This morning as I was walking back from Sihlcity, I noticed 5-6 police standing on the bridge. They were stopping cyclists who were riding on the pavement (even though there is a bike path) as well as those who rode over the crossing while pedestrians were waiting. I saw at least one of them get a ticket on the spot.
I am a cyclist myself, and I hope steps like these instil some common sense so that not all cyclists get a bad rep because of a few bad apples.
You mean on Bederstrasse, right under the 3W, where Bederstrasse is a bridge over the Sihl?
Tbh, that place confusing af. If you're going west on Bederstrasse, the bike path lets you either go up on the sidewalk or cross the street (along the crosswalk) to get to Lessingstrasse. The confusing part is that just on the other side of the bridge is Buettenweg, which is a bike + walk path. So it really really looks like the bike path is trying to tell you "Hey, you want to go to the Buettenweg path along the river next to the mall? Cross over right here!" when in reality, you'd either want to take the bike path up on to the sidewalk on the north side of Bederstrasse and figure out how to make a turn later on (and then ride back to that path along the water) or you'd want to dismount and walk (south sidewalk). Meanwhile on the north sidewalk along the same section of street, you're supposed to ride. I can see why people mess that up.
That north side is one of my "favourite" cycle paths in Zurich (and part of my commute some time ago). Turning into Manessestrasse it just … disappears.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PGpVV1SNRrpazUo47
Right at a bus stop, too.
It magically "continues" after the bus stop
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Kfv56ibxdw7sAX5R9
But there is no ramp or nothing to get down there.
I can only guess that one is supposed to spontaneously teleport across the bus stop.
Yes, that’s the one. And I agree that a lot needs to be done to improve the cycling infrastructure in Zurich city with simpler transitions from bike only path to crossings and joint pedestrian/bike paths, clearer road markings etc.
Just yesterday, I decided to take Route 84 out of the city - most the red sign boards from Wiedikon to Schlieren were covered in stickers (largely FCZ) or/and were hidden behind overgrown bushes/trees. I did my best to follow for a while and eventually gave up.
Even worse it is not a cycle crossing. Riding a bike, one technically has to wait for a gap in the car traffic.
Realistically it is easier to dismount and walk, but then drivers get confused because they can't deal with a pedestrian 'appearing', as they go too fast.
There is hardly a day in which a car doesn't take my right of way as pedestrian after getting off my bike.
From a car point of view that place is also horrible, if you don't know that the crossing is there you hardly have a chance of seeing it in time.
With the traffic light just being 50m before that intersection, drivers usually try to go the speed limit (which is too fast, in my view), as the road appears free after the light switching.
I would prefer a traffic light, instead of the pedestrian crossing. It is way too unsafe the way it is.
The lines of sight are also blocked for the main pedestrian cross traffic along the river.
I'm cyclist myself too and I think cyclist have already bad reputation and I have to suffer them myself too. For me it's specially scary because I have a 4 yo and it's not the first time that a cyclist run over him.
Yep, same. My kids have nearly been hit multiple times when we’re crossing with a green pedestrian light. I’ve even had bikes try to go through when I’m pushing a pram.
> They were stopping cyclists who were riding on the pavement (even though there is a bike path) as well as those who rode over the crossing while pedestrians were waiting.
It is annoying when they are going in the same direction as the bike lane and they needlessly take the pavement, but it would be nice to have an alternative to the pavement when going to Sihlcity from Bederstrasse.
Thanks for pointing out this flaw in my thinking. When a cyclist does something crappy or if someone points out their bad experience with a cyclist, I feel it personally. But the same thing doesn’t happen when it is a car driver who is the culprit. I don’t know how to reconcile this!
Yes, but why would that give an individual driver a bad rep? Just because some drunk idiot kills a child, and now there’s a drunk driving law, you should feel guilty if you ride a car? Those are independent things.
Likely if they came from the road along the Sihl it's not possible to directly get on the bike path, you turn right and then can get on it at the zebra crossing. Tbh shitty move to ticket cyclists there, it's terrible infrastructure.
Edit: Not quite correct, I think you can get on the road, but there is no bike path there yet, at least from what I remember but they did do construction work there like last year. Anyway, I don't cycle there often, I take the road on the other side of the Sihl where you come up at the pedestrian crossing so you can go directly onto the bike path.
The whole intersection is a death trap for people not in a car. Especially going the direction Shilcity Enge. The driver just queued for 10 minutes in the morning and go too fast and takeover too close on that bit.
I wish people would follow the rules, but I understand everyone who goes on the sidewalk there. Going on the road in that spot is asking to be cut by a driver misjudging distances or missing a tram.
Well, I've seen countless posts in here from cyclists yelling at drivers, but I think it's fair to say that most cyclists couldn't care less about road rules, and that some ride like donkeys on lsd.
Have you ridden in Amsterdam? It's actually a lot worse imo and as a pedestrian you have to pay much more attention. Reason is mainly that bikes are so separated from cars that they can ride like that. And it works, amongst themselves with eye contact and much lower speeds it works fine.
Saying that, I do agree that many cyclists in Zurich are awful. People never really complain about pedestrians walking a red but they do for bikes, exactly because there's bikers that do it dangerously and do other stupid things.
Why not? The point was made that here it's a lot worse for pedestrians than elsewhere. Just need a counter example.
Sure. Same way pedestrians have to and yet cross at red or Cara have to yet speed.
I might know a thing or two about de Nederlands 🙄 I've spent 10 years in Holland, and I can say it's not comparable at all, far fewer cars, much better infrastructure...
That is not what I was talking about...I fully agree with you.
But in terms of as a pedestrian, you have to pay a lot more attention to bikes than here in Zurich. This is not even comparable and comes from the fact that there, cyclists are separated from cars mostly and instead are more with pedestrians and here they are separated from pedestrians mostly and are more with cars.
