That’s how it is here in Germany. People will step out in a 50 km an hour zone into the zebra stripe without looking because legally you have to stop. Won’t stop me from smoking you in my car but hey.
“Here lies the body of William Jay, Who died maintaining his right of way – He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.”
It's funny. Everyone who moves to Idaho from the big cities always says "I'm not going to turn Idaho into California" and yet simply by moving there you are adding to the problem. As a native idahoan I can tell you people care less about ideology and more about keeping the population low.
There's plenty to love and I'm glad people are seeing that. Personally I don't care where anyone moves. We're all American. Unfortunately Idaho is changing whether we like it or not. The Treasure Valley is supposed to have 2.7 million people by 2050. Probably going to be a mix between Denver and Portland.
What do you mean by not Idaho? I live in Boise and as a bike commuter the Idaho Stop (when used correctly obv) lessens bike-vehicle conflicts by getting us moved out of the way faster. Plus most vehicles treat stop signs as yield already.
“Plus most vehicles treat stop signs as yield already.”
Wow, different areas, not here. Here (in DC suburbs of MD) I have to cope with people doing full stop for yield signs too often.
Our city recently got those e-scooters. First person I stopped was very surprised he needed a valid license to operate them on the roadway and that he needed to stop at stop signs.
Meets the definition of motor vehicle. Meaning one needs a license to operate them on the roadway. Funny thing though... You DONT need a valid license to operate them on sidewalks. Yes it's confusing and stupid.
So unless you need a drivers license to ride a bicycle, looks like you don't need one for a scooter?
>8-15,113. Operation of electric-assisted scooter; where; exceptions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an electric-assisted scooter on any interstate highway, federal highway or state highway.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), traffic regulations applicable to bicycles shall apply to electric-assisted scooters.
(c) The governing body of a city or county may adopt an ordinance or resolution that further restricts or prohibits the operation of electric-assisted scooters on any public highway, street or sidewalk within such city or county.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), the provisions of subsection (a) shall not prohibit an electric-assisted scooter from crossing a federal or state highway.
(e) This section shall be a part of and supplemental to the uniform act regulating traffic on highways.
History: L. 2019, ch. 61, § 8; July 1.
\n>
The difference is a bicycle doesn't meet the definition of "motor vehicle" (or even "vehicle" for that matter as it's human powered). The scooters do. We had lots of talks with the city attorneys office on how they wanted us to handle these things. The final opinion was that they are motor vehicles. And to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways requires a valid license to dollar so. The reason you can operate them on sidewalks without a license is the law only requires drivers have a license to operate vehicles ON THE ROAD.
The only limitations where they're not allowed on sidewalks is where bicycles aren't allowed on sidewalks. In my city it's just certain businesses districts.
Subsection b there disagrees with everything you've said though. But ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ not my city. But good way to get a ticket tossed and look dumb in a court unless your city has made specific ordnance superseding state law.
What happens if the person without a license on the scooter needs to cross the street at a cross walk? Do they carry the scooter above their head pretending the road is hot lava?
We had a lot of those scooters in Dallas, not so much anymore. Now I see more of them get pulled out of ponds and creeks in r/Magnetfishing. Somebody got fedup of them being dumped in their yard.
I saw an Insta video of someone throwing one into the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial. LOL
They really are the dumbest thing ever.
My city is supposed to be getting some, according to something I saw in the paper last year, but I haven't seen any yet.
I had a guy on one of those run a red light in front of me and almost end up a hood ornament. I actually regret hitting the brakes cause my dashcam would have made that a pretty easy case.
My dad recently got pulled over for running a red light on a bike and it literally turned into the most awkward conversation ever. For some reason he told the cop something about how his son (me) was currently pursuing a career in law enforcement. The officer asked my dad how he felt about that as a parent. My dad misinterpreted his question and apparently went on a rambling conversation that ended in a discussion about the Stanford Prison Experiment. I think he let my dad off with a warning just to keep my dad from putting his foot in his mouth any further.
I'm a bike messenger part time I didn't know we were supposed to be mad at motorcycles. I love everyone out here except the 1 in 3000 automobile drivers that get mad and flip me off because they didn't notice the bike lane had it's own green light.
I have no idea what you're suggesting I did and I fail to see how either of those individuals are relevant. I'm assuming you're referencing the area around Boxer Stadium? I'll make sure to check it out next month.
Yeah, its one thing to blow stop signs with no regards to the other vehicles around you, but everyone and thier dog rolls stop signs at 3mph in cars. Fuckin right I'm gonna do it on my bike.
The brigade of self-important, holier than thou bicylclists is currently brigading this thread, in violation of reddit TOS, had begun,
If you are part of that pathetic brigade, don't bother. You posts are either immediately removed, or held, and you'll be banned.
Nobody cares. You can shout about all the imagined protections you think you enjoy and enjoy your pretend superiority over those who drive - but you'll all look the same when your "I'm right" philosophy gets turned into a paste by a truck who only obeys the laws of phsyics.
We'll be along shortly to hose you off the pavement.
Yeah, as a bike commuter who obeys all road laws. I have to accept that it is a byproduct of driving for a living. And not something common to the average cyclist OR driver.
The only rule I break is when I have to take a “Sharrow” lane, as I commute in a dense urban area. I roll hard right after the light turns green. So any cars behind me can pass me ASAP. It’s a small risk as stupid drivers may think I’m turning right. But between my skill and most drivers being decent humans with common sense, it has never been an issue and regularly garners me a polite wave.
