Do bicyclists really think like this?
 

Treehugger has been running a couple of articles like this one, http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/war-...h-toronto.html. I find it disturbing that a common theme running through these articles is that traffic laws are for regulating automobiles, presumably they also mean large trucks, motorcycles, anything that has an engine/motor. Maybe I'm thinking too much like an engineer but it seems to me that traffic laws are predominately used for standardizing user access to a shared resource, roads and sidewalks. Sidewalks because they are mentioned in the traffic laws and do impact the road system. In other words, the laws are for regulating the behavior of people regardless of what they drive.

I can sympathize with the example they give in the latest article of a street with stop signs at every intersection. I live by a street like that, I avoid it as much as possible. But I have no doubt that if the stop signs were not there and it was used by speedy :) velomobile packs the home owners would still want stop signs to slow those things down.

Another thought comes to mind, if we got rid of all the cars, by their way of thinking we could get rid of the traffic laws. So with streets full of unregulated bicycles, carnage. And then the re-emergence of traffic laws.

There sure ARE a bunch of riders who think like this; they are the ones in so many cities that make drivers complain about bicyclists in general. The saddest part is, they're not unique; every user group of every type (not just travel) believes they should have some sort of advantage. It's the plethora of differing opinions that spawned the need for laws and rules to begin with -- everybody has to give a little so everybody can get along and enjoy communal benefits in a society. An organized, civilized society inevitably breaks down, because human nature virtually dictates that those rules WILL get bent and broken with more and more impunity. How long that takes, depends on how fast the progression of impunity is, and how far over the line each breach IS.

But, "it can't be BAD if it's done by nice people like US! It's the evil OTHER guy that's the problem!"

"All I want is for things to be fair...ly in my favor."

Cynical...ME? NAAAAWWW!!

I agree with what DX-Man said. I'm also amused at the OP's apparent lack of experience on our roadways. Ever seen a motorist stop at a stop sign per the vehicle code (full stop, behind the limit line)? Ever seen any of them actually do the stop part of "right turn on red light after stop?" How about speed limits? Haven't you ever heard people saying how the "real" speed limit is anywhere from eight to fifteen mph above the posted speed limit? When traffic laws are enforced don't motorists tend to think it's just some revenue scam that has nothing to do with safety? I'll answer that: yes they do. That's why automated traffic enforcement that uses technology has been forced OFF our roadways by the screaming, whining motorists. I'll add that cyclists, being basically the same people as the motorists, would whine and cry just as loudly if we were being subject to fines for riding like everyone else, present company excluded, of course.

And do you really think we would have carnage on our roadways on a scale of our current bloodshed if motorists were removed from the equation and all cyclists were scofflaws? You must have never been in a setting with a significant number of cyclists; it just isn't that hard to negotiate an intersection with large numbers of cyclists even when they aren't stopping.

The article seemed reasonable to me. It seems rather obvious that most traffic laws are in place due to the danger posed by high mass vehicles, not bicycles.

CAR-nage is a car thing, not a bike thing.

I stop at red lights, but sometimes I'll roll through stop signs (particularly one on a very low downhill grade which stopping would require a lot of effort to get back up to my previous speed). But, I can see for about a half mile in each direction given that I'm coming from uphill, and the road I'm crossing almost never has traffic. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop there. However, that's usually on an actual "ride" (one which I take for exercise) rather than a commute. When I'm commuting I generally follow all of the normal traffic signals. (I'll still make right turns into a bike lane without stopping at a stop sign, even if there is a car coming. The bike lane is wide enough for me not to disturb them.)

As for rolling through red lights because stopping at them would slow you down to the speed of a walker? Guess what.... pedestrians stop at red lights too.... It can't be that hard to take a different road.

Well I won't agree that if we get rid of all the cars, we could get rid of the traffic laws... but let's face it, before cars, the laws (what may have existed) were quite simple... and in areas with little motor vehicle traffic, what traffic there is tends to flow in a much more organic manner.

Go one further... If we reduce the amount of overwhelming information we feed to motorists, they tend to drive better... Look into the studies of Hans Monderman.

I suppose I'm just rationalizing, but there are some road and traffic situations on my regular routes where
I have made an intentional decision to violate the traffic laws as the safer alternative.