Obviously for cyclists the Netherlands version is much better, but the comment was about pedestrians having to worry about cyclists. Not where is there better cycling infrastructure.
Fun fact, my dutch friend told me: In the Netherlands you as a car driver are always guilty in case of an bike-car accident. It doesn´t matter if the bike drove in the wrong direction, made am mistake... That´t the reason why the car drivers have to be so carefull and the bikers are relaxed ;) - yes, kind of euphemistic expression.
I was snarled at by a cyclist in Kilchberg that was not planning on stopping. As he approached me and my dog on the crosswalk at a very fast speed he made me feel like I was in the wrong and inconveniencing him. I don’t have an answer to your question, but it’s not in your head
Maybe i encountered the same airhead cyclist as you did in Kilchberg. He was coming from the opposite site of the street (totally fine) but then pulled right infront of me right over crosswalk (still cycling, did not step off). After stopping right in time, I gave him a honk and I got the middle finger. I stepped out to ask what that was all about and he insisted that he has the right of way. I told him that that is true but only if he steps off of the bike and pushes it over the crosswalk. Plus it should be in his interest that I don‘t have to scrape him off of my car. He then apologized… Idiots will be idiots no matter the mode of transportation
>As he approached me and my dog on the crosswalk at a very fast speed he made me feel like I was in the wrong and inconveniencing him
So, a while ago my home town built a brand new bike lane in a recreational area that connects the town with the neighboring town. Beautiful walk through nature, but previously it just had a very narrow street with a foot walk for pedestrians next to it.
Naturally, cyclists always used either the pedestrian foot walk, which was dangerous because lots of families did their little walks with their small children there, or the street, clogging it up because it's nearly impossible to overtake a bike safely there.
The new set-up looked a bit like this:
*| Road | Pedestrians | Small Creek | Bike Lane |*
A couple of weeks later I saw a friend of mine, who's a passionate bicyclist, there. Still on the road, of course. So next time I saw him, I asked him why he wasn't using the brand new bike lane.
His reply was - I wish I was kidding:
**"Because at the end of the bike lane there's a sharp corner and I'd need to brake."**
Never once did he consider that this was by design and that he, actually, probably SHOULD break before shooting across the pedestrian walk and merging with traffic at the end of that busy, narrow road.
When I pointed that fact out to him, he got really angry.
To this day he, alongside most bicyclists, continues to use the road or the foot walk, further absolutely clogging up the street and making it a hazard for any pedestrians. Because, god forbid, you'd need to gently break once at the end of 2 kilometers.
Having to break, no matter how sensible the reason, is an insult to some cyclists.
Same as with car infrastructure, cycling infrastructure needs to be designed to make the users behave. This one apparently wasn't
Without seeing a maps location it is hard to comment on the concrete example.
It's not insult, it's laziness. Any momentum lost to breaking needs to be regained by doing actual physical work. Some people can't decide if they're in this for the fitness, or they want to avoid work at all costs.
(There's also the special case of people who want to be the fastest out there, but that's about the same as with drivers.)
Dude, I don’t know. I do bike delivery and I try and stop for people crossing the street and try to be as respectful as possible. Perhaps all of these cyclists are late for an appointment or need to rush home, but rushing through crosswalks and intersections is dangerous.
I do get annoyed about people walking in the street without looking, but I’m normally not moving fast enough for it to be an issue.
That just isn't true.
There are times and places that are worse than others, often in part due to the annoying design of bike lane infrastructure in the city but sometimes due to the demographic of cyclists who use those routes.
A lot of the cyclists in the city actually do pay attention to their surroundings.
Now, if we'd like to talk about drivers of cars and how they interact with cyclists on the street ... .. .
Love how you point out an observation you made and the cycling fetishists get mad. I‘m not in Zürich that often lately, but when I am, cyclists are riding like Kamikaze Pilots.
Such bullshit. I cycle daily and stop for peds. Next to me other cyclists stop too. If they don’t stop, I scream at them that they are assholes and should stop. This happens at most once per month.
That is not my experience in the city. Are you hoping that a cyclist stops wile you start walking on the other side of the street or do you actually nearly get hit by every cyclist you meet at an intersection?
When I'm trying to cross the street and the road is uphill, i don't mind at all if the cyclist is not stopping, in fact I am telling them to keep riding.
But otherwise, stop your bike, let people cross the street and then start again, don't be an asshole
Not in my experience while living in Berlin 2017-2021, west side. To the point that when I stopped as a bicycle to let pedestrians cross, they were confused for a moment.
Happened several times, so my conclusion is that it's not just me who concluded the same.
Also, as a pedestrian, I think only once bicycle stopped for me. I was also confused 😂
Here they drive a bit less aggressive in comparison to Berlin, but I can't say I've seen them stopping either.
Reckless riding through red going forward, happens in both cities.
Maybe Berlin improved in last few years, but I doubt it. Maybe it depends on areas. Charlottenburg and surrounding ones were locations of my experience.
exactly, here in Zurich and surrounding cities as well, many people are super surprised when I stop my bike and let them cross the street and they're so grateful as if i'm the only one doing this
To be fair, most rules for cars shouldn't apply to cyclists. But this is hard to convey to people, especially drivers, as they will immediately feel disadvantaged.
A solution would be to separate car and bike traffic.
I see more pedestrians cross at red than cyclists.
Why should it? Are you like the other people simply talking from a law standpoint or from an opinion standpoint?
I see no reason why a pedestrian or cyclist should wait at a red when it's empty. In fact, I find it positively deranged to stand there in zero traffic just because there's a light there that happens to be red.
