|
I don't get why we're framing this discussion in the context of drivers obeying all the laws. Where I live and ride and drive, drivers don't obey the law.
The percentage of drivers who obey the speed limit all the time is close to zero. The percentage of drivers who come to a complete stop at stop signs in the absence of other traffic close to zero. Drivers represent the vast majority of road users and hence the vast majority of infractions. Yet "secondary", slow-moving road users on very-low-mass vehicles are repeatedly singled out for their lawlessness in these types of articles. If we concur with these complaints, are we suggesting that some traffic laws are arbitrarily more important than others? Is driving a motor vehicle at 80kph in a 60kph zone somehow less of a public liability than proceeding through a red light on a bicycle? Do we have any evidence to support any of this? And the suggestion that a bicycle is as dangerous to third parties in an accident as a car or truck has no basis in physics. |
In the context of the article in the OP, the " "secondary", slow-moving road users on very-low-mass vehicles" are the problem. If they were riding responsibly there would have been no article, because they would not be causing a problem.
Problems caused by scofflaw drivers are covered under other threads. |
Problems caused by scofflaw drivers are indeed well documented in many a thread on BF. But when newspapers print articles that single out cyclists as this one did, it makes me wonder if we are being held to some kind of higher standard of conduct.
Or if we are just plain being *picked on* because it is far more likely that the author and readership of the newspaper article break the speed limit in cars, rather than ride through red lights on their bikes. After all, traffic laws are the most satisfying when they are applied to others. Edit: as an aside, a non-scientific poll I have conducted of drivers who do not also ride bikes has revealed that a majority place traffic-act-compliance by cyclists far below not delaying them on the road. And when I say "majority" I mean 100%. |
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
But that's not a law anywhere, now is it? So it's an absurd question.
.:D Traffic rules are just that, an arbitrary set of rules. Traffic rules do not codify moral standards, like laws against burning puppies alive. You won't go to hell for running a stop light, but I hope you do go to hell if you burn puppies alive. So your arguments that the fabric of society will break down, leading to people killing neighbors and burying them in thier yards, or deciding to run around naked, simply don't apply. The point I'm trying to make is that obeying traffic laws may in fact be unsafe for bicyclists, as in the case where the law is that cyclists have to ride against traffic, and that it is better to disregard a petty rule than risk safety. I'm not advocating running red lights and stop signs so that cars have to brake, scatter and crash into other cars and pedestrians, I'm simply saying that a bicyclist can go through a controlled intersection without stopping when to do so will not interfere in any way with other traffic or pedestrians. Its safer for a bicyclist to be up and moving down the road, taking the lane where appropriate, than it is to put a foot down, stop, start up and wobble away at the same time the light turns green and the cars start the drag race to the next light. Your absolutist mantra of "must slavishly obey all traffic rules" while easy to apply, is not the safest in all situations. |
Originally Posted by San Rensho
Until not too many years ago in Florida, it was the law that bicyclists had to ride against traffic, so it is a very appropriate, and not absurd question.
|
Originally Posted by Mos6502
And I see a hundred times more cars on the road than I see bikes - is it really so surprising then that we see more cars running red lights than bicycles? If every bicycle was replaced by a car and vice versa we'd see bicycles run red lights a hundred times more often than cars, it's a moot point. May I also say that my previous reply was not intended wholly for your post, but as a general response to some of the wacky and outrageous claims being tossed about by others.
Another thing about automobiles and laws of the road, the first speed limits existed decades before automobiles had even been invented, and when the first speed limits were adopted in the U.S. (in the early 1900s) most of them were below 15mph (your typical automobile of the day, say an Oldsmobile would top out at 20mph anyway, and anybody on even one of the heavy singlespeed bicycles of the day could easily pass somebody in a car going uphill) - in 1900 there were only 8000 automobiles in the U.S. - the league of American Wheelman had 150,000 members in that same year. In 1915 the first stop signs appeared in the U.S. - most people still didn't own cars. The truth of the matter is that the automobile made up but a small percentage of all traffic on roads at the time the early modern traffic laws came about, horses and bicycles made up most traffic, and more people got about on public transport than by personally owned vehicles - these laws weren't created for automobiles. You could possibly blame the car for the stoplight (or you could just accept that it'd be invented anyway - because it would have), and you can most definately blame the car for the parking meter (but if you're on a bike you don't have to worry about those pieces of crap anyway) - but controlled intersections existed long before most people had even seen car, much less owned one. Had the automobile only been a novelty, we'd still have traffic laws, signs, speed limits etc. |
wow.
