A note from cyclists

[ydoaPs]

Today, I was once again reminded that most people don't actually know all the required information to have a driver's license. This time, it was because a motorist almost ran me off the road and then honked at me like I was a jerk.

 

Ran you off the road; what were you doing riding your bike in the road?

 

Good(actually bad, since you're supposed to know this to get a license) question! Most states require adult cyclists to operate bicycles using what is called vehicular cycling. That basically means you drive your bicycle exactly like you would a car: drive on the correct side of the street, obey all traffic signs/lights, use proper signaling, use a headlight at night, and give proper right of way.

 

But bikes don't have break lights or turn signals; how are you supposed to signal us?

 

There are commonly accepted hand signals(that oddly enough should be in your state's driver manual) for cyclists that cyclists should use and motorists should know:

• Left turn: left arm straight out parallel to the road.
  
• Right turn: left arm bent at a right angle at the elbow with the forearm perpendicular to the road and pointing upward or right arm straight out parallel to the road.
  
• Braking/stopping: left arm bent at a right angle at the elbow with the forearm perpendicular to the road and pointing downward.
  

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Me, I ride my bike on the shoulder of the road. Why? It seems to me the safe and sensible thing to do. There's room enough for cars to pass me, and I certainly would not like to be in the middle of the road since I go slower than the cars. I'd feel a) like a jerk, blocking traffic, and b) unsafe, blocking traffic is unsafe because someone might not notice you.

[ydoaPs]

If there is room to ride on the right and allow cars to safely pass, then it is indeed polite to keep right. However, in many areas, there's no such room. It's even somewhat common for one lane roads to become effectively a one way(at a time) road due to cars parking on the streets. While you may feel like a jerk taking your rightful amount of road, it is actually less safe to ride on the side. It's one of those counterintuitive things similar to how you're more likely to get hit by a motorist if you wear a helmet.

[A Tripolation]

I once again repeat that most cyclists do not obey the rules of the road. ie, standing in the center like a bunch of lemmings.

[ydoaPs]

Why would a cyclist stand in the middle of a road?

[A Tripolation]

Why would a cyclist stand in the middle of a road?

 

I don't know. Ask the idiots that think whenever it's a nice day, that they can cycle all over country roads with no regard for the proper laws at all.

[swansont]

I once again repeat that most cyclists do not obey the rules of the road.

 

I have to agree, and I say this as someone whose primary mode of fair weather transportation to and from grad school was a bicycle. Stop lights ignored, and traffic lights treated as yield signs*. The ones who engage in that behavior draw a lot of attention, and make it easier to ignore the real dangers posed to cyclists.

 

*city planners sometime don't help, when they put bike lanes on streets with too many stop signs, rather than the less-impeded roads.

[Mr Skeptic]

I once again repeat that most cyclists do not obey the rules of the road.

 

I certainly don't. The rules are sometimes dumb and I can get away with ignoring them while on a bike. I still respect right of way, so the only people getting mad at me would be those who are jealous, not because I get in their way or something rude like that. If I can ignore the rules without anyone having to change their course in the least, screw the rule. Mainly, I treat stop signs and and red lights as yield signs.

[ydoaPs]

I treat stop signs and and red lights as yield signs.

I treat stop signs and red lights as stop signs and red lights respectively.

[John Cuthber]

Why would a cyclist stand in the middle of a road?

in the UK it might be because they have read the highway code

"On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. "

 

from

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

 

Of course, it would be a left turn on your side of the pond.

[Mr Skeptic]

I treat stop signs and red lights as stop signs and red lights respectively.

 

How inefficient of you

[insane_alien]

my biggest complaint with the cyclists i encounter on the road to work:

 

wear some high vis clothing and get some lights(or at the very least some reflectors)

 

I nearly smeared a cyclist all over the road because I honestly could not see him until he decided to meander out into the middle of the lane and i seen him silhouetted against the reflective sign at a bend further up the road. i had to swerve into the other lane to avoid him and if there was traffic coming the other way, well someone would have died for sure, probably the cyclist because at that time opposing traffic tends to be large trucks or tractors and i don't want to put myself under one of those.

 

Appart from that one complete idiot the majority of the other cyclists on that road are quite good, proper visibility, correct and timely signalling and correct position of the road. While waiting for a chance to over take can be frustrating when I'm in a rush (as is every delay regardless of source so its nothing personal) they're fine. I'm not going to cut in close to them and i'm not going to shout and swear at them.

