Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Optimization: Cyclists Should Roll Past Stop Signs, Pause At Red Lights
Lasrick writes: "Joseph Stromberg at Vox makes a good case for changing traffic rules for bicyclists so that the 'Idaho stop' is legal. The Idaho stop allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs, and has created a safer ride for both cyclists and pedestrians. 'Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Boise had 30.5 percent fewer accidents per bike commuter than Sacramento and 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield.' Oregon was considering a similar law in 2009, and they made a nice video illustrating the Idaho Stop that is embedded in this article."
"Boise... 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield." How'd they manage that?
.....rolling through a stop sign in front of my car than if he stopped.....
Sure, that makes perfect sense.
No more drugs for you.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
IAAC (I Am A Cyclist). However I think that people who treat riding a bike as if they own the road are asking for trouble.
It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way. It matters if someone will see you and stop (and not run you over). When you come up to any dangerous intersection (or any intersection) you should slow down, look to make sure you're not going to get plowed into, and THEN go.
As a cyclist, you might be going 30 KPH easily, but you're much easier to miss for a motorist because you are so small, and you might come at an odd direction (most people aren't used to making sure there's no cyclists on the shoulder).
as in subject.
is what the article say, which does make perfect sense.
...in Buttfuck, Idaho, but not in New York or L.A.
"When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California â€" relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts."
Precipitation patterns? Really? Comparing a city that you can bike in all year to a city that has real winter? You don't ride a bike in Boise in fucking December. They have a lower accident rate in a city that for at least a third of the year is not suitable to ride a bike in, to a city with year round riding weather, and call that a comparison?
Goddamit, I want a million dollar grant to come up with stupidly.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
There's a classic trollish article for you.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
How 'bout ticketing the jerks who disrupt traffic by rolling through intersections, break up the 30-bike pelotons, and otherwise make them actually obey the law? Maybe they wouldn't have so mny accidents if the riders weren't abnoxious.
If it had been motorcyclists, rather than bicyclists that tailgated the SoCal guy and hit him when he stopped, there would never have been the travesty of justice as his murder conviction.
Stop sign: Slow down, low both/all ways, proceed if clear. Otherwise follow normal traffic rules.
Yellow light: Stop unless you're already in the intersection
Red light: Stop and don't go until your turn in normal traffic
Outliers: Crosswalk: Proceed unless there is a walker. Stop then proceed otherwise.
Flashing yellow: Slow down, low both/all ways, proceed if clear
Flashing red: treat like stop sign.
Pretend like you are new to a bike and you will be much safer and people will hate you so much less. One thing you can do, unless you are a very serious cyclist, is avoid getting the pedals which require cycling shoes. If one is not clipped in, imo, one is less likely to break laws and be a douche about existing ones. For people riding 50+ miles a week, I can understand why they want them. However those are not the people who cause problems for everyone else (in my experience).
As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me. Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Clicking through to the actual study, I found this quote: "Boise was 150%-252% safer (2.05-2.52 times safer)." Looks 150% correct to me.
safer != fewer. 150% safer would be 1.5x safer which I buy. 150% fewer would be 1.5x fewer which is impossible.
Like bikes, pedestrians don't need to come to a complete stop to avoid accidents at intersections, which is why you don't see them weirdly freezing in place when they arrive at one.
I've yet to see a pedestrian who doesn't come to a stop at intersections.
I've heard about their tire-marked corpses, though.
Stop cars and bikers at the red light and let the go all at the same time. Guess what happens... Is it really a suprise that you get less accidents if you don't do that?
I'm not understanding why so much legislation is needed.
Take Amsterdam - tourists are much likely to follow the rules than citizens, yet make the majority of the accidents.
Citizens - with biking experience - can estimate situations much better. And whilst 'bending the rules', they are safer end of the day.
Of course you risk a cop stopping you if you break the rules, in practice they will only do so if you endanger yourself or others. It just makes sense that cars should obey traffic rules better than cyclists, simply because cyclists are much more vulnerable.
Making a law for anything, and any exception, just doesn't makes sense. It's the intention of the law - safety. No cop here will fine you for looking carefully and not stopping at a stop sign while on a bike... It maybe a slight cultural difference in cop behaviour?
I fully agree. On a bike (motorized or pedaled) you must be very careful. I dont think motor bikes should have these rules, but you are hyper aware on a bicycle or a motorcycle. if you get hit, you're fucked. totes f'd. so if there is a gap, ride through. if there isnt, brakes on full. wait till its done
I didn't know that cyclists stopped for stop signs anyway. I was in Cape Cod, which has some great bike trails (my daughter and I use them). I was driving at the time though, stopped where the bike trail crosses the road, looked around, saw nobody, and proceeded. Somebody went flying across, and the only saving grace was that he swerved to avoid a collision (and I hit the brakes of course). There was a stop sign on the bike path, but at the speed he was going he couldn't have stopped or slowed down for it.
I bike, though not for commuting, and there are a few rules you have to follow. Yes, it's a pain to stop once you've got some speed up, but it's better than getting killed. I'm not saying most cyclists do this, but I felt like blowing off some steam it.
