these special interest groups kill me...

[agentsteel53]

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool! 

well now that's just cruel.  if you slow down, you'll just injure them instead of achieving a clean kill.

[kphoger]

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool! 

well now that's just cruel.  if you slow down, you'll just injure them instead of achieving a clean kill.

No, that's just it:  Amazingly, I didn't even run them over!  I couldn't believe it!  I, as a motorist, was able to share the road with children playing!  And they weren't even within three feet of the curb!  And they were going back and forth all over the place!  Exclamation point!  Wow!

I just thought I needed to share my experience.  It was enlightening.

[J N Winkler]

I was a cycle commuter for years in Britain, never in the United States.  There are cultural differences between the two countries in terms of how roadspace is used that are especially obvious to a cycle commuter.  I generally used a cycle lane whenever one was provided, but when one was absent or was off-road in an area with blind junctions or easy access for pedestrians, I stayed in the road and moved to the center of the lane (or even closer to the centerline) if I anticipated obstructions like taxis stopped on double yellow to drop off passengers.  If a cycle lane was present, I generally stayed as close to the stripe as I needed to in order to avoid dealing with drain grates, but if it was not, I typically ran along the left third of the lane.

The key to good lane positioning is not to stay a fixed distance away from the curb no matter what, but rather to choose a path around obstacles that keeps you visible to cars while minimizing the flex in your forward path (in other words, you have to avoid abrupt lateral movements, "weaving," etc.).

In a major Midwestern city like Wichita I would feel uncomfortable cycling down undivided four-lane arterials, simply because there is an expectation that they will function as cars-only clearways regardless of any parking restrictions that may be in effect.  This type of arterial cross-section is very uncommon in Britain, where it is much more normal for through arterials to have just two lanes plus cycle lanes, or for two out of four lanes to be curbside bus lanes (which cyclists can use).  Drivers are also far more habituated to expect vehicles to stop and not to expect lane continuity.

Roads are also built differently.  In Britain paving is brought up all the way to the curb face, so there is no gutter distinct from the rest of the paved surface.  In the US this pavement cross-section is (in my experience) almost unknown outside the New England states.  It is much more the norm for curbs to be cast as a combination of curb face and gutter slab, which means that there is typically a longitudinal joint running one foot in front of the curb face, and frequently also a camber change and a dropoff if the traveled way has been chip-sealed.  This limits maneuverability since cyclists will avoid crossing the joint at road speed on an extreme skew path.  (Roads which have been adapted for cyclist use tend either to omit curbs in favor of open drainage or to continue the paving all the way to the curb face.)

For these two reasons, my usual practice when cycling on the street in Wichita (something I have not done for over 20 years now) was to choose collectors (which in most parts of the city run through subdivisions loosely parallel to the arterials) for covering distance, and stay generally clear of arterials except for short connections.  All of the cyclist fatalities I have seen reported in the Eagle in the past few years have involved cycle travel on an arterial, frequently at a time of day when at least one party to the accident would have had the sun in his or her eyes.

[kphoger]

In a major Midwestern city like Wichita I would feel uncomfortable cycling down undivided four-lane arterials, simply because there is an expectation that they will function as cars-only clearways regardless of any parking restrictions that may be in effect.

Not to mention that many of Wichita's arterials have both (a) no shoulder and (b) no median space, which means there is little "give"–cyclists have nowhere to go to avoid the traffic stream, and the traffic stream has nowhere to go to avoid cyclists.  Fortunately, few arterials have speed limits of more than 40 mph.

[hobsini2]

Thought:
Riding as close as possible to the edge line, then moving up to three feet from the edge at every obstacle (such as parked vehicles, debris, storm drains, potholes)–––sounds like weaving to me.  I try to avoid weaving.   

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool! 

And I am sure that the vehicle traffic on that street where they were playing basketball was very minimal. You can stop being so snarky. You know damn well that I was talking about a main road that had a lot of traffic and not some side street.

