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).
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.
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"
It's better to spell out the exceptions than to simply capriciously enforce the existing laws. Poor enforcement leads to contempt for the law.
Speeding enforcement is a good example. It is so poorly enforced that nearly everyone exceeds the speed limit on nearly every stretch of road they travel on. The degree to which people do so, though, varies quite a bit. Is "10 over" ok? If 10 why not 20, you're already breaking the law (*)...
(*) in states where it is illegal to exceed the posted limit. In "prima facie" states, I guess you need to consider what really is safe.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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?
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.
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?
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).
Invert that ratio and you get the US.
Basically, traffic laws in the US are optimised to generate maximum fine revenue for the local police so they are designed to create as many violations as possible with no regard for safety. At the extreme end of the scale you've got red light cameras which might as well be called "murder cameras" for the number of people they kill.
The evidence is very clear that if you actually want safety on roads the way to get it is with fewer or no rules and signs, but since that directly contradicts the reveune purpose of having the signs and rules it would take a regime change to see that happen.
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.
How common are Stop signs in the US?
...
Very. In contrast to the UK, I don't know, though.
(||) Nehmo (||)
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;
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.
The Idaho rolling stop law doesn't make taking your right of way legal. In fact, it makes it illegal. The proposed Oregon law increases the penalty for doing it. If you got to the intersection first in your car, you get the right of way. This is how I treat stop signs when I'm on my bike: if a car got there first, I stop. Unfortunately, they then usually motion me to go, which is really annoying, because I already stopped, so they aren't doing me a favor, but they think they are, so I have to be nice about it. One of the arguments in favor of the rolling stop law is that it avoids this annoying dance—drivers know what the law is, and are more likely to follow it, and so do bicyclists. The problem with the law in many states now is that it's bogus, so bicyclists and drivers collaborate to violate it.
It's really funny when someone says "I'm a professional, so my opinion matters more than the data." Well, maybe funny is the wrong word.
No, this means that you don't understand physics. If I come to a full stop and then go, I am going slower, so the time during which I am exposed to cross traffic is longer, which increases the likelihood that I will get hit. So at two-way stops, any bicyclist with a strong sense of self-preservation and long lines of sight goes through the stop sign without stopping. It doesn't mean that we blast through without slowing down, but we do try to keep as much speed as we safely can. Life is full of tradeoffs...
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
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.
You didn't mention this gem: "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."
Assuming for the moment that we accept this reasoning, might this then be an argument for drivers, too, to accelerate when approaching stop signs, so that they might also minimize the time spent in an intersection?
Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
If I come to a full stop and then go, I am going slower, so the time during which I am exposed to cross traffic is longer, which increases the likelihood that I will get hit.
You wanna know what else increases the likelihood of being hit? Doing unexpected shit, like not stopping for a stop sign.
Maybe you are one of the rare few who can accurately determine how quickly cross-traffic is approaching, and will actually stop if it looks like you'd cause someone to have to slam on their brakes. But in my experience, the cyclists I see blasting through stop signs seem to have this "I might get hit and die, but at least I'll traumatize the driver" mentality.
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.
You wanna know what else increases the likelihood of being hit? Doing unexpected shit, like not stopping for a stop sign.
And yet, actual statistical evidence shows that your belief is wrong. RTFA.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No, this means that you don't understand physics. If I come to a full stop and then go, I am going slower, so the time during which I am exposed to cross traffic is longer, which increases the likelihood that I will get hit.
If you are exposed to cross traffic at an intersection with stop signs/lights either you or the cross traffic is doing it wrong.
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...
Hence the point of the article, which discusses what happens when that "shit" stops being unexpected.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
1. 99% of bikers who are of an age that is able to get licensed to drive a car, are licensed.
2. I pay plenty of registration fees for the cars I own, just like the rest of the bike commuters out there. Plus, the taxes I pay more than pay for the use and wear and tear I place on the roads comparative to the cars wear and tear. Hell, if it wouldn't be for the cars, we could have single lane roads that would last 50 years for everything.
3. You mean, the wrecks where you drive your 1-tonne car into something because you weren't paying attention. Unless I actually run my bike into your car (which would cause very little damage, I'm sure), I'd wager that the accident was more than likely caused by you.
4. I think I'm OK with the type of insurance I have. In the area I live, riding a bike is not a high-risk sport.
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.
there are virtually no stop signs, only round-abouts and "give way"s (yields). Never mind cycling, DRIVING is much quicker!
How about even simpler? Cyclists follow the same rules as drivers of cars or any other vehicle type on the road.
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.
What's absurd about our traffic rules?
Like trains?
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.
