15 ms·

The cyclist behind an anti-cyclist Facebook group

97 points by lamby 8y ago

RandomInteger4 8y ago
To all those commenting about "Whoa is me, the dastardly cyclists are running red lights and stop signs", please look up the concept of an Idaho Stop. Stop pretending that you're seeing these cyclists performing an Idaho stop during busy traffic. You know full well they're paying attention a whole hell of a lot more than you considering their life is on the line. You may not see us looking both ways, because it only takes about 15 degrees of head movement to allow our eyes to capture the full peripheral to check for oncoming traffic and it's a hell of a lot more convenient for the drivers behind us to have some distance between us. The only reason this is a big deal is because humans are barely different from monkeys on an emotional level and can't rational handle the concept of there being a different legal context for a bike vs. a motor vehicle.
- moltar 8y ago
  Well, there’s NO different context, at least in some places. In Montreal, which is a very bike-friendly city, you can get a ticket for running a stop or using headphones. I was recently stopped for this, by literally an ambush cop on a bike bath. Luckily got away with a warning. But I’ve heard others getting tickets.
- mynegation 8y ago
  I know about Idaho stop, but unless Idaho stop makes its way to the official Rules of the Road of the respective state, province, or country, and its knowledge gets verified at driver's test, it is irrelevant. In the province I live in, there is no "Idaho stop". Rules are unambiguous: if you are on the road, whatever you are driving, you STOP at the stop sign. No guessing "do I/they do Idaho stop or not".
  - Fricken 8y ago
    The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them. There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced? If I say everyone needs to wear clown shoes to work on Wednesdays, is that a rule? It doesn't mean jack-shit because I can't enforce it. Drivers are held more carefully to the rules of the road, but given that they're ensconced in a protective metal shell, they have a lot more leeway with the law of the jungle. With cyclists it's the other way around.
    - recursive 8y ago
      > The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked When, and by who?
    - jeremy7600 8y ago
      According to the laws of New York State, bicycles are vehicles. They are required to follow the laws and traffic patterns, not make their own.
    - itsmenotyou 8y ago
      This is a reasonable post undermined by a ridiculous last sentence. Cyclists need to obey laws but those laws should not be the same as for cars because the impacts those laws seek to prevent are not the same.
      - Fricken 8y ago
        I phrased the last sentence poorly. I've changed it.
    - mynegation 8y ago
      > The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them. The same as with Idaho stop, it does not matter. Looking at something that approaches the intersection, do I have to think what that is? What if it is a bicycle with electric assist? Moped? Scooter? Is it electric? Is it with ICE? Something in between the moped and the bike? Where do I draw the line? That is way more thinking than just following the rules of all-way stop/or main road/yield. > There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced? Rules are there for your benefit, not police's. > Drivers have to obey the rules of the road. Cyclists only have to obey the law of the jungle. This quote right there pretty much explains why there is so much anger towards cyclists
  - Steltek 8y ago
    I'd argue that even that's insufficient. Educational campaigns are hugely important as no one ever retakes a driver's test. There are frequent confrontations over entirely legal traffic movements because some people just don't know. And I'm not talking about recent bike safety laws either. A compounding factor is that while rules for cars are more or less standard throughout the 50 states, rules for bikes are a complete mess. For example, in Massachusetts, a bike can ride in the left lane (I mean, you should probably have a good reason but it's 100% legal) where as in some other states, bikes have a mandated max distance from the right hand curb. How can anyone know what is actually allowed? And a solution to the disjoint sets of laws is that states are very different. Super urban areas necessarily need different laws than very rural areas. Even regional snow fall amounts is a factor as bike lanes basically disappear in the winter.
    - mynegation 8y ago
      I agree that rules alone are not sufficient, but it is a start. You can have an educational campaign to introduce, say, Idaho stop as the law, but educational campaign to follow Idaho stop before it is the law is confusing at best and breaking the law at worst. FWIW, as a cyclist I would love to see Idaho stop legislated. As a driver, I do not follow stop rules blindly. If approaching all-way stop a see a cyclist (or anyone) close enough to the intersection without any signs of the slowdown, of course I will let them cross first. But even with the Idaho stop legislated many cyclists misunderstand it. For example, Idaho stop means treating stop sign as a yield sign, which means if you can safely cross the intersection without impeding anyone else (e.g. if there is no one else around or they are far enough from the intersection), you do not have to stop. It does not mean "I don't have to stop and have priority over cars no matter what". That is exactly the point of making something the law instead of informal rule - there should be no ambiguity.
  - Fishkins 8y ago
    There's evidence practicing the Idaho stop makes cyclists safer, even in regions where it isn't legal. If that's true, IMO cyclists should bike in the safer fashion regardless of the rules. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-getting-around-20161211-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st...