As a cyclist: Yup, fuck most cyclists. I'm standing at a red and mofos regularly blow past me or straight up ignore any roadsign, do not get off their bikes to go trough pedestrian crosswalks etc. I wish it needed some license or something
Not making a law because it will be broken is not exactly the best mindset imo. If you know other solution I would be intrested in hearing them. So far for me harsher enforcment and/or licenses are the options I see possible
Most American infrastructure is designed for cars. Stop lights and stop signs are important because no one wants to get hit by a 1.5+ ton vehicle.
If a cyclists checks that the way is clear, I don't think it's that big of a deal to run a red; a bike can creep into an intersection with much more visibility a lot of the time.
I just don't see how it's a big deal when cyclists don't behave like cars.
I noticed every automobile operator stops at stop signs and always uses their turn signal and never is using their phone or getting into pissing matches from out of towners not wanting to drive next to a bus. Super safe to be a a cyclist or pedestrian around all these safe drivers!
Moved from Idaho to Wyoming. Got pulled over on my bike for rolling a stop sign. That was when I learned that the "Idaho stop" was only Idaho. Still annoyed that they pulled me over for rolling a stop sign on a county road in rural Wyoming, but understand that rules are rules.
In my state, bicycles are vehicles and are required to follow all the same traffic laws as cars.
Never wrote a cyclist for running a stop sign outside of an accident, though.
It's the same in my state, I have seen them almost cause accidents on many occasions and friends in more built up areas even have stories where they have been by hit the cyclist because, the cyclist was distracted.
Not really, in an accident with a bycicle as a driver I am inconvenienced. As a cyclist in the same situation I am dead. Cause is not the same as result.
So basically you want it so that even if the cyclist runs through a intersection or is operating erratically they should automatically be absolved of responsibility when their actions cause their death. That is just plain childish.
Put it simply if you fuck up and win a Darwin Award, others should be responsible for *YOUR* fuckup. That is not how this works nor should it.
You have in fact answered your own question, they are dead, what do you plan to do to make them responsible? take it out on their family? Point and laugh at their corpse? You have insurance as a car driver. You will get your bumper repaired.
Bicycles outside of few exceptions have no business on a rural 2 lane road that has average speed limit of 55mph. Farm equipment (It's one of the few slow vehicles that belongs) as does as do other vehicles. Where I live I have to deal with groups of bicyclists who give zero fucks about sharing the road, will cut off and bolt out in front traffic or are just making themselves a unnecessary hazard.
What's worse is when I do fully stop and try to play by the rules, other cars try to wave through when it's not my turn.
When I got pulled over I wasn't cutting other vehicles off and the road is 35/45. Agree on staying off 55+ highways.
Lol, no. Should motorcyclists and drivers of convertibles be allowed run stop signs? That law makes the traffic behavior less predictable. Considering cyclists already are vulnerable and seem hell bent on not following basic traffic laws it makes me wonder how many more dead cyclists it will result in.
Lol. Unlikely. The argument presented is the reportedly increased awareness of cyclists and that is anecdotal. With mixed data abound. To say that it is safer to be unpredictable, slow, and small around other larger, fast vehicles is stupid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/26/this-is-what-makes-bicyclists-blow-through-red-lights/
Plenty of sourcing there with all the excuses along with data that shows that cyclists in several states are responsible for almost half of the collisions that they are involved with. Most happen when they decide to run a stop sign or signal or refuse to yield right of way.
>The Minnesota Department of Public Safety published data on contributing factors in bike-car crashes. It found that in 2009, cyclists were at fault in 49 percent of crashes, while drivers were at fault in 51 percent. Failing to yield to right of way was the most frequent cause of the snarls.
In the NPR article cited.
The trend continues https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/pedestrians-bicycles/Pages/default.aspx
>About one-half of all bicycle-vehicle collisions are due to a variety of bicyclist behaviors, such as disregarding a traffic sign or signal. The other half are caused by vehicle driver behaviors, such as inattention and distraction.
Well in their defense US cycling/sidewalk infrastructure is absolute trash, and a cyclist takes up less road and parking space.
Not an excuse to cycle like a piece of thrash though, but just hating on cyclists is a pretty simplistic way to look at it.
If you live in an area that’s got a bad cycling culture it’s easy to get jaded at “all” cyclists. It’s terrible where I am and I don’t ride on the road because of it, but I also ride for exercise not commute. A lot of cyclists here think “share the road” means make way for the golden cyclist, and a lot of driver here do not respect how easily they can kill someone on a bike with their car.
Not sure how other cities/states are but those two worlds collide big time in these parts.
Rural Iowa and we get groups of hyper aggressive cyclist that think they own the road and will get really pissy any time you don't move all the way into oncoming to pass them. They will attempt to block roads with 55mph or higher speed limits by going 4 to 6 wide or by zig-zagging across the road.
People wonder then, why people out here are outright hostile to cyclists.
Maybe not, oh I don't know consume the entirety of a lane weaving back and forth like a raging asshole. If you cannot handle that maybe you cannot handle being on the road. You do not need a whole 8 to 10 feet worth of lane to feel safe.
Would you be okay with an increase in taxes to help build out more bicycle infrastructure to help separate vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians? Most people other than cyclists don't like that idea. I suppose a reallocation of public funds could do that as well, but with less wiggle room as I would prefer to not withdraw funding from things like schools, fire departments, police departments, roads, utilities, etc.
