Bicyclist pulled over for running a red light

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A'ight. For the record, I'm a bike commuter of 20 years standing, and I think it's a good thing the biker got pulled over for running the red. It's stupid and dangerous.

So there's my anonymous internet $.02.

Other 20 year commuter here: I disagree with you, but respect you're entitled to your own opinion. Have a good ride home!

What do you disagree with? The fact the boker got caught. Or that what they did was not shameful and stupid? See YOU give bikers a bad name! You are the problem!

[Anonymous]

While I find your exclaimations compelling, no I don't think it was wrong to write a cyclist a ticket. I think such enforcement is a waste of time when we almost never see enforcement against drivers in residential neighborhoods. It's all either automated enforcement, or it's out on the freeways.

But neither do I see anything shameful or stupid about what the cyclist did. Again, it's not any more dangerous than jaywalking. Frankly, I don't really care about whether I "give bikers a bad name." I've been doing this for long enough to realize that we're not going to win any gold stars. As biking continues to increase in DC, the laws there will continue to favor cyclists at the expense of drivers--as it should be. This has nothing to do with winning praise from drivers, and everything to do with getting more DC voters on bikes. That's already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They also don't report kite-pedestrian crashes. The numbers are so low as to be insignificant. Win.

A report of statistics about auto accidents doesn't say one way or the other whether bicycle or kite accidents are common. By your logic, there is no crime problem because DC's auto accident report doesn't mention any crime statistics.

The NYT reports: "Nobody seems to keep reliable data on bicycle-pedestrian crashes, though two researchers at Hunter College analyzed data from 100 hospital emergency rooms across the nation and found evidence of at least 38,000 such collisions between 1980 and 2009."

I found this by googling "bicycle-pedestrian accident," which results in about a billion bicycle-pedestrian accident personal injury lawyer web pages. If these accidents were so rare, you'd hardly expect so many lawyers to specialize in them. I wonder how many kite accident law firms there are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I find your exclaimations compelling, no I don't think it was wrong to write a cyclist a ticket. I think such enforcement is a waste of time when we almost never see enforcement against drivers in residential neighborhoods. It's all either automated enforcement, or it's out on the freeways.

But neither do I see anything shameful or stupid about what the cyclist did. Again, it's not any more dangerous than jaywalking. Frankly, I don't really care about whether I "give bikers a bad name." I've been doing this for long enough to realize that we're not going to win any gold stars. As biking continues to increase in DC, the laws there will continue to favor cyclists at the expense of drivers--as it should be. This has nothing to do with winning praise from drivers, and everything to do with getting more DC voters on bikes. That's already happening.

Sure so when a car runs a red light we all should go to hell but when a bike runs a red light its totally cool. Good to know.

[Anonymous]

Two things: you're going to want to show that a) over thirty years, this 38k incidents (1300 per year nationwide if the distribution is even, which I'd suspect it isn't) is somehow a major component of the carnage on our roadways (or in fact that all of these occurred on the roads, rather than the sidewalks which I'd bet is the case). and b) that cyclists are disproportionately to blame in these collisions.

It's an article of faith that this is A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED because there are quite a few folks who really, really want it to be a major problem. All evidence to the contrary. It's like folks who are scared to death of stranger abduction. Just not an issue, and throwing lots and lots of resources at it is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is the poster who said I "wanted" to like cyclists.

First of all, I was actually hit by a cyclist. I've never been hit by a car! But of course, that does not a pattern make.

That said, c'mon now. The cyclists who are saying they flagrantly do not have to follow any laws are just part of the problem. If you want to be integrated into traffic, don't create an unsafe environment. I am SUCH a careful driver. I go out of my way to accommodate cyclists, pedestrians, other drivers. I'm always the guy who will stop and let you out of a parking lot, let you get over, etc. So please don't act like I'm some kind of jerk who just wants to feel the "thrill" of almost hitting a cyclist.

I don't really worry that a cyclist is going to hurt me or my kids while we are in a car (though I suppose if I swerved to avoid hitting someone I might myself get hit). But, I'm worried about YOU. And yes, by extension, me. If you skirt out in front of my car out of nowhere, and I don't see you until it is too late to stop, and I hit and injure you or kill you, my life is in shambles. How would someone recover from that?

I do my part, by driving carefully, focusing on the road (never my cell phone, etc) and genuinely attempting to share the road. The problem is not respectful cyclists, who are probably the majority of cyclists in this area.

