(Some) Cyclists, I am really getting sick of your shit

[ForumBot]

It would also make it a lot harder to get just compensation for being hit by a driver. "He just blew past that stop sign!" when it was really them.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I wish you'd stop advocating this stupid law. I oppose it for the following reasons:

It will tempt some cyclists to ride past cars stopped at a red light, to get to the front and go through the red light. This is dangerous, especially if light turns green before the cyclist reaches the front. It also means the same driver may be forced to pass the same cyclist twice, which increases the risk for the cyclist.
The city/town would use this as an excuse not to install traffic light sensors that can detect bicycles.
Even in fairly light traffic, I'd prefer to wait for a green light, as it feels safer. But if it's legal for me to go through the red light, I'm afraid the car driver behind me may demand that I go through it and get out of their way, e.g. by hoking continuously.
In general, the roads are safer when the rules are as simple as possible, and the vehicle movements as predictable as possible. Special rules for certain vehicles should only be used for improving safety, not convenience.


OK, these are good and legitimate arguements against the law (esp. #3). I would tend to agree with them. Once again, remember that I do not completely support this law, but some of the bike-haters did push me into the position of defending it more vigorously than I normally would.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I've lived in an area around a reasonably large university for about six years now. When the weather is bad, I drive to work instead of walking, and there are two lights where I've been clipped by bikes more than once, one on 38th and Spruce and one on 34th and Spruce on the Upenn Campus. They're mostly students, they don't pay attention and they're weaving in and out of traffic, and they've run into my side view mirrors and bumpers several times. I know this has happened to me at least a couple of times at each intersection, but I don't know how many times total. They drive like maniacs because they're stupid kids. Have they done any damage but minor scratches? No, but I'm more concerned that they're going to hurt themselves. The unfortunate part is even if they DO damage someone's car, the person has absolutely no *chance* of recourse, because there's no license plate number to take down.


OK, I am very, very familiar with those intersections as I ride them on a regular basis (about 1-2 a week). I'd still like to know more about how this happens. I take it you are heading West on Spruce?


I'm actually in favor of improved bike lanes, bike-friendly city planing, and more people riding bicycles as a primary form of transportation. However, I'm also in favor of improved registration and accountability so there are fewer irresponsible cyclists making things harder for the responsible ones. I really fail to see how asking cyclists to follow the same licensing and legal requirements as cars undermines their status as vehicles. I also don't see why you guys don't *want* to discourage people from riding bikes who can't be bothered to register their vehicles and take a simple test. I'd bet that same irresponsible set of cyclists overlaps significantly with the set most drivers and pedestrians complain about.

I think we've made our points about this already. In a perfect world L&R might do some good, but the reality is it means that there's just going to be a bunch of rogue unlicenced bikers out there, with a lot of good, legally riding cyclists dropping out of riding because of the added hassle of getting licensed. I don't think this is a positive move.

As for license plates on bikes, could you please answer one question for me: Where is it going to go?

[saoirse]

Just for clarification why do they call it a "California Stop"? I mean, why is it named after the largest auto market in the world, where state emissions standards automatically become national emissions standards because automakers won't build cars that don't meet them?

Just kidding. I already know. In my neighborhood there is a street with three 4-way stop signs set 1/10th of a mile apart. I have never seen a car come to a full and complete stop at all three of them in a row. Not even the car I happen to be driving.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

I think it comes down to whether we as a society consider bicycles to be a preferred alternative to cars, and want to encourage their use. Bicycles do not use imported oil, or any other fossil fuels. Bicycles produce no pollution. Bicycles take up less road space, and far less parking space. Less need for parking means buildings can be closer together, which means reduced average travel time for everybody. Bicycles allow you to fit some exercise into your busy day, which means better health. So do we want to encourage this, or make it harder than it already is by requiring licensing and registration?

But most American cities do not seem to be built for bicycles. I know my commute to work is way too long for me to bicycle daily. The drive to the grocery store is only about four miles; I guess I could cycle there, but in Texas summer I'd prefer not.

And while bicycles are fueled by leg power rather than gasoline, they are not pollution free vehicles: they're just as close as you can get if you aren't actually riding a horse. It does take powered effort to make bicycles -- you think titanium grows on trees or that it's organic rubber they use to make the tires? -- and they do require oil to maintain them. Presumably you can use synthetics for chain grease, but while they create a tiny fraction of the pollutants of even the manufacture of a car, 'pollution-free' is a misnomer.

