Do red flashing school bus lights apply to cyclists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here now on a full size keyboard. This was on Macarthur on the MD side in Cabin John. I was stopped immediately behind the bus which had already turned its red lights on. Out of nowhere from behind me came a cyclist that passed me on the left and went into the opposing lane (where there were no cars because they had also stopped for the bus) and whipped back in front of the bus. I assume it was a man but it all happened so quickly. THe person was wearing lycra head to toe and had one of the thin racing bikes that becomes part of your body when you ride leaning side to side. It was just jaw-dropping. He was moving way too fast and would not have been able to stop if a kid had done something unpredictable.

Yes, the person should have stopped.

I live in this area. We have a large number of cyclists because of the multi-use path (used to be called a bike path) in DC, and the fact that the road has few intersections. There seem to be two types of cyclists here -- those that casual riders, or semi-frequent riders into work from the neighborhood, and a group that I like to call 'intense and entitled cyclists'. The second group is characterized by the affinity for breezing through 4 way stop signs (even with lots of traffic), riding on the double yellow in between traffic so as to make the light at the one-lane bridge, and generally acting as if the sound belongs to them (or should belong to them). I admit that the second group drives me nuts -- and that speeding past a bus with flashing yellow lights sounds totally like something they would do. (And yes, it does seem that this group more frequently dresses like they are training for the tour de france)

When a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road (just like a car). That is the law.

And whether or not injuries sustained when being hit by a moving car are worse that those sustained when hit by or a moving bike are irrelevant. And just because somebody else did something worse than you, does not make what you did right.

Not quite. When a person on a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road for bicyclists - just like drivers must follow the rules of the road for drivers. That is the law.

And pray tell - what do those rules say about red lights, stop signs, and one-way streets?

In all jurisdictions around here cyclists most stop at stop signs, wait for a green light (in a few places they may proceed on a special bike signal, and in DC they may proceed on the ped signal when it turns to go first) and they must follow the directionality of the road, except where there is a contraflow bike lane.

Similarly drivers must drive at or below the speed limit (NOT 5 mph above it) they must come to a complete stop before making a right on red, they must never stop even partly into a crosswalk, they must ALWAYS use their turn signals when turning or changing lanes.

Yes many cyclists disobey the law. So do many drivers. A few cyclists do it in ways that are actually dangerous, and many drivers do so in ways that are actually dangerous. These discussions are usually pointless - we should focus on ways to design our streets so that they are safe for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

Since no particular street was mentioned above, how can you possibly know that?

I assume that PP is talking in general. Are they only wanting dedicated bike lanes for their own route and no other?

I assume they mean the many locations (not every street) where protected bike lanes are a good idea - both for existing riders, to connect the network and encourage new riders, and in many cases to traffic calm the road and thus improve safety for people who do not ride bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

There weren't enough drivers driving across San Francisco Bay at the Golden Gate to warrant their own bridge, either.

I hope that you're not the PP who doesn't like bicyclists on the sidewalk.

? That's a dumb comparison. The bridge was built for various reasons, one of which was to create jobs during the great depression. It also enabled *more* cars on the road, not less, like you would get with a dedicated bike lane.

I don't care if you are on the sidewalk, but you'd better watch for pedestrians.

1. Bike lanes are also constructed for many reasons. The point though is that you can't judge potential usage of a bike lane by the number of riders on an existing street. Was 15th street as heavily used by riders as it is now, before the protected bike lane was built?

2. When I need to ride on a sidewalk, I always watch carefully for pedestrian. And yield to them - and if necessary stop and dismount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

There weren't enough drivers driving across San Francisco Bay at the Golden Gate to warrant their own bridge, either.

I hope that you're not the PP who doesn't like bicyclists on the sidewalk.

? That's a dumb comparison. The bridge was built for various reasons, one of which was to create jobs during the great depression. It also enabled *more* cars on the road, not less, like you would get with a dedicated bike lane.

I don't care if you are on the sidewalk, but you'd better watch for pedestrians.

1. Bike lanes are also constructed for many reasons. The point though is that you can't judge potential usage of a bike lane by the number of riders on an existing street. Was 15th street as heavily used by riders as it is now, before the protected bike lane was built?

2. When I need to ride on a sidewalk, I always watch carefully for pedestrian. And yield to them - and if necessary stop and dismount.

1. Most of the rounds around the DC area are narrow as it is and has terrible traffic. If you take away a lane for bikes only, that makes traffic worse for the majority of people. If we had all the money in the world, then the best solution is to build bike paths all over. I'm originally from SF area, and knew a guy who rode his bike all the way from SF to Silicon Valley, using mostly a bike path. The only place he couldn't use the path was in the center of the city. And if you have ever been to SF, there is no way to create bike only paths without having to sacrifice road space for cars and street parking.

2. I'm glad you give right of way to pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

^most of the roads...

[Anonymous]

YES.

When I was in Elementary school, I was crossing in front of my school with the crossing guard holding up the stop sign, when a bicycle (ridden by a Lance-Armstrong wannabe, not a commuter, so it was high racing bicycle going FAST with an adult male's weight on it) clipped me, injuring me badly enough to need an ER visit. If I had been a few inches ahead of where I was and it was a head on crash with an adult male going full speed on a racing bicycle, I could have been critically injured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

There weren't enough drivers driving across San Francisco Bay at the Golden Gate to warrant their own bridge, either.

