
Drivers and pedestrians break rules to save time, cyclists do it for safety - privong
https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/
======
PragmaticPulp
Answers were self-reported from online surveys:

> Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and
> pedestrians to analyze the factors associated with such behaviors. They used
> snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for
> an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with
> multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in
> each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain
> their rationales.

As both a cyclist and a driver, I aim for maximum predictability whenever I'm
on the road. None of my movements should ever surprise drivers or other
cyclists (who are paying attention).

Candidly, about 3/4 of my cyclist friends are intent on following the rules of
the road. The other 1/4 are convinced that rules only exist for cars. I've
seen too many close calls from people making illegal moves under the mistaken
belief that it was safer to run a stop sign, or make a quick lane change
without signaling, or otherwise behave as if they could out-maneuver the cars
around them.

As a driver, my only close calls with cyclists have been when they skipped
stop signs or assumed that the cars would yield to them at 4-way stops. A
cyclist even T-boned my wife's car while she was driving the speed limit down
a residential street because the cyclist assumed they could maneuver around
her.

Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability
to the mix.

~~~
MereInterest
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding
> unpredictability to the mix.

This framing makes a lot of assumptions about city/road design that are not
universal. I'd say that cycling is inherently an incredibly safe activity.
Driving is a dangerous activity to those inside the car, and even more so to
those outside the car.

~~~
narwally
Yep, I actually feel much safer when I'm flying down singletrack on my
mountain bike than I do when I'm commuting to work. On the mountain bike I
know exactly what and where the dangers are, and I have a lot of control over
how much risk I take. On my commuter, no matter how I ride, some subset of
drivers get pissed of at my existence, and there's another set that aren't
paying enough attention to notice my existence at all. There are ways I can
ride that help mitigate some of the risks, but ultimately my safety is largely
in the hands of the drivers around me.

As of a few years ago I actually quit riding on the road altogether. It seemed
like for every mountain bike acquaintance I had that broke their collar bone,
there was a road bike acquaintance that ended up dead or paralyzed. The risks
no longer seemed worth it, especially given the fact that commuting by bike
had begun to feel stressful instead of a nice way of getting some exercise
before and after work.

------
charonn0
> They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other
> participants—for an online survey

Which is about as scientific as my personal anecdote of being run over by a
cyclist.

~~~
cuddlybacon
Or my anecdotes of when cyclists swerve into me when I take my right of way at
a crosswalk.

------
raffraffraff
I cycle a lot, and I don't drive. And yes, I sometimes break rules for my
safety. For example, I refuse to use stupidly designed cycle lanes that:

* Mount the foot path and then return to the road.

* Force me to use pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.

* Railroad me onto the side of the road when I actually want to make a turn (ie: force me to dismount and use a pedestrian crossing instead of using the correct lane for that turn)

* Vanish abruptly

But a lot of cyclists I see (in my city anyway) are just inconsiderate
assholes who have no road etiquette. They run red lights, ignore one way
systems, cycle on pedestrian paths, or (the very worst) cycle the wrong way on
cycle paths.

And don't get me started on lycra clad (always male) cyclists who 'come at
you' side-by-side on a cycle path that fits exactly two cyclists. I'm not sure
if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word
generally jolts them out of their idiocy.

~~~
mcfunk
'I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud,
sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.' Thanks for the
entirely accurate and entertaining read. There are definitely many c-words
among us, and I assume you don't mean 'commuters' \-- most of _those_ of us
are just trying to get along without getting squashed, and that often means
using infrastructure in ways other than the intended, because it was never
intended for our safety.

------
mulmen
I ride bicycles and motorcyles and frequently break the letter of the law for
my own safety. Two wheeled transportation just simply is not considered or
understood by transit authorities, at least not in my city.

I will never stop behind a car. That just is not going to happen. I don't want
to be the meat on a texting driver stopped car sandwich. This means some
amount of lane filtering/splitting.

I will ride my bike on a sidewalk to avoid traffic, even if there is a "bike
lane" if I don't feel that lane is safe, such as when it is on a major route
with lots of traffic.

I will not give you room to pass if there are parked cars on the side of the
road. I'm not going to get doored so you can get to your destination 30
seconds faster.

When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat
model makes sense.

This says nothing of the lack of knowledge on the part of drivers as to what
motorcycles and bicycles are actually entitled to do and their willingness to
be vigilantes to enforce their perception of the law, even when it endangers
my life.

~~~
romanoderoma
> I will never stop behind a car.

For the same reason I try not to be behind a motorbike (or a bike)

A turn that I can make at 30kmh safely becomes a turn where the two wheeler in
front of me stalls almost to an halt and I have to break in the middle of it

They use different trajectories, which are almost unpredictable

They stop in front of cars at the traffic light, but their start is very slow
so usually a jam is created from nothing (sudden start/stops are the root
cause of the majority of crashes in traffic jams)

I think everyone should consider their strength and weaknesses and account for
them

Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much
slower transit in turns

It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it
you can anticipate for it

If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended

~~~
mulmen
Sounds like you need to reevaluate your following distance and
responsibilities as a driver. Much of your complaints here are why two wheeled
operators assume cars are trying to kill them. Most of this is _your_
responsibility to avoid.