As for the Idaho law, I'm not sure it would work everywhere. What does yield mean? You're supposed to slow down, but by how much? For some cyclists it means glance around quickly before flying through the intersection. As it is, most cyclists don't completely stop at a stop sign, including me, but you've got to use some judgement. Clear view of the intersecting road? Maybe slowing down enough is ok. Blind corner or something? Stop all the way. And the only way to know an intersecting road can be seen clearly is if you've ridden through that area before.
As for comparing Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, how about looking at Boise before and after the law changed? Did it actually change anybody's behavior anyway? Has anybody even heard of a cyclist getting a ticket for something like this?
So, have you ridden a bicycle in a commuting type situation? I've read before that converting many stop signs to yield signs, even for cars, would save all sorts of energy without significant increases in accidents.
With a bicycle it's all about energy conservation. When I'm biking it takes me significantly longer to get up to speed, and my top speed is still well below that of the vast, vast majority of cars.
As such, I typically have much longer to assess an intersection before I reach it, my stopping distance is extremely short, but if you make me stop it extends the time I'll be in the intersection when I DO cross significantly. If I'm allowed to use a stop sign as a yield, I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently. Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there.
As a bonus, this way I'm less in driver's way, making me less likely to piss them off.
I don't read AC A human right
As a bicycle user (which stops at stops, red light, and pay attention to right coming traffic or pedestrian) I also fail to see how it makes road safer, but it seems to work... So...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If we ignore the "law" for a moment, I'm having a hard time understanding why ANY sane person would blow through a stop sign. There could very well be a hidden drive way or road on one side of it. By the time you look left, then right, another vehicle could have easily pulled out that you may not have seen.
I find the "right of way" advocates even sillier.
We can put this on your tombstone " Here lies John Doe, tragically taken from us in an intersection by a large SUV, BUT HE HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY"
How common are Stop signs in the US?
In the UK, "Give Way" (i.e. "yield") signs outnumber them 100-to-1 or more. You normally only find Stop signs at blind junctions (mostly in places where the road layout hasn't changed since the middle ages).
How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?
Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.
If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.
All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one and switching to the other when it's most convenient to them.
Because what we really need is another set of traffic rules to really confuse the shit out of people with.
Yes, there are some rules and laws that cover the behavior of cyclists. And you just mentioned a certain subset of them. But why does the way the Idaho Stop governs the cyclist's behavior lead to remarkably less accidents with cyclists and pedestrians?
"When I'm biking it takes me significantly longer to get up to speed, and my top speed is still well below that of the vast, vast majority of cars."
Not if I drive you over because you deliberatly cut in front of me. I see that happening frequently.
"I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed"
And likely fail.
Also its not about energy conservation -its about you not being bothered to follow the traffic law.
I intuited many years ago that traffic laws pertaining to vehicular traffic were downright dangerous for me as a cyclist - having worked as a bike courier in Washington DC, I found that the safest strategies for operating a bicycle in the urban environment are not real popular with motorists, law enforcement, or pedestrians for that matter. I decided too bad for them - as a cyclist the cards were stacked against me already on the safety front - I adopted my own set of rules, which worked very well for me and never hurt anyone else. Stopping at stop signs and redlights was certainly NOT part of the repertoire and as much as this infuriated others I was able to live with that.
I've never owned a car and have been bicycle commuting for many years in all kinds of situations.
Let's get this out of the way: Yes, a lot, even perhaps a majority, of people on bicycles act selfishly and stupidly. But my experience suggests that few experienced commuters are this category. First off, we all should just acknowledge that kids will be kids. Ok, so now we're down to adult cyclists only. A lot are weekend warriors who are drivers normally. Don't conflate those and commuter cyclists. Totally different breed. Then there are the young adults who think urban cycling is cool and so do it for a little while. It's not fair to count them either: they're just drivers on temporary leave.
We're left with true commuters like me, and the majority of us are careful and aware. This brings me to the point of this article. It is in the interest of everyone that cyclists be allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs. First, if I get to a 4-way as others are approaching, it helps everyone if I slow but do not stop. I'm there first, so I have the right of way; stopping and then starting again just slows down everyone. Since I don't have a shell around me, I can see and hear really well, so I already know the state of an intersection before I'm at the stop sign, so safety is not an issue. Second, a yield sign gives others the right of way if they are there first. So it's not like it's freebie to cyclists. If I approach an intersection and another car is already there or beats me to the stop, then that driver has the right of way. Easy. It's a ticketable offense to ignore the yield sign. Third, having a little momentum is safer for me. I have much better control when I have a little momentum than when I have to start from a standstill. Negotiating intersections is the most dangerous part of cycling, so it's silly to have the least control in the most dangerous place.
I know a lot of people simply hate cyclists, but to those people: it's good to remind yourselves that you hate other drivers, too. Cyclists can be annoying, but so can be drivers. That shouldn't stop us from optimizing traffic mechanisms.