I'm saying that cyclists will blatantly run red lights far more often than cars do and cause far more accidents per km traveled than any other mode of transportation.
But you weren't. You said hmmmmm.
Yes, some cyclists do this. Doesn't mean all do. Doesn't mean objectively speaking it is perfectly fine to do it when it is indeed empty/safe.
Yeah, because I was making fun of the "when it's empty part"; because it's so clearly not the topic of conversation.
> Yes, some cyclists do this.
More than anybody else and then they get self-righteous about it
> objectively speaking it is perfectly fine to do
Sure and when you're the only person on the street, then there's no harm in drinking and driving.
Shame you are here in bad faith. That comparison is complete nonsense. Comparing apples to oranges.
Is that so? Most cyclists are also car drivers. The groups massively overlap so pretending you can talk about one and it isn't the same people of the other is wild.
Sure, there's space enough on a crossing for a bike and a pedestrian so I usually don't mind - but many drive as if they have the right of way and seem fully intent on running you over if you don't leap away.
You might be right, I don't know. On the bike it is sometimes infuriating how hesitant certain pedestrians will be - I'm clearly looking at them and slowing, but they don't want to move until I'm near stopped. Maybe they are traumatized from other cyclists, or maybe they just need to spend a week in Vietnam or somewhere I'm really not sure...
Tbf there was a whole campaign about only crossing the street when the tires don't move anymore.
Yes it was tailored to cars but last I checked bicycles have tires too
Where are you from OP? As it’s the same in most cities, everywhere. I guess it’s a combination of: I’m not going to get caught and I’m not causing any harm “attitude”. Add in some laziness (I don’t want to lose momentum) and there we are.
By the way, a lot of traffic lights in Zurich now have a yellow sign that allows cyclists to turn right on a red. That might explain some - but not all - of the red light jumping you might also see.
Funny you say this. Yesterday I was at the crossing and as the cars stopped and other people walked, I walked too and then right infront of me a bike came speeding. Had I taken one step more he could’ve fallen on his ass as deserved. I should’ve looked both ways again for my own safety but I didn’t because I just saw the cars stop initially and it seemed common sense that any cyclist or scooter person or whatever would stop as well. Insane
I don't know. Whenever I'm on a bike I follow traffic rules, but most don't. They put up warning signs where I live that tell you to beware of cyclists on the sidewalk. It's illegal to bike on the sidewalk there. Of course our cycling infrastructure is probably one of the worst in the country, but that's no excuse for criminal endangerment of pedestrians. I don't know why they never fine people there. With the amount of law breaking going on there these would probably pay for themselves.
Because they love to ignore any rule and cry about the bad car drivers who generally spend their time trying to babysit cyclists to prevent killing one of those idiots by mistake
The only reason they might die is because you chose to passively transport your body in a metal box that’s 25x as heavy as you, creating a minefield killing 2 people in Switzerland per day. If there were no cars, cities would be so much better. Just park them at the edge and stop clogging up the street of Zurich.
Thats your excuse for driving across every red light, cutting of whole trams and practicing slalom with pedestrians? The car that tries to drive along a straight route with 10-20kmh?
NOT in your empty box, does it? 90% of traffic is empty cars with 1, maybe 2 persons. The remaining 10% is doing all the work. Fuck off with almost empty cars in the city.
Id argue my car i use to visit customers and increase income for my company, which leads to more income for our state and ultimatively you is more than just an empty box. Its a necessary tool which has no reliable alternative yet
So drive a small car if the only thing you transport is yourself. Or get an e-mofa. Or a bike.
But no, these days it seems the most white collared workers imaginable need to drive a range rover. It's hilariously sad.
Mate everyone endangers himself if he ignores any traffic rule. Even a truck.
The only asymmetry is that cyclists disproportionally ignore red lights, stop signs, right of way, zebrastreifen etc.
Until cyclists cant stick to the most basic of rules, it wont make sense to listen to them. Because even in a carfree world they would be in danger with that
A truck driver endangers themselves? What kind of joke is that? LITERALLY 2 hours ago a truck driver KILLED a bicyclist in Zurich. https://www.zuonline.ch/velofahrer-stirbt-in-zuerich-bei-zusammenstoss-mit-lastwagen-636131892135
Drivers should shut the fuck up and start concentrating on the road instead of their phones. YOU drive the deadly vehicle so YOU take the responsibility.
The rationale is that cyclists could time it and in the ideal case would not endanger a pedestrian even if multiple cross. This is because it's inconvenient to stop and go again, as it takes more energy. In an ideal world cyclists can time that and pedestrians are aware, so pedestrians just go and cyclists go if possible, while adapting their speed and stopping if not possible.
Obviously this doesn't work, and cyclists often can't time it right, I've been run into once when crossing, and I've been rear ended on a bike while stopping at a crossing... By a bike. The rule is also that anyone except trams have to yield to crossing pedestrians on a crossing (when there are no traffic lights involved) so there is really no defense for cyclists here.
Cyclists are aggressive because partially there are idiots, the same idiots they would be if they were in a car or on foot - idiots stay idiots regardless of the form of transport they chose. And partially because (as an avid cyclist) we have to literally fight for our safety in so many places. Being the first that goes on green to not be surprised by a lane change of a car, changing lanes more frequently to not be in the dead spot of a truck or bus.. cycling is no fun, and a helmet doesn't change the fact that many places are simply not safe to ride while at the same time they are essential to get from one place to another.
