A Plague of Bicyclists

[roadman]

The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.

So, vehicles have to stop for Stop signs, but cyclists don't.  Likewise, vehicles have to wait for red lights, but cyclists don't.  Yah, that's a set of uniform traffic laws all right - not!.  Here's an idea - require drivers and cyclists sharing the same streets to be subject to and obey the SAME laws.

And if cyclists feel it's so important that they can't be bothered to stop for a stop sign or wait at a red light, regardless of whatever "justification" they create for their actions, then IMO they have no business being on the road.  The fact they got the polticians to buy into this "entitlement" law is pathetic.

[NE2]

And if I feel it's so important that I can't be bothered to obey a speed limit sign, regardless of whatever "justification" I create for my actions, then IMO I have no business being on the road.

Fixed for you.

[corco]

The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.

So, vehicles have to stop for Stop signs, but cyclists don't.  Likewise, vehicles have to wait for red lights, but cyclists don't.  Yah, that's a set of uniform traffic laws all right - not!.  Here's an idea - require drivers and cyclists sharing the same streets to be subject to and obey the SAME laws.

And if cyclists feel it's so important that they can't be bothered to stop for a stop sign or wait at a red light, regardless of whatever "justification" they create for their actions, then IMO they have no business being on the road.  The fact they got the polticians to buy into this "entitlement" law is pathetic.

Except for the part where where this is legal cyclists are statistically proven to get in fewer accidents.

Also, have you ever ridden a bike? It's a lot easier to slow to a crawl on a bike and have good visibility than a car. Coming to a complete stop on a bike and then re-accelerating is really hard, so this makes it so they blend in better with cars moving the same direction at intersections, believe it or not. This also says "okay bikers, we get that coming to a complete stop is terribly inefficient on a bike (not so much on a car), so as long as you don't blow through stop signs we won't ticket you"- that's what I'm talking about by uniformity- it makes bike behavior more predictable, which makes driving a car around them a lot easier.

I've driven very, very extensively in the urban parts of Idaho (yes, those exist) and I'll say that bikers follow a more predictable model than in other states. When you see a bike, you know they're not going to come to a needless stop but you also know they aren't going to blow through aimlessly, as happens in other states. It's just like speeding, as NE2 points out above. Because it's so terribly inefficient for a bike to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, a lot of bikes won't and so it's inevitable for that to be the case. Legalizing it while also increasing the penalty for those who roll through stop signs into traffic solves that problem better than any other known method.

Bikes are not cars. Expecting them to behave like cars and managing traffic laws around that model is doomed to fail. And in the absence of better facilities, they have just as much right to be on the road as cars do. Even if you hate bikes, you can't deny that they have a right to be on the road. So all you can do is manage that in a way that allows vehicles to operate as harmoniously and efficiently as possible. It may seem counterintuitive, but legalizing rolling stops actually does that and it's been proven to do that.

I encourage anybody who just hates bikes on the road and thinks they're evil to ride one on the road in traffic for a week. Your perspective will change, I promise. You might still think they're evil, but your perspective on how to manage them will change.

[NE2]

I encourage anybody who just hates bikes on the road and thinks they're evil to ride one on the road in traffic for a week.

And then ride one on the sidewalk of a busy commercial arterial, and notice how the dynamics change. (Hint: don't assume anyone's going to yield to you, despite being legally a ped.)

[agentsteel53]

did Boise have an asshole-biker culture (see: San Francisco) before the rolling stop law?

[hbelkins]

And then ride one on the sidewalk of a busy commercial arterial, and notice how the dynamics change. (Hint: don't assume anyone's going to yield to you, despite being legally a ped.)

In how many jurisdictions is riding a bike on the sidewalk legal? I'd venture to guess, not very many.

[corco]

The law was passed before I was born so I cant say for sure. What I can say for sure is that the rate of cyclist fatalities dropped by fifteen percent the year after it was passed.