I ride roll stops wait on red and with traffic. sidewalks are not used by pedestrians in the burbs and make a safe place to ride the boulevards.
If you ride against the traffic on a sidewalk someone will pull out a parking lot and hit you because they pull out not looking your direction.
That is how I rode and lived to tell the tail. The best childhood ever.
How about this: the rules of the road, are the rules of the road. They apply for everyone, not just the other guy or what they happen to be in/on: car, bicycle, motorcycle, horse-drawn carriage. Make sense?
Newborns and immigrants count towards negative biking accidents.
As long as those arrogant fuckers think they can block traffic on roads so their friends can run red lights and stop signs, I say it should be legal to run their asses over.
Let's encourage a means of transport where apparently it's dangerous to stop.
He didn't say "increase penalties", he said "ticketing". People respond to that. In NorCal, everyone drives 9 over because the speed limit is never enforced at 9 over. That has nothing to do with the penalty, and all about the perception caused by the lack of enforcement. Read more about theory of rewards and you'll realize that yes, the right-wing fucktard's "40 to life for a joint" is retarded, but that law enforcement blatantly ignoring laws makes behavior worse.
Simply put. Stop means Stop.,
If you want it to mean yield, put up a yield sign.
Confusing the meaning of traffic control signs simply is not a good idea. Traffic control needs to be simple, concise, and readily understandable.
Giving a stop sign double meaning for different traffic only confuses the issue and undoubtedly opens the door to a whole new branch of litigation. How is that a good idea?
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
You misunderstand Idaho Stop, as it never gives right of way to cyclists. The most they get is right of movement when there is no conflicting traffic, in other words when there is no right of way issue. If conflicting traffic is present then that traffic always has right of way over the cyclist at a stop sign or red light.
It certainly doesn't make cyclists "own the road", as you put it, since that's synonymous with having right of way.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
One problem is that Idaho isn't known for all its millionaires and entrepreneurs / risk takers, whereas California positively attracts such people. This might not seem like a big deal, but if you have a population for whom it is customary and even expected that risk taking leads to big rewards, versus a population which is, well average, then you have got to expect different outcomes even when the road rules are identical. It is not reasonable to expect that changing the rules on a docile population would lead to similar outcomes in a population full of movers and shakers.
Stop signs are pretty rare in the UK. The only thing this does for traffic safety is adding to the general "traffic rules in the U.K. are absurd, so pay attention to what's actually happening or you will die" method
Cars already mostly roll through stop signs unless there is a cop nearby watching, or another car that has right of way. Even so, if its just two cars both can usually go without nary a full second of stop between them. As long as even one of them is actually paying attention it works fine (though sometimes less smoothly)
It seems to me like red lights could use some optimization too. Right turn on red works, you give the right of way to the car moving straight...and it works fine. I don't see why a similar sort of "if the intersection is clear, then go" rule can't work.....certainly make more sense at some hours.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Link to study:
http://bclu.org/jmeggs-TRB-IDA...
This paper is in active rewrite; Please contact the author for the latest version before review if at all possible
So the paper is not even finished and has not been peer reviewed...
You know what also might work? Actually ticketing cyclists breaking traffic laws. As a pedestrian, I nearly got run over by three cyclists pulling an "Idaho Stop" at a cross walk because they were not paying attention.
Also according to the Idaho law, this only applies when the cyclist is turning right, not blowing through an intersection.
Microfilm archives of police incident reports from 1966 to 1992 were consulted over a
period of days, and deemed too difficult to analyze;
Anyways,
In Boise there are a decent number of bike lanes a good number of roads (35+mph 2-4 lanes).
These keep most commuting reasonably safe and bikers non-annoying. Though, there were/are big gaps in the system, if you bike a decent amount, you will not have trouble finding them or being safe.
When you are not on a major road, it is generally heavy residential with a stop sign every 1/6th of a mile (2 blocks)
These roads used to all be unregulated yeilds (no signs what so ever). Not sure when they decided to put the signs in but its a total pain for anyone even a car.
With a bike, it is very easy and safe to yield through one of these intersection.
The speed limit is 25--maybe 35--and is nearly one lane due to on-the-street parking.
If you had to stop, well..... no one would...... I suspect yeilding keeps bikers more predictable.
You know how some drivers get when they catch every light and cant get anywhere. They end up doing stupid things....so do bikers.
That said, a log of biking happens on the Ridge-to-Rivers system. This was re-built with bikers, pedestrians, and the like in mind.
I suspect this has the most to do with increasing safety. It has been under construction/expansion since I moved there in teh early 90s.
As a cyclist who commutes year-round in Chicago, I just want to give a little shout out to the motorists, who are almost all incredibly polite. It's human nature for us to notice and remember the jerks (and I recall a few) but the incredibly vast majority of motorists are accommodating, friendly, and (when paying attention) cautious.
If I have one request of motorists, it's to get off the cell phones, something I am sure every road user -- pedestrian, cyclist and motorist agrees with.
