7 ms·

I think this over-states the case for "otherwise law-abiding" cyclists. Anyone who's tried crossing Market Street on foot has probably been nearly hit by a cyc

I think this over-states the case for "otherwise law-abiding" cyclists. Anyone who's tried crossing Market Street on foot has probably been nearly hit by a cyclist completely ignoring stop signs, red lights, and anyone else's right of way. Those problems need to be addressed with direct enforcement before we can possibly consider giving bicyclists any special treatment above the behavior of cars -- specifically because they have already shown that many of them are not capable of using their own discretion with respect to a pedestrian's right of way. I spoke to an SFPD officer on Market and 2nd the other day, and he watched as five different cyclists ran a red light stopping vehicular traffic on Market. I asked him why he wasn't giving tickets to the cyclists, and he told me that he is specifically not allowed to. He reiterated to me that the official policy of the SFPD is not to enforce traffic violations by cyclists on Market Street. He told me that this is because the SF Bike Coalition has run a campaign vilifying police officers and accusing them of harassing cyclists. This is all at the cost of pedestrian safety. I'm not making this shit up, either. I've been hit by two bicyclists in the last year who were running red lights while I was legally crossing Market street on foot. And let's not forget all the cyclists riding on the sidewalk or against traffic. SF is a zoo enough without people gleefully ignoring all traffic safety laws to suit their own convenience, and I don't think we should make it any easier on the people who do it.

