14 ms·

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential

by Jun8 15y ago

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by applying a kid's natural understanding but (almost) from physical principles, e.g. conservation of angular momentum (which I recently read from physics exchange is not how bikes work). So my comments are an outsider's view to bikers. I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. A 90kg man on a bike moving fast is an object you don't want to run into when you're walking. In parks (e.g. Chicago's long lake shore), although they should share their lane with people strolling and child strollers, they go about at high speeds. Many bikers ignore signs where bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and ride them among people. And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? They are saving gas, etc. Now, this, of course, is true, but doesn't give them precedence over all other lifeforms on sidewalks. Next time you don your cool biker's outfit and feeling totally Armstrong, please try to remember us, lowly people trying to share the sidewalks and streets with you.

bkor 15y ago
All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.
- hack_edu 15y ago
  ... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-bike lane street.
  - dasil003 15y ago
    I agree that bike lanes have safety problems, but let's not take it out on delivery drivers. Have you ever driven a delivery truck? Quite often there is not physical possibility of legal parking. At some point lanes are going to be blocked, and not just the bike line. The best we can hope for is enough courtesy not to entirely block the street.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      So the OP is ranting about cyclists running stop signs, but now we've decided it's OK for a delivery truck to block an entire street? This is what annoys me most about drivers of cars: they are quick to criticize cyclists, but are very slow to criticize their own actions.
      - dasil003 15y ago
        I'm not making a judgement call, I'm just saying, it's gonna fuckin happen because deliveries must be made. You can write all the tickets you want, it just is the cost of doing business. Also I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but I commute 95% by bike, over 4000 miles a year.
    - hack_edu 15y ago
      "Quite often there is not physical possibility of legal parking." By the same token, quite often there is not physical possibility of legal cycling OR driving. Courtesy is the solution indeed, yet the rhetoric on the issue seems to point the finger at cyclist more than other parties involved. The problem with the delivery truck/bus blocking the lane is that its easy and much more safe for a car to take half of the extra lane without obstructing the flow. This is a much more challenging a maneuver on a bike. Finally, these vehicles block the bike lane and then half of the right lane. Imagine if a truck was wide enough to block the entire two-lane roadway and force motor vehicle traffic to precariously dodge traffic going in the opposite direction. Not a bulletproof analogy, but worth considering...
  - bkor 15y ago
    That almost never happens in my country. Streets with bike lanes are very common. Sometimes a truck might stop where it shouldn't for 1-2 min, but they'll be fined if noticed. Streets with bike lanes are way faster in my experience. But I'm also used to dedicated bike lanes.
- mseebach 15y ago
  In theory, yes. If you want to see adults behave like they're immortal, spend an hour in Copenhagen bicycle rush hour. Copenhagen bicyclists are actively taught that they are superior to any other mode of transport, and it shows. And yes, I have cycled in Copenhagen for years and not at all innocent in this matter.
  - bkor 15y ago
    Amsterdam cyclists are terribly annoying. But that doesn't mean it cannot work in other cities. Like e.g. policy checking for cars speeding too much, police should also check the behaviour of cyclists. E.g. working lights when it is dark, running red lights, etc. Though instead of checking for red lights, make sure the traffic signal changes quickly for cyclists. That's more effective.
- scott_s 15y ago
  Speak up in what way? Flag them down and scold them on the street? That's not a wise thing to do.
  - bkor 15y ago
    Scold them down?!? I said speak up, not start an argument. E.g. something like "please cycle a bit slower, your speed is dangerous / pedestrian area". Though don't be stupid about it. I was told not to cycle on a pedestrian path while I was going slower than a pedestrian. And if you cannot speak up, then why complain about it? Think society only works if there is some level of checks in place if you're behaving nicely. And that should be done by people, not police.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      That's why I used "scold" - no matter how politely you try to do it, most people don't take kindly to being criticized about their driving/cycling by strangers, particularly when it requires being stopped by said stranger. They will feel like they're being scolded. And they will probably respond in kind.
- khill 15y ago
  Bike lanes only work if they are physically separate from the road. Otherwise, they are covered with debris swept off the main road surface, populated by double-parked delivery trucks and cars,or a random hazard of opening car doors and cyclists who are too stupid to obey the rules of the road (e.g., riding the wrong direction).
  - bkor 15y ago
    That is not my experience at all (double parked trucks + cars + opening of car doors). If you have more cyclists, then traffic will get used to it. Until that happens it might seem worse, but in my experience bike lanes on the road are fine. Of course, separate is better. Just not mandatory.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hugh3 15y ago
  And all these things would happen way less if bikes were banned altogether.
mchanson 15y ago
In Cambridge, MA the police have been enforcing traffic laws with bikers. Dunno what effect it has had, but enforcement, IMHO, as a place in getting bikers to obey the traffic laws. Drivers, on the whole, behave pretty badly too. As a driver, biker, and pedestrian in the Boston area I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others. Would love separated bike lanes. Biking in the city is very satisfying, but also nerve racking for me.
- mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
  I live and bike in Cambridge. We have separated bike lanes in some places, but pedestrians generally don't respect them in my experience. I used to think pedestrians that walked in designated bike lanes just didn't know it was a bike lane. But the lane on Vassar Street has a bike icon every 30 ft or so and is a different color than the rest of the sidewalk. Yet pedestrians still seem to prefer it to "their" sidewalk just to the left or right. Same thing on the Southwest Corridor, which has designated bike and pedestrian lanes, which are not respected ignored by pedestrians at all when I've been on them. If they are going to ticket cyclists, it seems only fair to start ticketing pedestrians walking in the bike lane too.
  - kamkha 15y ago
    Same goes for Mass Ave. I don't think I've ever seen the bike lane on either side of Mass Ave not blocked by a pedestrian or parked car every couple of blocks.
- screwt 15y ago
  I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others. As a driver, cyclist & pedestrian in London I second this. Some cyclists are dangerous jerks. Some car drivers are dangerous jerks. Some pedestrians have their heads in their phones and cause a danger to everyone. Rather than ranting about it, I'd prefer each user group to just be more aware of the others & take a bit of care. That and make all London taxi drivers cycle everywhere for a month to see how they like it ;-)
- hugh3 15y ago
jpr 15y ago
> I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. And I find the behaviour of most drivers to be potentially fatally dangerous to me as a cyclist and pedestrian. > And the worst part is you can't say anything And I can't say anything to the drivers because they are sitting in a multi-ton closed cage that they can't hear you unless I yell close to their window.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joebadmo 15y ago
