Entertaining narration.

In the first 2.5 mins the compliance rate for bikes was zero and for cars slightly greater than zero, however.

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report

@ah, and what was the n for bikers in that 2.5 mins? 1? And the n for motorists? I think the video illustrates the point vividly. Multiple times people walking were forced to wait while motorists rolled by or to assert themselves by placing themselves in front of a moving car. true, at 5-10mph likelihood of death was reduced...the one motorist who stopped in anticipation of the walker getting to-and-into the crosswalk (the pick-up w/ all the lockers in back) got honked at.

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

In the first 2.5 mins the compliance rate for bikes was zero and for cars slightly greater than zero, however.

Really? I don't see a single car come to a complete stop, unless you count the one or two that HAD to because there were actually pedestrians directly in front of them.

In fairness though, this is a particularly ridiculous intersection. It's a one-way, continuing one-way, or turning right on another one-way, with no cross traffic. I think in a few cases the motor traffic should definitely have deferred to pedestrians a little more willingly, but that's the only use for the stop signs I can see. Traffic obviously runs a lot smoother with rolling stops, and it's all at relatively low speed where driver reaction time is good. A "yield to pedestrians" sign or some other clever nudge would work just as well.

I think it sort of goes to my theory that a very large fraction of signs and signals are superfluous and obnoxious, or at least they would be if drivers could be induced in other ways to simply move somewhat more slowly and carefully, giving due to all users of the road.

I expect it's frustration at all the superfluous stop signs and signals that is really behind motorist complaints about bicyclists "flaunting the law". Deep down it's not so much, "what you're doing is dangerous," as, "if I have to suffer these pointless annoyances, everyone should."

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report

LOL @ "He must be new in town."

Got to say that was the best irony of this video - the ONLY one to legitimately stop without pedestrians was a cab. Nice.

by SDJ on Jan 21, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report

From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with what the motorists were doing. The only thing that they would have to stop for is an occasional pedestrian. It appears from the video that the none of autos were threatning to pedestrians. A yield for pedestrians sign would be sufficient.

Thinking twice, I think that if all the cars actually came to a full stop, the intersection would be choked with cars waiting to genuflect to the red octagon. I think we can all agree that stop signs are an overused traffic control tool.

I'm a biker and I would also blow through this stop sign.

by tom on Jan 21, 2010 12:52 pm • link • report

Who cares about bikes. I'm sick of being nearly hit every time I walk across the street. Instead of the bag tax, the city should start ticketing motorists who fly around corners without regard to people on foot who are obviously dead meat if hit.

by Jamie on Jan 21, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report

I sort of fall into both camps... on the one hand, I don't agree with the Idaho stop; though I'm certainly willing to agree that almost all motorists also don't come to a complete stop. Rather, my issue isn't with behavior; it's that the signs to consider the behavior. There are a multitude of stop signs which would function just as well as yield signs... but there's no public clammor to go about any such changes. The stop signs could be reserved for those few locations where one really *needs* to stop; and those few locations where all users actually do.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report

The reason there are stop signs instead of yield signs is because motorists don't obey yield signs or even more specifically, "yield to pedestrian" signs. Try walking across Maryland Ave NE, which has a 25 mph speed limit but 40 mph hour traffic, and see if you think cars are really going to slow down. You take your life into your hands if you believe those "yield to pedestrian" signs and try to cross in the face of incoming traffic. In fact, wasn't a pedestrian killed recently as he tried to cross at a "yield to pedestrian" intersection?

by lou on Jan 21, 2010 1:20 pm • link • report

David's opening paragraph is such a ridiculous straw man that it merits a response. Are there "some" people who say "no soup for you!" until cyclists obey basic traffic laws? I guess there are. Just like there are "some" people who believe in Morlocks. But it's the sort of pedantic self-righteousness that makes it hard to take seriously any ensuing discussion.

And I agree with those who say this intersection is poorly thought out. And, the vast majority of cars slowed down as they went through. As opposed to the cyclist who took that corner like an Olympian without knowing what was around the corner. Now, "some" people would say that cyclists should ignore any car-centric law until the world is made safe for them and pedestrians. Of course, "those" people would be idiots.

by Fritz on Jan 21, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report

We actually misuse both stop & yield signs, using yield signs to reinforce existing regulations rather than to provide right-of-way control. Yield-to-ped signs, for example, don't establish any new law or give any new information at all.

There is plenty of research & established precedent which shows that intersections can function with yield signs just as they do with stop signs, and an increasing amount of research demonstrating that one can convert from stop signs to yield signs without issue.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

Agree with the commenters who note that if every car in the video came to a full stop, this would be one of those horrible intersections that back up traffic for 14 blocks. The intersection clearly has too much car traffic (and not enough pedestrian traffic) to truly accommodate a full stop. Possibly the best solution here would be a signal allowing forward moving traffic to go unimpeded, right-turning traffic to yield to pedestrians, and a pedestrian push-button that would result in a red light so that pedestrians may cross whenever they wish.

But back to the topic of the post -- stuff like this does nothing to resolve the ongoing battle between (some) drivers and (some) bicyclists. No driver cares about a cyclist who blows through a stop sign like this, since doing so would affect the driver not at all. Not even pedestrians would mind it UNLESS it affected them (by stopping them or making them feel unsafe). The complaint by drivers and pedestrians alike is that some cyclists frequently blow through lights or stop signs with no regard for oncoming traffic or pedestrians. It feels entitled because it is, and it's enraging because it not only endangers pedestrians, but puts drivers in the scary position of worrying that they might accidentally hit a cyclist. The problem isn't traffic lights, or drivers, or pedestrians, or even most cyclists. The problem is the small group of assholes who ride around making others feel unsafe and uncomfortable, but then act smug and entitled because they aren't polluting (despite the fact that the individuals placed most in danger by the behavior, pedestrians, are also the only ones whose mode of transport is truly environmentally neutral).

So no, a snide video which basically complains "See! Drivers suck too!" only serves to set this up as a drivers v. cyclists issue when in fact it's a Reasonable and Safe Travelers of All Kinds v. Assholes issue.

by Emily on Jan 21, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report

1) People should follow the law. End of story. Stop whining about it. Use democratic channels if you don't like the law. Society goes to chaos is people don't follow the rules. What is people decide driving on the right is an arbitrary thing and decide to ignore it? Why is that different than not stopping at a stop sign?

2) Clearly, DOTs, spurred by neighborhood inhabitants, put way too many STOP signs out there. Oddly, car drivers in those neighborhoods all feel that the STOP signs are ridiculous. You would think the group of neighborhood inhabitants and drivers are not exclusive. Hypocrisy. Yield signs would suffice in many cases. If only drivers knew how to yield properly.

3) Many a night, cops stand at the intersection where I live. Virtually nobody makes a full stop. Some don't even pretend to slow down. Tickets galore. when they stop someone, they call backup. It's hilarious to see three cops cars at night ticketing one person who didn't stop for a STOP sign. That'll teach 'm. Personally, I think the STOP sign is a stupid, but hey, if it's there you gotta stop.

by Jasper on Jan 21, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

The reason there are stop signs instead of yield signs is because motorists don't obey yield signs or even more specifically, "yield to pedestrian" signs. Try walking across Maryland Ave NE, which has a 25 mph speed limit but 40 mph hour traffic, and see if you think cars are really going to slow down. You take your life into your hands if you believe those "yield to pedestrian" signs and try to cross in the face of incoming traffic.

I don't think "Yield to Ped" signs are specifically the answer. That alone would probably be ignored, and lead straight down the escalation path to superfluous stop signs that are also ignored. (Then a flashing red light. Next, maybe it's a real traffic light, and you end up with cars sitting in an empty intersection waiting for the light to change, cursing the cyclist who zips past...)

I do think there are probably various tweaks that can be made to the roadway, signage and the whole environment that would subconsciously nudge drivers into slowing down and noticing pedestrians. This is most effective if it's employed all over, and you can nudge drivers into a new mode of slower, steadier, more attentive driving.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report

People should follow the law. End of story. Stop whining about it.

Money should also grow on trees. That would be nice.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report

I see the issue as the rudeness of the motorists who ignore the walkers waiting on the corner to cross - forcing the walkers into a game of chicken they know they can never win in order to get across the street, relying on the mercy of the driver, that the drivers' brakes work, that the driver won't sneeze at that moment, let alone look away to see who's calling, change songs, etc.

Getting across the street is life-or-death for the walker. Stopping for the walker before the walker puts him/herself into harms way to force a stop is a minor inconvenience for the motorist. Only one motorist stopped in anticipation of someone getting-to-and-into the crosswalk and that motorist got honked at. Its a cultural habit that contributes to a high rate of preventable crashes.

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

I sort of fall into both camps... on the one hand, I don't agree with the Idaho stop; though I'm certainly willing to agree that almost all motorists also don't come to a complete stop. Rather, my issue isn't with behavior; it's that the signs to consider the behavior. There are a multitude of stop signs which would function just as well as yield signs... but there's no public clammor to go about any such changes. The stop signs could be reserved for those few locations where one really *needs* to stop; and those few locations where all users actually do.

That's reasonable, but I'd urge you to rethink the Idaho stop. Even if we eliminated all the stop signs motorists don't really need, there are still going to be a lot of places it would be perfectly safe (safer, actually) for cyclists to merely slow down and yield.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

David's point is dead on. Cyclists break traffic rules. Drivers break traffic rules. Even pedestrians break the rules. We simply have social conventions that decriminalize certain violations (rolling through stop signs, exceeding speed limits, jaywalking, etc.). Drivers cannot point the finger at cyclists and say "you break rules, so STFU." We all break the rules.

The tradeoff is that if we break that law (drive above the speed limit, go through a stoplight/sign) then not only are there consequences like an accident, but the violator can be held responsible.

It's not a perfect system, but David's point is certainly valid.

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

Or more generally, treating all vehicles on the road as if they are exactly the same is always going to lead to bad and/or ridiculous outcomes. Bicycles don't become automobiles just because they are on the asphalt, and it's silly (and lazy, and dangerous) to pretend that they are.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report

I do think there are probably various tweaks that can be made to the roadway, signage and the whole environment that would subconsciously nudge drivers into slowing down and noticing pedestrians

You know what that intersection needs? Speed bumps! Lots of 'em. Works in DC neighborhoods.