  - marcandre 8y ago
    It is very limiting to believe that "rules are unabiguous" and should be followed to the letter. Rules are often (partly) wrong, not completely adapted to a situation, etc. Let's remember that "rules" used to make homosexuality worthy of a prison sentence, drinking alcohol was sometimes illegal too.
- paulcole 8y ago
  If a car rolls through a stop sign they're being an asshole who thinks they know more than the people who made the laws and have little respect for anyone around them. The same is true of bicyclists who do the same. I have never driven a car in my life (age 35 currently) despite growing up in a very rural area. Now I live in a city and bike everywhere and NEVER run a stop sign. The behavior of both drivers and bicyclists is embarrassing.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Well, then, that makes a metric ton of drivers assholes. There used to be this common claim in SF that stop sign rolling is a cyclist thing. Then Stanley Roberts sat at a stop sign and found nearly every car rolling it. Got it all on video too.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      > that makes a metric ton of drivers assholes Yes, this is true.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >If a car rolls through a stop sign they're being an asshole Meh, it really depends on the type of stop and conditions. Regardless of the number of wheels one's preferred mode of transportation has I'm not gonna complain about people doing rolling stops at 4-way stops where there's good visibility and the traffic conditions are such that there's no possibility of misinterpreting who's turn it is or at a right turn that would be a yield instead of a stop were there not a left turn option.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      > Meh, it really depends on the type of stop and conditions. I disagree. A stop sign is a stop sign. Otherwise the sign would say use-your-judgment-and-decide-what-to-do.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
- cryptonector 8y ago
  I mean, we have lots of traffic laws, some not so well thought out, others enforced capriciously, others not at all, and so on. I suppose we might as well just unofficially adopt the Idaho stop outside Idaho and to hell with other States' laws... More seriously, I think the Idaho stop is a good idea. Cyclists won't stop unless they really have to for reasons fairly obvious to anyone who has ever biked on streets. No need to make that behavior illegal. But it will require a bit of an education campaign. And we already have a ton of things that require mass education: zipper merges, yield the left lane to passers, and so much else. Should NYS allow bikes to make right turns on red too while we're at it?
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  I'm a cyclist who doesn't think I'm too good to follow the rules of the road, and I can't tell you how much I love having to pass the same cyclist over and over in my car because they're doing Idaho stops.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  What they are frequently not watching for, though, is pedestrians.
pjc50 8y ago
"In a nutshell, that’s why this story matters: because the hate preached on anti-cycling Facebook pages isn’t confined to the digital realm. It’s a poison that bleeds from the screen into the real world, where aggression towards cyclists is very real, and very deadly" Goes for a lot of other things too. Cycling seems to be a really inflammatory subject for online discussion, and I've never really been sure why; it seems like a kind of identity politics.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  As a bicycle and public transit commuter and former car commuter in Copenhagen, I have a saying: When I'm driving, I find cyclists annoying, but when I cycle, I find cyclists even more annoying. There are a ton of cyclists who just don't give a shit. They'll blast past you at intersections, cutting into other lanes, they'll swerve directly in front of you and brake, they'll jump on the sidewalk, they'll completely ignore pedestrian-only zones, they'll randomly cut to the left or right of turning cars, the list goes on. Some people bike in completely irrational and unpredictable ways. Often I'll pass someone (I'm a reasonably fit and speedy commuter on a good bike), only for them to place themselves right in front of me at the next red light, and then take forever to get up to speed, so I have slooooowly get up to speed behind them and then pass again. Repeat ad infinitum. Most of the time, the slowpokes are on their phones (hand-held, obviously) and/or swerve all over the place, putting everyone in danger. Or they ride two abreast while chatting, completely blocking the bike lane and ignoring people ringing their bells behind them. It really pains me to see people act like that, because it completely sours the relationship between different types of traffic, casting a bad light on the rest of us. Sometimes it seems like they're deliberately out to piss off drivers, which is not a healthy long-term strategy. That was a bit of a detour, but my point is that the problem exists on both sides. There are definitely both asshole cyclists and asshole drivers. On the cyclist side, I think part of the problem is that a lot of people don't really know the traffic laws, or they don't think they apply to cyclists. This is certainly not meant to downplay the shitty actions of many drivers, I've seen some absolutely horrendously irresponsible driving here as well. As for why it's such an inflammatory subject, that's simply the case for any discussion involving cars. If you read car forums, people are very quick to go flying off the handle, and there are usually some pretty extremist and very vocal members. Car culture is very opinionated and to a lot of car people, their cars are direct extensions of their personalities and egos. Cyclists challenge their "rightful ownership of the roads", and are therefore an enemy.
