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

The BBQ Pit
221

Yes, and that’s the positive end of things. Now if you’ll forgive me scr4, I am going to add to this commentary by you.

Now, when I see someone propose L&R for bikes, I most often think its just an excuse to reduce the number bikes off the road. But, it does get proposed by some folks who don’t feel this way, but is merely an example of people who have not thought things through on what they consider to be a ‘good idea’.

Benefits

First of all, how does the cyclist benefit from biking L&R? With car license, there is a very real benefit. Cars are dangerous and thousands die from their usage every year. Licensing is a first line of defense to ensure that the potential driver has at least memorized part of the drivers’ manual and can operate a car to some degree. It is obviously not foolproof, but think how much fun the roads would be if the constant failures were allowed on it.

Now by comparison, my ‘fellow cyclist’ at his worst is rarely a threat to me. The worst condition I encounter is cyclists going the wrong way, and they are not the type of rider who is going to bother with getting L&R. Which leads us to:

Enforcement: OK, who is going to enforce this L&R? The cops don’t want to be bothered with this shit, and the DMVs in most states really don’t want the added bureaucracy hassle. This means you now have a biking requirement that nobody really benefits from, and nobody wants to take the time to enforce. This is reality, and it is what happens whenever some crank politician brings up a stupid law like bike L&R.

So without enforcement, what happens?

Rogue Cyclists Seriously folks. Do you think the wrong way rider, the crazy bike courier, the red light blower are going to bother with that L&R shit. The only way they might is if you have 100% enforcement, which as mentioned above the police don’t really want to deal with, and is pretty much a waste of their time.

So what happens? L&R punishes the law-abiding cyclists. Nothing more. It doesn’t stop any bad behavior, it just makes it harder for law-abiding cyclists. Way to go folks.

Unintended Consequences

But let’s say you live in fantasyland were all the police have time to enforce this L&R on cyclists. Unless you stop cyclists and check their paperwork, the only way to know is by some marking system on the bikes. bad idea. I don’t know about other cyclists on this thread but the only place for a plate would be where my lights have to go. So now I must choose between two laws. Brilliant.

But let’s say I have some way of getting the plate on. Here’s a little fun: Do you know what the laws pertaining to cyclists are in your state? If you do (and you probably only think you know them) you are pretty rare. The fact is even many cops don’t know them, let alone drivers. So now you’ve got a bunch of car driving crimestopper wannabees calling the police to let them know that plate ARM-1222 is ‘riding in the street’. Don’t tell me it won’t happen.

222

I agree. But you must admit that we are in the minority on that interpetation of the law. Most folks just read the ‘as right as practical’ and assume that means ‘hug that curb’. People who even should have known better.

223

Most people don’t find it prohibitively inconvenient to register and insure their cars, and I think L&R for bikes would go a long way toward getting the general public to recognize them as vehicles and treat them accordingly.
As it is, any moron can climb on his 20 year old Huffy and wobble around the roads, with no tags, identification, liability (how can you be liable if you can’t see someone’s license plate for identification when they clip you and ride off), or ability to pass even a simple test? I’ve been stopped at lights several times when a bike has just crashed into my car and ridden off, without even stopping or apologizing, and I’ve nearly been run down by bikes numerous times while walking to work. I don’t see how licensing bikes and making the dangerous cyclists accountable for their behavior can do anything but help cycling in the long run.

The people who can’t be bothered to register their bikes are exactly the people who shouldn’t be driving them on the road, and I don’t see how it’s going to overburden police to ticket people they see driving unlicensed bikes- they certainly have no problem doing it for cars.

You guys are treating the idea of having cyclists do something that every single driver in this country has to do as a punitive measure.
As far as stopping, you never really explained why you want to change the laws so bikes don’t have to stop, when the thing most non-cyclists appear to be concerned about in this thread is cyclists not stopping at lights and signs. It’s incredibly dangerous for anyoneto just blow through intersections, no matter how good they think their visibility is. So what if you’re not going to kill anyone? Motorists don’t want to kill you, either, which is what’s going to happen. Most of the cyclists I see around here aren’t wearing helmets, aren’t obeying traffic laws, and aren’t cycling safely. Is it any wonder why pedestrians and motorists complain about them?