But based on these comments, it appears we have a sampling of the "other" cyclists, the ones who are weaving in and out of traffic, almost causing an accident, then darting out into the intersection with the middle finger blazing. I guess these people just hate cars and probably don't think much of us for polluting the environment, etc. But dang, man, what are you doing to help matters if you're going out of your way to be aggressive or antagonizing?

PP above, just because you would like to rewrite the law doesn't mean you can carry on like you've done so. And besides the law, there's the social contract to consider. Do you want your teenager to get ready to proceed with the right of way you have carefully taught her, after looking both ways, only to nail a cyclist who barreled out from the sidewalk against the light? Do you want her life to be over because a cyclist's mistake (especially if it was intentionally aggressive or flagrant) to ruin your child's life?

Man, I don't get this attitude. What can you possibly achieve with this? I'm a huge supporter of cyclists and this thread is really turning me off. I do hope this isn't representative of the attitudes of most cyclists.

PS. the drivers who were honking at kids? Total assholes. I get that. I get that many drivers are assholes. and there are more drivers than bikers, so that makes more assholes than ever. But man, don't go out of your way to inflame.

Look, I'm the PP who said I don't follow every traffic law to the letter. I don't disagree with you that *everyone* should driver courteously and carefully. Where I disagree with you is when you argue that driving to the letter of the law is functionally equivalent to driving courteously and carefully. It's just not. We agree that people should drive/ride like assholes. We agree that people should operate in a predictable and safe manner. And they generally do.

A cyclist coming to an intersection is extremely likely to slow down and treat the intersection like a yield sign. So stop and give them the right-of-way. It costs you nothing, and frankly, it's no different than when I'm on a bicycle, want to take a left hand turn, but don't get into the left-hand lane a block before my turn because I don't want to inconvenience drivers. Legally, I should check to see if there's a break in traffic, then change lanes, then ride in the left hand lane signaling my intent to turn left. I don't because it would slow traffic. It's a courtesy. So I'll often ride to the intersection, cross to the other side. Then wait for the pedestrian signal to change, and proceed.

As far as pissing people off, I'm not going to do it gratuitously, but if someone's pissed off at me, that means they see me. Frankly, most of the area drivers are entitled, smug pricks who break 90% of the laws that apply to them without even giving it a second thought. Don't believe me? Get on the BW Parkway, get in the left-hand lane, and set your cruise control to the posted speed limit. Or come to a full stop and let a pedestrian cross at a mid-block intersection and see how your fellow drivers react. (The latter happened just a month or so ago, and there was a pedestrian killed).

I did not personally argue that following the letter of the law is functionally equivalent to driving safely and courteously. I didn't say that. Or maybe I don't even understand that that is supposed to mean. It is probably illegal to let someone "go" at a stop sign, but I do that anyway. And have I ever "rolled" through a stop sign? Honestly? Yes..in my life I have. But I am honestly kind of a square as a driver, and I tend to do the 1, 2, 3 count in my head at stop signs. Ridiculous? Yes. But why not? I'm generally not in a hurry.

Anyway. You make so many weird errors and assumptions here that I am perplexed as to how you think you're selling your case. I feel like you are making MY case for me by being so proud of the ways you do not follow the laws that are there for YOUR safety as much as mine. If a car has the green light and a bike is treating the intersection like a yield, then at least YEILD the right of way. It's like the difference between the Boston left and the PIttsburgh left. I'll signal you with my lights or hand that you may make a left turn ahead of me if we're all at a red light and the light turns. That's the Pittsburgh left. That's the kind of courtesy you're talking about. But the Boston left (and no offense to Bostonians here, it's just the lingo) is when you help yourself to the Pgh left - when you assume you're going to get it or if you just say "fuck it, they won't hit me."

And face it - that's what cyclists do know. They know if a motorist sees you, he will not hit you, so they break the law knowing that. That does not make it right!

And your whole "if you're pissed at me I know you see me" statement is ludicrous. The only time I'm pissed off at a cyclist is if he has put himself / herself in danger or almost caused an accident, or if I have to slow down to a halt, disrupting traffic flow, getting honked at and road raged at, for stopping at a green light because a cyclist is flying through against the light; "yielding" the road to himself, despite the right of way belonging to someone else. Yes, I get pissed off and yes, usually I see you. Do you REALLY think this kind of shit makes you safer? If so, seriously, please reconsider this outlook, for your own safety if nothing else.

Traffic laws aren't just there for the hell of it. They may need a re-write. I'm a sailor. Are you familiar with sailing? All other things being equal, in sailing, the right of way belongs to the craft that is not using a motor. If you are using wind, the motorboat must give you the right of way. It doesn't matter if you are making unpredictable movements, etc. That's the way it is. And I can see a certain attractiveness to that. It just "SEEMS" right. And in practice, when I can, I actually do let cyclists go. I've had 6 knee surgeries or I too might embrace cycling as transportation.