seren 8y ago
Compelling reading. There should be a name for the phenomenon of a satirical, ironic or trolling community turning into the real deal, by aggregating people taking the issue seriously. This seems to be a repeating pattern. In this case, it seems to be slightly more complex but still it begs the question if by keeping posting fake news or stories, you start believing them, consciously or unconsciously.
- grive 8y ago
  This is Poe's law corollary. And I think that, even simply being exposed to the rhetoric will distord your view. Back when the alt-right was appearing on the Internet, I wanted to engage with the other side to get their story. The more I read and argued, and the more close-minded I found myself to become. I put a stop to it. Deconstructing your interlocutor's arguments forces you to think in the same binary logic, take the same intellectual shortcuts. I absolutely think that reading radicalized thesis will radicalize the reader.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    Nietzsche was right about staring into the abyss and battling monsters.
- Jonnax 8y ago
  A user on hacker news years ago put it well like this: "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498
  - legopelle 8y ago
    I was going to rain on the parade by saying that that quote is old. But then I saw that it was posted almost 10 years ago and could very well be the source.
    - deleted 8y ago
madshiva 8y ago
I only think people that want ride bicycle for sport shouldn't run in public road. I want to go to work and not waste time because you have time to do your sport. It's not like there's plenty of other road for doing it.
chrisseaton 8y ago
I think the hypocrisy and self righteousness of some movements like fanatical cycling particularly gets people worked up online. (Complaining about car drivers being unsafe but then constantly running red lights themselves.)
- belorn 8y ago
  Data over traffic accident and injuries should define which transportation is more unsafe, especially since most traffic laws exist in order to prevent accidents. To my knowledge, speed and braking distance is the biggest factor for accident rates and injuries. The average bike speed in a flat city was last time I checked around 12km/h (7mph), which has a very short braking distance. Unsurprising the accident rate of bike hitting pedestrians is extremely rare for a flat city, where the top listed accident rate for bikers here in Sweden is 1) person falling off the bike with no other person involved, 2) car hitting bike in a crossing where the car is running a speed usually above the speed limit. A typical car driving at 50km/h (30mph) has a reaction distance of 21m, braking distance of 14m and total stopping distance of 35m. This is why efforts to reduce high accident rates for crossing involving cars is done by reducing the speed through speed bumps, cameras that publicly display the speed, and additional traffic lights. In the cases where those efforts are not enough there is usually talk about separating the traffic since the lowest speed limit is 30km/h and that still produce a risky braking distance for highly trafficked crossings.
- m0nty 8y ago
  > constantly running red lights themselves A motorist runs a red light, it's one stupid motorist. A pedestrian crosses a road dangerously, it's one stupid pedestrian. A cyclist runs a red light, it's all cyclists. I have no idea how that works.
  - pja 8y ago
    It's a classic example of in group / out group thinking: Cyclists are the out group, so any action of one of them is perceived as representative of the whole group. In group members are perceived differently - wrongful actions are perceived as the individual's responsibility and are not extended to the group as a whole.
mtw 8y ago
With deep learning and techniques such as text and image generation, as well as the existence of motivated and well-funded state or corporate organizations, I fear the age of social media as social manipulation is just the beginning.
- upofadown 8y ago
  Which I suspect is actually a good thing. People will eventually become resistant to such manipulation. It happened in the world of computer BBSes back in the day. It also happened in the world of USENET after that. Compuserve, AOL, ... it's always the same thing. You end up with a group of people with extreme troll resistance which I am pretty sure carries over into day to day life and politics. Facebook, and the like have exposed more people than ever before to online trolling. It is very possible that the result might be a world where people tend to think for themselves.
  - titzer 8y ago
    > It is very possible that the result might be a world where people tend to think for themselves. Would be nice, but I don't think that's realistic. Look at the past few millenia of religion in human civilization and it becomes increasingly clear that humans are not just vulnerable to, but seem to be actively courting, brainwashing. It's the default state. And religion and brainwashing have plenty of expressions in the tech world, and science, too. Most people just aren't critical thinkers.
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      Brainwashing fills needs intellectual honesty cannot, which is why it has historically won and will continue to win. The closest we've come to filling those needs with intellectualism has both manifested itself as pseudo-intellectualism and an almost religious take on Enlightenment era philosophy.
ggm 8y ago
Rob Pike and net.suicide?
jacknews 8y ago
