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.
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.
I can tell you with much assurance that it is, indeed, quite possible.
I, uh…I know a guy.
Thank you for acknowledging the levity.
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
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.
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:
-
The ‘car on my right’ incident I decsribed earlier in the thread. (rare, but far more common than I’d like)
-
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.
-
Bad Neighborhoods. Do I need to elaborate?
-
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.
See, I think you should have to justify a new law with downsides, not think up reasons not to pass it.
I guess I missed it, and can’t find it - please explain again or point to it.
Uncomfortable, yes, but I wouldn’t call that hazardous.
Yes. Are you saying someone may take a random shot at you, or what? Isn’t that a risk in a car as well?
What does that mean?
Post 103
It can be, sub-freezing weather when your sweat starts to condense is bad mojo.
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:
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.
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 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.
FTR, in California, we call it a Hollywood Stop.
I don’t know what they call it in Hollywood.
We call it a Canadian stop.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
They’re gyroscopically stabilized once they get going…