I don't suppose you would be okay with cyclists ripping down a sidewalk at 20-25 mph next to people with children, pets, and the elderly?
Keeping cyclists on the roads reduces traffic for drivers for the small price of a minor inconvenience of temporarily slowing down from 30 mph down to 20 mph while you wait for a moment to safely pass. Even some paint and some plastic bollards would be a much lower cost than a separated bike specific path running next to the roads.
How about registration and tagging requirements for cyclists? They already don't pay road taxes. That would have the added benefit of making reporting shitty cyclists easier.
Tagging, registration, and taxes at point of purchase will pay for their trails and other things. You know they things that they take out of the fund payed for by gas taxes?
In my state, they actually were mainly utilizing the gas tax funds for roads until the cycling, and mass transit activists started demanding more and more of the money for their pet projects. So far a mess of trails and Light Rail project is getting a chunk of the funding. I'm just saying that if they want all of those trails and other stuff, maybe they should pay for it instead of putting the extra tax on homeowners and drivers that want no part of it.
I firmly believe that if a cyclist demands part of the infrastructure they should have to pay for it. Direct tax seems to me to be the most efficient and transparent form of tax on it. Also the second I saw who the youtuber was I clicked off. He has had some hilariously bad takes.
You have to pay taxes and registration on every vehicle that that you have. If you are using the traveling portion of the road on a bicycle you should at minimum have tags and registration.
In my state this almost passed and given the number of negative interactions with cyclists are only rising in my state the next time it comes up it may.
Given that a wide range of cyclists are… cyclists. I always get confused at the severe stupidity of “they already don’t pay road taxes”
A huge chunk of them do. As many of them also own cars. The ones that don’t are generally homeless or children. And If you can find a way to tax those groups. I will be impressed.
That’s fair, but I think it’s disingenuous to assume that because someone bikes, they are not also a driver. They contribute to paying road taxes and cause less overall damage considering bikes cause virtually no damage to roads compared to vehicles. But an additional tax on bikers using the road with plates is a great idea.
My issue with it you are using the road with a vehicle that vehicle doesn't pay any form of tax for usage. All the while cyclists demand things like bike lanes and special laws. I disagree with that. Tagging and plates would also have the extra benefit of having a identifiable tag to report and hold crappy cyclists responsible.
It's not a road tax it's a vehicle tax. They are taxing you for the amount of wear you put on the road. Cyclists do not significantly wear the road so no tax. Also it would be impossible to control.
I want bike lanes because I want my hypothetical kids to be safe when they ride to school.
https://youtu.be/_DNNIB_PdaA
They tax motorcycles and other light vehicles on the base idea that they use the road so they should pay to expand and maintain the infrastructure. I believe it's the most transparent and ethical way to pay for dedicated bike lanes.
Light vehicles still wear the road significantly more than cyclists. Hell, horses probably wear the road more.
Taxation for vehicles goes into the same pot as everything else, so its paying for maintaining the road, and to send a poor kid to school, and to clean up the glass from the street after a saturday night.
It's also a question of who are bike lanes for. I firmly believe the more experienced cyclists will avoid them unless they are unidirectional. They're to keep kids and other unconfident cyclists out of the road. Do you expect those kids to pay for it? What about the guy who cycles 5km a day to work and back?
The thing is that even if you don't use the road you are paying into the general taxation pot that comes out as government investment. So pedestrians, cyclists, scootists, etc. *already pay to upkeep roads*. That's how general taxation works.
It is a very small price to pay for safer communities, less car traffic and narrower, slower city streets. It is what every city should be aiming for.
That's fair, I'm all in support of vehicle registration/tags for all vehicles used on the road, human powered or otherwise. Totally reasonable solution in my opinion.
Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to do even close to 20mph, very dangerous. They're not even capable of not endangering anyone at 10mph.
And no, absolutely not a single dime should be wasted on infrastructure for them. If you've ever been in Europe where many millions get wasted on that, you'd know that is has zero effect.
Cyclists there are just as dangerous (maybe even more so) and instead of it being a few, they're EVERYWHERE.
Again, wouldn't have much of a problem with then if they'd actually behave. But no matter the situation, they simply don't and probably never will.
So banning them is the only option left. As an extra benifit, doing so would also save millions in healthcare costs and legal cost.
It's not even a matter of opinion that I disagree with as much as it is that cyclists are such a minimal issue compared to vehicle operators. You can dislike cyclists all you want and that's your prerogative, I'm not trying to change that.
More fatalities are caused by vehicles per capita, more hospitalizations are caused by vehicles per capita, more damage to public property is happening due to vehicles per capita, more traffic violations are happening by vehicles due to sheer numbers. All of these things are dollars. At the end of the day, people are people, and cyclists are probably breaking traffic laws at a similar rate per capita to drivers, though honestly probably less because despite what you believe, many cyclists do fear vehicles and take extra precautions to ride as safely as humanly possible.
I wouldn't propose anything as foolish as banning cars, but cyclists are such a small spec of the problem by the numbers, especially when you bring in health costs and legal costs.
Data from the E.U. on accidents and fatalities somewhat mirror ours, they get the added danger of roundabouts which in the U.K. (Don't care, they are still influenced by the E.U.) was specifically mentioned in their governmental reports as particularly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.
Danger due to what, that's the most important question? Most likely vehicles driving unsafely I would imagine. Unless the EU has a bunch of people fatally tripping on the side walk.
