for almost 15 years now and I work with professional drivers. Things that top the list BREAKING TRAFFIC LAWS ie running red lights, stop signs, riding down the wrong side of the street blocking traffic, no lights, not yielding to the right of way etc etc.

Funny, I don't do any of these things, yet I get morons shouting abuse everyday. Of course, it couldn't be that the whole "cyclists break road rules" is nothing more than some of the other codswallop accusations that have been thrown at other minority groups since the beginning of time so that the so-called "mainstream" can try to justify their own prejudices.


Some of their complaints are not deserved but a lot of them are . But whether you like it or not or agree with it or not it is a FACT OF LIFE that a small minority of the group can taint the image of the whole group, doesn't mater whether you ride bike, skateboard, or even some of this forums favorite b!tches like driving SUV's, Pick up trucks, talking on cell phones, rude drivers etc etc

It's also a fact of life that many drivers (regardless of what they actually say) will resent you for the mere fact that you ride a bike at all. If you're going to worry about what others think of you, better quit riding right away. There are a lot of unpalatable "facts of life" - I didn't particularly like the temperature I had to ride in today - I wasn't about to let that change my behaviour, nor will I allow this.

As I said before, if some idiot can't tell the difference between law-abiding cyclists and those who don't comply, it's their problem, not mine.

When is the last time you read of a drunk cyclist killing a car full of people when they crossed over the center line into oncoming traffic.

-s

Never, really. But what about the drunk cyclist that runs in front of a sober driver who careens off the road and kills children on the way to sports practice.

Getting a better understanding of why we have laws?

Nate - exactly. If bikes behaved predictably and cars behaved predictably, we'd know what to expect from each other and could plan accordingly.

Now, you never know if a bike is going to blow through a stop sign or some bozo is going to make a right turn from the far left lane (you'd be amazed at how frequently that happens here in DFW!). And, everyone doing what they feel is best (or most convenient) for them and to hell with everyone else is what we have now and is downright scary whether your on your bike or in your car (and I drive a pretty big pickup!).

I stop at red lights, and if clear procede through the intersection. I also don't cause wear and tear to the roads, contribute to traffic congestion or spew toxins into the atmosphere. By keeping my car off the road I help other drivers more than I hinder them. They can thank me for that or be annoyed with me for going through a red. It's their problem.

If bikes behaved predictably and cars behaved predictably, we'd know what to expect from each other and could plan accordingly
What really embarasses me is when I pull up to a four-way stop and motorists see me coming. They act as if the expect me to blow straight through the stop! I take great joy in coming stop while waiting my turn.