(I'm a nitpicky bastard, I know.)

Cycling should be encouraged, but city infrastructure as it is now is built for cars, which have numerous pluses over bicycles even beyond the sweat factor. Otherwise they wouldn't be near so popular.

[aliquot]

It's painfully obvious, watching you duck and weave, that you haven't the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim that the "treat stop signs as yield signs" has no deleterious effects on safety.I never claimed such a thing.
No? Then what's this, from post 236?
But don't make up shit about it being unsafe when evidence has shown that this has not been shown to be the case!
Right there, you say there's evidence that shows that the law is NOT unsafe. Obviously, you do not have said evidence. That makes you a liar.
When I point out that the right-on-red law has resulted in far more incidents you manage to conveniently ignore that detail. So tell us, hypocrite. Why do you not oppose the right-on-red laws with as much vigor as you you opposed this proposed law? Are you honestly trying to tell me you believe right no red is without the incidents you so fear?
Because, genius, this is a thread about cyclists, not drivers. Start a thread about how much you hate right on red laws, and maybe I'll show up.

Still, I'll not be accused of dodging, so here's my quick-and-dirty take. Cars are legally obligated to come to a complete stop at red lights. This is the first difference between right on red and your California Stop law, where bikes must merely slow. Cars can never, barring a signal malfunction, proceed straight or left through a red light, whereas your bikes can, by your law. This means that, while at a stop, a car must gauge traffic oncoming from her left and, perhaps, turning from opposite her (i.e., if the intersection is a + and she's at the bottom, there can be traffic from the left side of the +, maybe from the top of the +, and perhaps both, if the people at the top of the + don't have a protected turn). Alternatively, there may be pedestrians she will have to watch out for before turning. Note that the pedestrians will likely not occur at the same time as the car traffic, because if they're allowed to cross, her light is green and the issue is moot.

Now contrast with cyclists. They're not obligated to stop, so they're still moving. If they're turning right, the have the same exact things to look out for as a car turning right on red. If they're going straight, they also have to look out for pedestrians crossing the top of the +, as well as traffic from both left and right. And if they're turning left, they have to watch out for car traffic from both left and right, turning traffic from the top, and pedestrians crossing the left of the +.

Both the straight through a red light and the left through a red light require more information for a cyclist to process than a right turn on red does for a motorist. Add on top of that that a cyclist needn't stop, only slow, and it seems the potential for incidents is much greater than for a right turn on red for a stopped vehicle.

So yielding at a red light for a cyclist and turning right on red for a motorist are NOT the same, due to the differences in speed for the two vehicles (slow vs zero) and the fact that there is more information for the cyclist to process in the case of a straight or left turn.
Many major traffic law changes are about compromise.
That's great, but really, no compromise is needed here. You don't want to lose momentum. That's the gist of why you like this law. There is no need to compromise to fulfill your (or anyone else's) whim in this regard.

----------------------------
and that moving trucks won't kill anyone in the name of trying to discredit this law.
Amongst the rest of your weird, masturbatory monologue, I felt this needed to be addressed. I took issue with this quote from you:
A truck will likely kill someone [if they treat a stop sign as a yield -- aliquot]
Then, when commenting, I put the emphasis on the wrong word. My objection is that you're saying that a truck will LIKELY kill someone if they're allowed to yield instead of stop.

Likely.

As in, more than half. If trucks were allowed to yield instead of stop.

That is why I said you were talking completely out of your ass. Trucks follow yield signs all the time, and I'm pretty sure there's a less than 50% fatality rate for them doing so.

[scr4]

But most American cities do not seem to be built for bicycles. I know my commute to work is way too long for me to bicycle daily. The drive to the grocery store is only about four miles; I guess I could cycle there, but in Texas summer I'd prefer not.
I know, America has a vicious cycle of automobile dependency going on: cities are decentralized, with buildings separated by enormous parking lots, because most people use cars. And most people use cars because the cities are so decentralized. Nobody builds infrastructure for bicycles because so few people ride bicycles.

The problem needs to be addressed from all directions. I feel I am doing my part by choosing to live close to work, and using a bicycle to commute. (Of course I should probably be doing some actual advocacy work as well, but at least I contribute to such organizations...)

And while bicycles are fueled by leg power rather than gasoline, they are not pollution free vehicles: they're just as close as you can get if you aren't actually riding a horse.
OK, true. But if you go that far, even riding a horse or walking produce some pollution. Humans and horses need food, and farms uses fertilizers and diesel-powered equipment.