[NE2]

In how many jurisdictions is riding a bike on the sidewalk legal? I'd venture to guess, not very many.

You'd probably be wrong. Orlando is one of the very few cities in Florida that prohibits it wholesale. Massachusetts allows it outside business districts (unless there's a local law).

[Alex4897]

* Takumi makes some popcorn

Pass some over here.

Time to make some more.

*eats while watching flame war begin

[1995hoo]

[hotdogPi]

Bicyclists get free popcorn for helping save the environment.

[NE2]

Bicyclists get free popcorn for helping save the environment.

[roadman]

The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.

So, vehicles have to stop for Stop signs, but cyclists don't.  Likewise, vehicles have to wait for red lights, but cyclists don't.  Yah, that's a set of uniform traffic laws all right - not!.  Here's an idea - require drivers and cyclists sharing the same streets to be subject to and obey the SAME laws.

And if cyclists feel it's so important that they can't be bothered to stop for a stop sign or wait at a red light, regardless of whatever "justification" they create for their actions, then IMO they have no business being on the road.  The fact they got the polticians to buy into this "entitlement" law is pathetic.

Except for the part where where this is legal cyclists are statistically proven to get in fewer accidents.

Also, have you ever ridden a bike? It's a lot easier to slow to a crawl on a bike and have good visibility than a car. Coming to a complete stop on a bike and then re-accelerating is really hard, so this makes it so they blend in better with cars moving the same direction at intersections, believe it or not. This also says "okay bikers, we get that coming to a complete stop is terribly inefficient on a bike (not so much on a car), so as long as you don't blow through stop signs we won't ticket you"- that's what I'm talking about by uniformity- it makes bike behavior more predictable, which makes driving a car around them a lot easier.

I've driven very, very extensively in the urban parts of Idaho (yes, those exist) and I'll say that bikers follow a more predictable model than in other states. When you see a bike, you know they're not going to come to a needless stop but you also know they aren't going to blow through aimlessly, as happens in other states. It's just like speeding, as NE2 points out above. Because it's so terribly inefficient for a bike to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, a lot of bikes won't and so it's inevitable for that to be the case. Legalizing it while also increasing the penalty for those who roll through stop signs into traffic solves that problem better than any other known method.

Bikes are not cars. Expecting them to behave like cars and managing traffic laws around that model is doomed to fail. And in the absence of better facilities, they have just as much right to be on the road as cars do. Even if you hate bikes, you can't deny that they have a right to be on the road. So all you can do is manage that in a way that allows vehicles to operate as harmoniously and efficiently as possible. It may seem counterintuitive, but legalizing rolling stops actually does that and it's been proven to do that.

I encourage anybody who just hates bikes on the road and thinks they're evil to ride one on the road in traffic for a week. Your perspective will change, I promise. You might still think they're evil, but your perspective on how to manage them will change.

No, I'm not the evil Grinch who loates bikes and hates cyclists.  However, what does bother me is the attitude of the bike lobby (at least around the Boston area) that says "we want equal access to the public streets" in one breath, then turns around and says "now give us special rights and privildges", and then - for a finale - says things like  "what, make us REGISTER our vehicles to use the public streets - NO WAY!"

That having been said, all your points are well taken.  And, for the record, from high school through my college years and shortly after (late 1970s to early 1990s), I was an avid cyclist.  Part of my regular 10 to 15 mile riding route (which I rode at least 3X per week) was on through arterial streets in Lynn, Swampscott, and Salem, MA.  At the time, all these communities allowed sidewalk riding outside the downtown business districts.  However, I found the street to be much better for riding, even in traffic.  And, I never saw the need to not come to a complete stop at a stop sign or to not wait for a red light to change.  Of course, in those days, there were fewer stop signs and red lights to contend with then there are now.