Compelling reading indeed; Even less work was done at this terminal than a normal friday afternoon... Is there not an equivalent "compulsory single file for motor vehicles" petition? I can envisage that first triptych that shows the bicycles spilling into the car lanes, in reverse ... ie the roughly equally-capable fast-moving cars should be in the single lane, with bikes, pedestrians and other road users free to maneuver and accommodate one-another across multiple lanes.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >compulsory single file for motor vehicles" petition? Yes. In suburbs and rural areas "think of the children" types routinely get all their friends (usually stay at home parents and retirees) to complain to the town that a particular instance of dotted yellow line is inappropriate. Probably about half the time it backfires (e.g. they get a bunch of 4-way stops or speed bumps to slow down traffic through their snowflake neighborhood which results in them listening to every motorcycle accelerate off of every one of those stops or every landscaping trailer make a racket going over the bumps).
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
What a great opportunity to ignore a very interesting article on social media's role in "fake news" and instead have a debate about cyclists vs. motorists again. Well done everyone!
st26 8y ago
As a driver and a cyclist, it seems to me simply that many drivers have a tremendous sense of entitlement. Everything else stems from that, otherwise poor behavior would just be an annoyance instead of triggering actual murderous rage.
- another-cuppa 8y ago
  I believe the sense of entitlement to come from the fact that most drivers have only ever experienced the road in a car. As a driver and a cyclist, I'm not sure about registration of cyclists, but I am sure that everyone should be required to do a minimum number of hours on a bicycle before they are allowed anywhere near a car, in the same way that pilots must gain experience before they upgrade. I am certain this would have numerous benefits.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  In all fairness a lot of cyclists behave like idiots too. I would never ride at night without lights. I don't run stop signs at full speed expecting that cars stop for me.
- daxorid 8y ago
  many drivers have a tremendous sense of entitlement It seems to me to be precisely the opposite. It is extremely common to see cyclists have a full 4-5 foot shoulder to ride on, but they always choose to ride as close to vehicular traffic as possible. Sometimes even on the white line. By doing so, they endanger everybody, and the only explanation for this behavior is entitlement. So, cyclists, please change my mind: when you have a wide shoulder to occupy, and you choose to ride so close to the left of it that your handlebars are in serious danger of being clipped by vehicular traffic, why? Why not the middle of the shoulder, or, god forbid, the right side of it? edit: thanks for the enlightening replies.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Clearly not a cyclist. Cyclists are not idiots. They are the product of roads that severely punish those that don't attend to drains, grates, glass and metal trash from car accidents strewn liberally in the margin of the road. They make tires called 'gator skins' for a reason. Go ahead and ride in the gutter, do it tomorrow. And see if that bike makes it a mile, much less all the way to work.
acomjean 8y ago
Reminds me of VI hart and her anti pi agenda. She made a video explaining how to get your followers passionate about your ideas (in this case pi< tau). Its sort of tongue in cheek but it makes some points about social media and the ability of it to influence people. http://vihart.com/tau-day-2018-suspend-your-disbelief/ http://vihart.com/tau-day-2018-suspend-your-disbelief/
- KnightOfWords 8y ago
  Thanks, I hadn't seen that one.
rwcarlsen 8y ago
A (car) motorist crashed into my 5-year old son while he was riding his bicycle through a cross-walk (legal here). She had a stop-sign and failed to look right to see him before plowing forward. She ran over his bike, but he was knocked back and escaped with only bruises and scrapes. He had clear right-of-way. Cyclists (the less considerate ones) can be unpredictable and frustrating for cars - I appreciate that. But "Get off the roads!" is only a very small part of the issue. Respect, training, and consequences commensurate with the level of damage inflictable by cars is something very absent from US driving culture (especially where I live in the relatively rural northwest). Cyclists whether on the road, bike paths, sidewalks, etc. kill and seriously injure people with negligible frequency compared to cars per mile.
kelukelugames 8y ago
What the heck is a gun cyclist?
- tesin 8y ago
  "Gun" is just a way of describing someone who's good at something. Australian slang.
jvannistelrooy 8y ago
As someone from Amsterdam who owns a car, commutes by bike, and rides a road bike for sports, my opinion is that it's mostly the road cyclists who create unsafe situations. Sure, car drivers are not free of any blame, but they tend to stick better to the rules than cyclists. If you're an avid road cyclist like me, there's a big changes you've done all these things more than once: - Crossed a red light. - Ride on the road while there's a cycling lane next to it. - Cut corners. - Ride a bit to fast in busy area's (maybe to keep your Strava average high) - Pass an normal cyclist a bit to close.
- dexterpe 8y ago
  This is a lie. Cyclists and Motorists break the rules at the same rate. https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclis...
- Symbiote 8y ago
  We may as well say a typical car driver has crossed a red light, driven on a sidewalk, exceeded the speed limit, or made a risky overtaking manoeuvre. Without some evidence, the discussion just degenerates into the usual cyclists vs. car drivers argument.

