Difference between pedestrians and cyclists?
 

Hi all,

Was just thinking today that cyclists get a lot of hassle for jumping lights, not fully obeying the road laws etc. but what is it that makes us so different from pedestrians? We are both vulnerable, we are not motorised, etc. But it seems that pedestrians can cross the road at red lights when no cars are coming, they can cross the road without crossings and quite often they hold up cars and cause them to stop / slow down because they are standing in the middle of the road trying to cross.

It can't be an issue of numbers and there are WAY more pedestrians than cyclists. So what is it?

One argument can be that cyclists use the road, but really we get only the same rights on the road as a pedestrian and our licensing is similar to that of pedestrians - non-existent.

Also what about people on skateboards or rollerblades using the road. One can argue they are similar to bicycles but they probably wouldn't get the same hassle that we do. We all know that road laws are not specific enough for cyclists and we are simply tacked on to the existing laws.

One can argue though that cyclists are more wary when "breaking" the law than pedestrians as cyclists have a day-to-day experience of being in close proximity of cars, so should theoretically be safer.

Pedestrians are also rarely honked if causing a hold up compared to cyclists who are honked just for the sake of it sometimes.

So why are we treated so differently to pedestrians? Is it because everyone has experience of being a pedestrian? If so, is this not an argument for making sure motorists ride a bicycle / scooter / motorcycle before becoming licensed?

Thanks

Daven

No one should be hollier than thou.. This cyclist always stops at stop lights and often watches pedestrians cross against green lights or cars fail to stop at red lights.
We are all people. I suspect the same percentages of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists are unlawful.

Oh yea, no doubt that the percentages are the same. But no one seems to get angry at pedestrians whereas people seem to want to kill cyclists if they do even a minor wrong.

Kill Cyclists.. and not pedestrians .?.....The reason for so many signs in L.A. saying "No Turn on Red."
Couple years ago, motorists killed pedestrians in mass, because they were so careless with the turn on red rule..
Now, if a motorists turns on red and the pedestrian has not completely crossed the road( all the way.) you will be ticketed.. And the Los Angeles police love to enforce this 233 dollar fine..
Don't get me wrong Cyclists and pedestrians are both fair game in L.A.

I can't speak for everywhere, but in Michigan pedestrians have the right-of-way at all marked and unmarked crosswalks, an unmarked crosswalk being anyplace it would be logical for pedestrians to cross, i.e. a parking lot directly across the street from a big building, etc. Lights are for their safety, not to enforce when or where they can cross.

OTOH, bikes are given all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles. Vehicles are not pedestrians, and that's where the problem comes in: too many cyclists consider themselves 'pedestrians on wheels' rather than 'human powered vehicles.'

What really is the difference though between 'human powered vehicle' and 'pedestrian on wheels'? I don't think the rules of the road can reasonably be applied to cyclists, we are far more like pedestrians than vehicles. The only place we really differ is our speed, which isn't THAT great (usually below the posted speed limit).

I agree with Blazing. the big pronblem is general lack of curtesy between humanbeings wether walking, bicycling or driving. also most ignorant motorist assume that a cyclist is a pedestrain and should follow those laws. most all states still conside a bicycle a vehicle and as such they must obey the law. and interestingly enough, in Massachuetts even a rollerblader, skateboarder, or rollerskater is consider and subject to vehicle laws.

What I think happens is an unintended consequence of cyclists wanting to be like vehicles and advocating their cause as such.

The thing is, bikes are neither pedestrians nor motor vehicles. They're too fast to mix safely with pedestrians, and too slow for most motor traffic. Their flexibility -- where bikes can fit if necessary -- also rates between both peds and cars.

The most painless treatment of bikes I've seen yet is when bikes, cars, and peds get separate facilities, not only in terms of lanes or sidewalk markings, but also with separate signal lights at intersections and separate routes through large, multi-street intersections.

In lieu of separate facilities and signals, I'll go when it's safe, even if it's against a light. I'd rather do that than share an intersection with drivers next to me who have just gotten the green light and are accelerating, turning, and going wherever else they need to go.

Ye I agree Barracks, I did think that actually if cyclists were given a law of their own instead of being lumped in with motor vehicles then fewer cyclists would feel the need to break the law. I admit that I do, on occasion, jump lights etc. but I feel the problem doesn't come from the breaking of the law but the unpredictability of which laws will be broken.

For example if cyclists were given the option to jump red lights, but in return had to carry some form of insurance. I think this would make cyclists safer and more predictable.

I don't think the UK is ready to invest in separate facilities at junctions!

For me the problem comes from the fact that I am neither a car or a pedestrian but I am just lumped in with motorists because it is the easy way out. I feel there are specific laws which cyclists can safely break and we should therefore get our own highway code section!

Daven

My experience has been that cyclists get few hassles from anybody for jumping lights or anything else, legal or not, as long as it isn't directly affecting a motorist's forward progress. If a motorist feels that his progress is being impeded by a bicyclist's actions, it may be immaterial if the cyclist is legal or within his rights, and a hassle is initiated. Maybe the UK is different.

