Originally Posted by
adamtki
With this kind of thinking, we wouldn't have bike lanes, 3 feet laws, sharrows, on/off ramps for bicycles, and bike racks. We wouldn't be able to bike on shoulders and but wouldn't be prohibited from biking on to the freeway.
Just as there are exceptions for motorized vehicles (freeways) there are exceptions for bicycles. This argument is nonsense.
We'd also get ticketed for having no brake lights and turn signals
But we do have brake lights and turn signals. They're also known as "the left arm". And I would not be surprised to learn that somewhere in this country some cyclist has been fined for not using it.
and fined for "driving" on the sidewalk.
If I ride on the sidewalk through my town I would in fact be subject to a fine, as it is a violation of local statute.
There are special rules that apply to trucks because of their large size. In the same way, the rules above apply to bicycles because of their small size. And if we continue to say there's nothing wrong with the current set of exceptions for bikes, we'd never make any progress towards making biking easier on the roads.
There already are exceptions for bicycles. You have already pointed them out.
If the law were to make exceptions for bicycles to proceed through school bus stop signs at no more than 6mph and drivers learn it that way, I doubt most people would find that very dangerous. But our mindset is stuck in terms of the dangers as seen from a car. What's really the difference between a 180lb jogger going through this at 6mph vs a 150lb cyclist on a 30lb bike going 6mph? A bicycle is closer to pedestrians than it is to a car. You see evidence of this because the interaction between bikes and pedestrians on the MUP is much safer than the interaction between cars and bikes.
A 180lb jogger isn't going 6 mph. A 150lb + 30lb bicyclist can't move sideways to dodge around a child, and can't back up quickly if there is a need. A 180lb jogger isn't 4 feet from front to back, and in all likelihood won't fall over when he stops suddenly.
But if we continue to think that bikes should do exactly what cars do and think there's nothing wrong with that, the roads will never get more accommodating towards cyclists.
Well I don't think I've ever said that bicycles do exactly what cars do. And if we are quick to place bicycles in the same category as pedestrians, then the roads will most certainly remain unaccommodating towards cyclists. But bicycles also can't do everything that pedestrians can do, and I continue to be puzzled why you (and others) would think they can.
For example, technically at stop signs, we should come to a complete stop. That's because that rule was designed for very heavy and fast vehicles with limited field of vision. Does it really makes sense to apply that to bicycles?
Well I happen to think that law doesn't make much sense in all situations for motorized vehicles either.
It's one thing to follow the rules of the road because it's the law, but it's another thing to think they actually make sense for bicycles and nothing should be done to change it.
You want the laws to change to allow you to pass a stopped school bus? Be my guest, go right ahead. Good luck with that. I don't think you will get much traction. Personally if I was going to pick a law to fight, I would rather see the stop sign law changed first.