Bicyclist pulled over for running a red light

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 11:28 - So you would actually like to hit a cyclist and cause minor injury? Nasty and very sad. Perhaps you and other posters here should try swapping roles - drivers should ride a bike for a day and cyclists should drive a car. Maybe a bit of understanding and less vitriol would result.

See...that's the thing. I do ride a bike. Twice a day every single school day. 1.5 miles to the school and 1.5 miles home. That's a total of 6 miles a day. My son and I bike to and from his school. But we follow the damn rules. We stay in the bike lanes. We stop at stop signs and the red light. And if there were no bike lanes, we wouldn't bike on those roads.

Why on Earth not? I think a big part of the problem with drivers outrage at "scofflaw cyclists" is that too often they're completely ignorant of the law. There's no legal requirement for cyclists to use the bike lane if they feel it's insufficient for whatever reason. And if there were no bike lanes, the cyclist is entitled to take the full traffic lane (if that lane is not wide enough for a car and a bike to pass one another with 3 feet of clearance).

Great example of how even folks who are "cyclists" and big on "the letter of the law" often are clueless as to what cyclists rights and responsibilities are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is another one of those inane discussions that consists of nothing but anecdotes and over-generalizations. Here are some noncontroversial observations:

Some bikers, and some drivers of cars, are safety-conscious and try their best to obey the law.

Some bikers, and some drivers of cars, are aggressive and disregard the law, and are a hazard on the road.

It's probably the case that more bikers than drivers run red lights since they are less likely to be ticketed or to see their insurance rates go up as a result.

It's probably the case that more drivers than bikers speed, because their vehicles are capable of going faster.

It's definitely the case that in a collision between a bike and a car, the biker is much more likely to be injured or killed than is someone in the car.

I think the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that whether you are biking or driving, you should not be overly aggressive, and you should obey the law.

...where the law keeps everyone safer.

Where it does not, the law should be disregarded.

But your larger point stands: some non-trivial percentage of humans are assholes. Another non-trivial percentage are inattentive. Yet another, simply incompetent. Simply putting humans on bicycles does not make them better humans, just more identifiable as an "out" group. If someone were acting like a jerk and driving a Camaro, I wonder how many of bike-haters here would see that and think to themselves, "Gee, we drivers sure are a bunch of selfish, fucking assholes." My guess is most would say, "That guy's an asshole." Or at the very most, "Subaru drivers are assholes."

[Anonymous]

Why on Earth not? I think a big part of the problem with drivers outrage at "scofflaw cyclists" is that too often they're completely ignorant of the law. There's no legal requirement for cyclists to use the bike lane if they feel it's insufficient for whatever reason. And if there were no bike lanes, the cyclist is entitled to take the full traffic lane (if that lane is not wide enough for a car and a bike to pass one another with 3 feet of clearance).

I am not ignorant of the law. I never suggested that it was illegal for cyclists to bike on the roadways. But it is dangerous. We have a very curvy two lane road that is the perfect example. There is no bike land nor shoulder. So bikes ride on the road. Ok fine. But why ride two or thee side by side? Why not ride single file? And why not stay on the side of the road? I can't see you when I come around a curb. Plus, in many places it's impossible to pass with oncoming traffic. So one lone biker backs up traffic on a road with a speed limit of 45 miles an hour and you don't understand why that's frustrating?

I am an avid runner. I run every single day. And I often run on the roads because concrete is a much harder surface and bad on the knees. I would never choose a curvy dangerous road with no shoulder to run on. Could I do so legally? Sure. The road runs through a neighborhood. However, I possess the common sense to understand that it might not be the best choice especially given that we live in an area with tons of other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why on Earth not? I think a big part of the problem with drivers outrage at "scofflaw cyclists" is that too often they're completely ignorant of the law. There's no legal requirement for cyclists to use the bike lane if they feel it's insufficient for whatever reason. And if there were no bike lanes, the cyclist is entitled to take the full traffic lane (if that lane is not wide enough for a car and a bike to pass one another with 3 feet of clearance).

