
Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights - fjk
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride
======
languagehacker
I think this over-states the case for "otherwise law-abiding" cyclists. Anyone
who's tried crossing Market Street on foot has probably been nearly hit by a
cyclist completely ignoring stop signs, red lights, and anyone else's right of
way. Those problems need to be addressed with direct enforcement before we can
possibly consider giving bicyclists any special treatment above the behavior
of cars -- specifically because they have already shown that many of them are
not capable of using their own discretion with respect to a pedestrian's right
of way.

I spoke to an SFPD officer on Market and 2nd the other day, and he watched as
five different cyclists ran a red light stopping vehicular traffic on Market.
I asked him why he wasn't giving tickets to the cyclists, and he told me that
he is specifically not allowed to. He reiterated to me that the official
policy of the SFPD is not to enforce traffic violations by cyclists on Market
Street. He told me that this is because the SF Bike Coalition has run a
campaign vilifying police officers and accusing them of harassing cyclists.
This is all at the cost of pedestrian safety.

I'm not making this shit up, either. I've been hit by two bicyclists in the
last year who were running red lights while I was legally crossing Market
street on foot. And let's not forget all the cyclists riding on the sidewalk
or against traffic.

SF is a zoo enough without people gleefully ignoring all traffic safety laws
to suit their own convenience, and I don't think we should make it any easier
on the people who do it.

~~~
lolwutf
My policy, when on foot, is such:

-Completely ignore bicyclists. This may perhaps cause them abruptly stop and not like me. I don't care, because I have the right-of-way, and they are in the wrong.

-Beat the living piss out of any biker that collides with me. (As a result of their vehicular assault, which is what recklessly hitting me with your bike in the crosswalk represents. This includes throwing their bike into traffic where it hopefully gets run over, for good measure.)

Fortunately, I haven't had to do the last step yet. I've cut off plenty of
bikers as they attempt to zip past me in a crosswalk and have had them curse
at me and just give them a 'fuck you' smile. :)

Listen bikers, the rules are simple and have been around forever: when you're
in the roadway, conduct yourself as a vehicle. This includes obeying all
traffic signs and patterns. If you ultimately have problems hitting people,
YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.

~~~
Fishkins
As someone who both walks and bikes a lot (currently in NYC): Bikes often run
lights when they shouldn't, and that's dangerous and shitty. But even more
often than that, pedestrians stride out into the intersection against the
light in front of a bike that's riding through with a green light. Pedestrians
stop for cars, but many don't think bikes are worth stopping for no matter
what. The problem is on all ends (and as I said in my other post, systemic)

Everyone, no matter their means of transit, should try to prevent collisions.
You're endangering yourself and others if you don't.

~~~
lolwutf
So, I like to fall back to the law here, which says something along the lines
of '[all vehicles should conduct themselves in a controlled manner, in which
they can stop for a pedestrian at any time]'.

To that end, I still feel the biker is compelled (and actually is, legally so)
to, ultimately, stop for the pedestrian striding out into the intersection on
a green, if necessary. And I feel no sympathy for the biker, should he hit the
pedestrian.

That said, I think it's entirely in-line for the biker to give a chewing out
to the lackadaisical pedestrian who's disobeying traffic regulations.

~~~
maxerickson
It's funny that you fall back to the law here but ignore it when you plan to
beat the living piss out of people.

They shouldn't be hitting you, but just the same, the law says you shouldn't
be hitting them, except in situations where you are under some imminent
threat. I doubt a cyclist that has just collided with a pedestrian has plans
to continue the attack.

------
dredmorbius
The energy-use argument strikes me as ... interesting. It's not that stopping
and starting takes any less energy for a car (particularly avehicle without
regenerative braking), but that the _rider 's effort_ is greater. In fairness,
the article states this, but the distinction could be clearer.

It does highlight just how much of an efficiency loss frequent stop/start
traffic is. In my experience, my most efficient travel (long distance at ~90
kph) is about 1.7x more fuel efficient than when I'm driving surface streets
with frequent stops, based on liters/100km (US MGP ratings obscure this
relationship).

As a cyclist, _in light traffic_ I tend to the Idaho Stop practice. There are
a number of rationales:

• The injury a bicycle can inflict is generally vastly less than that of an
automobile.

