6 ms·

I wish all police everywhere started ticketing for more traffic violations. When everyone on the road--cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian--follows the rules prec

by jff 12y ago

I wish all police everywhere started ticketing for more traffic violations. When everyone on the road--cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian--follows the rules precisely, traffic is predictable and safe. When morons wave you through at a 4-way stop, or turn without signaling (yay California), or blow red lights on their bicycle, you have to go into extra-defensive mode because the road is no longer predictable.

PaulHoule 12y ago
It astonishes me how much (many) cyclists blame everybody else for the dangers they are exposed to. For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. If they're chasing a suspect or heading to a crime scene I'll forgive it, but they usually aren't in a hurry and are actually ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce. As a pedestrian I have been hit multiple times by cyclists on a sidewalk and in fact when I was in high school I knocked a pedestrian down pretty hard when I was rolling down a steep hill.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. You know, this one I understand entirely. When I walk on a road without sidewalks, I always walk on the wrong side of the road, so I can see what's coming and whether they're paying attention. Getting mowed down from behind by someone not looking where they're going isn't on my bucket list.
  - jff 12y ago
    And that's correct--WHEN WALKING. Cyclists are supposed to behave as vehicles, not as pedestrians, so they need to move with traffic.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      I'm just saying part of the problem is that cyclists behave as a squishy bag of meat in an accident. Given the prevalence of inattentive motorists, I'm not shocked some folks prefer to risk a ticket.
      - jff 12y ago
        Say the speed limit is 30, and you can pedal along at 15 mph. If you ride with traffic and get hit, your relative speed at collision will be 15 mph and the collision will push you away from the car. If you ride against traffic and get hit, you're dealing with a head-on collision at 45 mph relative speed. That's why I always ride with traffic.
        Alupis 12y ago
        Probably a decent thing to do in high-traffic/large cities. But in more rural areas, where speed limits are 45-65MPH, getting hit is deadly no matter which direction you are riding. It's safer to see oncomming traffic in this situation so you can get out of the way.
        michael_h 12y ago
        If you are removing yourself from the road for _every single_ car, regardless of the direction of travel, then maybe it doesn't matter. If you are going to stay on the road with other vehicles: You _never_ ride against traffic. Drivers are less likely to see you if you are biking where they normally don't anticipate any traffic. Even in a rural environment, biking with the flow of traffic gives the driver better visual cues that something else is on the road (you) and they have more time to plan their approach. It also gives them more time to find something appropriate to throw at you.
        Alupis 12y ago
        that doesn't make sense. you are on their right-hand side no matter which side of the street your ride on. the only difference is you see them or you don't (depends which way you are facing).
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Walking towards oncoming traffic is, if not the law, then at least the sanctioned way of walking. Riding your bike into oncoming traffic, though, IS against the law since a bicyclist is considered a vehicle just like a car.
  - jeffwass 12y ago
    Cyclists are vehicles, so are obligated to follow the rules of the road and drive on the correct side. Pedestrians, in the absence of sidewalks, do have the option to face incoming or outgoing traffic, and the usual choice is to face oncoming traffic as you suggested.
  - slayed0 12y ago
    Walking is different because you can stop on a dime and dive out of the way if you see trouble coming. On a bicycle, however, you are usually unable to do this. Additionally, the increase in speed differential (which is much more significant for cyclists than pedestrians) created by cycling towards oncoming traffic greatly reduces available reaction time of both parties. When you are travelling in the same direction as the traffic there is usually still a speed differential but it is substantially less. While you no longer have the ability to see potential problems "coming at you", drivers have significantly more time to notice you and react accordingly.
markcerqueira 12y ago
I remember getting a lot of shit from my California friends in college (I'm from New Jersey). Going on living 4 years in California and can conclude that California drivers are a different flavor of terrible at driving! Lesson learned: I'm the best driver in the world!
Strang 12y ago
I see people complain about waving at a four-way stop all the time, and I really don't get it. I wave people through at four-way stops all the time, for the simple reason that it can be hard to tell who arrived first. Especially with rolling stops and the like. So rather than assume that the other drivers have come to the same conclusion that I have, I make it explicit by waving. Sometimes it's a little confusing if they try to wave you at the same time, but that's life.
- gareim 12y ago
  I assume they mean when it's clear who arrived first. As a pedestrian, I hate cars waving me through when I clearly get there ~2 seconds after they do.
  - jghn 12y ago
    In general I hate when cars try to wave me by (as a pedestrian) w/ little regard to the total situation. I realize they're being nice but often all they're doing is making a bigger mess for the bigger picture. I always try to wave them along instead, but sometimes they're insistent, and I can almost hear them grumbling "why won't this dummy go?" ... sorry, it's because you're a) holding up traffic behind you and b) I couldn't anyways as there is other traffic I'd need to cross.
    - coldpie 12y ago
      Yeah. Never wave pedestrians through. It's faster for everyone for you to zip through than for me to wait for you to slow to a complete stop (like hell I'm walking in front of a moving car). I've had people stop at a green light(!) while I'm waiting on the side of the two-lane road for the crosswalk signal to change. I just stood there and stared until the light changed and they missed their green. I'm not going to cross into traffic because you don't respect the rules.
      - xico 12y ago
        In a lot of countries and at least in California, according to the DMV handbook, pedestrians have the right of way, whether in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Cars are required to let them pass first, who arrived first is irrelevant there. Waving at them is only a polite redundant sign.
ericHosick 12y ago
> because the road is no longer predictable It will never be fully predictable: people make mistakes. It is always safer and better to assume that someone will do something unpredictable like run a red light. It could even be because of mechanical error. When riding motorcycles in ~~Asia~~ some asian countries (did it for 6 years), you assume that people will run the red light. It happens, during rush hour, 100% of the time. So, you drive appropriately and it is safer because of that. Edit: changed Asia to some asian countries. I didn't want to be specific but ended up being to general which was wrong.
- nickkthequick 12y ago
  You're saying that Asian countries have fewer accidents because people run red lights? Do you have a source on any of this?
  - morcheeba 12y ago
    I believe eric is referring to this kind of mentality: http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/transportation_safety/?1841/risker-streets-reduce-accidents http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/transportation_safety/...
    - nickkthequick 12y ago
      I'm familiar with the idea, but if people run a red light 100% of the time, that becomes the new norm and therefore what is safe and expected. Don't forget that we're driving around in metal boxes powered by explosions, that didn't always seem safe (and certainly wouldn't to people if we suddenly introduced them to a society hundreds of years ago) but now it does seem safe.
apaprocki 12y ago
In NYC I couldn't want this more. For example, traffic on the Queensboro bridge gets backed up regularly entering Manhattan in the morning. If you go down to the streets the bridge exits out onto, cars/trucks are routinely parked on the sides of the road during prohibited rush hour windows, essentially restricting traffic down to 1 lane instead of the intended 2 or 3. All it takes is 1 traffic cop to be assigned the beat during the mornings for such important streets and I think traffic would improve pretty dramatically (aside from generating more revenue for the city). I can't ever recall anyone being ticketed for "blocking the box" despite menacing signs even when there is a traffic cop standing in the intersection.
- wdewind 12y ago
  My impression as a pedestrian in NYC is also that blocking the box is far more impactful on traffic and safety than over all speed limit. I agree 100% that police need to more aggressively ticket blocking the box over almost all other traffic offenses.
- ultrasaurus 12y ago
  I work beside one of the on ramps to the Bay Bridge in SF, recently they've started stationing someone there about once a week. He seems very busy but I've been surprised at how little it has improved traffic yet. Similarly though, I wonder what would happen after a weeklong publicized clamp down on blocking the box.

