bicycling and stop signs
March 17, 2023 9:41 AM Subscribe
Shoutout to Washington's 2020 safety stop law. Extra special shoutout to the people following me in their cars who yell at me for not putting my foot down.
posted by esoterrica at 10:04 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by esoterrica at 10:04 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
As very much a pedestrian-first person, I oppose any loosening of restrictions on bikes at intersections. Small consolation to me if I merely end up with a few broken bones instead of dying because bicyclists think they can still navigate like they're pedestrians and are happy to blow stop signs, as they do constantly anyway. The safety reason given has very much a reverse-engineered-for-convenience feel to it; the example offered seems to have resulted from the truck driver breaking the law rather than from anything the cyclist did.
posted by praemunire at 10:15 AM on March 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 10:15 AM on March 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
Yep. As someone who's been hit because, on a bicycle, I stopped, and the car behind me rolled through the stop sign, I'm a huge fan of stop as yield. I mean, it's fine, I biked away from it, but every time I see some dipshit do the "but bicyclists and stop signs" thing it makes me want to take a baseball bat to their windows and slash all their tires.
And as someone concerned about the environment and quality of life, I'm a huge fan of "make cars second class citizens again".
And I am loathe to cut Newsom any slack on his desire to kill more bicyclists by vetoing safety bills.
posted by straw at 10:16 AM on March 17, 2023 [16 favorites]
And as someone concerned about the environment and quality of life, I'm a huge fan of "make cars second class citizens again".
And I am loathe to cut Newsom any slack on his desire to kill more bicyclists by vetoing safety bills.
posted by straw at 10:16 AM on March 17, 2023 [16 favorites]
So...
What is the reason bikes should treat stop signs as yeilds? because starting a bike from a complete stop is slow and not fun? Because slow moving bikes are somehow harder to see and avoid than faster moving bikes blowing through stop-signs? That bikes are less lethal to pedestrians so making them less predicatable and excempting them from traffic rules is totes chill?
How many people have to die before cyclists accept that they are also moving vehicles.
1) Do drivers of cars and bikes know what is supposed to happen at all-way stop-signs? I'll bet an important sized fraction don't know what the current rules are, especially when cars and bikes are involved.
2) many car and bike drivers will break the rules they know about.
3)advocating cyclists treat stop-signs as yeilds is bound to raise the conflicts between people who think cyclists will and should be stopping vs those who don't.
4) availability-bias (if examples are easy to remember, the phenominon seems more common) means everyone has anecdotes of the other driver (car bike) doing the bad thing and there fore all those drivers suck.
5)Will escalating the car-bike accident rate at 4 way stops lead to ( better?) all-way stop laws and better public education?
Maybe i'm falling for the rage-bait bike vs car grar. But couldn't we retitle this article: Lets make the rules special for people on bikes and hope the cars learn to live with it.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 10:20 AM on March 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
What is the reason bikes should treat stop signs as yeilds? because starting a bike from a complete stop is slow and not fun? Because slow moving bikes are somehow harder to see and avoid than faster moving bikes blowing through stop-signs? That bikes are less lethal to pedestrians so making them less predicatable and excempting them from traffic rules is totes chill?
How many people have to die before cyclists accept that they are also moving vehicles.
1) Do drivers of cars and bikes know what is supposed to happen at all-way stop-signs? I'll bet an important sized fraction don't know what the current rules are, especially when cars and bikes are involved.
2) many car and bike drivers will break the rules they know about.
3)advocating cyclists treat stop-signs as yeilds is bound to raise the conflicts between people who think cyclists will and should be stopping vs those who don't.
4) availability-bias (if examples are easy to remember, the phenominon seems more common) means everyone has anecdotes of the other driver (car bike) doing the bad thing and there fore all those drivers suck.
5)Will escalating the car-bike accident rate at 4 way stops lead to ( better?) all-way stop laws and better public education?
Maybe i'm falling for the rage-bait bike vs car grar. But couldn't we retitle this article: Lets make the rules special for people on bikes and hope the cars learn to live with it.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 10:20 AM on March 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
Uh, the article says
And in particular, a bicycle rider who comes to a complete stop will be going much slower when they do enter the intersection, making it harder to avoid collision when a driver goes out of turn or fails to stop. A complete stop can actually put you more at risk.
Sounds right to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:23 AM on March 17, 2023 [34 favorites]
And in particular, a bicycle rider who comes to a complete stop will be going much slower when they do enter the intersection, making it harder to avoid collision when a driver goes out of turn or fails to stop. A complete stop can actually put you more at risk.
Sounds right to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:23 AM on March 17, 2023 [34 favorites]
Among motorists, there’s a popular myth that bicyclists are always breaking the law. In reality, drivers break the law more often, and in particular, as NHTSA writes in its fact sheet, drivers are “mostly noncompliant with the law on yielding to bicyclists’ right-of-way.” And drivers who break the law pose much greater dangers to those around them than cyclists who do.
Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:25 AM on March 17, 2023 [26 favorites]
Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:25 AM on March 17, 2023 [26 favorites]
The NHTSA says that the Idaho Stop has improved safety in the states that have implemented it. So it isn't let's make special rules for people on bikes but here's a simple rule change that will improve safety for vulnerable road users.
Also, in our climate emergency I think it would be appropriate to have special rules in order to encourage people to take other modes of transportation instead of cars but I wouldn't call this a special rule.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:29 AM on March 17, 2023 [20 favorites]
Also, in our climate emergency I think it would be appropriate to have special rules in order to encourage people to take other modes of transportation instead of cars but I wouldn't call this a special rule.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:29 AM on March 17, 2023 [20 favorites]
BOSS FIGHT CHALLENGE: have a MetaFilter thread about bicycles that doesn't devolve into non-fact based shouting past each other
READY
BEGIN
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:35 AM on March 17, 2023 [12 favorites]
READY
BEGIN
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:35 AM on March 17, 2023 [12 favorites]
Yeah, I wish this was the law in my province. I already use stop signs more safely than drivers do and stop-as-yield wouldn't change that at all. The cyclists who'll blow the stop sign are already doing it, and the ones who aren't won't, because that's not what the law (or common sense) allows.
People say, "drivers will get angry if cyclists 'run' stop signs!" and they do, but let's be real: a plurality of drivers are in a white-hot rage they instant they see any cyclist doing anything, legal or otherwise. If I had a nickel for every time a driver broke the law so that they could chase me down and yell at me for (not) breaking the law, I could buy a couple of new bikes.
posted by klanawa at 10:39 AM on March 17, 2023 [19 favorites]
People say, "drivers will get angry if cyclists 'run' stop signs!" and they do, but let's be real: a plurality of drivers are in a white-hot rage they instant they see any cyclist doing anything, legal or otherwise. If I had a nickel for every time a driver broke the law so that they could chase me down and yell at me for (not) breaking the law, I could buy a couple of new bikes.
posted by klanawa at 10:39 AM on March 17, 2023 [19 favorites]
So...