Unlike the freak on this thread, I do NOT WANT TO HIT YOU. If you do something really dumb like come out of nowhere and cross in front of me so close that I miss you by mere inches, you may rest assured that I will stand on my breaks, I'll get rear-ended myself, before I'll hit you. But why the fuck are you doing that? It's seriously not okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I find your exclaimations compelling, no I don't think it was wrong to write a cyclist a ticket. I think such enforcement is a waste of time when we almost never see enforcement against drivers in residential neighborhoods. It's all either automated enforcement, or it's out on the freeways.

But neither do I see anything shameful or stupid about what the cyclist did. Again, it's not any more dangerous than jaywalking. Frankly, I don't really care about whether I "give bikers a bad name." I've been doing this for long enough to realize that we're not going to win any gold stars. As biking continues to increase in DC, the laws there will continue to favor cyclists at the expense of drivers--as it should be. This has nothing to do with winning praise from drivers, and everything to do with getting more DC voters on bikes. That's already happening.

Sure so when a car runs a red light we all should go to hell but when a bike runs a red light its totally cool. Good to know.

Traffic lights were created in response to drivers killing each other and pedestrians in great numbers. It's the same reason we have red-light cameras. The statistics do not show that there is any such problem with cyclists running red lights. If there were, I'd support further enforcement. There's not. So I don't.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, for all that length, I did not finish my sailing analogy. The difference between sea and land is that at sea, I can see ALL of the boats around me, I can usually turn four different directions to avoid any oncoming traffic, and the rules are crystal clear. So anyway, while the whole "cede to the lesser powered vehicle" kind of thing makes sense, but you have to take into account how impractical it is to expect people to follow this on a road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is the poster who said I "wanted" to like cyclists.

First of all, I was actually hit by a cyclist. I've never been hit by a car! But of course, that does not a pattern make.

That said, c'mon now. The cyclists who are saying they flagrantly do not have to follow any laws are just part of the problem. If you want to be integrated into traffic, don't create an unsafe environment. I am SUCH a careful driver. I go out of my way to accommodate cyclists, pedestrians, other drivers. I'm always the guy who will stop and let you out of a parking lot, let you get over, etc. So please don't act like I'm some kind of jerk who just wants to feel the "thrill" of almost hitting a cyclist.

I don't really worry that a cyclist is going to hurt me or my kids while we are in a car (though I suppose if I swerved to avoid hitting someone I might myself get hit). But, I'm worried about YOU. And yes, by extension, me. If you skirt out in front of my car out of nowhere, and I don't see you until it is too late to stop, and I hit and injure you or kill you, my life is in shambles. How would someone recover from that?

I do my part, by driving carefully, focusing on the road (never my cell phone, etc) and genuinely attempting to share the road. The problem is not respectful cyclists, who are probably the majority of cyclists in this area.

But based on these comments, it appears we have a sampling of the "other" cyclists, the ones who are weaving in and out of traffic, almost causing an accident, then darting out into the intersection with the middle finger blazing. I guess these people just hate cars and probably don't think much of us for polluting the environment, etc. But dang, man, what are you doing to help matters if you're going out of your way to be aggressive or antagonizing?

PP above, just because you would like to rewrite the law doesn't mean you can carry on like you've done so. And besides the law, there's the social contract to consider. Do you want your teenager to get ready to proceed with the right of way you have carefully taught her, after looking both ways, only to nail a cyclist who barreled out from the sidewalk against the light? Do you want her life to be over because a cyclist's mistake (especially if it was intentionally aggressive or flagrant) to ruin your child's life?

Man, I don't get this attitude. What can you possibly achieve with this? I'm a huge supporter of cyclists and this thread is really turning me off. I do hope this isn't representative of the attitudes of most cyclists.

PS. the drivers who were honking at kids? Total assholes. I get that. I get that many drivers are assholes. and there are more drivers than bikers, so that makes more assholes than ever. But man, don't go out of your way to inflame.

Look, I'm the PP who said I don't follow every traffic law to the letter. I don't disagree with you that *everyone* should driver courteously and carefully. Where I disagree with you is when you argue that driving to the letter of the law is functionally equivalent to driving courteously and carefully. It's just not. We agree that people should drive/ride like assholes. We agree that people should operate in a predictable and safe manner. And they generally do.