Stopping behind a car and following are not comparable. The speed differential
is the key here, and the crumple zones. In your car it is the hood and
fenders, on my bike it is my body. A 25mph collision is easily fatal.

> Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much
> slower transit in turns

Differential between what? The one rear wheel?

> It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it
> you can anticipate for it

Huh? The rules of the road completely account for these differences. There is
absolutely a right and wrong.

> If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended

It is 100% _your_ responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end
someone. Bike riders just take evasive and defensive action because drivers
can't be trusted.

~~~
romanoderoma
> Sounds like you need to reevaluate your following distance

If I didn't care, I would not brake, don't you think?

At 30kmh bike brakes are more efficient

At 30kmh every second an object moves about 8 and a half meters

> It is 100% your responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end
> someone

So you are betting your life on someone else's sense of responsibility?

I wish I was as optimistic as you are!

~~~
mulmen
> If I didn't care, I would not brake, don't you think?

You're missing the point. If you have to brake suddenly in a corner for a
motorcycle _you_ made a mistake and were following too close. _You_ should
change your behavior in the future.

> At 30kmh bike brakes are more efficient

Except they can't be used effectively while turning.

> So you are betting your life on someone else's sense of responsibility?

I was very clear about this. I assume you will fail in your responsibility.
This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.

~~~
romanoderoma
Who said suddenly?

I just said I have to.

For the sake of someone else's safety

Most of the times I have to because the biker (motor or not) approached the
turn at a far greater speed then they could handle

Don't build up expectations, if you can't keep them

I guess you never witnessed a bike surpassing you on the right side of a turn,
like they were on a race track, just to stop in front of you when they realise
there is some kind of blockage or it is a slow turn and it's not the car in
front of them that it's trying to slow then down on purpose

Try to keep the distances when they jump in front of you from nowhere...

> This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.

So you are making someone else unsafe, possibly a woman with a stroller, to
keep you safe?

That's not what I call being responsible...

~~~
mulmen
> So you are making someone else unsafe, possibly a woman with a stroller, to
> keep you safe?

No? If I ride my _bicycle_ on the sidewalk it is at basically walking speed so
as not to endanger pedestrians.

If I lane split my motorcycle the woman and stroller would have to be in
traffic to be at any risk.

~~~
romanoderoma
You are still doing something unlawful betting that everything's gonna be ok

What's the difference with a moped or a motorbike doing the same?

~~~
mulmen
Mopeds stay on the road. I don't break laws that can result in me hitting a
pedestrian.

In the United States it is illegal (almost everywhere) to ride between lanes
of traffic _at any speed_. That is a law I break almost every time I am on a
motorcycle. The only way to hit a pedestrian in that situation is if they are
walking between lanes of traffic. I typically do it at stop signs and lights
where I stop between two rows of cars so if one gets rear ended I am not the
one that gets obliterated.

I will treat a traffic light as a stop sign if it does not detect my bike,
which is common. I won't wait for a car to hopefully stop behind me without
killing me. I do this at intersections I am familiar with. This is technically
legal if you do it a certain way but I often don't wait that long to minimize
my risk.

I'm not taking a motorized vehicle down a sidewalk at any speed. I will ride
my bicycle on a sidewalk along busy streets if there is minimal pedestrian
presence and no alternate route. When a conflict with a pedestrian presents
itself I move back to the road if possible.

There are also legal things I do that are often perceived as illegal such as
riding with my high beams on during the day or skipping ferry lines. If I get
flashed by oncoming traffic they may be mad at me but at least I know they saw
me.

~~~
romanoderoma
US road traffic is not usually like this though

[https://www.romadailynews.it/photogallery_new/images/2015/05...](https://www.romadailynews.it/photogallery_new/images/2015/05/traffico-
roma-252245.660x368.jpg)

While it is pretty common in cities like Rome or Paris or Barcelona

~~~
mulmen
Yeah that would never happen in the US. I mean it might but there would be
bodies everywhere.

------
geocrasher
I used to bicycle commute to work, 11mi round trip. I broke rules, but not
glaringly.

The worst of the rule breakers are the wrong-way cyclists: The ones who think
that riding on the wrong side of the road is safer because they can see cars
coming. They are wrong.