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

@jack lecou-
My opposition to the Idaho Stop is actually since I might be considered to be on the drivers' camp here. While I agree both sides break the law, I don't believe in legislating on one side to make it legal. That goes against the very essence of what stop signs say in the first place.

Hence the intent of my comments is to at least settle the animosity that forms when each side points to the other and says they're breaking the law. The actual "give way to whomever" would remain unchanged whether there are stop signs & yield signs, but at least it'd be consistent across users & would maintain user expectancy.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 1:59 pm • link • report

And, the vast majority of cars slowed down as they went through. As opposed to the cyclist who took that corner like an Olympian without knowing what was around the corner.

Which bicyclist was that? I didn't see any behaving unsafely, or going much faster than the cars were.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 1:59 pm • link • report

My opposition to the Idaho Stop is actually since I might be considered to be on the drivers' camp here. While I agree both sides break the law, I don't believe in legislating on one side to make it legal. That goes against the very essence of what stop signs say in the first place.

That doesn't make sense. There are all kinds of things that are legal for one kind of vehicle, but not for another. "No Truck" zones, for example, or bus lanes. Or bike lanes, for that matter.

It simply doesn't make sense to dogmatically insist that bikes and cars be treated exactly the same way. They are manifestly not the same kind of vehicle, and have very different operating parameters and safety conditions.

If it's a matter of literalism when it comes to the sign, maybe we could just change all the stop signs to label them "Stop...except bikes". Would that be ok?

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report

@57 seconds.

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

Yes, there are issues w/ other modes, and there are even plenty of cases where bikes are treated differently. For example: no bikes on interstates; or no cars on bike trails.

My concern in this case is that, if bikes are simply told not to stop, it creates an uncontrolled intersection; not assigning any defined right-of-way to a vehicle. There's a major liability for the governing agency should there be a collision.

Or if bikes are required to yield instead of stop, then mixing stop+yield control is expressly prohibited at the federal level -- a far bigger trick to overturn.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report

@57 seconds.

The bicyclist? He's coasting along at a pretty moderate speed. Almost exactly the same speed as the three or four cars who take the turn right before him. And he can probably see a lot more than they can.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 2:20 pm • link • report

My concern in this case is that, if bikes are simply told not to stop, it creates an uncontrolled intersection; not assigning any defined right-of-way to a vehicle. There's a major liability for the governing agency should there be a collision.

The right-of-way is exactly the same: yield to cross or turning traffic that has arrived at the intersection first. Bicycles are simply not required to come to a complete stop while doing so.

Or if bikes are required to yield instead of stop, then mixing stop+yield control is expressly prohibited at the federal level -- a far bigger trick to overturn.

Yes, Idaho Stop = bikes yield instead of stopping. If this is a federal problem, how does Idaho, you know, actually do it?

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

I agree w/ jack lecou's logic that different classes (types)of road users logically should have road rules tailored to fit the locomotion inherent to the type in use and how that type affects other road users. For example, at sea sailboats always have the right of way over motorboats. The locomotion differences inherent in the two classes of vessel are recognized and thus right-of-way rules of the sea apply differently to each.

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report

"But back to the topic of the post -- stuff like this does nothing to resolve the ongoing battle between (some) drivers and (some) bicyclists. No driver cares about a cyclist who blows through a stop sign like this, since doing so would affect the driver not at all. Not even pedestrians would mind it UNLESS it affected them (by stopping them or making them feel unsafe"

I disagree. Drivers often complain of "scofflaw" cyclists not because they are a hazard to themselves and others, but because they are not following the rules.

by SJE on Jan 21, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report

How do they sign for it? Do they say "Bikes do not stop", "Except bikes", "Bikes yield", etc.; or is it covered under statutory law... and in that case, how's the law phrased?

I know you can't combine stop & yield controls, but I'm unsure of whether it's ever been tested in the legal system as to whether you can have similarly conflicting laws albeit without explicitly installing the associated traffic control devices.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report

@Bianchi-
I agree w/ the sail vs. motor, since it's a bit tougher to turn off the wind or adjust the sails. However, I do just want to posit this: how are bikes & cars substantially different? Is the rationale behind the Idaho Stop because it lets bicyclists clear faster (in which case motorists could argue for the same thing), or is it because bicyclists get tired from having to accelerate? If the argument is phrased moreso for the latter (or perhaps some other rationale) it might be easier to garner greater support. The former will just continue the alienation between each camp.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 2:37 pm • link • report

How do they sign for it? Do they say "Bikes do not stop", "Except bikes", "Bikes yield", etc.; or is it covered under statutory law... and in that case, how's the law phrased?

The latter:

TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES

49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report

Is the rationale behind the Idaho Stop because it lets bicyclists clear faster (in which case motorists could argue for the same thing), or is it because bicyclists get tired from having to accelerate? If the argument is phrased moreso for the latter (or perhaps some other rationale) it might be easier to garner greater support. The former will just continue the alienation between each camp.

Off the top of my head,

1) Bicyclists have less acceleration power available, and stops put a significant burden on them

2) Bicyclists have better visibility and awareness of their surroundings

3) It's much safer for bicyclists to clear an intersection before cars, allowing the cars to pass them in the middle of a block. As a bicyclist, it's best to minimize your interactions with cars at intersections.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 2:47 pm • link • report

At sea there are no roads, so by "right of way" it means that motorized boat has to adjust its course accordingly.

It would be great if such a rule were adopted on land, because then I could just roll up on the sidewalk if a pedestrian is in the street in front of me.

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 2:49 pm • link • report

Am I the only one who noticed the flashing yellow light on the right side of the road?

When I took driver's ed we were taught that means 'CAUTION'... treat it like a Yield sign BUT come to a full stop if there's another reason to do so ... such as a pedestrian crossing in the cross walk.

Now, yeah, don't know what those stops signs are doing there in addition to the flashing yellow light ... but maybe in Penn. they add stop signs to yellow caution lights because (as I already mentioned) you are supposed to come to a full stop under certain conditions with a flashing yellow light. Also note that the cop treated this as a "flashing yellow light" intersection.

And of course it goes without saying that this is hardly representative of any 'stop signed' intersection I've ever seen anywhere ... Assuming it really is 'stop signed' and not 'caution signed' ...

by Lance on Jan 21, 2010 2:49 pm • link • report

whether it's ever been tested in the legal system as to whether you can have similarly conflicting laws albeit without explicitly installing the associated traffic control devices.

Lance seems to have found out no, you get ticketed for parking outside the signs even when a rule says it's okay.

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report

Bossi, do you really have to ask "how are bikes & cars substantially different?" Aren't the substantial differences rather obvious?

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report

@jack lecou-
Thanks! In that case, I really haven't the faintest idea how that might stand up in court. Per my anecdote below, I'm still a bit skeptical of the Idaho Stop overall... but the legality of it has been upgraded from "illegal" to "unknown".

Anecdote-

I just remembered the time I was driving along V across 10th. I recall stopping quite distinctly, as I was staring at a girl vomiting on the corner and asked whether she was OK. As I went through the intersection, a bicyclist coming up 10th didn't stop, fell over as he tried to slow down in reaction to my occupying the intersection, and slid into the side of my car. No particular injuries nor damage, other than a nasty case of road rash.

For what it's worth: neither one of us got angry about the incident... if this exact same thing happened with other folk, I could easily see an irate driver and/or an irate motorist (or one first; then the other).

It was at that moment where I became an Idaho Stop skeptic: sure, some bicyclists may properly look out for others; but just like motorists: not everyone is good about that.

Of course, had the intersection been all-yield: the situation would have very likely had the exact same end result as the bicyclist was on my left... though if the bicyclist was on my right it would've changed a bit: it would've been my obligation to give way; whereas if it was stop: it would've been his obligation to stop.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

Am I the only one who noticed the flashing yellow light on the right side of the road?

I noticed a red flashing light, which may appear yellow because the metal surrounding it is yellow and the brightness of the light overwhelmed the CCDs on the video camera.

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

@ ah, "roll up on the sidewalk when a ped is in the way"...something I do on my bike frequently.. ;-)

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

@Bianchi-
It was more rhetorical leading into the rest of that paragraph. They both brake the same, but of course accelerating takes far more effort than it does for a motorist. Hence why I continued to pose the case for an Idaho Stop as a matter of alleviating getting worn out on long commutes.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report

Wow, even the school bus doesn't fully stop. Eek!

by David on Jan 21, 2010 3:03 pm • link • report

@Bianchi -- in the CBD?

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 3:05 pm • link • report

t was at that moment where I became an Idaho Stop skeptic: sure, some bicyclists may properly look out for others; but just like motorists: not everyone is good about that.

Obviously that guy wasn't really doing an Idaho stop. And Idaho stop is more like "rolling" a stop sign, not just blithely racing through it.

I do appreciate concerns about behavioral "creep", but I tend to think that in this case it's the current law that really encourages the more flagrant safety violations. When you're already a "scofflaw" for doing the sensible thing (slowing down and looking, but proceeding without a complete stop), might as well just zip through. (Obviously most cyclists do avoid that temptation though. They are under threat of death after all.)

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

Bossi, its not just about conservation of energy. Its a safety issue too. In addition to what jack l. described as safety issues at intersections bikes are far more stable when they have some momentum. A bike just getting started is much more unstable then a bike already underway.

How shall we treat my skateboard rigged with a sail?

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

@ ah "CBD"?? definition please.

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report

@ ah, I seldom ride in the CBD. The last time was Jan. 20 2009 when roads were closed to cars. It was FANTASTIC! BTW, are bikes prohibted from sidewalks in the CBD at night too?

by Bianchi on Jan 21, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report

@ ah "CBD"?? definition please.

"Central Business District", the area in DC where sidewalk riding is prohibited. Not sure what the boundaries are exactly (don't think it's the entire L'Enfant city, but probably bigger than just the 'golden triangle').

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report

Bossi, its not just about conservation of energy. Its a safety issue too. In addition to what jack l. described as safety issues at intersections bikes are far more stable when they have some momentum. A bike just getting started is much more unstable then a bike already underway.

