4 ms·

> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians. Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allo

by _pmf_ 10y ago

> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians. Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allowing bikes this special treatment of stop signs and red lights would incite them to use the road instead switching to the sidewalk (to be faster)? I.e., yes, bikers might be entitled, but the suggestion would also benefit pedestrians.

dogma1138 10y ago
Well that's now things end up working the laws are they stand now supposed to prevent bad behaviour but many cyclists tend to ignore them for many reasons including considerable lack of enforcement. Passing a law that induced bad behaviour from the get go is counter productive. I've read the article and I've watched the video and it's utterly out of touch with reality from my personal experience. Also we have stop and yield signs specifically for one reason and that is to take out personal judgement out of the picture. Considering the poor judgement I see exhibited by cyclists already I'm not prone to give them any more reasons to justify their current behaviour. "It's not fun to stop at a stop sign" isn't a good enough reason to let them decide when it's their time to cross and when it's not.
joncrocks 10y ago
In the UK (where I think the poster is from), it's already illegal for cyclists to cycle on a pavement (sidewalk) next to a road. I think. His experiences are with cyclists flouting the existing laws when they travel on the road.
- hermannj314 10y ago
  In my city (not-UK), it is only allowed if you are moving at the speed of pedestrian traffic (a limit of 8mph). I'm guessing to allow children to ride without fear of being cited, or allow a cyclist around a difficult road condition. My point is that I do not know of anywhere that a cyclist can hop on a sidewalk at full-speed and not be violating the law.
- jeffwass 10y ago
  Correct. My concern is that such a move would give further credence to cyclists that they're "above the laws of the road", which would lead to even more of the dangerous types of cyclist behaviour I mentioned above.

by _pmf_ 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

Well that's now things end up working the laws are they stand now supposed to prevent bad behaviour but many cyclists tend to ignore them for many reasons including considerable lack of enforcement. Passing a law that induced bad behaviour from the get go is counter productive. I've read the article and I've watched the video and it's utterly out of touch with reality from my personal experience. Also we have stop and yield signs specifically for one reason and that is to take out personal judgement out of the picture. Considering the poor judgement I see exhibited by cyclists already I'm not prone to give them any more reasons to justify their current behaviour. "It's not fun to stop at a stop sign" isn't a good enough reason to let them decide when it's their time to cross and when it's not.

joncrocks 10y ago

In the UK (where I think the poster is from), it's already illegal for cyclists to cycle on a pavement (sidewalk) next to a road. I think. His experiences are with cyclists flouting the existing laws when they travel on the road.

hermannj314 10y ago
In my city (not-UK), it is only allowed if you are moving at the speed of pedestrian traffic (a limit of 8mph). I'm guessing to allow children to ride without fear of being cited, or allow a cyclist around a difficult road condition. My point is that I do not know of anywhere that a cyclist can hop on a sidewalk at full-speed and not be violating the law.
jeffwass 10y ago
Correct. My concern is that such a move would give further credence to cyclists that they're "above the laws of the road", which would lead to even more of the dangerous types of cyclist behaviour I mentioned above.