The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Cyclists: Scourge of Civilization? (and general road/sidewalk rage!)
Posts
And, at least in Seattle, cyclists are considered pedestrians.
EDIT: doesn't automatically mean that, I mean.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
All other things being equal, there is no way you can prove that a cyclist is as dangerous then a driver. Yes, you can come up with some rube goldberg machine where the biker can cause [massive damage!], but on the whole, a bad driver has a lot more potential to do harm.
How is that not relavant? Like I said, we were comparing percentages of dumbasses. I was pointing out that it's not a direct comparison if you take into account the potential to do deadly harm.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I actually agree with you here, but it cuts both ways. If you want to consider cyclists the same as motorists, give is a realistic, efficient way of navigating city streets. It's precisely because we don't have a way to do that that the cyclist/car interaction becomes a problem.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
And finally we get to it. Being treated like another vehicle on the road. Nothing would make me happier.
But we are not treated that way by cars. Not by a long shot. So that makes it easier for cyclists to justify some of the things they do.
A car forces me out? I'll just ride on the sidewalk.
No turn signals? Get ahead of them at lights.
Hell, look at this thread, most people don't know the traffic laws that pertain to bikes.
...and what dyscord said.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Traffic is a gigantic "rube goldberg machine", at least the way you mean it. So you cannot really trivialize that fact in this discussion. Which is exactly why a bike is potentially as or even more dangerous than a car. A car is a big metal thing. A bike is a very thin piece of metal that can go anywhere. In fact I bet I could do or at least act as the catalyst for far greater damage with a bike than a car. With a car I can merely smash into shit or surprise other people on the road. I can smash into shit with a bike (with notably less damage due to less mass) but the potential to surprise others is FAR greater. They are smaller, they can spring out of nowhere, and they can be woven into tight crevasses.
It's surprise, not critical mass, that is the underlying cause of accidents. Someone does something you don't expect and bam! you're in some shit. That's how almost all accidents begin. And that is why the potential is either
So, sure, if you look at this from the very silly perspective that a car can cause more damage in a collision than a bike, your point might be valid. If you look at this from any reasonable or realistic perspective - something you tried to play off as "rube goldbergian" - then, sorry, but your position doesn't hold water.
Agreed completely, though look at the reactions on this thread.
Someone with a car is frustrated with cyclists. They rant, they talk about hitting. But they take responsibility for driving a giant metal death machine and yield.
Someone on a bike is frustrated with cars. They rant, they run lights, cut off, they break the law. They do not take responsibility for their own safety or the fact that their tiny conveyance may cause giant metal death machines to cause death.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Bikes should be legally the same as cars, and cars should have to deal with going slow if it means the bike in front of them won't do weird shit, or the one behind them won't cut past at a light. Slow vehicles should yield when possible, fast ones should fucking deal when the slow ones can't yield.
Makes a lot of sense to me.
That's foolish. Most of the problems brought up in the thread are a direct result of cars and bikes not being very well suited to cohabitate the same spaces.
Most big cities account for two types of transportation: pedestrian and motorist. Bicycles aren't really either, and we're subject to a whole weird missmash of laws and regulations that don't always make a ton of sense. That's why people break the law: they don't see it as being necessary or useful. That's why I run red lights on my bicycle, even though I'll never convince you I do it safely.
EDIT: Also, bike lanes are a good idea, but they don't solve the problem.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
We're smaller and slower, both of which would cause enormous trouble if we just merged into lanes with automobiles. And there are things you can do on a bike that can be done safely, that would be massively unsafe in a car (and vice versa.)
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Yeah, those are real fair comparisons. No strawmaning there!
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I don't know any bicyclists who run red lights or forget to stop at stop signs. Sometimes my girlfriend will get upset and say "I HATE CYCLISTS THEY'RE ALWAYS DOING CRAP" and then I ask why and she says "they ride their bikes as they cross the street!" and I have to respond that riding your bike, when you have the light and are crossing, is not illegal, and it's not supposed to be unsafe. You know, because they're vehicles, according to all of the angry, angry motorists in this thread. And you can't walk your car across the street.