I mean this sincerely. This whole comment is very motor normative but I appreciate you making it because it gives folks the opportunity to re-explain in-thread.
Maybe i'm falling for the rage-bait bike vs car grar. But couldn't we retitle this article: Lets make the rules special for people on bikes and hope the cars learn to live with it.
Consider replacing "bikes" and "cars" with some other violently threatened/marginalized group that you can relate to more and see if it helps.
I'm off to go for a pleasant bike ride. Except for that one intersection whose poor design means it has a ghost bike**, where the drivers get a green light and the people coming off the path get a "walk" signal at the same time and there is a 50% chance the driver will be shocked just shocked to discover you there shouting at them not to run you down when they try to make a right turn into your path. If I go to the grocery store that's a block and a bit from that intersection, I will be taking the safer route, which requires salmoning* on narrow sidewalks.
* to salmon: biking upstream, in the opposite direction of car traffic.
** ghost bike: those white bikes you see tied to fences and street poles, that people put where someone they love was killed while bicycling
posted by aniola at 10:48 AM on March 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
I mean this sincerely. This whole comment is very motor normative but I appreciate you making it because it gives folks the opportunity to re-explain in-thread.
Maybe i'm falling for the rage-bait bike vs car grar. But couldn't we retitle this article: Lets make the rules special for people on bikes and hope the cars learn to live with it.
Consider replacing "bikes" and "cars" with some other violently threatened/marginalized group that you can relate to more and see if it helps.
I'm off to go for a pleasant bike ride. Except for that one intersection whose poor design means it has a ghost bike**, where the drivers get a green light and the people coming off the path get a "walk" signal at the same time and there is a 50% chance the driver will be shocked just shocked to discover you there shouting at them not to run you down when they try to make a right turn into your path. If I go to the grocery store that's a block and a bit from that intersection, I will be taking the safer route, which requires salmoning* on narrow sidewalks.
* to salmon: biking upstream, in the opposite direction of car traffic.
** ghost bike: those white bikes you see tied to fences and street poles, that people put where someone they love was killed while bicycling
posted by aniola at 10:48 AM on March 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
What is the reason bikes should treat stop signs as yields?
The fact that starting from a complete stop can be wobbly and unsafe is already stated above. But also...
Having walked, rode, and driven in New York City for a while, it struck me that riding is pretty much perfectly in-between being a ped and driving, and should be recognized as such.
It is more like being a ped in that you can see a lot more of what is going on - you have an unobstructed 270-degree view (i.e. everything but behind you), and can easily look around the intersection and see what's happening. You have "skin in the game" in that if you get hit it's going to hurt, and if you are riding slowly and carefully it is much less likely that you are going to hurt anybody.
New Yorkers basically consider it a god-given right to jaywalk, so I have little patience for anyone who wants to trot out the word "scofflaw" for cyclists in the city. When you are on the bike, rolling through some intersections just makes obvious sense.
posted by anhedonic at 10:49 AM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
The fact that starting from a complete stop can be wobbly and unsafe is already stated above. But also...
Having walked, rode, and driven in New York City for a while, it struck me that riding is pretty much perfectly in-between being a ped and driving, and should be recognized as such.
It is more like being a ped in that you can see a lot more of what is going on - you have an unobstructed 270-degree view (i.e. everything but behind you), and can easily look around the intersection and see what's happening. You have "skin in the game" in that if you get hit it's going to hurt, and if you are riding slowly and carefully it is much less likely that you are going to hurt anybody.
New Yorkers basically consider it a god-given right to jaywalk, so I have little patience for anyone who wants to trot out the word "scofflaw" for cyclists in the city. When you are on the bike, rolling through some intersections just makes obvious sense.
posted by anhedonic at 10:49 AM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
New Yorkers basically consider it a god-given right to jaywalk, so I have little patience for anyone who wants to trot out the word "scofflaw" for cyclists in the city. When you are on the bike, rolling through some intersections just makes obvious sense
I spend a lot of time walking around the city with kids. We always cross at crosswalks. It doesn't matter. You can't see them past the car parked right up near the corner. They can't see you until they're basically in the bike lane. Ditto for short people or folks in wheelchairs or mobility scooters. Bicycles need to stop at stop signs in New York. When I'm on a bike, I do, and I'd really appreciate it if you would too.
posted by phooky at 10:57 AM on March 17, 2023
I spend a lot of time walking around the city with kids. We always cross at crosswalks. It doesn't matter. You can't see them past the car parked right up near the corner. They can't see you until they're basically in the bike lane. Ditto for short people or folks in wheelchairs or mobility scooters. Bicycles need to stop at stop signs in New York. When I'm on a bike, I do, and I'd really appreciate it if you would too.
posted by phooky at 10:57 AM on March 17, 2023
anecdotal_grand_theory: " But couldn't we retitle this article: Lets make the rules special for people on bikes and hope the cars learn to live with it."
OK, I'll bite.
1. We already have special rules for people on bikes. It will depend on your jurisdiction, but I think in all U.S. states, bikes need to stay "as far to the right as is practicable." There are others, but this is the big one. We also have de-facto special treatment of bikes with induction-coil sensors that trigger traffic signals; bikes are often invisible to these. Now, these special rules make things harder for bikes, not easier, but they do single out bikes.
2. Why do we have road rules? Is it because rules are an inherent good? Or is it because they promote smoother/safer road usage? If it is the former, then I agree, we shouldn't have weird carve-outs for specific road users. If it is to improve traffic flow and safety, then I disagree.
posted by adamrice at 11:26 AM on March 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
OK, I'll bite.
1. We already have special rules for people on bikes. It will depend on your jurisdiction, but I think in all U.S. states, bikes need to stay "as far to the right as is practicable." There are others, but this is the big one. We also have de-facto special treatment of bikes with induction-coil sensors that trigger traffic signals; bikes are often invisible to these. Now, these special rules make things harder for bikes, not easier, but they do single out bikes.
2. Why do we have road rules? Is it because rules are an inherent good? Or is it because they promote smoother/safer road usage? If it is the former, then I agree, we shouldn't have weird carve-outs for specific road users. If it is to improve traffic flow and safety, then I disagree.
posted by adamrice at 11:26 AM on March 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
That would be a small consolation?!?!
