> Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyze the factors associated with such behaviors. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.
As both a cyclist and a driver, I aim for maximum predictability whenever I'm on the road. None of my movements should ever surprise drivers or other cyclists (who are paying attention).
Candidly, about 3/4 of my cyclist friends are intent on following the rules of the road. The other 1/4 are convinced that rules only exist for cars. I've seen too many close calls from people making illegal moves under the mistaken belief that it was safer to run a stop sign, or make a quick lane change without signaling, or otherwise behave as if they could out-maneuver the cars around them.
As a driver, my only close calls with cyclists have been when they skipped stop signs or assumed that the cars would yield to them at 4-way stops. A cyclist even T-boned my wife's car while she was driving the speed limit down a residential street because the cyclist assumed they could maneuver around her.
Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
I agree, but at the same time I think the laws should be changed so that stop signs become yield signs for cyclists (so called Stop as Yield laws). Then it would be predictable and the laws would be designed in a way that makes sense for cycling.
This is effectively what I already do and most cyclists I know do as well. I would be lying if I said that I never skipped stop signs. The general difference between reckless/unsafe cyclists and others is less the skipping stop signs versus the when to skip. For instance, I would never skip if there was already a car at another stop sign.
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
This framing makes a lot of assumptions about city/road design that are not universal.
I'd say that cycling is inherently an incredibly safe activity. Driving is a dangerous activity to those inside the car, and even more so to those outside the car.
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
Cycling isn't the dangerous activity here. Cyclists by themselves have an incredible safety record, especially once you adjust for the health benefits of exercise.
Driving is the activity that puts lives at risk, but with modern car "safety" improvements those lives tend not to be those of the driver or the passengers.
I cycle a lot, and I don't drive. And yes, I sometimes break rules for my safety. For example, I refuse to use stupidly designed cycle lanes that:
* Mount the foot path and then return to the road.
* Force me to use pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
* Railroad me onto the side of the road when I actually want to make a turn (ie: force me to dismount and use a pedestrian crossing instead of using the correct lane for that turn)
* Vanish abruptly
But a lot of cyclists I see (in my city anyway) are just inconsiderate assholes who have no road etiquette. They run red lights, ignore one way systems, cycle on pedestrian paths, or (the very worst) cycle the wrong way on cycle paths.
And don't get me started on lycra clad (always male) cyclists who 'come at you' side-by-side on a cycle path that fits exactly two cyclists. I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.
'I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.'
Thanks for the entirely accurate and entertaining read. There are definitely many c-words among us, and I assume you don't mean 'commuters' -- most of those of us are just trying to get along without getting squashed, and that often means using infrastructure in ways other than the intended, because it was never intended for our safety.
I ride bicycles and motorcyles and frequently break the letter of the law for my own safety. Two wheeled transportation just simply is not considered or understood by transit authorities, at least not in my city.
I will never stop behind a car. That just is not going to happen. I don't want to be the meat on a texting driver stopped car sandwich. This means some amount of lane filtering/splitting.
I will ride my bike on a sidewalk to avoid traffic, even if there is a "bike lane" if I don't feel that lane is safe, such as when it is on a major route with lots of traffic.
I will not give you room to pass if there are parked cars on the side of the road. I'm not going to get doored so you can get to your destination 30 seconds faster.
When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat model makes sense.
This says nothing of the lack of knowledge on the part of drivers as to what motorcycles and bicycles are actually entitled to do and their willingness to be vigilantes to enforce their perception of the law, even when it endangers my life.
For the same reason I try not to be behind a motorbike (or a bike)
A turn that I can make at 30kmh safely becomes a turn where the two wheeler in front of me stalls almost to an halt and I have to break in the middle of it
They use different trajectories, which are almost unpredictable
They stop in front of cars at the traffic light, but their start is very slow so usually a jam is created from nothing (sudden start/stops are the root cause of the majority of crashes in traffic jams)
I think everyone should consider their strength and weaknesses and account for them
Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
>When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat model makes sense.
I realize this is a low value comment, but this is absolutely true. Whether through negligence or not, they display over and over again that it's true.
