Yes, you are both idiots. You’ve both been misrepresent the proposed and adopted laws to get in cheap shots.
Entitled? Try again. Its a privilege, at best. You still don’t know where I am coming from.
No, they cannot. The consequences are much greater for a truck incident than for a cyclist incident. One of the major points of the law is that it completely puts the onus of the law on the cyclist using it. A cyclist is likely to got splat on a car if he screws it up. A truck will likely kill someone, which means the onus being on the truck driver will be small comfort to the people killed.
You’ve never actually ridden, have you? Otherwise you would not be saying such stupid things. Any vehicle is going to have limits to its visibility, and the hearing is quite important. The wind at 15-20 mph isn’t deafening and is much less than the sound absorbing ability of glass & metal.
Well then by that logic why don’t we completely eliminate the right-turn-on-red laws for automobiles? I’ve certainly encountered more than a few ‘incidents’ resulting from right-on-red-ers (as a cyclist, a pedestrian, and back when I drove). Or does the potential for ‘incidents’ only count when bicycles are involved?
What the hell have we misinterpreted? All you’ve posted is one actual statute, and another proposed law. I haven’t seen any study about their effects to misinterpret, and, again, you fail to offer up even a shred of data. So what, exactly, have we misrepresented?
I know exactly where you’re coming from. You don’t want to have to stop pedaling if you deem it “safe.” I just don’t acknowledge that your judgment is sufficient.
But you said that no one can roll their way through a stop sign if it’s unsafe. Somehow, cyclists are 100% perfect in their ability to gauge whether or not to roll through a stop sign, but no one else is?
A truck will likely KILL someone if they treat a stop sign as a yield? Now you’re talking COMPLETELY out of your ass.
And, similarly, if I hit a cyclist who is mistaken in rolling through a stop sign, it’s of small comfort to me that it’s his fault that I ran in to someone. Dead or not, I imagine it fucking sucks to hit someone, and I’d rather not have it happen. I’m opposed to laws that make it more likely to happen – and you’ve yet to share your privileged evidence that states that it absolutely will not happen.
Actually, I have, and that’s how I know that wind (in my area at least, Seattle) can be very deafening, on many an autumn day. Even to pedestrians moving at 3 mph, not to mention cyclists slowing to 10 mph to determine if they should yield or stop.
You DO realize, of course, that, in most places I’ve been, you have to come to a complete stop before turning right on red. Don’t you see how that defeats your argument that cyclists should have to come to a complete stop, momentum loss be damned?
Uh, yes. They will. Trucks even at low speeds can be extremely deadly.
Then I assume you also oppose the right turn on red laws.
Then I would get your ears checked. I can hear cars just fine, and my hearing is actually not that great.
As do the cyclists at red lights, according to the way the law is written.
No. Because the cyclist would still stop at the red light.
Your arguement, as stated above and in your previous post, is that you fear ‘incidents’ and oppose a law that might result in such incidents. Do you deny that right-on-red has resulted in incidents? If not, why do you not oppose the right-on-red rule?
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. So you’re talking out of your ass. Given that, the only reason you have to support the law is that you don’t want to have to stop pedaling. That’s a stupid reason, it’s a dumb proposed law, and you’re a dishonest schmuck for saying that you have any reason to believe that the law is safe, beyond the fact that you want it so desperately to be safe.
But hey, joke’s on me, right? Because we both know you can act as if the law is sensible and has already passed, because no cop is going to stop you for rolling through a stop sign, safe or not.
I never claimed such a thing. I merely point out that the law is not going to be a disaster. You set up a defense claiming that since there might be an increase in ‘incidents’ as a result of this law. 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?
Many major traffic law changes are about compromise. The right-on-red law was introduced in the 70’s as an acknowledgement that drivers can sometimes turn safely, and that doing so will reduce gas consumption and traffic. In the late 90’s, federal highway speed limits were increased for pretty much the sole reason that most folks were ignoring them anyway, and that in many states (the square shaped ones, usually) they didn’t make a whole lot of sense beyond saving gas.
So traffic law writers applied a little wisdom and decided that with proper restrictions a few compromises to traffic laws could be made for a greater benefit. Certainly there would be abuses: Drivers who turn without looking, and people would now speed past the new speed limits. But no traffic law is perfect, and only a fool thinks it would be. I can merely point out that where the law has been adapted, there seems to be little change.
Such a fool is you Aliquot. The law is not about laziness, it is actually wisdom. It recognizes the fact cyclists have greater sense of surroundings, that they can ‘yield’ at a stop sign and do so safely. And that they can effectively check up and down a street to see if it is clear of cars, an act that for a motor vehicle to perform would require putting their hood into oncoming traffic. You still have to slow down at stops and stop at red lights, so to claim it is about ‘not stopping pedalling’ is completely false and a strawman.
But because the law involves bicycles, Aliquot develops a nice double-standard. He whines and moans hysterically about ‘incidents’ and demands we prove there won’t be any ‘incidents’ with the adaption of the law, all while ignoring the abuses of car law changes. I guess it doesn’t count with cars. They get a free pass.
Aliquot invents silly claims that the wind being too loud for bikes to hear cars, and that moving trucks won’t kill anyone in the name of trying to discredit this law. As a final, desperate move, he outright accuses me of disobeying present laws to bolster his pathetic arguements (I do not, I stop much better than the cars do). Its obvious at this point that Aliquot is simply hysterically anti-bike. He will oppose any law like this simply because it involves bikes. If this weren’t the case, why does he not oppose right-on-red. He’s been mighty quiet about that.
Me neither. What I am doing is the only option that is both legal and safe, but it seems to make drivers uncomfortable. I do it anyway. Sometimes it happens.
obviously has not walked or ridden enough in any cyclist-heavy environment to have an informed opinion. In my experience, cyclists are just as bad as drivers and pedestrians about looking around them before they made a decision.
Number of times I, as a pedestrian, have been hit by a car while in a legal crosswalk: 0
Number of times I, as a pedestrian, have been hit by a cyclist while in a legal crosswalk: 14 in six years.
Number of times I, as a cyclist, have been hit by a car while following the laws scrupulously: 0
Number of times I, as a cyclist, have been hit by a cyclist while following the laws scrupulously: 3 in two years.
Yes, I know it’s a college town that I live in and therefore the percentage of late-for-class jackasses is higher. Nonetheless.
Number of times I have been struck by a car in the crosswalk as a pedestrian: 6 (does not include near misses, hard stops near me, our outright theft of right-of-way, and ‘hood slaps’). here was a good one!
Number of times I have been struck by a bicylist as a pedestrian in a crosswalk: 0. Does not include 2 near buzzes.
Number of times as a cyclist riding legally I have been struck by a car: 5 (includes right-of-way stealing left hooks, intentional right hook, deliberate attempt to run me over, and squeeze play… does not include multiple near misses, left hook hit with low visibility, etc.)
Number of times as a cyclist riding legally I have been struck by a bike: 1 (12 year old kid riding with buddy on handlebars.
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.
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 wish you’d stop advocating this stupid law. I oppose it for the following reasons:
[ul]
[li]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.[/li][li]The city/town would use this as an excuse not to install traffic light sensors that can detect bicycles.[/li][li]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. [/li][li]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.[/li][/ul]
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amongst the rest of your weird, masturbatory monologue, I felt this needed to be addressed. I took issue with this quote from you:
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.
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…)
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.
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.
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?
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.
No. NO. NO! Bike must stop at red lights! Period! Read the law!
WRONG! The bike must stop at the red light!
Which is certainly not hard, WHEN STOPPED!
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?
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?