Wait until you see how long you'll be in debt for after the bill
posted by CrystalDave at 11:53 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
Wait until you see how long you'll be in debt for after the bill
posted by CrystalDave at 11:53 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's easier if we forget about the human element and just consider the behavior of different vehicles. I don't want to hit a bike or a scooter or a hoverboard with my car. Thus the rule for bikes, scooters, hoverboards, rollerskates--basically any mode of transport that is used recreationally--should match the behavior of most individuals in that class of vehicles, let's call them funmobiles. Among the set of behaviors common to funmobiles is a tendency to breeze through stops. If I'm at the intersection first and I've stopped and am gearing up to go but there's a bike approaching the intersection, or a pair of inline skates or a unicycle, I had better the hell not go because the funmobile is not going to stop, so if I go, I will hit it. I already live life as if this were the rule. Other drivers don't all. So if I'm parked at a stop sign because I can see a kid on a longboard rolling up the lane to the intersection, some asshole behind me is going to honk and then what if God happens to be watching? Lightning strike. All dead.
posted by Don Pepino at 11:55 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Don Pepino at 11:55 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
Long time California (Northern and Southern) bicyclist here...in San Francisco, especially, the stop as yield would be considered "We don't have to bother even slowing down for a stop sign" by most of the bicyclists in the City. I am as much for removing cars as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but asshole bikers are a real thing, and I've seen enough of it to know that capri pants fixie guy isn't going to change his anarchist behavior because the rules have been loosened.
Between fixie guy and the asshole drivers out there, bicycle safety is a real drag.
Pedestrians are largely ignorant of their surroundings, but anyone walking to where they need to get to should be granted the most freedom, IMO. Asshole driver always seems to win, though.
And don't get me started on topsoil truckers...I'd literally get off my bike and move to the curb whenever one of those douchebags was anywhere near me.
posted by Chuffy at 12:01 PM on March 17, 2023
Between fixie guy and the asshole drivers out there, bicycle safety is a real drag.
Pedestrians are largely ignorant of their surroundings, but anyone walking to where they need to get to should be granted the most freedom, IMO. Asshole driver always seems to win, though.
And don't get me started on topsoil truckers...I'd literally get off my bike and move to the curb whenever one of those douchebags was anywhere near me.
posted by Chuffy at 12:01 PM on March 17, 2023
New Yorkers basically consider it a god-given right to jaywalk Previously.
posted by Chuffy at 12:06 PM on March 17, 2023
posted by Chuffy at 12:06 PM on March 17, 2023
One thing that keeps coming up in this discussion about how much worse this is for pedestrians seems to be that folks are blowing right past the meaning of the word "Yield."
Switching the rules from a stop to a yield does not suddenly give the cyclist right of way.
Stop-as-yield means that if the path is clear, the cyclist does not need to come to a complete stop. They still need to yield to the folks who do have right of way. If the cyclist needs to come to a complete stop to do so, then they stop. If they can't see if the path is clear, then they need to slow way down until they can make that call. (Fun side note, in some states with stop-as-yield on the books, there is a 10mph or so speed limit during a yield so the cyclist can't just blast through at a full tilt.)
Will some cyclist continue to act like they have right of way? Sure, but they were never coming to a stop at a stop sign or red light anyway. Odds are they are not yielding either, so this change will have no impact on the legality or safety of what they are doing.
As a cyclist, I have a rather good sense of what is around me thanks to my elevated position and rather unobstructed field of view. I also know that if I screw up and misjudge something, it is going to hurt. A lot. I also know that if somebody else screws up, 9 times out of 10 it is going to hurt me a lot more than them. I'm balanced on two very narrow points and relying on dynamic stability to keep me going in a straight line. If a pedestrian thinks I got too close, it won't take much for them to bump me and send me crashing down. Looking at the cell phone? Easy to do while walking and driving but practically a guaranteed crash when cycling for most riders. I suspect that the constant threat of physical pain keeps most (sane) cyclist in check with regards to how they act around others. :-)
posted by SegFaultCoreDump at 12:08 PM on March 17, 2023 [28 favorites]
Switching the rules from a stop to a yield does not suddenly give the cyclist right of way.
Stop-as-yield means that if the path is clear, the cyclist does not need to come to a complete stop. They still need to yield to the folks who do have right of way. If the cyclist needs to come to a complete stop to do so, then they stop. If they can't see if the path is clear, then they need to slow way down until they can make that call. (Fun side note, in some states with stop-as-yield on the books, there is a 10mph or so speed limit during a yield so the cyclist can't just blast through at a full tilt.)
Will some cyclist continue to act like they have right of way? Sure, but they were never coming to a stop at a stop sign or red light anyway. Odds are they are not yielding either, so this change will have no impact on the legality or safety of what they are doing.
As a cyclist, I have a rather good sense of what is around me thanks to my elevated position and rather unobstructed field of view. I also know that if I screw up and misjudge something, it is going to hurt. A lot. I also know that if somebody else screws up, 9 times out of 10 it is going to hurt me a lot more than them. I'm balanced on two very narrow points and relying on dynamic stability to keep me going in a straight line. If a pedestrian thinks I got too close, it won't take much for them to bump me and send me crashing down. Looking at the cell phone? Easy to do while walking and driving but practically a guaranteed crash when cycling for most riders. I suspect that the constant threat of physical pain keeps most (sane) cyclist in check with regards to how they act around others. :-)
posted by SegFaultCoreDump at 12:08 PM on March 17, 2023 [28 favorites]
Bicycles need to stop at stop signs in New York [City]. When I'm on a bike, I do, and I'd really appreciate it if you would too. (slightly modifed quote)
One thing NYC gets super right is its implementation of leading pedestrian intervals. When the cross-street light turns red at many intersections, there's 5 second wait before the light turns green for the cars, but the crosswalk shows a walk sign for pedestrians to begin crossing.
Unlike most cities, cyclists are able to proceed with the pedestrians. They're going the same way, so there's no conflict. And the extra time to start moving means that cyclists are both less likely to get right-hooked and that they have time to build up speed by the time cars are able to pass them. Once the Cyclist LPI law went into effect, I completely stopped running red lights on my bike, even at intersections with little pedestrian or motor cross-traffic. It's damn near a perfect law.
We always cross at crosswalks. It doesn't matter. You can't see them past the car parked right up near the corner.
One thing NYC gets super wrong is its implementation of crosswalks. In many cities, you cannot park closer than 30 feet to a cross street, to ensure there is visibility for cars trying to turn and pedestrians trying to cross. In New York, parking is such a contact sport that, while that law might be on the books, it is absolutely not enforced. And now that everyone drives SUVs instead of sedans, the visibility problem has gotten even worse.