Because, currently, cyclists stop at stop signs and traffic lights, don't swerve into oncoming traffic and generally cycle like they think they can actually die in an accident.
If you are going to use roads, which were built for cars, you should:
1. Be licensed.
2. You should have pay some kind of registration fee.
3. You should have liability insurance, to pay for the wrecks you cause.
4. You should have extra personal insurance that will pay for them to scoop your brains back into your skull and then feed and water you for the rest of your life as a vegetable when you do blow a stop sign and get run down by a gravel truck.
I'm quite curious about driverless cars and how much work has been done between them and bicycles, both in terms of detection and logic. Bikes come from odd directions, pass on the wrong side (both particularly at intersections) and present a very small, erratic 'signal' to detect visually or radar cross-section.
-Styopa
Rolling stops at Stop signs should be legal for cars too.
And cars should be allowed to treat a red light as a stop sign, if the intersection is clear.
I think that all depends upon the traffic pattern at that time at that stop. One stop light where I used to live would convert to flashing yellow at 10pm and back to a stop light at 5am.
I don't agree. And with traffic laws it is all about predictability.
Everyone involved needs to have the same understanding of who has the right of way and why.
So?
There are only a couple of factors in play:
1. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of who has the right of way and in what order?
2. Do all the drivers / cyclists / pedestrians have the same understanding of whether the intersection is "clear" for them?
And that is the problem. You are no longer predictable to the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians. You might stop or you might not stop.
No it doesn't. The same as it does not make it safer for pedestrians to run across the intersection just because they're on a crosswalk.
Whether it is safer depends upon whether the other drivers / cyclists / pedestrians know where you are and have the same understanding of who has the right of way in what order.
The ONLY way that this change should have any positive change is if a driver would NOT have seen you when you were stopped BUT was far enough away that you could cross BEFORE he entered the intersection. In which case YOU need to work on YOUR visibility.
Sounds like you have some mental issues.
IAAC (I Am A Cyclist). However I think that people who treat riding a bike as if they own the road are asking for trouble.
As opposed to the automobile and motorcycle people who ride as if they own the road?
There are rules of the road, and also common sense things (e.g., if a car is turning/signaling right, as a cyclist, don't go on the inside): problems start when the rules aren't followed.
Stupid people will do stupid things regardless of the mode of transportation.
(I am also a cyclist.)
Also a lot of the stop signs need to go. I've noticed in the US that most places they would put a yield sign here, they put a stop sign. And many roads which would have a broken line in the centre (meaning you can overtake) have double yellows in the US. For a country which is generally not so nanny state, the road design is incredibly nannyish. I reckon about 95% of stop signs in all the places in the US that I've driven could quite safely be yield signs. Car drivers at least seem to treat them as such, it seems like less than 5% of cars actually stop at a stop sign.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The Idaho stop law just recognizes the actual behavior of bicyclists. This is what all traffic laws are supposed to do anyway. Speed limits, for example, are in most states required to be set according to how fast motorists actually drive.
The only places I've ever seen bicyclists obey stop signs or lights, are in very busy intersections, where they would be crazy to flout the signals. But I admit, when I'm riding my bike around the neighborhood, I don't stop for any stop signs, and you probably don't either.
Who is at fault? and who is going to pay?
You might be asked to decide this or someones may be asked to decide this about an accident you are involved in.
Someone became a bit too use to cooking the intersections but its not actually illegal and details about what actually happened are less than satisfactory.
It's a civil case, put a number or percentage on it.
If you want to do this, you have to be better at handling the problems that come up, or preventing them.
I guess anyone in a crosswalk can now be dodging bikes too.
The safest design for traffic lights for cyclists is the simultaneous green design. This removes all conflict and takes danger with it.
Why does Boise have 30.5 percent fewer accidents per bike commuter than Sacramento and 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield? Is there something that I am missing? Are people in Idaho more aware of bikes and bikers? I read the article but I still don't understand. Just asking for clarification.
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Looks like people are simply trying to adjust the law structure to what most bicyclists have been doing for decades anyway.
Simply changing these laws won't help traffic flow any. The accidents caused by such actions have a negative effect on traffic as it is. All this does is ease insurance cases, and place the burden of responsibility on the larger vehicle, kind of like what has already happened to big trucks. It doesn't matter one bit what actually happened. Unless you can "prove it in court", the blame always falls on the big truck, and only if it's really obvious does the police force look at the car.
Shame society can't remove someones' right to use a bicycle in public due to their reckless driving practices.
Doesn't the law see them as vehicles already? Or are they still seen as pedestrians in many places?
If you can't use the roads in a safe and responsible manner, you shouldn't be on them with a vehicle.
ANY Vehicle.
Tinker with the laws for bicycles, and you'll see the unregistered all-electric scooters (who do the same things as bikes, such as roll through stop signs, and maybe pause at red lights) following suit as if they're immune to the laws of the road,
You want to see improvement?
How about proper education in the first place, followed up by proper enforcement.
If a driver (any driver of any vehicle) is operating in a safe and intelligent manner while sharing the road with other like-minded souls, traffic wouldn't be a serious issue, because sharing the road wouldn't be a problem.