Most people don't think that acting in a manner that is unsafe is somehow good. For ANYONE. But the problem more often than not has to do with city planning, and not the bicyclists or drivers. There seems to be not enough room on the road, for a cyclist + cars, and so there should be bicycle lanes on *all* roads used frequently by bicycles. The people who are frothing at the mouth over the time SOME ASSHOLE BICYCLIST ZOMG WAS GOING SLOWLY WHAT THE FUCK GOD DAMN THEM I WAS SLIGHTLY LATE FOR SOMETHING seem to be the most vocal about their beliefs, wheras the fact that my law-abiding ass being almost hit by idiotic drivers doesn't bother me all that much after it happens. The lady who hits me and kills me, feels sad, says that I was at fault, and gets away by not having to pay anything to anyone I know, and continues to live her ugly, ugly life.
And yes, it is more dangerous to do certain things in a car than in a bicycle. Should you do them while using either? No, obviously. But if I swerve a bit in the shoulder to avoid a pothole/dead animal/pile of old car debris, I am significantly less likely to cause the death of other people. Someone in a car could swerve while talking on the phone or fiddling with the radio, and hit me and I'm dead. Which situation was more dangerous?
Still, I don't do this myself unless I know it's an intersection with no right turns on red-- and even then, I've had people hit me from behind because they passed the column on the right-hand side and accelerated towards the corner to make an illegal turn. Of course, they didn't care that I was standing there, waiting for the signal to change, and gave me quite a dissertation about how I was in the wrong.
Also, have we hated on people who drive way too fast on local roads, and then slam their brakes way too hard, appearing from nowhere and stopping with their car halfway through the crosswalk?
Yeah. You maim people. Assholes.
There's a lot of "shoulds" in there. The last one is the deal-breaker. I've been fucking run off the shoulder into a ditch by a car swerving at me because some car drivers don't think they should have to share any slice of the road with cyclists. And that was without even being in his way. Imagine what would have happened had I been in the street.
Given the current situation, I'm confident that the way I ride in city traffic is the absolute safest way possible.
that's only because you have to be a goddamn daredevil to want to ride a cycle through traffic.
Here you are, taking your admittedly very limited experience, and insisting that it trumps any contrary documented experiences had by others.
You know what? The two or three places you've been in one aren't enough for you to say authoritatively how they're "usually" run or what "usually happens" or anything of that nature. ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A WEALTH OF CONTRARY EXPERIENCE WIDELY DOCUMENTED BY MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES FOR ALL TO CONSIDER.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
On the other hand, I've heard horror stories about what car drivers do to cyclists from my dad (amateur sports enthusiast, attends marathons, bicycle races, etc).
Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I'm guessing nobody has actually dared to stand up for the 'reckless' cyclists talked about in the first post. Let's get this out of the way straight off: yes, a lot of what I'm talking about, do myself, and would recommend is illegal. This doesn't mean it is stupid. Also, bear in mind I'm in the UK, so legality might differ.
But a lot of what I read demonstrates no understanding of some basic facts about cycling & what exactly is 'dangerous'.
re: damaging pedestrians. First, if any cyclist is barrelling into pedestrians, they are a bad cyclist. Second, and slightly less well-known, anyone who knows what they are doing considers bell ringing (ie cycling along a footpath hammering your bell to tell people to get out of the way) to also be bad cycling. Simple reason: when surprised by noise, most pedestrians will usually either freeze, or jump in unpredictable directions. A good cyclist will make no noise to surprise them & not rely on them acting correctly, but control his own path. This does not mean one cannot speed past people, which often surprises them, but short of giving heart-attacks to old ladies, it is not dangerous; if you consider the relative speeds of someone on a bike & a pedestrian, by the time the pedestrian reacts, the cyclist is gone - furthermore, the eye is much better at co-ordinating the body to move in the correct direction than the ear, since many people don't locate sound correctly, especially if it is coming from behind them. Third, a good cyclist will avoid hitting pedestrians because, newsflash, statistics show pretty much any collision with a 3rd party on a bicycle hurts the cyclist more than the other. This is obvious with cars, but also shown true with pedestrians. A bicycle travelling even at speed will do little more than badly bruise a pedestrian. It will throw the cyclist across handlebars, usually causing the same damage as to the pedestrian (especially with drop bars: painful), throw them through the air, hit them hard with the ground, and usually give whiplash or a similar shock injury. So believe it or not, most cyclists aren't trying to run you over because unlike a driver, they will suffer more for it.