theanarcrist 12y ago
I take issue with the idea of "giving bicyclists any special treatment above the behavior of cars." Bicycles are not cars and treating them as such creates perverse incentives that make both biking and driving more inconvenient and dangerous. The law should align with best practices of bike - and it should not be changed only on contingent that a group of users meet some moral code. I imagine if the bike laws in SF were updated to the proposal in the articles SF cops would be more empowered to ticket bicyclists cutting off pedestrians at red lights.
- Fishkins 12y ago
  I totally agree with this. In the US (and probably most other countries) bike laws and infrastructure at at best an afterthought shoehorned into the existing automobile/pedestrian setup. Lots of cyclists are reckless and inconsiderate, and they should be held accountable for that. However, I think the only real way to fix the problem is to address the underlying systemic deficiencies.
- aroch 12y ago
  Bicyclists can injure pedestrians. Bicyclists can kill pedestrians. How exactly does making bicyclists follow the laws of the road make things more dangerous? Who decides what these "best practices" are? Should cars be allowed to treat stop signs as yields in the absence of other traffic? What's the point of signage if you create a broad exemption from following them?
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    > Bicyclists can injure pedestrians. Bicyclists can kill pedestrians. So can lightning and banana peels. Are you arguing that bicycles are as deadly as cars? >How exactly does making bicyclists follow the laws of the road make things more dangerous? From the article: > If the Idaho stop were legalized, it'd get cyclists off these faster streets and funnel the bikes on to safer, slower roads. The Idaho stop, if legalized and widely adopted, would also make bikes more predictable.
    - aroch 12y ago
      >From the article: > If the Idaho stop were legalized, it'd get cyclists off these faster streets and funnel the bikes on to safer, slower roads. The Idaho stop, if legalized and widely adopted, would also make bikes more predictable. This is bullshit and speculation. You really think it'd get bicyclists to take the small streets? It won't. They use the "big streets" because they're the most efficient, they don't give a shit about road laws regardless of the size of the street.
      - shkkmo 12y ago
        > You really think it'd get bicyclists to take the small streets? Yes, as I bicyclist who doesn't own a car, I do think that. I take back/small streets wherever the stop sign density is low enough (long blocks, lots of two way stops) and doesn't take me off course. It is far more safe and relaxing than blocking a lane of traffic on a high volume road. > They use the "big streets" because they're the most efficient, To a certain degree, yes. But that efficiency has a lot to do with having to stop at stop signs. > they don't give a shit about road laws regardless of the size of the street. Now you are just over-generalizing and projecting.
- akiselev 12y ago
  Bicycles are not multi-ton hunks of plastic and steel and treating them as though they have crumple zones creates perverse incentives that make both biking and driving more inconvenient and dangerous.
matkam 12y ago
On the flip side, I've nearly hit two pedestrians on Market Street who were not paying attention, and jay-walking right in front of me while it was my right of way (traffic light was green). As a cyclist, you have to be aggressive, or people (including those driving cars) don't notice you.
- vacri 12y ago
  I remember walking across a four-lane major road with the last moments of the pedestrian walk signal allowing me the right. A cyclist was turning into the four-lane road, all lanes of which were empty and available for him to choose from, with only light traffic waiting for the lights to resume. Despite this bevy of selection, his chosen course of action was to buzz the single pedestrian crossing and abuse him for being in the way. Aggressive cyclists are a problem. Assertive cyclists are not, and there is a clear and important distinction between the two.
  - lolwutf 12y ago
    The point is there shouldn't be such a thing as an 'aggressive' OR an 'assertive' cyclist. All cyclists should follow the law and follow predictive traffic behavior! It's pretty simple.
- lolwutf 12y ago
  However, the law says you still have to yield to these people. So why not follow the law and stop?
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    Stopping at a green light is the law? It sounds like he DID yield, despite the pedestrians VIOLATING traffic law.
  - matkam 12y ago
    I don't know if you've ever ridden a bike, but they don't exactly stop on a dime. The point is these people don't notice you and will walk right in front of you within a few feet when the light is green for you.
lolwutf 12y ago
My policy, when on foot, is such: -Completely ignore bicyclists. This may perhaps cause them abruptly stop and not like me. I don't care, because I have the right-of-way, and they are in the wrong. -Beat the living piss out of any biker that collides with me. (As a result of their vehicular assault, which is what recklessly hitting me with your bike in the crosswalk represents. This includes throwing their bike into traffic where it hopefully gets run over, for good measure.) Fortunately, I haven't had to do the last step yet. I've cut off plenty of bikers as they attempt to zip past me in a crosswalk and have had them curse at me and just give them a 'fuck you' smile. :) Listen bikers, the rules are simple and have been around forever: when you're in the roadway, conduct yourself as a vehicle. This includes obeying all traffic signs and patterns. If you ultimately have problems hitting people, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.
- revelation 12y ago
  You seem to be suffering from an obnoxious case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier It helps when you can put a name on these things and auto-correct.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Esprit de l'escalier applies to the retort you'd apply after an encounter ... but didn't. Aggressive assertion of one's legal rights isn't that.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Vehicles should avoid pedestrians in crosswalks regardless of right-of-way. After all many pedestrians are senile or otherwise of diminished capacity. I certainly wouldn't want anyone running over any of my elderly relatives. However, I recommend against deliberate "cut off" attempts. You might find them quite entertaining most of the time. The rest of the time someone will be injured, and it won't necessarily be the cyclist.