It's complicated, though. I think there's probably at least a bit of selection bias at work. There are plenty of cyclists who take traffic laws as seriously as drivers. But you're not going to notice them as much. And, here, in Portland, it's easy because most (not all) drivers are used to having cyclists in traffic with them and understand how to behave. I used to live in Seattle, though, which had a lot fewer cyclists, and drivers in general were not used to watching out for bikes, or understanding cyclists' behavior in traffic. So, there, I had a completely different mindset. I saw motor traffic and traffic laws, including lights, stop signs, etc. as obstacles through which to navigate. I had to always be vigilant about where cars were, where they were going, etc. I always had to take care to see if there was cross-traffic (including pedestrian) coming at intersections or not. I didn't really consider myself part of traffic so much, because most drivers didn't.* To be fair, part of it was that the elevation changes in Seattle are so drastic that keeping momentum through intersections was a lot more important. And it's true that this is the attitude that many cyclists have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JZgBLKMTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JZgBLKMTs * The somewhat paradoxical part about this is that I've actually had more traffic 'incidents' with cars here in Portland. This is because the abundant bike lanes and friendly drivers don't require my full vigilance all the time. Which is obviously not true, but it feels that way. I let my guard down in a way that I shouldn't, and obviously couldn't in Seattle, but it's easy to get lazy here.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tingletech 15y ago
What I hate is that here in Oakland even the private security from the community benefit districts and the police sometimes ride their bikes on the sidewalks. I've even had the security people get mad and me for not getting out of their way. I have to pay a fee on my property taxes for this "security" and they give me a hard time about walking on my own street.
mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
Nearly all of what you say is true. However, you neglect to mention that it all applies to pedestrians as well, and drivers of course have their own version of each. I have observed (and swerved to avoid) many pedestrians who don't use crosswalks, ignore crossing signals (it is not OK to start walking when the "don't walk" is flashing") , and walk right in front of bicycles in a bike lane with a green light, all because, you know, rules don't apply to pedestrians. A 90kg man crossing the street is not something you want to run into when you're cycling. Cyclists don't "win" that collision in the same way a car wins a collision with either. Many pedestrians happily clog lanes that are clearly designated for cycling only, despite a clearly marked pedestrian lane being 3 feet to the left or right. (Vassar street in cambridge, MA is my favorite example of this.) Next time you get upset about rouge bikers, remember to look around for rouge pedestrians too. I know I have to, because they sure as heck aren't looking where they're going...
- afterburner 15y ago
  Exactly, a thousand times this. We don't go around wishing there were no sidewalks just because pedestrians jaywalk, do we? When I see a cyclist run a stop sign in front of me (and I always watch for this to happen), I think to myself: "if that was a pedestrian, they wouldn't have even had to stop at all, and would have taken a lot longer to cross leaving me waiting longer... so why be annoyed?" But perhaps I can say this more easily because I both drive and cycle in a busy downtown area. God forbid any of these picky, sensitive, rage-filled drivers drive in a country where not even cars follow simple rules like "staying in the lane"...
- ww520 15y ago
  Does two wrongs make a right? Does pedestrian not using crosswalks give license for a biker to blow pass a red light?
  - stouset 15y ago
    Most people here are arguing that it isn't even wrong. If nobody's coming, you have clear visibility and lines of sight, there's absolutely no rational argument for this behavior being a "dangerous" action on behalf of either cyclists or pedestrians. And before you start, it's not even remotely comparable for a car. In a car, you're essentially in a sensory-deprivation chamber, and you're several feet farther from the intersection — the difference this makes to your situational awareness is impossible to overstate. On a bike, I have full range of vision, full hearing faculties (ride a bike for awhile, you'll be amazed at how much situational awareness you have from your ears alone), and the danger I pose to others in case of a misdjudgment is miniscule: either I'm the one who gets plastered by a car, or in the case of an unexpected pedestrian, my stopping distance is perhaps three feet. I've done this for years and haven't had so much as a close call. On the other hand, I'm _far_ more concerned about pedestrians who step out into the road without looking because they don't hear a car coming. On the Georgia State campus, this happens to me maybe once a week. In short, the time and effort devoted to this topic is nothing short of insane given the miniscule numbers of people affected. The number of people killed by _safe and lawful_ drivers per passenger-mile, per passenger-trip, or any other weighted measure is absolutely staggering compared to even the most dangerous cyclists out there.
equalarrow 15y ago
I have not had a car for over 20 years. I've ridden my bike forever - to/from school since I was in grade school. Currently I live in San Francisco which has, some could say, an aggressive bike culture. Sometimes, I am one of those guys and I used to ride in the monthly Critical Mass rides. The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner was invented in CA. In L.A. your car is your second home and this is true in most of CA, imo. That said, I prefer a dense city because I am not a car person. I grew up in southern CA and you were, literally, a loser if you didn't have a car. In high school, that was me - no car, just a 10 speed. I consider living in dense cities in the U.S. (did live in NYC for a few years) because I prefer the benefits of non-car transportation. Back in SF there is the local bike coalition that is lobbying city to build more bike lanes and that imo is really good. I've been riding in this city for a long time and the new bike lanes popping up all over are definitely nice. I see guys in suits and girls in dresses riding in to work all the time; it can be done! But SF is also compact and hilly. We cyclists compete with cars all the time for space. I am not much of a red light or stop sign runner, but the thing people in cars don't quite grep is that momentum requires energy (or gravity). In a car, it's a tiny fraction of what it is on a bike. So, if no one is around (you can approach an intersection slowed down) you can cruise through with a 99% chance that you will be ok. Lots of people do this all the time. However, there are plenty that disregard this (people that even blow past me when I'm stopped at an intersection). But, these are people of a similar mindset (I think) of those that speed up to go around me on a small street when I legally have to right to ride where I am and at the speed I do. I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off or 'wronged' by drivers. Far more times than I have gone through a stop sign. The other thing drivers don't understand is sense of space. They are in a protected steel cage and are 'controlling' thousands of pounds of weight at high speeds. Me, 200 lbs of flesh, rubber, and steel tubes. There are some drivers that I feel are fine and nice people - they let you go first, they smile, they don't race around you just so they can make it to that stop sign a few seconds earlier. But more than not, people in cars - from my experience - just don't give a shit. You're in they're way, wtf, I don't have to deal with this, fuck off - you're