[corco]

Certainly that makes sense- there is definitely the asshole biker brigade that gives the whole group a bad name- I favor ignoring and ticketing those sorts of folks. And yeah, as  you and froggie say there are way too many stop signs now. One of the issues is a planning issue- if there is an arterial, and parallel to that arterial is a residential street, it makes sense to direct bike traffic to that parallel residential street where they are out of the way of fast moving traffic, right? The problem is that parallel residential street now has stop signs every other block  to keep the cars off and not for any real traffic purpose, and thats where something like Idaho stop can have great benefits- bikes dont have to stop at traffic calming stop signs and those signs keep the cars off the road. Without that, i as a biker might be more prone to ride on that arterial where its more dangerous but faster and easier since i dont have to keep stopping.

[Laura]

I like the idea of rolling stops for bicyclists and is  what I naturally do when I ride my bike on Baltimore city streets. Baltimore is pretty hilly, and if there are no cars around and I'm riding up a hill to a stop sign, I am not going to make a full stop. I would lose all of my momentum and be more of a danger as I try to get back up to speed after the stop sign.

I try to be as courteous as I can be on my bike not just to be nice, but for my own safety.



iPhone

[KEK Inc.]

And if I feel it's so important that I can't be bothered to obey a speed limit sign, regardless of whatever "justification" I create for my actions, then IMO I have no business being on the road.

Fixed for you.

LOL.  Called out.

Honestly, I doubt half of you have ever biked in a city.  Many cities to put it blunt have poor infrastructure for bike traffic, so bicyclists are forced to share lanes with motorists.  I'm sorry, but it's very hard to go faster than 35 MPH on a bike.

[agentsteel53]

And if I feel it's so important that I can't be bothered to obey a speed limit sign, regardless of whatever "justification" I create for my actions, then IMO I have no business being on the road.

Fixed for you.

except ... not. 

rolling through stops while yielding : flying through stop signs :: driving 12 over the limit to keep up with traffic : driving 120 in traffic

[NE2]

Idaho stop? Udaho stop.

[corco]

Still as unorginal and unfunny as a potato joke

[Mr_Northside]

I like the idea of rolling stops for bicyclists and is  what I naturally do when I ride my bike on Baltimore city streets. Baltimore is pretty hilly, and if there are no cars around and I'm riding up a hill to a stop sign, I am not going to make a full stop. I would lose all of my momentum and be more of a danger as I try to get back up to speed after the stop sign.

I try to be as courteous as I can be on my bike not just to be nice, but for my own safety.

This. 
I always stop at a stop sign when there are other cars (or pedestrians) around, to "take my turn" as if I were any other vehicle.  But if there are no other vehicles anywhere near (if visible at all) the other approaches to the intersection, I'll roll thru it.
I also always obey traffic signals - tough sometimes at certain intersections (especially ones where there is an all-way WALK signal (and everyone has RED)) I'll hop off and become a pedestrian carrying my bike thru the crosswalk, before becoming a cyclist in the street again.

I'm kinda getting deja vu typing this....

[Brandon]

Still as unorginal and unfunny as a potato joke

Hey, this spud's for you!

/OK, just as lame, I know.  I say potato, Dan says potatoe.
//Yes, even worse.

[KEK Inc.]

I suppose I should chime in.  I bike a lot in Seattle.  It's the fastest mode of transportation honestly, and it's healthier.  I bike to class (0.5 miles), I bike to work (5 miles), I bike to parties (a few blocks), etc.  Granted, I've broken plenty of laws, and I do think police tend to be extremely lenient for biking.  I admit, I've drunk biked before (which should be a DUI if it isn't already), I've biked without lights at night, blew through traffic signals/stop signs (only when there's no other traffic approaching or at the intersection), etc. 

That said, I try to be courteous and respectful to other drivers.  I've driven in Portland plenty, so I know the frustration drivers feel with bicyclists, so I try to avoid that if I can.  I generally take note of traffic impediment and pull off if there's a lot of drivers behind me, but I'm fortunate that most of my commute to work involves a nice bike greenway (the Burke-Gilman Trail - a converted abandoned railroad ROW) which goes through my university and directly to my workplace, so I rarely have to deal with motorist traffic. 