[hobsini2]

Winkler, that's a good point about sun blindness. It's tough enough seeing a driver in front of you on the highway if the angle of the sun is practically just above the horizon.

Let me ask you this though getting back to how you cycled when you were in England. If you were in an area that was flat with little to no trees around where they would impede your vision or other traffic's vision, and there were no obstructions in your way using the lane, you would still be as close to the center line when riding down the street with traffic?  I can see where one would think that would be the safest spot for a cyclist but at the same time it would be upsetting vehicles behind you that if there was solid oncoming traffic, they could not pass you.
I look at it as a function of speed too. A cyclist will most likely have a top maintain speed of what? 35 mph or so? If you are out on a rural road that has a lot of traffic, the vehicle speed would be expected to be 55 or 65 depending on where you were.  Think of it like being on an expressway. You have signs posted for a speed limit of 65 with a minimum of 45. That driver who is doing 45 in a 65 would be more of a hazard if he was in the left lane as opposed to the right lane.  Wouldn't that be a similar function for a cyclist who is riding down the middle of the lane?

[kphoger]

I guess your post three pages up-thread about the child riding his bike does allude to moderate traffic, in that you had to wait a little bit before going around him.  And I'm sorry for the snarkiness.

But you have also stated on this thread that no children should be allowed to cycle off the sidewalk, if provided, until age 13 (8th grade for me), or allowed to cycle on "busy" streets [amgibuous term] until age 10 (5th grade).  And you make it sound like this is common sense, and that people who don't agree are irresponsible.  So, basically, you're saying that my parents, all of my friends' parents growing up, all of the parents in my current neighborhood, and anyone else out there who might let their children bike in the street–are irresponsible parents, and really ought to know better.  Please don't tell me how to be a good parent; consider that your opinion might be the minority, and that you don't have a monopoly on common sense.  I can't imagine anyone I know supporting the idea of requiring bicycle licenses, for example.

You claim not to have a problem with cyclists who obey the rules of the road.  Yet you do have a problem with children cycling on "busy" streets, even though they are permitted by law to do so.  You also claim that there is a rule compelling cyclists to keep within three feet of the curb, yet have still failed to produce a reference code; you have conflated the terms "as close as possible" and "as close as practicable", and decided for yourself what is "practicable".  The fact is that children are allowed by law and by their parents to ride their bikes on the street, and they do.  The fact is that children tend to weave more than adults, and even adults stray from keeping a straight-line course–sometimes as an avoidance maneuver, and sometimes just because it's hard to keep a straight line.  There's a whole world of motorists out there who expect to encounter cyclists of all ages and abilities, and to accommodate them in their driving.  It's been my experience that most drivers are like that.

Having said all of that, I do agree that cyclists should, by and large, keep to the right.  I certainly do when I ride.  But I often have to ride in the center of the lane just to avoid potholes and the like.  I also must say I find that cyclists who keep toward the middle of the lane are less likely to be cut off or cut close by drivers, so I am quite forgiving of those who choose to ride there.  And you must admit that children have a learning curve; you can't keep them off the street until a certain age and then expect perfection out of them right afterwards.  I was taught by my father how to ride responsibly; I didn't always follow the rules as a kid, but I've learned over time how to be a safe cyclist, to the point where our cycling habits are very similar.

[hobsini2]

KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

[J N Winkler]

Let me ask you this though getting back to how you cycled when you were in England. If you were in an area that was flat with little to no trees around where they would impede your vision or other traffic's vision, and there were no obstructions in your way using the lane, you would still be as close to the center line when riding down the street with traffic?

The vast majority of mileage I did as a cyclist was in densely built-up urban areas, so the scenario you describe never occurred very often.  Also, not all rural roads are created equal.  I will provide some examples of rural roads I used (normally only for weekend recreation) and describe the strategy I followed for dealing with them.