224

Not really punitive measure; more of a restriction. Do we as a society want to put additional restrictions on bicycle usage, or do we want it to be the free alternative for everyone?

It’s reasonable to put severe restrictions on car usage; after all, car accidents kill over 40,000 people every year just in the US, and in many cases the victim is not the driver at fault. It’s hard to find number of fatalities caused by cyclists, but I’ve only heard of one or two cases where a cyclist caused someone else’s death.

I’d be more than happy to support measures that promote safe, lawful cycling. Cycling education in public schools would be a good start. More aggressive enforcement by the police would help too. But we have to balance them against the society’s other interests, such as the environment and traffic congestion. Requiring license/registration would discourage people who would otherwise use bicycles for some errands and commuting, and result in even more cars on the road.

Actually I may agree with licensing with these conditions: if having a driver’s license exempts you from needing a bicycle license (after all, you need to know the exact same traffic laws to get the driver’s license), and if some kind of exemption can be made for children riding on sidewalks. Would that be a reasonable compromise? I don’t think registration serves any purpose though.

For the record, that was not me, and I do not share that view. The only time I’d ride through a red light is if I know the sensor is not picking me up, and there’s no traffic within sight on both roads.

225

Sure they are. It’s done in the form of their license being suspended/revoked.

226

I think she’s referring to drivers who are behaving legally, but nevertheless create “dangerous” situations that wouldn’t have existed if that driver had used another mode of transport. Just being on a busy road during rush hours, for example. Or stopping in the middle of the road and waiting for a chance to make a left turn. These are analogous to bicyclists taking the lane - they are legal and often necessary* but still require others to respond to the situation to avoid accidents.

(*Necessary in order to get from point A to point B using that particular type of vehicle.)

227

So your argument is entirely circular, then?

Roads are unsafe for bicycles, which is as things should be, since they were and continue to be designed for automobiles.

I can tell that roads were and continue to be designed for automobiles based on the fact that they continue to be unsafe for bicycles.

Am I missing something?

If I may clarify my point, since I suspect I am the cyclist you originally refer to:

According to the Highway Traffic Act in my jurisdiction, cyclists count as vehicles, and should act (and be treated) as such. As a cyclist I try to do this as much as possible. However, sometimes I encounter situations where the act that I am legally supposed to do (according to the HTA) is actually quite unsafe. This is because the people who designed the roads were not thinking about accommodating all vehicles (designated as such by the HTA), and so some vehicles are not accommodated by road designers.

I would also like to see a cite that roads are built for cars. I expect many roads were built before cars were a consideration.

I know that many of the roads in Toronto were built for streetcars (I can tell by the tracks built right into them). Does that mean, according to your logic, that people using other forms of transportation (e.g. automobiles) should have to tolerate constant threats to their life and safety if they want to use the roads?

Finally, it would be very nice to believe that all actions by cyclists would be

(a) safe
(b) legal
(c) not going to piss off car drivers

Although this is usually the case, it is certainly not always. And if I have to choose to drop one consideration, it’s not hard for me to figure out which one to drop.

228

In which case drivers are asked to take a different road.

Nothing inherently dangerous about that. The problem is the idiot approaching from behind and not paying attention, behavior which can lead to a license being suspended/revoked.

229

I yell at these people all the time. The people during rush hour who aren’t paying attention and are exacerbating a bad situation. The people who wait for a left turn opening a mile long. Hell, I yell at people doing 5 under the speed limit.

