mcnuggets

...what sort of effect would it have? Let's say, hypothetically, that some sort of disincentive to breaking the law was in effect to make anything less than full compliance disadvantageous. Whether it be from traffic fines, social stigma, etc. So there's generally no more red light running, sidewalk riding, or filtering unless specifically allowed by local laws. IOW the 'end goal' for some people here on A&S. Under this hypothetical situation how would that, in your opinion, affect traffic patterns, cycling participation, accident rates, etc.?

cudak888 

Anywhere from no effect to additional motorist hate crimes as a result of increased VC activity.

-Kurt

ghettocruiser

Sorry, does this scenario apply to just us, or motorists too?

sggoodri

Police would be less inclined to assume the cyclist is at fault in car-bike collisions, and might focus more attention on motorist behavior when considering cycling safety campaigns.

sggoodri

Vehicular cyclists experience harassment when they are in the minority, because people assume it's not normal. When vehicular cyclists comprise the vast majority of cyclists, its those who operate contrary to the rules of the road who end up stigmatized.

sauerwald

I think that a more interesting question is what the effect would be if motorists fully complied with the law. We currently see over 40,000 fatalities per year in the US as a result of motor vehicle collisions. Nationally approximately 12 % of all drivers in fatal accidents were intoxicated, and 30% of all drivers in fatal accidents were exceeding the speed limit. If just half of these accidents were avoided by having the drivers obey the law, that would save 8400 lives per year. One big difference between a cyclist who does not fully obey the law and a motorist, is that the cyclist is placing himself in the greatest danger through his actions, while the motorist is endangering others as well.

mcnuggets

For argument's sake let's say no. Motorist's compliance remains the same.

ItsJustMe

I already do, and I get nothing but respect around here. Seriously. But there are so few cyclists around here I don't think that most drivers have any basis to know what's normal; since I'm on the road every workday of the year, I'm betting that most drivers that are usually on the road during my commute time probably see me as often as all other cyclists combined (I can go months without seeing another cyclist, even in the summer) so it's even possible that they think that cyclists following all the rules IS normal.

adamrice 

traffic patterns: little change, at least around here. I don't think bikes have a big effect on traffic in general.
cycling participation: hard to see how this would change. Nobody is discouraged from riding because some cyclists are scofflaws (right?). I suppose some renegades might resent the expectation to ride legally and stop riding altogether, but I have to imagine this would be a small group.
accident rates: would improve some.

I don't think it would cause much change in motorists' perception of cyclists. Not for a long time, at least, and even then, not a big change. The motorists that resent cyclists don't resent us so much for riding illegally as for riding, period. The illegality argument is merely a justification for irrational grievances.

crhilton

It'd take longer to get where you're going, we'd have the same accident rate, same deaths, and everyone would be sick of paying the huge cost of the system. I don't think it's a problem of enforcing the little laws. I think that it's a problem of getting people to pay full attention as if their life depended on it: Good luck.

Limey1212

Yep 100% correct. Some drivers don't dislike us because "it's dangerous" or they (cyclists) "do illegal stuff", they don't like us because we exist in the first place, also because there is a chance we may hold them up by a couple of seconds in the second place, and finally because that same "some of them" do NOT know how to drive properly around us, and barrel past with their foot down, not looking and hoping that they don't hit us.

cudak888 

Correction: "When vehicular cyclists comprise the vast majority of cyclists," a motorist will purposely rear-end them, or cut them off.

-Kurt

caloso

In my experience, the only thing that enrages a motorist more than a cyclist flouting the law is a cyclist rigorously obeying the law.

mcnuggets

Arguably I think that cyclists may be less safe, make fewer and shorter trips, as well as slow the movement of traffic if they all compiled with the law to the letter.

Less safe because more cars are overtaking cyclists and having there greater difference in speed due the longer time it takes a cyclist to accelerate up to speed. It may even be more unsafe for everyone else as cars have to overtake more.

Fewer and shorter trips because those who ride for transportation and utility will find their to be more strenous due to having to stop at nearly every intersection. Those who use their bicycles to exercise will find their rides less exciting due to lower speeds and some will opt for other forms of exercise or will simply ride less.

The movement of traffic in an area with many cyclists will slow as cars have to overtake more cyclists. (Athough this is related to my second point. If cycling decreases in popularity enough there may be fewer overtakes.)

cudak888 

Ding!

-Kurt

genec

Something of a cross post here... but...

I have seen that individuals acting in proper manner, and not the way as the group think, tend to ostracized. In fact, I actually experienced an extreme of this a long while back when taking a LAB Road 2 class... we were practicing and executing proper and legal left turns when we were confronted by horn honking motorist that chided us to ride "the other way." When I confronted the motorist about specifics, he pointed to a curb hugging cyclist and said "like that." I then asked how we were supposed to make left turns... "that's your problem."