I am not ignorant of the law. I never suggested that it was illegal for cyclists to bike on the roadways. But it is dangerous. We have a very curvy two lane road that is the perfect example. There is no bike land nor shoulder. So bikes ride on the road. Ok fine. But why ride two or thee side by side? Why not ride single file? And why not stay on the side of the road? I can't see you when I come around a curb. Plus, in many places it's impossible to pass with oncoming traffic. So one lone biker backs up traffic on a road with a speed limit of 45 miles an hour and you don't understand why that's frustrating?

I am an avid runner. I run every single day. And I often run on the roads because concrete is a much harder surface and bad on the knees. I would never choose a curvy dangerous road with no shoulder to run on. Could I do so legally? Sure. The road runs through a neighborhood. However, I possess the common sense to understand that it might not be the best choice especially given that we live in an area with tons of other options.

This road that runs through a neighborhood? What's the posted speed limit? What percentage of drivers drive at or below that speed limit. Next time you see one of these cyclists riding out there, you should stop them and give them a big kiss. The more of them there are, the greater the traffic calming effect. Perhaps if the steady stream of drivers who have nothing but contempt for your neighborhood encounter more cyclists, they'll slow down and you can get a jog in without being run over.

(as far as riding side-by-side, what's the problem? If you can see it's safe to pass, go ahead and pass them in the oncoming lane. If you can't see that it's safe to pass, you have no business passing them.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction.

Yes, that would be a great system. Everyone gets to decide for themselves whether there's a good reason that the law should apply to them in any given circumstance.

Has worked for me for over twenty years.

Hell 100% of the time there is no reason for me to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but that's still the law and I do it every single time.

A full stop at every stop sign? Behind the white "stop" line, and out of the crosswalk? In that case, give yourself a cookie. You're one of only ~15% of drivers who do. Everyone else slows down to about 3-5 mph and rolls through. Just like cyclists.

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I am not ignorant of the law. I never suggested that it was illegal for cyclists to bike on the roadways.

You wrote:

We follow the damn rules. We stay in the bike lanes. We stop at stop signs and the red light. And if there were no bike lanes, we wouldn't bike on those roads.

Sorry, if I inferred from your strong implication that you thought it was illegal to ride on a road with no bike lanes.


We have a very curvy two lane road that is the perfect example. There is no bike land nor shoulder. So bikes ride on the road. Ok fine. But why ride two or thee side by side? Why not ride single file? And why not stay on the side of the road?

I can't see you when I come around a curb.

Then, frankly, you need to slow the fuck down. (No, no sense of driver entitlement here. None whatsoever. I'm not sure which is more staggering: the entitlement or the complete lack of self-awareness)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: you should obey the law.

...where the law keeps everyone safer.

Where it does not, the law should be disregarded.

The world is worse for having you in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction.

Yes, that would be a great system. Everyone gets to decide for themselves whether there's a good reason that the law should apply to them in any given circumstance.

Has worked for me for over twenty years.

Hell 100% of the time there is no reason for me to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but that's still the law and I do it every single time.

What's amusing is when the air of entitlement becomes so pervasive that you can't even sense your entitlement anymore. Yes, Virginia, cars roll through stop signs. All. The. Time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGA3YhfsHhY
A full stop at every stop sign? Behind the white "stop" line, and out of the crosswalk? In that case, give yourself a cookie. You're one of only ~15% of drivers who do. Everyone else slows down to about 3-5 mph and rolls through. Just like cyclists.

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction.

Yes, that would be a great system. Everyone gets to decide for themselves whether there's a good reason that the law should apply to them in any given circumstance.

Has worked for me for over twenty years.

Hell 100% of the time there is no reason for me to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but that's still the law and I do it every single time.

A full stop at every stop sign? Behind the white "stop" line, and out of the crosswalk? In that case, give yourself a cookie. You're one of only ~15% of drivers who do. Everyone else slows down to about 3-5 mph and rolls through. Just like cyclists.