• Cyclists almost always have much better visibility and awareness of
surrounding traffic, with the possible exception of traffic to the rear.

• Bicycles generally accelerate much more slowly from a stop than motor
vehicles.

However, _in traffic_ scenarios, I tend to fairly studiously adhere to the
rules of the road. Why? Predictability, and my own risk. If I'm following
RoTR, drivers have a much better sense of where I'll be, and _I_ am less
likely to get into an unpredictable (and likely harmful) situation.

One other item: stop signs outside the US are often substituted for with "give
way" signs (you'll occasionally see "yield" in the US). Where it isn't
necessary to _always_ stop, cautioning drivers (and establishing legal rights
of way) is considered sufficient. Replacing intersections with roundabouts
also addresses this through traffic flow.

~~~
akiselev
> Predictability, and my own risk.

Bingo. I can believe this is an issue for discussion in Idaho, but in urban
environments (where I assume most reside)? A bicyclist is a bag of calcium and
water perched on some welded aluminum pipes swimming in a sea of tanks. When
you're driving a car, predictability and muscle memory are pretty much the
only thing that keeps you alive and anything out of the ordinary is a danger
that you must prepare for and avoid.

As an LA bicyclist who learned to drive after moving to SF (oh the irony), I
find behavior like this absurd. Physics doesn't care about your right of way
and while a crumple zone can protect a driver in even some of the most
gruesome accidents, few 150 pound blobs of jelly can survive getting flung
across the street.

The worst part is that in some situations, there is nothing you can do to
avoid hitting a biker who runs a red light through the intersection. I've been
in a situation twice now where swerving to avoid a biker put other people in
the intersection in danger, people who were innocent and could have lost their
lives. One of my worst nightmares is hitting someone, anyone, with my car but
at the end of the day, it is my responsibility to keep my car under control
and everyone else on the street out of unnecessary danger. When a bicyclist
flaunts the basic rules of traffic, rules meant to keep people safe in a world
of multi-ton vehicles, they force drivers into situations that often end badly
_only_ for the person without the airbags.

~~~
shkkmo
What is your point?

> few 150 pound blobs of jelly can survive getting flung across the street.

Which is why I put more effort into riding safely and defensively than I do in
riding predictably. This is why (depending on traffics, shoulder, lighting,
pedestrian visibility and driveways) there are many situations where I will go
onto the sidewalk with my bike. (The main reason I do this is to use walk
signals rather than risking following traffic laws and using the left turn
lane.)

> a biker who runs a red light through the intersection.

They did not follow the idaho stop law. I think you are arguing against a
strawman.

> When a bicyclist flaunts the basic rules of traffic, rules meant to keep
> people safe in a world of multi-ton vehicles, they force drivers into
> situations that often end badly only for the person without the airbags.

Which is why we should establish rules of the road for bicyclists that make
sense, and will be easily followed by the majority of bicyclists. Then we
enforce those rules against the 5% of arrogant jerks.

> When you're driving a car, predictability and muscle memory are pretty much
> the only thing that keeps you alive and anything out of the ordinary is a
> danger that you must prepare for and avoid.

Predictability helps, but:

Paying attention to your surroundings and not relying too heavily on
predictability is how you avoid accidents and hurting people. This is true
with or without bicyclists on the road.

Solely relying on muscle memory and predicability means you are a very BAD
driver.

~~~
akiselev
What's the strawman? Collision(Car + Bicyclist) = Dead or hurt bicyclist
almost every single time. Is that in contention?

Idaho can have it's Idaho stop, but in my big congested city I believe it's
better and safer for _everyone_ to keep green lights clear of _any and all_
orthogonal traffic, especially when the odds of survival are so one sided and
the gains so inconsequential.

> Paying attention to your surroundings and not relying too heavily on
> predictability is how you avoid accidents and hurting people. This is true
> with or without bicyclists on the road.

> Solely relying on muscle memory and predicability means you are a very BAD
> driver.

I can't even... what are you saying?

Paying attention to your surroundings is how you predict (which is why the
_predictability of other animate actors_ is important) and muscle memory is
how you get better at dealing with all situations, mundane or extreme, through
practice and experience.