Sharing the road seems to be the problem in the first place. Bicycle lanes haven't eased the problem much, as most cyclists wander randomly in and out of them whenever they want. Cars use them to scoot around turning vehicles, or to cut a corner at a red light. It's only as if we've just widened the roads to try and accommodate driver behaviour as it is already.
Again. Modifying laws to behaviour is the wrong direction.
Too bad education doesn't seem to work...
so they are saying that since the laws say cyclists are supposed to STOP at stop signs but the new rules let them just ride through, they are saying there are fewer accidents when they just continue through? Wow, stopping must be dangerous!
So changing the law so everyone knows not to expect cyclists to stop, because they never did anyway saved people? You don't say.
You know what else would work? Ticket cyclists just like you do cars.
I live at the intersection of about 4 major bike paths in my city and cyclists careless disregard for cars, pedestrians, other cyclists and even their own safety is at times shocking. I've seen them blow through their own bike path stop signs into heavy traffic then get off their bikes and harass drivers that honk when they do it. I'm not sure how we got to the point where cyclists have this ridiculous attitude but it's really coming to a head where I live.
I'd just point out that the concept of stop signs and red lights is also more dangerous and inefficient.
Cyclists don't stop at stop signs because there are more of them, the traffic is typically slower in the region, they have better visibility of the traffic topology than cars due to their slower approach of the intersection and unobstructed eyes and ears, and it takes their bodies more physical effort to accelerate to speed again.
Car drivers too could benefit from all of the same if human traffic systems were designed such that intersections allowed more visibility the faster the speed of through traffic. Alternatively the vehicles can inform themselves about each the other's presence and speed and the drivers can accelerate their thinking speed to gain more time to think about the problem. To an artificial driver operating with more than simple audio visual information and modeling billions of trajectories per second, threading themselves through intersections at 100mph without collisions is as simple and safe as humans walking past each other in the mall.
You waste much energy with stop signs because you have inadequate cognitive powers.
I love biking and ride 75-100 miles per week. Usually after I get home from work and eat dinner. But the difference is I Ride A Mountain Bike. And therefore am not an ass like almost all road bikers are. I also spend 75% of my ride on trails/canal paths where I do not need to worry about traffic or the public. But when on the road or at an intersection my mentality is I am small compared to a car and therefore I am the one who needs to pay attention. I have a nasty 4 lane plus 2 turn lane double intersection that I need to cross to get to the park. I make eye contact and hand movements with all drivers. Get their acknowledgement they see me then take off quickly always ensuring I am in the correct acceleration gears. I therefore make the smallest inconvenience possible.
there are virtually no stop signs, only round-abouts and "give way"s (yields). Never mind cycling, DRIVING is much quicker!
As a bonus, when I hit you because you rolled through that Stop sign, (even though you were legal to do so), you can tell me about your stopping distance... It is about seeing what is happening, you may be able to see, but the car coming at you at 30 MPH from around a corner is still invisible to you until too late.
How about even simpler? Cyclists follow the same rules as drivers of cars or any other vehicle type on the road.
How about ticketing both! Everytime, and make the ticket hurt!
As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me.
Strawman. Nobody is suggested legalizing the behavior you describe. Also, drivers are blasting through those same lights, at equal or greater speed, presenting far more danger - but you already accept them doing so.
Second: In NYC, 99.9% or so of pedestrian injuries are due to motor vehicle drivers. The remainder are due to collisions with cyclists. The city does not track fault in such collisions. Ride a bike in the city and you'll learn quickly that pedestrians will step out into the road relying on their ears, right into the path of a cyclist doing 15mph. And then get angry when you manage to avoid not hitting them.
As cycling has exploded in popularity in NYC - increasing by an order of magnitude - pedestrian injuries from collisions with cyclists have fallen. Roads in NYC which have bike lanes added become safer for all road users (people in cars, people on bicycles, people on foot.)
Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).
An average-height adult male riding a bicycle is substantially higher than the roofline of most passenger cars. Our ability to see around us is unmatched by any other road user; most drivers have a viewpoint that's around my waist. And then they're inside a box, where they have roof pillars and other objects obstructing their view.
The right to pass traffic on the "wrong" side aka the righthand side in the US, is a specifically codified right in many states. In my state, we are allowed to pass on the right, and there is even a specific section that specifies that it is not an excuse for a collision with a cyclist that they were passing other traffic on the right.
Please help metamoderate.
Are you talking about the southern california driver who started a confrontation with two cyclists, then ended it by pulling around them and then slamming on the brakes, gravely injuring one of them? Then told a police officer he did it to "teach them a lesson"? He was convicted of multiple felonies, 6, I think, by a jury.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
I laughed when I saw the comment about cyclists being "provocative" right after the commenter says "you tell them to get out of your way."
Your comment shows the same bias. The reason they get their cars kicked and spit on is because they "buzz" a group of cyclists to "teach them a lesson" or honk at them to "get them out of my way" or scream "GET OUT OF THE ROAD" out their window.
