5 ms·

Are they also publicly shaming bikers who blatantly break traffic laws? EDIT: I say this as both a cyclist and a driver. I can't believe how often I see cyclis

by initram 10y ago

Are they also publicly shaming bikers who blatantly break traffic laws? EDIT: I say this as both a cyclist and a driver. I can't believe how often I see cyclists do dangerous things. But for sure, I see a lot of drivers do mean, dangerous and stupid things, too. I just get tired of cyclists thinking that traffic laws don't apply to us.

trothamel 10y ago
Yes, by making them wear ridiculous clothing in public. :)
allengeorge 10y ago
Unlikely. Although I was recently almost run over by a cyclist booting it up the wrong way on 5th. Delivery person, so I suppose he felt "justified". Yes, I'm bitter.
mikepurvis 10y ago
That's a separate problem, and statements like this give drivers permission to run roughshod over what limited infrastructure and protections are currently available for people on bicycles. Please stop. http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/09/23/the-lions-share/ http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/09/23/the-lions-share/
- jstarks 10y ago
  Who is the audience for that article? It doesn't seem designed to convince someone who doesn't already feel passionately about cyclists' rights.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > the responsibility that really matters is the responsibility not to cause harm to others. Anyone choosing a pedal cycle instead of a car has already acquitted themselves of a whole load of that responsibility, by choosing a vehicle far less capable of causing harm. How about the person pedaling a bike in a town without a bike lane, at night, with a kid in a trailer in the back with a barely visible flag sticking up. He could have been the best bike rider in the world, yet I have no doubt he was doing a very unsafe thing. Let's take the kid out of the equation. I don't quite follow the logic "well they are doing a less safe thing, so they should be able to do it and get the right of way because of it". Even taking the idea that they are an adult and if they want do put themselves in harm's way and should be allowed to, is silly, because it is rarely just one person isolated from everything. If they get into an accident it is not just them, but their family who will be impacted, emergency services, doctors' time.
  - dalke 10y ago
    A flag at night makes little difference if it's barely visible or not. I think you meant to say "without mandated lights and reflectors". I believe mikepurvis's comment was that a lot of responsibility disappears, not all responsibility. It is the driver's responsibility to not drive faster than can be seen. There can be cyclists, certainly, or someone with a seizure or heart attack who ended up on the ground, or pets, livestock, or wild animals. People do hit deer in the middle of the night, when the deer freezes up and the cars are going too fast to break in time. To reflect my Florida upbringing, people do accidentally drive into sinkholes which appeared in the middle of the street, again because they were driving too fast to break in time. They drive fast because their experience mislead them. They think that years of driving at night at a given speed, without problem, means it's safe to do so. Think of how some drunk drivers will keep doing so, on the belief that they can hold their liquor enough to handle a car. Until the day they cannot. A driver who hits a cyclist - even one without lights - was going too fast to control the car safely. This of course has limits. But the car can cause much more damage, so the operator of a car should have higher responsibility than that of a bicycle. So no, it's not that cyclists are doing a less safe thing, it's that motorists are doing a less safe thing.
legodt 10y ago
Cyclists have to operate under a different ruleset than drivers for a variety of reasons. Most of the time it involves breaking away from traffic packs for safety or keeping away from dense, scary situations. That said, there are many events in which rule-breaking cyclists are just being assholes. But let's back up for a second and look at this dynamic differently. An automobile is a metal cage moving over 3 times the speed of a cyclist with a completely safe and insulated cabin. If a driver behaves dangerously near a cyclist, the cyclist dies. If a cyclist misbehaves near a driver, the driver is very far from harm.
- i0exception 10y ago
  So going by this, different rules should apply for Car vs. Motorcycle Truck vs. Car If you're on a road that's being shared by other vehicles, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else.
  - jungrothmorton 10y ago
    Motorcycles and trucks do have different laws...
    - i0exception 10y ago
      Yes, but they don't get to break them selectively based solely on who would come to greater harm, like the parent commenter suggested. There are common rules of the road that apply to everyone. For example, it's not okay for a car to rear end a truck or for a pedestrian to jaywalk.
  - legodt 10y ago
    They do have different laws. And there is a mountain of difference between powered, engined vehicles and bicycles.
  - zardo 10y ago
    Yes. They are different things it's okay to have different rules for them.
inopinatus 10y ago
This is a separate issue and should not be conflated. The impact of dangerous cycling is orders of magnitude lower and unlike dangerous driving does not significantly endanger others.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
Do they also work towards world peace? And think about the children!
bsamuels 10y ago
in my area it seems that bikers have completely lost their minds. it's not uncommon for them to run red lights, cut across multiple lanes without checking for cars behind them, and all sorts of other batty bullshit. the point that i believe is often lost in these debates is that bikers and drivers _cannot_ share the same road. you can paint as many pretty lines as you want, but as long as bikes and cars have to share the same pavement, there will be no resolution
- sampo 10y ago
  It works well in Denmark and Netherlands and several other European countries. Even London is slowly learning. Maybe Americans are just exceptionally stubborn.
orbitingpluto 10y ago
Before I get all the hate I have to say of course cyclists should obey the laws. As a cyclist I can tell you it doesn't matter either way to many certifiably deranged motorists. Caveat aside, I'm constantly amazed that this argument gets brought up over and over again. Traffic laws exist to ensure public safety. So let's cut the bike/car bullshit about the laws being equal for both. Let's take a simple offense like running a stop sign at 15 km/hr and suppose that a pedestrian gets hit. What's the difference between a car doing this and a bicycle? Both the bike and the car are going 4 m/s. But there's a huge difference between getting hit by a car that's 1500 kg plus passengers versus an 80 kg person plus a 9 kg bike. Simple thought experiment, you've just been hit by something. What outcome would be more favorable? Would you rather have a Honda Civic on your spleen or some asshat bike courier named Jack? Two tonnes versus nine kilograms? The crime may be the same, but the outcome is far different. I've seen a van run a red light and the cyclist traveling orthogonally ride right into the side of it going 45 km/hour. Not pretty.
- lpr22 10y ago
  I'd rather not be hit by either of them, period. Cars should not be running stop signs or lights, but neither should bicyclists, period. Full stop. Also, having a bike run the stop sign and fly into an intersection out of nowhere can easily cause cars to swerve, causing accidents, or even strike the bicyclist. It's not difficult to drive, ride, or walk safely. Just do it and stop whining.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    There is a compromise, the Idaho stop[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
  - orbitingpluto 10y ago
    Thank you white man with your white man argument. The 'stop whining' argument is such an over-privileged tactic that adds nothing to the discussion. It's very similar to #alllivesmatter. Anyway, to try to add something more, I have an anecdote: Two weeks ago, a car ran the red light and a speeding white SUV had to swerve out of the way to avoid it. The SUV lost control and smashed into the lightpole that was directly in front of me. I held up my backpack as a shield against the woman and baby in the stroller next to me walking in the opposite direction while bits of the car flew into the air. Luckily the pole held up. I had to make a guess about what was going to hit me. Debris or the car. My brain did that emergency lizard brain thinking that happens in situations like that. I found it really interesting for my brain to puzzle out what was going on in my head. Turned out that the debris was the only 'preventable' injury possible. I couldn't have gotten out of the way. I couldn't have gotten the lady and her baby out of the way. But I could conceivably stop debris from hitting us full on by shielding. If that was a cyclist... the most I'd have to worry about is a couple months of a really sore back.