FINALLY! a sane person!
Originally Posted by San Rensho
Until not too many years ago in Florida, it was the law that bicyclists had to ride against traffic, so it is a very appropriate, and not absurd question. You and Chip dance around answering the question but you know that if that were the law, you would not follow it. Why, because the law is not safe. As experienced riders, you and Chip know that riding against traffic is close to suicide.
Traffic rules are just that, an arbitrary set of rules. Traffic rules do not codify moral standards, like laws against burning puppies alive. You won't go to hell for running a stop light, but I hope you do go to hell if you burn puppies alive. So your arguments that the fabric of society will break down, leading to people killing neighbors and burying them in thier yards, or deciding to run around naked, simply don't apply. The point I'm trying to make is that obeying traffic laws may in fact be unsafe for bicyclists, as in the case where the law is that cyclists have to ride against traffic, and that it is better to disregard a petty rule than risk safety. I'm not advocating running red lights and stop signs so that cars have to brake, scatter and crash into other cars and pedestrians, I'm simply saying that a bicyclist can go through a controlled intersection without stopping when to do so will not interfere in any way with other traffic or pedestrians. Its safer for a bicyclist to be up and moving down the road, taking the lane where appropriate, than it is to put a foot down, stop, start up and wobble away at the same time the light turns green and the cars start the drag race to the next light. Your absolutist mantra of "must slavishly obey all traffic rules" while easy to apply, is not the safest in all situations. |
simple points
here are two traffic violations that drivers
(myself included) commonly make: - exceed speed limits. - cross double yellow line. both of these violations can, and do, with regularity, lead to serious injury and death, both for the perpetrators, and other folks on the road. both of these violations are usually done FOR CONVENIENCE - getting someplace faster. BUT both of these violations also happen for safety reasons - getting out of a dangerous situation, increasing visibility, avoiding obstacles (such as a bike rider on the right). generally we have to trust the driver to know when their behavior is legitimate or not, and of course society pays dearly for those who do not act reasonably. so when car drivers get pissed at bicyclists for running reds, they should be reminded of this, and also of the fact that the consequences of their rule-breaking (and both groups break rules) are much more serious than the consequences of ours. meanwhile, safety advocates could better spend their energy actually worrying about our safety (what a radical concept), rather than the obvious fact that laws are never going to be followed to the letter. we might also keep in mind that there has to be a balance between desire for safety with practical concerns (noone would die on the road if we just banned all vehicular traffic, but noone wants that). |
er.
do you ever exceed the speed limit in your truck, chipcom? do you ever cross the double yellow line? ever cross the street in the middle rather than at the crosswalk? ever jaywalk? ever not come to a complete stop? ever forget to signal? if you can answer no to all these questions, you are probably delusional. quit acting like a big baby.
|
Originally Posted by cantor3
do you ever exceed the speed limit in your truck, chipcom? do you ever cross the double yellow line? ever cross the street in the middle rather than at the crosswalk? ever jaywalk? ever not come to a complete stop? ever forget to signal? if you can answer no to all these questions, you are probably delusional. quit acting like a big baby.
I understand that in at least one state, stoplights may indeed be treated as stop signs by cyclists, so there is certain precident. Note, you must actually come to a stop first. However, until a similar such law is passed in your local state, you will be a lawbreaker for violating the laws, and a poor example to other cyclists, and a target for motorists that see your abuse of the law as just what it is. I suggest that you please obey the law, and write your local representitives to petition to change those laws you find unjust. This is the proper way to do things. |
Put a traffic camera, raise the ticket to percentage if over 3 tickets in a year for the rich folks.
|
proper vs. safe
Originally Posted by genec
I am sure all people at one time or another do these things, but what you seem to be advocating is a regular situation in which cyclists violate the laws.