You think we're second class, subservient road users. You think roads "are for cars." You fly into an absolute rage at the sight of two people riding their bicycles next to each other instead of one behind the other. You endanger our lives, and then when finally we have enough and stop being silent, you scream blue-bloody-murder about it.
Please help metamoderate.
The way to be safer is to avoid that actual causes of accidents.
First, don't ride on the sidewalk and use lights and reflectors at night so that you can be seen cars can avoid you.
Half of all cyclist accidents are solo falls so say out of the gutter, off the sidewalk, away from the seam between the gutter and the pavement, and watch ahead for debris.
The three most common car-bike accidents are cars traveling in the same direction turning right across the path of cyclists, cars traveling in the opposite direction making left across the path of cyclists, and cars on a side street or driveway entering a road way across the path of cyclists. The way to avoid these is to move out of the gutter and closer to traffic to be easier to see, merge into traffic if at the speed of traffic (which is also the speed of cars trying to make right turns for faster riders), don't ride to the right or pass on the right any cars that can make a right turn (by location, speed, and position).
Next on the list is don't ride in the doors zone (area where doors open) of parked cars.
Do these and you have eliminated most all bike accidents.
But what about close passes and hit from behind? Its counterintuitive at first thought, but if cars are passing too close the the lane is too narrow to share and the only safe way to ride is to control the center of the lane. Usually, you won't be there very long, just until the end of the narrow section. A good guideline for a shareable lane is sufficiently wide for two cars to to barely fit which is also over 14 feet.
Moving away from the curb at intersections and controlling a lane that is too narrow may require slow down and accommodate you, but that is a good thing as this prevents motorists from making unsafe and illegal maneuvers that put your safety at risk. The safety of a cyclist has priority over the convenience of traveling at the speed and in the lane desired by the motorists. Other actions such as move into traffic at traffic speed do not hinder motorists at all. Being hit from behind is extremely rare, even for bicyclists in traffic (if cars couldn't stop for traffic ahead the freeways and highways would be carnage) Just look back and verify safe room before merging into traffic and fully merge into traffic to be easier to be seen.
Staying out of the way of traffic makes you harder to be seen and if you can't be seen you can't be accommodated. This also holds for the ride as if you are invisible school.
If you want to really learn how to ride safer the take a League of American Bicyclists Road 101 class. This class shows the safest way to ride based on the cause of accidents, how to make some effective evasive maneuvers, and takes you on the road to practice what you have learned.
I am one of the instructors, LCI #3996.
I'd add another outlier:
Red light controlled by traffic sensor that 180 lbs of bike and rider doesn't trigger: Stop, wait long enough to be sure it's not going to change then treat like a stop sign. Look for a pedestrian crossing button on a really busy intersection.
How about cyclists follow the same rules as pedestrians like skateboarders? Bicycles are not vehicles. They should never have been allowed on the road in the first place.
Get off your bike at intersections and walk across. Stay on the sidewalk and don't go excessively fast. Get off your bike and walk when there is no clear path to cycle through. Try to convince your municipal government to invest in bike paths.
Travel on highways on the shoulder or as close to the shoulder as possible, and get of your bike and walk on the side when there is excessive traffic.
Motorcycles and scooters are often not enough to trigger those sensors. Follow the same rules that they do or get off the bike and act like a pedestrian.
"Idaho has permitted it since 1982, which is why this behavior is known as the Idaho stop."
Or really just read between the lines in the /. article summary, even.
Thanks for that lovely rejoinder.
Unfortunately, your typical car driver is all too often dead serious in taking this view. I'm quoting this passage because the issue is more fundamental still.
As my motorcycle driving instructor said so long ago "an intersection is where vehicles intersect". He was no Euclid. That was his only postulate. The corollary he taught, which I took to heart, is "try not to be where vehicles intersect any longer than necessary". He didn't even add an axiom about human binocular vision lacking a faceted lens (this is how Brundlefly checks out the girl flies) or note that the nature of an intersection having four lines of sight is the worst possible configuration concerning the forward brow-ridge skull design. He was no Newton, either.
What does your average barely-competent cyclist do for the first three pedal strokes? It certainly doesn't appear to involve noticing that they've departed from a dead stop in a cruising gear, but then certain forms of cognition are strained when a cyclist is laboriously heaving left, right, left, right, left right to obtain the 30 rpm cadence permitting minimal pelvic-saddle congruence.
Minimal balance, maximal transit time, and poor lane control. What else can we optimize by demanding that cyclists come to a complete stop, rather than entering the danger zone with the inertia of a fast-moving pedestrian?
I was reading about OODA loops the other day, as conceived by USAF renegade-Colonel John Boyle (largely responsible for the F16 and A10 aircraft designs according to his booster camp). In his world coming to a complete stop is called a stall, also known as a clay pigeon, also known as a energy-space cluster fuck.