*  Bicester Road, between the Headington roundabout and the Gosford junction:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.811643,-1.275313&spn=0.003363,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.811643,-1.275313&panoid=GJmD_i87DX1tdnNhPZG_jA&cbp=12,23.95,,0,-0.87

In the time I was living in Oxford, the signing and marking of this road changed, but my strategy for dealing with it as a cyclist did not.  StreetView shows it after the speed limit, originally NSL (which in Britain is 60 MPH for rural dual carriageways), was cut to 40 MPH, and a single hazard stripe (which in Britain is distinguished from the ordinary lane stripe by a very short gap between each dash) was replaced with a cross-hatched marking which is designed to discourage (but not to forbid) overtaking.

You will notice that there is a dual-use cyclist/pedestrian path to the left.  I generally did not use it, and instead cycled in the road proper.  There were two reasons for this:  (1) pedestrians occasionally used the path, and cyclists and pedestrians do not mix; and (2) the connections at the two ends (Headington roundabout and Gosford junction) were very awkward.

When cycling in the road, I usually stayed between two and three feet in front of the curb.  There is no reason for cars to stop aside from an emergency--no properties front directly on this road, although it runs past a housing estate--so my main concern was to stay clear of drain grates.  (In Britain, the norm is to drain down from the gutter, rather than from the side through the curb face.)  Lanes are wide (probably 11' to 12'), so cars could get around me without crowding too far into the oncoming lane.  Since the alignment is straight and level, I had very good visibility to traffic following me.  Even when the speed limit was still NSL, it was uncommon for cars to cruise at 60 MPH because the distance between the junctions is so short.

*  Bicester Road, between the Gosford junction and the Islip/A34 junction roundabout:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.821741,-1.268127&spn=0.003362,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.821679,-1.268198&panoid=nJJwJunkcFjQmaMcWCvr9g&cbp=12,35.43,,0,-0.33

At this location, which is probably slightly less than a mile north of the previous one, the speed limit is NSL but there is an approach treatment for the 40 limit (you will see 40 roundels against yellow backing boards if you pan 180°).  There is a footpath, but only on the left side as you go north, and I think cyclists are banned from using it.  (In Britain, unlike the US where attitudes toward cyclist use of sidewalks are far more permissive, cyclists are banned by law from using footpaths unless there are signs and signals indicating that cyclists are permitted specifically.)  In any case, the signs are too low for cyclists to use the footpath in safety--signs in Britain are positioned very close to the traveled way (or, in the case of roads with open drainage, to the back of the shoulder or hard strip) because rights of way are typically too narrow to allow signs to be positioned outside the clear zone but still within the right of way.

I followed the same rule for positioning myself that I did further south, but I was very aware that I was more of an obstacle to following traffic because traffic volumes are heavier and the unit lane width is probably a foot less.

*  Kidlington Road, midway between Islip and the A34 interchange:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.823433,-1.255306&spn=0.003362,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.823433,-1.255306&panoid=XguQF3zcZ7HsZKKYaXeLVA&cbp=12,142.02,,0,8.95

This road is subject to a 60 MPH NSL but has no striping and very little of the traffic actually goes anywhere close to 60, because (1) there are bends, (2) there is no delineation, (3) bends in Britain are not always signed, and (4) use of advisory speed limits on bends in Britain is very much the exception rather than the norm as in the USA.  Unit lane width is also fairly low.  Most drivers on a road like this will probably choose a speed between 30 and 40 MPH (the precise speed depends on how far into a bend the driver can see and the driver's personal tolerance of side friction demand).

This road, like most low-volume rural roads in England which are not single-lane roads (called "country lanes," more as specific code for a one-lane cross section rather than as a general term for roads which happen to be in the countryside), has turf curbs and grate-covered gutter drains which feed into deep and narrow ditches which begin two to three feet behind the curb on either side.  You don't want to try to pull off onto the verge on this type of road--if one of your wheels winds up overhanging the ditch, you will be beached like a whale, and will need serious help getting back onto the paved road surface.  For this reason, drivers will expect any car that has to stop for an emergency to actually stop within the road, blocking one of the traffic lanes, and will therefore avoid choosing speeds too high to allow them to stop within the length of road that is actually visible to them.