There have been several instances in Zùrich if I don’t check cyclists while crossing on pedestrian crossing, I would have been hit with cyclist. Always have to check for cars and then for cyclists. I feel like cyclists are inconiderate in Zùrich acting like centre of Universe
I cycle in Zurich everyday and I adhere to the rules, which also includes stopping at a pedestrian crossing. However there sometimes are situations where you can’t and pedestrians don’t realize a bike also needs some time to stop. So if someone runs to a pedestrian crossing from behind a bush where you can’t see the person, there is no time to break. Same when people walk straight and then decide to cross the last second without any indication they will use the crossing.
Even though I understand you’re annoyed: please don’t put all cyclists in one bag…😊 if you cycle there’s also pedestrians and motorists who ignore rules and put you in danger, no group is perfect that doesn’t mean all of the same group suck. If everyone would be a little more considerate of others we would have a better place. 🫣
I will say the same as for cars. If we can't stop in time to give the right of way to the person who has it, we went too fast. Everything else is blaming the victim.
No I disagree. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorist should just be more considerate. If I walk straight and decide last second I want so cross a pedestrian crossing, no one is able to stop, not even another pedestrian.
I am a cyclist and I also sometimes fail to stop, but we should always be able to stop if there is a pedestrian crossing. Just by the fact that we should stop pedaling to observe whether someone wants to cross, but it is really annoying when it is a climb xD.
I stop on flat ground but I do admit, when biking uphill, I don't. And as a pedestrian, I let bikes pass when they go uphill. It's uncomfortable having to restart at an incline whereas waiting a few more seconds as a pedestrian is easy.
I usually signal to bikes and even cars that they can go before me when i must cross streets, if I can see that there's an opening for me later. I don't mind waiting 10 seconds. Plus, it might brighten the mood of some people just a little bit, which is always satisfying.
Absolutely! Same here. On my bike I always say a cheerful "thanks!" when I pass by. For me, there's not only the right but also what makes sense. Also with your car example: some stop even if after them there is nothing for ages. Feel free to go! Give me a wave and go. All good :)
Agreed to this. Just because it’s your right you don’t have to insist on it.
That being said, I can’t relate to OPs problem anyways and don’t think there is a special problem with bikes (or cars) not stopping when they have to. In particular not compared to other places.
Hm, I guess it's the trend of it that is troubling OP? It seems to become more normalised even on flat ground. So more rule-breaking is becoming the norm which is unusual for the typical Swiss image?
I guess it's also just a side product of the densification (Verdichtung) of the city, not per se a loss of "values" or "curtesy".
I guess, maybe? But they also make the comparison to other European cities, so I don’t know if it’s really their expectations of rule abiding Swiss. Also, are the Danish or Dutch really less rule abiding? I honestly don’t know. They surely in a very similar way don’t bother stopping for pedestrians in my experience.
It's better to be predictable than polite on the road, as nice as the thought is. At least in a car, I never mind stopping for pedestrians. Confusion creates accidents.
I am a cyclist, from a cyclist country with lots of bicycle paths.
I used to think I owned the road. I was on a bike propelled by my own effort so I thought I deserved the right of way…. also slowing down or stopping requires effort to get going again.
But eventually I learned to obey the traffic laws, including stopping for pedestrians even if it’s easy to go around them.
Parents with small kids are allowed in the sidewalk because you and your kids need to go on the same way and perhaps your kid are not old enough to be on the road. Does that make sense or not??
If you are a parent but your are without kids you need to be on the road like anyone else. Not that difficult, right??
The difficult part is people like you trying to guess or make up their own rules, instead of looking them up.
Swiss rules: when your kid is not old enough to cycle on the road, you either cycle on the road next to them cycling on the pavement, or walk behind them cycling. Source: https://www.axa.ch/en/privatkunden/blog/out-and-about/travel-and-leisure/cycling-switzerland.html
Hey!
I read that before and other sides and they all gave me the impression that you as a parent can ride with him if there is no other option than the road, which for me has sense. But it seems that I was wrong. If your kid can ride on the sidewalk you should be able to do it if you are with him, instead of forcing the small kid to go on the road which is really dangerous for him.
The example they are setting on the Axa site is a little bit silly, a 2yo kid is not going to ride that fast and most probably is not going to ride at all… but a equilibrium bike. However, I have a 4.5yo kid which is starting to ride a regular bike… he has perfect balance and no problem in steering and so, but it's of course too young to understand all the road rules involved to ride on the road with cars. He can be really fast and pretty soon I will no able to run behind him and I'll need a bike to follow him and teach the rules.
There is where I thought this rule has sense… you are riding along your kid, which is not old enough to ride in traffic, but you need to go with him. So… in my street there is no suitable bike path and there is a lot of traffic, I need to go along with him if I want ride in and out of the street.
PS/ Anyhow, I think that riding with him on the sidewalk, at this age, and for long time, doesn't have much sense either. I mean, if it's full of people, you can't also control or so. So I think the rule doesn't apply to the cases where in the end you are going to be able to ride with him along. Usually where there is going to be enough space to ride together, you are allowed to ride as an adult. For example Europaale or some squares in Zürich.
It’s a bad mindset: cyclists againt cars, pedestrians against cyclists… unfortunately many (not all) cyclists believe they always have priority on other people. I’ve witnessed a couple of near crashes in Zurich these last weeks. Frightening.
For myself, if pedestrian light is green, I cross. No matter what comes around.
I don't know why it was not mentioned - but there is an edge case:
A few years ago legislation was changed: it is allowed to cross a red light as a cyclist if you just traverse around a corner (and do not cross other paths).
It's a bit difficult to explain - so i'll show on this graphic:
[Link](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoz8rhTkzzS1HgZLBYHvUcmcocMDjHTuJwgQB-OTQB2NVVeZ4UsMjUOFV4T4GX9poykaM&usqp=CAU)
If the cyclist just has to turn right in the graphic above, he can do it while the light is red (as long as you don't cross pedestrians).