I used to bicycle commute to work, 11mi round trip. I broke rules, but not glaringly.
The worst of the rule breakers are the wrong-way cyclists: The ones who think that riding on the wrong side of the road is safer because they can see cars coming. They are wrong.
Riding on the wrong side, and on sidewalks, puts you in places cars would never expect you to be, and so they're even more oblivious.
If you're going to break rules, break the right ones and understand the impact fully.
I generally ride on on trails, but to save time to drive to trails, I've started riding on roads since about 4 months.
Behavior of some riders surprises me, they'll switch between pavement and road whenever they wish to. Just yesterday, someone jumped from the pavement onto the road a few metres ahead and the car in front of my was caught by surprise. Then there's people who will zoom past stop signs without considering there might be other vehicles and ignore them completely. I get what you're saying.
I always try to stay on the road, stop at stop signs, just ride as if I were a car. I've never had a close-call and always try to make my movement obvious.
It's especially dangerous when you're cycling on the right side of the road and come across cyclist going the wrong way.
Had this happen to me recently on a 55mph highway with no shoulder. The other cyclists didn't even take it upon themselves to move, they just headed right toward me.
As a former cyclist, the headline is 100% bullshit. I generally broke laws for the sake of efficiency. Having said that, there is a huge distinction between breaking overbearing laws designed for cars, and going against the common norms of the road. Treating red lights and stop signs as yields is fine. Ignoring the existence of intersections and forcing drivers to yield to you is being an asshole on a good day, and deadly on a bad one.
The things I did do for safety (eg riding out far enough to not get doored, taking a lane to turn or avoid obstacles) generally weren't illegal. Although I could see this being different in a place with different laws that weren't worded in terms of safety.
Around me, there are a couple of intersections which have detectors to change the signal light, so if there's no car around you're not getting a green light.
Things are getting better I guess... in NY, "complete streets" was signed in 2011. I consider that pretty recent though. Even post 2011, there were projects near me that were already underway and getting completed that completely ignored cycling. -.-
"B. ... if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes, whichever is shorter, ..."
>Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system dominated by cars.
Because bike lanes were an afterthought. Cycling is very unsafe.
Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks. The problem arose was that sidewalks were unsafe. Pedestrians would just walk into the way of the cyclists and the cyclists would be hurt.
So politicians looking to raise tax revenues started making it difficult to ride a bike. Helmets are required, bans from sidewalks, 20km/h speed limits of bike lanes/paths. Many reflectors on the bike. Bell or horn on the bike needed. This is all to harass cyclists.
Now that bikes are on roads, now you have cars just driving into the way of cyclsts and hurting them; possibly even killing them.
Why are cyclists always being hurt by everyone else?
> Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks.
Depends a bit by what you mean by "originally". In the early 1900s, bikes traveled in the street. Pedestrians traveled in the street. Everybody was in the street. The idea that the streets are the sole province of the car, and that pedestrians/bikers may cross the street only where it does not inconvenience the car, is the result of marketing to avoid cars being liable for pedestrian injury/death.
So, same story of cars being overly prominent, but stepping back another 50 years.
I thought the article would list out some of the rules that cyclists break.
I'm sure 100% of people break some rule at some point, so saying 100% of the participants admitted to breaking some rule, is like saying 100% of people fart in public.
But, anyway, for the 18 months or so that I biked to work, I tried to follow the rules. Yes, I rolled through some stop signs. (Don't we all, no matter what kind of vehicle we're piloting?) The much slower speed on a bike makes it easier to look at all incoming lanes before you enter the intersection.
But, I've had close calls in a car with cyclists. I've had close calls on a bike with cars. I once went over my handlebars when some doofus bolted across the street on a bike without looking. People are bad at following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if it's a car or a bicycle.
Cyclists break rules because the rules were not written with us in mind.
The tired straw man argument against cyclists has them saying "treat me like a car!" one minute and "treat me like a pedestrian!" the next. But really, I just want to be treated like a cyclist. There are three major classes of transportation, not just two [@].