Therefore, the law should say that all bicycles must be replaced with racing motorcycles and all launches must be at the limits of traction... In order to keep people safe, of course.
You have my vote.
As a motorcyclist, I hate when people wave me in front of their two-ton death machine when they have right-of-way when if they just went, I'd be able to go legally and safely behind them.
yeah but the article is BS so STFU
MOD PARENT UP!
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.
Doubly so because, especially as a pedestrian who is waved to cross, the driver inevitably starts rolling forward while you are still crossing. They're doing you no favors when they encourage you to walk in front of their vehicle and then immediately express their impatience and start threatening to hit you.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
"two way stop"
The North-South road doesn't need to stop, but the bike is approaching on the East-West road, which does need to stop.
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.
The city I live in has lots of bikes in use. It's often called the bike capital of the northwest. If you go around looking at the bicyclists for a period of time, you will probably notice that around 90% of them are in violation of the laws. Around 2/3rds of that is going the wrong way in the lane. They also will fail to follow traffic signals, ride at night in dark cloths without sufficient light devices or even without any reflectors having removed the ones that originally came on the bikes. In short the vast majority of them are suicidal morons. Ironically, I love riding my bicycle here as we have great places to do so, when the weather isn't crap, and have been doing so since I was a kid.
On a side note, the whole idea of getting through an intersection faster is great when you have a green light, but trying to go against the light is stupid no matter how fast you do it.
No, this means that you don't understand physics.
For someone who understands physics so well, you'd think you'd put a flywheel on your bike so that stopping wasn't an issue.
It is a largely moot argument, since cars are almost never a) going slower than the maximum posted speed for the road, while 2) in a position where they could go faster.
In addition, the person you quoted did not say they were accelerating. The described action was maintaining non-zero speed rather than stopping.
There are several intersections near where I live where about 1/3 of the time I end up turning back when walking because of that. People making left turns from the minor street to the major street waive me across and then start turning at speed, so that if I keep going I can get hit.
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
This is stupid. Your acting like bicyclists want to get hit. They do what they do because they're going slower, have greater maneuverability and have greater awareness of the situation than the guy driving at 4 times the speed inside of a noisy metal and glass bubble, and know how to avoid getting hit by cars. You want to know how to avoid getting hit on a bike? Maintain your speed if you can, because if you have to slow down, you can't get the fuck out of a cars path in time.
I stop. I check cross traffic. I see you, a cyclist, approaching your stop sign. I start to go, but since you had no intention of stopping
Why would the cyclist have no intention of stopping? The article's proposal is that they treat stop signs as yield signs, in which case they would - wait for it - yield to you. The clue's in the name.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The article's proposal is that they treat stop signs as yield signs, in which case they would - wait for it - yield to you.
Bingo. I wonder why so many detractors aren't willing to have even a pseudonym attached to their posts...
Take the AC's description of: "I stop. I check cross traffic. I see you, a cyclist, approaching your stop sign. I start to go, but since you had no intention of stopping, I hit you."
No intention of stopping? Perhaps, but in the given situation I'm slowing down. The AC, seeing the intersection is clear, proceeds through. Assuming no other traffic, once he's proceeding through, I speed up to cross just after him. If the intersection is busy, I'm stopping, slow start or not.
I follow the laws of physics - which says that I lose in any car-bicycle intersection, irregardless of who's right in the court of man. As such, I'm going to do my best to make sure cars aren't in a position to hit me.
Also, while I'm willing to treat most stop signs as yield signs, I'm NOT willing to treat red lights as 'pauses'. If I'm going to stop, I'm going to wait until it turns green again, or hell, get on the sidewalk and press the pedestrian button* because I'm too light to trip the automotive sensor in the road.
I don't read AC A human right
On a side note, the whole idea of getting through an intersection faster is great when you have a green light, but trying to go against the light is stupid no matter how fast you do it.
It's been a few posts, but I want to point out that I only mentioned stop signs for a reason. I'm obeying red lights completely unless the darn thing is outright broken for bikes(IE it's sensor tripped, no pedestrian buttons), and there's not enough traffic to get it to change for me. Part of this is the
Treating a red light as a 'pause' is stupid, because not only am I going against standard rules, I'm still sacrificing momentum.
'Crazy' intersections(IE high volume) has me dismounting and walking through as a pedestrian, at the crossing.
I don't read AC A human right
Four way stop. Car on one side wanting to turn left, then a bike continuing straight approaches from the other. By law (four way stop), the car has the right of way - it was at the stop sign first.
Now make the bike consider the four way stop a yield. By law (at least in CA), the left turn vehicle (the car) must yield to others - straight-through has the right of way. So the car stops, the bike keeps rolling, the car starts his left hand turn and we have a collision. Who's at fault?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Idaho rolling stop law doesn't make taking your right of way legal. In fact, it makes it illegal.