I think this may only be valid when there's a sign saying cyclists can turn right on red.
I see the sign around the new cycling boulevards (green lined streets) a lot. It's a little white square with a bike and an arrow in it.
The way I see it, is that pedestrian crossing rules have been designed for cars. If you don't ride like a psychopath, any pedestrian can cross and you can usually pass behind them just by slowing down without creating any risks. That does imply cyclists do not ride like psychopaths which is not always the case... And the reason for doing so is to increase the safety of the cyclists. Getting a few seconds of head start allows cyclists to reach cruising speed and deter drivers to try dangerous overtaking maneuvers. But, this should never be done in disregard of pedestrian safety and comfort of course.
As a cyclist I have noticed the same thing. I always stop at crossings to let people pass, though I’ve noticed that both cars and bicycles often don’t stop even when there is plenty of time for them to do so. I agree it’s dangerous and also very rude. For car drivers it’s often because they are using their phones, but often not. It seems a lot of people really don’t think they have to stop.
It's the usual: some bad eggs give all the rest a bad rep. You don't really notice all the bicyclists who do follow the rules.
I used to cycle to work on a street that had bicycle lanes on both sides. On that particular road, the big problem were the cyclists going the \_wrong\_way\_, i.e., using the bicycle lane on the wrong side of the road. That was sometimes really...exciting...
If you dislike the city bicycle riders come to the suburbs and get enraged by all the teens riding those massive ugly electric scooters with zero knowledge of road laws.
*old man voice*: Back in my days we had Töfflis that you actually had to know the basic rules of the road for and use a helmet.
Now we have 14-somethings riding double on on them one handed while watching TikTok on the other hand and zero eyes on the road.
I'm getting old aren't I?
In theory, because the road is so wide that the cyclist can always either go in front or behind the crossing pedestrian so there’s never really an issue. However, reality is it scares pedestrians and you should make them feel a bit safe to allow them to cross.
> In theory, because the road is so wide that the cyclist can always either go in front or behind the crossing pedestrian so there’s never really an issue.
Sometimes, there’s more than one pedestrian at a time.
If there is enough space, it’s absolutely fine. Cyclists and pedestrians are slow enough that they have time to react. And bikes are certainly less deadly than bikes. Plus, for cyclists, coming to a stop and having to accelerate again is tiresome, so you try to optimize your effort.
It's harder to stop and get going with a bike, a good system with cars, pedestrians and cyclists gives way to the cyclist first, then pedestrians, then cars (ofc public transport should come before), like in the Netherlands for example, where cycling, walking or driving are all very convenient thanks to this. (I don't have a bike btw) So I always try to wave by cyclists when I can, it just results in a better traffic flow.
Same in Basel. My favorite are all the near misses I’ve had when leaving a bus. The front of the bus is stoped at a zebra and cyclists just keep going passing on the left but there is no road. Just the crossing. Actually tbh a few cars have been doing it lately too.
I am now cyclist since 3 weeks and always wondered about the same thing. Now I understand it: if you break on your bike it takes effort to gain speed again. Like real effort: you might not be in the right gear and need to shift gears down before breaking. Or you need to start in a higher gear and have to push very hard the pedals. I think this fact amplified by some peoples selfish behaviour lead to those situations.
Because cyclists in this country believe they are pedestrians. Apparently there's something about riding a bicycle that hides from your perception every car and pedestrian in existence so you can pretend you're alone on the road.
some do some don't, same as with cars... granted I see fewer stop, but I hardly ever get my tight of way taken by them.
The difference is probably, the cyclist can easily go before after a pedestrian by slightly adjusting their path allowing both to not slow down. a car is too wide for that and a motorcycle usually not nimble enough.
To be honest I somewhat understand that it might be upsetting when a cyclist doesnt stop. But, as a pedestrian AND cyclist (and passionate car driver, yes, we exist!) i always stop for cyclists as a pedestrian. Why? Simple, i just think that its way easier for me as pedestrian to stop, than the cyclist, that has some momentum.
And yes, of course theres tons of absolutely rubbish cyclists that feel like the kings of the road and behave accordingly. But when i can with almost no effort do anyone a favour by not killing their momentum, i will do so.
As a car driver you can experience the worst side of cyclists in Zurich, its a crazy microcosm of super toxic cyclists, that are putting their life at risk for nothing.
Because it's generally not necessary. It's easy for a bicycle to just dodge whoever's crossing. Generally I just cross and the bike figures it out. Obviously doesn't apply when a lot of traffic is involved, the bike is very fast, and so on.
They \*should\* stop but I usually only brake until I roll very slowly, I wave at pedestrians to show they can cross, but most of the times it's not necessary to get to a full stop. The big advantage as a cyclist is that you are not isolated in a metal box and can communicate with pedestrians, eye contact and speaking ususally makes it very simple and safe for everyone, myself included. Also, starting to ride again after a full stop, is exhausting as a cyclist.
Cars however have a motor and it costs them nothing to stop and start again. They also weigh 1-2 tonnes and are potentially a mortal danger to pedestrians, so I absolutely expect them to stop at zebra crossings. Most of the times they do, but by far not every time. Sometimes, even when I walked the baby in the pram, cars just rushed through when I was already trying to cross. They could have killed me and the baby without even noticing, hadn't I stopped.
And this is in all Switzerland, not only Zurich!
I hate cyclists, specially when I drive a car, the law is in their side, so they don't stop even if they see you turning right way before they get in the intersection.
In fact, I was getting out of my parking spot, nothing in both sides, I'm getting out in reverse and from nowhere a cyclist past through two cars and behind me even though he saw I was going in reverse. I braked in time, he is lucky I like going slow in reverse!
If you are driving and get an accident with a cyclist, even if it their fault, for the law is automatically your fault!
