3 ms·

There are many differences. This is in the "beating a dead horse" category of argument because the difference between driving up to an intersection and biking

by birken 11y ago

There are many differences. This is in the "beating a dead horse" category of argument because the difference between driving up to an intersection and biking up to one is so intuitively different if you've done both of them. But here are some reasons off the top of my head of why it is safer to yield through a stop sign on a bike vs a car: 1) On a bike you are much more towards the middle of the intersection so there is more space between you and people potentially entering the intersection from the sides, so you have more reaction time to deal with them 2) Your cross section is really tiny and entirely in front of you so there is no risk of hitting something you don't see 3) You have a much better field of view because you aren't obstructed by your car interior 4) You can use your sense of hearing to listen for cars/ pedestrians / other dangers 5) You are going much more slowly

bluejekyll 11y ago
Don't forget the cost of momentum. On a bike stopping and starting is a huge tax on you where as in a car it's just moving your foot from break to gas.
- jedberg 11y ago
  Except that there is also the cost to the environment. Conserving momentum in a car means using less gas.
  - roel_v 11y ago
    That's not an 'except' kind of argument, more 'as a second order effect, there is also...'.
  - mmariani 11y ago
    Tell that to the cities that don't sync their traffic lights. It doesn't matter whether I'm driving or cycling, that always pisses me off.
eridius 11y ago
Bikes are also more nimble, so you're a lot less likely to run into someone else by accident, and if you do, you're likely to only hurt yourself (running into a pedestrian is different, but you're not going to encounter a pedestrian in the middle of an interesection; cross walk, sure, but the danger there is the same whether you stop or yield). Meanwhile in a car, if you hit someone, you're driving a big multi-ton metal vehicle and you're going to injure or kill anything you hit.
steadicat 11y ago
And don't forget that a bike is least stable when starting and stopping, especially for unskilled riders. Having to come to a complete stop at every intersection can be more dangerous, not less, especially if there are cars approaching behind the cyclist: drivers are likely to roll through the stop sign themselves and pass the cyclist right as he is starting again.

by birken 11y ago

bluejekyll 11y ago

Don't forget the cost of momentum. On a bike stopping and starting is a huge tax on you where as in a car it's just moving your foot from break to gas.

jedberg 11y ago
Except that there is also the cost to the environment. Conserving momentum in a car means using less gas.
- roel_v 11y ago
  That's not an 'except' kind of argument, more 'as a second order effect, there is also...'.
- mmariani 11y ago
  Tell that to the cities that don't sync their traffic lights. It doesn't matter whether I'm driving or cycling, that always pisses me off.

eridius 11y ago

Bikes are also more nimble, so you're a lot less likely to run into someone else by accident, and if you do, you're likely to only hurt yourself (running into a pedestrian is different, but you're not going to encounter a pedestrian in the middle of an interesection; cross walk, sure, but the danger there is the same whether you stop or yield). Meanwhile in a car, if you hit someone, you're driving a big multi-ton metal vehicle and you're going to injure or kill anything you hit.

steadicat 11y ago

And don't forget that a bike is least stable when starting and stopping, especially for unskilled riders. Having to come to a complete stop at every intersection can be more dangerous, not less, especially if there are cars approaching behind the cyclist: drivers are likely to roll through the stop sign themselves and pass the cyclist right as he is starting again.