I hope that you're not the PP who doesn't like bicyclists on the sidewalk.

? That's a dumb comparison. The bridge was built for various reasons, one of which was to create jobs during the great depression. It also enabled *more* cars on the road, not less, like you would get with a dedicated bike lane.

I don't care if you are on the sidewalk, but you'd better watch for pedestrians.

1. Bike lanes are also constructed for many reasons. The point though is that you can't judge potential usage of a bike lane by the number of riders on an existing street. Was 15th street as heavily used by riders as it is now, before the protected bike lane was built?

2. When I need to ride on a sidewalk, I always watch carefully for pedestrian. And yield to them - and if necessary stop and dismount.

1. Most of the rounds around the DC area are narrow as it is and has terrible traffic. If you take away a lane for bikes only, that makes traffic worse for the majority of people. If we had all the money in the world, then the best solution is to build bike paths all over. I'm originally from SF area, and knew a guy who rode his bike all the way from SF to Silicon Valley, using mostly a bike path. The only place he couldn't use the path was in the center of the city. And if you have ever been to SF, there is no way to create bike only paths without having to sacrifice road space for cars and street parking.

2. I'm glad you give right of way to pedestrians.

A. Many roads in fact have little enough traffic that you can take away one lane and not add major delays even at rush hour. B.On most others, if you do create delays, its for a fairly short period at peak C. On roads where there are already riders taking the lane, removing most of them from the flow of traffic offsets any added delay D. On many roads you can create a bike lane by removing parking (which may have low costs depending on local conditions) E. On many roads taking away a lane can reduce speeding and make the road easier to cross, so there are benefits to non cyclists. F. Getting more people to walk and bike and use transit is a better approach to dealing with congestion

All of these except F are very specific to particular local conditions - IE they vary with every particular road. That is why discussing this in the abstract makes no sense. We need to discuss it in the context of the particular street or streets where bike lanes are proposed.

[Anonymous]

Most of the rounds around the DC area are narrow as it is

There are plenty of wide roads around the area, and these are usually the worst not only for biking but for walking.

Again, we should discuss particular roads, not argue in the abstract.

[Anonymous]

And yes, if your problem is that PP said "EVERY multilane road" I would tend to agree. I would not pass a policy for converting one lane to bike lanes on EVERY multilane road. I would look at conditions on specific roads. Thankfully that is what WABA and other local bike advocacy groups call for, what DDOT and most suburban transport depts are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yes, if your problem is that PP said "EVERY multilane road" I would tend to agree. I would not pass a policy for converting one lane to bike lanes on EVERY multilane road. I would look at conditions on specific roads. Thankfully that is what WABA and other local bike advocacy groups call for, what DDOT and most suburban transport depts are doing.

If only they were. But they're not.

[Anonymous]

They should enact laws to make them identifiable with a license plate or something else so the bus cameras catch them and send them the $250 fine like everyone else. That’s BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, if your problem is that PP said "EVERY multilane road" I would tend to agree. I would not pass a policy for converting one lane to bike lanes on EVERY multilane road. I would look at conditions on specific roads. Thankfully that is what WABA and other local bike advocacy groups call for, what DDOT and most suburban transport depts are doing.

If only they were. But they're not.

Hmm. Arlington and Alexandria are. MoCo has a ways to go but is doing some good stuff in downtown Silver Spring. Even Fairfax is making some improvements here and there. Falls Church seems focused on widening the W&OD.

Certainly none of them are doing it on every road, which is what PP feared. I mean I can see frustration with slow implementation. But I think its entirely correct to say that they look at conditions on specific roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should enact laws to make them identifiable with a license plate or something else so the bus cameras catch them and send them the $250 fine like everyone else. That’s BS.

The admin cost of mandatory registration for bikes is high, and it would likely discourage cycling, which is why its not being adopted anywhere and many places that had such programs have dropped them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, if your problem is that PP said "EVERY multilane road" I would tend to agree. I would not pass a policy for converting one lane to bike lanes on EVERY multilane road. I would look at conditions on specific roads. Thankfully that is what WABA and other local bike advocacy groups call for, what DDOT and most suburban transport depts are doing.

If only they were. But they're not.

Hmm. Arlington and Alexandria are. MoCo has a ways to go but is doing some good stuff in downtown Silver Spring. Even Fairfax is making some improvements here and there. Falls Church seems focused on widening the W&OD.

Certainly none of them are doing it on every road, which is what PP feared. I mean I can see frustration with slow implementation. But I think its entirely correct to say that they look at conditions on specific roads.

And then there's the whole rest of the county, where the number of general-travel lanes converted to bike lanes is zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To some cyclists, no rules apply. I almost hit one flying through a parking lot yesterday.

zzzzzzzz. I'm sure you were at fault if you were in a car park. Too many drivers become unhinged, impatient and entitled assholes around cyclists. Drivers are so dangerous.

Take your irrational assumptions elsewhere. I don’t care what “most drivers” do in your mind; I’m a parent, had a child in the car, and was in a parking lot with many other children walking through it. I drove CAREFULLY and slowly through that lot because the last thing I want to do in my life is accidentally kill someone, especially a child. That cyclist had no business ignoring stop signs and expecting everyone else to stop for him.

So, what exactly do you mean by “you were at fault?”

Lady, first you said you were flying through a parking lot. Now you say you drove like a cautious grandma. Which is it?