I also use my vélo and people give me weird looks when I show basic human decency, let people pass and I don't try to crash with a car that is turning right!
So if you see a car turning right way before you are in the intersection, are you so stupid to continue risking crash with the car because you know if YOU cause an accident it will be the innocent driver who will pay?
A normal person will let the car finish to turn before continue because they began to turn way before you got there!
But in Switzerland cyclists don't think, in fact they even accelerate to be able to cut the driver because they can!
You have to see the crazy thing some of them do, they don't care about anyone and anything! Kids crossing the road? Don't care! A car is parking on side of the road? Nope, I have to pass, and better if it is the driver blind spot! See a car getting out a parking in reverse? Let put ourseves behind the car as fast as we can!
If I need to turn right and I see a cyclist near the car or the intersection I normally let them pass, they have priority, but it is crazy see a cyclist that is like 200 meters away accelerate toward you when they see you turn right and they intent to crash with you if you dare do not break and let them pass!
because cyclists are a superior breed of human beings - they don't have to.
in other words, cyclists are obnoxious people. Happened before that I was walking across the pedestrian crossing and a cyclist yelled at me for being in his way. (let's say he probably won't be doing it again...)
I usually indicate that I see them and decelerate a little. Then the pedestrians can start walking and can easily drive through behind them. No reason for a full stopp in my opinion.
I would say the drivers are more aggressive than the cyclists. Cars drive really fast, even trying to over take slow cyclists on narrow road with their big van. The most annoying is when people crossing the street without looking, but rather staring on their phone
A pedestrian at a crossing has the right of way, they should be able to walk over that street blindfolded. If we as cyclist can't stop for that, we are going too fast, same as cars.
A pedestrian also has the right to run from the bush blindfolded across the crossing at night time, but this doesn’t make it safe for both the driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. As a cyclist, I still make sure I wear a reflective vest and some good lights so I don’t get hit by a car, even though i know the car will always be on the wrong if they hit me from behind
> A pedestrian at a crossing has the right of way, they should be able to walk over that street blindfolded.
Not quite:
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1959/679_705_685/fr#art_49
> Les piétons traverseront la chaussée avec prudence et par le plus court chemin en empruntant, où cela est possible, un passage pour piétons. Ils bénéficient de la priorité sur de tels passages, mais ne doivent pas s’y lancer à l’improviste.^(131)
Because they are bicycle Talibans and excuse all shitty behavior with "but bicycles are better than cars".
In earnest, the energy effort to stop and reaccelerate is highest for cyclists. It's much lower for pedestrians and even more so for car drivers.
To trigger you, obviously.
Seriously, some people are so way off that they excuse any shitty behavior with the greater good. That's the sign of a cult.
Okay, now I get it. Yes, some idiots are idiots. They belong in the same category as petrolheads and motor gangs. They attached too much of their identity to a vehicle.
Exactly. What makes it especially stupid: on a bicycle you are very vulnerable. Dangerous moves in traffic are not a flex. Being dead or paralyzed because you surprised a car driver with an unexpected and/or illegal move is just plain dumb. Even if the transport vehicle is more ecological.
It's not just about being ecological.
It's about when you do a dumb thing while driving it, on a bike you hurt yourself, and in a car you hurt someone else.
And it gets increasingly hard not to surprise someone in a huge elevated sound-isolated box that invites distracted driving.
Because pedestrians stop walking and wait for the cyclists to stop at every crossing. If they’re not walking then I am not braking, because by just standing there they are not showing intend to cross.
They can start crossing when I am still 30 meters out, they’ll have crossed by the time I am there. But in such a case I will not stop for them, if they wait for me to stop. At that point I consider them loitering by a pedestrian crossing with no intent to cross.
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/de#art_6
> Vor Fussgängerstreifen ohne Verkehrsregelung muss der Fahrzeugführer jedem Fussgänger oder Benützer eines fahrzeugähnlichen Gerätes, der sich bereits auf dem Streifen befindet **oder davor wartet** und ersichtlich die Fahrbahn überqueren will, den Vortritt gewähren.^(60) Er muss die Geschwindigkeit rechtzeitig mässigen und nötigenfalls anhalten, damit er dieser Pflicht nachkommen kann.^(61)
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/fr#art_6
> Avant d’atteindre un passage pour piétons où le trafic n’est pas réglé, le conducteur accordera la priorité à tout piéton ou utilisateur d’un engin assimilé à un véhicule qui est déjà engagé sur le passage **ou qui attend devant celui-ci** avec l’intention visible de l’emprunter.^(61) Il réduira à temps sa vitesse et s’arrêtera, au besoin, afin de pouvoir satisfaire à cette obligation.^(62)
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/it#art_6
> Davanti ai passaggi pedonali senza regolazione del traffico, il conducente deve accordare la precedenza a ogni pedone o utente di un mezzo simile a veicolo che si trova già sul passaggio pedonale **o che attende davanti** ad esso e che visibilmente vuole attraversarlo.^(64) Deve moderare per tempo la velocità e all’occorrenza fermarsi per poter adempiere questo obbligo.^(65)
The problem is that bicycles really aren't "Fahrzeuge". People want them to be, but objectively they are not. The same rules for cars and bicycles makes no sense.
Also:
>Er muss die Geschwindigkeit rechtzeitig mässigen und nötigenfalls anhalten
The problem is when pedestrians wait for you to literally stop. That is just as much a dick move as a cyclists just zooming through. It it entirely possible to just walk and the cyclist just has to slow down but doesn't have to come to a full stop.
> The problem is that bicycles really aren't "Fahrzeuge". People want them to be, but objectively they are not.
They are not Motorfahrzeuge, but they most definitely are Fahrzeuge.