 

Then again in glasgow cyclists tend to just ignore cars and cut in front, scrape down the side of the car and occasionally give a cheeky kick to the doors. Seriously, behaving like that is just plain wrong, grow the hell up and follow the rules of the road then the venom directed at you will cease.

 

In short, if the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road, no problem. If the cyclist is behaving like they can do whatever they want on the road because they're in smug pricksville then fuck em, I don't really care about their welfare.

 

same goes for other motorists and anything else that happens to be on the road.

[ydoaPs]

wear some high vis clothing and get some lights(or at the very least some reflectors)

I'm fairly certain reflectors are mandatory here. Don't most bikes come with reflectors?

[CaptainPanic]

Most states require adult cyclists to operate bicycles using what is called vehicular cycling. That basically means you drive your bicycle exactly like you would a car: drive on the correct side of the street, obey all traffic signs/lights, use proper signaling, use a headlight at night, and give proper right of way.

Can you use the same lane as cars? Or are you supposed to go to the side, and use only a fraction of the lane (so that cars can pass)?

 

[*]Braking/stopping: left arm bent at a right angle at the elbow with the forearm perpendicular to the road and pointing downward.

???

When I brake, I prefer to have both hands on the steer... I thought that was common sense? I'm quite surprised about this actually. My brakes are located on the steer - I can't brake safely without both hands on the steer...

 

 

Regarding biking, the Netherlands looks pretty much like this (note the following: a bike lane in a different color, a special bike traffic light, and nobody (not even small kids) wears a helmet or gloves because it's not really necessary. Only people on racing bikes wear helmets here.

 

Obviously, cyclists ignore the traffic laws on a massive scale, like everywhere... but the combination of lots of experience and proper infrastructure means that there are very few incidents. Lots of people use their bike every day, and all kids get biking-in-traffic lessons before they're 12 which is possible because it's a safe assumption to think that all kids have a bike. Also, city councils take the bike infrastructure very serious.

 

I completely agree however that lights and reflectors are really important (especially on a rainy day)... and since those little LED-lights were invented some years ago, there really is no excuse for not having a light.

Edited February 25, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[JohnB]

It's really quite simple.

 

If you don't intend to follow the road laws then you have no right to be on the road. The vehicle you are controlling at the time is quite irrelevent. Car, bus, bike or electric wheelchair, break the law and expect to get booked.

 

A red light means "Stop" it doesn't mean "Go through if you think you can do so safely". Here in Queensland we book cyclists for not following the laws. They pay the fines and the demerit points are taken off their drivers licence. We also have provisions for confiscating the vehicles of those who repeatedly flout the law.

 

Sorry Mr Skeptic but you wouldn't last long around here. We'd take your money, then your licence and then your bike.

 

The operation of a vehicle on a carraigeway is a privilige, not a right. Abuse the privilige and it will be taken away.

Edited March 2, 2011 by JohnB

[CaptainPanic]

It's really quite simple.

 

If you don't intend to follow the road laws then you have no right to be on the road. The vehicle you are controlling at the time is quite irrelevent. Car, bus, bike or electric wheelchair, break the law and expect to get booked.

 

A red light means "Stop" it doesn't mean "Go through if you think you can do so safely". Here in Queensland we book cyclists for not following the laws. They pay the fines and the demerit points are taken off their drivers licence. We also have provisions for confiscating the vehicles of those who repeatedly flout the law.

 

Sorry Mr Skeptic but you wouldn't last long around here. We'd take your money, then your licence and then your bike.

 

The operation of a vehicle on a carraigeway is a privilige, not a right. Abuse the privilige and it will be taken away.

I both agree and disagree with that...

 

I agree that the law is very clear. And the law says red means stop.

I disagree because there are plenty of cases where the laws are just stupid, and even childish.

 

Take for example a traffic light at a completely deserted crossing. In the Netherlands the traffic lights (finally!) just turn off (blinking orange) in the night, so that you don't stand completely alone on a deserted crossing waiting for absolutely nothing. In some cases however, traffic lights aren't turned off (but they should be). In such a case, especially on a bike, in the rain, and especially if you have a good view of the traffic (nothing hides behind a corner), I think it is completely understandable if you break the law and keep going...

