6 ms·

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

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.
      - shkkmo 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. Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error. > 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. However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi... There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault. I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers. I said: >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. What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.
couchand 12y ago
The nuanced argument that the article makes is not to standardize the currently common (bad) behavior, but rather to find a regime that will improve the scenario. One major goal is to make cyclists more predictable. Another is to recognize and clarify the distinction between cars and bikes. This second point is very important. There are significant differences between a car and a bike. Cyclists have a much better field of view, on account of not having blind spots and being situated much higher. Cyclists are far more invested in avoiding collisions since they have more on the line. Bicycles are significantly less massive and travel at much lower speeds. Bicycles are narrower and more nimble and are therefore better able to avoid collisions in tight traffic. Any regulatory regime that ignores the differences between these two vehicles is just as nonsensical as one that ignores the differences between a car and a pedestrian. As the article points out, you wouldn't expect a pedestrian to be required to stop at each and every stop sign. The whole "two sets of rules" argument is not particularly compelling. You already deal with many distinct sets of rules in all sorts of contexts: besides the aforementioned difference in rules between pedestrians and cars, there are fifty states and innumerable other jurisdictions with drastically differing laws, there are rules that apply only to semis or commercial vehicles, there are different rules for highways and surface streets, etc. etc.
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  So, motorcycles -- specifically the fast and light ones... they have the same field of view, they have similar seating, and they are "far more invested in avoiding collisions" -- they are significantly less massive and travel at much faster speeds and are more nimble and therefore able to avoid collisions in tight traffic. They would get their own rules too right? Seems we need AT LEAST 3 sets of rules. One for slow bicycles, one for fast motorcycles and one for cars? What other separate rule-sets should we have on the road?

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.
    - shkkmo 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. Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error. > 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. However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi... There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault. I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers. I said: >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. What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.

couchand 12y ago

The nuanced argument that the article makes is not to standardize the currently common (bad) behavior, but rather to find a regime that will improve the scenario. One major goal is to make cyclists more predictable. Another is to recognize and clarify the distinction between cars and bikes. This second point is very important. There are significant differences between a car and a bike. Cyclists have a much better field of view, on account of not having blind spots and being situated much higher. Cyclists are far more invested in avoiding collisions since they have more on the line. Bicycles are significantly less massive and travel at much lower speeds. Bicycles are narrower and more nimble and are therefore better able to avoid collisions in tight traffic. Any regulatory regime that ignores the differences between these two vehicles is just as nonsensical as one that ignores the differences between a car and a pedestrian. As the article points out, you wouldn't expect a pedestrian to be required to stop at each and every stop sign. The whole "two sets of rules" argument is not particularly compelling. You already deal with many distinct sets of rules in all sorts of contexts: besides the aforementioned difference in rules between pedestrians and cars, there are fifty states and innumerable other jurisdictions with drastically differing laws, there are rules that apply only to semis or commercial vehicles, there are different rules for highways and surface streets, etc. etc.

MetaCosm 12y ago
So, motorcycles -- specifically the fast and light ones... they have the same field of view, they have similar seating, and they are "far more invested in avoiding collisions" -- they are significantly less massive and travel at much faster speeds and are more nimble and therefore able to avoid collisions in tight traffic. They would get their own rules too right? Seems we need AT LEAST 3 sets of rules. One for slow bicycles, one for fast motorcycles and one for cars? What other separate rule-sets should we have on the road?