So this is yet another case where the problem is (understandably) getting attributed to other vulnerable users of the roads rather than at the root cause of the problem. Which is that there are too many damn cars.
posted by thecaddy at 12:47 PM on March 17, 2023 [17 favorites]
One thing NYC gets super right is its implementation of leading pedestrian intervals. When the cross-street light turns red at many intersections, there's 5 second wait before the light turns green for the cars, but the crosswalk shows a walk sign for pedestrians to begin crossing.
Unlike most cities, cyclists are able to proceed with the pedestrians. They're going the same way, so there's no conflict. And the extra time to start moving means that cyclists are both less likely to get right-hooked and that they have time to build up speed by the time cars are able to pass them. Once the Cyclist LPI law went into effect, I completely stopped running red lights on my bike, even at intersections with little pedestrian or motor cross-traffic. It's damn near a perfect law.
We always cross at crosswalks. It doesn't matter. You can't see them past the car parked right up near the corner.
One thing NYC gets super wrong is its implementation of crosswalks. In many cities, you cannot park closer than 30 feet to a cross street, to ensure there is visibility for cars trying to turn and pedestrians trying to cross. In New York, parking is such a contact sport that, while that law might be on the books, it is absolutely not enforced. And now that everyone drives SUVs instead of sedans, the visibility problem has gotten even worse.
So this is yet another case where the problem is (understandably) getting attributed to other vulnerable users of the roads rather than at the root cause of the problem. Which is that there are too many damn cars.
posted by thecaddy at 12:47 PM on March 17, 2023 [17 favorites]
Thank you for the commenters who linked to the report that yeild-instead-of-stop for bikes improves safety. In my motornormative fog i missed that. If it works, lets do it. Furthermore, lets advertise the f iut of that so that people get the message. (change the signs if you have t, to say Cars Stop, Bikes Yield, walkers go).
When a traffic circle/roundabout was first put in a town near me it was chaos and crashes until people learned how to use it.
Also, speed kills. speed reduces the available time to react, makes braking less effective and increases the force that collision imparts. Shouldnt we want entrants to an intersection/collision arena to do so from a stop? None of us seem to think rolling a stop sign is good for safety for cars to do it.
I accept the report on idaho stop for bikes, i concede that funmobile rules can and should be different than car/truck rules.
I also agree that separating these traffic streams as muh as possible is the way to go in new construction byt that retrofittig inevitably puts peda and bikes in striking range of cars.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 12:58 PM on March 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
When a traffic circle/roundabout was first put in a town near me it was chaos and crashes until people learned how to use it.
Also, speed kills. speed reduces the available time to react, makes braking less effective and increases the force that collision imparts. Shouldnt we want entrants to an intersection/collision arena to do so from a stop? None of us seem to think rolling a stop sign is good for safety for cars to do it.
I accept the report on idaho stop for bikes, i concede that funmobile rules can and should be different than car/truck rules.
I also agree that separating these traffic streams as muh as possible is the way to go in new construction byt that retrofittig inevitably puts peda and bikes in striking range of cars.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 12:58 PM on March 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
I ride bikes a lot. So, when driving, I notice that cars rarely come to a complete stop at stop signs in the neighborhood.
When driving, if I have a tailgating driver behind me, the best passive-aggressive response is to actually come to a complete stop, and then drive on after a full one-second stop. Super annoying when following a car doing this.
posted by jjj606 at 1:07 PM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
When driving, if I have a tailgating driver behind me, the best passive-aggressive response is to actually come to a complete stop, and then drive on after a full one-second stop. Super annoying when following a car doing this.
posted by jjj606 at 1:07 PM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
Oregon adopted the safety stop around 10 years ago. There has been no reported increase in pedestrian/cyclist collisions in that time. We have seen an enormous increase in the number of pedestrians killed by drivers in the same time, but I doubt there’s a causal connection.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 1:12 PM on March 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 1:12 PM on March 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
Also, speed kills. speed reduces the available time to react, makes braking less effective and increases the force that collision imparts. Shouldnt we want entrants to an intersection/collision arena to do so from a stop? None of us seem to think rolling a stop sign is good for safety for cars to do it.
Car speed and bicycle speed are very different things because of the relative masses involved. From the article:
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:33 PM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
Car speed and bicycle speed are very different things because of the relative masses involved. From the article:
The car driver has far less visibility around them, has less ability to hear people approaching the intersection, and does more damage if they hit somebody because their 5,390 pound car1, going as little as 3 miles per hour, has three times the momentum of a 200 pound bike+rider going 25 miles per hour.What the Idaho Stop means is that when I'm riding home at night and the streets are empty I can look at the intersection ahead and if no one else is there I can legally ride through. If there's a car or pedestrian there then I'm still going to have to stop for them.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:33 PM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
Also, everyone is different but when I'm on my bike I'm painfully aware that an inattentive, impatient, or angry driver can easily kill me so I'm not going through any intersections (regardless of what colour the light is or who has the stop sign) unless I'm sure a car isn't going to hit me because the drivers here are terrible.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:44 PM on March 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:44 PM on March 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
anecdotal_grand_theory, I find your "funmobile" phrasing dismissive and grating. It is a perfect example of "motornormativism." Any one of us could come up with a similar dismissive and rude term for a car.
Myself, I don't ride my bike for fun. I commute on it.
posted by SirNovember at 2:25 PM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
Myself, I don't ride my bike for fun. I commute on it.
posted by SirNovember at 2:25 PM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
Agreed, 'funmobile' is an ignorant put-down (although a lot of the problem with this issue is drivers' ignorance of the bicycling experience.) And bicycles (with brakes) are different from rollerblades & scooters (no brakes).
posted by Rash at 2:42 PM on March 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Rash at 2:42 PM on March 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Definitely- I have friends who bike because it's free. It's what they can afford. It's not for fun.
Hating cyclists can be classist, too, I suspect.
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:42 PM on March 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Hating cyclists can be classist, too, I suspect.
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:42 PM on March 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Earlier, anecdotal_grand_theory wondered,
What is the reason bikes should treat stop signs as yeilds? because starting a bike from a complete stop is slow and not fun? Because slow moving bikes are somehow harder to see and avoid than faster moving bikes blowing through stop-signs?
The main reason cyclists should receive special treatment, priority over trucks and automobiles: because the cyclist isn't creating any air or noise pollution (although s/he is a taxpayer, has also paid for these roads).
posted by Rash at 3:01 PM on March 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
What is the reason bikes should treat stop signs as yeilds? because starting a bike from a complete stop is slow and not fun? Because slow moving bikes are somehow harder to see and avoid than faster moving bikes blowing through stop-signs?