 

Another example: construction works have blocked the bike-path for 5 meters, and it forces all cyclists onto the sidewalk (where it's not allowed to cycle). It's just for 5-10 meters. Should I really brake, get off my bike, walk 10 meters, get on it again and carry on? I mean, that's what the law says... but come on! If the sidewalk is empty, I am NOT going to walk. I will cycle. (If there are people, I will make an estimate of the danger of cycling there, and I am likely to get off my bike).

 

If I get a fine in both those cases, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the law is wrong, not me.

[JohnB]

I agree with the second case and the law would be wrong.

 

However in the first there is a problem. At lonely crossings the lights should change to flash, but if they don't you must stop. You cannot legislate for every individual circumstance. It's easy to use the extreme case to make the point, nobody around, clear view and raining. (Although if it's raining how do you have a clear view?)

 

Let's take the first part, nobody around. What if there is an approaching vehicle 400 mtres away? 300? 200? 100? Where are you going to draw the line? Why on a bike? Why can't a car or truck do the same? Why would rain or shine make a difference?

 

Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to stop if I consider it safe to proceed". You might be a careful and safe operator but would you want 18 year olds driving by those rules? Feel like riding up to a green light and having some young twit drive through the red because "in his opinion" it is safe to do so?

 

It's done the way it is because it gives no leeway to your or anybody elses "personal opinion" about the safety of the action or otherwise. The law is the law. It is logical and reasonable for the reasons I've outlined.

[CaptainPanic]

Let's take the first part, nobody around. What if there is an approaching vehicle 400 mtres away? 300? 200? 100? Where are you going to draw the line? Why on a bike? Why can't a car or truck do the same? Why would rain or shine make a difference?

It used to be the case that in such a situation, police-officers had the option to evaluate whether they had to give you a fine or not.

 

Obviously, they would always stop you, and have a word.

 

But their primary task was to educate the people (if necessary) and to keep the roads and all other public space safe. It meant that the police officer would evaluate the traffic situation; they draw the line...

 

There are many laws where the police officers have to draw a line. Keeping distance from the car in front... no way to exactly measure that. Something called "reckless driving", it's not even quantified. In other words: the traffic police do these evaluations on a daily basis. Then why can't they do that with a cyclist ignoring stupid rules?

Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to stop if I consider it safe to proceed". You might be a careful and safe operator but would you want 18 year olds driving by those rules? Feel like riding up to a green light and having some young twit drive through the red because "in his opinion" it is safe to do so?

Actually, yes.

Traffic lights were designed to make it safer for traffic to cross. If it is already "safe enough", they have no purpose. And I refuse to stop because some inferior algorithm shines the wrong wavelength photons at me.

 

And at least in the Netherlands, kids of merely 10 years old manage to get by on the streets, alone. At that age they actually obey all the rules, and listen to their parents. And by the time they are teens, and become reckless, they are experienced enough.

 

It's done the way it is because it gives no leeway to your or anybody elses "personal opinion" about the safety of the action or otherwise. The law is the law. It is logical and reasonable for the reasons I've outlined.

The law is indeed the law. However, it is not always logical. Laws sometimes contradict. And in many cases, laws are completely unreasonable, and even downright insulting to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a dog.

 

Laws are made by politicians who try to design a zero-risk society. One single incident, and politicians immediately start designing new laws to outlaw even more - so that the next time such an incident happens, they can point to the law and claim that they did their best.

 

The resulting kindergarden-society just has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

For example, another traffic law: it's not allowed to be drunk in public. So, how the hell am I supposed to go home from the pub? Taxi? What if the pub is located in a pedestrials-only street? It's officially (by law) not even allowed to enter the taxi if it is in front of the door, because the 2 meters of sidewalk in between are "public space". Try to imagine the police taking this law literally, and fining/arresting every offender.

 

At the same time, this rather subjective law enables the (experienced) police to arrest people who are annoyingly drunk. And "annoying" is so subjective that even the lawmakers didn't dare to put that in the text of the law... but it's pretty convenient that in practice it's applied like that.

 

[/rant]

[Mr Skeptic]

Let's take the first part, nobody around. What if there is an approaching vehicle 400 mtres away? 300? 200? 100? Where are you going to draw the line?