97 points by lamby 8y ago

To all those commenting about "Whoa is me, the dastardly cyclists are running red lights and stop signs", please look up the concept of an Idaho Stop. Stop pretending that you're seeing these cyclists performing an Idaho stop during busy traffic. You know full well they're paying attention a whole hell of a lot more than you considering their life is on the line. You may not see us looking both ways, because it only takes about 15 degrees of head movement to allow our eyes to capture the full peripheral to check for oncoming traffic and it's a hell of a lot more convenient for the drivers behind us to have some distance between us. The only reason this is a big deal is because humans are barely different from monkeys on an emotional level and can't rational handle the concept of there being a different legal context for a bike vs. a motor vehicle.

moltar 8y ago
Well, there’s NO different context, at least in some places. In Montreal, which is a very bike-friendly city, you can get a ticket for running a stop or using headphones. I was recently stopped for this, by literally an ambush cop on a bike bath. Luckily got away with a warning. But I’ve heard others getting tickets.
mynegation 8y ago
I know about Idaho stop, but unless Idaho stop makes its way to the official Rules of the Road of the respective state, province, or country, and its knowledge gets verified at driver's test, it is irrelevant. In the province I live in, there is no "Idaho stop". Rules are unambiguous: if you are on the road, whatever you are driving, you STOP at the stop sign. No guessing "do I/they do Idaho stop or not".
- Fricken 8y ago
  The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them. There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced? If I say everyone needs to wear clown shoes to work on Wednesdays, is that a rule? It doesn't mean jack-shit because I can't enforce it. Drivers are held more carefully to the rules of the road, but given that they're ensconced in a protective metal shell, they have a lot more leeway with the law of the jungle. With cyclists it's the other way around.
  - recursive 8y ago
    > The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked When, and by who?
  - jeremy7600 8y ago
    According to the laws of New York State, bicycles are vehicles. They are required to follow the laws and traffic patterns, not make their own.
  - itsmenotyou 8y ago
    This is a reasonable post undermined by a ridiculous last sentence. Cyclists need to obey laws but those laws should not be the same as for cars because the impacts those laws seek to prevent are not the same.
    - Fricken 8y ago
      I phrased the last sentence poorly. I've changed it.
  - mynegation 8y ago
    > The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them. The same as with Idaho stop, it does not matter. Looking at something that approaches the intersection, do I have to think what that is? What if it is a bicycle with electric assist? Moped? Scooter? Is it electric? Is it with ICE? Something in between the moped and the bike? Where do I draw the line? That is way more thinking than just following the rules of all-way stop/or main road/yield. > There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced? Rules are there for your benefit, not police's. > Drivers have to obey the rules of the road. Cyclists only have to obey the law of the jungle. This quote right there pretty much explains why there is so much anger towards cyclists
- Steltek 8y ago
  I'd argue that even that's insufficient. Educational campaigns are hugely important as no one ever retakes a driver's test. There are frequent confrontations over entirely legal traffic movements because some people just don't know. And I'm not talking about recent bike safety laws either. A compounding factor is that while rules for cars are more or less standard throughout the 50 states, rules for bikes are a complete mess. For example, in Massachusetts, a bike can ride in the left lane (I mean, you should probably have a good reason but it's 100% legal) where as in some other states, bikes have a mandated max distance from the right hand curb. How can anyone know what is actually allowed? And a solution to the disjoint sets of laws is that states are very different. Super urban areas necessarily need different laws than very rural areas. Even regional snow fall amounts is a factor as bike lanes basically disappear in the winter.
  - mynegation 8y ago
    I agree that rules alone are not sufficient, but it is a start. You can have an educational campaign to introduce, say, Idaho stop as the law, but educational campaign to follow Idaho stop before it is the law is confusing at best and breaking the law at worst. FWIW, as a cyclist I would love to see Idaho stop legislated. As a driver, I do not follow stop rules blindly. If approaching all-way stop a see a cyclist (or anyone) close enough to the intersection without any signs of the slowdown, of course I will let them cross first. But even with the Idaho stop legislated many cyclists misunderstand it. For example, Idaho stop means treating stop sign as a yield sign, which means if you can safely cross the intersection without impeding anyone else (e.g. if there is no one else around or they are far enough from the intersection), you do not have to stop. It does not mean "I don't have to stop and have priority over cars no matter what". That is exactly the point of making something the law instead of informal rule - there should be no ambiguity.
- Fishkins 8y ago
  There's evidence practicing the Idaho stop makes cyclists safer, even in regions where it isn't legal. If that's true, IMO cyclists should bike in the safer fashion regardless of the rules. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-getting-around-20161211-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st...
- marcandre 8y ago
  It is very limiting to believe that "rules are unabiguous" and should be followed to the letter. Rules are often (partly) wrong, not completely adapted to a situation, etc. Let's remember that "rules" used to make homosexuality worthy of a prison sentence, drinking alcohol was sometimes illegal too.
paulcole 8y ago
If a car rolls through a stop sign they're being an asshole who thinks they know more than the people who made the laws and have little respect for anyone around them. The same is true of bicyclists who do the same. I have never driven a car in my life (age 35 currently) despite growing up in a very rural area. Now I live in a city and bike everywhere and NEVER run a stop sign. The behavior of both drivers and bicyclists is embarrassing.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Well, then, that makes a metric ton of drivers assholes. There used to be this common claim in SF that stop sign rolling is a cyclist thing. Then Stanley Roberts sat at a stop sign and found nearly every car rolling it. Got it all on video too.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    > that makes a metric ton of drivers assholes Yes, this is true.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >If a car rolls through a stop sign they're being an asshole Meh, it really depends on the type of stop and conditions. Regardless of the number of wheels one's preferred mode of transportation has I'm not gonna complain about people doing rolling stops at 4-way stops where there's good visibility and the traffic conditions are such that there's no possibility of misinterpreting who's turn it is or at a right turn that would be a yield instead of a stop were there not a left turn option.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    > Meh, it really depends on the type of stop and conditions. I disagree. A stop sign is a stop sign. Otherwise the sign would say use-your-judgment-and-decide-what-to-do.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
cryptonector 8y ago
I mean, we have lots of traffic laws, some not so well thought out, others enforced capriciously, others not at all, and so on. I suppose we might as well just unofficially adopt the Idaho stop outside Idaho and to hell with other States' laws... More seriously, I think the Idaho stop is a good idea. Cyclists won't stop unless they really have to for reasons fairly obvious to anyone who has ever biked on streets. No need to make that behavior illegal. But it will require a bit of an education campaign. And we already have a ton of things that require mass education: zipper merges, yield the left lane to passers, and so much else. Should NYS allow bikes to make right turns on red too while we're at it?
stronglikedan 8y ago
I'm a cyclist who doesn't think I'm too good to follow the rules of the road, and I can't tell you how much I love having to pass the same cyclist over and over in my car because they're doing Idaho stops.
bunderbunder 8y ago
What they are frequently not watching for, though, is pedestrians.