~~~
shkkmo
> What's the strawman?

I said: >They did not follow the idaho stop law.

The straw man is equating someone who runs a red without stopping or checking
for traffic with someone who follows the idaho stop law.

> Paying attention to your surroundings is how you predict

Huh? Making assumptions based on past experience is how you predict.

If you are relying on your assumptions about what people are doing and not
carefully watching what they are doing is a danger.

Obviously, all three (attention, prediction, and muscle memory) contribute to
safe driving. However, I would rather have a driving that is watching what I
am doing than a driving that thinks he can predict what I am doing. That is
why I objected to this line "When you're driving a car, predictability and
muscle memory are pretty much the only thing that keeps you alive".

>>> Solely relying on muscle memory and predicability means you are a very BAD
driver.

This is how I see most drivers operate. This is why there are certain areas
where as pedestrian I have to yield to traffic even though I have the right of
way. Very few drivers pay proper attention to their surroundings.

------
jessaustin
It may be difficult to believe, but automobiles are a much bigger threat to
the safety of pedestrians than bicycles are. This is true no matter how you
measure it: rate of incident, rate of injury, rate of death, etc. Motorized
vehicles drive too fast in urban areas. Pedestrians should welcome anything
that effectively slows them down.

------
awolf
If bicyclists are to be allowed in vehicular traffic lanes, then they should
be treated as vehicles and governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No
exceptions.

Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations.
Adding a new class of movement patterns for bicycles which are sharing lanes
with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict _for everyone_.
There's no way this would be safer in dense, highly trafficked cities.

~~~
shkkmo
> ...governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions.

So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway?

> Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations.

True, but the current disregard to those laws means that expected behavior is
inconsistent with the behavior mandated by laws.

> Adding a new class of movement rules for bicycles which are sharing lanes
> with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict and anticipate
> for everyone.

Bikes already move and behave differently, just due to mechanics and physics.
Bringing expectations in line with this and normalizing behavior INCREASES
predictability.

~~~
justinreeves
> So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway.

You can't drive a car at 20mph on the highway either.

~~~
minikomi
OK less extreme.. I should be able to ride in the middle of the road, and only
overtaken where it's safe as indicated by a broken-line.

~~~
shkkmo
Umm... you can. You are welcome to ride in the middle of your lane and you
should only be passed where legally allowed.

------
sswezey
In a somewhat related note with bicycle laws, what is the best way to deal
with bicycles filtering? Bicycles can filter at a light/stop sign to get up to
the front. However, they then hold up the cars since the bicycle should be
treated as taking the entire lane and the cars have to wait for the other lane
or an empty turn lane, etc to pass them. This is exceptionally bad on roads
with speed limits more than 20/25 mph, causing severe back ups between lights
and stop signs. This is just another issue that causes people to rage about
cyclists.

~~~
elwell
To add to your question: it's relatively the same for motorcyclists too.

~~~
justinreeves
It's not really, because a motorcycle can out-accelerate the traffic they
filter past.

~~~
MetaCosm
Also, filtering (lane splitting, white lining, etc) is often ticketed as
reckless or some peer of it (on a motorcycle). While it often doesn't have its
own designation -- if you are caught, you go home with a HELL of a ticket.

------
couchand
I find it interesting that the article compares this to right turn on red.
There's a fair amount of evidence that right turn on red is pretty damaging to
pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, this report [0] from the US DOT saw an
increase in collisions with bikes and pedestrians of between 50 and 125%.

Not exactly the horse I'd hitch my carriage to...

[0]: [http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25600/25603/DOT-
HS-806-182.pdf](http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25600/25603/DOT-HS-806-182.pdf)

~~~
MetaCosm
Wow, that is damning for RTOR. Makes intuitive sense, but damn.

------
Holbein
According to the article and video, under the proposed law, bikes wouldn't be
allowed to "blow through a stop sign". The fine for that would be even
increased.