The main reason cyclists should receive special treatment, priority over trucks and automobiles: because the cyclist isn't creating any air or noise pollution (although s/he is a taxpayer, has also paid for these roads).
posted by Rash at 3:01 PM on March 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
because starting a bike from a complete stop is slow and not fun?
It's not a "fun" or "convenience" factor. It's literally safer for cyclists not to stop. That's all I need, and I've heard it straight from cyclists.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:15 PM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
It's not a "fun" or "convenience" factor. It's literally safer for cyclists not to stop. That's all I need, and I've heard it straight from cyclists.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:15 PM on March 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
Re: funmobile, i was quoting an earlier commenter, and I will happily replace the group term for bikes, scooters, skate boards, wheel chairs, ebikes, escooters, velomobiles, mopeds, dirt bikes, trikes....
Low speed convenances.
Bikes et al.
Also, cyclists blow red lights and stop signs at intersections all the time. Car drivers are even worse. Electric cars with good cameras/mirrors don't solve the problem that highpowered highspeed heavy transport personal vehicles are dangerous to others.
How best to regulate and separate types of traffic, and which to prioritize is a changing situation. We have infrastrucutre and habits from the subsidized car age that need undoing.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 4:16 PM on March 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
Low speed convenances.
Bikes et al.
Also, cyclists blow red lights and stop signs at intersections all the time. Car drivers are even worse. Electric cars with good cameras/mirrors don't solve the problem that highpowered highspeed heavy transport personal vehicles are dangerous to others.
How best to regulate and separate types of traffic, and which to prioritize is a changing situation. We have infrastrucutre and habits from the subsidized car age that need undoing.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 4:16 PM on March 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yeah, "funmobile" was me, not anecdotal_grand_theory. Don't be blaming anecdotal_grand_theory for my nonsense.
I realize that many many people ride bikes not for fun but it doesn't appear to matter whether the person on the bike is out for a jaunt or headed to the workplace. That's why I was saying maybe we should forget the people involved and just consider the vehicles. Big heavy vehicles are more likely to stop at stop signs than to continue through intersections without stopping. Bikes are the opposite. Bikes are more likely to proceed through intersections without stopping.
To avoid the most death and agony and mayhem, the law should be based on actual behavior, not on something stupid like "whoever arrived first should get to be the one to leave first because that's FAIR." The law should be that the enormous umptyton vehicle should defer to the bike. That's the way they do it in Amsterdam and suchlike decent places, and that's why they have nice things and USians live in a barely habitable hellscape. Just keep your foot on the brake if there's a bike around because bikes blow stops. They just do.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:05 PM on March 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
I realize that many many people ride bikes not for fun but it doesn't appear to matter whether the person on the bike is out for a jaunt or headed to the workplace. That's why I was saying maybe we should forget the people involved and just consider the vehicles. Big heavy vehicles are more likely to stop at stop signs than to continue through intersections without stopping. Bikes are the opposite. Bikes are more likely to proceed through intersections without stopping.
To avoid the most death and agony and mayhem, the law should be based on actual behavior, not on something stupid like "whoever arrived first should get to be the one to leave first because that's FAIR." The law should be that the enormous umptyton vehicle should defer to the bike. That's the way they do it in Amsterdam and suchlike decent places, and that's why they have nice things and USians live in a barely habitable hellscape. Just keep your foot on the brake if there's a bike around because bikes blow stops. They just do.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:05 PM on March 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm a pedestrian, a bicyclist, and a driver.
I live in northern California, and bicycles are legally vehicles and are bound by the same laws are cars.
I drive my daughter to school every morning, and there's a fairly busy four-way-stop that kids riding their bikes to school regularly blow through. If no cars are there, fine.
The problem is that the street they're coming from is directly East, so I cannot see them because of the morning sun. I'm worried about hitting a kid.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:09 PM on March 17, 2023
I live in northern California, and bicycles are legally vehicles and are bound by the same laws are cars.
I drive my daughter to school every morning, and there's a fairly busy four-way-stop that kids riding their bikes to school regularly blow through. If no cars are there, fine.
The problem is that the street they're coming from is directly East, so I cannot see them because of the morning sun. I'm worried about hitting a kid.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:09 PM on March 17, 2023
I'm a pedestrian, a bicyclist, and a driver.
Sorry, should've mentioned in each role I've experienced bad behavior by the other roles.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:10 PM on March 17, 2023
Sorry, should've mentioned in each role I've experienced bad behavior by the other roles.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:10 PM on March 17, 2023
It seems a simple conclusion has been reached:
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:29 AM on March 18, 2023 [9 favorites]
- Everyone agrees that when you take one mode, you see careless or dangerous behaviour from the others.
- The modes with the greatest kinetic energy (mass and velocity) cause the most harm.
- ∴
- The most effective safety regulation will be the one that focuses on enforcement for motor vehicles, and grants some concessions to people cycling and many concessions to people walking.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:29 AM on March 18, 2023 [9 favorites]
US road law, like a whole lot of US law, is stupid. That is why we are all so unsafe and so miserable.
"Instead of shielding drivers and their insurance companies from the consequences of careless driving, Dutch law shields cyclists. If a cyclist is involved in a collision with a driver, the cyclist does not have to prove that the driver was negligent. Dutch law begins with the assumption that the driver is at fault. If the cyclist was the person at fault, the Dutch driver must prove that with evidence. Under Dutch law, the burden of proof has been shifted from the injured cyclist to the driver—which is exactly as it should be."
"It's a common theme with Dutch policies concerning transport and in particular cycling that measures are not seen as a cost, but as a benefit. The Netherlands is a rich nation, in part due to sensible design of roads."
posted by Don Pepino at 5:21 AM on March 18, 2023 [11 favorites]
"Instead of shielding drivers and their insurance companies from the consequences of careless driving, Dutch law shields cyclists. If a cyclist is involved in a collision with a driver, the cyclist does not have to prove that the driver was negligent. Dutch law begins with the assumption that the driver is at fault. If the cyclist was the person at fault, the Dutch driver must prove that with evidence. Under Dutch law, the burden of proof has been shifted from the injured cyclist to the driver—which is exactly as it should be."
"It's a common theme with Dutch policies concerning transport and in particular cycling that measures are not seen as a cost, but as a benefit. The Netherlands is a rich nation, in part due to sensible design of roads."
posted by Don Pepino at 5:21 AM on March 18, 2023 [11 favorites]
Yep, and here in Amsterdam there are no stop signs. NO STOP SIGNS!