Cycling should be encouraged, but city infrastructure as it is now is built for cars, which have numerous pluses over bicycles even beyond the sweat factor. Otherwise they wouldn't be near so popular.
Sure, but I think a lot of Americans are too eager to ignore the minuses. 40,000 human lives sacrificed every year, for example - that's the price of this convenience. Decentralized cities with no downtown area where people can walk through and interact. Elderly people forced to move into retirement homes because they can't drive, and can't live alone without a car. People drinking and driving, because driving is the only way to get to a bar. Parents who have to spend afternoons acting as chauffeurs because their children can't get anywhere without a car. We have to allow 16-year olds to drive because otherwise they can't get anywhere on their own! And I won't even get into the dependence on foreign oil, and the political consequences of that. Maybe you think the convenience offered by cars is worth all this price, but I don't.

[Lute Skywatcher]

People drinking and driving, because driving is the only way to get to a bar.Drinking & cycling is virtually impossible. Getting drunks to balance on two feet is hard enough, can you imagine them trying to balance on two wheels?
:)

[Mr. Miskatonic]

No? Then what's this, from post 236?

Right there, you say there's evidence that shows that the law is NOT unsafe. Obviously, you do not have said evidence. That makes you a liar.


No, it means I'm countering the claims made by you with what evidence I have. You were proposing it was unsafe, I countered with the Idaho law as evidence. While I don't have any complete and total evidence of total safety, I certainly haven't heard a panic for repeal in Idaho. You might not like that, but it is evidence.


Because, genius, this is a thread about cyclists, not drivers. Start a thread about how much you hate right on red laws, and maybe I'll show up.

Still, I'll not be accused of dodging, so here's my quick-and-dirty take. Cars are legally obligated to come to a complete stop at red lights. This is the first difference between right on red and your California Stop law, where bikes must merely slow.

No. NO. NO! Bike must stop at red lights! Period! Read the law!


Cars can never, barring a signal malfunction, proceed straight or left through a red light, whereas your bikes can, by your law. This means that, while at a stop, a car must gauge traffic oncoming from her left and, perhaps, turning from opposite her (i.e., if the intersection is a + and she's at the bottom, there can be traffic from the left side of the +, maybe from the top of the +, and perhaps both, if the people at the top of the + don't have a protected turn). Alternatively, there may be pedestrians she will have to watch out for before turning. Note that the pedestrians will likely not occur at the same time as the car traffic, because if they're allowed to cross, her light is green and the issue is moot.

Now contrast with cyclists. They're not obligated to stop, so they're still moving.


WRONG! The bike *must* stop at the red light!


If they're turning right, the have the same exact things to look out for as a car turning right on red. If they're going straight, they also have to look out for pedestrians crossing the top of the +, as well as traffic from both left and right. And if they're turning left, they have to watch out for car traffic from both left and right, turning traffic from the top, and pedestrians crossing the left of the +.


Which is certainly not hard, WHEN STOPPED!


Both the straight through a red light and the left through a red light require more information for a cyclist to process than a right turn on red does for a motorist. Add on top of that that a cyclist needn't stop, only slow, and it seems the potential for incidents is much greater than for a right turn on red for a stopped vehicle.


Again! WRONG! The law STILL REQUIRES THEM TO STOP. I've posted the law, I've repeated this again and again. Are you trolling or are you always this stupid?


So yielding at a red light for a cyclist and turning right on red for a motorist are NOT the same, due to the differences in speed for the two vehicles (slow vs zero) and the fact that there is more information for the cyclist to process in the case of a straight or left turn.


Nice analysis. Shame its based completely on your ignorance of the proposed law and thus completely irrelevant. Shall I repost the law? Or will you just ignore it again?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Just for clarification why do they call it a "California Stop"? I mean, why is it named after the largest auto market in the world, where state emissions standards automatically become national emissions standards because automakers won't build cars that don't meet them?

Just kidding. I already know. In my neighborhood there is a street with three 4-way stop signs set 1/10th of a mile apart. I have never seen a car come to a full and complete stop at all three of them in a row. Not even the car I happen to be driving.