That is my experience on the road, as well. In print and conversation, however, everyone tries to pretend to care about the law and talk about unlawful cyclists jumping red lights. Yet no one is saying that all pedestrians are unlawful and this mode of transportation should not be tolerated. One reason might be that almost everyone is a pedestrian, at least for a short stretches.

On the contrary, I find that most motorists will grudgingly put up with bikes - until one breaks a law and as a result impedes them more than they think should have happened. Such as the guy who has to pass a bike six times because the biker filters to the front at every red light, then runs it. I'm amazed at how many people who call themselves serious cyclists can rationalize breaking any law they don't like. I consider it a lack of skills and training.

- BP (LAB Road I Certified)

Or maybe an excess of stupidity?:thumb:

People have ALWAYS broken laws that they did not like as shown by the multi thousand year history of smuggling, the American attempt at prohibition and the current total failure of laws to stop the drug trade or prostitution. Why should traffic laws be any different?

+1

(man, that hurt).

Or at least, that's how it pans out in the real world. The media world (often including online BBSes) is different when people get brave behind a keyboard and decide to whine about cyclists breaking the same laws that everyone else breaks. I suspect that happens because cyclists are a minority, where motorists and pedestrians are not. Hmmm, so much for being brave behind a keyboard.

That's a nice idea in theory, but the cost of retro-fitting entire cities (or at least creating a transport network large enough that it actually becomes usable) is prohibitive in most places, and most cities don't have the space for such a network anyway. Yes, I know someone will chime in here with a single exception where it's worked for them in some obscure part of the world, but in most places it's just not practical to build it.

Fact is, if you're gonna get around on a bike, sooner or later you're going to have to share the road with someone else. Get used to it.

I think the biggest difference between cyclists and pedestrians is that pedestrians know they are pedestrians, and drivers know they are pedestrians.

Among cyclists on the other hand, there is no real consensus as to whether we are vehicles with all the rights and subject to ALL the rules of the road, or pedestrians who aren't. A common phrase on BF is "if it's clear, why should I stop for a light/sign" (normally qualified with "it's harder for a bike to get back to speed) which is generally preceeded with or followed by "I have just as much right to use the road"
If you are in the road on a bike, you should expect cars to treat you as they would other cars, not as a pedestrian

If cyclists can't agree if they are pedestrians or vehicles, how could you expect anyone else to know?

Ken.

Exactly. :thumb:

I still think it's ridiculous to pretend to be either one. Cyclists = cyclists.

I'm used to it, but not everyone is. If you want to get more cyclists out there, you need to attract the timid and hesitant, not us crazies on BF.

If hacking up a perfectly good street costs too much, might as well do it when rebuilding and repairing them. Repaved streets around here are often getting bike lanes. Not perfect, of course, and having a triathlete mayor isn't exactly fair to other cities :), but at least it helps (at some times during the day, it's hard to find a stretch of bike lane that doesn't have a cyclist on it).

Your last sentence basically answers your question. If you're on the road with the other vehicles, then you're a vehicle and you follow the same rules they do*. If you're on the sidewalk, then you act as a pedestrian and give way at every driveway.

*Of course, following the same laws as other vehicles might just as often mean breaking the same laws as other vehicles in areas where the police are unable or unwilling to enforce them.

Personally I'm ambivalent about whether or not I actually want more cyclists out there. I can see just as many negatives as positives in that, but that's another argument. I did acknowledge that there are some cities that can/have managed to refit roads with bikelanes and so on, just as I acknowledge that a stopped clock is right twice a day. My own city has spent more money on that in recent years than entire states, but there are still plenty of places where it simply hasn't/can't happen for various reasons, and there are many more places (i.e. the majority of intersections) where I find it safer and easier to simply ride through with the traffic and do as they do, irrespective of what the local council have built around it.

Your kidding right? Running a red light makes you safer and more predictable.

If all the motorists are running that same red light, then yeah, running it would make you safer and more predictable. There are some lights in this city that motorists regularly run, and it's a braver man than me who stops there if the coast is clear on the crossroad.

Im not necessarily saying it makes you safer in all circumstances, but it most certainly makes you more predictable if the law says you can. Then people will expect it. Obviously it should not be done to cause others to stop when they have right of way.

I find that cycle lanes do more harm than good, I don't like to ride right by the curb where there is road debris and drain covers and more often than not huge puddles. It makes drivers think you belong only in that second of the road. More money needs to be spent on changing the laws and educating cyclists and drivers instead of "gentrification" of the roads to show that you are doing something, when actually you are not.

A lot of people like to point to Copenhagen or some such Northern European country as a bicycle heaven because they have bike lanes and so on. But, I read a recent article where the author points out that Japan is also a bikers' heaven but they don't have bike lanes or any such infrastructure. Everyone is forced to learn how to properly share the road.