Riding on the wrong side, and on sidewalks, puts you in places cars would
never expect you to be, and so they're even more oblivious.

If you're going to break rules, break the right ones and understand the impact
fully.

~~~
emerged
It's especially dangerous when you're cycling on the right side of the road
and come across cyclist going the wrong way.

Had this happen to me recently on a 55mph highway with no shoulder. The other
cyclists didn't even take it upon themselves to move, they just headed right
toward me.

~~~
gpm
Only of a 50 km/h (not mile) road, but I had another cyclist do this in the
dark, weaving in and out of park cars, wearing dark clothing, without lights,
in an area with minimal street lights, do this to me.

It was one of the closest calls I've had. I'm pretty sure I would have run
into him head on if I hadn't had a bright front light.

------
mindslight
As a former cyclist, the headline is 100% bullshit. I generally broke laws for
the sake of efficiency. Having said that, there is a huge distinction between
breaking overbearing laws designed for cars, and going against the common
norms of the road. Treating red lights and stop signs as yields is fine.
Ignoring the existence of intersections and forcing drivers to yield to you is
being an asshole on a good day, and deadly on a bad one.

The things I did do for safety (eg riding out far enough to not get doored,
taking a lane to turn or avoid obstacles) generally weren't illegal. Although
I could see this being different in a place with different laws that weren't
worded in terms of safety.

------
throw7
Around me, there are a couple of intersections which have detectors to change
the signal light, so if there's no car around you're not getting a green
light.

Things are getting better I guess... in NY, "complete streets" was signed in
2011. I consider that pretty recent though. Even post 2011, there were
projects near me that were already underway and getting completed that
completely ignored cycling. -.-

~~~
throwaway9191a
Virginia(US) has a law regarding this as well.

"B. ... if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the
intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes,
whichever is shorter, ..."

[https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/secti...](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-833/)

Which makes a lot of sense. I've been in this situation in my car as well. The
light just doesn't change.

------
sleepysysadmin
>Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety,
because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system dominated by
cars.

Because bike lanes were an afterthought. Cycling is very unsafe.

Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks. The problem arose was
that sidewalks were unsafe. Pedestrians would just walk into the way of the
cyclists and the cyclists would be hurt.

So politicians looking to raise tax revenues started making it difficult to
ride a bike. Helmets are required, bans from sidewalks, 20km/h speed limits of
bike lanes/paths. Many reflectors on the bike. Bell or horn on the bike
needed. This is all to harass cyclists.

Now that bikes are on roads, now you have cars just driving into the way of
cyclsts and hurting them; possibly even killing them.

Why are cyclists always being hurt by everyone else?

~~~
MereInterest
> Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks.

Depends a bit by what you mean by "originally". In the early 1900s, bikes
traveled in the street. Pedestrians traveled in the street. Everybody was in
the street. The idea that the streets are the sole province of the car, and
that pedestrians/bikers may cross the street only where it does not
inconvenience the car, is the result of marketing to avoid cars being liable
for pedestrian injury/death.

So, same story of cars being overly prominent, but stepping back another 50
years.

------
gwbas1c
I thought the article would list out some of the rules that cyclists break.

I'm sure 100% of people break some rule at some point, so saying 100% of the
participants admitted to breaking some rule, is like saying 100% of people
fart in public.

But, anyway, for the 18 months or so that I biked to work, I tried to follow
the rules. Yes, I rolled through some stop signs. (Don't we all, no matter
what kind of vehicle we're piloting?) The much slower speed on a bike makes it
easier to look at all incoming lanes before you enter the intersection.

But, I've had close calls in a car with cyclists. I've had close calls on a
bike with cars. I once went over my handlebars when some doofus bolted across
the street on a bike without looking. People are bad at following the rules of
the road. It doesn't matter if it's a car or a bicycle.

------
benrbray
Cyclists break rules because the rules were not written with us in mind.

The tired straw man argument against cyclists has them saying "treat me like a
car!" one minute and "treat me like a pedestrian!" the next. But really, I
just want to be treated _like a cyclist_. There are three major classes of
transportation, not just two [@].

Here are some road rules that I regularly break for my own safety:

> In most places, it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. However, most
> roads near me have no bike lanes. My city (Atlanta) has a notorious problem
> with highway traffic spilling out into the city, and as a result drivers are
> viciously impatient and I've had too many close calls while riding my bike
> on major roads. I ride on the sidewalk when there is no other safe option.

> In some places, it is illegal for a bicycle to pass a red light, even when
> it's all clear. However, when I'm riding on the road, there is usually a
> pack of impatient drivers waiting behind me. If don't accelerate quickly
> enough, they will honk at me and/or pass me within inches. Usually, I can
> put a safe distance between myself and the cars behind me if I start moving
> a little before the light turns green.

