5 ms·

If bicyclists are to be allowed in vehicular traffic lanes, then they should be treated as vehicles and governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptio

by awolf 12y ago

If bicyclists are to be allowed in vehicular traffic lanes, then they should be treated as vehicles and governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions. Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations. Adding a new class of movement patterns for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict for everyone. There's no way this would be safer in dense, highly trafficked cities.

rdl 12y ago
One problem is a 2-way stop at a 4-way intersection, where the bicyclist doesn't necessarily see the car, but at a 35-45mph speed limit, even if the car doesn't hit the bicyclist, the car has to brake suddenly to maintain an adequate buffer. Even though I hate aggressive cyclists, I wouldn't want to hit one even if the bicyclist were 100% at fault and somehow magically had insurance to pay for all damage to my car, as the bicyclist would probably be seriously injured if not killed. So I'd end up braking, potentially getting hit by a car behind me.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  So the scenario that concerns you most is: first that a cyclist doesn't see your vehicle approaching an intersection with the right-of-way, and then that a vehicle is trailing you too closely and can't brake in reaction to your braking? This isn't impossible, but it includes multiple operator errors, so it isn't really something that should drive policy. I personally have driven many miles over many years, and have never rear-ended anyone. I've also ridden (fewer miles, but still) over many years, and I pay very close attention to cross-traffic that doesn't stop, especially if it's going 45 mph.
  - rdl 12y ago
    Welcome to California. (it might be worse in SF/Northern California, though) I got rear-ended by the athletic director for the SF city schools a decade ago when I stopped at a crosswalk for a pedestrian (coming down Twin Peaks into the Castro). That exact layout -- no stop sign, but stop signs on the cross street (and a crosswalk). (It was an interesting experience for me because I was driving a to-me huge rental car (Kia Amanti) and he had some old Honda civic; since it was on a hill the heights were accentuated, so his car basically went underneath my rear bumper and stopped when it hit the axle. At ~35mph I guess, and really massive damage to his car and <$2k to mine.)
shkkmo 12y ago
> ...governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions. So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway? > Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations. True, but the current disregard to those laws means that expected behavior is inconsistent with the behavior mandated by laws. > Adding a new class of movement rules for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict and anticipate for everyone. Bikes already move and behave differently, just due to mechanics and physics. Bringing expectations in line with this and normalizing behavior INCREASES predictability.
- justinreeves 12y ago
  > So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway. You can't drive a car at 20mph on the highway either.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    You can't ride a bike on a highway at any speed. Edit: To be clear, I intending to point out the ridiculousness of this language: > exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions.
    - cag_ii 12y ago
      There are vehicles which are not permitted on the highway.
      - shkkmo 12y ago
        Which is why I think it is silly to insist that bicyclists for the EXACT same rules of the road as drivers with NO EXCEPTIONS. There are different rules of the road for Semis, for cars pulling trailers, for motorcycles, for tractors, for public transit.
  - minikomi 12y ago
    OK less extreme.. I should be able to ride in the middle of the road, and only overtaken where it's safe as indicated by a broken-line.
couchand 12y ago
I'm curious whether you read the article? They make a pretty good case for why the rules really shouldn't (a priori) be the same. Where there any particular points made you disagree with? Do you live in a dense city with a large number of cyclists? I think there's merit to the argument that automobile drivers are already predicting that cyclists will run through intersections, so this clarification would be a significant improvement. The system is composed of individual interactions, and the rules they suggest (and which research seems to indicate reduce collisions) seem sensible in the context of those individual interactions. What specifically do you disagree with?
- gfosco 12y ago
  I live in downtown San Francisco and think that the high density of pedestrians is why this is a bad idea. Every day I see cyclists rolling or running every light, and nearly wrecking, only avoided by pedestrians giving them the right-of-way they don't have or deserve.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    You do realize that the article is not suggesting that bicyclists should be able to roll or run through a red light without stopping, right? So why is this a bad idea? Especially if we can tie this with stronger enforcement against rogue bicyclists?
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  I regularly ride my motorcycle, and drive my car in DC. I am terrified of cyclists because their behavior follows NO norms. Some follow traffic signals, some don't. Some ride in the center of lane, some ride the edge of the rode, some ride on sidewalks in with pedestrians. The scariest do all three out of what I can only assume is fearlessness and insanity. This lack of "normal" behavior is very scary for people in cars and even on motorcycles. We don't want to kill bicyclists! Bicyclists make up 2% of road fatalities in DC, vastly disproportionate to their numbers. I think for all involved, the cyclists need to become more normalized and less random. Standardizing the (IMHO) bad behavior doesn't seem like the right(tm) answer. The article has this insane circular logic, "because bicyclists already break the law a bunch, it should be made the law" -- rather than how we deal with it in other spaces "time to crack down on people who break the law". The result is the same, normalized behavior. The author wants to normalize to TWO sets of rules, one for bicyclists -- one for everyone else (so everyone has to know TWO sets of rules) -- I want to normalize to ONE set of rules, the current rules of the road, so everyone can follow ONE set of rules -- and punish bicyclists for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. I believe this will be safer for everyone, both in the short term and the long term.

