Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#131

Post by lizard » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 12:18 AM UTC

shittyanalogy wrote: post #86

I'm going to attempt to rationalize why cyclists don't obey traffic laws in cities. The short answer is that bicycle riding in cities sucks. It's loud, slippery, uneven, blocked, takes a lot of physical effort, is full of unpredictable giant metal things that can kill you, teeming with large moving meat pillars that will jump in front of you at any moment, you're completely exposed to the weather and can't safely loo…

Cyclist are neither licensed or registered where I am, so there is no expectation they are familiar with traffic laws nor is there any way to hold them accountable when they do something hazardous (unless they are involved in an accident which incapacitates them). Traffic laws regarding bicycles didn't come up on my driver's test or in the educational material either so I had to look up the laws myself. The laws are difficult to find, difficult to read, and still pretty vague; no wonder even the sales associates at sports shops don't know them.

I don't live in a city so I'm not familiar with bicyclist in that environment, but in the town I live in, which has a strong outdoor recreation community and a University, cyclists also do not obey traffic laws.

This town's claim of being "bicycle friendly" is questionable, but you can get most places safely enough. There are bike lanes or shared lanes on many streets, double-wide sidewalks (which can be used by bicyclists) here and there, and a bike accessible trail system that winds around and through the town if you're willing go a bit out of your way. With a strong cyclist presence in town most drivers are fairly comfortable sharing the road. I've been bicycling around town for several years, both for recreation and to save $400/year on a parking permit for work, and never been involved in an accident.

But I still see cyclist riding up and down sidewalks in the downtown area (which has signs every few hundred feet stating that cycling is not permitted on sidewalks) or cutting off cars at busy intersections (even if the intersection is being directed by a traffic cop). I have even, no kidding, seen a cyclist run a red light in the oncoming traffic lane at night with no lights, reflectors, or a helmet.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#132

Post by rcthompson » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 3:42 AM UTC

jff wrote: post #99

rcthompson wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think you're talking about a situation where two cars are pulling up to an empty intersection simultaneously. That's a low-traffic situation. The problem comes when you're at a 4-way stop and people are coming from every direction. Anyone who wants to go through the intersection needs the cars from at least two other directions to let them through. So you, as one person, waving them through is pointless because…

> Of course, there's always a race condition and potential for deadlock when two cars arrive simultaneously at an empty intersection, and waving people through is a safe and necessary way to solve that. There are very clear right-of-way rules for this situation, and if both drivers can manage to remember those simple rules, no hand signals will be needed.

It's not that simple. There are some situations where you wait, and some where you can go, and there is necessarily a threshold, a point of ambiguity, between them.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#133

Post by crowding » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 4:07 AM UTC

xico wrote: post #119

coldpie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Never wave pedestrians through. It's faster for everyone for you to zip through than for me to wait for you to slow to a complete stop (like hell I'm walking in front of a moving car). I've had people stop at a green light(!) while I'm waiting on the side of the two-lane road for the crosswalk signal to change. I just stood there and stared until the light changed and they missed their green. I'm not going to c…

In a lot of countries and at least in California, according to the DMV handbook, pedestrians have the right of way, whether in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Cars are required to let them pass first, who arrived first is irrelevant there. Waving at them is only a polite redundant sign.

In WA where I am, and I believe in CA, standing on the curb facing the crosswalk != using a crosswalk. Standing around looking like you might use the crosswalk someday doesn't mean anything; using the crosswalk (and having right of way) starts only from the moment they step off the sidewalk. The WA code makes this pretty clear; CA uses the specific phrase "withinin a crosswalk" which makes me believe the interpretation is the same there.

So waving through someone who's not actively crossing is not correctly yielding the right of way. OTOH, drivers should bloody well expect pedestrians to start crossing in front of them when you haven't stopped yet (both states say that a pedestrian may not step out if there is inadequate room for the car to react and stop; by the contrapositive a pedestrian may step out in front of a car if there is adequate distance.)

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#134

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 4:12 AM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #111

jghn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general I hate when cars try to wave me by (as a pedestrian) w/ little regard to the total situation. I realize they're being nice but often all they're doing is making a bigger mess for the bigger picture. I always try to wave them along instead, but sometimes they're insistent, and I can almost hear them grumbling "why won't this dummy go?" ... sorry, it's because you're a) holding up traffic behind you and b) I…

Yeah. Never wave pedestrians through. It's faster for everyone for you to zip through than for me to wait for you to slow to a complete stop (like hell I'm walking in front of a moving car). I've had people stop at a green light(!) while I'm waiting on the side of the two-lane road for the crosswalk signal to change. I just stood there and stared until the light changed and they missed their green. I'm not going to c…

The exception being a situation where there's not going to be a space behind you. If they're going to be waiting for someone to stop, and it looks like they've been there a while, waving them through can be reasonable.

Always be mindful of the people you're going to be making wait, though.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#135

Post by crowding » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 4:14 AM UTC

jasonjei wrote: post #122

PJDK wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist (and a pretty law abiding one at that) I absolutely want you to treat me as a wildcard, one that you have to pay extra attention to since I'm in a pretty vulnerable position on the road. It's fine to put cars in a "probably won't do anything unpredictable" box, if the worst comes to the worst there'll be some paperwork to fill in (might not be true for you on a motorbike of course). A cyclist the worst t…

How does being a wildcard improve your chance of safety? There's a good chance some won't recognize it as such--elderly drivers have a slower response time.