not a valuable being. Same thing goes as a pedestrian, which is my second mode of transportation. I love to walk. When I lived in NYC, I walked that city all the time. I will always walk. And in NYC, the cars are aggressive there, but there are also so many people that there's a different feel to the whole 'critical mass' of peds at a red light with cars coming. Anyone who's lived there knows what I'm talking about. In SF, it's a different story. We have not yet reached that tipping point in terms of pedestrian density. So when you walk across a cross walk, with the right of way, it's not uncommon to have a car zoom by you before you get out of the middle of the street. Which in my mind, is total bullshit. Ultimately, I don't feel bad for the cars at all nor do I share their plight. My gf drives a short distance to work (she's pregnant) and when I have to use her car to drop or pick her up, I know what it's like to be on the other side and I make sure I always yield to bikes and peds. I think I'm in a small minority. Running reds and stop signs by bikes is not the smartest thing to do. But I don't think I'll ever side with car culture here in the U.S. There are just way too many negatives from it now and most people just don't care about you. One thing I'm absolutely waiting for is cars that navigate themselves. When they arrive, then I think I'll support cars again. Until then, I'm 100% on the side of bikes and peds.
marquis 15y ago
Your arguments make sense in an environment where cycling isn't deeply inherent in a culture. I've cycled across NYC, Chicago and LA, and also Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and London, Paris and Barcelona. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are amazing: as a cyclist you feel completely respected and the sheer numbers of you give a sense of legitimacy. Your own traffic lights and true cycle lanes lead to really safe transport, and you feel like a separate part of the system: not a car or a pedestrian. As such, you feel like you give the proper attention to car and pedestrian traffic and will stick to the proper safe rules. Now the US cities? You feel like you are part of a dangerous new thing, the cars are out to get you and pedestrians don't even consider you might be there either. Pedestrians walk on the cycle lanes (because there are so few of them I guess it's not part of city consciousness) and yes, it is easy to have the feeling like you've got a certain right to run lights and weave through a couple of lanes (because more often than not there are potholes next to the curb). My hope is that US cities just barrel forward with making more cycle lanes. The safer you make it for cyclists the less risks they have to take, and the more cycle traffic there are the more awareness in general, making it even safer. I'd say London, Paris and Barcelona are somewhere in between, I mention them as examples of cities moving towards greater cycle density which I've seen transform over the last 10 years with my own eyes, for the better.
- tomkarlo 15y ago
  It's important to note that both cycling and walking aren't "inherent" to cities or cultures. It's great to have a biking culture but it's also been repeatedly demonstrated that if you make it harder to drive (by reducing parking, using traffic calming, or using congestion charges) and easier to ride or walk (via bike lanes, mass transit, etc.), the population shifts its behavior over time, benefitting everyone. I point this out only because saying it's cultural leads some folks to believe that if their city isn't currently bike/pedestrian friendly, it never will be. Too many cities in the US are simply heavily biased in their current setup towards cars yet everyone wonders why there's a traffic jam at rush hour.
  - marquis 15y ago
    Right, I completely agree with you, sorry if I didn't make that clear. That's why I pointed out London and Paris - they are making efforts to be more cycle friendly and it shows.
Goronmon 15y ago
I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. This sums up my own experience with cyclists. I've decided that they just don't belong on the roads. It's worse for everyone involved. I have no problems with cyclists getting their own bike lanes, but until they do, I just wish they would stay off the roads entirely. I hate dealing with them both as a driver and a pedestrian.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  As a cyclist and a driver, I agree that there are far too many jerks who think it's fine to run red lights if it saves them a little pedaling... but the ones that really get me are people in dark clothing after dark with no lights or helmet pedaling up the sidewalk on the left side of the street behind a row of parked cars and out across an intersection at 15mph... who, when faced with a near-accident, rant about how they had the "right of way". Even if you're right, the right of way doesn't matter when you're dead, buddy.
  - Daishiman 15y ago
    Don't forget the headphones. As a very safety-conscius cyclist, I cringe at other cyclists who wear headphones or anything that artificially reduces hearing.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - bilban 15y ago
      Oh come on, you can't even hear audio through the headphones over the horrendous din of cars. It's not like driver's don't cocoon themselves, listening to very loud stereos. I've also seen many chatting on their phones.
mturmon 15y ago
It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as a driver, to start looking at other drivers (including perhaps yourself) and noting the violations, especially speed limit violations. For instance, it's a fact that on my way up to work, every driver (including me) is breaking the speed limit (65 in a 60). Almost without exception, every day. On a street near where I live, it's very common to see people driving 40 in a 35 (not including me). Where's the outrage at these drivers?
- Jun8 15y ago
  Note that my comment was not for drivers vs. bikers but rather bikers vs. pedestrians.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  Where's the outrage at these drivers? Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.
  - msellout 15y ago
    I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60. It's bad for gas mileage (and thus hurts me indirectly through climate change and trade deficits), it's bad for safety (and thus hurts me indirectly through costs of government service personnel and road repairs), and it promotes an attitude of automobile entitlement that hinders my safe cycling.
    - randallsquared 15y ago
      I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60. I'm not sure what your anger has to do with doing 65 in a 60 -- it seems like you might be angry at drivers, full stop. :)
jrockway 15y ago
I've noticed that cars run as many stop signs as cyclists. The rule is come to a complete stop and yield to your left. Cars treat the rule as "sort of lower your speed and yield to people that haven't stopped quite as much". This is chaos. The cyclists are just doing what the other vehicles do. (Also, you can't be surprised that there are cyclists on the Lakefront Trail. If they ride on the streets, their average speed goes down to approximately walking speed because the traffic lights are timed for people going 35, not 20. If I ride a Roosevelt / Damen / Fullerton / Wells loop, it takes well over an hour and a half and is about 12 miles. If I ride from the museum campus up to the end of the Lakefront Trail and back, that's 20 miles and only takes an hour. If you want to be safe as a pedestrian, either ban cyclists completely or ask for them to widen the trail. "Slower traffic keep right" largely works, it's just that the trail is very narrow in a few key places. My solution is to avoid the trail if it's a day where people are going to be having picnics in the middle of the road, which is basically only warm weekend days after noon. Any other time, nobody uses the trail and it's perfectly safe for cyclists to ride fast on.)
- graywh 15y ago
  In the US and Canada, you generally yield to the driver on your right.
  - kgermino 15y ago
