4 ms·

Cyclist here. A lot if drivers will be rude (or worse) to me on the road because of the sort of things you said. Based on most objective studies I've seen there

Cyclist here. A lot if drivers will be rude (or worse) to me on the road because of the sort of things you said. Based on most objective studies I've seen there is no real difference in the fraction of cyclists and drivers who regularly break the law. They break different laws, but I'd say drivers break the law in much more dangerous ways (e.g., speeding). Cyclists running red lights is a problem, but I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. In contrast I can think of more times off the top of my head when drivers blew through red lights without looking (most were obviously distracted), but that's to be expected as there are many more drivers than cyclists. Anyway, it seems to me that the fraction of drivers who are bad is about the same as that for cyclists, so someone's mode of transportation is not informative about whether someone's law abiding. Saying otherwise is not justified. You can find a lot about these studies via Google, e.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+drivers+breaking+the+law https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+d... By the way, I follow the law to the letter. Doesn't get me any more respect on the road, unfortunately.

Retric 9y ago
Minor tranffic violoations are rarely an issue it's the big ones like: I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. which tend to kill people. Minor speeding (~15%) is not a significant hazard. Going through a red light is about as dangerous as doing ~50-100MPH over the speed limit which is very rare. Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. Again about as risky as a car slowly driving on the sidewalk, which you just don't see. Bike riders on sidewalks are again extremely dangerous and often lead to fatalities, but it's also very common. PS: I worked with bike messengers who may be unusually bad about this stuff.
- btrettel 9y ago
  Well, my experience differs a lot, and I suspect I've seen at least an order of magnitude more cyclists than you have. I think it's a combination of selective attention and your experience with bike messengers that's potentially the problem. Bike messengers seem to be particularly impatient and more likely to violate the law to shave off a few seconds. Also could be the location. Of the cities I've spent non-negligible time in, I found cyclists in Baltimore to be considerably worse than cyclists in Austin or DC. To address another point, even the "minor" speeding you mention is a significant hazard. 15% over the speed limit is 32% more kinetic energy. Combine that with the fact that speeding really does not save much time in most situations, I think it's a clear loser in a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps on an empty highway it's okay. But a driver's time to destination in most cases is more limited by stop lights and traffic, and believe me, I know. As a cyclist who doesn't go faster than 25 mph it's really irritating to have a driver pass me dangerously, only to sit behind them at the next light for 2 minutes, or for me to pass them because they are waiting to turn. I have no detailed statistics for this, but it happens so frequently that I don't think speeding is likely to save much time. It mostly provides psychological relief for impatient drivers. (Your opinion, of course, may differ.) > Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. I don't "lane split" or "filter" as it's called, but it's worth noting that this is frequently legal (perhaps not in your jurisdiction) and it has its proponents, many of which tout it's apparent safety benefits. I don't think the data is clear about whether it's safe or dangerous on net. I personally don't think it offers any advantages, so it's not worth the potential risk. Also, many drivers encourage cyclists to do that to get out of their way. You should see how infuriated some drivers get when I take the lane at an intersection rather than filter through to the front. I've talked to cyclists who run red lights, and I frequently have heard that they just want to get away from angry drivers, and running the light allows them to do that. (I don't think this is the right approach.) The same applies to sidewalk riding, which is fairly clearly more dangerous, yet riding legally is often discouraged by drivers, sometimes violently.
  - Retric 9y ago
    In terms of speeding stop lights are a floor function. Make the cut and save 2 minutes fail and lose 2 minutes. You only see cases where they lose that bet, but it's just a numbers game. As to speeding, we have actual data on this stuff. So it's easy to demonstrate the risks are very low directly from accident rates vs # of speeders. The risk of early death vs time saved actually favors doing 5MPH over the speed limit on highways. As to personal experience I only have ~45,000 cyclists which may be high or low. But it feels like a very large number. PS: People try any justify their behavior, but statistically bike riders regularly risk death.
    - btrettel 9y ago
      I hope you don't take this the wrong way. My goal is to convince drivers that cyclists are not as bad as they think they are and that they should drive safer. > You only see cases where they lose that bet, but it's just a numbers game. I don't follow. Seeing both is pretty easy; they drive away. What I question is that the 2 minutes that one saves at most (likely closer to 15 seconds or so on average) is worth the extra risk to other road users. The asymmetry is the problem. You say cyclists regularly risk death, and sure, they do, though the risk is probably lower than you suspect, and drivers risk death too. A large fraction of cyclist deaths occur late at night with a drunk cyclist; remove those factors and your risk is a lot lower. For someone like me who goes out of my way to ride safely, my main (perhaps only) risk on the road is bad drivers, who are by large tolerated or encouraged by western society. > As to speeding, we have actual data on this stuff. So it's easy to demonstrate the risks are very low directly from accident rates vs # of speeders. The NTSB says speeding contributes to about 10,000 fatalities per year in the US: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2017-DCA15SS002.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2017-DCA15SS002.aspx Doesn't sound low to me. Maybe it seems low when you compare against how frequently people speed, but that's a red herring as far as I'm concerned. It's unlikely you'll die while smoking any particular cigarette, but clearly the net effects of smoking at significant. I focus on the net effects. I don't think the time the speeders save justifies the life lost, even neglecting those disabled, etc. As I said, I think speeding provides mostly psychological benefit. > As to personal data I only have ~45,000 cyclists which may be high or low. But it feels like a very large number. You have seen about 45,000 individual cyclists on the road? I find that hard to believe. That's comparable to the total number of transportation cyclists in Austin. For comparison, I suspect I've seen at least several thousand individual cyclists on the road. If I see only two new cyclists on the road per day I'll see about 7000 after 10 years. Seems reasonable to me.

