4 ms·

> Cyclists have a bad rep in SF because many (not all) ride quite dangerously. Cycling in the US is almost by definition riding dangerously, since there are ve

> Cyclists have a bad rep in SF because many (not all) ride quite dangerously. Cycling in the US is almost by definition riding dangerously, since there are very few places with actual safe bicycle infrastructure. This is a self-selecting pressure, because it means that the only cyclists that actually dare to cycle in the city are risk-takers. > I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. You can blame the cyclist or perhaps a four-way stop with a nearly hourly cyclist incident needs to be redesigned.

alvah 3y ago
"> I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. You can blame the cyclist or perhaps a four-way stop with a nearly hourly cyclist incident needs to be redesigned." Or, bear with me here, just maybe the cyclists failing to yield is kind of the big issue here?
- shuckles 3y ago
  No it’s not. AB122 passed the legislature to legalize the California roll for cyclists, because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility. Newsom vetoed it for stupid culture war reasons. It’s a law that doesn’t make sense so it’s not a big issue if it isn’t followed.
  - groggo 3y ago
    I'm a cyclist and support these types of laws. But I could imagine someone making the same case for a car (or a motorcycle?). You can have high visibility and come towards a 4-way stop in the middle of nowhere and there's not another car in sight. It doesn't really make sense. For cycling of course it's super annoying to lose your momentum.
    - zx8080 3y ago
      Considering: > annoying Vs excess CO2 from engines (does not matter if electric or not, as efficiency is still a thing to consider) after a full stop, would it make more sense to make cyclists to yield always and not cars?
    - blululu 3y ago
      I see cars in the city roll through stop signs all the time, but I never heard of a bicyclist killing someone while blasting through a stop sign. The difference between bicycles and cars is based on the potential for harm.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility. For anyone wondering why I give an explanation here[0]. The tldr is you need to move to be safe and it is harder to get a bike moving than it is a car. It's best to contextualize any such arguments around the operations that go into operating the vehicle and cars and bikes have a lot of differences. Those differences are why cars are more popular (Sure, more energy but motor vs legs. If you want to make the argument that it is easier for a bike you better not get frustrated when a bike is slow to get to speed when you're behind them at a stoplight or stop-sign). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298376
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      The comment you link to has been flagged.
      - godelski 3y ago
        Thanks for the notice, I'm not too concerned though. I didn't violate any rules. People must be upset that I made an argument that it can be safer to not come to a full and complete stop. But I'm not making the argument that it is safe to blindly blow throw an intersection either. Given the comments I'm seeing, it appears that it is difficult to differentiate these two things.
  - yuliyp 3y ago
    Failure to yield is a separate question from should they be required to stop if nobody is present.
  - alvah 3y ago
    California roll != failure to yield. I swear some in here would argue water isn’t wet and the sky isn’t blue…
7e 3y ago
It's simple selfishness. Cyclists don't want to lose their momentum. Coasting is fun and exertion is not; humans evolved to minimize their energy expenditure. To fix that, you'd need to redesign the bicycle to be completely battery powered. Even then, acceleration will be slower than not stopping. Cyclists will try to rationalize their behavior in all kinds of ways, but they're just lying to themselves (and you).
- godelski 3y ago
  > It's simple selfishness. This is a weird characterization of what's going on given you have an apt description. I've only been struck by cars (twice) when stopped at a stop sign. It's no question that an intersection is one of the most dangerous locations for a cyclist and it is also no question that an intersection can be cleared significantly faster when starting with __any__ amount of momentum vs a complete stop. Specifics will be necessary for making adequate conclusions here. Someone blindly blowing through an intersection certainly clears the intersection faster but that alone doesn't mean the behavior is appropriate or any less idiotic. And someone doing that is very different from someone slowing down and treating the stop sign like a yield sign. An over generalization is just going to lead to irrational conclusions because context is necessary.
  - philistine 3y ago
    Don't give them the time of day. I never understood why cyclists acted the way they act until I started commuting to work. I felt unsafe at intersections when stopped. I felt unsafe at intersections when starting slowly. I read online about some road rules making my trips more dangerous for ME, not the cars. Now I know what I can do that's totally illegal that's keeping me safer.
    - 7e 3y ago
      Cycling is dangerous when mixed with cars, for sure. But blazing through at an intersection full of cars which are expecting you to stop is even more dangerous. Stop sign rules exist for a reason (to slow vehicles down enough that everyone can see and negotiate everyone else) and it's safer for all if you obey them. This is an example of the rationalization I alluded to earlier. Cyclists lie to themselves. Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors. This is not to excuse drivers, who do lazy and selfish things all the time, like looking at their phones. The root cause is the same--human nature. It just so happens that the incentives are worse when cycling.