As a cyclist I generally cycled one-third to one-half of the way into the lane on roads like this.  Speeds were low enough overall that there was not a large speed differential between the cars and me, and lane positioning relatively far from the curb made me more visible to traffic following me into a left-hand bend.

*  The A34 between Islip and the M40 interchange:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.84571,-1.235146&spn=0.013442,0.038581&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.84571,-1.235146&panoid=QttopSxBJxprAacTFj8CnQ&cbp=12,49.27,,0,5.61

StreetView shows the A34 after the application of a noise-suppressing asphalt overlay.  Previously, the running surface of this length of the A34 (completed in 1991 as part of the M40 construction program) was continuously reinforced Portland cement concrete.  There was a shoulder stripe but no chevron markings on the shoulder; previously it was possible to cycle down the A34 on the shoulder, without influencing vehicle position in the left-hand lane provided you stayed within a foot or so of the edge drain, as I did.  I suspect the chevron markings have been applied to discourage shoulder cycling, since the only area of the shoulder that is free from these markings is far too close to the traffic lane, while in Britain thermoplastic markings are laid down thickly enough that it is impossible to cycle on them without an annoying clip-clop-clip-clop sensation.

Shoulder cycling, as well as cyclist use of rural dual carriageways in general, is technically legal in Britain, though there are differences of opinion as to whether to encourage it by providing facilitated crossings of slip roads for cyclists, as has been done on (e.g.) the Newbury Bypass length of A34:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.413514,-1.351608&spn=0.003393,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.413376,-1.351785&panoid=3pFDSmGz1yBz_WkYC5PqaA&cbp=12,194.75,,0,16.29

The NSL for rural dual carriageways--which applies to the A34--is 70 MPH.  Most traffic moving on the A34 is doing at least 70.  (On motorways, for which the NSL is also 70 MPH but which are not open to cyclists, 19% of traffic is going faster than 80.)  However, on dual carriageways which are not motorways, drivers are expected to be prepared for slow-moving vehicles that can legally use all-purpose roads.  This includes not just cyclists but also slow-moving powered vehicles such as farm machinery, and even horse-drawn vehicles (which can be, but usually are not, prohibited by making the appropriate orders and erecting signs).

*  The A34 between Abingdon and Oxford:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.712017,-1.255073&spn=0.013482,0.038581&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.712017,-1.255073&panoid=nh3FWz2uU53N9aV0huQszQ&cbp=12,359.73,,0,1.94

The one time I cycled on this portion of the A34, which is a much older length of dual carriageway that opened in the mid- to late 1960's at a time when the norm was for interurban dual carriageways to have hard strips instead of full hard shoulders, I had to stick to the asphalt-paved hard strip in order to stay clear of the concrete drainage channel, which was unsuitable for cycling.  It is an experience I have never been keen to repeat.

I can see where one would think that would be the safest spot for a cyclist but at the same time it would be upsetting vehicles behind you that if there was solid oncoming traffic, they could not pass you.

There is some risk of upset but, on the other hand, drivers have to be prepared to accommodate other road users' legal use of the road.  You could make a similar argument about horse-drawn vehicles, for example, which are even slower and more difficult to pass than cyclists, but they have just as much right to be on the road as cyclists and cars.  And, as the examples I have provided show, drivers are not delayed by cyclists that much unless there are deficiencies in alignment and width which limit capacity and can easily force drivers to slow down for other reasons.

I look at it as a function of speed too. A cyclist will most likely have a top maintain speed of what? 35 mph or so? If you are out on a rural road that has a lot of traffic, the vehicle speed would be expected to be 55 or 65 depending on where you were.  Think of it like being on an expressway. You have signs posted for a speed limit of 65 with a minimum of 45. That driver who is doing 45 in a 65 would be more of a hazard if he was in the left lane as opposed to the right lane.  Wouldn't that be a similar function for a cyclist who is riding down the middle of the lane?

