Originally Posted by SDRider
Agreed but with one exception. There is no way I will ever come to a complete stop at a stop sign when there are no cars or peds around for me to stop for. It's a completely useless waste of time and I won't do it.
you'll notice that I did not specifically say "I will come to a complete stop at a stop sign."
I just said that I would stop, but the word stop has very liberal interpretations nowadays.
With that said, I will come to a complete stop and wait for a green at any red light, even ones on empty intersections.
Originally Posted by thedave
Your contract treats both cars and bikes the same and I think that misses an important distinction. Cars are much more dangerous to others than bikes are. A traffic violation by a 3500 pound car can kill others, whereas a mistake by a cyclist only endangers him/herself.
While I understand your point, and do believe that drivers have a higher level of responsibility, I don't think it absolves cyclists of their own obligations on the road. I also believe that having double standards simply based upon potential bodily harm is shortsighted.
Flouting the rules does more than risk injury; it expresses disrespect and reinforces the ideas that our communities are a collection of individuals whose behaviors are only constrained by self-interest; as opposed to a society of people who can and have learned to live with each other. Believing that rules of good road behavior do not apply to you simply because you can't kill someone ignores the myriad other forms of non-lethal harm that you can inflict. What about the motorist who needs to brake and loses their right of way when you blow a stop sign? Are they not entitled towards being annoyed and stressed out by your action? Should pedestrians be allowed to jaywalk and wander aimlessly across streets simply because the only threats that they pose are to themselves?