Here are some road rules that I regularly break for my own safety:
> In most places, it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. However, most roads near me have no bike lanes. My city (Atlanta) has a notorious problem with highway traffic spilling out into the city, and as a result drivers are viciously impatient and I've had too many close calls while riding my bike on major roads. I ride on the sidewalk when there is no other safe option.
> In some places, it is illegal for a bicycle to pass a red light, even when it's all clear. However, when I'm riding on the road, there is usually a pack of impatient drivers waiting behind me. If don't accelerate quickly enough, they will honk at me and/or pass me within inches. Usually, I can put a safe distance between myself and the cars behind me if I start moving a little before the light turns green.
> Regarding sidewalk riding again: My city has too many one-way streets. This is fine for cars, who travel a longer distance on average than I do. But for short bike trips, not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x. This is a problem solved by separated bike lanes.
Not to mention the fact that we rarely hold drivers accountable for their rule-breaking. As a bicyclist, my mistakes can are only lethal to myself. A driver's mistakes kill other people.
Here's also a list of dangerous traffic behavior that SHOULD be illegal but ISN'T, because the law is written for the convenience of drivers, not the safety of pedestrians and cyclists:
> Right-turn-on-red should be illegal anywhere there is a pedestrian signal. When turning on red, drivers are looking to the left for oncoming traffic, and rarely look for pedestrians to the right until it is too late. When the pedestrian light is on, there should be ZERO chance of being hit by a law-abiding car!
> Left turns should have a dedicated lane and signal. Left-turn-on-green puts drivers in direct conflict with pedestrians, for the same reasons as right-turn-on-red.
> Speeding is too pervasive, and speed limits should be strictly enforced. Failing to use a turn signal should also be ticketed more often. I would support camera enforcement if I didn't think it would leak into public spaces beyond just roads.
> Freight trucks and other vehicles pulling a trailer too often swerve outside their lane. This is extremely dangerous and should be punished.
[@] Really, their are four modes of ground transportation, but Americans don't believe in trains.
> Cyclists break rules because the rules were not written with us in mind.
And often the road infrastructure itself. My pet peeve is here in the UK you have junctions which sense when a vehicle has approached to trigger the light sequence, but many of them don't detect bicycles, so if it's quiet you're forced to sit and wait until a car pulls up behind you (or jump the light).
Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times I've been nearly hit by cars in [everywhere] who think stop signs and crosswalk rules don't apply to them.
If it weren't for cars, traffic wouldn't need to be so tightly controlled because the stakes would be so much lower.
While I don't condone running red lights, driver rage at cyclists running red lights or pedestrians jay-walking (a term invented by the auto industry) would be far better directed at drivers who don't take the task of operating a multi-thousand pound machine at high velocities seriously.
I have personally lost count of the times I have seen strollers with babies on heavy trafficked bike roads, and 3-5 years old on training cycles. I have however yet to hear a single accident where a cyclist have hit one of those extremely vulnerable individuals being hit, which if it happened would likely result in the child being killed.
Depends a lot where you are from. Here in Copenhagen, biking is a fairly safe and well respected way of transport. Pity it does not seem to be so in many other places.
>> for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s visibility.
Ok... that is a very strange sentence. Time and energy (ie speed) are basically interchangeable (ie rolling through stop signs). So too are "safety" and "visibility" intrinsically related. Being seen by cars is like 90% of bicycle safety. The real question is whether lawbreaking for (time+energy) is greater than for (safety+visibility). The article doesn't give us that data.
For what it's worth, it's metabolically costly to completely stop and then start moving again on a bike. And it also costs some maneuverability. Let me explain.
Above a certain speed, both bicycles and motorcycles are more maneuverable, and more predictable, than they are when going more slowly. Above that speed threshold they're counter-steered. That is, when I want to turn right I apply very slight left-turning pressure to the front wheel. That makes the bike bank to the right and smoothly enter the turn. At lower speeds I turn the wheel in the direction I want to go.