Rather than rely on police enforcement (problematic for reasons we are all aware of), the streets are designed in ways to make drivers want to go the speed limit. One way to do this is to require attention at all intersections. Traffic on a main street has precedence over turning traffic (and the streets are built to indicate which is which) and when people approach an intersection at the same time right hand rules. But other than that, everyone needs to pay attention at every intersection.
For faster roads with separate bike paths there are lights, and they always include a bike light. And they’re all smart so no one has to sit waiting while nothing is crossing.
Unlike in NYC, turn lanes do not overlap bike lanes. Because another way to keep cars going slow is to make them take 90 degrees turns instead of letting them speed into a turn lane full of cyclists (why, NYC?? smh). And in some neighborhoods they have taken straight streets and put planters and curbs on alternating sides to make the road bend back and forth which slows cars right down.
And finally, jaywalking isn’t a thing here. Pedestrians have the right to use the road and cross wherever they want. The term was made up by the US auto industry to blame victims.
posted by antinomia at 8:42 AM on March 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
Rather than rely on police enforcement (problematic for reasons we are all aware of), the streets are designed in ways to make drivers want to go the speed limit. One way to do this is to require attention at all intersections. Traffic on a main street has precedence over turning traffic (and the streets are built to indicate which is which) and when people approach an intersection at the same time right hand rules. But other than that, everyone needs to pay attention at every intersection.
For faster roads with separate bike paths there are lights, and they always include a bike light. And they’re all smart so no one has to sit waiting while nothing is crossing.
Unlike in NYC, turn lanes do not overlap bike lanes. Because another way to keep cars going slow is to make them take 90 degrees turns instead of letting them speed into a turn lane full of cyclists (why, NYC?? smh). And in some neighborhoods they have taken straight streets and put planters and curbs on alternating sides to make the road bend back and forth which slows cars right down.
And finally, jaywalking isn’t a thing here. Pedestrians have the right to use the road and cross wherever they want. The term was made up by the US auto industry to blame victims.
posted by antinomia at 8:42 AM on March 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
Change the laws (idaho stops for bikes, burden of proof on cars)
Car driver re-education so people know what the rules are.
Focus enforcement on the most dangerous vehicles.
Rework our built environment to protect against the heavier faster vehicles hurting the lighter slower ones.
Car drivers should yield to bikes and pedestrians, and bikes should yeild to pedestrians in all interactions.
Case closed.
Metafilter Adjourned!
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 9:28 AM on March 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
Car driver re-education so people know what the rules are.
Focus enforcement on the most dangerous vehicles.
Rework our built environment to protect against the heavier faster vehicles hurting the lighter slower ones.
Car drivers should yield to bikes and pedestrians, and bikes should yeild to pedestrians in all interactions.
Case closed.
Metafilter Adjourned!
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 9:28 AM on March 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
1) Do drivers of cars and bikes know what is supposed to happen at all-way stop-signs? I'll bet an important sized fraction don't know what the current rules are, especially when cars and bikes are involved.
I gotta say, I stop my bike at all intersections where any person or other moving vehicle is anywhere nearby. Honestly, no cars come to a complete stop at stop signs in Chicago. I haven’t seen that happen in years. So that’s why I laugh a bit about all the worries drivers have about bicyclists disobeying stop signs when nobody is around.
Maybe 20% of the time I’m at a 4-way stop a driver trying to be nice waves me on. Well, if I’ve completely stopped it takes a few seconds to get back in my saddle and get momentum to push my pedals. Those few seconds are too long for most cars, who then start to drive at me just as I’m moving forward again. Earlier this week biking in below freezing temps and massive wind. I’m waiting to turn left at a green light and I notice traffic stops. A driver in the oncoming traffic lane has stopped in the intersection to “helpfully” let me turn. I eventually go, but by then the people behind him are pissed and drive around to pass on the right and almost hit me. I can’t win!
Recently there’s been an uptick in tinted windows (used to be illegal) and it’s impossible to see the driver at a stop sign. I usually completely stop and put both feet on the ground. I may seem some motion but can’t tell if they’re waving me on or even looking at me. It’s not safe. My defensive biking annoyed them and the people behind me. So, yeah, there’s jerky bicyclists but they are a smaller minority of bikers than the unsafe drivers are of drivers. Put me down for the Idaho stop nationwide.
The conclusion I come to now every time I’m biking is that none of us will be safe until we start redesigning our roads and communities to be engaged with instead of the quickest means to an end. Add to that education of society about bicycling like the Dutch and Danes give their children.
posted by Bunglegirl at 8:10 PM on March 18, 2023 [10 favorites]
I gotta say, I stop my bike at all intersections where any person or other moving vehicle is anywhere nearby. Honestly, no cars come to a complete stop at stop signs in Chicago. I haven’t seen that happen in years. So that’s why I laugh a bit about all the worries drivers have about bicyclists disobeying stop signs when nobody is around.
Maybe 20% of the time I’m at a 4-way stop a driver trying to be nice waves me on. Well, if I’ve completely stopped it takes a few seconds to get back in my saddle and get momentum to push my pedals. Those few seconds are too long for most cars, who then start to drive at me just as I’m moving forward again. Earlier this week biking in below freezing temps and massive wind. I’m waiting to turn left at a green light and I notice traffic stops. A driver in the oncoming traffic lane has stopped in the intersection to “helpfully” let me turn. I eventually go, but by then the people behind him are pissed and drive around to pass on the right and almost hit me. I can’t win!
Recently there’s been an uptick in tinted windows (used to be illegal) and it’s impossible to see the driver at a stop sign. I usually completely stop and put both feet on the ground. I may seem some motion but can’t tell if they’re waving me on or even looking at me. It’s not safe. My defensive biking annoyed them and the people behind me. So, yeah, there’s jerky bicyclists but they are a smaller minority of bikers than the unsafe drivers are of drivers. Put me down for the Idaho stop nationwide.
The conclusion I come to now every time I’m biking is that none of us will be safe until we start redesigning our roads and communities to be engaged with instead of the quickest means to an end. Add to that education of society about bicycling like the Dutch and Danes give their children.
posted by Bunglegirl at 8:10 PM on March 18, 2023 [10 favorites]
One thing NYC gets super wrong is its implementation of crosswalks. In many cities, you cannot park closer than 30 feet to a cross street, to ensure there is visibility for cars trying to turn and pedestrians trying to cross. In New York, parking is such a contact sport that, while that law might be on the books, it is absolutely not enforced. And now that everyone drives SUVs instead of sedans, the visibility problem has gotten even worse.
