13 ms·

I'll back that as soon as a system to force bicyclists to abide by traffic laws is required.

iron_ball 13y ago
As a sometime cyclist, I agree that cyclists should abide by traffic laws. I assume this was downvoted for tone. The premise is undeniable. Bicycles should obey the laws. Greater rule adherence means a more predictable, and thus safer, street.
- mindslight 13y ago
  Like the law to come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign, including the four ways that blanket every neighborhood? No thank you; cyclists treat stop signs as four-dimensional yields for some damn good reasons. There's a lot of terrible bike-riders (riding on the left side of the road around a blind corner...), but there are also a lot of terrible laws and signage. Don't delude yourself into believing that strict adherence to rules will solve the world's problems.
  - nitid_name 13y ago
    Non-cyclists don't typically understand the very real cost of losing momentum at a stop sign/light. Cyclists don't tend to understand that unfairness aspect many drivers seem to feel when cyclists cheat. That said, some states are starting to address the stop sign/stop-light problem for bicyclists (well, sort of). Virginia, for example, lets cyclists (including motorcycles) treat stop lights as stop signs after a certain amount of time/cycles. I'm sure most cyclists would prefer they be treated like flashing yellow or flashing red lights (yield sign and stop sign equivalent, respectively), but we've got a ways to go before that can happen. I think we'll need to start licensing street riding and overhaul traffic law to include bicycles on the road before things get much better.
    - mindslight 13y ago
      I understand that it is seen as unfair, but write that off as Stockholm syndrome. It does suck that cities are constantly erecting even more traffic signals (etc), but the appropriate response is to blame the job-justifying behavior of city hall, not to go zero-sum and get mad at the people who can better skirt them. For what it's worth, I don't even really bike that much these days and certainly encounter my share of idiotic bikers when driving/walking. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give in to blowhard legality tropes when it's clear that the real nuisance bikers are doing things that are so stupid (against traffic, on sidewalk, left turn from right lane, texting) that they don't care about even bodily harm. Meanwhile there are plenty of actions that are illegal yet affect nobody else that can be performed prudently and thoughtfully. Also, any observably-broken traffic light can and should be treated as a stop sign. What else do you do, strictly follow the narrow part of the law that you've been told and patiently wait for the police to hold your hand?
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  He's being downvoted for content, not tone. Opposing failsafe systems that can prevent tragedy until millions of people start behaving in a way that common sense shows people (whatever their mode of transport) are not likely to is: a) monumentally callous, b) completely idiotic and c) a sadly all too common, stereotypical response. Can you imagine someone saying "I'll support seatbelts when everyone stops drinking and driving". No, because it would be a stupid thing to think or say, just as it is to wish death and injury on large number of perfectly blameless cyclists because of the behavior of some.
- TulliusCicero 13y ago
  Stopping at a stop sign in residential neighborhoods as a cyclist is frequently stupid. Idaho even has a law that lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs, which makes perfect sense. Cyclists aren't a large threat to other road users (pedestrians/cars/other cyclists) the way cars are.
  - lepht 13y ago
    Burlington, VT (last I knew, anyway) has a similar law -- stop signs are effectively yield signs, while red lights are stop signs, as far as cyclists are concerned.
- jaffeee 13y ago
  Predictable is bad. It makes people lazy and inattentive.
thefreeman 13y ago
I have a feeling that the general populace of hacker news will disagree with us, but I am with you 100%. I live in a small-ish town on the outskirts of Philadelphia that happens to be in the middle of some sort of really popular biking route. Unfortunately, we have a ton of really small streets with cars parked on both sides. I understand and appreciate that cyclists have no other place to ride then in the street, and they as much a right to the road as drivers. But it can be quite frustrating to be stuck behind a cyclist who is making no effort to pedal quickly on a road where it is impossible to pass them. The really frustrating thing though is that they completely ignore traffic rules. If you have to ride in the street and I have to treat you as part of traffic, fine. But why do you get to creep up the side of the street at red lights, then positioning yourself in front of more cars to slow down. And why do you get to run red lights? It seems it needs to be one way or the other. Either you are a pedestrian, and you should be trying to avoid traffic, or you are a participant on the road and you should obey the traffic laws.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  If the biking routes are that popular, one side of the street should be a bike lane separated from traffic. Until such time, cars need to be patient. Each one of those cyclists you are stuck behind is keeping a 3 ton multi-kilowatt biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions car off the road. Cars are huge polluters and energy consumers. Would you be equally pissed off if the residents along narrow streets had speed bumps installed to reduce noise from fast traffic?
  - oceanplexian 13y ago
    Cyclists are using roads that are subsidized and paid for by gasoline taxes and automobile registration fees. If you really want dedicated lanes and preeminence then pay your fair share. I don't think bicycling would be as attractive if cyclists paid for all the externalities of their hobby.
    - yackob03 13y ago
      I can't tell if this is satire.
theg2 13y ago
As someone who was nearly run down by a cyclist running a red while I walked a cross walk this weekend, I agree wholeheartedly. Boston is in a constant battle between cyclists and motorists and neither side is playing by the rules.
- scoofy 13y ago
  Yet, you would think that the side of your "battle" with the tendency to kill should be expected to behave better?
  - theg2 13y ago