    Different context. This would be more comparable to an expressway, where you should keep to the right side except for passing. In my experience on trails (including the lakefront trail in Chicago) people on bikes tend to understand this, runners/joggers are usually pretty good about it, and people going for a walk are god-awful at it. I don't mind people going slow (its frustrating because I'm commuting not recreational riding) but when you have a group of walkers going four wide on one of the only trails in the city designated for bikes (downtown there's a separate walkway for pedestrians closer to the lake) blocking all traffic, and getting upset with you when you try to pass them that's beyond obnoxious. P.S. this applies on normal sidewalks as well (also escalators, moving walkways, city life in general). Unless your the only one in an area, walk in a straight line and not 4-wide so people going faster can get around you and people going the other direction don't have to stop and wait for you to run into them. </rant>
quinedstatement 15y ago
I always tell people: if you knew you wouldn't get a ticket in a car for running a red light safely, you would do it. As soon as the police start ticketing for running red lights and stop signs on a bike, I'll stop. I ride in Philadelphia and I try to be somewhat considerate to drivers. I slow down for every stoplight and stop sign, but if nobody's coming, I'm going to go through it, because I'm not going to get in trouble.
- bzbarsky 15y ago
  The cases when the light is red and I, as a driver, can guarantee that I can run it _safely_ are very rare. They are even rarer as a cyclist (takes me longer to clear the intersection). The number of times that I have seen cyclists run red light safely (both for themselves and others in that intersection at the time) is precisely zero. I've seen several hundred instances of cyclists running through intersections at this point. The only good thing here from my point of view is that once I got out of big cities both cars and cyclists got a heck of a lot more courteous and law-abiding, so the number of people I have to deal with who're just completely ignoring the rules of the road, blocking intersections, etc is much lower. Good incentive to not live in a city again...
pyre 15y ago
> And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these > guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? The issue is one of stereotypes. A lot of people have very visceral reactions to cyclists: I saw some guy on a bike doing something dangerous, therefore all bikes must be banned and/or all/most cyclists are evil demons. On the other hand, I could show you numerous examples of people behaving badly in cars. Car collisions with pedestrians are more deadly than bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Should I move that we ban all cars? Or maybe we should just get rid of all roads, because if people are going to drive cars and be dangerous, we shouldn't have the government subsidizing them? You argument in general, seems to be about cycle-pedestrian collisions/dangers. If we get rid of bicycle lanes, then we are either advocating that all cyclists use the sidewalk or the street. In this case, you'll either end up with either more pedestrians being hit by cyclists or more cyclists hit by cars. In either case, as the number of cyclists increases, this doesn't scale.
- jrockway 15y ago
  I think Forrester has some stats that show riding in a bike lane is more dangerous than sharing the road with traffic. But one could argue that bike lanes attract cyclists who haven't learned or thought about safe cycling, whereas the unmarked street scares that demographic away. The problem city planners are having is that they want to be "bike friendly" in every way except educating road users. Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe. Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do, and no stripe on the road is ever going to do that. We need drivers education classes that cover driving from the perspective of a cyclist. This will ensure that when drivers want to ride their bike, they do it safely, and it will ensure that drivers know to share the road with bicycles. (I would take it a step further and require licensing for bicycle-only drivers, but that is too unpopular to ever happen.)
  - pyre 15y ago
    > Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe. > Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do I don't have any data to back this up, but it's my feeling that there are more drivers on the road that just don't pay enough attention to the road than there are reckless cyclists. At the very least, when there are cycle lanes there is a 'barrier' where if a driver crosses it they are unquestionably in the wrong. > require licensing for bicycle-only drivers I would argue that there is less of a need to cyclists to get licensed. Recklessly driving a car is far more dangerous than recklessly driving a bicycle.
rbranson 15y ago
One thing you miss here is the asymmetry of risk. Cyclists are at highest level of risk while on the road. They're moving at enough speed to cause serious injury to themselves, but they're still usually about half the speed of cars. Modern automobiles have excellent safety characteristics and pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action. A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death situation as just falling onto the road puts them at extremely high risk for injury. The cost of errors made by car drivers has a huge impact on the morbidity of cyclists, while the opposite doesn't hold true. Even if cyclists were an order of magnitude more dangerous than car drivers, their poor decisions would have negligible impact on car drivers.
- esrauch 15y ago
  Even if we completely accept what you are saying, I think there are a couple reasons why that doesn't change anything. We don't allow people to risk their own lives. We force people by law to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts (ignoring a very few number of states). That doesn't at all improve the chances for other people to survive. You aren't considering the fact that a bicyclist causes injuries to people who aren't them. There are plenty of scenarios for this, cars swerving into incoming traffic, into a utility pole into pedestrians to avoid a cyclist. Way more people die from swerving to avoid animals than from hitting animals; even hitting a deer isn't likely to kill you in a modern automobile, but swerving into a tree to avoid one will.
  - rbranson 15y ago
    I think you have a valid point -- but my point about asymmetry of risk still stands. Even if cyclists cause more accidents because of this swerving to avoid maneuver, the injury risk to the cyclist in any accident (fatal or otherwise) is still much higher.
- alxp 15y ago
  > pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action Except when they don't, due to mobility problems or having pets with them or other reasons. Expecting anyone to jump out of your way when you come barreling down the sidewalk is going to hurt someone.
Lagged2Death 15y ago
I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Yes. Bikers have this in common with the drivers of trucks, buses, cars, SUVs, joggers, pedestrians, etc. They all break any rules that make their lives harder if they believe they're likely to get away with said breaking. All of them, all the time. They're all just people, and they're all really the same.
- stouset 15y ago
  No, no, no. You don't understand. _I'm_ different. _I'm_ not part of the problem. Everyone else is, you see.
pkulak 15y ago
Some cyclists ride like idiots and some drivers drive like assholes when it comes to bikes. However, if you ride a bike, you'll be impacted by an asshole driver probably a couple times on your way to your destination, and then a couple more times on your way back. Talk to a driver about idiot cyclists and they'll give you a story from 6 months ago. It's not a fair fight, and not just because of the weight difference.
Misha_B 15y ago
Nice blog post (though more transit-vs-bikes oriented)discussing this here : http://www.humantransit.org/2011/10/lamentation-bicycles-vs-transit.html http://www.humantransit.org/2011/10/lamentation-bicycles-vs-... Arguments don't differ very much from what follows your comment...