New York State law bans parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk, or 30 feet of a stop sign. However, New York City uses "home rule" law to overrule that, to create more parking and more dangerous intersections letting people park right up against the intersection. I find this frustrating and unsafe no matter what mode I'm using - walking, biking, or driving - because I have to creep all the way into the damn intersection (which, for drivers, means blocking the crosswalk) to see if it's safe to proceed.
But god forbid the unelected gerontocracy of parking kvetchers who sit on community boards (and skew disproportionately older, whiter, and wealthier than the neighborhoods they represent) allow those safety changes to our streetscape. Channelling Homer Simpson: sure, a few lives would be saved, but think of the parking spaces that would be lost!
posted by entropone at 5:28 AM on March 19, 2023 [6 favorites]
New York State law bans parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk, or 30 feet of a stop sign. However, New York City uses "home rule" law to overrule that, to create more parking and more dangerous intersections letting people park right up against the intersection. I find this frustrating and unsafe no matter what mode I'm using - walking, biking, or driving - because I have to creep all the way into the damn intersection (which, for drivers, means blocking the crosswalk) to see if it's safe to proceed.
But god forbid the unelected gerontocracy of parking kvetchers who sit on community boards (and skew disproportionately older, whiter, and wealthier than the neighborhoods they represent) allow those safety changes to our streetscape. Channelling Homer Simpson: sure, a few lives would be saved, but think of the parking spaces that would be lost!
posted by entropone at 5:28 AM on March 19, 2023 [6 favorites]
Saturday I twice negotiated the intersection I was imagining/remembering when I wrote all my previous comments. The first time I noted a snowy egret slowly proceeding from west to east across the intersection in front of my north-traveling car, stopped at the stop sign. Egrets, man... Completely blew the stop. The second time, I'm going north again and there's a bike across the intersection from me going south. I'm stopped at the stop sign and I see the bike roll right through the intersection. Of course I was like, "mwahhahaaa, bikes blow stops, toldja Metafilter!" But, like, of course bikes blow stops.
In that example,would it not have been pretty insane for the guy to have stopped? I guess possibly I might be gearing up to make a left turn and not signalling it. I guess the most safe option, sort of, might have been for the bike to stop and the bicyclist to get off of it and stand in the road watching me to see what I'm going to do, but actually probably not. I'm not driving a racecar. Maintaining speed the bike could easily and safely zip through the impact zone even should I have decided to rudely lumber into the intersection despite the presence of a vulnerable unprotected person in it. Anyway, why should the bike stopping in case the car decides to be murderous and rude be the LAW? For me to stop and then go again, I have to move like three muscles in my right foot an itty bitty bit. For the bike to stop and then go again, the person's whole body has to get involved and then the bike can't get up to speed before the next goddamn intersection at which it has to stop and repeat the whole stupid pointless dance.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:52 AM on March 20, 2023 [2 favorites]
In that example,would it not have been pretty insane for the guy to have stopped? I guess possibly I might be gearing up to make a left turn and not signalling it. I guess the most safe option, sort of, might have been for the bike to stop and the bicyclist to get off of it and stand in the road watching me to see what I'm going to do, but actually probably not. I'm not driving a racecar. Maintaining speed the bike could easily and safely zip through the impact zone even should I have decided to rudely lumber into the intersection despite the presence of a vulnerable unprotected person in it. Anyway, why should the bike stopping in case the car decides to be murderous and rude be the LAW? For me to stop and then go again, I have to move like three muscles in my right foot an itty bitty bit. For the bike to stop and then go again, the person's whole body has to get involved and then the bike can't get up to speed before the next goddamn intersection at which it has to stop and repeat the whole stupid pointless dance.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:52 AM on March 20, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think "funmobile" as a term to describe those who breezily blow through stop signs is a fine term for F-150s with spikes for lugnuts and modified exhausts that are being driven for purposes other than truck sorts of activities.
These are clearly vehicles being driven for recreational purposes, after all, not practical ones.
Oh, you were talking about commuters, and kids going to see their friends on scooters? Uhhh....
posted by straw at 10:30 AM on March 20, 2023
These are clearly vehicles being driven for recreational purposes, after all, not practical ones.
Oh, you were talking about commuters, and kids going to see their friends on scooters? Uhhh....
posted by straw at 10:30 AM on March 20, 2023
I do get tired of people shouting "THAT LOOKS LIKE FUN!!" from their giant motor vehicle at me on my bike when I'm on a road that would be immeasurably more fun without motor vehicles like theirs on it. I wonder if the delusion makes them feel better.
So my main reaction to bikes etc. being called "funmobiles" is frustration. It really ruffled my feathers. But since the person calling less-scary vehicles funmobiles also acknowledged that "USians live in a barely habitable hellscape" I figured I'd save that complaint for another day.
I think any vehicle can be called a "funmobile" in the right context. I aspire to live in a world in which biking is always (or even usually) done by funmobile.
posted by aniola at 12:45 PM on March 20, 2023 [2 favorites]
So my main reaction to bikes etc. being called "funmobiles" is frustration. It really ruffled my feathers. But since the person calling less-scary vehicles funmobiles also acknowledged that "USians live in a barely habitable hellscape" I figured I'd save that complaint for another day.
I think any vehicle can be called a "funmobile" in the right context. I aspire to live in a world in which biking is always (or even usually) done by funmobile.
posted by aniola at 12:45 PM on March 20, 2023 [2 favorites]
Do y'all think e-bikes should be subject to the same stop sign rules as legbikes/conventional bikes? My current thinking is that people on ebikes should have to stop at all stop signs, because
posted by brainwane at 8:13 AM on March 28, 2023
- they can go faster and accelerate faster than conventional bikes, and they're heavier, so collisions would hurt pedestrians more, and so it's more important for pedestrian safety to avoid those collisions
- since it takes less effort to get going from a full stop, it's less onerous on ebike riders to make them stop frequently
- because ebikes can accelerate at nearly or the same rate as car traffic, e-bike riders can more safely navigate shared intersections with cars even if drivers act dangerously
posted by brainwane at 8:13 AM on March 28, 2023
E-bikes are a complicated topic. They're regulated differently in different jurisdictions—the Netherlands just proposed a 20 kmh speed limit for them, which is quite slow. In the U.S, there are three classes of e-bikes; many of the ones I see on the street are Class 2, which are limited to 20 mph, and should really be considered e-mopeds. That's fast for a bike, but slow for a motor vehicle.