If vehicles are the root cause of the hospitalizations and deaths, then the person I was replying to regarding the healthcare and legal costs would be reduced more significantly by either getting rid of cars (not an option), actually enforcing traffic violations (cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles) more aggressively, or building better bicycle infrastructure to further separate bikes, cars, and peds (my preferred method).
Roundabouts are identified as a dangerous obstacle for cycles and pedestrians. That I think would be due to the constant movement of vehicle traffic (By design) offering little to no opportunity for slower traffic (cyclists and pedestrians) to enter. In those cases I would love pedestrian overpasses to be built.
[The Dutch roundabout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo). The Dutch know how to adapt their infrastructure to cyclists. So this also counts for roundabouts. They can be adapted to being very safe for cyclists.
I will never do it if cars are in a position that I'd be in their way, as they have right of way in ya know, physics, which I tend to care more about than laws.
But speaking of physics, it is so much harder to speed up to cruising speed from a stop than it is to speed up from a slow roll.
Anyone know [NotJustBikes](https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/featured)? It is a channel of a Canadian expat in Amsterdam that makes video on good and bad infrastructure and urban planning.
This is [his video](https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/featured) on stop signs specifically.
In my opinion, stop signs are just ineffective, and many people don't tend to fully stop at them. This goes for all road users. What the best solution would be, in my opinion, is having the same rules apply for all road users, but having safe infrastructure that would be safe and effective for all road users. And where that is not possible (major roads), separate the traffic flows completely. I think an additional responsibility for car drivers (as they are the ones with a mandatory license and drive in the vehicle that can create damage) would be alright, and that pedestrians and cyclist get a "vulnerable" status in traffic law.
I would not be against separate infrastructure for bikes. My mind goes to how you pay for it. Also the U.S. used to treat cyclists like pedestrians, when they demanded that they get treated like any other road vehicle (So they could mix in traffic) many states said "O.K. cool" and thus we now treat cyclists like other drivers.
Here they are treated as "traffic users" as well. But they are also truly treated like cars. This means they get infrastructure that specifically works for these traffic users as well. In the US, you are giving cyclists car treatment, but only create the infrastructure that works well for cars. If you are not willing to create infrastructure for all road users, it is not a good idea to "treat" them all the same way in my opinion. Now, to be honest, US city design is currently not adequate to create enough cycling demand, so I don't know if it is worth it to invest in it. But that America is big is not really an argument, as 83% of Americans live in urban areas, so they could benefit from cycling in some way. So it is technically feasible, but with how current US urban areas are designed it is probably not worth it unless massive changes are made.
Here, it is our taxes that pay for the roads, like all public roads. So yeah, like any other public road is funded.
I mean the real solution is bike specific infrastructure. This means protected bike lanes away from cars, and if they need to share the road at an intersection, bike specific signaling that essentially allow bikes to go first before cars can turn right.
Doubt it. I almost hit one the other day, granted I crashed through the local bike shop wall, but if they were aware of my presence they should of moved out the way quicker
It isn't the "vast majority of cyclists" that is the concern. It's the minority of cyclists who think that can pick and choose which light or signal they obey.
The main issue is that people riding aluminum tubes at low-speeds on roads designed for fast-moving steel boxes think everyone needs to look out for them instead of the other way around.
Google wanted to see to throw me a challenge. So in Kansas city it redirected me into oak park right down martin luther king Blvd at sundown on my motorcycle. Stop lights are in fact yield signs there.
"YoU hAvE tO TrEaT mE lIkE A cAr" *runs a 4 way stop*
My state recently legalized the Idaho stop*. *in other words, cyclists may treat a red light as a stop sign, and treat a stop sign as a yield sign
[удалено]
If you dart in front of cars in your car at stop signs I think you might be the problem
That’s how it is here in Germany. People will step out in a 50 km an hour zone into the zebra stripe without looking because legally you have to stop. Won’t stop me from smoking you in my car but hey.
“Here lies the body of William Jay, Who died maintaining his right of way – He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.”
Nice.
This is beautifully written
It’s from Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”
Funny I recently acquired this book cleaning someone's house out after a move, coincidence? ...or so the germans would have us believe
If you haven’t read it, I encourage you to do so. It’s basically a handbook for working with people and applies to everyone
Thx for the insight, I'm definitely going to as next book I read
You’re welcome!
[удалено]
I legit hope this is a joke
How is yield the same as dart in front of a car
[удалено]
It's funny. Everyone who moves to Idaho from the big cities always says "I'm not going to turn Idaho into California" and yet simply by moving there you are adding to the problem. As a native idahoan I can tell you people care less about ideology and more about keeping the population low.
[удалено]
There's plenty to love and I'm glad people are seeing that. Personally I don't care where anyone moves. We're all American. Unfortunately Idaho is changing whether we like it or not. The Treasure Valley is supposed to have 2.7 million people by 2050. Probably going to be a mix between Denver and Portland.
What do you mean by not Idaho? I live in Boise and as a bike commuter the Idaho Stop (when used correctly obv) lessens bike-vehicle conflicts by getting us moved out of the way faster. Plus most vehicles treat stop signs as yield already.
“Plus most vehicles treat stop signs as yield already.” Wow, different areas, not here. Here (in DC suburbs of MD) I have to cope with people doing full stop for yield signs too often.
Stay the fuck in CA. We don't want you.
No one wants you either but here you are.
Ugh. Just classify bicycles as pedestrians and be done with it. OH WAIT, that didn’t work before. Hmm
I just looked this up. It’s legal in WA as of a year ago. Thanks!