Indeed, thus the mention of 'timing' my passage. If I was just going to blow through the intersection, I wouldn't need to time it. I need to time it in order to reach the intersection at a point where I have priority, thus being legal to enter without stopping. Not to mention safe.
I also hate people waving me through, because it'd just be faster if they followed the rules and went, I'll get going once I can cross behind them. I especially dislike it when they start accelerating before I'm clear.
I don't read AC A human right
Depends on the intersection.
Your anecdotes do not constitute data. Statistics from 27 years of real-world experience do.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
We aren't doing it for YOUR BENEFIT. We're doing it so you can get the heck off of our roads and far, far away from us. You are DANGEROUS. I hit you with my car, even if it's your fault, and I will LOSE MY LICENSE and my car. Here in Colorado, bikers are considered holy men (and women) and hitting one, even if it's just a scratch, is like murdering kittens - you will be lucky if you don't get your license taken away and your vehicle impounded until you cough up a couple hundred bucks to pay to get it back.
Honestly, I wish bikes would just keep to the trails, where it's DESIGNED for them and if anyone's at fault, it's them because they hit a pedestrian. Putting them on roads with cars just means accidents will ensue.
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
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.
Stupid people will do stupid things regardless of the mode of transportation.
There's a blind intersection I drive past a lot, it's downhill and a stop sign at the bottom. A cyclist all decked out in riding gear (took it seriously) ran that stop sign, and I just missed them, it was damn close. While I think about that incident, it's not their welfare that was of concern; it was that they were willing to go through my windshield to maintain speed.
No it's stupid people such as yourself who make it dangerous. You're not even aware of the law, by your insistence that they are "your roads" and that we should get off of them. C.R.S. 43-1-120 They are not only your damn roads.
"It is in the best interest of all Coloradans to promote transportation mode choice by enhancing safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians on or along the state highway system... The department and its subdivisions shall provide transportation infrastructure that accommodates bicycle and pedestrian use of public streets in a manner that is safe and reliable for all users of public streets..."
"If cyclists pulled over to let traffic by, they'd spend all day simply standing at the side of the road."
I don't know about elsewhere but this is the law in the UK - if you're causing a multiple vehicle build up behind you because you're a slow moving vehicle then you're legally bound to.
Not that anyone ever does.
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.
Hell, if it wouldn't be for the cars, we could have single lane roads that would last 50 years for everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Educate yourself. Then come back and explain how we handle shipping lanes using exclusively bikes.
Sorry, but I just can't stand it when people let an 'us-vs-them' mentality say something completely moronic.
Modern roads are built to handle trucks, because we'd die without them.
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?
Pretty much every time I start pedaling at a red light that just turned green, I am the first one on the other side of the intersection (up to 6 ways) out of me and the 2 cars next to me. Exceptions are pretty much limited to places where the road is damaged and doesn't allow for fast acceleration or larger intersections ( with middle splits ). So, when you are stopping you can validate that anyone coming toward you will indeed stop. Only once you have asserted the situation you should go.
If you aren't stopping at a stop, you are simply lazy or in a hurry and don't mind not respecting the law. Telling yourself and others that it's safer for you that way doesn't make it legit.
If the laws are different where you live, then feel free to act different. I am both a driver and a cyclist, and I hate both cyclist which do anything they want on either stops or red lights, and drivers which don't follow the laws or respect cyclist.
Confirmation bias. Also, honni soit qui mal y pense.
I was being a bit extreme, but you do realize that outside the USA, there are lots of countries that are built with multi-modal designs in mind, including transporting good via train. Although I enjoyed the read on wikipedia on trucks -- I've never heard of those darned things before. bleh.
By the way, the human race did seem to manage just fine before the advent of the semi-trailer. Sure, Wallmart didn't, but seeing that they really only became a thing in the last century, I think there is a good amount of data of how civilization seemed to work without them.
The human race managed just fine before language as well. Had it not, we'd not be here.
Still though, the discussion is about today.
Why should cyclists be any different? *I* roll past stop signs too.
I have yet to see a local cyclist perform a proper track stand and accelerate properly when a light turns green. If one watches professional cyclists one will see that one must use the rocking from side to side motion when coming out of a track stand to accelerate to high speeds. I had mastered this move when I used to ride 250 miles a week in my twenties. Cyclists should get licenses to ride on the roads just like automobile drivers.
It'd help if they at least got training. People who spend thousands of dollars on a bike, and zero dollars learning how to ride correctly are generally known as "Freds" among experienced cyclists. You can tell a "Fred" just by watching them ride or start from a stop (as yu note).