by initram 10y ago

trothamel 10y ago

Yes, by making them wear ridiculous clothing in public. :)

allengeorge 10y ago

Unlikely. Although I was recently almost run over by a cyclist booting it up the wrong way on 5th. Delivery person, so I suppose he felt "justified". Yes, I'm bitter.

mikepurvis 10y ago

That's a separate problem, and statements like this give drivers permission to run roughshod over what limited infrastructure and protections are currently available for people on bicycles. Please stop. http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/09/23/the-lions-share/ http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/09/23/the-lions-share/

jstarks 10y ago
Who is the audience for that article? It doesn't seem designed to convince someone who doesn't already feel passionately about cyclists' rights.
rdtsc 10y ago
> the responsibility that really matters is the responsibility not to cause harm to others. Anyone choosing a pedal cycle instead of a car has already acquitted themselves of a whole load of that responsibility, by choosing a vehicle far less capable of causing harm. How about the person pedaling a bike in a town without a bike lane, at night, with a kid in a trailer in the back with a barely visible flag sticking up. He could have been the best bike rider in the world, yet I have no doubt he was doing a very unsafe thing. Let's take the kid out of the equation. I don't quite follow the logic "well they are doing a less safe thing, so they should be able to do it and get the right of way because of it". Even taking the idea that they are an adult and if they want do put themselves in harm's way and should be allowed to, is silly, because it is rarely just one person isolated from everything. If they get into an accident it is not just them, but their family who will be impacted, emergency services, doctors' time.
- dalke 10y ago
  A flag at night makes little difference if it's barely visible or not. I think you meant to say "without mandated lights and reflectors". I believe mikepurvis's comment was that a lot of responsibility disappears, not all responsibility. It is the driver's responsibility to not drive faster than can be seen. There can be cyclists, certainly, or someone with a seizure or heart attack who ended up on the ground, or pets, livestock, or wild animals. People do hit deer in the middle of the night, when the deer freezes up and the cars are going too fast to break in time. To reflect my Florida upbringing, people do accidentally drive into sinkholes which appeared in the middle of the street, again because they were driving too fast to break in time. They drive fast because their experience mislead them. They think that years of driving at night at a given speed, without problem, means it's safe to do so. Think of how some drunk drivers will keep doing so, on the belief that they can hold their liquor enough to handle a car. Until the day they cannot. A driver who hits a cyclist - even one without lights - was going too fast to control the car safely. This of course has limits. But the car can cause much more damage, so the operator of a car should have higher responsibility than that of a bicycle. So no, it's not that cyclists are doing a less safe thing, it's that motorists are doing a less safe thing.