by Jun8 15y ago

bkor 15y ago

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

hack_edu 15y ago
... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-bike lane street.
- dasil003 15y ago
  I agree that bike lanes have safety problems, but let's not take it out on delivery drivers. Have you ever driven a delivery truck? Quite often there is not physical possibility of legal parking. At some point lanes are going to be blocked, and not just the bike line. The best we can hope for is enough courtesy not to entirely block the street.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    So the OP is ranting about cyclists running stop signs, but now we've decided it's OK for a delivery truck to block an entire street? This is what annoys me most about drivers of cars: they are quick to criticize cyclists, but are very slow to criticize their own actions.
    - dasil003 15y ago
      I'm not making a judgement call, I'm just saying, it's gonna fuckin happen because deliveries must be made. You can write all the tickets you want, it just is the cost of doing business. Also I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but I commute 95% by bike, over 4000 miles a year.
  - hack_edu 15y ago
    "Quite often there is not physical possibility of legal parking." By the same token, quite often there is not physical possibility of legal cycling OR driving. Courtesy is the solution indeed, yet the rhetoric on the issue seems to point the finger at cyclist more than other parties involved. The problem with the delivery truck/bus blocking the lane is that its easy and much more safe for a car to take half of the extra lane without obstructing the flow. This is a much more challenging a maneuver on a bike. Finally, these vehicles block the bike lane and then half of the right lane. Imagine if a truck was wide enough to block the entire two-lane roadway and force motor vehicle traffic to precariously dodge traffic going in the opposite direction. Not a bulletproof analogy, but worth considering...
- bkor 15y ago
  That almost never happens in my country. Streets with bike lanes are very common. Sometimes a truck might stop where it shouldn't for 1-2 min, but they'll be fined if noticed. Streets with bike lanes are way faster in my experience. But I'm also used to dedicated bike lanes.
mseebach 15y ago
In theory, yes. If you want to see adults behave like they're immortal, spend an hour in Copenhagen bicycle rush hour. Copenhagen bicyclists are actively taught that they are superior to any other mode of transport, and it shows. And yes, I have cycled in Copenhagen for years and not at all innocent in this matter.
- bkor 15y ago
  Amsterdam cyclists are terribly annoying. But that doesn't mean it cannot work in other cities. Like e.g. policy checking for cars speeding too much, police should also check the behaviour of cyclists. E.g. working lights when it is dark, running red lights, etc. Though instead of checking for red lights, make sure the traffic signal changes quickly for cyclists. That's more effective.
scott_s 15y ago
Speak up in what way? Flag them down and scold them on the street? That's not a wise thing to do.
- bkor 15y ago
  Scold them down?!? I said speak up, not start an argument. E.g. something like "please cycle a bit slower, your speed is dangerous / pedestrian area". Though don't be stupid about it. I was told not to cycle on a pedestrian path while I was going slower than a pedestrian. And if you cannot speak up, then why complain about it? Think society only works if there is some level of checks in place if you're behaving nicely. And that should be done by people, not police.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    That's why I used "scold" - no matter how politely you try to do it, most people don't take kindly to being criticized about their driving/cycling by strangers, particularly when it requires being stopped by said stranger. They will feel like they're being scolded. And they will probably respond in kind.
khill 15y ago
Bike lanes only work if they are physically separate from the road. Otherwise, they are covered with debris swept off the main road surface, populated by double-parked delivery trucks and cars,or a random hazard of opening car doors and cyclists who are too stupid to obey the rules of the road (e.g., riding the wrong direction).
- bkor 15y ago
  That is not my experience at all (double parked trucks + cars + opening of car doors). If you have more cyclists, then traffic will get used to it. Until that happens it might seem worse, but in my experience bike lanes on the road are fine. Of course, separate is better. Just not mandatory.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 15y ago
And all these things would happen way less if bikes were banned altogether.

mchanson 15y ago

In Cambridge, MA the police have been enforcing traffic laws with bikers. Dunno what effect it has had, but enforcement, IMHO, as a place in getting bikers to obey the traffic laws. Drivers, on the whole, behave pretty badly too. As a driver, biker, and pedestrian in the Boston area I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others. Would love separated bike lanes. Biking in the city is very satisfying, but also nerve racking for me.

mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
I live and bike in Cambridge. We have separated bike lanes in some places, but pedestrians generally don't respect them in my experience. I used to think pedestrians that walked in designated bike lanes just didn't know it was a bike lane. But the lane on Vassar Street has a bike icon every 30 ft or so and is a different color than the rest of the sidewalk. Yet pedestrians still seem to prefer it to "their" sidewalk just to the left or right. Same thing on the Southwest Corridor, which has designated bike and pedestrian lanes, which are not respected ignored by pedestrians at all when I've been on them. If they are going to ticket cyclists, it seems only fair to start ticketing pedestrians walking in the bike lane too.
- kamkha 15y ago
  Same goes for Mass Ave. I don't think I've ever seen the bike lane on either side of Mass Ave not blocked by a pedestrian or parked car every couple of blocks.
screwt 15y ago
I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others. As a driver, cyclist & pedestrian in London I second this. Some cyclists are dangerous jerks. Some car drivers are dangerous jerks. Some pedestrians have their heads in their phones and cause a danger to everyone. Rather than ranting about it, I'd prefer each user group to just be more aware of the others & take a bit of care. That and make all London taxi drivers cycle everywhere for a month to see how they like it ;-)
hugh3 15y ago

jpr 15y ago

> I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. And I find the behaviour of most drivers to be potentially fatally dangerous to me as a cyclist and pedestrian. > And the worst part is you can't say anything And I can't say anything to the drivers because they are sitting in a multi-ton closed cage that they can't hear you unless I yell close to their window.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joebadmo 15y ago