I think for most cyclists the maximum speed they can sustain in level terrain with no headwinds is about 20 MPH--and this assumes correct sizing of the bicycle frame and correct adjustment of seat height.  (This is not always easy to do.  In Oxford "off the rack" frame size at the bicycle shops was 21" and I always had to special-order a 23" frame.)  I was a fairly fast cyclist and I don't think I ever got much above 20 on a regular basis.

But no cyclist I know ever goes straight down the middle of the lane everywhere.  Cyclists have to read the road and choose their strategies for lane positioning accordingly, just as drivers do, though naturally cyclists and drivers apply somewhat different rules because the spatial envelopes and dynamic characteristics of their respective vehicles are somewhat different.

By the way, minimum speed limits of the kind encountered on US freeways are almost unknown in Britain.  There is a standard sign for a minimum speed limit but it is hardly ever used.  In Britain the culture has traditionally been very much against putting numbers on signs where drivers can misinterpret them as an implicit guarantee that a given numerical speed is safe, necessary, or proper.  This is why speed zoning in rural areas has been very rare (until recently), and also why you are expected to read curves for yourself rather than being nursemaided by advisory speed signs.

[hobsini2]

BTW, as I was reading this, I was having a visual hearing of Jeremy Clarkson reading it. Anyway...

Winkler, that was quite enlightening. I had some ideas of what roadways looked like in England from watching programs like Top Gear, but it certainly puts a better prospective on what road conditions look safe and not safe.

The image of A34 between Islip and M40, on the shoulder lane between the chevron marked lane and the vehicle traffic lane, are those rumble stripes in there? I also wonder why does the A34 have a mix of a gravel and paved shoulder? Is that for water run off for a rainstorm? Or is that pretty standard for a Carriageway that starts A-XX? Are the Motorways similar in their standards as well?

I can also understand why there is no minimum speed limit sign for the reason you provided. It makes sense. The minimum speed limit signs, at least in Illinois, are mainly in urban areas and on the tollways. The free interstates in the rural areas rarely have them posted.

The 2nd image of Bicester Rd reminds me much of the stories my grandfather would tell me about him learning how to drive around the rural parts of Beverly (north of Hull).

Anyway, thank you for the British insight.

[Special K]

KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

Cyclists will (and have) most certainly be ticketed for traffic violations.  It's all in the enforcement. 

Of all the violations perpetrated by motorists, what percentage would you estimate are actually are punished.  Hell, how many times have *you* broken a traffic law in a car and gotten away with it?

[hobsini2]

Special K, i know what the consequences are for my actions when I drive. Do I speed? If I am on a freeway and I am going with the flow of traffic that is also speeding, then yes I am guilty of that. But maintaining a speed with the rest of the traffic is a heck of a lot safer than driving 50 when everyone else is doing 65.

When it comes to a stop sign or a signal, i do not break that law.
Post Merge: August 15, 2012, 06:51:24 PM
And like I said, I have never seen a cyclist get a ticket for running a red light. But it happens a hell of a lot of times in Chicago.

[US71]

I'm wondering how many communities treat cyclists as second class citizens?  I've been involved in 2 cycle-auto accidents in my life and both times, the auto driver was not charged.

The first time was a deliberate hit and run, but the schoolyard bully. I reported it to the police along with a vehicle description & tag number and was told "If we didn't see it, it didn't happen".

The second time was someone going the wrong way on a One Way Street: the person hitting me claimed she didn't know it was One Way (despite all the One Way and Do Not Enter at the intersection), so she was not ticketed.

[kphoger]

KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

I think it is implicit in the system that motorists have a greater responsibility than do cyclists and pedestrians.  It's understood that cars can do a lot more damage than bicycles, and it is for this reason that one must wait until a certain age and pass various tests in order to get a driver's license whereas no such criteria are in force to ride a bicycle.  I'm not suggesting that cyclists and pedestrians (or someone riding a horse, etc.) should be oblivious to their surroundings.  But I am suggesting that the level of responsibility is not equal between different modes of transportation, and that it should be fairly commonsense (perhaps even intuitive) that this is the case.

