Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#71

Post by hermannj314 »

dmm wrote: post #12
jeffwass wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. I live in London too. As a pedestrian, irresponsible cyclists have really pissed me off to no end. Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians. Not all cyclists are like this mind you, but it's enough of a population that I second-guess most cyclists wil follow rules of the road. To put into perspective - when you're driving and you have a…

> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness I hate out-groups too. Nothing can compare to the entitledness of car drivers. I've been yelled at, swerved at, had trash thrown at me while walking or cycling, often with children. Many drivers seems to consider the slightest inconvenience as a personal attack worthy of violent response with a deadly machine.

I know this. Glass bottle thrown at my head for riding in the bike lane in Iowa. Apparently, I did something upsetting. Pick-up trucks are a strong signal for this type of behavior. No one in a sub-compact has ever tried to kill me. Not sure why that is my experience, could just be coincidence.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#72

Post by Silhouette »

lfuller wrote: post #32
Silhouette wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast Yes, certainly. My point was more that the upper bound of what the law allows tends to be less than what the most skilled and experienced road users could safely do, because most road users aren't that skilled and experienced. For example, wh…

> I appreciate your point, I just think it's rather like saying a speed limit isn't a target. While it's true and the spirit in which the rules are intended, the reality is that most drivers will assume driving the limit is reasonable unless and until it very obviously is not. I disagree with this counterpoint. In "Idaho Stops" the law is extremely clear - a red light is treated as a full stop, and a stop sign is tre…

I get the feeling (but don't know) that the practical effects of yield/give way lines, stop signs and red lights might be different on the roads here from on the roads there, so perhaps we're drawing different inferences about how road users are likely to treat them.

For example, here in Cambridge, UK, I'm not aware of any general problems with anyone's behaviour at give way lines, but cyclists going through red lights or past other blocks such as no entry signs frequently seem to exhibit poor judgement and create potentially dangerous situations. In this case, the law is also clear -- passing that red light or no entry sign is illegal -- and I'm sure the cyclists all know that. So it's not whether they understand the law that I'm calling into question, it's their judgement about how to cycle safely regardless of the legality.

If cyclists tend to exhibit different patterns of behaviour where you are, then what we're talking about might make a lot of sense in your environment. It seems most of us agree that looking at the real evidence is the only way to be sure. But over here, at least, I would worry that changing the law in this way would be seen by a large number of cyclists as condoning their current riding style, dangerous as it often is.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#73

Post by hermannj314 »

joncrocks wrote: post #68
_pmf_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians. Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allowing bikes this special treatment of stop signs and red lights would incite them to use the road instead switching to the sidewalk (to be faster)? I.e., yes, bikers might be entitled, but the suggestion would also benefit pedestrians.

In the UK (where I think the poster is from), it's already illegal for cyclists to cycle on a pavement (sidewalk) next to a road. I think. His experiences are with cyclists flouting the existing laws when they travel on the road.

In my city (not-UK), it is only allowed if you are moving at the speed of pedestrian traffic (a limit of 8mph). I'm guessing to allow children to ride without fear of being cited, or allow a cyclist around a difficult road condition.

My point is that I do not know of anywhere that a cyclist can hop on a sidewalk at full-speed and not be violating the law.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#74

Post by TheLarch »

Idontagree wrote: post #61
TheLarch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is dangerous. However, when you consider the economic, environmental, and health advantages it looks better. See http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe... . I feel notably worse inside a week when I stop cycling. You know what the worst part of cycling is? The endless noise and pollution from cars. Cars are a scourge. It is no wonder why drivers are so angry all the time. Who in their right m…

I'm all for acceptable public transportation to be the norm, but until then cars work fine. Roads also weren't originally built for bikes. I actually don't know how many of the bigger cities look now, and I imagine most of them have bike lanes, but places like where I live have bikers just taking the right lane because there's no extra space. There also isn't enough space to expand the road to make room for both of u…

"cars work fine"

Global warming, congestion, obesity epidemic, and arguably peak oil. Also: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

I agree that many downtowns such as those of Las Vegas, Houston, and Atlanta simply are not bikable.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#75

Post by truantbuick »

hermannj314 wrote: post #63
truantbuick wrote: post #34

Cyclist commuter here. Red lights should be red lights to everybody. However, Idaho stops are the way future. It's just doesn't make sense to apply the same "come to a complete stop" standard to cyclists. They're traveling at a much lower speed and have much less ability to accelerate. The extra time it takes to come to a complete stop (which means finding your balance at a stand still), and then remounting the bike…

Any advice for bicycle commuters approaching a red light on a rarely-used side road that is triggered entirely by a weight sensor? I took your advice once ('red lights are red for everybody') and sat their for 5 minutes waiting until another car pulled up to trigger to weight sensor and the light changed in seconds. Now I just go. I treat that particular red light like a stop sign. I don't lose any sleep over it. And…

Clearly there are exceptions. In my area, I don't come across lights that use sensors (or at least the sensors pick up cyclists).