alvah 3y ago

"> I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. You can blame the cyclist or perhaps a four-way stop with a nearly hourly cyclist incident needs to be redesigned." Or, bear with me here, just maybe the cyclists failing to yield is kind of the big issue here?

shuckles 3y ago
No it’s not. AB122 passed the legislature to legalize the California roll for cyclists, because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility. Newsom vetoed it for stupid culture war reasons. It’s a law that doesn’t make sense so it’s not a big issue if it isn’t followed.
- groggo 3y ago
  I'm a cyclist and support these types of laws. But I could imagine someone making the same case for a car (or a motorcycle?). You can have high visibility and come towards a 4-way stop in the middle of nowhere and there's not another car in sight. It doesn't really make sense. For cycling of course it's super annoying to lose your momentum.
  - zx8080 3y ago
    Considering: > annoying Vs excess CO2 from engines (does not matter if electric or not, as efficiency is still a thing to consider) after a full stop, would it make more sense to make cyclists to yield always and not cars?
  - blululu 3y ago
    I see cars in the city roll through stop signs all the time, but I never heard of a bicyclist killing someone while blasting through a stop sign. The difference between bicycles and cars is based on the potential for harm.
- godelski 3y ago
  > because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility. For anyone wondering why I give an explanation here[0]. The tldr is you need to move to be safe and it is harder to get a bike moving than it is a car. It's best to contextualize any such arguments around the operations that go into operating the vehicle and cars and bikes have a lot of differences. Those differences are why cars are more popular (Sure, more energy but motor vs legs. If you want to make the argument that it is easier for a bike you better not get frustrated when a bike is slow to get to speed when you're behind them at a stoplight or stop-sign). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298376
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    The comment you link to has been flagged.
    - godelski 3y ago
      Thanks for the notice, I'm not too concerned though. I didn't violate any rules. People must be upset that I made an argument that it can be safer to not come to a full and complete stop. But I'm not making the argument that it is safe to blindly blow throw an intersection either. Given the comments I'm seeing, it appears that it is difficult to differentiate these two things.
- yuliyp 3y ago
  Failure to yield is a separate question from should they be required to stop if nobody is present.
- alvah 3y ago
  California roll != failure to yield. I swear some in here would argue water isn’t wet and the sky isn’t blue…

7e 3y ago

It's simple selfishness. Cyclists don't want to lose their momentum. Coasting is fun and exertion is not; humans evolved to minimize their energy expenditure. To fix that, you'd need to redesign the bicycle to be completely battery powered. Even then, acceleration will be slower than not stopping. Cyclists will try to rationalize their behavior in all kinds of ways, but they're just lying to themselves (and you).

godelski 3y ago
> It's simple selfishness. This is a weird characterization of what's going on given you have an apt description. I've only been struck by cars (twice) when stopped at a stop sign. It's no question that an intersection is one of the most dangerous locations for a cyclist and it is also no question that an intersection can be cleared significantly faster when starting with __any__ amount of momentum vs a complete stop. Specifics will be necessary for making adequate conclusions here. Someone blindly blowing through an intersection certainly clears the intersection faster but that alone doesn't mean the behavior is appropriate or any less idiotic. And someone doing that is very different from someone slowing down and treating the stop sign like a yield sign. An over generalization is just going to lead to irrational conclusions because context is necessary.
- philistine 3y ago
  Don't give them the time of day. I never understood why cyclists acted the way they act until I started commuting to work. I felt unsafe at intersections when stopped. I felt unsafe at intersections when starting slowly. I read online about some road rules making my trips more dangerous for ME, not the cars. Now I know what I can do that's totally illegal that's keeping me safer.
  - 7e 3y ago
    Cycling is dangerous when mixed with cars, for sure. But blazing through at an intersection full of cars which are expecting you to stop is even more dangerous. Stop sign rules exist for a reason (to slow vehicles down enough that everyone can see and negotiate everyone else) and it's safer for all if you obey them. This is an example of the rationalization I alluded to earlier. Cyclists lie to themselves. Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors. This is not to excuse drivers, who do lazy and selfish things all the time, like looking at their phones. The root cause is the same--human nature. It just so happens that the incentives are worse when cycling.