That's a good point. And unless you can manage a track stand, there's also a delay and some moments of inattention while you remount, work on getting your feet back in the straps, etc.

by jack lecou on Jan 21, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

Idaho stops etc can also be justified on simple theories of governing behavior to minimize adverse impacts on others. The more inherently dangerous the activity, the more care is required.

We have more stringent rules for handling explosives than other chemicals. Likewise trucks are more heavily regulated than cars, including limits on loads, speeds, operating hours, licensing etc. There are no rules on walking. Having less stringent rules on bicycles than on cars is similarly sensible, since cyclists are far less dangerous than cars.

by SJE on Jan 21, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report

So far I haven't had anyone phrase anything so-as to get me to hop off my soapbox, but at the same time I can't think of any ingenius way to phrase my own thoughts as to get anyone to hop off their's, so I'll call it a day in that regard... but I think a fair share of us can agree that a "sailboard" sounds like fun.

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report

For example, at sea sailboats always have the right of way over motorboats.

Which is of course outrageous! Have you seen the arrogant way that sail-boaters float around like they're saving the planet? Not only that, but I've seen a *lot* of sail-boaters who didn't follow ever nautical law to the exact letter.

Once arrogant sail-boaters get it through their thick skulls that they're not above the law, then I will refrain from buzzing them with my massive powerboat, but not before then!

by oboe on Jan 21, 2010 4:48 pm • link • report

Al Czervik?

by ah on Jan 21, 2010 5:43 pm • link • report

Al Czervik?

HEY! My buddy!

Hey Smails! My dingy's bigger than your whole boat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGD-tUsySPs

by Alex B. on Jan 21, 2010 6:58 pm • link • report

Why are there stop signs and signals on that road? I'm not asking because most disobey the signals. I'm asking because I simply don't see the point. If they are supposed to limit speed, there are much better methods for that. If it is to raise awareness to pedestrian traffic, there are much better methods for that. The signals are useless.

by onetimed on Jan 21, 2010 10:15 pm • link • report

@jack, you did a fine job with your comments, in that you said everything I would have, and probably more politely.

@oboe, that is some funny stuff about the arrogant sailboaters.

@Bossi, here is the best case for the Idaho Stop that I've seen...

@Fritz, David's opening paragraph is such a ridiculous straw man that it merits a response. Are there "some" people who say "no soup for you!" until cyclists obey basic traffic laws? I guess there are. Just like there are "some" people who believe in Morlocks. I tell you what, I'll find you 10 people who state that they "will start sharing the road with cyclists when they start following the law" for every person you can find who believes in a Morlock (Here's one for me by the way)

But it's the sort of pedantic self-righteousness that makes it hard to take seriously any ensuing discussion. Really? Pedantic has to do with minutia or form obsessed speech, or overt concern for unimportant details. That isn't the case here. You must've meant a different word (see how I'm being pedantic about your use of 'pedantic'? That's irony.) And in order to be self-righteous, you kind of need to moralize about something but David is just expressing a fact (possibly exaggerated, but easily fixed by replacing 'Whenever' with 'often'. Certainly not enough to bust balls over).

by David C on Jan 21, 2010 10:47 pm • link • report

Brilliant video! ...Though it made me want to replace stop signs w/ yield signs all the more. :) I'm going to sound like a car nut here, but cars also benefit from not having to come to a stop all the time; conserving momentum. Much of the time, a car can slowly roll through a stop sign without incident -- any of us here have surely done it during our time behind the wheel. Just as the video said: "decriminalises good behavior" ... though while I'd hesitate to call it "good" when referring to either bicyclists or motorists, my issue is that it can be unexpected & aggravating when someone feels "cheated" out of their right of way. Hence... the video only solidified my stance to make it uniformly expected. :)

by Bossi on Jan 21, 2010 11:20 pm • link • report

While it's true that cars benefit from rolling through too, there are several reasons why treating them differently makes sense.

1. Cyclists approach intersections at a slower speed, so, by the time they get there they have had more time to observe it than a driver has.

2. Cyclists can see and hear better than a driver.

3. Getting hit by a car going 5mph is probably more dangerous than getting hit by a bike going the same speed.

4. Studies in Idaho show that not only does the law not make things more dangerous it makes things safer. No such study exists for cars.

5. Bikes are more maneuverable than cars.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 12:07 am • link • report

Somewhat off-topic here, but Bianchi brought up the nautical rules-of-the-road, so I thought I'd elaborate further on them.

As a general rule, the hierarchy of who has right-of-way at sea goes in this order:

- Vessels "not under command" (i.e. out of control, usually due to a loss of steering or propulsion).

- Vessels that are restricted in their ability to maneuver. Examples include towings, an aircraft carrier launching/recovering aircraft, a replenishment-at-sea, dredging, etc etc. So there are some cases where the sailboat would NOT have right-of-way over the powered vessel.

- Vessels constrained by their draft (typically at/near ports, where the draft may only be a few feet short of the water bottom).

- Vessels engaged in fishing.

- Sailboats.

- Powered vessels under normal operations come in last.

by Froggie on Jan 22, 2010 7:53 am • link • report

I don't like the efficiency argument for the Idaho stop. The physics are simple. To accelerate you need a force (F=am). To apply the force, you need to do work (W=Fdx). This is true for cars and bikes alike. In fact, since the car is heavier, you need to do more work.

There are crucial differences between car drivers and bikers.

* Cars move faster than bikers, even when they move "slowly". This gives bikers more time to evaluate the situation. More time to evaluate is safer.
* Bikers are not enclosed in a noisy machine, giving them better perception of the traffic situation (unless they wear headphones). Better perception is safer.
* Bikers are - with pedestrians - the weakest participants in traffic. Therefor they have a much higher incentive to not get hurt. A higher incentive makes for more safety.

In the end though, I believe that the main problem is that there are too many STOP signs. Many are a nuisance to both car drivers, bikers and pedestrians.

In stead of allowing bikers to yield at STOP signs, it would be better to replace a lot of STOP signs with YIELD signs. If the public would experience that STOP signs only appear in places where there is an evident need (such as a poor overview of the intersection), they will respect them better.

Such a policy change would have to come with a major public announcement campaign, because many American drivers treat YIELD signs as if there were no sign. But that's a different topic.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 10:08 am • link • report

I'll add one more.

*Unlike cars, bikes become less stable at slow speeds.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 10:13 am • link • report

Jasper, I think the efficiency argument is about energy, not work. As in people get tired and cars don't. A person may not be able to go as fast in their 10th mile as in their 1st, but the same is not true of a car. This is a big limit on range.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 10:18 am • link • report

I don't like the efficiency argument for the Idaho stop. The physics are simple. To accelerate you need a force (F=am). To apply the force, you need to do work (W=Fdx). This is true for cars and bikes alike. In fact, since the car is heavier, you need to do more work.

It's not about energy efficiency in a global sense, it's about effort and average speed. In a car you just step on the gas, apply 100s of horsepower, and come back up to speed in seconds. Even uphill. In a bike, you have to pedal, and you have a pretty small power plant. From an Idaho Stop FAQ:

“…on a street with a stop sign every 300 feet, calculations predict that the average speed of a 150 pound rider putting out 100 watts of power will diminish by about 40 percent. If the bicyclist wants to maintain her average speed of 12.5 miles per hour, while still coming to a complete stop at each sign, she has to increase her power output to almost 500 watts. This is well beyond the ability of all but the most fit cyclists.”

Basically, forcing cyclists to stop all the time really plays hell with the practicality of riding at all. It's also less safe and pointless.

That said, if you're doing an Idaho stop correctly, at many intersections you're still going to have to slow down a bunch then accelerate again. That's still vastly better than stopping completely and dismounting though.

In stead of allowing bikers to yield at STOP signs, it would be better to replace a lot of STOP signs with YIELD signs. If the public would experience that STOP signs only appear in places where there is an evident need (such as a poor overview of the intersection), they will respect them better.

I agree that many traffic control signs can and should be rethought, except this should be TOGETHER with the Idaho Stop, not instead of. The set of intersections where bicyclists will simultaneously be more able to see clearly and more endangered and inconvenienced by stopping is always going to be much, much larger than the set of intersections where we might consider removing stop signs altogether.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 10:30 am • link • report

Boy am I sorry I missed this one! Well, others made the obvious points pretty well, but the entire premise fails because there's nothing unsafe being done.

Find me another video that shows an intersection where cars and bikes alike blow through red lights and I will concede that the level of offense by both is equivalent.

Because I have personally taken videos showing >90% of bicycles going through a red light at busy intersections, often with cars approaching, while every car waits.

Right - you're only endangering yourself, so it's OK, regardless of the terror inflicted on the other road users who must react.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 10:55 am • link • report

Because I have personally taken videos showing >90% of bicycles going through a red light at busy intersections, often with cars approaching, while every car waits.

Crossing while cars are merely "approaching" is often perfectly safe, so it doesn't seem to me that these 90% of cyclists are necessarily doing anything unsafe. Probably a handful, of course, but by no means all or most.

But is it your contention that we should demand 100% compliance with existing law before we are allowed to change the law to something more sensible?

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:03 am • link • report

Just because the car doesn't hit you doesn't mean it's unsafe. You did something unpredictable, and you likely caused a reaction by the car when he approached. This only works because bicycles are such a small portion of road traffic.

I am not demanding 100% compliance with the law at all. I don't think it's practical and certainly impossible to enforce.

I think every road user should act in a predicable manner. That means, being where other road users expect you to be, and not being where they don't expect you to be.

When you dart in front of a car, even if there's enough room to clear, you startle the driver.

If half of all road users were bicycles, do you think that red-light running like they do now would be tolerated? Do you think it would cause a safety problem?

Likewise, if only 1 in 100 cars ran red lights now, and only when the road was clear, do you think there would be a dramatic change in safety?

If you answer is no to both, then basically you admit that the only reason cyclists run red lights is because they can get away with it.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 11:07 am • link • report

Right - you're only endangering yourself, so it's OK, regardless of the terror inflicted on the other road users who must react.

I definitely agree that sometimes bicyclists, pedestrians and other drivers do things that are genuinely unsafe.

However, I also feel that if you're driving properly, you should be in a state very like complete nervous terror ALL THE TIME. You are driving a couple tons of speeding steel, and a lot of very bad things can happen very quickly, many by your own hand. The situation demands total alertness and responsibility.