/puts flamethrower away, whistles nonchalantly

:D

[scr4]

Drinking & cycling is virtually impossible. Getting drunks to balance on two feet is hard enough, can you imagine them trying to balance on two wheels?
:)
I was speaking more broadly about the cost of dependence on automobiles; obviously not all of them can be solved by bicycles alone. Drinking and cycling should be illegal, and it is.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Drinking & cycling is virtually impossible. Getting drunks to balance on two feet is hard enough, can you imagine them trying to balance on two wheels?
:)

It happens, though. Don't ask me how. Look up Cycling Under the Influence. :)

Its fresh roasted Darwin Award on a stick with cheese fries, though.

[ForumBot]

Drinking & cycling is virtually impossible. Getting drunks to balance on two feet is hard enough, can you imagine them trying to balance on two wheels?
I can tell you with much assurance that it is, indeed, quite possible.

I, uh...I know a guy.

[Lute Skywatcher]

It happens, though. Don't ask me how. Look up Cycling Under the Influence. :)

Its fresh roasted Darwin Award on a stick with cheese fries, though.Thank you for acknowledging the levity.

[Gestalt]

That's not what I mean at all. Bicyclists are a small fraction of the traveling population. Bicyclists should definitely be allowed to use them for transportation, where their use does not interfere with the safety or needs of the greater portion of the population (the drivers on a busy road.) As long as you can ride without creating an unsafe situation in the form of snarled traffic, hey, ride all you want.

Ogre , what about buses? They're also a small fraction of vehicles on the road, carrying a small fraction of commuters, and make life less safe with their slow speeds and large turning radii. Should they have their own special routes? What about very small cars? What about SUVs? Each of these groups comprises less than a majority of drivers, and has a unique design which inconveniences other drivers and makes the roads less safe than if we all traveled with a uniform four-door sedan. So who should be allowed on the road?

Gestalt

[aliquot]

No, it means I'm countering the claims made by you with what evidence I have. You were proposing it was unsafe, I countered with the Idaho law as evidence. While I don't have any complete and total evidence of total safety, I certainly haven't heard a panic for repeal in Idaho. You might not like that, but it is evidence.
I am proposing it is unsafe. You said that there is evidence that it is NOT unsafe. And your evidence is that there is a law?? How on earth is that evidence? It's evidence of the fact that there is a law in Idaho. It is absolutely not evidence about the law's safety ramifications.
Nice analysis. Shame its based completely on your ignorance of the proposed law and thus completely irrelevant. Shall I repost the law? Or will you just ignore it again?
You are correct, and I was wrong. In reading the proposed Oregon law, I managed to miss the word "flashing." My mistake.

That said, I'm still opposed to anyone -- drivers, cyclists, pedestrians -- being legally allowed to cross traffic at a red light. Accidents can happen, accidents will happen, and your justification for allowing it (conservation of momentum) clearly does not apply if you have to come to a complete stop. Why not wait for a green light, as long as you have to stop anyway?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

You are correct, and I was wrong. In reading the proposed Oregon law, I managed to miss the word "flashing." My mistake.

That said, I'm still opposed to anyone -- drivers, cyclists, pedestrians -- being legally allowed to cross traffic at a red light. Accidents can happen, accidents will happen, and your justification for allowing it (conservation of momentum) clearly does not apply if you have to come to a complete stop. Why not wait for a green light, as long as you have to stop anyway?

OK, this is a much more reasonable arguement than your previous attacks, so I will answer it.

And the answer to your question of 'why not wait' is that, really under about 70-80% of circumstances, a cyclists probably should wait. However, under certain circumstances the option should be available. Some examples would be:

1) The 'car on my right' incident I decsribed earlier in the thread. (rare, but far more common than I'd like)

2) Extreme cold, where stopping and waiting for a long cycle light can be potentially hazardous. (rare for some cyclists, but not for ones who must ride in the cold). Other weather conditions may result in this law being useful.

3) Bad Neighborhoods. Do I need to elaborate?

4) Bus duels. No fun for anyone, especially the its a chance to break the pattern.

Once again, let me re-iterate that I do not fully support this law. I am considering its merits, and I think an automatic rejection of it is a poor way of thinking.

[aliquot]

Once again, let me re-iterate that I do not fully support this law. I am considering its merits, and I think an automatic rejection of it is a poor way of thinking.
See, I think you should have to justify a new law with downsides, not think up reasons not to pass it.

[scr4]

And the answer to your question of 'why not wait' is that, really under about 70-80% of circumstances, a cyclists probably should wait. However, under certain circumstances the option should be available. Some examples would be:

1) The 'car on my right' incident I decsribed earlier in the thread. (rare, but far more common than I'd like)
I guess I missed it, and can't find it - please explain again or point to it.