pjc50 8y ago

"In a nutshell, that’s why this story matters: because the hate preached on anti-cycling Facebook pages isn’t confined to the digital realm. It’s a poison that bleeds from the screen into the real world, where aggression towards cyclists is very real, and very deadly" Goes for a lot of other things too. Cycling seems to be a really inflammatory subject for online discussion, and I've never really been sure why; it seems like a kind of identity politics.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
As a bicycle and public transit commuter and former car commuter in Copenhagen, I have a saying: When I'm driving, I find cyclists annoying, but when I cycle, I find cyclists even more annoying. There are a ton of cyclists who just don't give a shit. They'll blast past you at intersections, cutting into other lanes, they'll swerve directly in front of you and brake, they'll jump on the sidewalk, they'll completely ignore pedestrian-only zones, they'll randomly cut to the left or right of turning cars, the list goes on. Some people bike in completely irrational and unpredictable ways. Often I'll pass someone (I'm a reasonably fit and speedy commuter on a good bike), only for them to place themselves right in front of me at the next red light, and then take forever to get up to speed, so I have slooooowly get up to speed behind them and then pass again. Repeat ad infinitum. Most of the time, the slowpokes are on their phones (hand-held, obviously) and/or swerve all over the place, putting everyone in danger. Or they ride two abreast while chatting, completely blocking the bike lane and ignoring people ringing their bells behind them. It really pains me to see people act like that, because it completely sours the relationship between different types of traffic, casting a bad light on the rest of us. Sometimes it seems like they're deliberately out to piss off drivers, which is not a healthy long-term strategy. That was a bit of a detour, but my point is that the problem exists on both sides. There are definitely both asshole cyclists and asshole drivers. On the cyclist side, I think part of the problem is that a lot of people don't really know the traffic laws, or they don't think they apply to cyclists. This is certainly not meant to downplay the shitty actions of many drivers, I've seen some absolutely horrendously irresponsible driving here as well. As for why it's such an inflammatory subject, that's simply the case for any discussion involving cars. If you read car forums, people are very quick to go flying off the handle, and there are usually some pretty extremist and very vocal members. Car culture is very opinionated and to a lot of car people, their cars are direct extensions of their personalities and egos. Cyclists challenge their "rightful ownership of the roads", and are therefore an enemy.