I'm not accusing you of holding it necessarily, but there does seem to be a pervasive idea out there that when driving a car one ought to be able to sit back in the comfy cushions and listen to the radio while the outside world behaves itself. How dare those bicyclists make you nervous.

It's a completely unjustified sense of "windshield perspective" entitlement in my opinion.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:11 am • link • report

If half of all road users were bicycles, do you think that red-light running like they do now would be tolerated? Do you think it would cause a safety problem?

I don't know about 'tolerated' with the law as it stands. However, certainly the law should be changed to make it legal to ride through a red light when no cross traffic is near. I don't see how that should cause any problems even with >50% cyclists.

Likewise, if only 1 in 100 cars ran red lights now, and only when the road was clear, do you think there would be a dramatic change in safety?

Possibly not, but again the justification for allowing cars to run lights is rather thin. They can stop and go more easily, they can't see the road as well, and they are not in as much danger from other cars in the same direction of travel.

I guess my answer is yes to both, with the caveat that I do think a lot of red lights could probably be replaced with other traffic control mechanisms for both cars and bikes.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

"However, I also feel that if you're driving properly, you should be in a state very like complete nervous terror ALL THE TIME."

Really? I am the first person to call out the many drivers who think they are in their living room. The only thing that bugs me more than cyclists running red lights is people who have a dog in their lap, a phone on their head and a dance party all at once in the driver's seat. But there's a difference between being an idiot, and having the expectation that someone won't jump in front of you at any moment. It's the purpose of the laws. If everyone was on high alert all the time, everyone would react to every single motion they saw and it would be a disaster.

I believe in defensive driving. I keep my distance from people who act erratically. But I really can't believe that you think it's OK for bicycles to act in an unpredictable manner but it's not OK for cars to do the same.

This is the difference between running a light and rolling through a stop. Rolling through a stop is at much slower speeds than driving towards a green light at the speed limit, and at a 4-way stop, the other traffic is expected to stop as well. Everyone understands the dynamics, nobody is freaked out.

But when you are travelling towards a green light there should not be anyone in front of you. While there's almost never a car there, there are frequently cyclists.

And to be fair, pedestrians - almost ran down a total moron crossing 4 lanes of 9th street in rush hour traffic against a fully green light yesterday. There was no way I could have seen him from my lane until I was practically on top of him. I was not speeding. I'm not giving stupid peds a pass any more than stupid cyclists.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 11:27 am • link • report

Also, let's not confuse stop lights with stop signs. The Idaho Stop rule basically changes stop SIGNS into yield signs, and stop LIGHTS into stop signs for bicycles. That means that bicycles may cautiously roll through stop signs, but must still come to a complete stop at red lights before continuing.

Personally, I feel that could go farther, but it is the proposal on the table. (Probably it's sufficient if coupled with some judicious signal removal.)

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:29 am • link • report

@ David C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29 Work = Kinetic Energy (as long as it's not too windy). And before you start talking about wasted energy, I'll point out that an idling car is way worse for the environment than a stopped biker. CO2 output is way lower, even if the biker if breathing heavily.

@ jack lecou: Sorry, the biker wanted a work-out. Now (s)he gets one. Stop whining. Or in different words: What you're saying it true. But it's not an argument for change the law. It's an argument to change those STOP signs in YIELD signs.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 11:29 am • link • report

@ jack lecou: Sorry, the biker wanted a work-out. Now (s)he gets one. Stop whining. Or in different words: What you're saying it true. But it's not an argument for change the law. It's an argument to change those STOP signs in YIELD signs.

A) Not all bicyclists want workouts. The idea is that bicycling should be practical means of transportation for more people, NOT a workout.

B) It IS one of many arguments to change the law. Even if it's one you don't like.

Again, replacing stop signs with yield signs is probably good, but NOT sufficient. There would still be many places where stop signs were needed for cars, but not appropriate for bicycles. They are different kinds of vehicles.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:34 am • link • report

Well, if you honestly believe that everything would work just fine if half of every vehicle on the road was allowed to proceed through a solid red light when they wanted, then there's no point in debating this. I don't really understand why you think there should be traffic signals if this is the case.

I guess you think that we shouldn't have walk/don't walk signs for pedstrians, either. I mean they're even less likely to injure someone else.

Chalk it up to another cyclist who believes that the roads should be anarchy. And another reason why you won't get respect from the majority of road users.

You might try taking a look at cities where there is actually a lot more cycling traffic than DC - the cities that many cyclists wish our city was more like.

Amsterdam is more than half cyclists. They actually have traffic lights just for the bikes, even on separated bike routes. And they enforce them.

"Bike Traffic Lights: These lights shine red, yellow and green in the shape of a bicycle at most major intersections. Obey them. Trams and other traffic have their own lights that don't always correspond. When a bike light doesn't exist, use the traffic lights meant for cars."

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 11:37 am • link • report

But when you are travelling towards a green light there should not be anyone in front of you. While there's almost never a car there, there are frequently cyclists.

The word "should" in that statement wasn't really justified. This is what I mean by entitlement.

Just expect the bicycles. Then you won't be startled.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:37 am • link • report

Well, if you honestly believe that everything would work just fine if half of every vehicle on the road was allowed to proceed through a solid red light when they wanted, then there's no point in debating this. I don't really understand why you think there should be traffic signals if this is the case.

I said bicycles should be allowed to proceed through reds. Not cars.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:38 am • link • report

In perusing Idaho's code (http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7.htm)

49-720 permits bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs; and red signals as stop signs.

However...

49-701 still requires peds to treat signals as signals, even though most peds don't. I didn't find any other law which would permit peds to cross on a DON'T WALK signal if otherwise safe to do so.

Just a thought :)

by Bossi on Jan 22, 2010 11:41 am • link • report

"I said bicycles should be allowed to proceed through reds. Not cars"

And I said, IF half of every vehicle was a bicycle. Hence, half of every vehicle overall would be allowed to proceed through a red light.

Anyway, I don't think you're in the majority, even among cyclists, in thinking that all traffic signals should be considered optional, even if there were a lot more cyclists.

And for those who think they should be optional only because there are so few cyclists, well, that's a pretty shaky position.

This is the problem. Everyone wants a city like Amsterdam. Except you, I guess, who wants a city like Amsterdam, except without the requirement that you stop at red lights.

But if the mainstream cylist ever wants the city to be friendly enough that a lot more people will ride bikes, then it starts with acting the same way as the majority of road users. Don't be where you aren't supposed to be.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 11:42 am • link • report

I guess you think that we shouldn't have walk/don't walk signs for pedstrians, either. I mean they're even less likely to injure someone else.

I think you should be able to walk across the street if it's clear, even against a signal or in the middle of a block.

I also think many side streets could also be a unified surface, with no "sidewalk" and "street". And in general, I think many signals and regimented traffic control should be removed in favor of nudges toward slower, steadier, more attentive driving, and equitable sharing of the road with more types of users.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:44 am • link • report

And I said, IF half of every vehicle was a bicycle. Hence, half of every vehicle overall would be allowed to proceed through a red light.

What precisely is the point of making a bicycle wait for the light to change when the road is clear?

A car of course, has poor visibility and can't get far enough into the intersection to see for sure. A bicyclist doesn't have that limitation, and is safer getting ahead of other cars at the light to boot.

What exactly is the problem with this?

(Possibly if you reach the Amsterdam point you need to consider additional measures, although the Amsterdam way isn't the only way. In any case, the lights you're talking about are on dedicated bikeways. They're not forcing masses of cyclists to wait at red lights side by side with cars.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 11:49 am • link • report

"I think you should be able to walk across the street if it's clear, even against a signal or in the middle of a block."

So your position is that everyone other than cars should be able to go wherever they want at any time, and cars should be expected to ASSUME some idiot will walk/ride in front of them at any given time. In an accident at a light controlled intersection, since no law governs the conduct of vehicles other than cars, the burden of proof in an accident will always be on the driver.

So, why do you think pedestrian signals were invented?

Could it be, that in their absence, most people found that enough people acted in an unsafe manner that a lot of problems were caused?

Is there anyone else out there who really agrees with this?

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 11:49 am • link • report

I really can't believe that you think it's OK for bicycles to act in an unpredictable manner but it's not OK for cars to do the same.

99% of bicycles act in a completely predictable manner. The same is true for pedestrians. The problem lies in the fact that most drivers want people who travel on foot and by bike to act like little drivers.

There's an intersection at Pennsylvania and 12th St, SE near Frager's Hardware. At that point, Penn is six lanes wide, and has a median of about 25'. After waiting about 2 minutes, the pedestrian signal switches, and you have approximately 17 seconds to get across the street.

People *universally* jaywalk here. As well they should. Traffic law and the supporting infrastructure is still overwhelmingly geared towards the convenience of auto traffic. Now, it shouldn't be a surprise that most drivers follow the majority of rules that have been put into effect to facilitate the natural behavior of cars. Where the rules don't dovetail completely with the natural preferences of drivers, you end up having universally illegal behavior like speeding. Not only that, but there's a nearly universal justification of law-breaking by drivers based on the perception that the given law is "unnatural."

But people aren't cars. And when they're on foot, or on a bicycle, or on a razor scooter, in a regulatory environment tailored towards auto traffic, they're going to behave differently. If we were to change the laws to facilitate the natural behavior or pedestrians, or cyclists or razor scooter operators, driver scofflawism would go through the roof.

That's a point that's been made here about a hundred billion times, and its still something that pro-auto commenters seem unable or unwilling to wrap their minds around. That's the most pernicious aspect of the "windshield perspective": the idea that driving is *the* normative behavior.

It's also why the howling from drivers is so great when even the slightest change in law is proposed. After all, the entitled class rarely cops to its privileged status, and never gives it up without a fight.

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 11:57 am • link • report

In an accident at a light controlled intersection, since no law governs the conduct of vehicles other than cars, the burden of proof in an accident will always be on the driver.

Where did you get the idea that no law governs the conduct of other vehicles? The law governing the conduct of bicycles, for example, would be called the 'Idaho Stop' law. "Different" is not the same as "none". That's a strawman.

So, why do you think pedestrian signals were invented?