2) Extreme cold, where stopping and waiting for a long cycle light can be potentially hazardous. (rare for some cyclists, but not for ones who must ride in the cold). Other weather conditions may result in this law being useful.
Uncomfortable, yes, but I wouldn't call that hazardous.

3) Bad Neighborhoods. Do I need to elaborate?
Yes. Are you saying someone may take a random shot at you, or what? Isn't that a risk in a car as well?

4) Bus duels. No fun for anyone, especially the its a chance to break the pattern.
What does that mean?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I guess I missed it, and can't find it - please explain again or point to it.


Post 103


Uncomfortable, yes, but I wouldn't call that hazardous.


It can be, sub-freezing weather when your sweat starts to condense is bad mojo.


Yes. Are you saying someone may take a random shot at you, or what? Isn't that a risk in a car as well?


C'mon scr4, a bike is a much easier target to rob/steal from. Cars may be at some risk, but they do have door locks. By comparison, I have been knocked over at intersections (years ago) for the giggle. I suppose it could happen anywhere... :rolleyes:


What does that mean?

Long story, common to urban riders when there are bike lanes and public transit. It is very, very unpleasant. Not dangerous, per se, but really unpleasant.

[scr4]

Post 103
What, this?
Just yesterday I had to jump a red light. I didn't want to, but I was waiting legally in left-center of the lane. What happened? A car pulled up on my right and all indications were that he was not turning right. He just decided he didn't want to wait behind a cyclist and was trying to pass on the right to get by me.
I'm curious what "indications" you're talking about; I've had cars pull up to my right many times, and it's always been because the car is turning right.

And if it turns out the car really wants to pass you on the right, and you are aware of that intent, what danger is there in letting it pass? Yes, you can probably beat the car through the intersection, but you don't have to. Of course the car is clearly making an illegal move, but IMHO it's completely unacceptable to respond by breaking the law yourself.

[Miller]

Just for clarification why do they call it a "California Stop"? I mean, why is it named after the largest auto market in the world, where state emissions standards automatically become national emissions standards because automakers won't build cars that don't meet them?

Just kidding. I already know. In my neighborhood there is a street with three 4-way stop signs set 1/10th of a mile apart. I have never seen a car come to a full and complete stop at all three of them in a row. Not even the car I happen to be driving.

FTR, in California, we call it a Hollywood Stop.

I don't know what they call it in Hollywood.

[ForumBot]

We call it a Canadian stop.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

What, this?

I'm curious what "indications" you're talking about; I've had cars pull up to my right many times, and it's always been because the car is turning right.


And I've had cars pull up on my right because they think they can pull around the cyclist/other cars and get ahead of everybody. Its not just cyclists that they do this to, I've seen impatient drivers pull this stunt around other cars.

As for the 'indications', well, the lack of a turn signal, the tires and sometimes body of the vehicle turned left, and the complete lack of turning right on red at the intersection despite a clear view of the cross street with no traffic.


And if it turns out the car really wants to pass you on the right, and you are aware of that intent, what danger is there in letting it pass? Yes, you can probably beat the car through the intersection, but you don't have to. Of course the car is clearly making an illegal move, but IMHO it's completely unacceptable to respond by breaking the law yourself.

It results in a squeeze play. Maybe I'm describing this poorly but it results in a squeeze play. That is no fun. I will not be part of that. If the price is a rare red-light run across a barren street, I will just have to put up with your contempt.

[scr4]

It results in a squeeze play. Maybe I'm describing this poorly but it results in a squeeze play. That is no fun. I will not be part of that. If the price is a rare red-light run across a barren street, I will just have to put up with your contempt.
If the car is to your right, the car has a clear path into the intersection without hitting you. It only results in a "squeeze play" if you try to beat the car through the intersection. Sorry, you've got no excuse to run the red light - two wrongs don't make a right.