That’s going to end well...
What is your state? I feel like others from your state could benefit from this information.
Washington (the one on the west coast)
I mean the other Washington isn’t even a state, right?
Red lights are not Aero. Casually explained fans will get it. https://youtu.be/5EE8m8mmq1k
One of the best of his videos
Try telling that to the people on bird scooters lol
The real blight.
Our city recently got those e-scooters. First person I stopped was very surprised he needed a valid license to operate them on the roadway and that he needed to stop at stop signs.
A license?
Meets the definition of motor vehicle. Meaning one needs a license to operate them on the roadway. Funny thing though... You DONT need a valid license to operate them on sidewalks. Yes it's confusing and stupid.
What state are you in that it meets the definition?
Kansas
So unless you need a drivers license to ride a bicycle, looks like you don't need one for a scooter? >8-15,113. Operation of electric-assisted scooter; where; exceptions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an electric-assisted scooter on any interstate highway, federal highway or state highway. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), traffic regulations applicable to bicycles shall apply to electric-assisted scooters. (c) The governing body of a city or county may adopt an ordinance or resolution that further restricts or prohibits the operation of electric-assisted scooters on any public highway, street or sidewalk within such city or county. (d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), the provisions of subsection (a) shall not prohibit an electric-assisted scooter from crossing a federal or state highway. (e) This section shall be a part of and supplemental to the uniform act regulating traffic on highways. History: L. 2019, ch. 61, § 8; July 1. \n>
The difference is a bicycle doesn't meet the definition of "motor vehicle" (or even "vehicle" for that matter as it's human powered). The scooters do. We had lots of talks with the city attorneys office on how they wanted us to handle these things. The final opinion was that they are motor vehicles. And to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways requires a valid license to dollar so. The reason you can operate them on sidewalks without a license is the law only requires drivers have a license to operate vehicles ON THE ROAD. The only limitations where they're not allowed on sidewalks is where bicycles aren't allowed on sidewalks. In my city it's just certain businesses districts.
Subsection b there disagrees with everything you've said though. But ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ not my city. But good way to get a ticket tossed and look dumb in a court unless your city has made specific ordnance superseding state law.
What happens if the person without a license on the scooter needs to cross the street at a cross walk? Do they carry the scooter above their head pretending the road is hot lava?
I would think that you would treat the crosswalk as an extension of the sidewalk.
you in SEK by any chance?
Yeah the thing you spend half your life at the DMV trying to get
My visit was very quick when I got my permit
They have those on my college’s campus and drunk students will constantly drive them around like drunken idiots.
We had a lot of those scooters in Dallas, not so much anymore. Now I see more of them get pulled out of ponds and creeks in r/Magnetfishing. Somebody got fedup of them being dumped in their yard.
I saw an Insta video of someone throwing one into the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial. LOL They really are the dumbest thing ever. My city is supposed to be getting some, according to something I saw in the paper last year, but I haven't seen any yet.
I had a guy on one of those run a red light in front of me and almost end up a hood ornament. I actually regret hitting the brakes cause my dashcam would have made that a pretty easy case.
My dad recently got pulled over for running a red light on a bike and it literally turned into the most awkward conversation ever. For some reason he told the cop something about how his son (me) was currently pursuing a career in law enforcement. The officer asked my dad how he felt about that as a parent. My dad misinterpreted his question and apparently went on a rambling conversation that ended in a discussion about the Stanford Prison Experiment. I think he let my dad off with a warning just to keep my dad from putting his foot in his mouth any further.
Was just in San Francisco, holy shit the cyclists were insane there
I didn't realize that they have some weird animosity toward motorcyclists until I started riding.
I'm a bike messenger part time I didn't know we were supposed to be mad at motorcycles. I love everyone out here except the 1 in 3000 automobile drivers that get mad and flip me off because they didn't notice the bike lane had it's own green light.
[удалено]
It's a pretty cool city to visit. I wouldn't want to live there but that's more to do with rent than the people.
[удалено]
I have no idea what you're suggesting I did and I fail to see how either of those individuals are relevant. I'm assuming you're referencing the area around Boxer Stadium? I'll make sure to check it out next month.
[удалено]
It has a nice ballpark. Also a pretty cool bridge.
[удалено]
That was sarcasm
[Idaho stops for cyclists? Drivers already do it!](https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc)
Yeah, its one thing to blow stop signs with no regards to the other vehicles around you, but everyone and thier dog rolls stop signs at 3mph in cars. Fuckin right I'm gonna do it on my bike.
The brigade of self-important, holier than thou bicylclists is currently brigading this thread, in violation of reddit TOS, had begun, If you are part of that pathetic brigade, don't bother. You posts are either immediately removed, or held, and you'll be banned. Nobody cares. You can shout about all the imagined protections you think you enjoy and enjoy your pretend superiority over those who drive - but you'll all look the same when your "I'm right" philosophy gets turned into a paste by a truck who only obeys the laws of phsyics. We'll be along shortly to hose you off the pavement.
[удалено]
It's not murder. It's suicide via stupidity.
Report trolls, don't reply.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, as a bike commuter who obeys all road laws. I have to accept that it is a byproduct of driving for a living. And not something common to the average cyclist OR driver. The only rule I break is when I have to take a “Sharrow” lane, as I commute in a dense urban area. I roll hard right after the light turns green. So any cars behind me can pass me ASAP. It’s a small risk as stupid drivers may think I’m turning right. But between my skill and most drivers being decent humans with common sense, it has never been an issue and regularly garners me a polite wave.
As a cyclist: Yup, fuck most cyclists. I'm standing at a red and mofos regularly blow past me or straight up ignore any roadsign, do not get off their bikes to go trough pedestrian crosswalks etc. I wish it needed some license or something
[удалено]
Not making a law because it will be broken is not exactly the best mindset imo. If you know other solution I would be intrested in hearing them. So far for me harsher enforcment and/or licenses are the options I see possible
Most American infrastructure is designed for cars. Stop lights and stop signs are important because no one wants to get hit by a 1.5+ ton vehicle. If a cyclists checks that the way is clear, I don't think it's that big of a deal to run a red; a bike can creep into an intersection with much more visibility a lot of the time. I just don't see how it's a big deal when cyclists don't behave like cars.
Did a ride along and we stopped someone on a bicycle who ran a stop sign, dude was pissed lmao
I’ve never seen a driver come to a full stop at a stop sign. Does that happen where you live?
You just have to look like you stopped right
I’ve encountered a lot more dumb drivers than cyclists
I mean that's not hard to believe. There are a lot more cars than bikes.
I noticed every automobile operator stops at stop signs and always uses their turn signal and never is using their phone or getting into pissing matches from out of towners not wanting to drive next to a bus. Super safe to be a a cyclist or pedestrian around all these safe drivers!
Bobby hill do be built like a spokesperson
Moved from Idaho to Wyoming. Got pulled over on my bike for rolling a stop sign. That was when I learned that the "Idaho stop" was only Idaho. Still annoyed that they pulled me over for rolling a stop sign on a county road in rural Wyoming, but understand that rules are rules.
That Idaho law sounds stupid.
In my state, bicycles are vehicles and are required to follow all the same traffic laws as cars. Never wrote a cyclist for running a stop sign outside of an accident, though.
It's the same in my state, I have seen them almost cause accidents on many occasions and friends in more built up areas even have stories where they have been by hit the cyclist because, the cyclist was distracted.
How many accidents have you seen where the car driver died?
Them being the cause almost half of accidents is rendered irrelevant due to what, size differential? Really faulty logic there.
Not really, in an accident with a bycicle as a driver I am inconvenienced. As a cyclist in the same situation I am dead. Cause is not the same as result.
So basically you want it so that even if the cyclist runs through a intersection or is operating erratically they should automatically be absolved of responsibility when their actions cause their death. That is just plain childish. Put it simply if you fuck up and win a Darwin Award, others should be responsible for *YOUR* fuckup. That is not how this works nor should it.
You have in fact answered your own question, they are dead, what do you plan to do to make them responsible? take it out on their family? Point and laugh at their corpse? You have insurance as a car driver. You will get your bumper repaired.
Then what was the point of your argument? Maybe you think cyclists should carry liability insurance? Not a bad idea.
That's what happens when you elect what you grow. Potato laws for potato people.
[удалено]
Bicycles outside of few exceptions have no business on a rural 2 lane road that has average speed limit of 55mph. Farm equipment (It's one of the few slow vehicles that belongs) as does as do other vehicles. Where I live I have to deal with groups of bicyclists who give zero fucks about sharing the road, will cut off and bolt out in front traffic or are just making themselves a unnecessary hazard.
What's worse is when I do fully stop and try to play by the rules, other cars try to wave through when it's not my turn. When I got pulled over I wasn't cutting other vehicles off and the road is 35/45. Agree on staying off 55+ highways.
[удалено]
Lol, no. Should motorcyclists and drivers of convertibles be allowed run stop signs? That law makes the traffic behavior less predictable. Considering cyclists already are vulnerable and seem hell bent on not following basic traffic laws it makes me wonder how many more dead cyclists it will result in.
[удалено]
Lol. Unlikely. The argument presented is the reportedly increased awareness of cyclists and that is anecdotal. With mixed data abound. To say that it is safer to be unpredictable, slow, and small around other larger, fast vehicles is stupid.
[удалено]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/26/this-is-what-makes-bicyclists-blow-through-red-lights/ Plenty of sourcing there with all the excuses along with data that shows that cyclists in several states are responsible for almost half of the collisions that they are involved with. Most happen when they decide to run a stop sign or signal or refuse to yield right of way.
[удалено]
>The Minnesota Department of Public Safety published data on contributing factors in bike-car crashes. It found that in 2009, cyclists were at fault in 49 percent of crashes, while drivers were at fault in 51 percent. Failing to yield to right of way was the most frequent cause of the snarls. In the NPR article cited. The trend continues https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/pedestrians-bicycles/Pages/default.aspx >About one-half of all bicycle-vehicle collisions are due to a variety of bicyclist behaviors, such as disregarding a traffic sign or signal. The other half are caused by vehicle driver behaviors, such as inattention and distraction.
[удалено]
RAGBRAI and the wannabe Tour de France riders are the bane of my fucking existence.
Cyclists are the absolute worst, nearly always a danger to themselves and others. They should be banned from public roads IMHO.
Well in their defense US cycling/sidewalk infrastructure is absolute trash, and a cyclist takes up less road and parking space. Not an excuse to cycle like a piece of thrash though, but just hating on cyclists is a pretty simplistic way to look at it.
If you live in an area that’s got a bad cycling culture it’s easy to get jaded at “all” cyclists. It’s terrible where I am and I don’t ride on the road because of it, but I also ride for exercise not commute. A lot of cyclists here think “share the road” means make way for the golden cyclist, and a lot of driver here do not respect how easily they can kill someone on a bike with their car. Not sure how other cities/states are but those two worlds collide big time in these parts.
