these special interest groups kill me...

[Scott5114]

I didn't mention right on red. I think the issue there is that most people seem to feel coming to a complete stop on red is unnecessary, as at most intersections sight lines are good enough that you can ascertain whether conflicting traffic exists before reaching the stop bar.

[hobsini2]

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.

In my experience here in Chicago, it's worse than that. I have seen cyclists hit pedestrians walking across the street when the pedestrian had the walk signal.

[citrus]

I didn't mention right on red. I think the issue there is that most people seem to feel coming to a complete stop on red is unnecessary, as at most intersections sight lines are good enough that you can ascertain whether conflicting traffic exists before reaching the stop bar.

Most people would probably be wrong. I've been hit, as a pedestrian, twice at an intersection near UCSD in San Diego where a car turning right on red did not notice me, and I had a walk signal.

Now that I moved to San Francisco, it seems like bikes, pedestrians, taxis, and buses (and to a lesser extent, cars) generally do whatever they want, and aside from a few incidents (like the bicyclist hitting and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk mentioned further upthread), most of us have reached a tacit agreement not to complain about it very much.

[Brandon]

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.

In my experience here in Chicago, it's worse than that. I have seen cyclists hit pedestrians walking across the street when the pedestrian had the walk signal.

Yep.  I've had to dodge them just as much as the cars, but I've never had to dodge a car on the sidewalk.  Had to dodge bicyclists though, not the run of the mill out-for-a-ride type, but the fully dressed in spandex type.  Some of the nuts ride anywhere and however they please.

[vdeane]

*  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.

How many places allow U turns everywhere?  In NY at least, they're illegal except on certain divided highways (generally those constructed in the last 10-15 years).

[kphoger]

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.

While it is possible to use minor streets to get from A to B in many cities (Wichita included), I should point out a few things about it:

1. It is usually impossible or very impractical to completely avoid arterials, because minor streets tend to dead-end at rivers, canals, railroads, large industrial buildings, and the like.  At some point, you're still probably going to end up on an arterial for a short while anyway.

2. To avoid arterials for more than about two miles or so requires an extensive knowledge of the street grid, unless you're able to stay on just one or two streets the whole way.  A cyclist may therefore have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of (a) having to remember five or six turns while avoiding traffic and (b) having a simple route that involves traffic.

3. Some streets blur the line between minor and arterial.  One block from my house is Edgemoor, which ranges from wide two lanes to four lanes with no shoulder.  Closest to my house, it is four lanes with no shoulder, yet keeps a 30 mph limit.  Until very recently, it had terrible potholes in the right lane in both directions, and cyclists commonly rode in the middle of the lane.  Traffic was light enough, though, that it never really caused any problems.  (They have now paved over the potholes, so it's practicable to ride closer to the curb.)

In my experience here in Chicago, it's worse than that. I have seen cyclists hit pedestrians walking across the street when the pedestrian had the walk signal.

My experience in the Chicago area has shown me that motorists ignore pedestrians just as much (or more) than cyclists do.  I can remember more than one time that I nearly got run down by a car when I was crossing the street legally.  Whenever possible, I rap my knuckles one time against the fender to say "Hey, look, a pedestrian you just cut off".  Once, a driver drove around the block to make sure they didn't injure me.  Another time, the driver got out of the car, swore at me, and attempted to pick a fight.

*  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.

How many places allow U turns everywhere?  In NY at least, they're illegal except on certain divided highways (generally those constructed in the last 10-15 years).

I think it's fairly common to allow U turns at least at signalized intersections.  However, I suspect that, in the situarion described, U-turning drivers would be required to yield to all other traffic, while cyclists would also be required to yield to all other traffic.  Not sure about who would most commonly have the right of way there.

[vdeane]

Aren't cyclists almost always local, and would therefore have knowledge of the streets?

And to those who defend jaywalking, my family just had a bad experience with a couple people who did the "responsible" jaywalking you say is OK: we were turning left from Elmwood Ave to Winton Road in Twelve Corners, which is a pretty busy area with lots of lights and traffic, so it's nearly impossible to make a left turn outside of the protected phase.  After the light for Winton went red, the pedestrians start jaywalking across (very slowly, I might add; it probably took them a whole minute to cross), probably assuming that Elmwood go green right after.  Of course, as anyone who actually knows the area can tell you, it didn't; it entered the protected left phase for both directions.  We had to sit there in the intersection, even though we had the right of way, for a VERY long time waiting for them to cross.  By the time there was just barely enough room to make the turn, the protected phase was very nearly over.  Thankfully there weren't any cars behind us, because they would have had to wait five minutes for the next protected phase to make a turn (it was still early enough for there to be a ton of traffic).  Thank god that protected phase is so long.