I also quite often get honked at and yelled at for taking a lane on a multi-laned road, where other bicycle riders often cower on the sidewalks.

Being the "lone ranger" ain't fun. I also suspect that others observing my woes consider me the fool.

This even happened with my own family, when we were riding along in a residential area, and came up to a 4 way stop where a car was already waiting on a cross street. I stopped, my wife and son ran the sign. The motorist looked at me like I was from Mars... and my son suggested that I was an idiot. (we had words, later) My actions were the proper and legal actions, but in the examples I just gave, were frowned upon by the "less enlightened" masses. Go figure.

CB HI

That may not be true. When Idaho changed their law to allow cyclist to treat stop signs as a "Yield" and red lights as a "Stop Sign". Collisions went down for cyclist.

dynodonn 

Sounds familiar, it's can be tough being "That bicycle guy" at times, but overall, local motorists must have become more accustom to my "eccentricities", as some motorists may put it, since it's been sometime that I've been honked at, even when riding in the lane of our multilane arterials.

ItsJustMe

The only real issue that I have because of following the letter of the law all the time is that at some corners if there's a car coming up behind me and I'm approaching a stop sign, they almost always will pull around me and blow the stop sign at 20 MPH as I am coming to a stop.

Damn drivers don't think the law applies to them.

ekincam

BS and you know it! I personally know one person who was admitted to the hospital for a concussion and suspected broken ribs (found to be bruised only) as a result of being hit by a bicyclist on the sidewalk. How does this not endanger others?

I've seen a bicyclist chase down a pedestrian after the bicyclist ran the red light and hit the pedestrian more than 10s after the signal change. The bicyclist chased the pedestrian 100 ft so that he could sneak up behind him and smash the bicycle into the back of the pedestrians head. Not endangering others again I suppose...

On a daily basis, I see bicyclists forcing their way through crowds of hundreds of pedestrians in the crosswalk and sidewalks. Again I supposed the bicyclist isn't putting anyone in danger other than him/herself.

What about psychological trauma? If a motorist hits and kills a bicyclist as a result of the bicyclist making an illegal maneuver, would the motorist not suffer psychological trauma? Ever know anyone who had survivor's guilt and then put a .45 to his face after an accident where his passenger and the other motorist (at fault) perished on the scene?

What if a motorists is startled and in a panic swerves to avoid the bicycle and hits another vehicle or pedestrian and causes death or injury? Still putting only him/herself at risk I suppose.

Just because a bicycle and bicyclist are small in comparison to an automobile does not mean they cannot cause harm to others. The risk of causing death, injury, and property damage are still very real even if the it is smaller compared to an automobile.

Ed Holland

I suspect no effect whatsoever. Bicycles will still be slower than cars and it is only where drivers have been unable to pass, or feel that I should not be on the road because they had to think about passing a slower vehicle that I've had direct "complaints".

Post #2 summed things up perfectly!

akohekohe

Be careful what you wish for. If I obeyed the law I would have to ride in door-zone bicycle lanes and do countless other stupid things depending on how you interpret as far right as practicable ... you start pressing the police to enforce bicycle laws and next thing you know you get arrested for taking the lane and not the clown riding with no lights the wrong way. So, no, I think it is completely misguided to want to see the laws enforced, not until we get good laws.

moleman76

If all road users obeyed the laws which apply to them, traffic would be slower - and would benefit from the safety features which orderly traffic flow brings.
Is this possible? Probably not. I'd submit that if every active cyclist always broke the law, we'd still break fewer traffic laws than the total group of motorists (law-abiding, semi-law-abiding, and opportunists) do. There are more motorists than cyclists, and it's virtually impossible to drive very far without transgressing in some way.

Akohekohe, YOU are the one who gets to interpret "as far right as practicable" ... If you can't be safe in a certain position on the road, you don't have to be there. It isn't "practicable" to run the risk of being doored.

crazyed27

WOW...that must have been one hell of a wheelie!!!


The issues you comment about are so rare....its like catching a STD while playing with yourself!

akohekohe

Of course I agree but how do you think I'm going to fare with a non-cyclist judge, policeman and prosecutor. I was once pulled over by a policeman for failure to keep right when I was going 40 mph in a 35 mph zone! I didn't get a ticket but the policeman was sure convinced I was breaking the law and that is my point. Do you really think you are going to prevail in court if you get arrested for not riding in the bicycle lane door zone? Here is how it will go:
Judge: So you are telling me that you didn't ride in the bike lane because it would be dangerous if someone opens a car door?
You: Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Judge: Don't you know that opening a car door into traffic is illegal? So you are justifying your illegal behavior because you are saying someone else might act illegally. That is like saying it is ok to shoot someone because they might shoot you first. Guilty as charged.

I honestly don't think you are going to win the argument that as far right as practicable doesn't mean you are supposed to ride in the door zone.