6 ms·

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 p

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.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  > Standardizing the (IMHO) bad behavior doesn't seem like the answer. So what is? Do we charge drivers that kill bicyclists following the rules with manslaughter then? Killing people is (IMHO) bad behavior. I think the answer is a obvious combination of: 1) Make the rules of the road for bicycles make sense given the limitations of bicycles. 2) Make the enforcement of the rules of the road for bicycles more severe. The combination of these two will help normalize the behavior and save lives. Why are you opposed to this?
  - MetaCosm 12y ago
    1. It isn't a "limitation" of bicycles -- it is "inconvenient". They don't WANT to come to a full stop because it is annoying -- it is annoying for me too, I still do it. 2. Absolutely, this is a HUGE part of it -- bicyclists need to start getting FULL FLIGHT tickets for blowing stop signs and such. Few $150 dollar tickets might get them to stop. Policy departments generally hate dealing with bicyclists for tickets, and this needs to be rectified. I am OPPOSED to TWO SETS OF RULES. It seems insane to retrain the entire population that bicyclists do X at stop signs while you do Y. At a red light, bicyclists do X and you do Y. I think this will amplify confusion and danger.
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible. The differences in driving laws between states is far greater than the proposed differences for bikers vs. drivers. People seem to muddle along fine. You trust drivers to maneuver deadly boxes of metal at high speeds but not to learn two new rules? I think you are just lazy.
      - MetaCosm 12y ago
        Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault. Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver.

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.

shkkmo 12y ago
> Standardizing the (IMHO) bad behavior doesn't seem like the answer. So what is? Do we charge drivers that kill bicyclists following the rules with manslaughter then? Killing people is (IMHO) bad behavior. I think the answer is a obvious combination of: 1) Make the rules of the road for bicycles make sense given the limitations of bicycles. 2) Make the enforcement of the rules of the road for bicycles more severe. The combination of these two will help normalize the behavior and save lives. Why are you opposed to this?
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  1. It isn't a "limitation" of bicycles -- it is "inconvenient". They don't WANT to come to a full stop because it is annoying -- it is annoying for me too, I still do it. 2. Absolutely, this is a HUGE part of it -- bicyclists need to start getting FULL FLIGHT tickets for blowing stop signs and such. Few $150 dollar tickets might get them to stop. Policy departments generally hate dealing with bicyclists for tickets, and this needs to be rectified. I am OPPOSED to TWO SETS OF RULES. It seems insane to retrain the entire population that bicyclists do X at stop signs while you do Y. At a red light, bicyclists do X and you do Y. I think this will amplify confusion and danger.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible. The differences in driving laws between states is far greater than the proposed differences for bikers vs. drivers. People seem to muddle along fine. You trust drivers to maneuver deadly boxes of metal at high speeds but not to learn two new rules? I think you are just lazy.
    - MetaCosm 12y ago
      Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault. Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver.