Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Actually the ways people mostly get crushed by SUV drivers are:

1. the driver turns right across their path (right hook)
2. the driver turns left and hits them
3. the driver rear-ends and/or sideswipes them

In contrast, stop-as-yield laws make the roads safer for bicyclists: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

Don't you think that some people will be turning at these intersections when they expect oncoming traffic to stop? A bike blowing through the stop is then a surprise to the turning driver.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I wish police would stop drivers who run red lights as well, but I was shocked at these biking parents putting their children at risk like that.

Cyclists are absolutely terrible at safety judgments. I always shudder when I see someone swerving through cars with their child on the bike.

It's bizarre that there are basically no rules for taking a child on a bike. If they were in a car, that child would have to be strapped into a government approved car seat.

Yes, perhaps that's a reflection of which mode of transportation is, statistically, more dangerous for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

Inconvenience is not really a good reason to ignore traffic laws.

You missed the final sentence; it's more convenient for you, the car drivers, if cyclists in front of you don't come to a complete stop and then have to start up all slowly again. If you really prefer being stuck behind a bike that's riding slowly, by all means, feel smug.

I've seen drivers do crazy things in D.C. as a driver, a pedestrian, and a cyclist (among them, I've seen cars just suddenly start going through intersections at red lights after being stopped; have seen them blow through red lights; have been rear-ended while stopped in my car at a red light by a driver who told me she thought it was going to turn green). I've seen cyclists do crazy things, too (the craziest was, I once got yelled at in my car by a guy on a bike who blew through a four-way stop I had stopped at, while riding the wrong way down a one-way street, and was mad at me for attempting to proceed through the intersection without looking to see if someone was coming the wrong way down the other block). All things being equal, I'd say drivers do crazy things more often -- there are more drivers than cyclists -- and/but if I had to encounter someone breaking traffic laws, I'd rather they be on a bike. Very few bikes weigh over a ton or travel faster than 30 mph.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Actually the ways people mostly get crushed by SUV drivers are:

1. the driver turns right across their path (right hook)
2. the driver turns left and hits them
3. the driver rear-ends and/or sideswipes them

In contrast, stop-as-yield laws make the roads safer for bicyclists: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I wish police would stop drivers who run red lights as well, but I was shocked at these biking parents putting their children at risk like that.

Cyclists are absolutely terrible at safety judgments. I always shudder when I see someone swerving through cars with their child on the bike.

It's bizarre that there are basically no rules for taking a child on a bike. If they were in a car, that child would have to be strapped into a government approved car seat.

I saw someone riding down the center of a major road, on the yellow line, with what looked like a three year old on their handle bars. How is this not child endangerment?

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

Inconvenience is not really a good reason to ignore traffic laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Yields at stop signs where no one is present at the intersection are legal for cyclists in DC.

The issue is blowing stop signs where there’s lots of people present. Cyclists are completely disregarding the specifics of how Idaho stops are supposed to work and just ignoring stop signs altogether. It’s amazing more aren’t killed.

What makes you think cyclists do that more than car drivers? Also, if a car is approaching a stop sign and a cyclist is riding through it, the cyclist is doing nothing wrong. The car is supposed to actually stop at it.

I don't trust car drivers because i find that most do not actually stop, but in fact slow roll, so if one is approaching, I will stop on my bike anyway.

If you'd like to actually see this in action, I'd recommend you visit Nebraska at 31st street or western at chestnut and count the number of cars who come to a complete stop for more than 1 second. It's a vanishing small number.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Yields at stop signs where no one is present at the intersection are legal for cyclists in DC.

The issue is blowing stop signs where there’s lots of people present. Cyclists are completely disregarding the specifics of how Idaho stops are supposed to work and just ignoring stop signs altogether. It’s amazing more aren’t killed.

Probably because they are using their judgement and they only blow through stop signs when they think it is safe to do so since they presumably don’t want to die.

I think drivers just get bitter when they see someone on a bike making faster progress while they’re sitting in their gas guzzling overpriced inefficient personal vehicle. You don’t care at all about their safety, you just want them to sit in traffic like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Yields at stop signs where no one is present at the intersection are legal for cyclists in DC.

The issue is blowing stop signs where there’s lots of people present. Cyclists are completely disregarding the specifics of how Idaho stops are supposed to work and just ignoring stop signs altogether. It’s amazing more aren’t killed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Yields at stop signs where no one is present at the intersection are legal for cyclists in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

.

Rush hour sounds annoying in a car. Glad I use alternate modes of transportation such as cycling. You realize that even if you get ahead of me, you'll get stuck at every light and stop sign and repeat your madness?

I recently had to drive and pick up a friend by the armory, and noted how miserable the driving experience is. You know what that did for me? Made me even more motivated to bike!

There is legislation in some states that allows bicycles and motorcycles to run red lights after stopping. The reason is that their presence is not detected by the sensors embedded in the road that cause the light to turn green when a vehicle is waiting there. The sensors only work for much larger metal objects, like cars.

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

Points for honesty.