You know what, fat bubba in your big compensator truck? Having rules that allow the congestion to clear expediently also permits you to get through the intersection more efficiently, without getting any Spandex floss caught between your radiator teeth (typically also a large delay if you even heard the bump). Look it up someday. Expedience is the thinking man's barging ahead, to mutual benefit for one and all.
I had a guy in my motorcycle class who got a broken leg sitting at a red light because the car behind him (closing time) didn't manage to stop in time. He got bumped just enough to drop his giant bike onto his own leg and snapped it good. We were taught to keep an eye on the rear view when stopped at the front of a red light after closing time, with one hand on the throttle to gun it through, if traffic was spotty. If we were going to bite it, we were going to bite it in style.
Pardon my French, but being stopped at the freaking light as a safety measure is so freaking overrated. In a jet fighter you're a clay pigeon. On a motorcycle you're a leather pigeon. On a bicycle you're a Spandex pigeon. On the sidewalk you're a sneaker pigeon. For the drunk, any colouring outside the lines that you can walk away from is a good landing.
I didn't even get into the human eye having rods and cones and being preferentially sensitive to moving objects in 90% of the field of vision.
I personally tend to treat stop signs as "dwell" not "yield". Dwell means having enough time to look a fair distance up the street in both cross direction, twice each way. Then I'm good to go, so far as I'm concerned. Pi legislated to equal 3, bite me.
Fuckers don't follow the rules anyway.
Traffic stopped? just ride between the cars.
Have a bike lane? ride next to their buddy and still take up a lane in traffic.
Bicyclists claim that they learned all their bad habits from cars, they're liars. There is no way someone can in a car can physically do the rude shit I see the bicyclists do.
Nothing like having a couple of dozen bicyclists slowing down traffic and making it impossible to even pass because the motherfuckers choose to not you the fucking bike lane.
I can see this working.. on rural roads where you HEAR a car or truck coming on the opposing lanes. City traffic? No way.
Sure, coming to a full stop at a stop sign/stoplight takes more time and makes getting across the intersection take longer but I don't like being seen as a pedestrian-on-bicycle (POB). POBs are the ones that generate the following complaints:
1. "Damn cyclists don't obey traffic laws."
2. "Asshat just hopped from the curb to the road and back again."
3. "Hand signal?"
4. "I AM WALKING HERE!"
My captcha embodies what I think of this idea.. Nonsense.
5. "He was all over the road so I had to hit him."
90% of the bicyclists out there are rude self-centered, assholes. The GP is just typical of them.
I would love to see more of them pulled over for moving. And since they don't have to carry ID with just haul the ones who don't off to jail. Because what they don't realize is the moving violations are misdemeanors, and they can be put through the entire process including booking, mugshots, jail to await arraignment and then talk to a judge at the arraignment to get out of jail before the trial.
Yeah buddy!
They have to right to not carry id, then they choose to be assholes and break the rules. They need to get their ass put through the process.
And oh so many of them are law and order libertarians: "Why are you stopping me!" and "I don't have to carry id!".
There are a huge amount of things the police do wrong and don't have the right to do but to anyway--unfortunately. But the little shits also don't realize what the police have been letting them get away with. And what the police could and should be doing to them when the little shits choose to ignore the law.
Cyclists take "the middle of the lane" in areas where they know there isn't enough space for them to be passed safely. In many states and countries, this is procedure recommended by officials, and codified in law.
If cyclists pulled over to let traffic by, they'd spend all day simply standing at the side of the road.
The white line denotes the start of the road surface. Cyclists are not required to ride to the right of it, particularly since there's debris such as glass and metal that will destroy tires.
Rural one-lane roads are not "highways", especially if there is no shoulder.
A cyclist on a bike is not a "tour de france wannabee" any more than you in your car are an "Indianapolis 500 wannabee."
You're the one who seems righteous (and selfish) thinking you're the only one allowed to use the road, or that you're given some sort of magical preference over other road users.
Please help metamoderate.
It's not that complicated. Though this confuses you now I'm sure you would get used to it rather quickly.
And really this only comes into effect when a cyclist isn't going to get in the way of any cars, so cars need not be all worried about what set of rules others might follow.
I found this to be exactly true in my pedaling around supposedly civic-minded Claremont: the more time I spent at an intersection, the more time some other driver had to catch up to me, not see me, and then cut me off in the driver's haste to be elsewhere. I wasn't running a stop sign; I was getting out of Doofus Driver's way.
Cranky educator.
TFA is a pile of crap, with no evidence to support its conclusions.
Rationale #1: "Yield" is just as safe as "Stop", and saves energy for bikers. Problem: It saves energy for cars, too, and if used with cars as bikers use it (slowing to 5MPH), should be just as safe for cars.
Rationale #2: Treating a stoplight as a 1-way stop sign is just as safe for a bike. Problem: Why not treat those stoplights as "Yield" signs, too, if those are safe? Why can't motorists adopt the same not-so-strict rules as bikes, for the same benefits? Also, the lower speed of bikes, combined with the possibility of blind corners and drivers that see the green light long before the biker, seems likely to make this very dangerous in *some* areas, particularly in the dark.