[aliquot]

1) The 'car on my right' incident I decsribed earlier in the thread. (rare, but far more common than I'd like)
I'll let scr4 continue to handle this one.
2) Extreme cold, where stopping and waiting for a long cycle light can be potentially hazardous. (rare for some cyclists, but not for ones who must ride in the cold). Other weather conditions may result in this law being useful.
I know you're not gonna want to hear this, but if it's cold to the point of being hazardous, maybe you shouldn't be cycling in that weather. You're still going to have to stop at red lights if there's traffic, after all. Besides, if it's snowy, stop signs can suck for a car, so I'd much rather just coast through them. But if I did that and got stopped for it, and tried to tell a cop that it'd be hazardous to stop, he'd tell me that if it's so hazardous out, I shouldn't be driving. And he'd be right.
3) Bad Neighborhoods. Do I need to elaborate?
If you're that worried about it, jump the red. At worst, the cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, but at least the cop prevents you from getting the bike stolen. And, as before, perhaps you should find an alternate route if this is an issue -- good advice, regardless of whether your new law passes or not.
4) Bus duels. No fun for anyone, especially the its a chance to break the pattern.
Not quite sure what this is. Around here, vehicles are obligated to yield to a bus, but I understand that's not the case everywhere. Still, why you'd want to duel with a bus that is so much more humongous than you and may not see you is beyond me. Also, you'll have to explain to me how running a red light avoids this problem.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

If the car is to your right, the car has a clear path into the intersection without hitting you.

But he doesn't! The 'clear path' is at least partially through me. His car is not past me, and if he doesn't go through me he hits the parking lane on the other side! Guess which he will pick!

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I'll let scr4 continue to handle this one.

I know you're not gonna want to hear this, but if it's cold to the point of being hazardous, maybe you shouldn't be cycling in that weather. You're still going to have to stop at red lights if there's traffic, after all. Besides, if it's snowy, stop signs can suck for a car, so I'd much rather just coast through them. But if I did that and got stopped for it, and tried to tell a cop that it'd be hazardous to stop, he'd tell me that if it's so hazardous out, I shouldn't be driving. And he'd be right.


I'm sorry, but if you cannot stop a car at stop signs in the snow that's just poor driving skills or driving too fast for conditions. So the comparison seems a bit silly to me. In my case I might have to deal with a sudden drop in temperature where my clothes are suddenly insufficient, or it may be a case where I was happily pacing out lights (ie. riding at a speed to hit the green) and a long cycle light is out of sync. I don't usually have this problem but I can see where the law could be useful now and then.


If you're that worried about it, jump the red. At worst, the cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, but at least the cop prevents you from getting the bike stolen. And, as before, perhaps you should find an alternate route if this is an issue -- good advice, regardless of whether your new law passes or not.


Again with the magical 'alternate route'. Where are these alternate routes? Restrictions on what bridge I can use to cross the river have pretty much left me with this road or the other one. neither of which avoid the bad neighborhood, the other one is slower, longer and more dangerous. Thanks for the advice aliquot!


Not quite sure what this is. Around here, vehicles are obligated to yield to a bus, but I understand that's not the case everywhere. Still, why you'd want to duel with a bus that is so much more humongous than you and may not see you is beyond me. Also, you'll have to explain to me how running a red light avoids this problem.

*sigh*

Alright. Here we go. I'll explain what this is:

A long, straight road, divided, with 2 lanes either way. There is a bike lane, and a light at every corner, even ones that don't make a lot of sense (one crossroad goes to dead ends in either direction). Normally this road is easy to use, and pretty easy to pace out the lights on. But sometimes there is a bus.

Now the bus has the right of way. Fine and dandy. The bus pulls hard over to the curb and blocks the bike lane (as well as the right car lane). This makes good sense, actually, as the driver does not want rogue cyclists whizzing past the passengers as they exit. Also fine and dandy. But what happens is that you can either maneuver around the left side of the bus and get in the bike lane or wait behind the bus while its diesel exhaust blowing right in your face.

Now the problem is that the bus does this little maneuver at every intersection, even at ones where it is not dropping off passengers. Now buses start slowly, but they kick in the speed sufficient to pass cyclists pretty fast.

So, at every block you start out with the bus ahead of you, or you ahead of the bus (if you can go around its left side). The street is long enough so that the bus has time to get up speed and pull ahead of the cyclist pretty much every time, so you are again faced with the bus butt waiting for you at the light. If you are really fast, you might just get to the red light when the bus does so it can merge on top of you! Fun!

This can go on for blocks. Up to 10-20 blocks. With other fun like missing a green light because you decided to wait behind the bus instead of going around the side because there's no room to even squeeze past cars and the bus had to let on/off more than a few passengers. Delays to the bus mean that you cannot even drop back and let to bus get ahead of you because even the slowest cyclist could catch up to the bus, and you're not the only one using the bike lane y'know.

