4 ms·

I agree with your analysis but I just want to point out that, as a general rule, cyclists do not follow traffic laws. They don't stop at stop signs/red lights.

• danny_codes 6mo ago
  That seems irrelevant, we’re talking about cars. Also, of course bikers don’t follow car rules. Those rules are nonsensical for cyclists.
  • doug_durham 6mo ago
    In the US, bikes == cars. They are required to follow the same rules. I don’t find them nonsensical.
    • kelnos 6mo ago
      I used to agree with that (as a pedestrian and driver only), but as I've started cycling, I've begun to realize that many rules of the road, intended for cars, just don't make much sense for bicycles.
      • pandaman 6mo ago
        Like what? I hear people claim that not stopping at STOP sign is somehow making it safer than stopping but when asked about the mechanism of the safety in such a maneuver they either disappear or proclaim that Idaho where this is allowed is in top half of safest states for cyclists so it must work somehow. I cycle myself and see no rules that somehow don't make sense for bikes. In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.
        • Rebelgecko 6mo ago
          I live in California so YMMV depending on the laws where you live and the temperament of drivers. If I do a "proper" stop at a stop sign (0mph, place foot on ground, fortunately I don't clip in), cars will see me stopping and try to blast thru the stop sign when it isn't their turn. So I end up stopping while the first car goes thru the intersection, and while I'm getting resituated on the pedals a second car enters instead of waiting their turn, making my situation more dangerous. One nice law we have in California is that the "walk" sign applies to pedestrians and bikes. This gives me a chance to assert myself in the intersection before the car across from me tries to sneak in a left turn. It also protects me from cars trying to turn across the bike lane.
          • pandaman 6mo ago
            You described cars violating rules, but what is your remedy for that, not to stop? How is it going to help with the cars blowing their stops?
            • Rebelgecko 6mo ago
              Yes, slow down to 2-5 mph but not coming to a complete stops solves this problem. I usually try to time it so that I slow down alongside a car and we can run the stop sign at the same speed. If you assert your right to use the road, cars won't try to take advantage of your size/acceleration as much, especially if you have another car run interference for you. YMMV if you live somewhere where it's common for cars to actually stop at a stop sign.
              • pandaman 6mo ago
                This sounds like a survivorship bias, you imagine that people who blow stops won't do that if you don't stop but, people who did the same on a bike and were t-boned by a car might not be in a good condition to post about their experience anymore. Anyways, even if you are 100% right and not stopping at stop on a bike will prevent people blowing stop completely (and people who have the right of way will also yield to your bike because they will see you 100%) how is it safer than to stop and proceed when there is no traffic across?
    • coryrc 6mo ago
      In Washington State, they're required to follow most car rules when in a lane, but not all (i.e. all stop signs are yield for cyclists). They also have a set of rules allowing for sidewalk usage when mounted; when dismounted, they follow pedestrian rules (obviously).
    • mrgoldenbrown 6mo ago
      It's weird to have the same rules when there are several orders of magnitude difference in manueverability, maximum damage possible, and visibility between the two modes. Imagine if pedestrians had to follow all the same rules as cars. Or everyone in an electric wheelchair. It wouldn't make sense.
      • dublinstats 6mo ago
        I think the point is they have to follow the rules of the road because they are allowed in the road. Pedestrians, wheelchairs, etc can go on the sidewalk and be safe from traffic (one hopes). Though it depends on the state and in my experience there are typically some differences, such as bikes are required to share the lane.
        • zeeZ 6mo ago
          Everyone using the road following the same set of rules makes their actions more predictable and thus safer (in theory)
  • joenot443 6mo ago
    We’re talking about bike lanes, it seemed completely relevant to me?
  • saagarjha 6mo ago
    Bikes are largely supposed to follow the same rules, with a handful of exceptions.
  • throw_a_grenade 6mo ago
    How is that when car drivers decide the rules are nonsensical it's bad, but when bicycle drivers decide the rules (that, please note, apply to everyone on the street, car or not), it's somehow A-ok?
    • rafabulsing 6mo ago
      How come that when people handling uranium decide the rules are nonsensical it's bad, but when people handling bananas decide the rules (that, please note, apply to everyone with radioactive materials), it's somehow A-ok?
      • tmtvl 6mo ago
        When I go to buy banana I always bring my Geiger counter. I also aways get kicked out of the supermarket, I wonder what they're trying to cover up...
    • Mawr 6mo ago
      Hmm well, we have some "smart traffic lights" where I live that are always red unless a vehicle goes over a metal detecting loop under the road in front of them. Guess how well that works for any vehicle that's not a car. Rules of the road are generally designed in the same way — for cars. Nobody cares about carving out obvious exceptions for bikes, like the Idaho stop.