Which makes me wonder, what's the difference between "yielding while
preserving some speed" and "blowing through"? Is there a defined speed that is
still allowed?

~~~
Jemaclus
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference is that
"yielding" means that you should be able to come to a full and complete stop
if you see oncoming traffic, whereas if you were "blowing through" at full
speed, you would be unable to come to a full and complete stop in time to
avoid impeding oncoming traffic. That speed changes depending on a number of
factors (slope, speed, weight, distance to stop, etc).

------
rdl
For San Francisco, my biggest right of way question is: is a homeless person
pushing a shopping cart filled with bags of recycling, at 1mph, occupying a
lane of traffic, a pedestrian, or a vehicle?

------
everyone
I'm from Ireland. Our level of cycling and accommodation of such in law and
infrastructure is certainly far better than the US but also far worse than,
say, the Netherlands or Denmark (who are exemplary in this respect (and many
others)).

I come across these kinds of arguments a lot on boards.ie (Irelands main
internet forum) and in general public discourse.

What I find interesting in these kinds of arguments/discussion is, basically,
how bigoted people are, without realising it. In almost all cases I have seen,
people who cycle are in favour of cyclists rights, poeple who drive are in
favour of drivers rights, people who do both are in favour of a compromise.
Very rarely do you see any impartial evidence based assertions on the matter.
All of you here: Read back your comment and think about that, are you biased?

~~~
dustcoin
I use a mix of driving, biking, walking and public transit to get around, and
don't commute via car, so I should have a fairly neutral view.

That said, I find that the cyclists come across as the most irrational and
biased in these discussions.

In Seattle, I've found a cyclist approaching an intersection is at least
10-100x as likely to dangerously run through a red light or ignore a stop sign
than someone in a car. When cars run red lights, it tends to be within 1
second after the light was yellow. Cyclists will blow through without slowing
at any time they please. I can safely claim that cyclists are at least an
order of magnitude more likely to blatantly violate traffic laws than drivers
are, and the argument that "drivers are just as bad as cyclists" holds zero
weight to me.

~~~
shkkmo
> I can safety claim that cyclists are at least an order of magnitude more
> likely to blatantly violate traffic laws than drivers are, and the argument
> that "drivers are just as bad as cyclists" holds zero weight to me.

Except that the most commonly, blatantly violated traffic law is the speed
limit. This is one that is almost never violated by bicyclists.

------
u801e
There are two concepts that come into play when complying with a stop sign.
The first is to come to a complete stop. The second is to yield to any
conflicting traffic prior to entering the intersection.

What many people fail to realize is that the first action is largely
unnecessary when there is sufficient visibility to check for conflicting
traffic prior to actually reaching the intersection. As long as one yields to
conflicting traffic, coming to a full stop is immaterial to intersection
safety.

------
Torgo
After bicycling to and from work for a couple years, I settled on exactly this
behavior. If you're doing it as stated, there's no risk because there's no car
driver close enough to be reasonably confused about what you're doing.

------
makosdv
If you're riding your bike on the road, I think you need to follow the rules
of the road. Otherwise, get off the road.

I've seen way too many cases where cyclists make the roads more dangerous for
everyone.

~~~
mpapi
If you're driving your car on the road, I think you need to follow the rules
of the road. Otherwise, get off the road.

I've seen way too many cases where drivers make the roads more dangerous for
everyone.

------
Jach
The Idaho Stop makes sense to me and is basically what I did as a kid when I
biked a lot more, but as a driver (in Redmond no less, the "bicycle capital of
the northwest") I still want more restrictions on bikers. Basically my dream
is this: if there isn't a defined bike lane, bikes are pedestrians. This
implies they should stay on the sidewalk (or if there is no sidewalk then the
shoulder or side-dirt) and use the pedestrian crosswalks at stoplight
intersections unless the Idaho Stop applies, especially if they need to go
left they should wait at the crosswalk instead of crossing over a few lanes to
the left-turn lane.

------
jessaustin
TFA seems to exaggerate the difference between Idaho and Dead Red for
stoplights. Depending on how Dead Red laws are interpreted, the stopping time
is not necessarily a "set period" as stated. If the cyclist knows the
induction loop isn't going to pick up the bicycle, then a momentary stop meets
the requirements in many jurisdictions.