On your second point:  I know a man who received a DUI less than three weeks ago–for drinking and cycling.  I once knew a man who was pulled over on his bicycle for going 31 mph in a 30 mph zone–but that was because the officer wanted to know how he could ride that fast, not because he wanted to issue a speeding ticket.

[hobsini2]

KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

I think it is implicit in the system that motorists have a greater responsibility than do cyclists and pedestrians.  It's understood that cars can do a lot more damage than bicycles, and it is for this reason that one must wait until a certain age and pass various tests in order to get a driver's license whereas no such criteria are in force to ride a bicycle.  I'm not suggesting that cyclists and pedestrians (or someone riding a horse, etc.) should be oblivious to their surroundings.  But I am suggesting that the level of responsibility is not equal between different modes of transportation, and that it should be fairly commonsense (perhaps even intuitive) that this is the case.

On your second point:  I know a man who received a DUI less than three weeks ago–for drinking and cycling.  I once knew a man who was pulled over on his bicycle for going 31 mph in a 30 mph zone–but that was because the officer wanted to know how he could ride that fast, not because he wanted to issue a speeding ticket.

On your first point, i can see that being the mentality since cars can do more damage than a bicycle. However, if you compare that frame of mind with a car vs a train, the car is always held more responsible because they can manuver better. Trains, unless there is like a derailment or negligence on the part of the engineer, never have that responsibility despite the fact that trains vs vehicle crashes more times than not has the car driver killed and not the engineer.  And yes over 90% of train vs car crashes as because the driver ignored the warning signals and gates. But I see your point.
Secondly, a DUI on a bicycle could also be under the statutes about public intoxication. I once saw on Police Videos a guy down in Georgia who was riding his John Deere lawnmower down the street while he was drunk. He was also given a DUI ticket.

But I have never seen a cyclist get a ticket for running a red light or not stopping for a stop sign.

[Zmapper]

I recall stating that the Fort Collins police have only issued two "BUI" summons within the last five years, yet easily 100 DUI summons. Generally while a drunk person on a bicycle is not considered ideal, it is considered better than having them behind the wheel where he could cause more damage. The last thing they want is someone who gets a BUI thinking that they would be safer and less likely to detect behind the wheel of a car.

[Alps]

Drunken bicycling is dangerous for the cyclist. While it's a lesser danger than driving a car, it's still a danger and ought to be discouraged. Drunks should *walk, *take a taxi/bus, or *get picked up/driven.

[Zmapper]

Ideally they should do that Steve, but oftentimes transit is non-existent, few of their friends drive, and it is too far to walk. In the end, it ends up being a choice between the lesser of two evils: do you bike home drunk or drive home drunk? Having them bike is far from ideal, but it is miles better than having them drive.

[Alps]

Ideally they should do that Steve, but oftentimes transit is non-existent, few of their friends drive, and it is too far to walk. In the end, it ends up being a choice between the lesser of two evils: do you bike home drunk or drive home drunk? Having them bike is far from ideal, but it is miles better than having them drive.

The nearest good bar is 4.5 miles. I've thought of biking, but decided that having to negotiate any type of hill on a bike while drunk may not be the best idea. (Also, the back roads can get kinda dark.) I drunk biked once - in NYC, no less - and had a few close calls with falling down. And that was far from smashed.

[Special K]

Special K, i know what the consequences are for my actions when I drive. Do I speed? If I am on a freeway and I am going with the flow of traffic that is also speeding, then yes I am guilty of that. But maintaining a speed with the rest of the traffic is a heck of a lot safer than driving 50 when everyone else is doing 65.

When it comes to a stop sign or a signal, i do not break that law.
Post Merge: August 15, 2012, 06:51:24 PM
And like I said, I have never seen a cyclist get a ticket for running a red light. But it happens a hell of a lot of times in Chicago.

I've never seen a motorist ticketed for running a red, either.  So, what does that tell you?