Simplistically, to give cars primacy over the road. And I don't think cars should have absolute primacy over the road.

Is there anyone else out there who really agrees with this?

lots of people.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report

So, why do you think pedestrian signals were invented?
Could it be, that in their absence, most people found that enough people acted in an unsafe manner that a lot of problems were caused? Is there anyone else out there who really agrees with this?

Can't think of a more perfect example of what I'm talking about. Thanks!

Pedestrian signals were invented because, with the rise of auto congestion in urban areas, drivers where running down pedestrians at an alarming rate. There was a decision-point we came to as a society: we could either raise the level of accountability for drivers, or we could tell other road users to get the fuck out of the way, then write laws to enforce it. They're for the convenience of drivers.

Ever been to an airport concourse? You've got a bunch of pedestrians walking around, negotiating each other, and nary a signal in sight. Every once in a while a vehicle with a big yellow strobe on it, comes along slowly, beeping. Folks step out of its way, and it gets where it's going. If the operator where to run someone down--barring egregious behavior by the walker--they would justifiably be held liable.

But of course, that's a silly comparison because airports are for people, and urban spaces are for cars, right?

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 12:05 pm • link • report

...the burden of proof in an accident will always be on the driver.

Also, I daresay that would be rather refreshing. Certainly better than always assuming it must have been the dead cyclist or pedestrian's fault.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:08 pm • link • report

Oboe- Excellent example.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

"99% of bicycles act in a completely predictable manner."

Hilarious!

"lots of people."

I didn't see the part where Hans Monderman thought bikes and peds should not adhere to traffic signals.

Quite the opposite, he said that every kind of vehicle should have the SAME access to the space. You think we should grant some vehicle types different access to the space.

I find the idea of shared space very appealing, honestly. I would be totally in favor of such an experiment in DC, that removed all traffic control devices in some area.

I'll be right beside you to work towards something like that. In the meantime don't act like we have it.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report

"Ever been to an airport concourse? You've got a bunch of pedestrians walking around, negotiating each other, and nary a signal in sight. Every once in a while a vehicle with a big yellow strobe on it, comes along slowly, beeping. Folks step out of its way, and it gets where it's going. If the operator where to run someone down--barring egregious behavior by the walker--they would justifiably be held liable."

What percentage of the traffic in airport concourses is those trams?

An analogy on the road would be an emergency vehicle. Every now and then, one comes by with it's sirens going. Everyone pulls over. Just like an airport.

That is NOT an example of integrating two traffic types, that's an example of how an exception the the rule should be handled.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report

@Jamie:

Bicycles are only allowed to use the Idaho stop rules (yield at a stop sign, stop and go at a red light) if the way is clear. So the behavior you're describing (darting right in front of cars, etc.) would still be illegal. I'm not sure if you understand that part of it.

Your problem isn't with Idaho stop rules, it's with idiots who cross traffic when it's unsafe to do so.

Let me lay it out for you here: The Idaho stop rules serve to solve two problems 1. that it is much more of a burden on cyclists to stop-and-go on roadways than car drivers, and that bicycle/car interaction is undesirable.

So in order to reduce the burden on cyclists and keep bikes and cars separate at dangerous times, the rules set up new rules for how bikes respond to stop signs and stop lights.

As a justification for these rules, we recognize:
1. Because bikes are moving slower than cars AND their riders are unenclosed, cyclists are better able to observe the traffic conditions around them than car drivers.
2. Bikes are more maneuverable than cars and occupy less space, so the chance of an accident is smaller than if a car were to use the Idaho stop rules, and ability to avoid an accident is greater.

You object to these rules because they will encourage "unpredictable behavior," but for some reason you ignore the fact that a Yield sign means "slow down and proceed if the way is clear, stop if not." You seem to think that a Yield sign means you can blow right through it; this is untrue.

Studies have shown that adopting reasonable laws makes more people follow them - if the laws are unreasonable and it is recognized that people should break them, they are disregarded.

by MLD on Jan 22, 2010 12:20 pm • link • report

I didn't see the part where Hans Monderman thought bikes and peds should not adhere to traffic signals.

Quite the opposite, he said that every kind of vehicle should have the SAME access to the space. You think we should grant some vehicle types different access to the space.

Monderman probably wouldn't want too many signals at all, so it's not really relevant. I thought we were talking about things like pedestrians walking across the road.

The Idaho Stop is a much more specific measure. I don't want to say 'interim' exactly, but it's obviously intended for places where you have a more conventional traffic environment.

And I've yet to see you present any actual arguments against it, besides general incredulity, the strawman about 'lawlessness' and the non-sequitur that they have special roads and lights for bicycles in Amsterdam, the only objection you've presented is the idea that when the light is green, all of 'your' street should be guaranteed clear so you don't get startled.

Color me unconvinced.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report

"99% of bicycles act in a completely predictable manner."

Funny, I have a lot easier time predicting what a cyclist is going to do than fellow drivers. Perhaps I should have said "consistent" rather than "predictable." Of course, not knowing you, I wouldn't presume to evaluate your competence at evaluating what I'm sure to you looks like chaos.

But again, pedestrians appear unpredictable as well. Will that one there wait like a good little boy for the 2-3 minutes it takes for him to get his 15 seconds to cross over to the other side? What if he sees a bus coming, and is trying to make it to the bus stop? Will he "dart" out in front of me as I try to make that right-hand turn? (After all, he's got to dart, 'cause the traffic's moving at 10mph over the speed limit; and I couldn't possibly just sit tight for another 10 seconds to see what he's going to do...)

Sigh, why can't these humans be predictable as a cement truck?

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report

1. My problem with idiots: yes, true.

2. Yield signs... huh? Not sure what gave you that idea. I know how to drive. I slow down and make sure it's clear at a yield sign.

"Studies have shown that adopting reasonable laws makes more people follow them"

3. Yes. So are you in favor of raising speed limits that are artificially low, e.g. next to the Kennedy Center which has a single, rarely used light-controlled pedestrian crossing?

I think we might disagree with the basic problem.

I would have no problem with cyclists going through red lights, if they otherwise acted in a predictable manner.

If everyone acted in a predictable manner, there would be no need for ANY traffic laws. As I said previously, I think the shared space idea has a lot of merit.

But as long as most people are expecting others on the road to act in the manner that is generally accepted given the traffic signals that are in place - that is, stop at red lights, don't appear from out of nowhere in front of me, wait your turn at a 4-way stop, then the laws need to be obeyed. It would be different in the "shared space" idea because we would have a different expectation for what's in the road at any given time.

The bottom line is this. When I'm driving, I have to react to a cyclist doing something unsafe (e.g. running a red light when it is NOT clear) far more often than cars.

I would not feel the way I do if this never happened. And as a proportion of auto versus car traffic, it happens a hundred times more often with a bike than a car.

It's clear that the average cyclist is not capable of judging when it's appropriate to run a red light. Hence the need for a law that should be enforced.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 12:31 pm • link • report

Just expect the bicycles. Then you won't be startled.

Sorry, this is perverse. Substitute any subject (driver/pedestrian/cyclist) and any object (from same) and you can see how ridiculous this is. Pedestrians should simply expect cars to run a red into the crosswalk they're in? Sure, so it's okay then for cars to run the red. Come on.

by ah on Jan 22, 2010 12:32 pm • link • report

@oboe, seriously, you are just knocking it out of the park today. Nicely done.

@Jasper, I didn't say kinetic energy, I said energy. Energy comes in many different forms of which kinetic is just one. In this case I was talking about potential energy - I suppose I should have been more clear. Potential energy made kinetic is turned into work (though Work does not equal Kinetic Energy as you state. Work equals the change in Kinetic Energy). So, the issue is that both a cyclist and car only have so much potential energy. A car's potential energy can be quickly renewed by refueling, but it takes longer for a cyclist to refuel and at some point rest will be needed. Now that you've talked about wasted energy I'll point out that this is an environmental argument. If you want to reduce energy usage in cars there are better ways than allowing the to run stoplights, which brings me to another point....

Before people freak out about the idea of allowing bikes to run stop signs, and why we don't let cars do it (what? too late?) I would point out we've done that in the past. During the oil shortage in the 1970's many states allowed cars to turn right on red (or to run a red light if it was clear) with the purpose being to save gas. Now, that resulted in a large number of additional dead and injured pedestrians, so perhaps it isn't the best point for advocating for the Idaho Stop - though I don't think the result would be the same. But I'd like to think that the same people who are arguing against the Idaho Stop are also for undoing right on red nationwide, and I just want it noted that the idea of loosening the rules around a traffic device is not exactly new or novel.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 12:33 pm • link • report

Should read "isn't an environmental arument." Doh!

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 12:34 pm • link • report

Folks step out of its way, and it gets where it's going. If the operator where to run someone down--barring egregious behavior by the walker--they would justifiably be held liable.

I don't get the relevance of this at all, since it seems to justify the primacy of those vehicles.

The reason for pedestrian signals and car signals is to allocate shared space rationally. You could have a free-for-all like Mumbai, with sacred cows, jitneys, people, cars, trucks, and it's a mess. We are more sophisticated than that. We set rules. Cars have a turn, pedestrians have a turn, northbound traffic has a turn; southbound traffic has a turn. Etc.

I don't see how that's irrational or suboptimal. If you want to quarrel with the allocation, that's fine. Maybe walk cycles need to be longer some places. But that's a very different issue than the rules themselves.

by ah on Jan 22, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

Exactly what oboe said. Pedestrian behavior is predictable. Its studied, compared in various situations, written about, published. Its predictable. There are norms/parameters that are observed over and over in all types of situations. There are probably similar studies delineating biking behavior that I'm not aware of.

by Bianchi on Jan 22, 2010 12:36 pm • link • report

Sorry, this is perverse. Substitute any subject (driver/pedestrian/cyclist) and any object (from same) and you can see how ridiculous this is. Pedestrians should simply expect cars to run a red into the crosswalk they're in? Sure, so it's okay then for cars to run the red. Come on.

A car running me down in a crosswalk is not what we're talking about. Should a pedestrian be "startled" if a car drives through the crosswalk while they're on a curb? I'd say no. I'm even ok with cars and bikes passing through the crosswalk while I'm in it, as long as they're a safe distance in front or behind me.