A cyclist coming to an intersection is extremely likely to slow down and treat the intersection like a yield sign. So stop and give them the right-of-way. It costs you nothing, and frankly, it's no different than when I'm on a bicycle, want to take a left hand turn, but don't get into the left-hand lane a block before my turn because I don't want to inconvenience drivers. Legally, I should check to see if there's a break in traffic, then change lanes, then ride in the left hand lane signaling my intent to turn left. I don't because it would slow traffic. It's a courtesy. So I'll often ride to the intersection, cross to the other side. Then wait for the pedestrian signal to change, and proceed.

As far as pissing people off, I'm not going to do it gratuitously, but if someone's pissed off at me, that means they see me. Frankly, most of the area drivers are entitled, smug pricks who break 90% of the laws that apply to them without even giving it a second thought. Don't believe me? Get on the BW Parkway, get in the left-hand lane, and set your cruise control to the posted speed limit. Or come to a full stop and let a pedestrian cross at a mid-block intersection and see how your fellow drivers react. (The latter happened just a month or so ago, and there was a pedestrian killed).

I did not personally argue that following the letter of the law is functionally equivalent to driving safely and courteously. I didn't say that. Or maybe I don't even understand that that is supposed to mean. It is probably illegal to let someone "go" at a stop sign, but I do that anyway. And have I ever "rolled" through a stop sign? Honestly? Yes..in my life I have. But I am honestly kind of a square as a driver, and I tend to do the 1, 2, 3 count in my head at stop signs. Ridiculous? Yes. But why not? I'm generally not in a hurry.

Anyway. You make so many weird errors and assumptions here that I am perplexed as to how you think you're selling your case. I feel like you are making MY case for me by being so proud of the ways you do not follow the laws that are there for YOUR safety as much as mine. If a car has the green light and a bike is treating the intersection like a yield, then at least YEILD the right of way. It's like the difference between the Boston left and the PIttsburgh left. I'll signal you with my lights or hand that you may make a left turn ahead of me if we're all at a red light and the light turns. That's the Pittsburgh left. That's the kind of courtesy you're talking about. But the Boston left (and no offense to Bostonians here, it's just the lingo) is when you help yourself to the Pgh left - when you assume you're going to get it or if you just say "fuck it, they won't hit me."

And face it - that's what cyclists do know. They know if a motorist sees you, he will not hit you, so they break the law knowing that. That does not make it right!

And your whole "if you're pissed at me I know you see me" statement is ludicrous. The only time I'm pissed off at a cyclist is if he has put himself / herself in danger or almost caused an accident, or if I have to slow down to a halt, disrupting traffic flow, getting honked at and road raged at, for stopping at a green light because a cyclist is flying through against the light; "yielding" the road to himself, despite the right of way belonging to someone else. Yes, I get pissed off and yes, usually I see you. Do you REALLY think this kind of shit makes you safer? If so, seriously, please reconsider this outlook, for your own safety if nothing else.

Traffic laws aren't just there for the hell of it. They may need a re-write. I'm a sailor. Are you familiar with sailing? All other things being equal, in sailing, the right of way belongs to the craft that is not using a motor. If you are using wind, the motorboat must give you the right of way. It doesn't matter if you are making unpredictable movements, etc. That's the way it is. And I can see a certain attractiveness to that. It just "SEEMS" right. And in practice, when I can, I actually do let cyclists go. I've had 6 knee surgeries or I too might embrace cycling as transportation.

Unlike the freak on this thread, I do NOT WANT TO HIT YOU. If you do something really dumb like come out of nowhere and cross in front of me so close that I miss you by mere inches, you may rest assured that I will stand on my breaks, I'll get rear-ended myself, before I'll hit you. But why the fuck are you doing that? It's seriously not okay.

As I said, there are cyclists who ride like assholes. There are drivers who drive like assholes. If there truly are cyclists who ride with a complete disregard for stop signs or lights, they're driving like assholes. I don't condone that. But in my experience, most cyclists treat stop signs as yields, and red lights as stops. That's what I do. It's arguably safer than following the letter of the law. Just to be clear: breaking the letter of the law--essentially riding as though the Idaho Stop law were in effect--does not mean "really dumb like come out of nowhere and cross in front of me so close that I miss you by mere inches". Why should it?

I think what many folks here want to do is take the most egregious example of bad cycling (not illegal cycling, it's different) and project that onto anyone who disagrees with them.

And your whole "if you're pissed at me I know you see me" statement is ludicrous. The only time I'm pissed off at a cyclist is if he has put himself / herself in danger or almost caused an accident, or if I have to slow down to a halt, disrupting traffic flow, getting honked at and road raged at, for stopping at a green light because a cyclist is flying through against the light; "yielding" the road to himself, despite the right of way belonging to someone else.