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  Since I am hardly ever a pedestrian, I really didn't give consideration to what a horror the lack of standard behavior of bikes would be for people on foot. You have literally been collided with by a guy on a bike?
tdees40 12y ago
Man, this guy is going to be REALLY upset when he hears about how cars constantly speed, roll through stop signs, and text on their cell phones. I say until we get those problems stopped, we don't give cars the special treatment of having use of all lanes. We'll just shove them in the far right like we do with bikes.
- malandrew 12y ago
  Not to mention that cars aren't even supposed to turn across a crosswalk if there is a human in the crosswalk. It doesn't even matter that the human has passed. Legally they need to wait until the human reaches the other side. IIRC, this is actually one of the few moving violations where you lose your license on the spot. One of the others is passing a stopped schoolbus. As a cyclist, I would happily exchange the cyclist privileges the OP described in exchange for a city that cracks down heavily on drivers who flaunt the laws. More cars off the road the better. This city is headed in the same messed up direction as São Paulo and Beijing (lived in both, only cycled in SP). The city is past the point where cars make sense, and is unwilling to jump the gulf to making walking, public transportation and biking the safest and most effective forms of transportation.
simonlebo 12y ago
I live in Australia and the debate here is pretty heated between cars and cyclists. The main reason pedestrians are not really mentioned is, in my opinion, because Australia does not have many pedestrians centres and they don't coexist with bikes all that much. I do agree with a lot of this article about the uselessness of enforcing outdated road rules to cyclists. I personally will rarely completely stop at stop sign. I find the danger much higher to try to immobilize the bike, un-clip the shoe and start again with a very slow speed (potentially exposing myself for a much longer period of time in that dangerous crossing zone). To solve accidents between all of these actors, I think there should be a simple rule of giving the slowest vehicle always the right of way, which is what courteous people do. A pedestrians should always have priority over a cyclist and or a motorist. If accident happen, the cyclist/motorist should take the full responsibility for it. Likewise a cyclist should have priority over a motorist. The person at fault should be proven guilty unless proven innocent of some unpredictable situation. It is a bit the same on the water, where motor boats have to give way to wind powered boat for the same logical reasons.
- gbog 12y ago
  Wow, no, sail boat will not cut the path of a super tanker, if I remember correctly (I have navigation permit). And you can't apply your courteous rule for traffic in places with many elder pedestrians like China: other people and vehicles would never move. I think, however, that removing rules and applying common sense could work if we could use a communication network inspired from biological patterns.
  - simonlebo 12y ago
    Yes there are some logical exceptions to the motor boat always give way. These are however exceptions. http://www.gosailing.info/Navigation%20Rules.htm http://www.gosailing.info/Navigation%20Rules.htm The equivalent in the cycling example would be that trains have to give way to cyclists which was not my point.
shkkmo 12y ago
So, I hear you hate bicyclists? On the flip side: I have lost count of the number of time I have stopped for pedestrians at crosswalks in Oakland, only to have a car blow past me, sometimes coming close to hitting pedestrians I had stopped for. As a pedestrian on MLK, I have to be VERY careful of when crossing crosswalks because many cars are NOT paying attention. Clearly there are many incompentent and thoughtless bicyclists and drivers. > I spoke to an SFPD officer on Market and 2nd the other day, and he watched as five different cyclists ran a red light stopping vehicular traffic on Market. I asked him why he wasn't giving tickets to the cyclists, and he told me that he is specifically not allowed to. He reiterated to me that the official policy of the SFPD is not to enforce traffic violations by cyclists on Market Street. So why don't we tie a law legalizing the Idaho Stop, with a law mandating cops enforce traffic laws against bicyclists?
- Torgo 12y ago
  I have had this happen repeatedly just because the driver wanted to roll through a stop light to do a right hand turn. One thing I don't think car drivers realize is how much of what bicyclists do out of self-preservation rather than convenience. I learned pretty quick when to break traffic laws so I had less of a chance of dying at the hands of an inattentive driver. On the other hand, I was living in a city of about 70,000, pretty small. I am sure it all depends on the city and its size.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  "I have lost count of the number of time I have stopped for pedestrians at crosswalks in Oakland, only to have a car blow past me, sometimes coming close to hitting pedestrians I had stopped for." Are you kidding? "Why should I have to stop? Vehicles run red lights!" I'm seriously struggling to determine if I'm unable to pick up on your sarcasm... but really, I know you're absolutely sincere. "So why don't we tie a law legalizing the Idaho Stop, with a law mandating cops enforce traffic laws against bicyclists?" Your sense of cause and effect is seriously damaged. Are you honestly proclaiming with any sincerity that cycling "radical" groups like Critical Mass, etc, will be suitably satiated by the legalization of the Idaho Stop that they'll feel that they now receive fair and equitable treatment (when in the past, that wasn't necessarily not the case, but rather, 'everyone harasses us')? Oi.
xrange 12y ago
Bike lanes are a great example of one of the last socially acceptable young white man's privilege.
- tdees40 12y ago
  Where I live most cyclists are poor and Hispanic. But sure, why not!
dalore 12y ago
Not in SF but in London, I had a cyclist run a red whilst I was on a green crossing who almost bowled me over. I kind of tried to push him out of the way of me. He then tracks me down and follows me and wanted to fight.
zobzu 12y ago
I know - its not just market street, its all of SF. As a cyclist, i regularly get near misses from cyclists going through the red light - specially because im in the cycling lane and thats where they aim. Fucking assholes if you ask me :)
Shorel 12y ago
I can get angry and hit a cyclist in the face if he tries to hit me. I can't do the same to a car driver.