Really. Please show why I should be held accountable for the reactions of others to my existence? When Rosa Parks sat in the wrong place on the bus, would you argue that she should be thrown off because all the segregationists who started lynching people? If drivers react disproportionately to cyclists, it makes them bad drivers, nothing more.
This is a common complaint. In the UK (or at least in London) it revolves around cyclists running red lights. Drivers complain that it is unfair. Pedestrians complain that, er, it surprises them, usually. However, statistics show that the most dangerous time for cyclists & the highest rate of accidents comes from moving off from a red light with traffic. Drivers are accelerating fast and have many vehicles nearby distracting them, the cyclist is hedged in by cars, and in least control of the bike (exerting maximum pressure on one pedal then the other without momentum forward to balance). Since I assume we can agree an accident is bad for everyone using the road, sensible to try and avoid this minefield, no? Some places around the world do - many cities in Europe in fact have different laws re: cyclists taking off at traffic lights which allow them to go first, precisely to avoid this situation. The UK hasn't caught up yet, and neither has the US from the sound of it.
There is the standard caveat to this. If someone is making you brake, yes, they are doing bad. You don't run a red light at a crossroads if traffic is crossing. This is common sense. You don't run across a footpath straight into pedestrians. Also common sense. But you can 1) learn traffic lights if you commute a particular route, 2) make judgement calls. If there are no cars crossing the street and none approaching, it is safe to run the light. If the traffic lights on the other crossing road are going to yellow to halt the traffic, yours are about to to to green; you can pre-empt this to get a drop on the vehicle traffic. Good cyclists do this regularly. They are in fact making the roads safer by doing so, but they are acting illegally, and it irritates people unaware of the first fact.
I don't have so much respect for demonstrably stupid or outdated laws that I slavishly follow them even when it increases risk to myself and others - perhaps you do?
See, interesting thing. You don't mention the time when you saw one of those cyclists actually hit someone. Have you? I haven't. I haven't ever hit a pedestrian when they are sharing the path with me either.
What I have had happen, many times, almost every day in fact, is pedestrians walk out right in front of me from between cars looking in the wrong fucking direction of travel, or drivers open car doors into the street right in front of me without looking. I would be more sympathetic to your argument if my experience didn't suggest that cyclists are by far the safest people on or near the road. Again, simple reason: everything on or near the road is liable to kill or seriously injure us, so we are more aware of safety.
Perhaps you should. Little known trait of good cyclists no. 45; good cyclists are aggressive. They are confident in handling their bike, and they do not rely on others to behave correctly. Good cyclists will generally assume everything within 10m of the road wants to kill them. They do not take up more of the road than is necessary, because it is not safer. It leaves drivers less room to maneuver their one-ton vehicles travelling at great speed past the cyclist. A cyclist is forcing you over the centre line? He's holding up traffic, thus being a bad road user, and forcing drivers to speed past him when the opportunity arises, thus being unsafe. A good cyclist can run an extraordinarily thin line on the side of the street; this also means a good cyclist can wind & dodge between cars in traffic and so on. Again, something that pisses drivers off, but if I were in the car, I would rather have that guy than the slow, slightly wobbly cyclist taking up too much room and panting. I guarentee you, like the difference between a racing pro and a learner driver, the former might look more dangerous, but is a far safer road user than the latter.
Finally, I just want to reiterate my point about pedestrians and drivers behaving badly. A big issue in London is jaywalking. It's not illegal here like it is in many parts of the US. Pedestrians wander out into the road all the time, over crossings, off the sidewalk, etc etc. Most of the time they are sensible and it causes no problems. Quite often, however, you get the idiots who wander out looking in the wrong direction talking on their mobile phone. Or I approach a crossing when the traffic lights are green, and a pedestrian walking on red stops and glares at me as I keep going, as if I'm the one in error. Or the old women who you see starting to cross the road without looking when you are 20m away, break hard to avoid & just pull up short, while they rail at you for not being alert. No ma'am, if I hadn't been alert, you would be horizontal right now; I'm sorry if the years have destroyed your eyesight & faculty for reason, but you are the one who shouldn't be on the roads. I won't even get started at the bloody morons who cannot even remember to look in a wingmirror before opening the fucking car door (3rd highest cause of cycle accidents in cities by the way).