The difference is you don’t have these “legal but annoying” drivers start threads on here saying, “I got yelled at today by another driver, therefore, I think I’m entitled to be able to treat stop signs as yield signs* and I think licensing and registration should be optional for me.” You DO see that sort of logic with cyclists – that, somehow, getting shat upon by other travelers gives them some sort of karmic right to some privilege. The fact is that car drivers often behave shittily towards cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians, cyclists also often behave shittily towards everyone else out there, and so do pedestrians. None of this shitty behavior entitles anyone to anything special.

  • I know you’re not advocating this, scr4, and I do appreciate that you stop at red lights/stop signs.

I’d go with a “vehicle” license (i.e., cars and non-motorized bikes) if there were more emphasis put on bike laws on the test. There’s a token question here or there, but I don’t think it’s enough to qualify me as an expert on car-bike interactions. Change the test, and I’d be OK with that, though. Also, I’d even expand the exemption for children (under 15) – if you’re on residential streets and are wearing a helmet, you’re fine. Finally, if registration provides some sort of license plate/sticker that can be placed on a bike, it serves a purpose. A police officer can stop anyone over 15 on a bike without one, and cite them for cycling without permission. Add in some heavy penalties – such as cycle confiscation – and you’ll soon see every cyclist licensed. Improve the driver’s test, as mentioned above, and I think that’ll greatly improve the situation.

230

Exactly. Just like cyclists taking the lane - the problem is not the cyclist, it’s the idiot approaching from behind and not paying any attention.

But there aren’t any “bike laws,” just traffic laws which all vehicles (including bicycles) obey. Well OK, there are a few additional restrictions on where bicycles can go, but there’s nothing special about car-bike interactions. Right of way depends on where the vehicles are and when they got there; it doesn’t depend on the type of vehicle.

231

scr4 has already pointed out that this was not the issue he brought up.

And furthermore, you have obviously not read the law as proposed. Its says nothing about bikes not stopping. It is an effort to minimize stopping by reducing stoppage and standing in places where it is not unsafe. The law clearly stated to treat stop signs as yields (which means if anything else is around, you stop.) and can treat stop lights as non-all- way stop signs (which means you stop!)

Here, let me quote the relevant part of the proposed Oregon law:

Now before everyone screams ‘bloodbath!’ please note that a similar law is in place in Idaho and there has been no murderfest of pedestrians, or gross increase of dead cyclists in Boise.

232

What the hell are you talking about? Bikes have to use hand signals, cars do not. “Use hand signals” is not a vehicle law; it’s a bike law. Bikes aren’t allowed on highways. That’s a bike law, not a vehicle law. Cyclists in many states have to wear helmets. That’s a bike law, not a vehicle law. Clearly, there are bike laws.

And for the last fucking time, Mr. Miskatonic, answer this question: WHY should cyclists be allowed to treat stop signs like yield signs? Seemingly every time this question is raised, you dodge it by saying, “I didn’t say they should blow right through them, I said they should treat them like yield signs.” Great. Now tell us why. Because, Idaho notwithstanding, it sounds like a stupid idea – at worst, it WILL lead to greater incidents (near misses and dings), if not necessarily a sharp rise in deaths, and at best the same logic could be applied to a great variety of vehicles.

So please, enlighten us. Because the best I can guess is cyclists are, counterintuitively, lazy and don’t want to have to stop and start.

233

:dubious:

Several times? Where the hell are you stopping? Sorry, I don’t buy it without a clarification.

234

I believe both are required to signal turns. If your vehicle has functional turn signal lights, you can use them. Otherwise you have to use hand signals.

Yes, I already said that, and there are other signs that only appeal to certain vehicles (e.g. “trucks use right lane” signs). If you want to call those “bike laws” and 'truck laws" then I suppose you’re right.

So do you think someone who has passed the driver’s license test has insufficient knowledge of “bicycle laws” to operate a bicycle safely?

I don’t believe any US state currently has helmet laws.

235

Yeah, because car drivers never do that, what with licensing and all ending it.
Once, I hit a car (it was more like a mutual hitting on his part) and that driver took off so damn fast. People around me were still asking if I was OK and he was long gone. :rolleyes:

236

Its not my fault you continue to beat up strawmen.