Seattle is in the infant stages of a bike-friendly road system, but traffic control devices that don't support bike infrastructure makes it both dangerous for bicyclists and motorists, as they have to share lanes causing problems.   SDOT is adding these bike greenway roads, which convert side streets parallel to main arteries to effectively become bike arteries.  You share the road with motorists, but it's only local motorists to those streets, and signs discourage through traffic motorists and encourage bike traffic.  It's a good way to make a safer route for bicyclists without compromising motorists.



That also said, I don't think every road has to be bike friendly.  As long as you can go almost anywhere in the city in a bike friendly road, then that should be sufficient.  You don't need every road to be bike friendly.  Only one in every 15 blocks, honestly. 

[agentsteel53]

Idaho stop? Udaho stop.

okay, you've officially reached "what the fuck is wrong with you today" status as far as I can tell.

are you having a bad narcotic experience?  have you undergone a cerebral swap with a sea cucumber?  seriously, you've gone from your usual occasional-asshole self to something out of the Ethan Man playbook.

[seicer]

So to the one or two who don't believe in the Idaho Stop or believe that all cyclists must stop at every traffic signal:

Do you actually bike? Do you actually bike with something other than heavy metal?

No? Shock.

I bet you actually did not bother to read the law, either.

You treat the traffic signal as a yield, meaning that you do not nor should you (as a cyclist) "blow" through the signal. You still must yield right-of-way and here is why:

1. Most states use loop detectors that detect large amounts of metal. When it detects this, the signal begins its sequence to changing. Nearly every bike will not trip these types of signals - including most aluminum and all carbon fiber models.
2. Infrared cameras are, for the most part, not calibrated to detect human bodies. They detect large amounts of heat that radiate from a car hood, not a cyclist at a traffic signal.

Solutions include:

1. Idaho Stop is the easiest and safest, as it makes these into yields for cyclists.
2. Dedicated signal actuators for cyclists. In some cities, these are poles near curb lines that have a button to start the sequence to change the signal. Some cities, like Portland, include an LED countdown. The problem with this is that it is not feasible for left-turning movements.

Better yet, cities need to rethink how transportation works and how we can become less car focused. That's not to say that motorists are inherently evil - heck, I drive 35,000 miles a year and bike much less than that. The question is, how do we treat cycling as transportation, not recreation, and allocate resources based upon that?

Take Ohio for instance. Our rail to trails are essentially bike throughfares, formerly funded with the Clean Ohio Grant program and other grants. I'm not sure how it is for 2012 or 2013 since Clean Ohio's funding was severely cut. But why isn't it funded by the Department of Transportation? And why are sidewalks and dedicated cyclepaths afterthoughts - or funded entirely differently? If we want to even out the playing field, fix the funding situation.

I have an entry coming up on why I think recreational trails, inconsistent signage and the like are actually detrimental to cycling as a mode of transportation.

[agentsteel53]

I have an entry coming up on why I think recreational trails, inconsistent signage and the like are actually detrimental to cycling as a mode of transportation.

this is something I would definitely like to read about. 

that said: can someone of the pro-asshole faction (I'm looking at our beloved New England Route here) want to explain why one has to charge through an intersection at full speed without looking?  I have yet to see a coherent defense for this.

hint: if - due to your blatant and willful disobedience of traffic laws - I have to perform an emergency evasive maneuver to avoid turning you into road hash, then you are an asshole.  that is the topic of that article which the thread started out with.  and I agree with it.

I'm perfectly fine with implementing an Idaho Stop policy in every state - it seems to make a lot of sense.  but I also would like massive social sanctions against those who bike like assholes.  those who run cars through stop signs and red lights are rightfully vilified, but those who do the same on bikes are viewed as Big Damn Heroes and their behavior becomes part of the transportation culture of entire cities.

for fuck's sake, why?