One that comes to mind is a badly timed traffic light where the surface street encounters a freeway entrance
that is heavily used by two lanes of traffic turning right onto it. The bike lane here is, of course, on the far
right, and if I take the lane out to the far left, I encounter instant driver hostility.

So I pretty regularly stop here, and when i see no cross traffic, I blow the light.

Or the numerous intersections here where i can't trip the loop on a bike. That's legal, but still a little dicey.


So I dunno ? Am I an outlaw biker ?......probably. But we've had an uncomfortable number of accidents
and fatalities here where to all indications, the bike person was riding along in full compliance.

Except when bicycles were used back in the 1800s, scaring the crap out of horses when used on the streets and causing harm to pedestrians on the pavement.

The way I see it, the rules of the road in America revolve around cars, but that doesn't mean cyclists can just out-and-out ignore them at will. It's just as much a matter of courtesy as it is the law.

:rolleyes:

I think the article makes a fair point. I'm a self-admitted jackass rider & driver sometimes (loose interpretation of red-lights while riding, aggressive on-ramp acceleration while driving, etc.) but always defensive in my style independent of transportation choice.

When pressed, almost everyone will admit to flexing away from the laws by the books and adapting their actions to the context of any given situation. Better transportation and urban planning design would lean towards accepting this human trait.

For instance, check out this intersection re-design:


99% Invisible has a great piece that puts this all into historical context:

http://99percentinvisible.org/post/4...-modern-moloch

Its all about bringing speeds down... in the vid at about 4:20 he shows the ancient film of traffic in San Francisco and discusses shared space... of course in that film everything was moving at human pace... the trolleys, the wagons and of course the people.

The problems start to arise when motorists expect to go at dramatically faster speeds than other road users...

The end result shows that the concepts of Hans Monderman work, and work in places other than his select villages.

But again it all comes down to NOT prioritizing motor vehicles over all other road users. This of course is a totally "foreign" concept to American motorists. Meanwhile on this side of the pond, we have to tell drivers not to hit the walking folks... with yet another silly sign.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=337593

OP, there is a local forum for Chicago and a good percentage of the riders on their share that same mentality and ride in that fashion. While I don't blow reds, I will slow and crawl through a stop sign because (guessing here) 90% of them in Chicago are on 2 residential streets where there are other stop signs within a few hundred feet.




I seriously hope that isn't an actual mindset, because if you haven't seen 2 riders collide when one blows a red light, then you haven't seen carnage. Or would it be beneficial to your definition of words to remove any -car- letter combination and replace it with -bike- or -bicycle-? Bikenage makes no sense.



Don't forget the signs about designated turning on red times, and how people don't obey them. Or when someone does, horns and blaring.

Agreed.
Sometimes it's safer to go through the light or the stop sign.

think what? that a stop sign every 100 meter is bull****? yes i do

I make my own rules.

I have seen clauses in the section of vehicle codes that say cyclists have the same rights and duties as motor vehicles, which says "except those by definition have no application". So I interpret and apply that to things like the laws about slow moving and impeding traffic. Also I feel like many, MANY stop signs are completely unnecessary. Yield signs would be just fine in most places. Obviously a neighborhood road coming out onto a 5-lane major road needs a stop sign, but 2 roads in a neighborhood really don't need a 4-way stop.

Moving to the left to stay out of mandatory right turn lanes is perfectly lawful. Indeed, it is required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, though not for riders of bicycles.

I don't normally blow through stop lights or signs. Do I wait until the light turns green to go? Usually not. The intersection of Pennsylvania and Michigan in Lansing is one that I find safer if I go on the opposite direction's turn arrow if no one's coming. That way, the side I'm on can't turn on red and run me down. And stop lights, I'll go if no one's there. I don't try to beat traffic on my red. I *do* try to beat the yellow as I do in a car, and I'm a better judge of time and distance on the bike. I know if it says 4 seconds and I'm in the road I'm good to cross before it turns red lol

I read the article at the link. It reminded me of a street a couple miles from my house, that is the worst place for a one-way street. It is at a T-section. If you turn right, the road to the next traffic light is a two-way. But if you turn left, the road is a one-way street to the next traffic light. So people have to make a major detour to come back from whence they came.