It's complicated, though. I think there's probably at least a bit of selection bias at work. There are plenty of cyclists who take traffic laws as seriously as drivers. But you're not going to notice them as much. And, here, in Portland, it's easy because most (not all) drivers are used to having cyclists in traffic with them and understand how to behave. I used to live in Seattle, though, which had a lot fewer cyclists, and drivers in general were not used to watching out for bikes, or understanding cyclists' behavior in traffic. So, there, I had a completely different mindset. I saw motor traffic and traffic laws, including lights, stop signs, etc. as obstacles through which to navigate. I had to always be vigilant about where cars were, where they were going, etc. I always had to take care to see if there was cross-traffic (including pedestrian) coming at intersections or not. I didn't really consider myself part of traffic so much, because most drivers didn't.* To be fair, part of it was that the elevation changes in Seattle are so drastic that keeping momentum through intersections was a lot more important. And it's true that this is the attitude that many cyclists have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JZgBLKMTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JZgBLKMTs * The somewhat paradoxical part about this is that I've actually had more traffic 'incidents' with cars here in Portland. This is because the abundant bike lanes and friendly drivers don't require my full vigilance all the time. Which is obviously not true, but it feels that way. I let my guard down in a way that I shouldn't, and obviously couldn't in Seattle, but it's easy to get lazy here.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tingletech 15y ago

What I hate is that here in Oakland even the private security from the community benefit districts and the police sometimes ride their bikes on the sidewalks. I've even had the security people get mad and me for not getting out of their way. I have to pay a fee on my property taxes for this "security" and they give me a hard time about walking on my own street.

mrgoldenbrown 15y ago

Nearly all of what you say is true. However, you neglect to mention that it all applies to pedestrians as well, and drivers of course have their own version of each. I have observed (and swerved to avoid) many pedestrians who don't use crosswalks, ignore crossing signals (it is not OK to start walking when the "don't walk" is flashing") , and walk right in front of bicycles in a bike lane with a green light, all because, you know, rules don't apply to pedestrians. A 90kg man crossing the street is not something you want to run into when you're cycling. Cyclists don't "win" that collision in the same way a car wins a collision with either. Many pedestrians happily clog lanes that are clearly designated for cycling only, despite a clearly marked pedestrian lane being 3 feet to the left or right. (Vassar street in cambridge, MA is my favorite example of this.) Next time you get upset about rouge bikers, remember to look around for rouge pedestrians too. I know I have to, because they sure as heck aren't looking where they're going...

afterburner 15y ago
Exactly, a thousand times this. We don't go around wishing there were no sidewalks just because pedestrians jaywalk, do we? When I see a cyclist run a stop sign in front of me (and I always watch for this to happen), I think to myself: "if that was a pedestrian, they wouldn't have even had to stop at all, and would have taken a lot longer to cross leaving me waiting longer... so why be annoyed?" But perhaps I can say this more easily because I both drive and cycle in a busy downtown area. God forbid any of these picky, sensitive, rage-filled drivers drive in a country where not even cars follow simple rules like "staying in the lane"...
ww520 15y ago
Does two wrongs make a right? Does pedestrian not using crosswalks give license for a biker to blow pass a red light?
- stouset 15y ago
  Most people here are arguing that it isn't even wrong. If nobody's coming, you have clear visibility and lines of sight, there's absolutely no rational argument for this behavior being a "dangerous" action on behalf of either cyclists or pedestrians. And before you start, it's not even remotely comparable for a car. In a car, you're essentially in a sensory-deprivation chamber, and you're several feet farther from the intersection — the difference this makes to your situational awareness is impossible to overstate. On a bike, I have full range of vision, full hearing faculties (ride a bike for awhile, you'll be amazed at how much situational awareness you have from your ears alone), and the danger I pose to others in case of a misdjudgment is miniscule: either I'm the one who gets plastered by a car, or in the case of an unexpected pedestrian, my stopping distance is perhaps three feet. I've done this for years and haven't had so much as a close call. On the other hand, I'm _far_ more concerned about pedestrians who step out into the road without looking because they don't hear a car coming. On the Georgia State campus, this happens to me maybe once a week. In short, the time and effort devoted to this topic is nothing short of insane given the miniscule numbers of people affected. The number of people killed by _safe and lawful_ drivers per passenger-mile, per passenger-trip, or any other weighted measure is absolutely staggering compared to even the most dangerous cyclists out there.

equalarrow 15y ago

I have not had a car for over 20 years. I've ridden my bike forever - to/from school since I was in grade school. Currently I live in San Francisco which has, some could say, an aggressive bike culture. Sometimes, I am one of those guys and I used to ride in the monthly Critical Mass rides. The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner was invented in CA. In L.A. your car is your second home and this is true in most of CA, imo. That said, I prefer a dense city because I am not a car person. I grew up in southern CA and you were, literally, a loser if you didn't have a car. In high school, that was me - no car, just a 10 speed. I consider living in dense cities in the U.S. (did live in NYC for a few years) because I prefer the benefits of non-car transportation. Back in SF there is the local bike coalition that is lobbying city to build more bike lanes and that imo is really good. I've been riding in this city for a long time and the new bike lanes popping up all over are definitely nice. I see guys in suits and girls in dresses riding in to work all the time; it can be done! But SF is also compact and hilly. We cyclists compete with cars all the time for space. I am not much of a red light or stop sign runner, but the thing people in cars don't quite grep is that momentum requires energy (or gravity). In a car, it's a tiny fraction of what it is on a bike. So, if no one is around (you can approach an intersection slowed down) you can cruise through with a 99% chance that you will be ok. Lots of people do this all the time. However, there are plenty that disregard this (people that even blow past me when I'm stopped at an intersection). But, these are people of a similar mindset (I think) of those that speed up to go around me on a small street when I legally have to right to ride where I am and at the speed I do. I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off or 'wronged' by drivers. Far more times than I have gone through a stop sign. The other thing drivers don't understand is sense of space. They are in a protected steel cage and are 'controlling' thousands of pounds of weight at high speeds. Me, 200 lbs of flesh, rubber, and steel tubes. There are some drivers that I feel are fine and nice people - they let you go first, they smile, they don't race around you just so they can make it to that stop sign a few seconds earlier. But more than not, people in cars - from my experience - just don't give a shit. You're in they're way, wtf, I don't have to deal with this, fuck off - you're not a valuable being. Same thing goes as a pedestrian, which is my second mode of transportation. I love to walk. When I lived in NYC, I walked that city all the time. I will always walk. And in NYC, the cars are aggressive there, but there are also so many people that there's a different feel to the whole 'critical mass' of peds at a red light with cars coming. Anyone who's lived there knows what I'm talking about. In SF, it's a different story. We have not yet reached that tipping point in terms of pedestrian density. So when you walk across a cross walk, with the right of way, it's not uncommon to have a car zoom by you before you get out of the middle of the street. Which in my mind, is total bullshit. Ultimately, I don't feel bad for the cars at all nor do I share their plight. My gf drives a short distance to work (she's pregnant) and when I have to use her car to drop or pick her up, I know what it's like to be on the other side and I make sure I always yield to bikes and peds. I think I'm in a small minority. Running reds and stop signs by bikes is not the smartest thing to do. But I don't think I'll ever side with car culture here in the U.S. There are just way too many negatives from it now and most people just don't care about you. One thing I'm absolutely waiting for is cars that navigate themselves. When they arrive, then I think I'll support cars again. Until then, I'm 100% on the side of bikes and peds.