This counter-steering thing is only a factor in two-wheeled vehicles: vehicles with more wheels can't bank, of course. I've been a cyclist for decades, but I didn't understand counter-steering until I took motorcycle driver training. Motorcycle instructors drill it into us because it's a vital part of swerving to avoid obstructions when going at motorized speeds.
As a cyclist in traffic I find I'm particularly vulnerable in the transition between direct-steer and counter-steer speeds. So, trying to keep my speed above the threshold both saves my energy and keeps me at maneuvering speed.
I do this by slowing down when approaching a red light, with the hope it will change to green before I arrive. I also try to stop a few meters back from a red light so I have space to get up to maneuvering speed before entering an intersection without having to stand and stomp my pedals.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "
Edit: BTW, as a road cyclist, my very first reaction was the same as yours: Since this was a survey it's tough to tease out the real reasons from the rationalizations. Speaking for myself, I'll freely admit that my reasons for violating road rules (which, for me, is limited to rolling through stop signs at empty intersections) are more about energy savings and speed rather than safety.
But you can deliver that criticism without being cruelly mocking and dismissive of an activity you happen not to value.
Yes, let's mock the cyclists for their bicycles and not those folks driving $30,000+ condo-sized pollution machines (and the leading cause of death for people under 30) so they can save 20 minutes on their commute and go to Costco once a month.
The vast majority of cyclists I see don't wear "tour de france cosplay setups" (recent personal experience from Toronto and the bay area). The vast majority I see also don't run red lights.
I think you might have a sample biased towards those that you notice in negative ways.
While yours is a better title, your comment also helps me rationalize my behavior on a bike. Many people have irrational hate towards bikes, and those people operate much heavier equipment. They do so while staring at their cell phones. This is certainly a problem where all sides need to pay more attention, and not hate on each other.
And just because; my "tour de france cosplay" gives me a butt-pad for comfort, nice pockets on the back of my shirt to carry things, and dries really quick in the rain. I suppose if I spent $20,000 on a rolling sofa that would be better?
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|5 years ago|reply
> Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyze the factors associated with such behaviors. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.
As both a cyclist and a driver, I aim for maximum predictability whenever I'm on the road. None of my movements should ever surprise drivers or other cyclists (who are paying attention).
Candidly, about 3/4 of my cyclist friends are intent on following the rules of the road. The other 1/4 are convinced that rules only exist for cars. I've seen too many close calls from people making illegal moves under the mistaken belief that it was safer to run a stop sign, or make a quick lane change without signaling, or otherwise behave as if they could out-maneuver the cars around them.
As a driver, my only close calls with cyclists have been when they skipped stop signs or assumed that the cars would yield to them at 4-way stops. A cyclist even T-boned my wife's car while she was driving the speed limit down a residential street because the cyclist assumed they could maneuver around her.
Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
[+] [-] MiroF|5 years ago|reply
I agree, but at the same time I think the laws should be changed so that stop signs become yield signs for cyclists (so called Stop as Yield laws). Then it would be predictable and the laws would be designed in a way that makes sense for cycling.
This is effectively what I already do and most cyclists I know do as well. I would be lying if I said that I never skipped stop signs. The general difference between reckless/unsafe cyclists and others is less the skipping stop signs versus the when to skip. For instance, I would never skip if there was already a car at another stop sign.
[+] [-] MereInterest|5 years ago|reply
This framing makes a lot of assumptions about city/road design that are not universal. I'd say that cycling is inherently an incredibly safe activity. Driving is a dangerous activity to those inside the car, and even more so to those outside the car.
[+] [-] InitialLastName|5 years ago|reply
Cycling isn't the dangerous activity here. Cyclists by themselves have an incredible safety record, especially once you adjust for the health benefits of exercise.
Driving is the activity that puts lives at risk, but with modern car "safety" improvements those lives tend not to be those of the driver or the passengers.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] charonn0|5 years ago|reply
Which is about as scientific as my personal anecdote of being run over by a cyclist.
[+] [-] cuddlybacon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cscurmudgeon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raffraffraff|5 years ago|reply
* Mount the foot path and then return to the road.