by jff 12y ago

PaulHoule 12y ago

It astonishes me how much (many) cyclists blame everybody else for the dangers they are exposed to. For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. If they're chasing a suspect or heading to a crime scene I'll forgive it, but they usually aren't in a hurry and are actually ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce. As a pedestrian I have been hit multiple times by cyclists on a sidewalk and in fact when I was in high school I knocked a pedestrian down pretty hard when I was rolling down a steep hill.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. You know, this one I understand entirely. When I walk on a road without sidewalks, I always walk on the wrong side of the road, so I can see what's coming and whether they're paying attention. Getting mowed down from behind by someone not looking where they're going isn't on my bucket list.
- jff 12y ago
  And that's correct--WHEN WALKING. Cyclists are supposed to behave as vehicles, not as pedestrians, so they need to move with traffic.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    I'm just saying part of the problem is that cyclists behave as a squishy bag of meat in an accident. Given the prevalence of inattentive motorists, I'm not shocked some folks prefer to risk a ticket.
    - jff 12y ago
      Say the speed limit is 30, and you can pedal along at 15 mph. If you ride with traffic and get hit, your relative speed at collision will be 15 mph and the collision will push you away from the car. If you ride against traffic and get hit, you're dealing with a head-on collision at 45 mph relative speed. That's why I always ride with traffic.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        Probably a decent thing to do in high-traffic/large cities. But in more rural areas, where speed limits are 45-65MPH, getting hit is deadly no matter which direction you are riding. It's safer to see oncomming traffic in this situation so you can get out of the way.
        michael_h 12y ago
        If you are removing yourself from the road for _every single_ car, regardless of the direction of travel, then maybe it doesn't matter. If you are going to stay on the road with other vehicles: You _never_ ride against traffic. Drivers are less likely to see you if you are biking where they normally don't anticipate any traffic. Even in a rural environment, biking with the flow of traffic gives the driver better visual cues that something else is on the road (you) and they have more time to plan their approach. It also gives them more time to find something appropriate to throw at you.
        Alupis 12y ago
        that doesn't make sense. you are on their right-hand side no matter which side of the street your ride on. the only difference is you see them or you don't (depends which way you are facing).
- freehunter 12y ago
  Walking towards oncoming traffic is, if not the law, then at least the sanctioned way of walking. Riding your bike into oncoming traffic, though, IS against the law since a bicyclist is considered a vehicle just like a car.
- jeffwass 12y ago
  Cyclists are vehicles, so are obligated to follow the rules of the road and drive on the correct side. Pedestrians, in the absence of sidewalks, do have the option to face incoming or outgoing traffic, and the usual choice is to face oncoming traffic as you suggested.
- slayed0 12y ago
  Walking is different because you can stop on a dime and dive out of the way if you see trouble coming. On a bicycle, however, you are usually unable to do this. Additionally, the increase in speed differential (which is much more significant for cyclists than pedestrians) created by cycling towards oncoming traffic greatly reduces available reaction time of both parties. When you are travelling in the same direction as the traffic there is usually still a speed differential but it is substantially less. While you no longer have the ability to see potential problems "coming at you", drivers have significantly more time to notice you and react accordingly.