[Scott5114]

Motorists and cyclists tend to run reds in different ways, though. A motorist usually runs the red by passing through the intersection at the end of yellow or the first few seconds of red. Seldom have I seen someone just blow through a red light that has been displaying that aspect for longer than that. When I have seen cyclists run a red, it was two minutes or so into the red cycle; they passed by all the cars sitting at the light and just went through the intersection.

[J N Winkler]

Running a red light is a strict-liability offense:  it is against the law, no matter when it happens and no matter what the circumstances are.  However, it is possible to distinguish between irresponsible and responsible law-breaking.  A cyclist running a red light in a responsible fashion will, before he or she enters the intersection, check that there is no conflicting traffic and that his running the red light will not inconvenience any other road users by forcing them to change speed or direction.

Here are a couple of scenarios in which cyclists running red lights (in, it must be stressed, a responsible fashion) is relatively benign:

*  All-red pedestrian crossing phase where the pedestrian call is wasted (i.e., the pedestrian crossed without waiting for the walk signal) and there is no foot traffic in the cyclist's path that seeks to take advantage of the red phase to cross away from the crosswalk

*  Traffic coming out of the cross road has a protected left turn and the cyclist wishes to turn right without stopping

I think that while there are a few bad-apple cyclists whose approach to lawbreaking is irresponsible to the point of being suicidal or deathly dangerous to pedestrians, motorists in general tend to underestimate the extent to which cyclists' lawbreaking is, in fact, responsible.  Much responsible lawbreaking, though not all of it, results from a failure to adapt either the infrastructure or the rules of the road to the needs and abilities of cyclists.  In regard to illegal turns on red, for example, the Dutch have experimented with intersection designs which give cyclists a free right turn on red, which is otherwise illegal in the Netherlands since there is no provision for RTOR after full stop.

This is not to say, however, that there are not potentially serious problems even with responsible lawbreaking.  First, because running a red light is a strict-liability offense, you can be ticketed even if the officer accepts your argument that you were doing it in a relatively safe way.  Second, if you try to carry out a maneuver responsibly and get caught out because of a circumstance you failed to anticipate, the fact that you were breaking the law means you cannot escape civil liability by claiming you were exercising due care.  (One possible example of this is deciding to run a red light at a pedestrian crossing where a car is already waiting at the stop line, not realizing that the car prevents you from seeing a baby in a stroller until you have run over the baby.)  Third, when you choose to break the law, even if you are determined to do so responsibly, you put yourself on a collision course with other road users who themselves choose to break the law on the assumption that you will comply with it.

[wphiii]

For these two reasons, my usual practice when cycling on the street in Wichita (something I have not done for over 20 years now) was to choose collectors (which in most parts of the city run through subdivisions loosely parallel to the arterials) for covering distance, and stay generally clear of arterials except for short connections.  All of the cyclist fatalities I have seen reported in the Eagle in the past few years have involved cycle travel on an arterial,

Someone gets it!

Here in Pittsburgh, there's been a rash of serious accidents involving cyclists on, you guessed it, a 4-lane, 35mph major artery. There are multiple alternative options on parallel side streets, which are 25 mph and largely residential, either wide two-lane or no center line at all. Yet the bicycling community shrilly insists it's going to keep biking on this major artery because WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO, GOD DAMMIT.

It's really a shame, this bicycle vs. car dichotomy has gotten so polarized that cyclists are refusing to even consider that there's a perfectly viable common sense solution right under their nose that requires no adding of infrastructure. Instead, it's all about this misplaced sense of entitlement, or pride, or whatever it is.

Of course you have a RIGHT to bike wherever you want. That doesn't make it the most intelligent course of action.

[agentsteel53]

*  Traffic coming out of the cross road has a protected left turn and the cyclist wishes to turn right without stopping

that could be dangerous.  a U-turning driver has the right of way in that situation.

[NE2]

Motorists and cyclists tend to run reds in different ways, though. A motorist usually runs the red by passing through the intersection at the end of yellow or the first few seconds of red. Seldom have I seen someone just blow through a red light that has been displaying that aspect for longer than that.

I see this all the time with a right on red.