theanarcrist 12y ago

I take issue with the idea of "giving bicyclists any special treatment above the behavior of cars." Bicycles are not cars and treating them as such creates perverse incentives that make both biking and driving more inconvenient and dangerous. The law should align with best practices of bike - and it should not be changed only on contingent that a group of users meet some moral code. I imagine if the bike laws in SF were updated to the proposal in the articles SF cops would be more empowered to ticket bicyclists cutting off pedestrians at red lights.

Fishkins 12y ago
I totally agree with this. In the US (and probably most other countries) bike laws and infrastructure at at best an afterthought shoehorned into the existing automobile/pedestrian setup. Lots of cyclists are reckless and inconsiderate, and they should be held accountable for that. However, I think the only real way to fix the problem is to address the underlying systemic deficiencies.
aroch 12y ago
Bicyclists can injure pedestrians. Bicyclists can kill pedestrians. How exactly does making bicyclists follow the laws of the road make things more dangerous? Who decides what these "best practices" are? Should cars be allowed to treat stop signs as yields in the absence of other traffic? What's the point of signage if you create a broad exemption from following them?
- shkkmo 12y ago
  > Bicyclists can injure pedestrians. Bicyclists can kill pedestrians. So can lightning and banana peels. Are you arguing that bicycles are as deadly as cars? >How exactly does making bicyclists follow the laws of the road make things more dangerous? From the article: > If the Idaho stop were legalized, it'd get cyclists off these faster streets and funnel the bikes on to safer, slower roads. The Idaho stop, if legalized and widely adopted, would also make bikes more predictable.
  - aroch 12y ago
    >From the article: > If the Idaho stop were legalized, it'd get cyclists off these faster streets and funnel the bikes on to safer, slower roads. The Idaho stop, if legalized and widely adopted, would also make bikes more predictable. This is bullshit and speculation. You really think it'd get bicyclists to take the small streets? It won't. They use the "big streets" because they're the most efficient, they don't give a shit about road laws regardless of the size of the street.
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      > You really think it'd get bicyclists to take the small streets? Yes, as I bicyclist who doesn't own a car, I do think that. I take back/small streets wherever the stop sign density is low enough (long blocks, lots of two way stops) and doesn't take me off course. It is far more safe and relaxing than blocking a lane of traffic on a high volume road. > They use the "big streets" because they're the most efficient, To a certain degree, yes. But that efficiency has a lot to do with having to stop at stop signs. > they don't give a shit about road laws regardless of the size of the street. Now you are just over-generalizing and projecting.
akiselev 12y ago
Bicycles are not multi-ton hunks of plastic and steel and treating them as though they have crumple zones creates perverse incentives that make both biking and driving more inconvenient and dangerous.

matkam 12y ago

On the flip side, I've nearly hit two pedestrians on Market Street who were not paying attention, and jay-walking right in front of me while it was my right of way (traffic light was green). As a cyclist, you have to be aggressive, or people (including those driving cars) don't notice you.