------
jdstraughan
Cars pay yearly taxes (registration) and face inspection and insurance
requirements to drive on roads. Cyclists are not taxed yearly for owning a
bike, required to get licenses, insurance, inspections, etc. Until this
changes, riding bicycles on public roads is a privilege, and should be treated
as such.

~~~
blocktuw
I have heard many reasons for and against bicycle registration. Your reasons
mostly mirror the reasons of vehicle registration; use of public roads is a
privilege. However, as has been noted already in this thread bikes and cars
are not the same.

I believe the initial reason for registering cars was about accountability and
costs. Cars are dangerous because of their weight and velocity. They need to
be respected because they can easily kill people. They also need
infrastructure that is built to accommodate their size and weight.

I believe most calls for bike registration are about revenue and fairness
while using public infrastructure. If bikes were taxed like cars, the yearly
registration fee would be in the single digits (based on original purchase
price, age, curb weight) and not worth collecting. Bike infrastructure costs
much less than vehicle infrastructure to build and maintain.

Pedestrians do not pay tax to use the infrastructure (sidewalks). I don't
think they should pay.

In my ideal world bikes would be registered and pay taxes. They would be
required to follow vehicle rules when on a road. However, cities should
eliminate almost all roads in urban areas with high density and replace them
with public transportation, bike highways, and pedestrian sidewalks. Density +
cars is dangerous.

I'm live in Colorado and build software that helps cyclists avoid streets with
heavy vehicle traffic.

------
carsongross
Yep.

Cars too.

------
cwisecarver
If cyclists want to ride on the roads that are predominantly used by cars they
should have to follow the same traffic laws as cars so they are as predictable
as cars. Pedestrians walking on the road have a strict set of rules to keep
everyone safe. Alternatively, they should be barred from riding on roads and
have their own rules which would make them equally predictable.

Northern Virginia has some of the worst drivers I've seen anywhere in the
country but you can predict that they're going to run a red light up until 5
seconds after it's changed or that they're going to race past a line of
stopped cars and try to cut into an exit at the last moment while texting.

Cyclists here are a completely different breed and are in no way predictable.
I've seen them riding into on-coming traffic, ditch off a road onto a sidewalk
to cross an intersection only to jump back onto the road after the
intersection. I've seen more near misses with pedestrians in cross walks and
cars making a right on red than I can possibly count.

Because they don't consistently follow any rules whatsoever they're dangerous
and the majority of them have an holier than thou attitude because they're not
ruining the environment. They're just ruining every driver and pedestrian's
commute.

~~~
toufka
> Because they don't consistently follow any rules whatsoever they're
> dangerous and the majority of them have an holier than thou attitude because
> they're not ruining the environment. They're just ruining every driver and
> pedestrian's commute.

I think a more generous reading of the situation is that there is no generic
norm for how cyclists should act. They don't actually know how to best act.
They are not cars. They are not pedestrians. Laws themselves are both
inconsistent and unnatural between various cities (precisely because there is
no generic norm for cyclists...).

It's no so much that bikes should conform to rules which make no sense, but
that the larger complex of cities as a whole should adapt to the fact that
bikes have become part of their character. There needs to be predictability,
certainly, but you're not going to get that by forcing bikes to act like
vehicles that they are not.

~~~
cwisecarver
I'd be perfectly fine with them having a set of rules they follow assuming the
vast majority followed them and the ones that didn't were ticketed just as
drivers or pedestrians would be.

~~~
vetrom
You know... I'd be fine with that as long as other vehicles also got regularly
ticketed when they flagrantly violate the right-of-way of bicycles following
road rules as defined by $JURISDICITON. The last time I saw that was.......

never.

If you are going to make an argument for the rule of law, it does have to be
applied as a whole, not just to the groups you hate. If that sounds so
unpalatable, perhaps the law needs to be changed. That is the case which this
article is making.

~~~
cwisecarver
Other vehicles not getting ticketed for violations has absolutely nothing to
do with this. If LE isn't doing it's job, then it's not doing it's job
regardless of the mode of transport. The article is about laws directed at
cyclists not being logical. It rings a little hollow when the subject of the
article can't follow the laws they already have.

For whatever it's worth, I don't hate cyclists. I have a bike that I ride
around neighborhood streets and through local parks for recreation. I don't
ride it on highly-traveled roads or as a transportation device because I think
I'd be impeding motorized vehicles and I'd really rather not be killed.