No, the idea here is that some people want to assert a privilege not to be 'startled'. Like when they have a green light and a bike zips through the intersection a quarter block ahead. Most times, the bike is probably out of view before they even tap the brakes. But they do anyway, and their heart pounds for a second, and they blame it all on the cyclist for 'startling' them and making them 'terrified'.

And yes, there are a few cyclists who push things and are really being dangerous. All the more reason to make the law make sense. Then we can see who the REAL scofflaws are.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:39 pm • link • report

"No, the idea here is that some people want to assert a privilege not to be 'startled'."

I don't take that to be the point, but rather that tolerating "startling" behavior from one mode of transportation (be it a pedestrian jaywalking, a bike running a stop sign, or a car running a red light) disrupts the orderly flow of *all* traffic to the detriment of everyone.

by ah on Jan 22, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

"And yes, there are a few cyclists who push things and are really being dangerous. All the more reason to make the law make sense. Then we can see who the REAL scofflaws are."

But that's the crux of the problem. The law now says you have to stop at a red light. There's no question when it is broken.

If the law says "cyclists can go when the way is clear" and there's an accident, meaning obviously the way was not clear, then I assume you are willing to place the entire responsibility for that accident on the cyclist?

Somehow I don't see that happening. Now the cyclist would argue that the vehicle must have been speeding or came around a corner or something else that is impossible to prove. On the other hand, with a law that says you have to stop at the red light, it's extremely clear who was in the wrong.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report

The reason for pedestrian signals and car signals is to allocate shared space rationally. You could have a free-for-all like Mumbai, with sacred cows, jitneys, people, cars, trucks, and it's a mess. We are more sophisticated than that. We set rules. Cars have a turn, pedestrians have a turn, northbound traffic has a turn; southbound traffic has a turn. Etc.

We're not talking about Mumbai exactly, but it's not the worst approximation either. "Free-for-all" [with rules] is very much the idea. It turns out that streets like that, well designed "naked streets", are actually quite safe and efficient. Regimented traffic control is arguably the 'unsophisticated' thing here. Read the links I posted, since you're evidently not familiar with the idea.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:47 pm • link • report

So are you in favor of raising speed limits that are artificially low, e.g. next to the Kennedy Center which has a single, rarely used light-controlled pedestrian crossing?

Aw, no you didn't!

Sorry, this is my personal pet-peeve. I often ride by bicycle on this stretch from the boat house to west potomac park. You can occasionally seem me riding one way or another on this stretch, taking the lane and doing about 1-2 mph under the speed limit while the rest of the traffic is doing 10-15 mph *over* the speed limit.

(Make sure you honk at me while you're going past, and I'll wave back.)

Again, it's the perfectly self-contained argument: "The speed limit is artificially low on this road, because there are no other user-types; and besides, traffic speeds are so high, you'd have to be insane to use this road for non-auto use'.

(And before you say it: No, the chopped up, winding, pedestrian walk-way along the waterfront is not a suitable alternative when you're trying to get somewhere. There are lots of pedestrians and joggers there).

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 12:48 pm • link • report

@oboe: That stretch of road has two lanes in each direction. Why would there be a problem with cyclists and cars sharing a 2-lane road with a 35 mph speed limit?

It sounds like you think vehicles of differing speeds can't safely share even a 2-lane road, as long as automobile traffic is permitted to go faster than cyclists.

Given that most people can't cycle more than 15 mph for any sustained period of time, that's a pretty bold statement.

So how do you feel about every non-city road with only a single lane that's got speed limits of 35 mph and over? Should cyclists be banned on them? Or should the speed limit of every road except highways be reduced to 25 MPH?

Likewise, how do you feel about bikes on mixed-used paths? Pedestrians only travel 2-3 MPH.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report

If the law says "cyclists can go when the way is clear" and there's an accident, meaning obviously the way was not clear, then I assume you are willing to place the entire responsibility for that accident on the cyclist?

Somehow I don't see that happening. Now the cyclist would argue that the vehicle must have been speeding or came around a corner or something else that is impossible to prove. On the other hand, with a law that says you have to stop at the red light, it's extremely clear who was in the wrong.

Well, first of all, you're overly optimistic about how things are now. For one thing, the cyclist probably isn't going to be alive enough to do any "arguing". If a car hits someone, and the driver isn't drunk and doesn't leave the scene, the chance that they'll face any consequences more serious than paying for new paint is vanishing.

But this is all beside the point. We don't have to somehow pre-assign blame for accidents. We can investigate them after the fact. I mean, if one car hits another in the middle of an intersection, who's at fault? Hard to say, right? Maybe one of them ran a stop sign. Maybe one was speeding and not paying attention. You'd have to investigate. Does this make stop signs impractical somehow? No.

The fact that you'd have to investigate to see who was at fault is a red herring. It's completely irrelevant to the case for Idaho Stops.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report

@ah, do you really mean to call US culture more sophisticated then Indian culture? rules, laws, expectations etc are all just culuturally informed. "Sophistication" is a loaded value. Some people would say its a hell of a lot more sophisticated of a culture to allow safe-passage to non-human animals then not.

What this discussion is about is the culture of the windsheild perspective and its dominance on our roads. An example of a compromise to pedestrian behavior is the crosswalk that goes red in all directions allowing diagonal crossing instead of being forced to cross twice (or 3x -as in the case of the original design for the intersection at Ft. Totten written about here a few months ago.)

Anyway, lets talk about our road use culture and how we can make it both more equitable for all users and safer for all with the information we have avialble, including what we know about predictable pedestrian behavior.

by Bianchi on Jan 22, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

"We don't have to somehow pre-assign blame for accidents."

If people obeyed laws designed to prevent them, then we wouldn't need to.

"I mean, if one car hits another in the middle of an intersection, who's at fault? Hard to say, right? "

Really? It's usually quite obvious if there were traffic control devices at the intersection.

by Jamie on Jan 22, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

If people obeyed laws designed to prevent them, then we wouldn't need to.

Your assuming that the existing law is the safest, which is manifestly unjustified.

And that's why we should have Idaho Stops. As much as you complain about all the cyclists "startling" you at your green light, there are relatively few accidents where cyclists are t-boned going through an intersection.

The danger for cyclists is much greater from traffic going their own way, making unexpected right turns through the bike lane, for example. Idaho Stops help cyclists keep clear of the places where they're in the most danger.

Really? It's usually quite obvious if there were traffic control devices at the intersection.

Really? That seems unlikely. So you've got two smashed cars in the middle of a four-way stop. The red one hit the blue one from the side just in front of the passenger compartment. Who was at fault?

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report

No, Bianchi, that's not at all what I'm saying.

I don't think it's culturally loaded to say that the existence of traffic (foot/car/bike) control devices is more "sophisticated" than the total (or near total) absence of such devices. If you can identify net benefits of such a system for even one of those groups, I'd be happy to hear it. But regardless of "windshield" perspective, I think everyone is better off in an orderly system than a disorderly one, whether or not it might be better calibrated to advantage certain groups within it more or less than under current practice.

by ah on Jan 22, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report

If you want to quarrel with the allocation, that's fine. Maybe walk cycles need to be longer some places. But that's a very different issue than the rules themselves.

But I think this is just hand-waving. That's because it's a zero-sum game. Those walk cycles are the way they are for a reason: to facilitate auto traffic. Radically change them, and in certain places traffic will come to a standstill.

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 1:11 pm • link • report

If you can identify net benefits of such a system for even one of those groups, I'd be happy to hear it. But regardless of "windshield" perspective, I think everyone is better off in an orderly system than a disorderly one, whether or not it might be better calibrated to advantage certain groups within it more or less than under current practice.

Again, read about 'naked streets' and so forth. The benefits are going to depend on the place and the design, but it's possible to have smoother, more reliable auto traffic, more pedestrian safety, etc. All from 'chaos'. (Which is again, a matter of perspective - there's actually a lot of order in the 'disorder' you see on a busy Indian street. It's jut not highly regimented order.)

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report

@ ah, okay. to answer your question though-no doubt the system in Mumbai is better for cows and elephants in the city who use the road.

by Bianchi on Jan 22, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report

I don't know about that, Bianchi, the elephants seem to do pretty well on the streets when the circus comes to town. Even the Metro buses stop for them.

by ah on Jan 22, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

@oboe: That stretch of road has two lanes in each direction. Why would there be a problem with cyclists and cars sharing a 2-lane road with a 35 mph speed limit?

Are you talking about a 35 mph posted speed limit? Or a road where cars are actually driving at or below 35 mph? There's a difference, right? Because the posted speed limit on Rock Creek Parkway is 35 mph, but the de facto speed limit on Rock Creek Parkway between Calvert and the Kennedy Center is somewhere between 45-50 mph. Which *is* too fast to safely allow any other uses.

It sounds like you think vehicles of differing speeds can't safely share even a 2-lane road, as long as automobile traffic is permitted to go faster than cyclists.

Sure I do. Like I said, I ride it all the time. I'm not suicidal. By taking the left-hand lane early, and despite the occasional honking jackass, I've never had problems. It certainly seems to be a problem for a non-trivial percentage of drivers, though.

In any case, that stretch of road is two lanes from the Watergate to the split between MD and VA traffic. Then it narrows to one lane, which has a couple of severe curves, quite a few "natural" pedestrian crossings, then is extremely narrow by the Watergate Steps. So, no, I think the case could be made that 25mph is just about right. As it is, drivers already exceed your proposed speed limit.

So how do you feel about every non-city road with only a single lane that's got speed limits of 35 mph and over? Should cyclists be banned on them? Or should the speed limit of every road except highways be reduced to 25 MPH?

In an urban jurisdiction like DC, I wouldn't take issue with that.

Likewise, how do you feel about bikes on mixed-used paths? Pedestrians only travel 2-3 MPH.

I think it works just fine. Collisions are vanishingly rare, enough that it's a news story when it happens. And while there are exceptions, the overwhelming number of cyclists reduce their speeds when they get in a congested area, and take their responsibility to overtake pedestrians seriously. (Similar to auto/bike interactions on Beach Drive) If a cyclist hits a pedestrian in that situation, they are automatically assumed to be at fault (Unlike auto/bike interactions).