seren 8y ago

Compelling reading. There should be a name for the phenomenon of a satirical, ironic or trolling community turning into the real deal, by aggregating people taking the issue seriously. This seems to be a repeating pattern. In this case, it seems to be slightly more complex but still it begs the question if by keeping posting fake news or stories, you start believing them, consciously or unconsciously.

grive 8y ago
This is Poe's law corollary. And I think that, even simply being exposed to the rhetoric will distord your view. Back when the alt-right was appearing on the Internet, I wanted to engage with the other side to get their story. The more I read and argued, and the more close-minded I found myself to become. I put a stop to it. Deconstructing your interlocutor's arguments forces you to think in the same binary logic, take the same intellectual shortcuts. I absolutely think that reading radicalized thesis will radicalize the reader.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  Nietzsche was right about staring into the abyss and battling monsters.
Jonnax 8y ago
A user on hacker news years ago put it well like this: "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498
- legopelle 8y ago
  I was going to rain on the parade by saying that that quote is old. But then I saw that it was posted almost 10 years ago and could very well be the source.
  - deleted 8y ago

madshiva 8y ago

I only think people that want ride bicycle for sport shouldn't run in public road. I want to go to work and not waste time because you have time to do your sport. It's not like there's plenty of other road for doing it.

chrisseaton 8y ago

I think the hypocrisy and self righteousness of some movements like fanatical cycling particularly gets people worked up online. (Complaining about car drivers being unsafe but then constantly running red lights themselves.)

belorn 8y ago
Data over traffic accident and injuries should define which transportation is more unsafe, especially since most traffic laws exist in order to prevent accidents. To my knowledge, speed and braking distance is the biggest factor for accident rates and injuries. The average bike speed in a flat city was last time I checked around 12km/h (7mph), which has a very short braking distance. Unsurprising the accident rate of bike hitting pedestrians is extremely rare for a flat city, where the top listed accident rate for bikers here in Sweden is 1) person falling off the bike with no other person involved, 2) car hitting bike in a crossing where the car is running a speed usually above the speed limit. A typical car driving at 50km/h (30mph) has a reaction distance of 21m, braking distance of 14m and total stopping distance of 35m. This is why efforts to reduce high accident rates for crossing involving cars is done by reducing the speed through speed bumps, cameras that publicly display the speed, and additional traffic lights. In the cases where those efforts are not enough there is usually talk about separating the traffic since the lowest speed limit is 30km/h and that still produce a risky braking distance for highly trafficked crossings.
m0nty 8y ago
> constantly running red lights themselves A motorist runs a red light, it's one stupid motorist. A pedestrian crosses a road dangerously, it's one stupid pedestrian. A cyclist runs a red light, it's all cyclists. I have no idea how that works.
- pja 8y ago
  It's a classic example of in group / out group thinking: Cyclists are the out group, so any action of one of them is perceived as representative of the whole group. In group members are perceived differently - wrongful actions are perceived as the individual's responsibility and are not extended to the group as a whole.

mtw 8y ago

With deep learning and techniques such as text and image generation, as well as the existence of motivated and well-funded state or corporate organizations, I fear the age of social media as social manipulation is just the beginning.

upofadown 8y ago
Which I suspect is actually a good thing. People will eventually become resistant to such manipulation. It happened in the world of computer BBSes back in the day. It also happened in the world of USENET after that. Compuserve, AOL, ... it's always the same thing. You end up with a group of people with extreme troll resistance which I am pretty sure carries over into day to day life and politics. Facebook, and the like have exposed more people than ever before to online trolling. It is very possible that the result might be a world where people tend to think for themselves.
- titzer 8y ago
  > It is very possible that the result might be a world where people tend to think for themselves. Would be nice, but I don't think that's realistic. Look at the past few millenia of religion in human civilization and it becomes increasingly clear that humans are not just vulnerable to, but seem to be actively courting, brainwashing. It's the default state. And religion and brainwashing have plenty of expressions in the tech world, and science, too. Most people just aren't critical thinkers.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    Brainwashing fills needs intellectual honesty cannot, which is why it has historically won and will continue to win. The closest we've come to filling those needs with intellectualism has both manifested itself as pseudo-intellectualism and an almost religious take on Enlightenment era philosophy.

ggm 8y ago

Rob Pike and net.suicide?

jacknews 8y ago

Compelling reading indeed; Even less work was done at this terminal than a normal friday afternoon... Is there not an equivalent "compulsory single file for motor vehicles" petition? I can envisage that first triptych that shows the bicycles spilling into the car lanes, in reverse ... ie the roughly equally-capable fast-moving cars should be in the single lane, with bikes, pedestrians and other road users free to maneuver and accommodate one-another across multiple lanes.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>compulsory single file for motor vehicles" petition? Yes. In suburbs and rural areas "think of the children" types routinely get all their friends (usually stay at home parents and retirees) to complain to the town that a particular instance of dotted yellow line is inappropriate. Probably about half the time it backfires (e.g. they get a bunch of 4-way stops or speed bumps to slow down traffic through their snowflake neighborhood which results in them listening to every motorcycle accelerate off of every one of those stops or every landscaping trailer make a racket going over the bumps).