I understand that in at least one state, stoplights may indeed be treated as stop signs by cyclists, so there is certain precident. Note, you must actually come to a stop first. However, until a similar such law is passed in your local state, you will be a lawbreaker for violating the laws, and a poor example to other cyclists, and a target for motorists that see your abuse of the law as just what it is. I suggest that you please obey the law, and write your local representitives to petition to change those laws you find unjust. This is the proper way to do things. Yes, I am advocating that people such as yourself accept reality, which is that traffic rules are generally guidelines (for everyone involved), and not moral rules, such as "dont kill anyone", as was also pointed out on this thread. The fact that they are routinely broken in situations where it can be done safely to enhance convenience or safety proves my point, not yours, and I am happy to live in a world where most of the people who count (ie, the cyclists who are making these decisions) seem to instinctively recognize the logic in being flexibile and making your own best decisions about safety. |
Originally Posted by cantor3
There was a point made by someone else that the law in FL used to stipulate that bicyclists must ride the wrong way down a one way street. I could care less about the "proper" way to do things. I care greatly about what is or is not safe, and given that most of the "rules" were designed for people riding in giant steel cages, i am quite confident in my convictions that what is "safe" is certainly not going to be "proper" by your standards in the forseeable future.
Yes, I am advocating that people such as yourself accept reality, which is that traffic rules are generally guidelines (for everyone involved), and not moral rules, such as "dont kill anyone", as was also pointed out on this thread. The fact that they are routinely broken in situations where it can be done safely to enhance convenience or safety proves my point, not yours, and I am happy to live in a world where most of the people who count (ie, the cyclists who are making these decisions) seem to instinctively recognize the logic in being flexibile and making your own best decisions about safety. There are those with your same type of thinking that also believe that wrong way riding is safer. Or that speed limits don't apply on interstates. Neither of which is a moral issue. How do you feel about that? BTW I don't feel that the laws strictly apply nor were created for those in giant steel cages... I feel that the laws were created to facilitate the safest easiest movement of all traffic, including pedestrians in cross walks. I also find it absurd that your reasoning is based on "safety," when the reality is you are more likely to be killed running said light than waiting and crossing at the proper time. 'Nuff said. |
I too do not agree, nor have I seen any data or logic that lends any support to the idea that running red lights or stop signs is safer for cyclists (or any type of vehicle)
If one truely believes it is, then one should collect the supporting evidence and work with law makers to change traffic law. Al |
Originally Posted by cantor3
Yes, I am advocating that people such as yourself accept reality, which is that traffic rules are generally guidelines (for everyone involved), and not moral rules, such as "dont kill anyone", as was also pointed out on this thread.
The way people act about spending a minute at a red light...(you'd think they'd buy cars if they want to be in such a hurry). Stopping at red lights is safer than running them - there may that freakish chance when this is not the case, but that is the exception, rather than the rule. Generally, it is also safer to wait at a railroad crossing than it is to get around the gates when they're lowered, and it is also generally safer to stop at a stop sign than it is to blow through it. |
Originally Posted by remsav
Put a traffic camera, raise the ticket to percentage if over 3 tickets in a year for the rich folks.
|
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
It would be great if cops ticketed more cyclists for running redlights.
Not just pull the cyclist over for a warning, but actually write and issue a citation. Same roads, same rights, same rules. when pulled over on a bike for ANY traffic infraction the police are supposed to confiscate the bike for up to 90 days, its a city ordinance, there are some other subtle differences as well but that one is the big one |
diving in pools
Originally Posted by Mos6502
Well it's like the sign at the shallow end of the pool that tells you not to dive there - sure - you could dive there, it is afterall only a sign suggesting you don't, and you could do it without getting injured if luck is on your side. But generally, following that suggestion works out in your favour, not against it. You could take the chance and be reckless, or you could go over to the deeper end if you have the patience to do so.