A baseline rate of wildcards among cyclists encourages greater attentiveness in drivers that interact with me, whether or not I am a wildcard in that moment. It's a herd immunity sort of thing. The practices called "defensive driving" would not be followed by anyone unless there were something to defend against.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#136

Post by crowding » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 4:25 AM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #32

shittyanalogy wrote: post #27

I never really understood the value in ticketing cyclists, or jay walkers for that matter in NYC. Very few people are getting hurt, even in the densest metropolitan area in the country so why are we so worried about it? Because cyclists can be annoying sometimes? Also the city speed limit went down to 25 mph. Isn't this supposed to take care of many of the collisions? Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red li…

> Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red lights Speaking as someone who bikes/takes transit everywhere (in Seattle, not NYC), what an oxymoron. I'm not saying that at every single stop sign you have to come to a complete, foot-on-the-ground stop, but running lights is ridiculous and will do nothing but increase the hatred for all cyclists held by drivers by antagonizing them. Every OTHER form of transportatio…

Seattle? Place yourself in the bike lane stopped at Eastlake and Fuhrman southbound. Very common commute route. No way to not be in the bike lane there given you just crossed the U bridge. (Unless you like riding on steel grating while drivers honk at you.) Then try to make the left onto Harvard Ave (again, extremely popular route) after the light turns green. You have one block to move left across two lanes. Post youtube if possible. I guarantee that proceeding across Fuhrman against the red light, doing your lane changes in the absence of traffic, is safer and less antagonizing if there is even moderate traffic. Only other safe alternative is to use the pedestrian crossings, which kind of fucking proves the point here. There's a million little situations like this.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#137

Post by crowding » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 5:00 AM UTC

jghn wrote: post #118

lberlin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference I see between bikes/pedestrians and cars/motorcycles is that there is minimal cost/effort to reverse and change your mind. So, on a bike or on foot, you can jaywalk or run a red light by slowly peeking out and making sure it's safe. If someone with the right of way is coming, you can simple stop and let them by. You absolutely can't do that with a car or motorcycle. My general rule, as both biker…

"is to not get in the way of others who have the right of way" IMO that should be the rule for everyone :) The point I was trying to make was that often in these sorts of debates I see a lot of finger pointing between drivers & cyclists, with the cyclists saying, "Yeah, but we're more vulnerable - you all need to be more careful and allow us to do XYZ". But then they ignore that there's a third party who is even more…

Sorry, but yes. In my state, crosswalks are legally defined to exist at every street corner whether or not they are painted lines. Furthermore, the obligation of drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks starts when they step into the street and not a moment before. (Standing on the sidewalk means nothing even if there is a painted crosswalk). Stepping out into a safe gap in the curbside lane and expecting traffic to stop is legally prescribed behavior and is the behavior drivers should expect. And pedestrians should encourage drivers to expect that behavior by actually behaving that way.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#138

Post by jrockway » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 7:56 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #45

jasonjei wrote: post #37

As a motorcyclist, I think cyclists should be held to the same rules of the law as other vehicles to make driving predictable and safe. As it stands right now, I have to assume cyclists (via heuristics/profiling) as a wildcard--will they run a red light? Will they weave in and out of traffic unsafely (this is an acceptable practice, when done with ample buffer given their size and speed)? I think cycling is great (I'…

>> "As it stands right now, I have to assume cyclists (via heuristics/profiling) as a wildcard--will they run a red light?" I feel the same as a pedestrian. I can't count the number of times I've had to jump out of the way of a cyclist running a red light. Predictability is important for everyone on the road so following the same rules as other vehicles on the road makes sense.

As a cyclist, I can't count the number of times I've had to slam on the brakes to avoid a pedestrian jaywalking without even looking for traffic.

Here's the reality in NYC. Pedestrians ignore traffic laws. Cyclists ignore traffic laws. Cars ignore traffic laws. Everyone does whatever they want 24/7, and focusing on one group isn't going to fix the problem. The problem might even be unfixable.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#139

Post by jrockway » Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 7:58 PM UTC

jasonjei wrote: post #121

lavamantis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for articulating this, although you may have just started a religious war. My only addition is why cyclists don't completely stop at stop signs. It's a LOT of work to get up to speed from a dead stop, so it seems a bit pointless to do it when you can clearly see that no one is in the intersection. Also, as you are trying to accelerate from a dead stop, it takes a while to get through the intersection. If there…

I think the biggest concern about cyclists is the I-don't-give-a-damn attitude (entitlement). I understand the reasons to run a red-light when safely clear to do, but when the action affects other users of the road, such as on a busy road, that's when it's a no-no (for example, I almost got sidelined by a cyclist running the bike downhill on a sidewalk as I was pulling out of the garage on my motorcycle). Take my opi…

You're using the Post as your source? You might as well link to The Onion.

Re: Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?

#140

Post by 1123581321 » Fri, Nov 28, 2014, 12:55 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #66

1123581321 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference, in my city, anyway, is that lights are timed for cars and not bicycles. A light pattern that usually stops a car twice might stop a cyclist three or four times. A cyclists' lower speed and presence in the open air means that they react to the environment much more quickly. It's nearly impossible for a cyclist to fail to notice cross traffic when approaching an intersection whereas it's difficult for a…

According to Wikipedia, the Idaho Stop has not been adopted outside of Idaho. I believe many jurisdictions allow bicyclists to proceed through a red light if they stop and wait for a minute or two and the light doesn't change, as a way to compensate for sensor-activated lights that bicycles won't trigger. But that's quite different.

Ah, you're right. I believe it's spread unofficially, though, because I've heard about the practice from several areas of the country.