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

What a great opportunity to ignore a very interesting article on social media's role in "fake news" and instead have a debate about cyclists vs. motorists again. Well done everyone!

st26 8y ago

As a driver and a cyclist, it seems to me simply that many drivers have a tremendous sense of entitlement. Everything else stems from that, otherwise poor behavior would just be an annoyance instead of triggering actual murderous rage.

another-cuppa 8y ago
I believe the sense of entitlement to come from the fact that most drivers have only ever experienced the road in a car. As a driver and a cyclist, I'm not sure about registration of cyclists, but I am sure that everyone should be required to do a minimum number of hours on a bicycle before they are allowed anywhere near a car, in the same way that pilots must gain experience before they upgrade. I am certain this would have numerous benefits.
maxxxxx 8y ago
In all fairness a lot of cyclists behave like idiots too. I would never ride at night without lights. I don't run stop signs at full speed expecting that cars stop for me.
daxorid 8y ago
many drivers have a tremendous sense of entitlement It seems to me to be precisely the opposite. It is extremely common to see cyclists have a full 4-5 foot shoulder to ride on, but they always choose to ride as close to vehicular traffic as possible. Sometimes even on the white line. By doing so, they endanger everybody, and the only explanation for this behavior is entitlement. So, cyclists, please change my mind: when you have a wide shoulder to occupy, and you choose to ride so close to the left of it that your handlebars are in serious danger of being clipped by vehicular traffic, why? Why not the middle of the shoulder, or, god forbid, the right side of it? edit: thanks for the enlightening replies.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Clearly not a cyclist. Cyclists are not idiots. They are the product of roads that severely punish those that don't attend to drains, grates, glass and metal trash from car accidents strewn liberally in the margin of the road. They make tires called 'gator skins' for a reason. Go ahead and ride in the gutter, do it tomorrow. And see if that bike makes it a mile, much less all the way to work.

acomjean 8y ago

Reminds me of VI hart and her anti pi agenda. She made a video explaining how to get your followers passionate about your ideas (in this case pi< tau). Its sort of tongue in cheek but it makes some points about social media and the ability of it to influence people. http://vihart.com/tau-day-2018-suspend-your-disbelief/ http://vihart.com/tau-day-2018-suspend-your-disbelief/

KnightOfWords 8y ago
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one.

rwcarlsen 8y ago

A (car) motorist crashed into my 5-year old son while he was riding his bicycle through a cross-walk (legal here). She had a stop-sign and failed to look right to see him before plowing forward. She ran over his bike, but he was knocked back and escaped with only bruises and scrapes. He had clear right-of-way. Cyclists (the less considerate ones) can be unpredictable and frustrating for cars - I appreciate that. But "Get off the roads!" is only a very small part of the issue. Respect, training, and consequences commensurate with the level of damage inflictable by cars is something very absent from US driving culture (especially where I live in the relatively rural northwest). Cyclists whether on the road, bike paths, sidewalks, etc. kill and seriously injure people with negligible frequency compared to cars per mile.

kelukelugames 8y ago

What the heck is a gun cyclist?

tesin 8y ago
"Gun" is just a way of describing someone who's good at something. Australian slang.

jvannistelrooy 8y ago

As someone from Amsterdam who owns a car, commutes by bike, and rides a road bike for sports, my opinion is that it's mostly the road cyclists who create unsafe situations. Sure, car drivers are not free of any blame, but they tend to stick better to the rules than cyclists. If you're an avid road cyclist like me, there's a big changes you've done all these things more than once: - Crossed a red light. - Ride on the road while there's a cycling lane next to it. - Cut corners. - Ride a bit to fast in busy area's (maybe to keep your Strava average high) - Pass an normal cyclist a bit to close.

dexterpe 8y ago
This is a lie. Cyclists and Motorists break the rules at the same rate. https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclis...
Symbiote 8y ago
We may as well say a typical car driver has crossed a red light, driven on a sidewalk, exceeded the speed limit, or made a risky overtaking manoeuvre. Without some evidence, the discussion just degenerates into the usual cyclists vs. car drivers argument.