as a former swimmer, we were taught to dive in the shallow end of the pool. there is a way to do it that is perfectly safe. you dive out. not down. now while this is obvious to people with experience, its not to a few morons, and in the interest of keeping them alive we make a sign. if we were going to hold the same standards out for cyclists, we'd say yeah, stop at red lights, and when some more advanced or experienced cyclist sees it as ok to go through a light, we dont make a big deal out of it, the same way the lifeguard doesnt make a big deal out of it when i dive into the shallow end of the pool at the beggining of a swim. now, im sure there is another, equivalent set of zealot safety advocates to all you "follow the rules" types, who run around swimming pools harrassing the swim teams at practice, staking out the YMCA with their dont dive in the shallow end campaign. insisting that all swimmers obey the posted signs. gawsh, lets just have a campaign to cancel the olympics while we are at it, since they dive in the shallow end too. thanks for the safety tips though, they were real handy. |
Originally Posted by noisebeam
I too do not agree, nor have I seen any data or logic that lends any support to the idea that running red lights or stop signs is safer for cyclists (or any type of vehicle)
If one truely believes it is, then one should collect the supporting evidence and work with law makers to change traffic law. Al If one truly believes it is, then one should collect the supporting evidence and work with law makers to change traffic law. In the interim, motorists should plow into all obstacles in their way, including bicyclists, giant holes, pedestrians, house pets, and other cars, at all costs even when it is against their better judgement they must maintain their compliance with the law. After all, it's the proper way to do things. |
Originally Posted by cantor3
I too do not agree, nor have I seen any data or logic that lends any support to the idea that crossing the double yellow line is safer for cars than always remaining to the right of it.
If one truly believes it is, then one should collect the supporting evidence and work with law makers to change traffic law. In the interim, motorists should plow into all obstacles in their way, including bicyclists, giant holes, pedestrians, house pets, and other cars, at all costs even when it is against their better judgement they must maintain their compliance with the law. After all, it's the proper way to do things. Who is suggesting that compliance to current laws means motorist will plow into those things you list? Al |
You forget that most people are morons, that's why cups of hot coffee have "caution: hot" printed on them (you drink out, not down). I'm also not sure I'd count a backstroke start as diving... :D
The problem is a lot of morons think they're smart. Just wait, one of these days some moron is going to run a red light because he didn't think he saw any other traffic (he was smart enough to judge himself as being smart enough to make that decision) and he's going to run right into you, or somebody else. |
Originally Posted by noisebeam
You lost me here. Who is suggesting it is safer to cross the double yellow?
Who is suggesting that compliance to current laws means motorist will plow into those things you list? Al |
Originally Posted by Mos6502
You forget that most people are morons, that's why cups of hot coffee have "caution: hot" printed on them (you drink out, not down). I'm also not sure I'd count a backstroke start as diving... :D
The problem is a lot of morons think they're smart. Just wait, one of these days some moron is going to run a red light because he didn't think he saw any other traffic (he was smart enough to judge himself as being smart enough to make that decision) and he's going to run right into you, or somebody else. when you have morons making decisions that mostly affect themselves, like the coffee cup, you put a warning on the cup. you dont start a "dont spill hot coffee on yourself" campaign (but i wouldnt put anything past the brits) and you dont go bothering the cops to arrest people for unsafe coffee transport. when you have morons making unsafe decisions that mostly affect others, like lets juggle the babies at the maternity ward, or lets run a red light in a two ton death machine, then you take those a little bit more seriously. |
Originally Posted by pedex
check again, the rules arent the same, at least not here anyway
when pulled over on a bike for ANY traffic infraction the police are supposed to confiscate the bike for up to 90 days, its a city ordinance, there are some other subtle differences as well but that one is the big one |
columbus ohio, and its the city's response to the fact that licenses arent mandated for operating a bicycle.......so they take the bike, in reality they dont actually do it often, ive been ticketed and kept my bike, but also ticketed and had it confiscated, depends on the cop, they make the laws, but like most of them they are enforced at THEIR leisure
***************************** some cities are ok with messengers, some arent, Boston is notorious for hassling messengers, have to pay for an annual license and display it on your bike there !! different locations have different laws, and ignorance of them is no excuse !! sidenote:im not from here, but when I went to the state highway patrol station to get an ohio license they cut my maryland license up on the spot in front of me then told me I had to come back in 2 weeks to take a written exam and driving test........and NO they didint give a sheot if I didnt have any ID for 2 weeks !! Nor did they have a copy of the ohio rules of the road available, typical US crap, sweating all the details---system in america is largely broken, has been for a long long time |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.