    I ride a bike and drive a car. And while doing both, I do my best to obey the laws and not injure other people. In Boston, and more specifically in my area of Cambridge we have major issues with drivers turning without looking at the bike lane and bikers running through red lights or riding on sidewalks. In MA, we have very specific laws regarding how bikes are to be treated under the law and whenever riding I abide by them because they exist to keep myself (most important) and others safe. As the biker nearly hit me (I fortunately jumped out of the way with less than a foot of clearance), he yelled at me calling me an asshole and continued through the intersection with himself having a red light. I watched a college kid die last year while walking to work as he slammed into the side of a truck. It ignited a debate about who was at fault and if trucks should be allowed to turn at that intersection. Nothing but finger pointing was done, a young man was killed, and just last week another pedestrian was hit at that same intersection crossing the street to catch the T. Our transportation is changing in this country and instead of adjusting, in most areas we're just pointing the finger, much like you did in this post.
    - lepht 13y ago
      I'm also in the Boston area (Somerville) and have been wondering about the proper way to respond to right turns with a cyclist in the bike lane behind me. When I have right-of-way and use my turn signal ahead of time, shouldn't I have the ability to turn right without waiting for the bike to pass (similar to how the cars behind me must wait for me to make my turn before continuing?)
pkulak 13y ago
Really? Ever drive on a public road? What percentage of drivers break the speed limit laws? 95%? 7 nines in California? Cops don't even pull you over until you're driving at least 10-15 over. So obviously speeding is a totally fine law to break, but when I roll through a residential stop sign at 5 mph (that has obviously been installed only to enforce right-of-way) what I'm doing is inexcusable? Until drivers fall all over themselves to apologize for driving 2 tonnes of metal at 80 in a 55, I'm not going to beat myself up for rolling through stop signs (that aren't stopped at for cars either, by the way).
- stanleydrew 13y ago
  The problem is not with breaking the law. Drivers and cyclists do this more-or-less equally I'd imagine. The problem is in breaking expectations. If I see 10 cars driving 80mph in a 55mph zone, then it is reasonable for me to expect an 11th, and I'm certainly not shocked when I do see that. At stop signs and red lights when I'm riding my bike I've seen far too many fellow cyclists seem to take pleasure in their ability to do the unexpected and get away with it. They weave between stopped traffic, overtake slowing cars on the right, breeze through stop signs without yielding, block pedestrians by entering crosswalks and stopping. These are legitimate bad behaviors on the part of cyclists, and until we admit that and start working on changing the culture towards one of behaving within expectations we're not going to get much respect from all the drivers on the road who largely do adhere to expectations.
  - jaffeee 13y ago
    Those aren't legitimate bad behaviors, cyclists are just being efficient by using the roads organically. Im travelling right now in Indo, and there are no traffic controls, few sidewalks, the roads are as narrow as a bike path and shared by pedestrians, cows, horse and carriage, and anything else you can think of. Scooter drivers do all the bad things you talk about, and it's amazing how efficient traffic is. You can get from one end of Mataram to ther on a scooter without ever having to come to a complete stop. Nobody seems to get angry or frustrated. When a driver's expectation is that he shouldn't have to pay attention to what is going on around him, I think it's the expectation that is the problem, not the violation of that expectation. When I return to Canada, I'm going to be an even worse cyclist than I am now. I've learned a lot. Of course, I also read an article the other day about a shopping mall that painted fast and slow lanes on the floor for pedestrians. Traffic controls for pedestrians. Never underestimate the faith Americans place in the incompetence of their fellow citizens.
scoofy 13y ago
Replace bike with car. You seem to think that drivers are not massive traffic law violators? Speeding, double parking, tailgating, failing to signal, need i go on? Expecting an entire group to act like pristine angels before life saving laws can be put in place is asinine at best.
- beachstartup 13y ago
  the problem is bicyclists tend to do things that are far more dangerous / serious: * running red lights * running stop signs * driving down the wrong side of the road * driving on sidewalks bikes are far less dangerous than cars, which is why nobody minds that they routinely break far worse rules. in addition, bicyclists routinely break the rules you mentioned.
  - warfangle 13y ago
    As a resident of Brooklyn, I see cars that do those things more often than bicycles that do those things. (granted, the car driving the wrong way on a one way is usually one going in reverse at 30mph, or a police radio car with or without sirens on)
  - Groxx 13y ago
    Agreed, and I wish there would be fines and enforcement. Though for half of those you can frequently argue that the biker is avoiding more-common dangers to themselves, like having to squeeze between parked and moving cars where there isn't enough room to do so safely. In the vast majority of America, including the vast majority of cities, biking is ludicrously poorly supported and heavily favors killing bicyclists over losing a lane. Not that this is any surprise, but it is what it is.
  - scoofy 13y ago
    The problem is that these things only seem more dangerous. At the end of the day, momentum kills. Speeding in an automobile, especially in urban areas, is far and away the most dangerous thing of any of the "crimes" here, and it's treated as though it should be expected, not reprehensible as it is. A cyclist yielding at a stop sign isn't going to kill anyone. The car flooring it after each one and rolling the crosswalks may.
revelation 13y ago
I don't get it. This is not a zero sum game. If a cyclist breaks the law, does that mean you can now pass the next one closer? You seem to lack the necessary maturity to operate a multi-ton vehicle, getting agitated and trying to portray driving in the street as some tit-for-tat game. Stop and think about what you are doing.
_zen 13y ago
Apples to oranges. No car passengers have ever died because a cyclist hit them.