The bus duel (a misnomer, to be sure) can have its cycle broken by the following:

1) The bus reaches a corner where nobody gets off and a brief moment of unmalice the driver does not block the bike lane. You reach the light as it turns green and with a decent start you manage to pull ahead.

2) Some cars get in front of the bus and keep it from reaching the corner to let off passengers before you reach there yourself. You get to the light, wait for green, and go. The bus has to stop at the corner and you manage to get some distance ahead of it. it rarely can catch up to you.

3) If you want to break the law, you can go around the left side of the bus and go through the red light. This can give you enough of a head start to make the next light ahead of the bus.

And that is what I am referring to as a 'bus duel'. As mentioned, its a misnomer since there's no real duel.

[1010011010]

Or at least articulate the REAL reasons you are pitting a cyclist for doing that.All else being equal in a collision, I am more likely to kill or seriously injure a cyclist who has run a stop sign than someone in a car who has run a stop sign. Also, I don't believe it's particularly common for cyclists to have liability insurance in case they are at fault in a collision.

It should be understandable that people have a stronger reaction to vehicular homicide vs. a fender bender.

[1010011010]

Drinking & cycling is virtually impossible. Getting drunks to balance on two feet is hard enough, can you imagine them trying to balance on two wheels?They're gyroscopically stabilized once they get going...

[aliquot]

I'm sorry, but if you cannot stop a car at stop signs in the snow that's just poor driving skills or driving too fast for conditions.
And if a cyclist cannot ride without freezing to death, that's just poor judgment.
In my case I might have to deal with a sudden drop in temperature where my clothes are suddenly insufficient, or it may be a case where I was happily pacing out lights (ie. riding at a speed to hit the green) and a long cycle light is out of sync.
Well, rather than the "jump red lights" law to solve this problem -- which doesn't solve any problems if there's cross traffic at a red light intersection -- let's pass a "bring a sweatshirt" law. You're not legally obliged to wear it, but you are legally obliged to carry it in case there is a hazardous, sudden drop in temperature.
Again with the magical 'alternate route'. Where are these alternate routes? Restrictions on what bridge I can use to cross the river have pretty much left me with this road or the other one. neither of which avoid the bad neighborhood, the other one is slower, longer and more dangerous. Thanks for the advice aliquot!
Look, asshole, I'm not Mapquest, and I'm not a fucking mindreader. YOU said "Bad Neighborhoods. Do I need to elaborate?" Not "Bad neighborhoods that cannot be avoided due to bridge constraints." I don't see how a law that allows jumping red lights anywhere, regardless of whether you're in the city's equivalent of Baghdad or the city's equivalent of Beverly Hills, is necessary for your very, very specific situation. It seems like a great deal of overkill to me. If you can't take an alternate route, or drive, or take a bus or metro or subway, then jump the red light if you feel threatened. On the off, off, off chance that a cop decides to flag you down and ticket you, isn't that still better than getting jumped?

Regarding the "bus duel" stuff, two thoughts -- one, how about waiting, you know, 15 feet behind the bus instead of 3 inches? Sort of avoids that diesel smell. Second, I don't see how jumping a red light is really going to help, except in the rare cases where the bus is first in line at the light, since you said it's fairly easy for a bus to gain enough speed to pass a cyclist.

But the easy answer is just wait behind the bus. Cars have to do it all the time on one lane roads. C'est la vie.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Regarding the "bus duel" stuff, two thoughts -- one, how about waiting, you know, 15 feet behind the bus instead of 3 inches? Sort of avoids that diesel smell.


Gee. Thanks. Want to put that in a file marked 'shit I already know'? Maybe next your could tell me that should turn the pedals to make the bike go. :rolleyes: Between that and your 'find another route' suggestions you're a real prize.


Second, I don't see how jumping a red light is really going to help, except in the rare cases where the bus is first in line at the light, since you said it's fairly easy for a bus to gain enough speed to pass a cyclist.


The bus is first at the light, or only one or two cars back at most. All I will say is that when I see rogue cyclists going through the light I usually don't see them stuck behind the bus again.

[saoirse]

When I jump reds it's to help out the cars behind me, so they don't have to pass on the right. The first 10 feet from a full stop are when the bike is most unoredictable to a casual observer. Once I get up to speed, and am gyroscopically stabilized, passing is easy.