What??
 

THAT is so not true. I've seen bicyclists do really stupid things. It's usually the casual riders that don't obey the traffic laws.

The positions of those mentioned in the Treehugger article, sounds like typical useless garbage. They complain about cyclists' blowing through stop signs. When the infrastructure for cyclists' is shoddy at best. Resulting in a cyclist having to ride in the travel lane.

A bicycle is much closer to a pedestrian than it is to a car, both in the speed it travels and the potential damage it can cause others (which is exponential by weight). Laws should reflect this and prioritize safety and convenience of walking/biking folks.

When walking, if no other traffic is around, I would never stop at a stop sign - I'd just proceed straight across the intersection. And I do the same damn thing on my bicycle.

A pedestrian can stop literally "on a dime" and can also step sideways out of the way of an obstacle or someone coming towards them.

A cyclist cannot do this, and in fact a car can stop faster than a bike given the same speed. So in those ways, a cyclist on a bike is close to a motorist in a car than a pedestrian.

But I also slow down but never stop fully at a stop sign when there is literally no one else around. I do in my car, because I have nowhere near as much peripheral vision out of my car. On a bike, if no one is around, I don't see the point of stopping fully.

I roll through stop signs all the time, I'll do the same in a car. If it's easy to ascertain approaching a stop that no one else in near then I treat it as a yield sign. I explained this one night to an Iowa sheriff that pulled me over for rolling through an intersection where it was clear for miles I was the only driver, I lucked out that he was capable of grasping simple logic so did not get a ticket.

Last night I approached a 4 way stop going downhill, a car on the left was sitting there with their signal on to turn the same way I was headed. I slowed down and then since they hadn't pulled out yet I coasted right through well to the right. The driver saw fit to squall at me that there was a stop sign there, when I'd only done the logical thing. The 4 way is about halfway up or down a steep hill, when I'm going downhill I always blow through it if the intersection is empty, by then I'm really flying and hate to slow down. Bear in mind this is a small town so usually pretty light traffic, but I an an anomaly here for cycling instead of drunk driving or roaring around on a 4 wheeler.

I did do something ornery this morning. I turn down a down sloping street going a pretty good clip and there's a mom with her little boy behind her walking down the street (the recently rebuilt sidewalks here are not much used, but I'll ride them quite frequently as they're often smoother than the street). I keep a safe distance but just that knowing I'll spook them when I whiz by, the boy does yell out "Aahhh!" and I'm sure mom had a startle as well. I've done the same thing in a canoe coming up on swimmers, out of nowhere there'll be a canoe a few feet away from them.

In my state (Georgia), a bicycle is legally a vehicle, and subject to all the same rights and responsibilities are an automobile driver. You have to follow the traffic laws, same as a car. So, around here, it's pretty academic.

As far as traffic lights, I will generally stop for the lights that will eventually turn green. As I'm getting older, I'm loosing patience for those that either never turn green, have 50/50 chance of turning green for me, or perhaps require waiting for a car to come up behind me.

Yes, I do treat stop signs as yield signs. Stop if there are cars around, slow down if there is no traffic. And, I can justify it as being safer to keep some momentum up.

I have discovered that turning left out of my grocery store is a nightmare, but if I keep on the left side of the road for 1 block or so, then traffic clears, and I can easily get across to the right side.

We have some bike path networks around here. Bikes, pedestrians, skateboards, and the occasional wild goose all sharing the paths. Quite a few T intersections. A few true cross intersections. No stop signs. No traffic lights, and for the most part no center lines.

I have no doubt there is the occasional pile-up, but they are rare, and they can't be that severe, otherwise there would, in fact, be more regulation.

You say to be in Minnesota, and not somewhere like California. Why not be on a town council?

Where you & I are: cars are a 2nd source to these human animals' owned/rented/eased houses or apts/condos. Imagine them living inside those cars, if they not had those property structures. The veterans & disabled are the only ones that could put up with declination --- to street living, if it had to go that far. As many disabled only have public transportation, not luxury of motor vehicles, to get around with.

It's called SIGN-age, for a reason :p