vacri 12y ago
I remember walking across a four-lane major road with the last moments of the pedestrian walk signal allowing me the right. A cyclist was turning into the four-lane road, all lanes of which were empty and available for him to choose from, with only light traffic waiting for the lights to resume. Despite this bevy of selection, his chosen course of action was to buzz the single pedestrian crossing and abuse him for being in the way. Aggressive cyclists are a problem. Assertive cyclists are not, and there is a clear and important distinction between the two.
- lolwutf 12y ago
  The point is there shouldn't be such a thing as an 'aggressive' OR an 'assertive' cyclist. All cyclists should follow the law and follow predictive traffic behavior! It's pretty simple.
lolwutf 12y ago
However, the law says you still have to yield to these people. So why not follow the law and stop?
- shkkmo 12y ago
  Stopping at a green light is the law? It sounds like he DID yield, despite the pedestrians VIOLATING traffic law.
- matkam 12y ago
  I don't know if you've ever ridden a bike, but they don't exactly stop on a dime. The point is these people don't notice you and will walk right in front of you within a few feet when the light is green for you.

lolwutf 12y ago

My policy, when on foot, is such: -Completely ignore bicyclists. This may perhaps cause them abruptly stop and not like me. I don't care, because I have the right-of-way, and they are in the wrong. -Beat the living piss out of any biker that collides with me. (As a result of their vehicular assault, which is what recklessly hitting me with your bike in the crosswalk represents. This includes throwing their bike into traffic where it hopefully gets run over, for good measure.) Fortunately, I haven't had to do the last step yet. I've cut off plenty of bikers as they attempt to zip past me in a crosswalk and have had them curse at me and just give them a 'fuck you' smile. :) Listen bikers, the rules are simple and have been around forever: when you're in the roadway, conduct yourself as a vehicle. This includes obeying all traffic signs and patterns. If you ultimately have problems hitting people, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.

revelation 12y ago
You seem to be suffering from an obnoxious case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier It helps when you can put a name on these things and auto-correct.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Esprit de l'escalier applies to the retort you'd apply after an encounter ... but didn't. Aggressive assertion of one's legal rights isn't that.
jessaustin 12y ago
Vehicles should avoid pedestrians in crosswalks regardless of right-of-way. After all many pedestrians are senile or otherwise of diminished capacity. I certainly wouldn't want anyone running over any of my elderly relatives. However, I recommend against deliberate "cut off" attempts. You might find them quite entertaining most of the time. The rest of the time someone will be injured, and it won't necessarily be the cyclist.
MetaCosm 12y ago
Since I am hardly ever a pedestrian, I really didn't give consideration to what a horror the lack of standard behavior of bikes would be for people on foot. You have literally been collided with by a guy on a bike?

tdees40 12y ago

Man, this guy is going to be REALLY upset when he hears about how cars constantly speed, roll through stop signs, and text on their cell phones. I say until we get those problems stopped, we don't give cars the special treatment of having use of all lanes. We'll just shove them in the far right like we do with bikes.

malandrew 12y ago
Not to mention that cars aren't even supposed to turn across a crosswalk if there is a human in the crosswalk. It doesn't even matter that the human has passed. Legally they need to wait until the human reaches the other side. IIRC, this is actually one of the few moving violations where you lose your license on the spot. One of the others is passing a stopped schoolbus. As a cyclist, I would happily exchange the cyclist privileges the OP described in exchange for a city that cracks down heavily on drivers who flaunt the laws. More cars off the road the better. This city is headed in the same messed up direction as São Paulo and Beijing (lived in both, only cycled in SP). The city is past the point where cars make sense, and is unwilling to jump the gulf to making walking, public transportation and biking the safest and most effective forms of transportation.

simonlebo 12y ago

I live in Australia and the debate here is pretty heated between cars and cyclists. The main reason pedestrians are not really mentioned is, in my opinion, because Australia does not have many pedestrians centres and they don't coexist with bikes all that much. I do agree with a lot of this article about the uselessness of enforcing outdated road rules to cyclists. I personally will rarely completely stop at stop sign. I find the danger much higher to try to immobilize the bike, un-clip the shoe and start again with a very slow speed (potentially exposing myself for a much longer period of time in that dangerous crossing zone). To solve accidents between all of these actors, I think there should be a simple rule of giving the slowest vehicle always the right of way, which is what courteous people do. A pedestrians should always have priority over a cyclist and or a motorist. If accident happen, the cyclist/motorist should take the full responsibility for it. Likewise a cyclist should have priority over a motorist. The person at fault should be proven guilty unless proven innocent of some unpredictable situation. It is a bit the same on the water, where motor boats have to give way to wind powered boat for the same logical reasons.