It is illegal, but I've never seen it enforced on a bicycle. Much like CWI, one would have to cause some sort of problem (besides making aliquot insane with rage over the injustice of it all) in order to get cited.

[aliquot]

Gee. Thanks. Want to put that in a file marked 'shit I already know'? Maybe next your could tell me that should turn the pedals to make the bike go. :rolleyes: Between that and your 'find another route' suggestions you're a real prize.
If it's shit you already know, then tell me again why you think it's justification to be able to jump a red light? There's no danger here, boss, just an inconvenience.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

If it's shit you already know, then tell me again why you think it's justification to be able to jump a red light? There's no danger here, boss, just an inconvenience.

Hey, I'm just saying the world wouldn't end if crossing a red light when there is zero cross traffic, is all. You insist in getting your panties in a twist over it.

[aliquot]

You insist in getting your panties in a twist over it.
Right, I'm so insistent about the issue. I just won't let these dumb reasons drop without comment! How dare I?? What's more, I'm just talking to myself here. Post after post of just me. That's why I have 62 posts in this thread, and you only have 14.

Er.

Hmm.

I might have those numbers backwards.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Right, I'm so insistent about the issue. I just won't let these dumb reasons drop without comment! How dare I?? What's more, I'm just talking to myself here. Post after post of just me. That's why I have 62 posts in this thread, and you only have 14.

Er.

Hmm.

I might have those numbers backwards.

Pot, Kettle. Black. You've been dragging this thing out far after its expiration date. This whole stops/lights was one minor consideration over several other important bike improvement points I was making, points that you otherwise managed to ignore in order to harp hysterical about how the lazy cyclists were gonna slam into everyone. Give it a rest.

[aliquot]

You've been dragging this thing out far after its expiration date.
As I said above, I'm not the only one posting here. It takes two to tango, pal.
This whole stops/lights was one minor consideration
Dumb is dumb, no matter how minor it is. If A Brief History of Time had a paragraph about how the brightest star in the sky is Polaris, that'd be wrong and dumb, no matter how great the rest of the book is.
over several other important bike improvement points I was making, points that you otherwise managed to ignore
Or, perhaps, points I didn't have a problem with, because they were less dumb. Are you so fragile that you need every comment you post approved?
in order to harp hysterical about how the lazy cyclists were gonna slam into everyone.
Well, that's one read. Another is that I called bullshit when you said you have evidence the law isn't unsafe. Evidence being said law itself, somehow. Whether that makes me hysterical or not... again, I can only note that you have 4x the amount of posts in this thread than I do. Seems like if anyone's gonna win the crown for "Guy who should let this drop," it'd be you, bud.

[saoirse]

If it's shit you already know, then tell me again why you think it's justification to be able to jump a red light? There's no danger here, boss, just an inconvenience.

When you roll a stop sign and cross a street that obviously has no traffic either way, you are figuring on two things: First, that it's not hurting anyone, and second, that it is barely enforced by the police. You don't jump a red light in a car because that rule is strictly enforced by the police, even though it's no more dangerous if the street is clear. For a cyclist, that particular law is only enforced when it creates a safety issue, much like going five miles an hour over the speed limit for cars.

If you never roll stop signs or exceed the speed limit by a small amount, then I salute you, and have nothing else to say.

[Quint]

As for license plates on bikes, could you please answer one question for me: Where is it going to go?
Where I live bike couriers have plates. They are placed on the seat post facing backwards and are quite visible.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Where I live bike couriers have plates. They are placed on the seat post facing backwards and are quite visible.

That's nice. Now where is my detachable fender and rear light going to go?

[Fear Itself]

Now where is my detachable fender and rear light going to go?Now ya see, when you lob a big ol' softball like that up in the air, you really can't get too steamed when somebody smacks it over the fence...

...somebody...anybody???

[Quint]

That's nice. Now where is my detachable fender and rear light going to go?
Aaah well, as usual you are right. Your detachable fender and rear light are the insurmountable obstacles to licensing bikes. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Aaah well, as usual you are right. Your detachable fender and rear light are the insurmountable obstacles to licensing bikes. :rolleyes:

I'm not hearing any solutions. I'm also not hearing any real benefits.

[TheLoadedDog]

By comparison, I have been knocked over at intersections (years ago) for the giggle.

Maybe they recognised you. :cool:

[Denis]

Perhaps to make this thread even more combative, we should discuss the merits of declawing cyclists. And the racial sensitivity of their foreskins. Or lack thereof.