Fact is, there is a lot of misunderstanding and bad perception that goes on re: cyclists, and a vast amount of hypocracy from, particularly, pedestrians in the UK. I would be a lot more sympathetic to pedestrians and drivers mewling about safety if either they demonstrated basic knowledge about what is safe, or if my experience wasn't that cyclists tend to be vastly safer than any other road users.
Well, it makes it safer. As several people have pointed out, it also makes it safer than taking off with the traffic from a green light. I'm going to go with, yes, that makes it right. Not legal, but right. ...and smart, and responsible, and demonstrable of knowledge of the road.
But let's all live in a pretty fairyland where the letter of all our laws is perfect, and there is never any scope to improve the action of their intent by breaking them.
What Cat is saying there is actually good behaviour, because it's predictable. You don't rely on people being predictable (ie you are always ready to stop if needed), but generally it helps. So if someone is crossing an empty road, I always move out to go behind the pedestrian, because as they keep walking forward, I can't help but hit an empty space. Most people have this worked out, and keep walking.
Occasionally, someone will look at me, stop, and start doing their best rabbit-in-headlamps routine. As if I'm not looking straight at them. As if I just roam the streets of London looking for pedestrians to run into, and it's their unlucky day. It's the road user's equivalent of sidestepping to avoid someone on a pavement while they do the same, then mirror dancing opposite each other for a minute. It is quite silly.
If both of us do the predictable thing and try to avoid each other, = win. If both of us do the unpredictable thing, ie pedestrian stops and cyclist continues into the pedestrian's predicted path, also = win. Only if one of us does the unpredictable thing, and one the predictable thing, is there a problem. Since experience suggests most people do the predictable thing, it's best to do the same, and everything will be a-ok.
There's a whole Game Theory problem in those examples I'll bet.
Oh man the body count would have been high today:
1. A Boy and his Blob: Middle aged fatass decides that stopping in the middle of a fairly busy street and having her brood open the passenger door without looking is a good idea. Lucky I was looking for it.
2. Intersection Madness! A driver loses her mind in an intersection after she sess me waiting at a stop sign for her to pass. She just stops right in the middle, baffled at how to proceed. She had no stop sign.
3. The Running of the Red Light: Driver just can't wait. A slow death for him.
4. Bonus round! A driver wanting to turn right cuts off a girl in front of me, nearly taking her out.
And because we are taking about it, I'll just put it out there that I never run reds. Only the occassional rolling stop at a sign if there are no cars around.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'm not regular to D&D, so my debate skills are sloppy and unrefined. I thus make no claims that my statements are anything other than subjective and based on my own experience.
Not all cyclists feel entitled to break the law, but I encounter ones that do on a regular basis. This leads to the rage.
On that note, I support your desire to slaughter idiot drivers. Really, the distinction between idiot bike riders and idiot drivers is a thin one, regardless of percentages of total populations or otherwise. Some people just shouldn't be let out of the house to interact with other human beings.
It began with the courier suddenly ducking in front of the taxi from 2 lanes across. The Taxi driver being about to pull out, had to slam on the brakes. The taxi beeped his horn and motioned towards his eyes to indicate "Watch what you're doing."
The biker started to turn around and flip the taxi driver the bird. The taxi driver returned the gesture. The biker then proceeded to slow down and weaver across the lane in a wide snaking motion, while turning around and gesticulating towards the taxi driver. The biker, not watching where he was going, and weaving around like an idiot, strayed into the conming traffic and was collected by another taxi, who thankfully was not going too fast.
The courier, ass over kettle on the ground, was not happy and was yelling at both taxis and blaming them both. It was about 5 minutes before the pedestrians stopped laughing and someone asked him was he ok.
Good times.
Honestly? If I'm going 25+ miles an hour and there are no cars crossing that would hit me, I'll run a red light because I don't want to be arsed with stopping and then trying to build up a speed like that again. Sometimes I look like a dick, sometimes it's mildly inconvenient for others, but it's not entirely reasonable to expect people to respect the law just because it's there.