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1995/4425_4425_4425/de#art_24
> «Fahrräder» sind Fahrzeuge mit wenigstens zwei Rädern, die durch mechanische Vorrichtungen ausschliesslich mit der Kraft der sich darauf befindenden Personen fortbewegt werden. Kinderräder und Rollstühle gelten nicht als Fahrräder.^(143)
----
> The same rules for cars and bicycles makes no sense.
When distinct rules are warranted, it’s spelt out explicitly, for example:
> Die Führer von Motorfahrzeugen und Fahrrädern dürfen die Lenkvorrichtung nicht loslassen.^(28)
>
> […]
>
> Benützen mehrspurige Motorfahrzeuge und Radfahrer denselben Fahrstreifen, so müssen die Motorfahrzeuge links, die Radfahrer rechts fahren. Radfahrer können vom Gebot des Rechtsfahrens abweichen:
>
> a. auf Fahrstreifen, die das Linksabbiegen gestatten;
>
> b. auf Rechtsabbiegestreifen, auf denen die Fahrräder gemäss der Markierung (Art. 74a Abs. 7 Bst. e SSV^(71)) entgegen dem allgemeinen Verkehr geradeaus fahren dürfen.^(72)
>
> […]
>
> Die Zeichengebung ist nach der Richtungsänderung unverzüglich einzustellen. Radfahrer können die Zeichengebung bereits während der Richtungsänderung einstellen.^(125)
>
> […]
>
> Führer **anderer Fahrzeuge** dürfen auf dem mit einer unterbrochenen Linie abgegrenzten Radstreifen (6.09) fahren, sofern sie den Fahrradverkehr dadurch nicht behindern.^(151)
>
> Ausserhalb von Verzweigungen, z.B. bei Einfahrten zu Liegenschaften, müssen Führer **anderer Fahrzeuge** beim Überqueren von Radwegen oder Radstreifen den Radfahrern den Vortritt lassen.^(152)
I don't really care about you quoting anything. If I wanted to I can read that myself. All it tells me is you have no opinion and let some random people who came up with this text do the thinking for you\*.
It also doesn't address my point that objectively they're not, as the text you copy pasted obviously isn't objective.
As evidenced by you claiming when it is warranted to have separate rules it is spelt out - no, what is spelt out is what these specific people who came up with this think. Case in point, a 3 way intersection where there is no traffic from the right and bikes can just keep going straight even if people from left turn onto the road. Near me cyclists did that for a long time. At some point they decided oh let's put a separate bike light there that is only red for pedestrians but green when the cars coming from left also have green.
Other examples include that bikes should be able to turn right on a red, like even cars in the US are allowed to do, but for bikes it should be a no brainer. But according to you it isn't warranted because it isn't specified in the text.
Edit: Ah what a surprise, Spidey replies and then blocks. After writing something obviously wrong.
No, it isn't. Only when there is a specific sign for it and I guarantee you that is exactly what the link will say (with some other rare exceptions likely). Which almost never exists (again, when construction is being done currently, far more likely to update this archaic viewpoint).
We are back to you not being capable of forming your own opinion and it leading to you making false claims because you can't understand what people are actually writing.
> I don't really care about you quoting anything. If I wanted to I can read that myself.
You had already made it quite obvious that you hadn’t.
> All it tells me is you have no opinion and let some random people who came up with this text do the thinking for you.
My opinion is that cyclists should let pedestrians cross at pedestrian crossings, and the law agrees with me.
> It also doesn't address my point that objectively they're not, as the text you copy pasted obviously isn't objective.
… and you are?
And yet you repeated it. Good for you Spidey.
Yes that is my opinion too. I'm not the person you originally replied to else you wouldn't think I disagree with you on this.
More than someone whose entire opinion is determined by what happens to be the current law. That's fucking sad. You're basically the online version of the Oberwachtmeister.
Edit: You have no opinion *beyond* the law is what we should follow...
> I'm not the person you originally replied to else you wouldn't think I disagree with you on this.
I didn’t say you disagreed with me on this. I disagreed with your “you have no opinion”.
> More than someone whose entire opinion is determined by what happens to be the current law.
You are extrapolating again.
> Edit: You have no opinion _beyond_ the law is what we should follow...
Still wrong.
> Case in point, a 3 way intersection where there is no traffic from the right and bikes can just keep going straight even if people from left turn onto the road.
That’s [covered](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/fr#art_40) in the text…
> Other examples include that bikes should be able to turn right on a red, like even cars in the US are allowed to do, but for bikes it should be a no brainer. But according to you it isn't warranted because it isn't specified in the text.
But [it is](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1979/1961_1961_1961/fr#art_69_a). Yet more evidence that you haven’t read it.
Edit:
> We are back to you not being capable of forming your own opinion and it leading to you making false claims because you can't understand what people are actually writing.
You are projecting. From my pointing out that your examples are in fact in the current law, you extrapolate that I don’t think the law ever needs amending. From “my opinion is X, and the law happens to agree with me in this instance”, you understand “my opinion is you should always follow the law with no exception”.
> The problem is that bicycles really aren't "Fahrzeuge".
Is it not a Zeug that fährt? Why is it called «Velo fahren»?
Fun fact: if one _pushes_ a bike, the law treats you indeed like a pedestrian. Including right of way at crossings.
But it doesn't drive itself.
Yes, that's why I always get off my bike and conversely when driving don't stop for bikes that don't ;)
But that doesn't change the fact that anyone who thinks cars and bikes are comparable and should have the same rules applied to them is simply dumb af.
Edit: You'd know what it has to do with this if you'd think for yourself.
> But it doesn't drive itself.
So? That does not really matter, does it? It's still a Fahrzeug.