marquis 15y ago

Your arguments make sense in an environment where cycling isn't deeply inherent in a culture. I've cycled across NYC, Chicago and LA, and also Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and London, Paris and Barcelona. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are amazing: as a cyclist you feel completely respected and the sheer numbers of you give a sense of legitimacy. Your own traffic lights and true cycle lanes lead to really safe transport, and you feel like a separate part of the system: not a car or a pedestrian. As such, you feel like you give the proper attention to car and pedestrian traffic and will stick to the proper safe rules. Now the US cities? You feel like you are part of a dangerous new thing, the cars are out to get you and pedestrians don't even consider you might be there either. Pedestrians walk on the cycle lanes (because there are so few of them I guess it's not part of city consciousness) and yes, it is easy to have the feeling like you've got a certain right to run lights and weave through a couple of lanes (because more often than not there are potholes next to the curb). My hope is that US cities just barrel forward with making more cycle lanes. The safer you make it for cyclists the less risks they have to take, and the more cycle traffic there are the more awareness in general, making it even safer. I'd say London, Paris and Barcelona are somewhere in between, I mention them as examples of cities moving towards greater cycle density which I've seen transform over the last 10 years with my own eyes, for the better.

tomkarlo 15y ago
It's important to note that both cycling and walking aren't "inherent" to cities or cultures. It's great to have a biking culture but it's also been repeatedly demonstrated that if you make it harder to drive (by reducing parking, using traffic calming, or using congestion charges) and easier to ride or walk (via bike lanes, mass transit, etc.), the population shifts its behavior over time, benefitting everyone. I point this out only because saying it's cultural leads some folks to believe that if their city isn't currently bike/pedestrian friendly, it never will be. Too many cities in the US are simply heavily biased in their current setup towards cars yet everyone wonders why there's a traffic jam at rush hour.
- marquis 15y ago
  Right, I completely agree with you, sorry if I didn't make that clear. That's why I pointed out London and Paris - they are making efforts to be more cycle friendly and it shows.

Goronmon 15y ago

I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. This sums up my own experience with cyclists. I've decided that they just don't belong on the roads. It's worse for everyone involved. I have no problems with cyclists getting their own bike lanes, but until they do, I just wish they would stay off the roads entirely. I hate dealing with them both as a driver and a pedestrian.

fennecfoxen 15y ago
As a cyclist and a driver, I agree that there are far too many jerks who think it's fine to run red lights if it saves them a little pedaling... but the ones that really get me are people in dark clothing after dark with no lights or helmet pedaling up the sidewalk on the left side of the street behind a row of parked cars and out across an intersection at 15mph... who, when faced with a near-accident, rant about how they had the "right of way". Even if you're right, the right of way doesn't matter when you're dead, buddy.
- Daishiman 15y ago
  Don't forget the headphones. As a very safety-conscius cyclist, I cringe at other cyclists who wear headphones or anything that artificially reduces hearing.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - bilban 15y ago
    Oh come on, you can't even hear audio through the headphones over the horrendous din of cars. It's not like driver's don't cocoon themselves, listening to very loud stereos. I've also seen many chatting on their phones.

mturmon 15y ago

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as a driver, to start looking at other drivers (including perhaps yourself) and noting the violations, especially speed limit violations. For instance, it's a fact that on my way up to work, every driver (including me) is breaking the speed limit (65 in a 60). Almost without exception, every day. On a street near where I live, it's very common to see people driving 40 in a 35 (not including me). Where's the outrage at these drivers?

Jun8 15y ago
Note that my comment was not for drivers vs. bikers but rather bikers vs. pedestrians.
randallsquared 15y ago
Where's the outrage at these drivers? Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.
- msellout 15y ago
  I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60. It's bad for gas mileage (and thus hurts me indirectly through climate change and trade deficits), it's bad for safety (and thus hurts me indirectly through costs of government service personnel and road repairs), and it promotes an attitude of automobile entitlement that hinders my safe cycling.
  - randallsquared 15y ago
    I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60. I'm not sure what your anger has to do with doing 65 in a 60 -- it seems like you might be angry at drivers, full stop. :)

jrockway 15y ago

I've noticed that cars run as many stop signs as cyclists. The rule is come to a complete stop and yield to your left. Cars treat the rule as "sort of lower your speed and yield to people that haven't stopped quite as much". This is chaos. The cyclists are just doing what the other vehicles do. (Also, you can't be surprised that there are cyclists on the Lakefront Trail. If they ride on the streets, their average speed goes down to approximately walking speed because the traffic lights are timed for people going 35, not 20. If I ride a Roosevelt / Damen / Fullerton / Wells loop, it takes well over an hour and a half and is about 12 miles. If I ride from the museum campus up to the end of the Lakefront Trail and back, that's 20 miles and only takes an hour. If you want to be safe as a pedestrian, either ban cyclists completely or ask for them to widen the trail. "Slower traffic keep right" largely works, it's just that the trail is very narrow in a few key places. My solution is to avoid the trail if it's a day where people are going to be having picnics in the middle of the road, which is basically only warm weekend days after noon. Any other time, nobody uses the trail and it's perfectly safe for cyclists to ride fast on.)