It just isn't always practical.
Because that's how traffic works. There are direct and indirect reprecussions to every action you take on the road - both legal and illegal, both safe and unsafe. To ignore that is, as I think I said earlier in the thread, simply insane. Also incorrect.
I think that pretty much says all I need to but I'll address two more points you made.
Please explain how what we're talking about and the civil rights movement for black Americans are in any way analagous. I'm befuddled that you think Rosa Parks' legal and moral absolution to any racist/violent reprecussions stemming from her civil rights actions justifies either legal or moral absolution to the injuries directly caused by others based on actions you may precipitate. There is legal precedent (and moral precedent) for blaming people who indirectly cause harm. For instance, if I shout BOMB! in a movie theater and people die from being stampeded, you'd better believe I am going to jail even if I didn't actually trample on anyone. Your analogy is weird; talk about "out of left field".
Nobody here lives in that fairyland, but we also don't want to live in the fairyland where anyone is entitled to break the law as suits them. This is also very strange considering your first point. Firstly, I think (in language similar to the one you're using) it is fantasy to assume that cycling (or driving) is an right inherent to existence. You imply tihs when you say "please show why I should be held accountable for the reactions of others to my existence." It's as if you believe that simply taking up space is enough to satisfy the right to exist in that space. I would argue that this is true for pedestrians, but not true for anyone in any vehicle, all the way from wheelchairs to biplanes. When you have a vehicle you forfeit part of your right to exist anywhere and anyhow you please. Instead, you must succumb to a sense of safety, both for others and for yourself (which is actually to sustain safety for others as well).
Your entire diatribe is just wacky, to me.
I know it's not practical to expect integrity from Human Beings, but I will personally continue to do so despite a staggering amount of evidence suggesting that they have none.
It is a good thing I understand venting. :P
I'm not going to personally kill anyone over a traffic violation but I would not at all object if this specific strain of "idiocy" -- as you call it -- resulted in death sentences. Even something like tailgating and even if it doesn't result in anyone else's harm. I've seen too much calamity at the result of irresponsibility behind any manner of vehicle, or even by just walking irresponsibly, and I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who wants to break the law and only severe antipathy for those that think their lawless behavior is justified by anything particularly if that justification is something equal or akin to virtue of existence alone.
I also think this kind of responsibility needs to be impressed on people more, from teens to adults. Hell, we should start teaching it to teens YEARS before they are even allowed to apply for a driver's permit. Why is it that civic or hell MORTAL responsibility with regard to vehicular operation isn't even attempted until driver's education, and what if some teen doesn't even bother? It's not like you cannot legally operate a bike at ten years old. Do any of these supposed laws that restrict cyclists even apply to minors? I had a ten-speed bike when I was seven.
In short, neither the government nor educators are doing what they can to make clear that traffic laws are (a) good and (b) important. And most motorists, bikers, cyclers, pedestrians, skaters, and Segwayers seem to have complete apathy and lack of comprehension of how their existence in a shared, physical space with other motorists, bikers, cyclers, pedestrians, skaters, and Segwayers carries a certain responsibility, one that I will repeat is both civic and MORTAL. When you get in car, you are responsible for everyone else's life on the road, including your own. I'm not going to get swept up into an argument about percentages of blame which is invariably where this last comment of mine leads to. Yes, everyone else is equally responsible for themselves and others at the same time you are. It's your responsibility to act as safely as possible. And the laws provide a guideline for that.
Cruising through a red light, even if it's 2:30 AM and you are cycling through the bottom of the Grand Canyon should get you a big fat jail sentence if not worse for exactly the reasons McDermott said. Most accidents occur because people expect a reality that doesn't occur or an unreality that does occur. If everyone adhered to traffic laws, even as inconvenient as they may be.
Nobody has a right for life to be convenient, or to not be inconvenienced. Sorry, but even if you run a red light once where nobody was around and you didn't even hurt anyone, you are a Grade A Scumbucket.
I, too, am -- or was -- a Grade A Scumbucket. But I learned the error of my ways and I am disgusted by my college self that happily exists only in the past.
Who said that no cyclists ever do that?