* Force me to use pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
* Railroad me onto the side of the road when I actually want to make a turn (ie: force me to dismount and use a pedestrian crossing instead of using the correct lane for that turn)
* Vanish abruptly
But a lot of cyclists I see (in my city anyway) are just inconsiderate assholes who have no road etiquette. They run red lights, ignore one way systems, cycle on pedestrian paths, or (the very worst) cycle the wrong way on cycle paths.
And don't get me started on lycra clad (always male) cyclists who 'come at you' side-by-side on a cycle path that fits exactly two cyclists. I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.
[+] [-] mcfunk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mulmen|5 years ago|reply
I will never stop behind a car. That just is not going to happen. I don't want to be the meat on a texting driver stopped car sandwich. This means some amount of lane filtering/splitting.
I will ride my bike on a sidewalk to avoid traffic, even if there is a "bike lane" if I don't feel that lane is safe, such as when it is on a major route with lots of traffic.
I will not give you room to pass if there are parked cars on the side of the road. I'm not going to get doored so you can get to your destination 30 seconds faster.
When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat model makes sense.
This says nothing of the lack of knowledge on the part of drivers as to what motorcycles and bicycles are actually entitled to do and their willingness to be vigilantes to enforce their perception of the law, even when it endangers my life.
[+] [-] romanoderoma|5 years ago|reply
For the same reason I try not to be behind a motorbike (or a bike)
A turn that I can make at 30kmh safely becomes a turn where the two wheeler in front of me stalls almost to an halt and I have to break in the middle of it
They use different trajectories, which are almost unpredictable
They stop in front of cars at the traffic light, but their start is very slow so usually a jam is created from nothing (sudden start/stops are the root cause of the majority of crashes in traffic jams)
I think everyone should consider their strength and weaknesses and account for them
Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended
[+] [-] thiht|5 years ago|reply
Yeah, don't do that. If you want to be on the sidewalk, walk your bike.
As a pedestrian, I won't move away from the path of bikes on the sidewalk, even if you have to fall down "because" of me.
[+] [-] soperj|5 years ago|reply
I realize this is a low value comment, but this is absolutely true. Whether through negligence or not, they display over and over again that it's true.
[+] [-] geocrasher|5 years ago|reply
The worst of the rule breakers are the wrong-way cyclists: The ones who think that riding on the wrong side of the road is safer because they can see cars coming. They are wrong.
Riding on the wrong side, and on sidewalks, puts you in places cars would never expect you to be, and so they're even more oblivious.
If you're going to break rules, break the right ones and understand the impact fully.
[+] [-] amateurdev|5 years ago|reply
Behavior of some riders surprises me, they'll switch between pavement and road whenever they wish to. Just yesterday, someone jumped from the pavement onto the road a few metres ahead and the car in front of my was caught by surprise. Then there's people who will zoom past stop signs without considering there might be other vehicles and ignore them completely. I get what you're saying.
I always try to stay on the road, stop at stop signs, just ride as if I were a car. I've never had a close-call and always try to make my movement obvious.
[+] [-] emerged|5 years ago|reply
Had this happen to me recently on a 55mph highway with no shoulder. The other cyclists didn't even take it upon themselves to move, they just headed right toward me.
[+] [-] mindslight|5 years ago|reply
The things I did do for safety (eg riding out far enough to not get doored, taking a lane to turn or avoid obstacles) generally weren't illegal. Although I could see this being different in a place with different laws that weren't worded in terms of safety.
[+] [-] throw7|5 years ago|reply
Things are getting better I guess... in NY, "complete streets" was signed in 2011. I consider that pretty recent though. Even post 2011, there were projects near me that were already underway and getting completed that completely ignored cycling. -.-
[+] [-] throwaway9191a|5 years ago|reply
"B. ... if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes, whichever is shorter, ..."
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/secti...
Which makes a lot of sense. I've been in this situation in my car as well. The light just doesn't change.
[+] [-] sleepysysadmin|5 years ago|reply
Because bike lanes were an afterthought. Cycling is very unsafe.
Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks. The problem arose was that sidewalks were unsafe. Pedestrians would just walk into the way of the cyclists and the cyclists would be hurt.
So politicians looking to raise tax revenues started making it difficult to ride a bike. Helmets are required, bans from sidewalks, 20km/h speed limits of bike lanes/paths. Many reflectors on the bike. Bell or horn on the bike needed. This is all to harass cyclists.
Now that bikes are on roads, now you have cars just driving into the way of cyclsts and hurting them; possibly even killing them.
Why are cyclists always being hurt by everyone else?
[+] [-] MereInterest|5 years ago|reply
Depends a bit by what you mean by "originally". In the early 1900s, bikes traveled in the street. Pedestrians traveled in the street. Everybody was in the street. The idea that the streets are the sole province of the car, and that pedestrians/bikers may cross the street only where it does not inconvenience the car, is the result of marketing to avoid cars being liable for pedestrian injury/death.
So, same story of cars being overly prominent, but stepping back another 50 years.
[+] [-] gwbas1c|5 years ago|reply
I'm sure 100% of people break some rule at some point, so saying 100% of the participants admitted to breaking some rule, is like saying 100% of people fart in public.
But, anyway, for the 18 months or so that I biked to work, I tried to follow the rules. Yes, I rolled through some stop signs. (Don't we all, no matter what kind of vehicle we're piloting?) The much slower speed on a bike makes it easier to look at all incoming lanes before you enter the intersection.
But, I've had close calls in a car with cyclists. I've had close calls on a bike with cars. I once went over my handlebars when some doofus bolted across the street on a bike without looking. People are bad at following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if it's a car or a bicycle.
[+] [-] benrbray|5 years ago|reply
The tired straw man argument against cyclists has them saying "treat me like a car!" one minute and "treat me like a pedestrian!" the next. But really, I just want to be treated like a cyclist. There are three major classes of transportation, not just two [@].
Here are some road rules that I regularly break for my own safety:
> In most places, it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. However, most roads near me have no bike lanes. My city (Atlanta) has a notorious problem with highway traffic spilling out into the city, and as a result drivers are viciously impatient and I've had too many close calls while riding my bike on major roads. I ride on the sidewalk when there is no other safe option.
> In some places, it is illegal for a bicycle to pass a red light, even when it's all clear. However, when I'm riding on the road, there is usually a pack of impatient drivers waiting behind me. If don't accelerate quickly enough, they will honk at me and/or pass me within inches. Usually, I can put a safe distance between myself and the cars behind me if I start moving a little before the light turns green.
> Regarding sidewalk riding again: My city has too many one-way streets. This is fine for cars, who travel a longer distance on average than I do. But for short bike trips, not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x. This is a problem solved by separated bike lanes.
Not to mention the fact that we rarely hold drivers accountable for their rule-breaking. As a bicyclist, my mistakes can are only lethal to myself. A driver's mistakes kill other people.
Here's also a list of dangerous traffic behavior that SHOULD be illegal but ISN'T, because the law is written for the convenience of drivers, not the safety of pedestrians and cyclists:
> Right-turn-on-red should be illegal anywhere there is a pedestrian signal. When turning on red, drivers are looking to the left for oncoming traffic, and rarely look for pedestrians to the right until it is too late. When the pedestrian light is on, there should be ZERO chance of being hit by a law-abiding car!
> Left turns should have a dedicated lane and signal. Left-turn-on-green puts drivers in direct conflict with pedestrians, for the same reasons as right-turn-on-red.
> Speeding is too pervasive, and speed limits should be strictly enforced. Failing to use a turn signal should also be ticketed more often. I would support camera enforcement if I didn't think it would leak into public spaces beyond just roads.
> Freight trucks and other vehicles pulling a trailer too often swerve outside their lane. This is extremely dangerous and should be punished.
[@] Really, their are four modes of ground transportation, but Americans don't believe in trains.