Well first of all, once again you ignore evidence in favor of your prejudices. Again, no bloodbath in Boise. So let’s drop the hyperbole about the incredible danger posed by this law, because it isn’t there.

That merely shows the limits of you guessing abilities. It fails once again to grasp that while bikes are vehicles, they are not motor driven, and so some difference in the source of momentum may be acknowledged by law. Its not laziness to conserve momentum when circumstances are safe to do so, especially in areas of light traffic but multiple stop signs. Cars frequently if not constantly perform what are referred to as ‘California Stops’ at stop signs, and they don’t have the excuse of it being their sweat that move the car. Demanding that bikes do what cars have already refused to do is mostly punitive.

Now, that said, let me ONCE AGAIN let me re-state for aliquots ‘hard-of-reading’ that I do not support this proposed law 100%. I do have problems with it, but not at the invented safety level. My concerns is that it does extend what might be considered and unearned privilege for cyclists and further isolate cyclists from drivers. You want to argue the merits of that, fine! But don’t make up shit about it being unsafe when evidence has shown that this has not been shown to be the case!

237

I think I follow what you are saying here. Just so I am clear,at the end of Option B you end up taking a left and then merging into the bike lane following the all but South traffic correct? For the most part that seems like it makes sense to me. I think I would merge with traffic so I am in the left lane and proceed through that way. I’m not really sure what the problem drivers have with you splitting the South and Any Other Directions lanes are since, if I am reading this correctly, they are turning left and right.

Thanks.

238

Well some states, Wisconsin at least, have separate tests for motorcycle licenses. So obviously some states seem to think that even though I have passed the drivers license test I have insufficient knowledge to ride a motorcycle safely.

This site seems to think you are incorrect. http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

I realize that these are references to motorcycles and this thread is about bicycles but the two do have a fair amount of overlap as to where the dangers come from.

239

You might find this site to be more accurate:

Its mostly mandatory for young’uns.

240

Read this page of the thread again, pal. You never said WHY you were in favor of yielding at stop signs until I asked you for the “last fucking time.” I’ll note that Vihaga made the same observation upthread. So either we’re both “hard-of-reading” or you didn’t make yourself clear until I asked you point blank to do so.

And so your answer is, essentially, that you don’t want to lose momentum. That is a tremendously weak reason, to say the least. If you encountered a stop sign on a downhill slope, reacquiring momentum would be as easy as coasting, and yet I suspect you’d still feel entitled to California Stop your way though a stop sign. Moreover, as I stated before, it is even harder for a semi truck to regain momentum, and yet you think they should come to a full stop, because they’re dangerous. I turn your own rationale upon you: if it’s dangerous (i.e., there’s oncoming traffic), then they have to stop. If there’s no one, then they can California Stop their way though. Moreover, trucks generally have much greater visibility than a bike, enough to make up for the lack of hearing (especially if a cyclist can’t hear shit due to wind rushing through her ears anyway).

Now who’s attacking strawmen? I didn’t say there’d be a “bloodbath,” so shove your own hyperbole somewhere unpleasant. I said there’d be more incidents – near misses, swervings, flippings of the birds, even an occasional minor collision or two. You hold up Boise as a case-in-point, but you only linked to the statute itself, not any sort of article saying, “Everything’s rosy in Boise despite our legalization of California Stops for cyclists.” You made an assertion, and, since we’re not in Great Debates, so you’re not honor-bound to provide a cite or anything. But lacking any sort of evidence to the contrary, I’m inclined to think you’re just making stuff up. For the record, I am too – I have no proof that there will be more “incidents,” it’s just my hunch – but I’m up front in saying that it’s a guess. You are positively asserting that the law has had no increase in anything negative.

See? Right there, you’re saying the law is not unsafe at all, at least in Boise. But where’s this “evidence”?

P.S. Mea culpa about helmet laws – I thought at one point I lived in a state where they were mandatory for all ages. Clearly, I was wrong. My bad.