3 ms·

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 s

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.
    - MetaCosm 12y ago
      DC - 2004 (when I was deeply involved in statistics for DC, crime and otherwise) cyclists where found at fault for the majority (only slightly) of accidents they where involved in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcome-in-dc-but-they-too-should-obey-the-law/2011/04/29/AFHIexUF_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcom... It is my understanding that a new study is underway to see how Capitol Bikeshare (2500+ bikes rented from like little bike vending machines) has impacted this number (very new). Nothing will be publicly released for another year or so, but I suspect the outcome will be a much higher "at fault" rate for unskilled tourist bicyclists making that number even more skewed. EDIT: Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
      - shkkmo 12y ago
        That study was one of the four mentioned in the article I linked. It was only one where bicyclists bore the majority of fault. We don't know the true answer, a frankly, it doesn't matter. Care to dispute any of my points, and not a strawman assumption? EDIT: > Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians. No, reckless bicyclists are a terror. But still less than reckless drivers. A bicyclist that slows at a stop sign and carefully checks for traffic before rolling through it is not a terror. Are you done with strawmen yet?

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.
  - MetaCosm 12y ago
    DC - 2004 (when I was deeply involved in statistics for DC, crime and otherwise) cyclists where found at fault for the majority (only slightly) of accidents they where involved in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcome-in-dc-but-they-too-should-obey-the-law/2011/04/29/AFHIexUF_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcom... It is my understanding that a new study is underway to see how Capitol Bikeshare (2500+ bikes rented from like little bike vending machines) has impacted this number (very new). Nothing will be publicly released for another year or so, but I suspect the outcome will be a much higher "at fault" rate for unskilled tourist bicyclists making that number even more skewed. EDIT: Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      That study was one of the four mentioned in the article I linked. It was only one where bicyclists bore the majority of fault. We don't know the true answer, a frankly, it doesn't matter. Care to dispute any of my points, and not a strawman assumption? EDIT: > Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians. No, reckless bicyclists are a terror. But still less than reckless drivers. A bicyclist that slows at a stop sign and carefully checks for traffic before rolling through it is not a terror. Are you done with strawmen yet?