In your model, we'd have legal requirements for pedestrians to walk with their right foot on the path edge, signal if they're thinking about stopping to tie their shoe, and held liable if they turn to look at a trail-side flower.

After all, rules are for everyone.

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report

@ah, when the metrobuses stop for the elephants, do the elephants pay the regular fare?

by Bianchi on Jan 22, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

They used to be eligible for a discount card, but I think that program's getting cut in the next budget.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report

@ jack lecou: It IS one of many arguments to change the law. Even if it's one you don't like.

No it's not. The rest of the world outside of Idaho works fine on bikes without it. We do agree that STOP signs should be replaced by YIELD signs.

lots of people.

That's not lots of people. Naked streets do not work for major arteries. One tiny villega in rural Holland can not be a model for megacites like DC.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 3:00 pm • link • report

No it's not. The rest of the world outside of Idaho works fine on bikes without it.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. There are clearly problems and concerns here, and this is potentially a solution. Maybe not the one we want, but it should at least be debated on the merits. Your statement is like standing in 1919 and saying, "the world works fine without women's suffrage."

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report

That's not lots of people. Naked streets do not work for major arteries. One tiny villega in rural Holland can not be a model for megacites like DC.

A) It is quite a lot of people, and naked streets initiatives are being implemented all over the world, including 'megacities' like London. (DC is actually not so mega.)

B) Nobody said "major arteries" necessarily, but I also don't see the problem. In any case, it can certainly work on almost all the other streets.

by jack lecou on Jan 22, 2010 3:16 pm • link • report

@ David C: I didn't say kinetic energy, I said energy.

Ok, what kind of energy do you mean exactly? Nuclear? Thermal? Potential? Gravitational?

Energy comes in many different forms of which kinetic is just one.

Correct.

In this case I was talking about potential energy - I suppose I should have been more clear.

You still have to. Potential energy is an energy of height. How is that relevant here?

Potential energy made kinetic is turned into work

Dude, that's no English.

(though Work does not equal Kinetic Energy as you state. Work equals the change in Kinetic Energy).

Correct. You got me there. W=DK. Still Fdx too though. Doesn't change my argument. But you got me here on a slight omission that I will thoroughly apologize for.

So, the issue is that both a cyclist and car only have so much potential energy.

If they are in the same location, they have exactly the same potential energy. P=mgh or DP=mgdh, with h being the relevant parameter here.

A car's potential energy can be quickly renewed by refueling, but it takes longer for a cyclist to refuel and at some point rest will be needed.

Again. This makes no scientific sense.

Now that you've talked about wasted energy I'll point out that this is an environmental argument.

Sign. I tried to pre-empt you using this argument.

If you want to reduce energy usage in cars there are better ways than allowing the to run stoplights,

True.

Before people freak out about the idea of allowing bikes to run stop signs, and why we don't let cars do it (what? too late?)

Because then the STOP sign is treated like a YIELD sign.

During the oil shortage in the 1970's many states allowed cars to turn right on red (or to run a red light if it was clear) with the purpose being to save gas.

And this is still legal in most states.

But I'd like to think that the same people who are arguing against the Idaho Stop are also for undoing right on red nationwide, and I just want it noted that the idea of loosening the rules around a traffic device is not exactly new or novel.

No, it's not. Yet last year 37,000 people died in traffic. Hundreds of thousands got injured.

Look, the Idaho stop is fine, but utterly irrelevant. It's solving a problem (too many annoying STOP signs) for a small dedicated group.

Finally, the turn on red is fine. However, it is very dangerous when bikers are present. That's why the US is the only (?) country in the world that has a turn on right. The American infrastructure is designed to be as efficient as possible for cars. Not for bikers or pedestrians.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 3:17 pm • link • report

@Jasper, this is my fault, as I used to teach high school physics and so I'm skipping over important items that seem basic to me. Just as there is more than one type of energy, there is more than one type of potential energy. You're thinking specifically of Gravitational Potential Energy, which is based on height (or, more accurately, gravitational force which is a function of distance). I was talking about Chemical Potential Energy which is based on the energy stored within a molecule based on the arrangement of molecules. So, for example, you can use energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then they have chemical potential energy which you can put to work for you by reuniting them (this is how a hydrogen fuel cell works). Likewise, gasoline represents chemical potential energy and so does fat and undigested food in the human body.

So that should clear up your questions.

Look, the Idaho stop is fine, but utterly irrelevant. It's solving a problem for a small dedicated group

Then it's nor really irrelevant, is it? All laws for cyclists are dedicated to the same small group. How large a group do you need to have for a law to be relevant?

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report

jack lecou's comments are dead on - specifically some in the middle of this page. Bicycles are at a HUGE disadvantage off the line when a light turns green, especially if you are a weak rider or if there is a hill.

I ride and I can tell you I often break the laws for safety reasons. If the intersection is clear, I ALWAYS go because that means less time I have to spend battling with cars. Even a five second head start is huge. Aggressive cycling keeps me from getting hit on a bike, no doubt about it.

The real solution here - bikeways where cars arent allowed.

by staypuftman on Jan 22, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

The real solution here - bikeways where cars arent allowed.

Oh, no! Come clean! w, is that you?

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 7:40 pm • link • report

yeah staypuftman...

I think as automatic owner and rather poor stickshift driver, I should not be required to stop at any traffic signals when I rent a U-Haul truck. It would solve so many rear-end incidents at uphill green lights if all those people struggling to shift could just keep rolling

See how lame that sounds?

I actually use an intersection like that as a pedestrian and dislike the lack of respect both drivers and oncoming cyclists give it.

by Steve on Jan 22, 2010 9:46 pm • link • report

Since I love to play with puppets...

What about motorcycles? They can also be rather unstable at low speeds :)

by Bossi on Jan 22, 2010 11:06 pm • link • report

Steve and Bossi-

I can't tell if you're just having a laugh at the end of the thread or not, so I won't waste my time with an extended response. But in case you're in earnest, note in general that if there's an argument of the form "We should consider Thing P because of A, B, C, D and E," then rebuttals of the form "Oh yeah? But what about Q, reason C applies to Q too." are kind of inadequate.

by jack lecou on Jan 25, 2010 11:48 am • link • report

A part of me initially meant those in jest, but the more I think about it: rollerbladers and segways might be Q and R, but motorcyclists, mopeds, and pedestrians could be F, G, and H. In my opinion they're actually valid questions.

...and for what it's worth: I don't usually rebut; I question. 99% of the time, my arguments on blogs are supporting the side I *don't* agree with :)

by Bossi on Jan 25, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report

A part of me initially meant those in jest, but the more I think about it: rollerbladers and segways might be Q and R, but motorcyclists, mopeds, and pedestrians could be F, G, and H. In my opinion they're actually valid questions.

I think motorcycles and mopeds fail on at least two counts: 1) unlike bikes, they have motors and can re-accelerate quickly (with motors, they have no problem moving side by side with 'first-class' auto traffic, and they spend essentially no time in the awkward unstable phase, if there even is such a phase without pedaling) 2) they do have slightly more visibility than cars, but I think still not as much as bicycles (seats lower to the ground than a bicycle's + lean-forward/back position on a motorcycle, and can't move unobtrusively past crosswalk to see down side street, etc.)

Pedestrians are on sidewalks, so none of it really applies. (Though I have no problem with a pedestrian crossing against a signal if it's safe.)

Segways and rollerbladers are also often confined to sidewalks, but if they're on roads, I'd say rollerbladers probably get treated like bikes at stops. Most of the same arguments apply (safer not with the auto pack, human powered, better able to see, unlikely to do damage, stopping inconvenient). I'm kind of indifferent about segways. They do have good visibility and relatively low power, but they are also still motorized, and probably average a higher speed than a bike. Not sure which way safety issues auger with them, but that might be the decider.

...and for what it's worth: I don't usually rebut; I question. 99% of the time, my arguments on blogs are supporting the side I *don't* agree with :)

Alrighty.

by jack lecou on Jan 25, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report

I really don't see how acceleration capability has anything to do with this. Besides which, a typical rider can go from zero to 15 MPH, a typical riding speed, just as fast as a car can, and probably a lot faster than a typical moped or scooter. You also assume that everyone with a vehicle that can accelerate at a maximum rate does so every time. In reality, unless you are drag racing or something, most people accelerate at a rate significantly lower than the capability of their vehicle.

You seem fixated on the fact that some vehicles have motors. So what? They also weigh a lot more. Acceleration is a factor of power and weight. A biker + bike most likely weighs under 200 pounds. A car weighs 3,000. A scooter weighs a few hundred.

Finally, the idea that someone on a bike has significantly more visibility than someone on a motorcycle is ridiculous, and even a car. What exactly is it about a car that makes you think drivers have poor visibility? Have you ever been in a car before?

If anything, motorcycles and automobiles have much better visibility. Do you have mirrors on your bike? Do most people? In a car, you can see in a 360 degree radius while hardly moving your head. Not so without mirrors.

At the end of the day, trying to compare every facet of the dynamics of different vehicles is completely irrelevant. Every different type of vehicle has different capabilities in terms of visibility and acceleration. This is definitely true within vehicle types as well - some cars have much better visibility than others. Some helmets worn by motorcycle or bicycle riders may restrict peripheral visibility. Some cars are slow, some are fast.

And, shockingly enough, every driver has different capabilities. People wearing glasses have worse peripheral vision than people wearing contacts or with uncorrected vision. Should different laws therefore apply?

I can think of no justification for trying to craft laws that are based on some arbitrary notion of one being better or worse. Everyone is responsible for acting in a manner that is safe. If your visibility is worse than someone else's, or your vehicle is slower or faster or bigger or smaller, then you take whatever measures are required to comply with the law.

by Jamie on Jan 25, 2010 1:56 pm • link • report

I really don't see how acceleration capability has anything to do with this. Besides which, a typical rider can go from zero to 15 MPH, a typical riding speed, just as fast as a car can, and probably a lot faster than a typical moped or scooter. You also assume that everyone with a vehicle that can accelerate at a maximum rate does so every time. In reality, unless you are drag racing or something, most people accelerate at a rate significantly lower than the capability of their vehicle.

Have you ever ridden a bicycle in traffic? It doesn't sound like it.