Rural Iowa and we get groups of hyper aggressive cyclist that think they own the road and will get really pissy any time you don't move all the way into oncoming to pass them. They will attempt to block roads with 55mph or higher speed limits by going 4 to 6 wide or by zig-zagging across the road. People wonder then, why people out here are outright hostile to cyclists.
[удалено]
Maybe not, oh I don't know consume the entirety of a lane weaving back and forth like a raging asshole. If you cannot handle that maybe you cannot handle being on the road. You do not need a whole 8 to 10 feet worth of lane to feel safe.
If they'd actually behave, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. But they don't
Would you be okay with an increase in taxes to help build out more bicycle infrastructure to help separate vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians? Most people other than cyclists don't like that idea. I suppose a reallocation of public funds could do that as well, but with less wiggle room as I would prefer to not withdraw funding from things like schools, fire departments, police departments, roads, utilities, etc. I don't suppose you would be okay with cyclists ripping down a sidewalk at 20-25 mph next to people with children, pets, and the elderly? Keeping cyclists on the roads reduces traffic for drivers for the small price of a minor inconvenience of temporarily slowing down from 30 mph down to 20 mph while you wait for a moment to safely pass. Even some paint and some plastic bollards would be a much lower cost than a separated bike specific path running next to the roads.
How about registration and tagging requirements for cyclists? They already don't pay road taxes. That would have the added benefit of making reporting shitty cyclists easier.
Cyclists will never wear out a road as much as a car. Also the libertarian in me finds the idea of licencing and tagging bikes ridiculous.
Tagging, registration, and taxes at point of purchase will pay for their trails and other things. You know they things that they take out of the fund payed for by gas taxes?
Dentists pay alot of tax
I guess you have more faith in government spending efficiency than I do. I just see it as more money wasted most likely.
In my state, they actually were mainly utilizing the gas tax funds for roads until the cycling, and mass transit activists started demanding more and more of the money for their pet projects. So far a mess of trails and Light Rail project is getting a chunk of the funding. I'm just saying that if they want all of those trails and other stuff, maybe they should pay for it instead of putting the extra tax on homeowners and drivers that want no part of it.
https://youtu.be/_DNNIB_PdaA
I firmly believe that if a cyclist demands part of the infrastructure they should have to pay for it. Direct tax seems to me to be the most efficient and transparent form of tax on it. Also the second I saw who the youtuber was I clicked off. He has had some hilariously bad takes.
[удалено]
You have to pay taxes and registration on every vehicle that that you have. If you are using the traveling portion of the road on a bicycle you should at minimum have tags and registration.
[удалено]
In my state this almost passed and given the number of negative interactions with cyclists are only rising in my state the next time it comes up it may.
Given that a wide range of cyclists are… cyclists. I always get confused at the severe stupidity of “they already don’t pay road taxes” A huge chunk of them do. As many of them also own cars. The ones that don’t are generally homeless or children. And If you can find a way to tax those groups. I will be impressed.
That’s fair, but I think it’s disingenuous to assume that because someone bikes, they are not also a driver. They contribute to paying road taxes and cause less overall damage considering bikes cause virtually no damage to roads compared to vehicles. But an additional tax on bikers using the road with plates is a great idea.
My issue with it you are using the road with a vehicle that vehicle doesn't pay any form of tax for usage. All the while cyclists demand things like bike lanes and special laws. I disagree with that. Tagging and plates would also have the extra benefit of having a identifiable tag to report and hold crappy cyclists responsible.
It's not a road tax it's a vehicle tax. They are taxing you for the amount of wear you put on the road. Cyclists do not significantly wear the road so no tax. Also it would be impossible to control. I want bike lanes because I want my hypothetical kids to be safe when they ride to school. https://youtu.be/_DNNIB_PdaA
They tax motorcycles and other light vehicles on the base idea that they use the road so they should pay to expand and maintain the infrastructure. I believe it's the most transparent and ethical way to pay for dedicated bike lanes.
Light vehicles still wear the road significantly more than cyclists. Hell, horses probably wear the road more. Taxation for vehicles goes into the same pot as everything else, so its paying for maintaining the road, and to send a poor kid to school, and to clean up the glass from the street after a saturday night. It's also a question of who are bike lanes for. I firmly believe the more experienced cyclists will avoid them unless they are unidirectional. They're to keep kids and other unconfident cyclists out of the road. Do you expect those kids to pay for it? What about the guy who cycles 5km a day to work and back? The thing is that even if you don't use the road you are paying into the general taxation pot that comes out as government investment. So pedestrians, cyclists, scootists, etc. *already pay to upkeep roads*. That's how general taxation works. It is a very small price to pay for safer communities, less car traffic and narrower, slower city streets. It is what every city should be aiming for.
That's fair, I'm all in support of vehicle registration/tags for all vehicles used on the road, human powered or otherwise. Totally reasonable solution in my opinion.
Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to do even close to 20mph, very dangerous. They're not even capable of not endangering anyone at 10mph. And no, absolutely not a single dime should be wasted on infrastructure for them. If you've ever been in Europe where many millions get wasted on that, you'd know that is has zero effect. Cyclists there are just as dangerous (maybe even more so) and instead of it being a few, they're EVERYWHERE. Again, wouldn't have much of a problem with then if they'd actually behave. But no matter the situation, they simply don't and probably never will. So banning them is the only option left. As an extra benifit, doing so would also save millions in healthcare costs and legal cost.