legodt 10y ago

Cyclists have to operate under a different ruleset than drivers for a variety of reasons. Most of the time it involves breaking away from traffic packs for safety or keeping away from dense, scary situations. That said, there are many events in which rule-breaking cyclists are just being assholes. But let's back up for a second and look at this dynamic differently. An automobile is a metal cage moving over 3 times the speed of a cyclist with a completely safe and insulated cabin. If a driver behaves dangerously near a cyclist, the cyclist dies. If a cyclist misbehaves near a driver, the driver is very far from harm.

i0exception 10y ago
So going by this, different rules should apply for Car vs. Motorcycle Truck vs. Car If you're on a road that's being shared by other vehicles, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else.
- jungrothmorton 10y ago
  Motorcycles and trucks do have different laws...
  - i0exception 10y ago
    Yes, but they don't get to break them selectively based solely on who would come to greater harm, like the parent commenter suggested. There are common rules of the road that apply to everyone. For example, it's not okay for a car to rear end a truck or for a pedestrian to jaywalk.
- legodt 10y ago
  They do have different laws. And there is a mountain of difference between powered, engined vehicles and bicycles.
- zardo 10y ago
  Yes. They are different things it's okay to have different rules for them.

inopinatus 10y ago

This is a separate issue and should not be conflated. The impact of dangerous cycling is orders of magnitude lower and unlike dangerous driving does not significantly endanger others.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago

Do they also work towards world peace? And think about the children!

bsamuels 10y ago

in my area it seems that bikers have completely lost their minds. it's not uncommon for them to run red lights, cut across multiple lanes without checking for cars behind them, and all sorts of other batty bullshit. the point that i believe is often lost in these debates is that bikers and drivers _cannot_ share the same road. you can paint as many pretty lines as you want, but as long as bikes and cars have to share the same pavement, there will be no resolution

sampo 10y ago
It works well in Denmark and Netherlands and several other European countries. Even London is slowly learning. Maybe Americans are just exceptionally stubborn.

orbitingpluto 10y ago

Before I get all the hate I have to say of course cyclists should obey the laws. As a cyclist I can tell you it doesn't matter either way to many certifiably deranged motorists. Caveat aside, I'm constantly amazed that this argument gets brought up over and over again. Traffic laws exist to ensure public safety. So let's cut the bike/car bullshit about the laws being equal for both. Let's take a simple offense like running a stop sign at 15 km/hr and suppose that a pedestrian gets hit. What's the difference between a car doing this and a bicycle? Both the bike and the car are going 4 m/s. But there's a huge difference between getting hit by a car that's 1500 kg plus passengers versus an 80 kg person plus a 9 kg bike. Simple thought experiment, you've just been hit by something. What outcome would be more favorable? Would you rather have a Honda Civic on your spleen or some asshat bike courier named Jack? Two tonnes versus nine kilograms? The crime may be the same, but the outcome is far different. I've seen a van run a red light and the cyclist traveling orthogonally ride right into the side of it going 45 km/hour. Not pretty.

lpr22 10y ago
I'd rather not be hit by either of them, period. Cars should not be running stop signs or lights, but neither should bicyclists, period. Full stop. Also, having a bike run the stop sign and fly into an intersection out of nowhere can easily cause cars to swerve, causing accidents, or even strike the bicyclist. It's not difficult to drive, ride, or walk safely. Just do it and stop whining.
- noobermin 10y ago
  There is a compromise, the Idaho stop[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
- orbitingpluto 10y ago
  Thank you white man with your white man argument. The 'stop whining' argument is such an over-privileged tactic that adds nothing to the discussion. It's very similar to #alllivesmatter. Anyway, to try to add something more, I have an anecdote: Two weeks ago, a car ran the red light and a speeding white SUV had to swerve out of the way to avoid it. The SUV lost control and smashed into the lightpole that was directly in front of me. I held up my backpack as a shield against the woman and baby in the stroller next to me walking in the opposite direction while bits of the car flew into the air. Luckily the pole held up. I had to make a guess about what was going to hit me. Debris or the car. My brain did that emergency lizard brain thinking that happens in situations like that. I found it really interesting for my brain to puzzle out what was going on in my head. Turned out that the debris was the only 'preventable' injury possible. I couldn't have gotten out of the way. I couldn't have gotten the lady and her baby out of the way. But I could conceivably stop debris from hitting us full on by shielding. If that was a cyclist... the most I'd have to worry about is a couple months of a really sore back.