gbog 12y ago
Wow, no, sail boat will not cut the path of a super tanker, if I remember correctly (I have navigation permit). And you can't apply your courteous rule for traffic in places with many elder pedestrians like China: other people and vehicles would never move. I think, however, that removing rules and applying common sense could work if we could use a communication network inspired from biological patterns.
- simonlebo 12y ago
  Yes there are some logical exceptions to the motor boat always give way. These are however exceptions. http://www.gosailing.info/Navigation%20Rules.htm http://www.gosailing.info/Navigation%20Rules.htm The equivalent in the cycling example would be that trains have to give way to cyclists which was not my point.

shkkmo 12y ago

So, I hear you hate bicyclists? On the flip side: I have lost count of the number of time I have stopped for pedestrians at crosswalks in Oakland, only to have a car blow past me, sometimes coming close to hitting pedestrians I had stopped for. As a pedestrian on MLK, I have to be VERY careful of when crossing crosswalks because many cars are NOT paying attention. Clearly there are many incompentent and thoughtless bicyclists and drivers. > I spoke to an SFPD officer on Market and 2nd the other day, and he watched as five different cyclists ran a red light stopping vehicular traffic on Market. I asked him why he wasn't giving tickets to the cyclists, and he told me that he is specifically not allowed to. He reiterated to me that the official policy of the SFPD is not to enforce traffic violations by cyclists on Market Street. So why don't we tie a law legalizing the Idaho Stop, with a law mandating cops enforce traffic laws against bicyclists?

Torgo 12y ago
I have had this happen repeatedly just because the driver wanted to roll through a stop light to do a right hand turn. One thing I don't think car drivers realize is how much of what bicyclists do out of self-preservation rather than convenience. I learned pretty quick when to break traffic laws so I had less of a chance of dying at the hands of an inattentive driver. On the other hand, I was living in a city of about 70,000, pretty small. I am sure it all depends on the city and its size.
FireBeyond 12y ago
"I have lost count of the number of time I have stopped for pedestrians at crosswalks in Oakland, only to have a car blow past me, sometimes coming close to hitting pedestrians I had stopped for." Are you kidding? "Why should I have to stop? Vehicles run red lights!" I'm seriously struggling to determine if I'm unable to pick up on your sarcasm... but really, I know you're absolutely sincere. "So why don't we tie a law legalizing the Idaho Stop, with a law mandating cops enforce traffic laws against bicyclists?" Your sense of cause and effect is seriously damaged. Are you honestly proclaiming with any sincerity that cycling "radical" groups like Critical Mass, etc, will be suitably satiated by the legalization of the Idaho Stop that they'll feel that they now receive fair and equitable treatment (when in the past, that wasn't necessarily not the case, but rather, 'everyone harasses us')? Oi.

xrange 12y ago

Bike lanes are a great example of one of the last socially acceptable young white man's privilege.

tdees40 12y ago
Where I live most cyclists are poor and Hispanic. But sure, why not!

dalore 12y ago

Not in SF but in London, I had a cyclist run a red whilst I was on a green crossing who almost bowled me over. I kind of tried to push him out of the way of me. He then tracks me down and follows me and wanted to fight.

zobzu 12y ago

I know - its not just market street, its all of SF. As a cyclist, i regularly get near misses from cyclists going through the red light - specially because im in the cycling lane and thats where they aim. Fucking assholes if you ask me :)

Shorel 12y ago

I can get angry and hit a cyclist in the face if he tries to hit me. I can't do the same to a car driver.