by awolf 12y ago

rdl 12y ago

One problem is a 2-way stop at a 4-way intersection, where the bicyclist doesn't necessarily see the car, but at a 35-45mph speed limit, even if the car doesn't hit the bicyclist, the car has to brake suddenly to maintain an adequate buffer. Even though I hate aggressive cyclists, I wouldn't want to hit one even if the bicyclist were 100% at fault and somehow magically had insurance to pay for all damage to my car, as the bicyclist would probably be seriously injured if not killed. So I'd end up braking, potentially getting hit by a car behind me.

jessaustin 12y ago
So the scenario that concerns you most is: first that a cyclist doesn't see your vehicle approaching an intersection with the right-of-way, and then that a vehicle is trailing you too closely and can't brake in reaction to your braking? This isn't impossible, but it includes multiple operator errors, so it isn't really something that should drive policy. I personally have driven many miles over many years, and have never rear-ended anyone. I've also ridden (fewer miles, but still) over many years, and I pay very close attention to cross-traffic that doesn't stop, especially if it's going 45 mph.
- rdl 12y ago
  Welcome to California. (it might be worse in SF/Northern California, though) I got rear-ended by the athletic director for the SF city schools a decade ago when I stopped at a crosswalk for a pedestrian (coming down Twin Peaks into the Castro). That exact layout -- no stop sign, but stop signs on the cross street (and a crosswalk). (It was an interesting experience for me because I was driving a to-me huge rental car (Kia Amanti) and he had some old Honda civic; since it was on a hill the heights were accentuated, so his car basically went underneath my rear bumper and stopped when it hit the axle. At ~35mph I guess, and really massive damage to his car and <$2k to mine.)

shkkmo 12y ago

> ...governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions. So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway? > Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations. True, but the current disregard to those laws means that expected behavior is inconsistent with the behavior mandated by laws. > Adding a new class of movement rules for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict and anticipate for everyone. Bikes already move and behave differently, just due to mechanics and physics. Bringing expectations in line with this and normalizing behavior INCREASES predictability.

justinreeves 12y ago
> So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway. You can't drive a car at 20mph on the highway either.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  You can't ride a bike on a highway at any speed. Edit: To be clear, I intending to point out the ridiculousness of this language: > exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions.
  - cag_ii 12y ago
    There are vehicles which are not permitted on the highway.
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      Which is why I think it is silly to insist that bicyclists for the EXACT same rules of the road as drivers with NO EXCEPTIONS. There are different rules of the road for Semis, for cars pulling trailers, for motorcycles, for tractors, for public transit.
- minikomi 12y ago
  OK less extreme.. I should be able to ride in the middle of the road, and only overtaken where it's safe as indicated by a broken-line.

couchand 12y ago

I'm curious whether you read the article? They make a pretty good case for why the rules really shouldn't (a priori) be the same. Where there any particular points made you disagree with? Do you live in a dense city with a large number of cyclists? I think there's merit to the argument that automobile drivers are already predicting that cyclists will run through intersections, so this clarification would be a significant improvement. The system is composed of individual interactions, and the rules they suggest (and which research seems to indicate reduce collisions) seem sensible in the context of those individual interactions. What specifically do you disagree with?

gfosco 12y ago
I live in downtown San Francisco and think that the high density of pedestrians is why this is a bad idea. Every day I see cyclists rolling or running every light, and nearly wrecking, only avoided by pedestrians giving them the right-of-way they don't have or deserve.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  You do realize that the article is not suggesting that bicyclists should be able to roll or run through a red light without stopping, right? So why is this a bad idea? Especially if we can tie this with stronger enforcement against rogue bicyclists?
MetaCosm 12y ago
I regularly ride my motorcycle, and drive my car in DC. I am terrified of cyclists because their behavior follows NO norms. Some follow traffic signals, some don't. Some ride in the center of lane, some ride the edge of the rode, some ride on sidewalks in with pedestrians. The scariest do all three out of what I can only assume is fearlessness and insanity. This lack of "normal" behavior is very scary for people in cars and even on motorcycles. We don't want to kill bicyclists! Bicyclists make up 2% of road fatalities in DC, vastly disproportionate to their numbers. I think for all involved, the cyclists need to become more normalized and less random. Standardizing the (IMHO) bad behavior doesn't seem like the right(tm) answer. The article has this insane circular logic, "because bicyclists already break the law a bunch, it should be made the law" -- rather than how we deal with it in other spaces "time to crack down on people who break the law". The result is the same, normalized behavior. The author wants to normalize to TWO sets of rules, one for bicyclists -- one for everyone else (so everyone has to know TWO sets of rules) -- I want to normalize to ONE set of rules, the current rules of the road, so everyone can follow ONE set of rules -- and punish bicyclists for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. I believe this will be safer for everyone, both in the short term and the long term.