As a sometime cyclist, I agree that cyclists should abide by traffic laws. I assume this was downvoted for tone. The premise is undeniable. Bicycles should obey the laws. Greater rule adherence means a more predictable, and thus safer, street.

mindslight 13y ago
Like the law to come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign, including the four ways that blanket every neighborhood? No thank you; cyclists treat stop signs as four-dimensional yields for some damn good reasons. There's a lot of terrible bike-riders (riding on the left side of the road around a blind corner...), but there are also a lot of terrible laws and signage. Don't delude yourself into believing that strict adherence to rules will solve the world's problems.
- nitid_name 13y ago
  Non-cyclists don't typically understand the very real cost of losing momentum at a stop sign/light. Cyclists don't tend to understand that unfairness aspect many drivers seem to feel when cyclists cheat. That said, some states are starting to address the stop sign/stop-light problem for bicyclists (well, sort of). Virginia, for example, lets cyclists (including motorcycles) treat stop lights as stop signs after a certain amount of time/cycles. I'm sure most cyclists would prefer they be treated like flashing yellow or flashing red lights (yield sign and stop sign equivalent, respectively), but we've got a ways to go before that can happen. I think we'll need to start licensing street riding and overhaul traffic law to include bicycles on the road before things get much better.
  - mindslight 13y ago
    I understand that it is seen as unfair, but write that off as Stockholm syndrome. It does suck that cities are constantly erecting even more traffic signals (etc), but the appropriate response is to blame the job-justifying behavior of city hall, not to go zero-sum and get mad at the people who can better skirt them. For what it's worth, I don't even really bike that much these days and certainly encounter my share of idiotic bikers when driving/walking. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give in to blowhard legality tropes when it's clear that the real nuisance bikers are doing things that are so stupid (against traffic, on sidewalk, left turn from right lane, texting) that they don't care about even bodily harm. Meanwhile there are plenty of actions that are illegal yet affect nobody else that can be performed prudently and thoughtfully. Also, any observably-broken traffic light can and should be treated as a stop sign. What else do you do, strictly follow the narrow part of the law that you've been told and patiently wait for the police to hold your hand?
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
He's being downvoted for content, not tone. Opposing failsafe systems that can prevent tragedy until millions of people start behaving in a way that common sense shows people (whatever their mode of transport) are not likely to is: a) monumentally callous, b) completely idiotic and c) a sadly all too common, stereotypical response. Can you imagine someone saying "I'll support seatbelts when everyone stops drinking and driving". No, because it would be a stupid thing to think or say, just as it is to wish death and injury on large number of perfectly blameless cyclists because of the behavior of some.
TulliusCicero 13y ago
Stopping at a stop sign in residential neighborhoods as a cyclist is frequently stupid. Idaho even has a law that lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs, which makes perfect sense. Cyclists aren't a large threat to other road users (pedestrians/cars/other cyclists) the way cars are.
- lepht 13y ago
  Burlington, VT (last I knew, anyway) has a similar law -- stop signs are effectively yield signs, while red lights are stop signs, as far as cyclists are concerned.
jaffeee 13y ago
Predictable is bad. It makes people lazy and inattentive.