markcerqueira 12y ago

I remember getting a lot of shit from my California friends in college (I'm from New Jersey). Going on living 4 years in California and can conclude that California drivers are a different flavor of terrible at driving! Lesson learned: I'm the best driver in the world!

Strang 12y ago

I see people complain about waving at a four-way stop all the time, and I really don't get it. I wave people through at four-way stops all the time, for the simple reason that it can be hard to tell who arrived first. Especially with rolling stops and the like. So rather than assume that the other drivers have come to the same conclusion that I have, I make it explicit by waving. Sometimes it's a little confusing if they try to wave you at the same time, but that's life.

gareim 12y ago
I assume they mean when it's clear who arrived first. As a pedestrian, I hate cars waving me through when I clearly get there ~2 seconds after they do.
- jghn 12y ago
  In general I hate when cars try to wave me by (as a pedestrian) w/ little regard to the total situation. I realize they're being nice but often all they're doing is making a bigger mess for the bigger picture. I always try to wave them along instead, but sometimes they're insistent, and I can almost hear them grumbling "why won't this dummy go?" ... sorry, it's because you're a) holding up traffic behind you and b) I couldn't anyways as there is other traffic I'd need to cross.
  - coldpie 12y ago
    Yeah. Never wave pedestrians through. It's faster for everyone for you to zip through than for me to wait for you to slow to a complete stop (like hell I'm walking in front of a moving car). I've had people stop at a green light(!) while I'm waiting on the side of the two-lane road for the crosswalk signal to change. I just stood there and stared until the light changed and they missed their green. I'm not going to cross into traffic because you don't respect the rules.
    - xico 12y ago
      In a lot of countries and at least in California, according to the DMV handbook, pedestrians have the right of way, whether in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Cars are required to let them pass first, who arrived first is irrelevant there. Waving at them is only a polite redundant sign.

ericHosick 12y ago

> because the road is no longer predictable It will never be fully predictable: people make mistakes. It is always safer and better to assume that someone will do something unpredictable like run a red light. It could even be because of mechanical error. When riding motorcycles in ~~Asia~~ some asian countries (did it for 6 years), you assume that people will run the red light. It happens, during rush hour, 100% of the time. So, you drive appropriately and it is safer because of that. Edit: changed Asia to some asian countries. I didn't want to be specific but ended up being to general which was wrong.

nickkthequick 12y ago
You're saying that Asian countries have fewer accidents because people run red lights? Do you have a source on any of this?
- morcheeba 12y ago
  I believe eric is referring to this kind of mentality: http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/transportation_safety/?1841/risker-streets-reduce-accidents http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/transportation_safety/...
  - nickkthequick 12y ago
    I'm familiar with the idea, but if people run a red light 100% of the time, that becomes the new norm and therefore what is safe and expected. Don't forget that we're driving around in metal boxes powered by explosions, that didn't always seem safe (and certainly wouldn't to people if we suddenly introduced them to a society hundreds of years ago) but now it does seem safe.

apaprocki 12y ago

In NYC I couldn't want this more. For example, traffic on the Queensboro bridge gets backed up regularly entering Manhattan in the morning. If you go down to the streets the bridge exits out onto, cars/trucks are routinely parked on the sides of the road during prohibited rush hour windows, essentially restricting traffic down to 1 lane instead of the intended 2 or 3. All it takes is 1 traffic cop to be assigned the beat during the mornings for such important streets and I think traffic would improve pretty dramatically (aside from generating more revenue for the city). I can't ever recall anyone being ticketed for "blocking the box" despite menacing signs even when there is a traffic cop standing in the intersection.

wdewind 12y ago
My impression as a pedestrian in NYC is also that blocking the box is far more impactful on traffic and safety than over all speed limit. I agree 100% that police need to more aggressively ticket blocking the box over almost all other traffic offenses.
ultrasaurus 12y ago
I work beside one of the on ramps to the Bay Bridge in SF, recently they've started stationing someone there about once a week. He seems very busy but I've been surprised at how little it has improved traffic yet. Similarly though, I wonder what would happen after a weeklong publicized clamp down on blocking the box.