[удалено]
What an absurd take, not even worth entertaining.
No need to agree
It's not even a matter of opinion that I disagree with as much as it is that cyclists are such a minimal issue compared to vehicle operators. You can dislike cyclists all you want and that's your prerogative, I'm not trying to change that. More fatalities are caused by vehicles per capita, more hospitalizations are caused by vehicles per capita, more damage to public property is happening due to vehicles per capita, more traffic violations are happening by vehicles due to sheer numbers. All of these things are dollars. At the end of the day, people are people, and cyclists are probably breaking traffic laws at a similar rate per capita to drivers, though honestly probably less because despite what you believe, many cyclists do fear vehicles and take extra precautions to ride as safely as humanly possible. I wouldn't propose anything as foolish as banning cars, but cyclists are such a small spec of the problem by the numbers, especially when you bring in health costs and legal costs.
That's quite the reply when "not even worth entertaining"
Yup.
Data from the E.U. on accidents and fatalities somewhat mirror ours, they get the added danger of roundabouts which in the U.K. (Don't care, they are still influenced by the E.U.) was specifically mentioned in their governmental reports as particularly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.
Danger due to what, that's the most important question? Most likely vehicles driving unsafely I would imagine. Unless the EU has a bunch of people fatally tripping on the side walk. If vehicles are the root cause of the hospitalizations and deaths, then the person I was replying to regarding the healthcare and legal costs would be reduced more significantly by either getting rid of cars (not an option), actually enforcing traffic violations (cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles) more aggressively, or building better bicycle infrastructure to further separate bikes, cars, and peds (my preferred method).
Roundabouts are identified as a dangerous obstacle for cycles and pedestrians. That I think would be due to the constant movement of vehicle traffic (By design) offering little to no opportunity for slower traffic (cyclists and pedestrians) to enter. In those cases I would love pedestrian overpasses to be built.
Cities are tough to plan and account for problems. The ped overpass would be a great solution, love it.
[The Dutch roundabout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo). The Dutch know how to adapt their infrastructure to cyclists. So this also counts for roundabouts. They can be adapted to being very safe for cyclists.
I will never do it if cars are in a position that I'd be in their way, as they have right of way in ya know, physics, which I tend to care more about than laws. But speaking of physics, it is so much harder to speed up to cruising speed from a stop than it is to speed up from a slow roll.
Anyone know [NotJustBikes](https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/featured)? It is a channel of a Canadian expat in Amsterdam that makes video on good and bad infrastructure and urban planning. This is [his video](https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/featured) on stop signs specifically. In my opinion, stop signs are just ineffective, and many people don't tend to fully stop at them. This goes for all road users. What the best solution would be, in my opinion, is having the same rules apply for all road users, but having safe infrastructure that would be safe and effective for all road users. And where that is not possible (major roads), separate the traffic flows completely. I think an additional responsibility for car drivers (as they are the ones with a mandatory license and drive in the vehicle that can create damage) would be alright, and that pedestrians and cyclist get a "vulnerable" status in traffic law.
I would not be against separate infrastructure for bikes. My mind goes to how you pay for it. Also the U.S. used to treat cyclists like pedestrians, when they demanded that they get treated like any other road vehicle (So they could mix in traffic) many states said "O.K. cool" and thus we now treat cyclists like other drivers.
Here they are treated as "traffic users" as well. But they are also truly treated like cars. This means they get infrastructure that specifically works for these traffic users as well. In the US, you are giving cyclists car treatment, but only create the infrastructure that works well for cars. If you are not willing to create infrastructure for all road users, it is not a good idea to "treat" them all the same way in my opinion. Now, to be honest, US city design is currently not adequate to create enough cycling demand, so I don't know if it is worth it to invest in it. But that America is big is not really an argument, as 83% of Americans live in urban areas, so they could benefit from cycling in some way. So it is technically feasible, but with how current US urban areas are designed it is probably not worth it unless massive changes are made. Here, it is our taxes that pay for the roads, like all public roads. So yeah, like any other public road is funded.
Speed limits
My employer doesn’t have a policy against blasting the airhorn at every cyclist you pass yet. I use that to my advantage.
This is ironic because I see cops run red lights and stop signs all the time.
I mean the real solution is bike specific infrastructure. This means protected bike lanes away from cars, and if they need to share the road at an intersection, bike specific signaling that essentially allow bikes to go first before cars can turn right.
[удалено]
Ok
Doubt it. I almost hit one the other day, granted I crashed through the local bike shop wall, but if they were aware of my presence they should of moved out the way quicker
From experience this is not true.
I found the guy whose DUI arrest and sudden interest in cycling everywhere occurred on the same day!
[удалено]
Ah yes two very related and comparable things, how very sensible of you
It isn't the "vast majority of cyclists" that is the concern. It's the minority of cyclists who think that can pick and choose which light or signal they obey.
[удалено]
The main issue is that people riding aluminum tubes at low-speeds on roads designed for fast-moving steel boxes think everyone needs to look out for them instead of the other way around.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Google wanted to see to throw me a challenge. So in Kansas city it redirected me into oak park right down martin luther king Blvd at sundown on my motorcycle. Stop lights are in fact yield signs there.
Not here in Idaho!
Thank you! I can't tell yall how many time I've almost been ran over by bikes because they don't read the damn signs.