[+] [-] romanoderoma|5 years ago|reply
In my opinion the classes are 2: fragile users and not fragile ones
Pedestrians are the most vulnerable, trucks and heavy machinery in general are the least ones
> not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x
That's by design
If cars could not care about pedestrian crossings and speed limits trips would be 10x faster
> A driver's mistakes kill other people.
I've been hit by a bicicle in Belgium and I ended up at the hospital with a broken leg
I was lucky enough to anticipate the crash, start running away and the biker only hit my leg
If I wasn't paying attention nobody knows if I'd still be here telling the story
[+] [-] _Wintermute|5 years ago|reply
And often the road infrastructure itself. My pet peeve is here in the UK you have junctions which sense when a vehicle has approached to trigger the light sequence, but many of them don't detect bicycles, so if it's quiet you're forced to sit and wait until a car pulls up behind you (or jump the light).
[+] [-] teraku|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meitham|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InitialLastName|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cultus|5 years ago|reply
While I don't condone running red lights, driver rage at cyclists running red lights or pedestrians jay-walking (a term invented by the auto industry) would be far better directed at drivers who don't take the task of operating a multi-thousand pound machine at high velocities seriously.
[+] [-] belorn|5 years ago|reply
I have personally lost count of the times I have seen strollers with babies on heavy trafficked bike roads, and 3-5 years old on training cycles. I have however yet to hear a single accident where a cyclist have hit one of those extremely vulnerable individuals being hit, which if it happened would likely result in the child being killed.
[+] [-] heikkilevanto|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sandworm101|5 years ago|reply
Ok... that is a very strange sentence. Time and energy (ie speed) are basically interchangeable (ie rolling through stop signs). So too are "safety" and "visibility" intrinsically related. Being seen by cars is like 90% of bicycle safety. The real question is whether lawbreaking for (time+energy) is greater than for (safety+visibility). The article doesn't give us that data.
[+] [-] OliverJones|5 years ago|reply
Above a certain speed, both bicycles and motorcycles are more maneuverable, and more predictable, than they are when going more slowly. Above that speed threshold they're counter-steered. That is, when I want to turn right I apply very slight left-turning pressure to the front wheel. That makes the bike bank to the right and smoothly enter the turn. At lower speeds I turn the wheel in the direction I want to go.
This counter-steering thing is only a factor in two-wheeled vehicles: vehicles with more wheels can't bank, of course. I've been a cyclist for decades, but I didn't understand counter-steering until I took motorcycle driver training. Motorcycle instructors drill it into us because it's a vital part of swerving to avoid obstructions when going at motorized speeds.
As a cyclist in traffic I find I'm particularly vulnerable in the transition between direct-steer and counter-steer speeds. So, trying to keep my speed above the threshold both saves my energy and keeps me at maneuvering speed.
I do this by slowing down when approaching a red light, with the hope it will change to green before I arrive. I also try to stop a few meters back from a red light so I have space to get up to maneuvering speed before entering an intersection without having to stand and stomp my pedals.
[+] [-] WarOnPrivacy|5 years ago|reply
The other options just invite broken bones and head trauma.
[+] [-] InitialLastName|5 years ago|reply
In NYC, any bicyclist over 12 years old or with wheels over 26" is required to ride in the street.
[+] [-] mgarfias|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avalys|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CarelessExpert|5 years ago|reply
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "
Edit: BTW, as a road cyclist, my very first reaction was the same as yours: Since this was a survey it's tough to tease out the real reasons from the rationalizations. Speaking for myself, I'll freely admit that my reasons for violating road rules (which, for me, is limited to rolling through stop signs at empty intersections) are more about energy savings and speed rather than safety.
But you can deliver that criticism without being cruelly mocking and dismissive of an activity you happen not to value.
[+] [-] cymbeline|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpm|5 years ago|reply
I think you might have a sample biased towards those that you notice in negative ways.
[+] [-] throwaway9191a|5 years ago|reply
And just because; my "tour de france cosplay" gives me a butt-pad for comfort, nice pockets on the back of my shirt to carry things, and dries really quick in the rain. I suppose if I spent $20,000 on a rolling sofa that would be better?