[NE2]

Aren't cyclists almost always local, and would therefore have knowledge of the streets?

I couldn't tell you which residential streets on the other side of Orlando go through and which dead end.

And to those who defend jaywalking, my family just had a bad experience with a couple people who did the "responsible" jaywalking you say is OK [...]

First, when I jaywalk I cross quickly. If I'm unfamiliar with the intersection, I wait a bit to discern the traffic light phases. And if I'm wrong and a protected phase comes on, I'll wait in the middle for the queue to clear. If you'd ticket me for this, you're a douchebag.

Second, you got delayed a bit. That's part of driving. You'd rather have peds wait for what is most of the time an unnecessary walk signal rather than risk delaying a motorist. Sounds like a pro-car nazi to me.

[Riverside Frwy]

Reading this thread was hilarious. NE2 and agentsteel made the thread. 

[NE2]

NE2 and agentsteel made the thread. 

Hell naw. I'd never make such a shitty thread.

[vdeane]

First, when I jaywalk I cross quickly. If I'm unfamiliar with the intersection, I wait a bit to discern the traffic light phases. And if I'm wrong and a protected phase comes on, I'll wait in the middle for the queue to clear. If you'd ticket me for this, you're a douchebag.

Well, these guys didn't do that.

Second, you got delayed a bit. That's part of driving. You'd rather have peds wait for what is most of the time an unnecessary walk signal rather than risk delaying a motorist. Sounds like a pro-car nazi to me.

What if someone had been behind us?  They would have been delayed a lot more than a bit!

Why do peds get magical priority in your mind when it comes to who gets delayed?  You keep saying that peds should never have to wait, but if I say that peds shouldn't impede traffic, I'm a pro-car nazi apparently.

[NE2]

You keep saying that peds should never have to wait

Nope.

[Special K]

Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.

[kphoger]

Aren't cyclists almost always local, and would therefore have knowledge of the streets?

I don't know what streets dead-end and which ones go through on just the other side of Kellogg, one mile from my house.  Being a local doesn't mean you know every street in a five-mile radius.  It would also require you to know the quality of the pavement of said side streets, to know if they're even worth riding on.  Choosing between patchwork and potholes on the minor streets and a fairly smooth surface on the arterial streets is something I do regularly; especially when carrying groceries or a child in back of me, both options have their pros and cons.

I should also point out that many people cycle for exercise, for their own physical well being.  Many own cars yet choose to cycle to work in order to live a healthier lifestyle.  Taking side streets to avoid traffic usually (though not always) means cycling at a slower speed, and thus reduces the benefit to this type of cyclist.

[vdeane]

Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.

Tell that to all the politicians who make laws over one incident.

[Special K]

Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.

Tell that to all the politicians who make laws over one incident.

Well, I... wut?

[agentsteel53]

How many places allow U turns everywhere?  In NY at least, they're illegal except on certain divided highways (generally those constructed in the last 10-15 years).

in most states, they are allowed unless explicitly forbidden by a sign at a given intersection.

[vdeane]

Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.

Tell that to all the politicians who make laws over one incident.

Well, I... wut?

You see it everywhere!  Some examples:
-Some people aren't responsible about swimming; therefore, all swimming outside of home pools is banned unless a lifegaurd is present
-Sometimes you need to stop at residential intersections, and some motorists aren't responsible enough to stop; therefore, a 4-way stop gets put in where all motorists need to stop all the time no matter what
-This one is only based on a false theory: The road is safe for speed X, but if we set the speed to X, motorists will drive speed X + 20; therefore, the speed limit will be X - 30.

[kphoger]

-Some people aren't responsible about swimming; therefore, all swimming outside of home pools is banned unless a lifegaurd is present

Say what?  Ummm.... Neighborhood pools, hotel pools, lakes, rivers,,,,,,,

[Kacie Jane]

-Some people aren't responsible about swimming; therefore, all swimming outside of home pools is banned unless a lifegaurd is present

Say what?  Ummm.... Neighborhood pools, hotel pools, lakes, rivers,,,,,,,

And in many locales, you can't swim in any of the above unless a lifeguard is present.  (Except perhaps the hotel, being private property.)

[kphoger]

Oh, for crying out loud....  I'd say it was time for a great uprising in this country, except everybody has already been docified to point that we no longer mind not being allowed to be [the home of the] brave or [the land of the] free.

[vdeane]

Don't move to NY then.

[kphoger]

NECROPOST!!!!   AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!

But I just knew y'all would want to see this:

[NE2]

We've already discussed this ad nauseam and there's no point in going through the motions again.

[kphoger]

Yes, I would actually be quite happy if nobody picked up the conversation again.