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

Damned quotes:

What's amusing is when the air of entitlement becomes so pervasive that you can't even sense your entitlement anymore. Yes, Virginia, cars roll through stop signs. All. The. Time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGA3YhfsHhY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: you should obey the law.

...where the law keeps everyone safer.

Where it does not, the law should be disregarded.

The world is worse for having you in it.

Wait! I think I saw a pedestrian cross the street before the walk signal started. Why don't you go whine at them?

[Anonymous]

I am not ignorant of the law. I never suggested that it was illegal for cyclists to bike on the roadways. But it is dangerous. We have a very curvy two lane road that is the perfect example. There is no bike land nor shoulder. So bikes ride on the road. Ok fine. But why ride two or thee side by side? Why not ride single file? And why not stay on the side of the road?

I can't see you when I come around a curb.

Plus, in many places it's impossible to pass with oncoming traffic. So one lone biker backs up traffic on a road with a speed limit of 45 miles an hour and you don't understand why that's frustrating?

It's a lot safer if they ride two or three abreast - you're more likely to see them.

[Anonymous]

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

First, you really can't believe that most drivers come to a complete stop moof the time, can you?

Second - "or close to it" is a nicer way of saying, "not stopping," isn't it? So basically, your position is it's OK to break the law if you make a half-hearted attempt to comply? I'm pretty sure that's nto how that works.

Or, are you saying that a rolling stop is acceptable, even though technically illegal, in situations where a driver believes that a full stop isn't really necessary, given the circumstances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not ignorant of the law. I never suggested that it was illegal for cyclists to bike on the roadways. But it is dangerous. We have a very curvy two lane road that is the perfect example. There is no bike land nor shoulder. So bikes ride on the road. Ok fine. But why ride two or thee side by side? Why not ride single file? And why not stay on the side of the road?

I can't see you when I come around a curb.

Plus, in many places it's impossible to pass with oncoming traffic. So one lone biker backs up traffic on a road with a speed limit of 45 miles an hour and you don't understand why that's frustrating?

It's a lot safer if they ride two or three abreast - you're more likely to see them.

Plus even if they're wider that means they're "shorter". So you don't have as far to pass. This does illustrate a good point though: for all the cycling advocates who say, "If only cyclists obeyed every single law to the letter, think of all the goodwill that would be engendered!" That's a dead-end. First of all, as is obvious from this thread, most people are profoundly ignorant of the law. Beyond that, though, there a whole list of common-sense items that piss off more entitled anti-cyclists. If every cyclist on the planet suddenly started stopping at stop-signs/red-lights, I bet we'd see a new-found outrage at cyclists who ride two-abreast. If every cyclist everywhere on planet Earth suddenly started riding single-file, we'd see outrage (outrage, I tell you!) at the fact that cyclists are stretching things out, and making it harder to pass.

At some point, you have to see things for what they are: there's a non-trivial minority who feel entitled to exclusive use of the roads, find cycling illegitimate and inconvenient, and will fish around for any rationale to justify their opposition. It's best to ignore them and go about one's life, which is too short to worry about folks who clearly are unhappy about other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

First, you really can't believe that most drivers come to a complete stop moof the time, can you?

Second - "or close to it" is a nicer way of saying, "not stopping," isn't it? So basically, your position is it's OK to break the law if you make a half-hearted attempt to comply? I'm pretty sure that's nto how that works.

Or, are you saying that a rolling stop is acceptable, even though technically illegal, in situations where a driver believes that a full stop isn't really necessary, given the circumstances?

IOKIYAD. (It's okay if you're a driver).

It's like the speeding thing (or the driving to fast to see what's around the next bend, or not yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk, etc, etc...)--it's not really illegal because everybody's doing it. And by "everybody" of course, we mean drivers. The merest infraction by a cyclist, on the other hand, is proof of the illegitimacy of this mode of travel. See someone take a right turn without the proper hand signal? Time to ban cycling!

[Anonymous]

When dc studied bike-car accidents, theotorist was at fault for the solid majority of them. I think that says a lot.