thefreeman 13y ago

I have a feeling that the general populace of hacker news will disagree with us, but I am with you 100%. I live in a small-ish town on the outskirts of Philadelphia that happens to be in the middle of some sort of really popular biking route. Unfortunately, we have a ton of really small streets with cars parked on both sides. I understand and appreciate that cyclists have no other place to ride then in the street, and they as much a right to the road as drivers. But it can be quite frustrating to be stuck behind a cyclist who is making no effort to pedal quickly on a road where it is impossible to pass them. The really frustrating thing though is that they completely ignore traffic rules. If you have to ride in the street and I have to treat you as part of traffic, fine. But why do you get to creep up the side of the street at red lights, then positioning yourself in front of more cars to slow down. And why do you get to run red lights? It seems it needs to be one way or the other. Either you are a pedestrian, and you should be trying to avoid traffic, or you are a participant on the road and you should obey the traffic laws.

Zigurd 13y ago
If the biking routes are that popular, one side of the street should be a bike lane separated from traffic. Until such time, cars need to be patient. Each one of those cyclists you are stuck behind is keeping a 3 ton multi-kilowatt biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions car off the road. Cars are huge polluters and energy consumers. Would you be equally pissed off if the residents along narrow streets had speed bumps installed to reduce noise from fast traffic?
- oceanplexian 13y ago
  Cyclists are using roads that are subsidized and paid for by gasoline taxes and automobile registration fees. If you really want dedicated lanes and preeminence then pay your fair share. I don't think bicycling would be as attractive if cyclists paid for all the externalities of their hobby.
  - yackob03 13y ago
    I can't tell if this is satire.

theg2 13y ago

As someone who was nearly run down by a cyclist running a red while I walked a cross walk this weekend, I agree wholeheartedly. Boston is in a constant battle between cyclists and motorists and neither side is playing by the rules.

scoofy 13y ago
Yet, you would think that the side of your "battle" with the tendency to kill should be expected to behave better?
- theg2 13y ago
  I ride a bike and drive a car. And while doing both, I do my best to obey the laws and not injure other people. In Boston, and more specifically in my area of Cambridge we have major issues with drivers turning without looking at the bike lane and bikers running through red lights or riding on sidewalks. In MA, we have very specific laws regarding how bikes are to be treated under the law and whenever riding I abide by them because they exist to keep myself (most important) and others safe. As the biker nearly hit me (I fortunately jumped out of the way with less than a foot of clearance), he yelled at me calling me an asshole and continued through the intersection with himself having a red light. I watched a college kid die last year while walking to work as he slammed into the side of a truck. It ignited a debate about who was at fault and if trucks should be allowed to turn at that intersection. Nothing but finger pointing was done, a young man was killed, and just last week another pedestrian was hit at that same intersection crossing the street to catch the T. Our transportation is changing in this country and instead of adjusting, in most areas we're just pointing the finger, much like you did in this post.
  - lepht 13y ago
    I'm also in the Boston area (Somerville) and have been wondering about the proper way to respond to right turns with a cyclist in the bike lane behind me. When I have right-of-way and use my turn signal ahead of time, shouldn't I have the ability to turn right without waiting for the bike to pass (similar to how the cars behind me must wait for me to make my turn before continuing?)