Cheaper e-bikes are really underbuilt (perhaps criminally so), and I think a lot of people riding them don't seem to appreciate how much momentum they're carrying, making them that much more of a hazard. Realistically, it will be difficult to enforce different rules for bikes and e-bikes because there are some e-bikes that are visually hard to distinguish from conventional bikes. Cops aren't going to become experts on the subject.
If traffic laws treat bikes as an afterthought, e-bikes are a footnote to an afterthought, and we're really not equipped to respond.
posted by adamrice at 8:48 AM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
Cheaper e-bikes are really underbuilt (perhaps criminally so), and I think a lot of people riding them don't seem to appreciate how much momentum they're carrying, making them that much more of a hazard. Realistically, it will be difficult to enforce different rules for bikes and e-bikes because there are some e-bikes that are visually hard to distinguish from conventional bikes. Cops aren't going to become experts on the subject.
If traffic laws treat bikes as an afterthought, e-bikes are a footnote to an afterthought, and we're really not equipped to respond.
posted by adamrice at 8:48 AM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
Anyone using an e-bike on a road designed first and foremost for cars is still a vulnerable road user. I have been thinking recently how nice it would be if someone made a map that showed only the roads where the speed limit is 20 mph. If the speed limit is higher, the road is invisible. At 20 mph, only 1 person in 10 will die when they inevitably get hit by a car. The map would have a lot of disconnected places. This map would illuminate for drivers the world us vulnerable road users are living in.
they can go faster and accelerate faster than conventional bikes, and they're heavier, so collisions would hurt pedestrians more, and so it's more important for pedestrian safety to avoid those collisions
Like people on 100% food-powered bikes, they should be required to stop for pedestrians who want to cross their path. Not stopping for pedestrians is not what rolling through stop signs is for. All people on bikes should stop for pedestrians. Motor or not.
since it takes less effort to get going from a full stop, it's less onerous on ebike riders to make them stop frequently
First of all, you'd have to distinguish between a class 1 e-bike and a class 2 or 3 e-bike. I ride a class 1 e-bike. I limit it to 15mph. It doesn't have a throttle. It can take me as much as half an intersection before the e-assist kicks in. Sometimes because it's calibrated wrong, sometimes because I'm carrying a heavy load. And I've got an internal gear hub, so I can always be in my easiest gear which makes it easier to get going again when I'm stopped at an intersection!
A throttle is a small chunk of hardware on a bike. I wear a ANSI-rated hi-vis vest, use a full-size slow-moving vehicle triangle, I have a safety wing, reflective tape, and a red trunk on my bike. Oh, and I'm white, which makes more likely to not get hit by drivers who somehow don't see people on bikes. Somehow drivers still manage to not see me and right-hook me on a regular basis at this one intersection I happen to frequent (there are countless others like it).
So if drivers can't see me at all, I'm not sure how a cop is going to correctly identify a particular chunk of hardware. Which means they would just pull me over to check. I'd rather cops not be pulling over bicyclists, we already know they're not going to be fair about it. I'd rather that time and energy go into something that is going to make drivers get out of their cars in the first place.
Do you know about the 5 E's? (Is that really supposed to have an apostrophe? I thought it shouldn't.) Worth a read if you haven't seen it before. The "essential elements of a bike-friendly America". The five Es are:
- equity and accessibility,
- engineering,
- education,
- encouragement, and
- evaluation and planning.
One of the Es used to be enforcement, but they got rid of that one.
because ebikes can accelerate at nearly or the same rate as car traffic, e-bike riders can more safely navigate shared intersections with cars even if drivers act dangerously
Being concerned about bikes hitting peds are legitimate. But in a triage of "our society is only willing to put time and energy into caring about so many things, what do you want to care about?" I would say there are so many more important things on the list than pitting vulnerable road users against one another. We vulnerable road users get to share a precious pittance of public space. Let's focus on fixing the conditions.
posted by aniola at 11:16 AM on March 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
they can go faster and accelerate faster than conventional bikes, and they're heavier, so collisions would hurt pedestrians more, and so it's more important for pedestrian safety to avoid those collisions
Like people on 100% food-powered bikes, they should be required to stop for pedestrians who want to cross their path. Not stopping for pedestrians is not what rolling through stop signs is for. All people on bikes should stop for pedestrians. Motor or not.
since it takes less effort to get going from a full stop, it's less onerous on ebike riders to make them stop frequently
First of all, you'd have to distinguish between a class 1 e-bike and a class 2 or 3 e-bike. I ride a class 1 e-bike. I limit it to 15mph. It doesn't have a throttle. It can take me as much as half an intersection before the e-assist kicks in. Sometimes because it's calibrated wrong, sometimes because I'm carrying a heavy load. And I've got an internal gear hub, so I can always be in my easiest gear which makes it easier to get going again when I'm stopped at an intersection!
A throttle is a small chunk of hardware on a bike. I wear a ANSI-rated hi-vis vest, use a full-size slow-moving vehicle triangle, I have a safety wing, reflective tape, and a red trunk on my bike. Oh, and I'm white, which makes more likely to not get hit by drivers who somehow don't see people on bikes. Somehow drivers still manage to not see me and right-hook me on a regular basis at this one intersection I happen to frequent (there are countless others like it).
So if drivers can't see me at all, I'm not sure how a cop is going to correctly identify a particular chunk of hardware. Which means they would just pull me over to check. I'd rather cops not be pulling over bicyclists, we already know they're not going to be fair about it. I'd rather that time and energy go into something that is going to make drivers get out of their cars in the first place.
Do you know about the 5 E's? (Is that really supposed to have an apostrophe? I thought it shouldn't.) Worth a read if you haven't seen it before. The "essential elements of a bike-friendly America". The five Es are:
- equity and accessibility,
- engineering,
- education,
- encouragement, and
- evaluation and planning.
One of the Es used to be enforcement, but they got rid of that one.
because ebikes can accelerate at nearly or the same rate as car traffic, e-bike riders can more safely navigate shared intersections with cars even if drivers act dangerously
Being concerned about bikes hitting peds are legitimate. But in a triage of "our society is only willing to put time and energy into caring about so many things, what do you want to care about?" I would say there are so many more important things on the list than pitting vulnerable road users against one another. We vulnerable road users get to share a precious pittance of public space. Let's focus on fixing the conditions.
posted by aniola at 11:16 AM on March 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
« Older When you place the needs of others before your own | And In The Darkness, One Card To Bind Them All Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
interesting, I grew up in Northern California and that kind of a "stop" we always called a "California stop" ... whether driving or biking. (always strictly obeying the "no cop, no stop" rule.) I see below in the article that it's a "California roll," for cars ... which I thought was sushi.
posted by chavenet at 9:59 AM on March 17, 2023 [1 favorite]