I'm just uneasy with saying "red lights = stop signs for bicyclists". In complicated intersections, you need to wait for the green, unless it's very obvious there's no oncoming traffic.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#76

Post by lfuller »

aethos wrote: post #8
dogma1138 wrote: post #4

How about no. Stop signs were designed to prevent people being hit by crossing traffic. This isn't just a to protect the cyclists from being hit by cars, but to protect pedestrians from being hit by cyclists. I'm sorry but my experience of living in London in the past 4 years pretty much made me hate cyclists with passion. I find them considerably more dangerous and pesky than cars, they simply ignore all rules wheth…

I am a cyclist in NYC and I try my best to follow the mentality of "I am a car." I do not run red lights. When I see bikers do this it seems highly dangerous. Maybe the Idaho stop works in Idaho, but I doubt it would work in busy crossings in NYC.

The Idaho Stop doesn't apply to red lights - only stop signs. Its intended use is on smaller streets with low traffic.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#77

Post by jeffwass »

joncrocks wrote: post #68
_pmf_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians. Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allowing bikes this special treatment of stop signs and red lights would incite them to use the road instead switching to the sidewalk (to be faster)? I.e., yes, bikers might be entitled, but the suggestion would also benefit pedestrians.

In the UK (where I think the poster is from), it's already illegal for cyclists to cycle on a pavement (sidewalk) next to a road. I think. His experiences are with cyclists flouting the existing laws when they travel on the road.

Correct.

My concern is that such a move would give further credence to cyclists that they're "above the laws of the road", which would lead to even more of the dangerous types of cyclist behaviour I mentioned above.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#78

Post by mc32 »

dx034 wrote: post #64
mc32 wrote: post #38

I'm curious about what Germans think of this, since people look a pedestrian askance if you don't wait for the light. As an occasional cyclist I'm of two minds. On the one hand, having too many stop signs along a roadway gets annoying so mentally one wants to simply slow down and look and if no cars have the right of way at the time, go through. The danger is that this behavior gets modified to a default of riding th…

In Germany you can lose your driver's license quickly if you ignore red lights as a cyclists. It's enforced a lot, especially in cities with a high percentage of cyclists. And you'll get frequent comments by others, but even more as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

I wish we had something like that for cyclists who flout red lights. It's too common where I live. And I know the allure, as a part time cyclist, I understand it but a disincentive is good too.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#79

Post by rhinoceraptor »

Idontagree wrote: post #61
TheLarch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is dangerous. However, when you consider the economic, environmental, and health advantages it looks better. See http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe... . I feel notably worse inside a week when I stop cycling. You know what the worst part of cycling is? The endless noise and pollution from cars. Cars are a scourge. It is no wonder why drivers are so angry all the time. Who in their right m…

I'm all for acceptable public transportation to be the norm, but until then cars work fine. Roads also weren't originally built for bikes. I actually don't know how many of the bigger cities look now, and I imagine most of them have bike lanes, but places like where I live have bikers just taking the right lane because there's no extra space. There also isn't enough space to expand the road to make room for both of u…

> cars work fine

Except for the brake dust, noise pollution, CO2 emissions, and the tens of thousands of people who die in crashes every year.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#80

Post by kordless »

cmyr wrote: post #62
kordless wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a data point and was used as such. The effects of breaking moving vehicle laws can be rationalized away when the mass of the vehicle moving is low. That doesn't preclude other incidences, such as this one, where someone who's job it is to drive a truck has to wrangle with the fact they killed someone. They guy who died could give two shits about the situation. I saw a cyclist roll through a pedestrian crossing w…

Here's an explanation from a physics professor (cited in the original article) that might help explain what "save energy" means. http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.... In case you can't be bothered to read this either: > He also calculated that a cyclist who rolls through a stop at five miles per hour instead of stopping fully needs to use 25 percent less energy to get back to full speed.

> In case you can't be bothered to read this either:

My entire comment was based on someone else's comment in these threads, not the article.

And, not that I give a shit what you think, I actually did read the article and don't have to agree with it regardless of whether I "bothered" or not.

Post reply on HN