> Regarding sidewalk riding again: My city has too many one-way streets. This
> is fine for cars, who travel a longer distance on average than I do. But for
> short bike trips, not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip
> time by 3-4x. This is a problem solved by separated bike lanes.

Not to mention the fact that we rarely hold drivers accountable for their
rule-breaking. As a bicyclist, my mistakes can are only lethal to myself. A
driver's mistakes kill other people.

Here's also a list of dangerous traffic behavior that SHOULD be illegal but
ISN'T, because the law is written for the convenience of drivers, not the
safety of pedestrians and cyclists:

> Right-turn-on-red should be illegal anywhere there is a pedestrian signal.
> When turning on red, drivers are looking to the left for oncoming traffic,
> and rarely look for pedestrians to the right until it is too late. When the
> pedestrian light is on, there should be ZERO chance of being hit by a law-
> abiding car!

> Left turns should have a dedicated lane and signal. Left-turn-on-green puts
> drivers in direct conflict with pedestrians, for the same reasons as right-
> turn-on-red.

> Speeding is too pervasive, and speed limits should be strictly enforced.
> Failing to use a turn signal should also be ticketed more often. I would
> support camera enforcement if I didn't think it would leak into public
> spaces beyond just roads.

> Freight trucks and other vehicles pulling a trailer too often swerve outside
> their lane. This is extremely dangerous and should be punished.

[@] Really, their are four modes of ground transportation, but Americans don't
believe in trains.

~~~
teraku
Regarding one-way streets: In Germany it's perfectly legal for bikes to ride
against one-ways.

~~~
Omin
Not by default, no. The street must have a sign allowing it ("Radfahrer
frei"). Many have them but quite a few which should don't.

~~~
teraku
TIL!

------
meitham
I lost count of the times I was nearly hit by cyclists in London who think
traffic lights don't apply to them!

~~~
InitialLastName
Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times I've been nearly hit by cars
in [everywhere] who think stop signs and crosswalk rules don't apply to them.

------
heikkilevanto
Depends a lot where you are from. Here in Copenhagen, biking is a fairly safe
and well respected way of transport. Pity it does not seem to be so in many
other places.

------
sandworm101
>> for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety, followed by saving
energy, saving time, and increasing one’s visibility.

Ok... that is a very strange sentence. Time and energy (ie speed) are
basically interchangeable (ie rolling through stop signs). So too are "safety"
and "visibility" intrinsically related. Being seen by cars is like 90% of
bicycle safety. The real question is whether lawbreaking for (time+energy) is
greater than for (safety+visibility). The article doesn't give us that data.

~~~
OliverJones
For what it's worth, it's metabolically costly to completely stop and then
start moving again on a bike. And it also costs some maneuverability. Let me
explain.

Above a certain speed, both bicycles and motorcycles are more maneuverable,
and more predictable, than they are when going more slowly. Above that speed
threshold they're counter-steered. That is, when I want to turn right I apply
very slight left-turning pressure to the front wheel. That makes the bike bank
to the right and smoothly enter the turn. At lower speeds I turn the wheel in
the direction I want to go.

This counter-steering thing is only a factor in two-wheeled vehicles: vehicles
with more wheels can't bank, of course. I've been a cyclist for decades, but I
didn't understand counter-steering until I took motorcycle driver training.
Motorcycle instructors drill it into us because it's a vital part of swerving
to avoid obstructions when going at motorized speeds.

As a cyclist in traffic I find I'm particularly vulnerable in the transition
between direct-steer and counter-steer speeds. So, trying to keep my speed
above the threshold both saves my energy and keeps me at maneuvering speed.

I do this by slowing down when approaching a red light, with the hope it will
change to green before I arrive. I also try to stop a few meters back from a
red light so I have space to get up to maneuvering speed before entering an
intersection without having to stand and stomp my pedals.

~~~
narwally
I do the same thing. intersections are the most dangerous place you can be on
two wheels, so having speed when you go through them means you're in them for
a shorter period of time and you have more maneuverability and control of your
bike.

------
WarOnPrivacy
First bicycle lesson for kids here is to ride on the sidewalk.

The other options just invite broken bones and head trauma.

~~~
InitialLastName
In many places, the other options are the only legal ones.

In NYC, any bicyclist over 12 years old or with wheels over 26" is required to
ride in the street.

~~~
WarOnPrivacy
>In NYC, any bicyclist over 12 years old or with wheels over 26" is required
to ride in the street.

Here, that's a good way to die. We can say that because bicyclists are
regularly run down. Pedestrians too.

It's the natural outcome when you densely pack retirees with drive thru
pharmacies/liquor stores.

------
mgarfias
clearly the authors never went to portland to deal with the idiot bicyclists
there.