• ianburrell 6mo ago
  Cars don't follow traffic laws. Cars roll through stop signs and run red lights. Cars speed and weave through traffic. They go the wrong way down one-way streets. Since cars are much bigger, this is much more dangerous.
• saagarjha 6mo ago
  Seems like something else worth working on.
• TulliusCicero 6mo ago
  Drivers generally don't follow traffic laws. They text on their phone while they drive. They routinely go over the speed limit. They go through red lights. They go into or park in bike lanes. They tailgate other drivers. They don't signal before turning or changing lanes.
  • slibhb 6mo ago
    Drivers generally follow the rules. It's considered bad form when they don't, and they're occasionally ticketed. This doesn't apply to bikers. No one even expects them to follow the rules. I'm not anti-bike. I bike a bit and I got hit by a car last year. Some crackhead turned left across the opposite lane right into me. I'm just reporting what I see -- bikers do not generally follow the rules, and I find this interesting. Maybe they're being rational. Or maybe they're not. Either way it's interesting.
    • Rebelgecko 6mo ago
      I know more people who have gotten tickets for running stop signs on their bikes than in cars (even though getting hit by a car at 10mph is much more dangerous to a pedestrian than a bike!). Hopefully Newsom listens to reason and gives up veto-ing commense sense traffic laws next cycle
    • TulliusCicero 6mo ago
      > Drivers generally follow the rules. No, they don't. They break the rules all the goddamn time. Have you ever been on an American freeway? Most people are going above the speed limit, myself included. Do you think most drivers give the legally required amount of space in front of their car while driving, especially on the freeway? It's not even close. Do people signal for the legally required amount of time before changing lanes? Again, not close for most drivers. > I'm just reporting what I see What you're actually experiencing is that you implicitly accept the status quo of certain rules being ignored for driving, because driving itself is more common (both for you and in general). But biking is different, it's more obscure, so the rule breaking stands out more. This is very typical of cultures anywhere that driving is more common than biking, which is...well, most places really.
• jona-f 6mo ago
  Yet cyclists rarely kill others. Car drivers on the other hand are one of the most prolific unnatural causes of death.
• II2II 6mo ago
  I regularly see more motorists run red lights in a given day than I have seen cyclists run red lights in a decade. Cycling is sufficiently common in my area to state outright that, proportionally speaking, more motorists run red lights than cyclists. The same thing can be said for cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, and for good reason: if traffic is moving, it's a good way to kill yourself; if traffic is not moving, there is no need for it. (There is usually enough space on the right to pass. If there isn't enough space on the right to pass, it is unsafe.) I have seen more motorists barrel the wrong way down a one way street, in reverse, than I have seen cyclists riding down one way streets the wrong way. Proportionally speaking, more cyclists may be breaking the law. In terms of safety, what motorists are doing is far more dangerous. As for stop signs: other cyclists tend to get the hint when I stop at them on my bike. :) The ones who don't stop tend to do the same as motorists, by doing a "rolling stop". Doing anything less would be a good way to get killed. So no, I don't agree that cyclists do not follow traffic laws as a general rule. In many cases, motorists are worse. I am not going to pretend that cyclists are better for altruistic reasons. The reality is that cyclists are much more vulnerable than motorists. Cars are made to handle collisions, bikes are not. Motorists pay more attention to cars than bikes, in the most part because other cars are more dangerous to them.
• petre 6mo ago
  You should see scooterists then. Especially those on the scooter sharing networks.
• llbeansandrice 6mo ago
  First, in many states cyclists explicitly do not have to stop at stop signs, it’s called an “Idaho stop” and it’s legal in my state. This is much safer for cyclists since most crashes occur in intersections and allowing cyclists to move thru faster is much much safer. You’re also assuming equity of consequence. Someone not obeying the law on a bike is significantly different than not obeying the law when operating a multi-ton vehicle. Finally, every single group of people breaks the law. There is no demographic of reasonable size that does not break the law. This argument is silly and pointless. What is your goal with pointing this out? Literally everyone breaks the law, this grandstanding is stupid. Have you tried driving the speed limit recently? You know, the maximum speed you are legally allowed to drive? Do you always come to a full stop at every stop sign?
• Mawr 6mo ago
  As a general rule, the the frequency illusion[1] and the negativity bias[2] are a thing and combined make shallow, single-datapoint arguments like yours instantly invalid. [1]: "The frequency illusion is a cognitive bias in which a person notices a specific concept, word, or product more frequently after recently becoming aware of it." [2]: "The negativity bias, is a cognitive bias that human cognition is relatively more affected by a negative affect than an equally potent positive affect."