graywh 15y ago
In the US and Canada, you generally yield to the driver on your right.
- kgermino 15y ago
  Different context. This would be more comparable to an expressway, where you should keep to the right side except for passing. In my experience on trails (including the lakefront trail in Chicago) people on bikes tend to understand this, runners/joggers are usually pretty good about it, and people going for a walk are god-awful at it. I don't mind people going slow (its frustrating because I'm commuting not recreational riding) but when you have a group of walkers going four wide on one of the only trails in the city designated for bikes (downtown there's a separate walkway for pedestrians closer to the lake) blocking all traffic, and getting upset with you when you try to pass them that's beyond obnoxious. P.S. this applies on normal sidewalks as well (also escalators, moving walkways, city life in general). Unless your the only one in an area, walk in a straight line and not 4-wide so people going faster can get around you and people going the other direction don't have to stop and wait for you to run into them. </rant>

quinedstatement 15y ago

I always tell people: if you knew you wouldn't get a ticket in a car for running a red light safely, you would do it. As soon as the police start ticketing for running red lights and stop signs on a bike, I'll stop. I ride in Philadelphia and I try to be somewhat considerate to drivers. I slow down for every stoplight and stop sign, but if nobody's coming, I'm going to go through it, because I'm not going to get in trouble.

bzbarsky 15y ago
The cases when the light is red and I, as a driver, can guarantee that I can run it _safely_ are very rare. They are even rarer as a cyclist (takes me longer to clear the intersection). The number of times that I have seen cyclists run red light safely (both for themselves and others in that intersection at the time) is precisely zero. I've seen several hundred instances of cyclists running through intersections at this point. The only good thing here from my point of view is that once I got out of big cities both cars and cyclists got a heck of a lot more courteous and law-abiding, so the number of people I have to deal with who're just completely ignoring the rules of the road, blocking intersections, etc is much lower. Good incentive to not live in a city again...

pyre 15y ago

> And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these > guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? The issue is one of stereotypes. A lot of people have very visceral reactions to cyclists: I saw some guy on a bike doing something dangerous, therefore all bikes must be banned and/or all/most cyclists are evil demons. On the other hand, I could show you numerous examples of people behaving badly in cars. Car collisions with pedestrians are more deadly than bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Should I move that we ban all cars? Or maybe we should just get rid of all roads, because if people are going to drive cars and be dangerous, we shouldn't have the government subsidizing them? You argument in general, seems to be about cycle-pedestrian collisions/dangers. If we get rid of bicycle lanes, then we are either advocating that all cyclists use the sidewalk or the street. In this case, you'll either end up with either more pedestrians being hit by cyclists or more cyclists hit by cars. In either case, as the number of cyclists increases, this doesn't scale.

jrockway 15y ago
I think Forrester has some stats that show riding in a bike lane is more dangerous than sharing the road with traffic. But one could argue that bike lanes attract cyclists who haven't learned or thought about safe cycling, whereas the unmarked street scares that demographic away. The problem city planners are having is that they want to be "bike friendly" in every way except educating road users. Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe. Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do, and no stripe on the road is ever going to do that. We need drivers education classes that cover driving from the perspective of a cyclist. This will ensure that when drivers want to ride their bike, they do it safely, and it will ensure that drivers know to share the road with bicycles. (I would take it a step further and require licensing for bicycle-only drivers, but that is too unpopular to ever happen.)
- pyre 15y ago
  > Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe. > Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do I don't have any data to back this up, but it's my feeling that there are more drivers on the road that just don't pay enough attention to the road than there are reckless cyclists. At the very least, when there are cycle lanes there is a 'barrier' where if a driver crosses it they are unquestionably in the wrong. > require licensing for bicycle-only drivers I would argue that there is less of a need to cyclists to get licensed. Recklessly driving a car is far more dangerous than recklessly driving a bicycle.

rbranson 15y ago

One thing you miss here is the asymmetry of risk. Cyclists are at highest level of risk while on the road. They're moving at enough speed to cause serious injury to themselves, but they're still usually about half the speed of cars. Modern automobiles have excellent safety characteristics and pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action. A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death situation as just falling onto the road puts them at extremely high risk for injury. The cost of errors made by car drivers has a huge impact on the morbidity of cyclists, while the opposite doesn't hold true. Even if cyclists were an order of magnitude more dangerous than car drivers, their poor decisions would have negligible impact on car drivers.

esrauch 15y ago
Even if we completely accept what you are saying, I think there are a couple reasons why that doesn't change anything. We don't allow people to risk their own lives. We force people by law to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts (ignoring a very few number of states). That doesn't at all improve the chances for other people to survive. You aren't considering the fact that a bicyclist causes injuries to people who aren't them. There are plenty of scenarios for this, cars swerving into incoming traffic, into a utility pole into pedestrians to avoid a cyclist. Way more people die from swerving to avoid animals than from hitting animals; even hitting a deer isn't likely to kill you in a modern automobile, but swerving into a tree to avoid one will.
- rbranson 15y ago
  I think you have a valid point -- but my point about asymmetry of risk still stands. Even if cyclists cause more accidents because of this swerving to avoid maneuver, the injury risk to the cyclist in any accident (fatal or otherwise) is still much higher.
alxp 15y ago
> pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action Except when they don't, due to mobility problems or having pets with them or other reasons. Expecting anyone to jump out of your way when you come barreling down the sidewalk is going to hurt someone.

Lagged2Death 15y ago

I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Yes. Bikers have this in common with the drivers of trucks, buses, cars, SUVs, joggers, pedestrians, etc. They all break any rules that make their lives harder if they believe they're likely to get away with said breaking. All of them, all the time. They're all just people, and they're all really the same.

stouset 15y ago
No, no, no. You don't understand. _I'm_ different. _I'm_ not part of the problem. Everyone else is, you see.

pkulak 15y ago

Some cyclists ride like idiots and some drivers drive like assholes when it comes to bikes. However, if you ride a bike, you'll be impacted by an asshole driver probably a couple times on your way to your destination, and then a couple more times on your way back. Talk to a driver about idiot cyclists and they'll give you a story from 6 months ago. It's not a fair fight, and not just because of the weight difference.

Misha_B 15y ago

Nice blog post (though more transit-vs-bikes oriented)discussing this here : http://www.humantransit.org/2011/10/lamentation-bicycles-vs-transit.html http://www.humantransit.org/2011/10/lamentation-bicycles-vs-... Arguments don't differ very much from what follows your comment...