 

OK, most of my cycling through red lights takes place in the city. What if there is a car 100 m away? Then, at 30 mph it will take over 7 seconds to reach the intersection. Maybe he's crazy and going at 60 mph? It'll still take 3.7 seconds, plenty enough time to cross the street even going at 10 mph. But I wouldn't do this in a 60 mph zone.

 

Why on a bike? Why can't a car or truck do the same? Why would rain or shine make a difference?

 

A bike is more maneuverable and has far greater visibility (and hearing too, but you can't trust that). The bike is smaller too. Safety-wise, on a bike you're not endangering the lives of other people, at least not compared to how much you're endangering your own life. This helps encourage responsible behavior.

 

As for rain, it makes cyclists uncomfortable and less maneuverable and lowers visibility all around. But it is likely to encourage any biker who likes waiting at intersections for a light to turn on an empty street question why they're doing so.

 

Oh, and I think similar things go for pedestrians. I think pedestrians are supposed to only cross at intersections, and possibly wait for the light to turn besides. I also largely ignore this one, and in fact quite frequently following those rules increases the danger involved (since sometimes cars turn at intersections). Oh, and for extra fun, if you're walking your bike that makes you a pedestrian. Are you allowed to get off your bike and walk it across the street where a pedestrian would be allowed to do so but a vehicle would not?

[JohnB]

It used to be the case that in such a situation, police-officers had the option to evaluate whether they had to give you a fine or not.

 

Obviously, they would always stop you, and have a word.

 

But their primary task was to educate the people (if necessary) and to keep the roads and all other public space safe. It meant that the police officer would evaluate the traffic situation; they draw the line...

 

There are many laws where the police officers have to draw a line. Keeping distance from the car in front... no way to exactly measure that. Something called "reckless driving", it's not even quantified. In other words: the traffic police do these evaluations on a daily basis. Then why can't they do that with a cyclist ignoring stupid rules?

 

Police have that discretion down here. They have three options, ignore you, give you a "warning" or give you a ticket. A warning is like a ticket but with no penalties, however it is recorded so that if a person gets too many warnings someone will drop around to his house for a quiet "chat".

 

There is a very simple reason why it can't be left to the opinion of the individual driver and that is that most drivers (cyclists, etc) have a quite inflated view of their abilities. In a poll a few years ago some 85% of australian drivers considered themselves of "Above average" driving ability. As this is impossible, the only conclusion is that many drivers are fooling themselves. I don't care if somebody elses delusion kills them, I do care if it endangers me and mine. Simple really, play by the rules or don't play the game.

 

Actually, yes.

Traffic lights were designed to make it safer for traffic to cross. If it is already "safe enough", they have no purpose. And I refuse to stop because some inferior algorithm shines the wrong wavelength photons at me.

 

And at least in the Netherlands, kids of merely 10 years old manage to get by on the streets, alone. At that age they actually obey all the rules, and listen to their parents. And by the time they are teens, and become reckless, they are experienced enough.

 

I'm not sure you understood my point. You have the green light and a car runs the red because in the opinion of the other driver it is safe. Your opinion doesn't enter into the equation. Scary way to run a road system.

 

There could be a national difference concerning the next bit. Kids here ride bikes too yet the 18-25 age group are three times more likely to have a fatal car accident than anyone else. The figures down here demonstrate quite clearly that they aren't "experienced enough". Way, way too many are dying. Unless they were hit by the hoon, I can't remember the last time somebody older than 25 was involved in a high speed smash.

 

For example, another traffic law: it's not allowed to be drunk in public. So, how the hell am I supposed to go home from the pub? Taxi?

It concerns me that this question is even asked. If you are drunk you are impaired and have no place behind the wheel of a car. Of course you should take a taxi.

 

There are always problems with laws, sometimes due to the politicians being over protective and sometimes simply due to the fact that you can't write a law for every eventuality. We have a blood alcohol limit of .05 which I find silly. Someone who .049 is considered a safe and responsible driver but someone who blows .05 is a menace who must be removed from the road? This makes no sense. Personally I think just make it zero and be done with it. If you drink, don't drive.

 

Similarly we have laws against smoking in footpath cafes. Why? It's not as if you can even smell the cigarette over the deisel exhaust. However those are the rules and I'll play by them.

