6 ms·

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 5mo ago
In the US, bikes == cars. They are required to follow the same rules. I don’t find them nonsensical.
- kelnos 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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?
        dublinben 5mo ago
        Behavior by cyclists certainly has a bias towards survivorship. Every other vehicle on the road represents a potentially lethal threat at any time. Inadequate dedicated infrastructure for cyclists leads to behavior like "Idaho stops" that look counterintuitive to drivers, but improves safety for cyclists at intersections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
        pandaman 5mo ago
        You did not read the thread did you? I have asked how is this supposed to improve safety, this is what is this thread about.
    - llbeansandrice 5mo ago
      Idaho stops are legal for cyclists in some form in a dozen states. There are tons of cycling specific laws that are separate or different from cars.
    - kelnos 5mo ago
      I didn't say anything about safety; I said "don't make much sense". Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycles at a stop sign can get impatient and try to go around the cyclist (I've seen this happen); this actually is a safety issue. (Now, I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights without even slowing down. I'm not saying that's ok.) > 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. I don't think this statement is obviously true. Cars and bicycles are very different types of vehicles, and there's no reason to believe that every car-related safety rule has the same safety-related effect when applied to a bicycle.
      - pandaman 5mo ago
        No road rule is necessary for anyone, all of them are for safety only. >It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. Having cyclist colliding with each other or other cars in the intersection will improve throughput? Do you ride a bike or drive at all? Stop signs are not just some Big Government ploy to annoy you. Stop signs allow two traffic streams to cross each other without collisions. Without stop sings and people stopping at them you would get cars colliding all the time.
- coryrc 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
      Everyone using the road following the same set of rules makes their actions more predictable and thus safer (in theory)
joenot443 5mo ago
We’re talking about bike lanes, it seemed completely relevant to me?
saagarjha 5mo ago
Bikes are largely supposed to follow the same rules, with a handful of exceptions.
throw_a_grenade 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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.

doug_durham 5mo ago

In the US, bikes == cars. They are required to follow the same rules. I don’t find them nonsensical.

kelnos 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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?
        dublinben 5mo ago
        Behavior by cyclists certainly has a bias towards survivorship. Every other vehicle on the road represents a potentially lethal threat at any time. Inadequate dedicated infrastructure for cyclists leads to behavior like "Idaho stops" that look counterintuitive to drivers, but improves safety for cyclists at intersections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
        pandaman 5mo ago
        You did not read the thread did you? I have asked how is this supposed to improve safety, this is what is this thread about.
  - llbeansandrice 5mo ago
    Idaho stops are legal for cyclists in some form in a dozen states. There are tons of cycling specific laws that are separate or different from cars.
  - kelnos 5mo ago
    I didn't say anything about safety; I said "don't make much sense". Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycles at a stop sign can get impatient and try to go around the cyclist (I've seen this happen); this actually is a safety issue. (Now, I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights without even slowing down. I'm not saying that's ok.) > 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. I don't think this statement is obviously true. Cars and bicycles are very different types of vehicles, and there's no reason to believe that every car-related safety rule has the same safety-related effect when applied to a bicycle.
    - pandaman 5mo ago
      No road rule is necessary for anyone, all of them are for safety only. >It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. Having cyclist colliding with each other or other cars in the intersection will improve throughput? Do you ride a bike or drive at all? Stop signs are not just some Big Government ploy to annoy you. Stop signs allow two traffic streams to cross each other without collisions. Without stop sings and people stopping at them you would get cars colliding all the time.
coryrc 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
    Everyone using the road following the same set of rules makes their actions more predictable and thus safer (in theory)

joenot443 5mo ago

We’re talking about bike lanes, it seemed completely relevant to me?

saagarjha 5mo ago

Bikes are largely supposed to follow the same rules, with a handful of exceptions.

throw_a_grenade 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo 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.