Retric 9y ago

Minor tranffic violoations are rarely an issue it's the big ones like: I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. which tend to kill people. Minor speeding (~15%) is not a significant hazard. Going through a red light is about as dangerous as doing ~50-100MPH over the speed limit which is very rare. Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. Again about as risky as a car slowly driving on the sidewalk, which you just don't see. Bike riders on sidewalks are again extremely dangerous and often lead to fatalities, but it's also very common. PS: I worked with bike messengers who may be unusually bad about this stuff.

btrettel 9y ago
Well, my experience differs a lot, and I suspect I've seen at least an order of magnitude more cyclists than you have. I think it's a combination of selective attention and your experience with bike messengers that's potentially the problem. Bike messengers seem to be particularly impatient and more likely to violate the law to shave off a few seconds. Also could be the location. Of the cities I've spent non-negligible time in, I found cyclists in Baltimore to be considerably worse than cyclists in Austin or DC. To address another point, even the "minor" speeding you mention is a significant hazard. 15% over the speed limit is 32% more kinetic energy. Combine that with the fact that speeding really does not save much time in most situations, I think it's a clear loser in a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps on an empty highway it's okay. But a driver's time to destination in most cases is more limited by stop lights and traffic, and believe me, I know. As a cyclist who doesn't go faster than 25 mph it's really irritating to have a driver pass me dangerously, only to sit behind them at the next light for 2 minutes, or for me to pass them because they are waiting to turn. I have no detailed statistics for this, but it happens so frequently that I don't think speeding is likely to save much time. It mostly provides psychological relief for impatient drivers. (Your opinion, of course, may differ.) > Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. I don't "lane split" or "filter" as it's called, but it's worth noting that this is frequently legal (perhaps not in your jurisdiction) and it has its proponents, many of which tout it's apparent safety benefits. I don't think the data is clear about whether it's safe or dangerous on net. I personally don't think it offers any advantages, so it's not worth the potential risk. Also, many drivers encourage cyclists to do that to get out of their way. You should see how infuriated some drivers get when I take the lane at an intersection rather than filter through to the front. I've talked to cyclists who run red lights, and I frequently have heard that they just want to get away from angry drivers, and running the light allows them to do that. (I don't think this is the right approach.) The same applies to sidewalk riding, which is fairly clearly more dangerous, yet riding legally is often discouraged by drivers, sometimes violently.
- Retric 9y ago
  In terms of speeding stop lights are a floor function. Make the cut and save 2 minutes fail and lose 2 minutes. You only see cases where they lose that bet, but it's just a numbers game. As to speeding, we have actual data on this stuff. So it's easy to demonstrate the risks are very low directly from accident rates vs # of speeders. The risk of early death vs time saved actually favors doing 5MPH over the speed limit on highways. As to personal experience I only have ~45,000 cyclists which may be high or low. But it feels like a very large number. PS: People try any justify their behavior, but statistically bike riders regularly risk death.
  - btrettel 9y ago
    I hope you don't take this the wrong way. My goal is to convince drivers that cyclists are not as bad as they think they are and that they should drive safer. > You only see cases where they lose that bet, but it's just a numbers game. I don't follow. Seeing both is pretty easy; they drive away. What I question is that the 2 minutes that one saves at most (likely closer to 15 seconds or so on average) is worth the extra risk to other road users. The asymmetry is the problem. You say cyclists regularly risk death, and sure, they do, though the risk is probably lower than you suspect, and drivers risk death too. A large fraction of cyclist deaths occur late at night with a drunk cyclist; remove those factors and your risk is a lot lower. For someone like me who goes out of my way to ride safely, my main (perhaps only) risk on the road is bad drivers, who are by large tolerated or encouraged by western society. > As to speeding, we have actual data on this stuff. So it's easy to demonstrate the risks are very low directly from accident rates vs # of speeders. The NTSB says speeding contributes to about 10,000 fatalities per year in the US: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2017-DCA15SS002.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2017-DCA15SS002.aspx Doesn't sound low to me. Maybe it seems low when you compare against how frequently people speed, but that's a red herring as far as I'm concerned. It's unlikely you'll die while smoking any particular cigarette, but clearly the net effects of smoking at significant. I focus on the net effects. I don't think the time the speeders save justifies the life lost, even neglecting those disabled, etc. As I said, I think speeding provides mostly psychological benefit. > As to personal data I only have ~45,000 cyclists which may be high or low. But it feels like a very large number. You have seen about 45,000 individual cyclists on the road? I find that hard to believe. That's comparable to the total number of transportation cyclists in Austin. For comparison, I suspect I've seen at least several thousand individual cyclists on the road. If I see only two new cyclists on the road per day I'll see about 7000 after 10 years. Seems reasonable to me.