Rationale #3: Eliminate the laws cyclists don't follow, and they'll follow all the rest. Problem: "The rest" include the ones we're changing, because they don't follow them. ie. If they don't stop at stop-signs when there are cars waiting, NOW, why would they do so when they're effectively changed to Yield signs? If cyclists really have figured out the "Idaho Stop" on their own, why aren't the accident rates equally as low, and/or falling quickly?
Rationale #4: "the low-traffic routes that are safer for bikes are the kinds of roads with many stop signs." Problem: Low traffic routes are safer for cars, too. Sounds like we're changing the laws to encourage devaluing a number of roads for cars, in order to provide a biker's oasis.
Rationale #5: "he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more". Problem: The improvement over Sacramento sounds like a very tiny improvement which could have been caused by any number of minor variables. Additionally, the HUGE GAPING DISPARITY between Sacramento and Bakersfield, both cities without these rule changes, clearly shows that the Idaho stop rules aren't causing these differences, and there's far too much uncontrolled variability to draw any conclusion about the Idaho method.
Where is the evidence... ANY evidence, that this is a positive change?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I live in Denver CO, and there's a good amount of cyclists here.
To be clear, someone cycling hard and weaving in and out of traffic doesn't bother me, because it's all about expectations. I expect that person to be aware, which allows me to behave as I normally would, avoiding anything unexpected, and they will make good choices and we can avoid any issues.
What I find dangerous is when a cyclist expects to be treated as a car but doesn't behave like one. By riding in the center of a lane my expectation is that you want to be treated as a car, in which case, you must follow the laws for cars or your behavior is unexpected. e.g. passing on the right at a light or stop sign is then unexpected.
As someone who walks every day, Bicyclists are some of the rudest and careless of all on the roads. Most don't obey the laws and treat everyone else as less than human. I've been hit more times than I care to because a bicycist is too lazy to stop or slow down when the situation rises when they cannot pass safely.
As for not stopping at stop signs there is no possible way that you can claim that this is safer for anyone. A stop sign should be obeyed and like motorists they should stop. When should a pedestrian wake across a street than? Only when the selfish little twits on two wheels aren't present as they can blow through stop signs?
Plain stupid. Just like most of shit on this website of late.
better road view really - id say you have the same view as a motorcycle even that varies depending n if you are up right or crouched.
Let them engrave that on your tombstone, fool!
Most likely a cyclist who just doesn't like having to stop. Do some research to get a favorable outcome in the direction of your bias. Problem solved.
It's a pun on a popular sushi from California
No it's you who is the asshole.
How about, don't ride your totally unsafe, flimsy, difficult to see, acceleration-poor, crumple-bait bicycle on the same pavement with high powered, extremely heavy vehicles?
That will reduce biking accidents. Of course, it also requires common sense, and that... that... oh, right. Right. WTF am I thinking.
Maybe stick to actual bike paths? What, not enough bike paths? After all, lack of appropriate, safe paths doesn't stop me from driving my powered barstool or Riverine in traffic. No, wait, dammit, yes it does. Son of a...
Carry on.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Drive in Detroit sometime all the cars do this all ready. So bikes get to break the rules too. Just Great!
These modified traffic rules respect a couple of realities for cyclists.
One, a full stop is a relatively dangerous thing to do, not because the stop is dangerous but because the slow start from a full stop is. A cyclist who rolls slowly through a stop sign can proceed more safely than one who stops completely.
Second, the time just after a light turns green is a very dangerous time in many intersections for cyclists; a cyclist going straight has the right of way over a car turning right but the cars often fail to respect that right of way and turn into the path of the cyclists. Aside from the fact that the cyclist shouldn't have to hang back for the turning cars, it's not any safer; the turning cars often cut through the intersection too sharply and collide with the waiting cyclist. The red light as stop sign rule means that most of the time, the cyclist will be able to leave the intersection before the danger time of the newly turned light.
There are possible confounds to the data. Idaho drivers may be more polite than California drivers. The fact that few Idaho cyclists ride in the winter likely means that fewer cyclists are on the road at twilight or at night. It would be better to compare the Boise data to another location with a similar climate.
where I live cyclists stop at red traffic lights and stop signs. turning right at a red light is permitted if pedestrian have finished crossing. legal fiction. if a cyclist is hit by a car the driver of the car is presumed responsible and liable. national traffic is used to cyclists but people from abroad don't understand cyclists in traffic.
This is not a good study.
Having driven in Boise, Bakersfield and Sacramento, I can say with all honesty, using simple city size comparisons is a fallacy.
To put it more clearly, the car drivers and bicyclists are very different in Boise than they are in California.
You're just safer in a vehicle and on a bike in Boise than you are in California.
Wouldn't the same logic apply?
if you are operating a vehicle, you stop at a red light. it's that simple.
Why should cyclists be any different? *I* roll past stop signs too.
No shit
-almost every cyclist
Follow the same rules as the cars, no riding on the sidewalk, no going through red lights, same rules that apply to cars apply to bikes!!!!!!!