Great. Sounds like you're one of the well-adjusted humans who drive and ride bicycles in this city. You also stop for stop signs for a count of three. You're in the minority. There are many, many drivers who get pissed off when a cyclist takes the right-hand lane on a four-lane road. Why? Because they're "blocking traffic" or some such nonsense. I don't assume that you're one of them. You've got every right to be mildly peeved when someone cuts you off in a car, or when some hipster doofus runs a light ill-advisedly on a bike. I just don't understand why it becomes this idee fixe for so many drivers. The obsession just seems bizarre.

I'll tell you what: in honor of the DCUM bike-patrol I'll drive 100% in compliance with the law for the rest of the week. This means I'll come to a full stop at each stop sign. I'll wait for the green light at all stop signs. I will also take the full right-hand travel lane (not counting the parking lane). I'll merge into the left lane to take left turns, where I'll also take the lane. I'll use proper hand signals. I look forward to all the goodwill and love from my fellow travelers, as the area's drivers shower me with affection due to my new, law-abiding status.

I'm heading out now. I'll let you know how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, for all that length, I did not finish my sailing analogy. The difference between sea and land is that at sea, I can see ALL of the boats around me, I can usually turn four different directions to avoid any oncoming traffic, and the rules are crystal clear. So anyway, while the whole "cede to the lesser powered vehicle" kind of thing makes sense, but you have to take into account how impractical it is to expect people to follow this on a road.

Well, actually this could be achieved fairly easily, but it would require much lower traffic speeds in congested, pedestrian-friendly areas. Of course, given our auto-centric culture, that's a complete non-starter. It's taken us decades to embrace unsignaled traffic circles. The problem with requiring "yield to lesser power" is that it ends the cultural dominance of the auto. And that's a non-starter in most communities. Hell, you can't even get more than 15% of drivers to yield to children in crosswalks in America.

[Anonymous]

My four year old was hit by a dumb-ass cyclist on the sidewalk near the zoo. I've never wanted to throttle anyone so badly in my life. My car has been hit by a cyclist. Like I said in my earlier post, I see them as nothing more than a nuisance. Kind of like squirrels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I find your exclaimations compelling, no I don't think it was wrong to write a cyclist a ticket. I think such enforcement is a waste of time when we almost never see enforcement against drivers in residential neighborhoods. It's all either automated enforcement, or it's out on the freeways.

But neither do I see anything shameful or stupid about what the cyclist did. Again, it's not any more dangerous than jaywalking. Frankly, I don't really care about whether I "give bikers a bad name." I've been doing this for long enough to realize that we're not going to win any gold stars. As biking continues to increase in DC, the laws there will continue to favor cyclists at the expense of drivers--as it should be. This has nothing to do with winning praise from drivers, and everything to do with getting more DC voters on bikes. That's already happening.

Sure so when a car runs a red light we all should go to hell but when a bike runs a red light its totally cool. Good to know.

Traffic lights were created in response to drivers killing each other and pedestrians in great numbers. It's the same reason we have red-light cameras. The statistics do not show that there is any such problem with cyclists running red lights. If there were, I'd support further enforcement. There's not. So I don't.

You want to share the road...FOLLOW THE RULES!

[Anonymous]

Wow, you guys are still bickering about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

I bet one bicycle ticket is given out per 10,000 car tickets so I really don't think you need to worry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I find your exclaimations compelling, no I don't think it was wrong to write a cyclist a ticket. I think such enforcement is a waste of time when we almost never see enforcement against drivers in residential neighborhoods. It's all either automated enforcement, or it's out on the freeways.

But neither do I see anything shameful or stupid about what the cyclist did. Again, it's not any more dangerous than jaywalking. Frankly, I don't really care about whether I "give bikers a bad name." I've been doing this for long enough to realize that we're not going to win any gold stars. As biking continues to increase in DC, the laws there will continue to favor cyclists at the expense of drivers--as it should be. This has nothing to do with winning praise from drivers, and everything to do with getting more DC voters on bikes. That's already happening.

Sure so when a car runs a red light we all should go to hell but when a bike runs a red light its totally cool. Good to know.

Traffic lights were created in response to drivers killing each other and pedestrians in great numbers. It's the same reason we have red-light cameras. The statistics do not show that there is any such problem with cyclists running red lights. If there were, I'd support further enforcement. There's not. So I don't.

You want to share the road...FOLLOW THE RULES!

No, actually the courts have found that the cyclist's right to the road is non-negotiable. Sorry.