pkulak 13y ago

Really? Ever drive on a public road? What percentage of drivers break the speed limit laws? 95%? 7 nines in California? Cops don't even pull you over until you're driving at least 10-15 over. So obviously speeding is a totally fine law to break, but when I roll through a residential stop sign at 5 mph (that has obviously been installed only to enforce right-of-way) what I'm doing is inexcusable? Until drivers fall all over themselves to apologize for driving 2 tonnes of metal at 80 in a 55, I'm not going to beat myself up for rolling through stop signs (that aren't stopped at for cars either, by the way).

stanleydrew 13y ago
The problem is not with breaking the law. Drivers and cyclists do this more-or-less equally I'd imagine. The problem is in breaking expectations. If I see 10 cars driving 80mph in a 55mph zone, then it is reasonable for me to expect an 11th, and I'm certainly not shocked when I do see that. At stop signs and red lights when I'm riding my bike I've seen far too many fellow cyclists seem to take pleasure in their ability to do the unexpected and get away with it. They weave between stopped traffic, overtake slowing cars on the right, breeze through stop signs without yielding, block pedestrians by entering crosswalks and stopping. These are legitimate bad behaviors on the part of cyclists, and until we admit that and start working on changing the culture towards one of behaving within expectations we're not going to get much respect from all the drivers on the road who largely do adhere to expectations.
- jaffeee 13y ago
  Those aren't legitimate bad behaviors, cyclists are just being efficient by using the roads organically. Im travelling right now in Indo, and there are no traffic controls, few sidewalks, the roads are as narrow as a bike path and shared by pedestrians, cows, horse and carriage, and anything else you can think of. Scooter drivers do all the bad things you talk about, and it's amazing how efficient traffic is. You can get from one end of Mataram to ther on a scooter without ever having to come to a complete stop. Nobody seems to get angry or frustrated. When a driver's expectation is that he shouldn't have to pay attention to what is going on around him, I think it's the expectation that is the problem, not the violation of that expectation. When I return to Canada, I'm going to be an even worse cyclist than I am now. I've learned a lot. Of course, I also read an article the other day about a shopping mall that painted fast and slow lanes on the floor for pedestrians. Traffic controls for pedestrians. Never underestimate the faith Americans place in the incompetence of their fellow citizens.

scoofy 13y ago

Replace bike with car. You seem to think that drivers are not massive traffic law violators? Speeding, double parking, tailgating, failing to signal, need i go on? Expecting an entire group to act like pristine angels before life saving laws can be put in place is asinine at best.

beachstartup 13y ago
the problem is bicyclists tend to do things that are far more dangerous / serious: * running red lights * running stop signs * driving down the wrong side of the road * driving on sidewalks bikes are far less dangerous than cars, which is why nobody minds that they routinely break far worse rules. in addition, bicyclists routinely break the rules you mentioned.
- warfangle 13y ago
  As a resident of Brooklyn, I see cars that do those things more often than bicycles that do those things. (granted, the car driving the wrong way on a one way is usually one going in reverse at 30mph, or a police radio car with or without sirens on)
- Groxx 13y ago
  Agreed, and I wish there would be fines and enforcement. Though for half of those you can frequently argue that the biker is avoiding more-common dangers to themselves, like having to squeeze between parked and moving cars where there isn't enough room to do so safely. In the vast majority of America, including the vast majority of cities, biking is ludicrously poorly supported and heavily favors killing bicyclists over losing a lane. Not that this is any surprise, but it is what it is.
- scoofy 13y ago
  The problem is that these things only seem more dangerous. At the end of the day, momentum kills. Speeding in an automobile, especially in urban areas, is far and away the most dangerous thing of any of the "crimes" here, and it's treated as though it should be expected, not reprehensible as it is. A cyclist yielding at a stop sign isn't going to kill anyone. The car flooring it after each one and rolling the crosswalks may.

revelation 13y ago

I don't get it. This is not a zero sum game. If a cyclist breaks the law, does that mean you can now pass the next one closer? You seem to lack the necessary maturity to operate a multi-ton vehicle, getting agitated and trying to portray driving in the street as some tit-for-tat game. Stop and think about what you are doing.

_zen 13y ago

Apples to oranges. No car passengers have ever died because a cyclist hit them.