 

The bottom line of this discussion is the principle involved. My attitude is simple "Play by the rules or don't play the game". This is morally sound and consistent. Whereas the concept of only following the rules if you feel like it is morally unsound.

 

Does this attitude only apply to road laws or all laws? If only road laws then why are road rules a special case?

 

Can you play soccer or any other sport on the same basis? If not, why not?

 

If you play Monopoly on this basis will people play with you again? If not, why not?

 

If you accept that you must play by the rules at all times in these rather safe and frivolous things, on what logical basis do you exclude road laws when people are dying every day on the road?

 

Safety-wise, on a bike you're not endangering the lives of other people, at least not compared to how much you're endangering your own life.

Unfortunately you are talking to someone whose relative was knocked down and killed by a cyclist, so as a statement of fact you are endangering the lives of other people. The body mass of the average cyclist travelling at 40 kph is quite sufficient to kill a pedestrian on impact.

[CaptainPanic]

For example, another traffic law: it's not allowed to be drunk in public. So, how the hell am I supposed to go home from the pub? Taxi?

It concerns me that this question is even asked. If you are drunk you are impaired and have no place behind the wheel of a car. Of course you should take a taxi.

It's officially not allowed to even WALK home - driving a car never even crossed my mind.

Technically, if you live just across the street, you're not allowed to walk home. The taxi must somehow pick you up inside the bar, and drop you off inside your house... And I should stress the word "inside", because it's not allowed to even cross the sidewalk to reach the taxi - if you cross those 2 meters of sidewalk, then you have been drunk in public (for 2 meters, on foot, going to your taxi).

 

Obviously, it's also illegal for taxis to cross the sidewalk, or to be inside a bar, which is not a designated parking spot.

 

I hope that you can see how ridiculous this law is?

 

The bottom line of this discussion is the principle involved. My attitude is simple "Play by the rules or don't play the game". This is morally sound and consistent. Whereas the concept of only following the rules if you feel like it is morally unsound.

Have a look at these laws which are from your own country (I think I recall you're an Ozzie?).

 

In Queensland

• It is illegal to walk on the right-hand side of a footpath in Queensland;

• Taxi cabs are required to carry a bale of hay in the trunk in Queensland."

2nd link, probably closer to the original source

 

Play it by the rules? Or not? If you're really a hardliner, then I wish you good luck. I don't know how you can walk and never be on a right hand side of a sidewalk. Unless exceptions are allowed, you might get stuck when some shop has placed an advertisement on the sidewalk. The law then suggests you must take a detour and go around the block. Of course, you can just use the right hand side of the sidewalk for 1 meter.

Should you get fined for that?

 

And how many taxis have that mandatory bale of hay? This might even conflict with laws of hygiene.

 

How are you even supposed to know about stupid laws like that?

Edited March 9, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[TonyMcC]

I have been driving for more than 50 years without an accident. I count myself lucky not to have suddenly come across many Mr Skeptics!

[John Cuthber]

I have been driving for more than 50 years without an accident. I count myself lucky not to have suddenly come across many Mr Skeptics!

 

They tend not to last long.

Anyway, Captain, is it legal to be drunk in a bar (i.e a public place) where you are?

[Mr Skeptic]

I have been driving for more than 50 years without an accident. I count myself lucky not to have suddenly come across many Mr Skeptics!

 

Maybe you have and didn't notice me. Re-read what my criteria was.

[CaptainPanic]

Anyway, Captain, is it legal to be drunk in a bar (i.e a public place) where you are?

I think a bar is open for public, but still privately owned (i.e. not public space). So, yes, I would think that it's completely allowed.

Contrary to a public place, the bar owner can hold a private party. But it's for example not possible for a private person to close off part of a street for a private party (not without explicit permission from some government agency). So, I conclude that at least in the Netherlands a bar is not considered public space.

 

Anyway, I maintain that it would be very impractical and unnecessary to adopt a zero-tolerance regarding the alcohol laws we have. Most people that go out drink more than is officially allowed (the limit is very low). And the very large majority cause no problems. But it's still useful because it gives the police a chance to arrest someone who is really annoying for being drunk in public.

 

... and I think that a similar approach is useful for enforcement of certain traffic laws. <-- that's to bring the discussion back on topic.

Edited March 10, 2011 by CaptainPanic