On city streets, non-Olympian cyclists probably have a TOP speed of maybe 12-15 mph, but more reasonably something like 5-10. Cars, motorcycles and mopeds are all going to be travelling much faster--more like 15-20, minimum--and they reach that speed within a few seconds of starting out from a dead stop.

We're not talking drag racing here, we're talking getting back up to 15 mph or so, which cars, mopeds, motorcycles and just about anything with a motor can do effortlessly -- motors are matched to the weight of the vehicle. No matter how you slice it, bicyclists are underpowered relatively to just about anything else on the road. And to a rider, energy is not just energy, but also physical effort and exertion. Minimizing it is important in terms of making bicycles a practical mode of transport. In a bicycle, the energy lost making a stop is equivalent to pedaling 100m or so.

Add to that the additional things a bicyclist must do to remount, get feet in position, regain balance, and get the bike in motion. It's much more than some trivial issue of "inconvenience". These things take time, effort, and attention. A bicyclist starting from dead stop along with a pack of motor vehicles is going to find themselves outpaced within seconds, and being passed and/or jockeying for position at the very moments when they do not have the time, attention or energy available to spare to the danger. Statistically, this is the most dangerous time for a cyclist.

Finally, the idea that someone on a bike has significantly more visibility than someone on a motorcycle is ridiculous, and even a car. What exactly is it about a car that makes you think drivers have poor visibility? Have you ever been in a car before?

Yes, I have. Compare the two sometime.

Accounting for bumper, hood, windshield, distance from steering wheel to driver, etc., a car driver's eyes are at least a couple of meters behind the front edge of the vehicle. A bicyclist's are typically only a few inches behind the front of the wheel, and they can lean forward. This means a bicyclist can see much further down side streets than a car in the same position (relative to the front of the vehicles).

A bicyclist is also typically seated much higher. While riding, my sightline easily clears the roof of most passenger cars. This provides a better vantage point, and makes it easy to see over lines of parked cars.

A bicyclist is also unenclosed, able to make better use of other senses, and typically more alert.

Finally, a bicycle approaches an intersection more slowly, leaving much more time to survey the scene. If there are no pedestrians crossing, a cyclist can even creep forward past the crosswalk, putting the front wheel almost into the crossing traffic lane. With their already higher and more forward eye position, this provides a nearly perfect view of any cross traffic.

If anything, motorcycles and automobiles have much better visibility. Do you have mirrors on your bike? Do most people? In a car, you can see in a 360 degree radius while hardly moving your head. Not so without mirrors.

If you are using your mirrors for peering down side streets, you're doing it wrong.

At the end of the day, trying to compare every facet of the dynamics of different vehicles is completely irrelevant. Every different type of vehicle has different capabilities in terms of visibility and acceleration. This is definitely true within vehicle types as well - some cars have much better visibility than others. Some helmets worn by motorcycle or bicycle riders may restrict peripheral visibility. Some cars are slow, some are fast.

And, shockingly enough, every driver has different capabilities. People wearing glasses have worse peripheral vision than people wearing contacts or with uncorrected vision. Should different laws therefore apply?

Discretion should certainly apply to people with particularly impaired vision. Or to vehicles with particular visibility or locomotion problems. But the possibility that you can have Mr. Magoo the triathlete riding a recumbent bicycle, or a hyper-acute superhero driving a broken-down Impala loaded with sand bags and stuck in first gear is kind of irrelevant as far as general laws are concerned.

The fact that there are gradations within a class of vehicle or between operators doesn't mean we can't make common sense distinctions. 'Typical' bicycles and cars operated by people of 'average' capacity have vastly different basic capabilities and limitations, a vast enough difference that we should have no problem making a distinction.

by jack lecou on Jan 25, 2010 2:49 pm • link • report

"On city streets, non-Olympian cyclists probably have a TOP speed of maybe 12-15 mph, but more reasonably something like 5-10"

Man you must be out of shape. I am certainly no Olympian, but when I bike at a normal pace, it's around 12 MPH, and certainly 15 or so downhill. While I can't sustain 20 for any period of time, it doesn't take Lance Armstrong to get up to that speed either.

You can't be serious about this. I can jog 6 MPH without breaking a sweat. That's only a ten minute mile, you know, which is a pretty slow-average running pace. I ran a marathon at an 8:30 pace which is 7 MPH.

If the average cyclist only bikes "5-10 MPH" then this conversation is over. Clearly they should be on the sidewalks.

"they reach that speed within a few seconds of starting out from a dead stop."

Well, if you assertion that bikes only go 5 MPH or so is true, then you can reach that speed in about one second from a dead stop on a bike. Or on foot. You must have a speedometer on your bike. I suggest you try it to see just how slow 5 MPH really is.

Come on, this is an absurd stance to take. Nobody is going that slow, and anyone can get their bike up to a normal riding pace of 10 MPH or so in two seconds. If you can't then you certainly do not represent the majority of people who are fit enough to ride a bike at all.

by Jamie on Jan 25, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report

"Finally, a bicycle approaches an intersection more slowly, leaving much more time to survey the scene. If there are no pedestrians crossing, a cyclist can even creep forward past the crosswalk, putting the front wheel almost into the crossing traffic lane. With their already higher and more forward eye position, this provides a nearly perfect view of any cross traffic."

And yet somehow cars can cross streets that are uncontrolled without crashing every other time too.

This is ridiculous. Cars and bikes can ride fast or slow. The way you personally seem to ride has nothing to do with how other CHOOSE to ride or drive.

Bikes approach intersections more slowly than cars? What? Whenever I'm at an intersection, I'm stopped waiting in line, and the bikers just ride by the cars. That isn't slower. And bikes are capable of stopping just as quickly as cars, obviously. If they aren't, then that certainly doesn't sound like the sort of vehicle that's safe to be using on a shared road.

by Jamie on Jan 25, 2010 3:03 pm • link • report

Come on, this is an absurd stance to take. Nobody is going that slow, and anyone can get their bike up to a normal riding pace of 10 MPH or so in two seconds. If you can't then you certainly do not represent the majority of people who are fit enough to ride a bike at all.

1) Not everybody wants to go like a bat out of hell on a bicycle. I think I probably average >15 when underway, but I'm going way faster than most. And I still think they belong on the road. It's not a race.

2) You can quibble about acceleration numbers all day. The fact remains that at every single time t after the word 'go', (unobstructed) motor vehicles will be going faster than an average person on a bicycle. And while a driver pretty much just has to move his foot from one pedal to another while doing so, a bicyclist has to mount, put feet in straps, exert effort to pedal, and maintain balance.

That all may only take two seconds, but that's more than enough time to turn into a smear on the asphalt. It's also the most likely time for that to happen.

So, aside from making the vapid observation that cars have to accelerate too, what objection do you actually have to letting cyclists do something safer?

by jack lecou on Jan 25, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report

And yet somehow cars can cross streets that are uncontrolled without crashing every other time too.

And how many streets are uncontrolled? You think there might be something special about the visibility conditions and level of cross traffic at those intersections that makes them safe enough to leave uncontrolled? (As an aside, I think traffic controls are overused, and there could theoretically many more unsigned intersections. That would STILL leave many intersections unsuitable for cars, but good enough for bicycles. One is a subset of the other.)

Bikes approach intersections more slowly than cars? What? Whenever I'm at an intersection, I'm stopped waiting in line, and the bikers just ride by the cars. That isn't slower. And bikes are capable of stopping just as quickly as cars, obviously. If they aren't, then that certainly doesn't sound like the sort of vehicle that's safe to be using on a shared road.

'Stopped' isn't approaching. Note that this is a minor factor in all of this, but what's your speed approaching a stop sign? If a car is going 25, and a bike is going 10, why's the bike going faster 5 feet out from the stop sign?

More generally, do you really think you're as aware in your car as on a bike? For example, I can hear cars that are a block away on a cross street, at least enough to exert some extra caution. Perhaps you're just supernaturally acute, but going back and forth between the two vehicles I always feel like I'm in a diving helmet or something when I'm driving a car. Muffled sounds, blind spots, low vantage point, difficult to 'feel' extensions of steel on all sides...

by jack lecou on Jan 25, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report

Whenever I'm at an intersection, I'm stopped waiting in line, and the bikers just ride by the cars

This was nagging at me, and I just remembered why. Somehow neglected in all this is another important factor for stop lights, bicyclists, and equity: timing.

Typically, bicycles will be going slower than both car traffic and the speed limit (which is obviously set for cars). And traffic lights are typically timed for something close to the speed limit too (to the extent they're timed at all, anyway). The timing isn't designed for bikes, but unless they travel an integer fraction of the lights' timed speed they will tend to be out of sync with the lights more often, and suffer more delays.

And yet, when they get a red light, they're also often as not going to be the last to arrive, leading to the phenomenon you mention, where a bicycle passes a line of stopped traffic (hopefully in a bike lane). It certainly happens often enough to me when I ride. The thing is: by the time I arrive at the front, the light's usually just a few seconds from changing anyway, and cross traffic has already cleared.

Why not take advantage of that and continue through (after stopping--or at least slowing drastically--to make sure it's clear), and thus put myself ahead of the cluster of cars, where I'm clearly visible as they go through the light and when can pass me mid-block--where it's safer?

by jack lecou on Jan 25, 2010 5:29 pm • link • report

I would guess that the city put this many stop signs at this intersection due to a history of car-hitting-pedestrian. There are multiple incidents in this video where a car does not notice the pedestrians until well after it has entered the intersection. In fact, pretty much all the actual stops were due to a presence of a pedestrian.

Makes me wonder if a big "pedestrian crossing" sign would be better than all those stop signs.

For those saying that the real solution is to "stop-or-yield" is to fix all the signs, are you going to pay for that?

I feel that advocates for the idaho stop often pursue the wrong arguments. In the end, people need to know that it is safer because it allows cyclists to clear intersections swiftly. Cyclists are also at high risk right before and right after a full stop due to the extremely poor balance and agility when a bicycle is barely moving.

When I ride a bike, I know that stopping is unpleasant, but that can't be your argument for this law. If I choose not to stop at a particular stop sign on a particular day, I do so because it makes no reasonable sense to stop, just as the vast majority of motorists exceed a posted speed limit by an amount that they have decided is reasonable.

by bikerdriver on May 12, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report