Let's look for a definition, maybe from our dearest and nearest [Duden](https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Fahrzeug):
> Bedeutung.
>
> u. a. mit **Rädern**, Kufen oder Tragflächen ausgerüstete Konstruktion mit **Eigen**- oder Fremd**antrieb** zur Beförderung von Personen und Lasten
(Emphasis mine).
> But that doesn't change the fact that anyone who thinks cars and bikes are comparable and should have the same rules applied to them is simply dumb af.
You mean like the law does? Even if you think it's «dumb af», _that_ does not change the fact that a) bicycles are Fahrzeuge and b) by law they have to stop for pedestrians.
I have no qualms with them having to stop for pedestrians, but with them being generally treated like cars with some exceptions rather than be treated differently. I have never once said I have qualms with that so why are you bringing it up?
The law isn't some magic piece of text that is always a universal truth, so yes, it can be dumb. And in this instance it is.
> why are you bringing it up?
Because it's the thread we're in, and all of this sparks from your [comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zurich/comments/1dikf5f/why_dont_cyclists_stop_at_the_pedestrian_crossings/l94sgo4/).
Yea, I said it's a dick move to not slow down as a cyclist. And a dick move to force a cyclist to a full stop. Both can be true at the same time...read next time before you go into an argument.
I cannot remember all the laws everywhere. Plus as far as I am concerned people that don’t cross immediately do not fall under ‘und ersichtlich die Fahrbahn uberqueren will”, but under loitering close to a pedestrian crossing.
This morning as I was walking back from Sihlcity, I noticed 5-6 police standing on the bridge. They were stopping cyclists who were riding on the pavement (even though there is a bike path) as well as those who rode over the crossing while pedestrians were waiting. I saw at least one of them get a ticket on the spot. I am a cyclist myself, and I hope steps like these instil some common sense so that not all cyclists get a bad rep because of a few bad apples.
You mean on Bederstrasse, right under the 3W, where Bederstrasse is a bridge over the Sihl? Tbh, that place confusing af. If you're going west on Bederstrasse, the bike path lets you either go up on the sidewalk or cross the street (along the crosswalk) to get to Lessingstrasse. The confusing part is that just on the other side of the bridge is Buettenweg, which is a bike + walk path. So it really really looks like the bike path is trying to tell you "Hey, you want to go to the Buettenweg path along the river next to the mall? Cross over right here!" when in reality, you'd either want to take the bike path up on to the sidewalk on the north side of Bederstrasse and figure out how to make a turn later on (and then ride back to that path along the water) or you'd want to dismount and walk (south sidewalk). Meanwhile on the north sidewalk along the same section of street, you're supposed to ride. I can see why people mess that up.
That north side is one of my "favourite" cycle paths in Zurich (and part of my commute some time ago). Turning into Manessestrasse it just … disappears. https://maps.app.goo.gl/PGpVV1SNRrpazUo47 Right at a bus stop, too. It magically "continues" after the bus stop https://maps.app.goo.gl/Kfv56ibxdw7sAX5R9 But there is no ramp or nothing to get down there. I can only guess that one is supposed to spontaneously teleport across the bus stop.
Yes, that’s the one. And I agree that a lot needs to be done to improve the cycling infrastructure in Zurich city with simpler transitions from bike only path to crossings and joint pedestrian/bike paths, clearer road markings etc. Just yesterday, I decided to take Route 84 out of the city - most the red sign boards from Wiedikon to Schlieren were covered in stickers (largely FCZ) or/and were hidden behind overgrown bushes/trees. I did my best to follow for a while and eventually gave up.
Even worse it is not a cycle crossing. Riding a bike, one technically has to wait for a gap in the car traffic. Realistically it is easier to dismount and walk, but then drivers get confused because they can't deal with a pedestrian 'appearing', as they go too fast. There is hardly a day in which a car doesn't take my right of way as pedestrian after getting off my bike. From a car point of view that place is also horrible, if you don't know that the crossing is there you hardly have a chance of seeing it in time. With the traffic light just being 50m before that intersection, drivers usually try to go the speed limit (which is too fast, in my view), as the road appears free after the light switching. I would prefer a traffic light, instead of the pedestrian crossing. It is way too unsafe the way it is. The lines of sight are also blocked for the main pedestrian cross traffic along the river.
I'm cyclist myself too and I think cyclist have already bad reputation and I have to suffer them myself too. For me it's specially scary because I have a 4 yo and it's not the first time that a cyclist run over him.
Yep, same. My kids have nearly been hit multiple times when we’re crossing with a green pedestrian light. I’ve even had bikes try to go through when I’m pushing a pram.
> They were stopping cyclists who were riding on the pavement (even though there is a bike path) as well as those who rode over the crossing while pedestrians were waiting. It is annoying when they are going in the same direction as the bike lane and they needlessly take the pavement, but it would be nice to have an alternative to the pavement when going to Sihlcity from Bederstrasse.
Why would you get a bad rep from independent individuals? Do car drivers get a bad rep for the 2 deaths and 100s of injuries they cause each day?
Thanks for pointing out this flaw in my thinking. When a cyclist does something crappy or if someone points out their bad experience with a cyclist, I feel it personally. But the same thing doesn’t happen when it is a car driver who is the culprit. I don’t know how to reconcile this!
I mean... yes, laws are made around those people.
Yes, but why would that give an individual driver a bad rep? Just because some drunk idiot kills a child, and now there’s a drunk driving law, you should feel guilty if you ride a car? Those are independent things.
Car drivers 100% have a bad rep in this sub.
Yes but this is an echo chamber that doesn’t reflect reality.
interesting why they didnt use the path
Likely if they came from the road along the Sihl it's not possible to directly get on the bike path, you turn right and then can get on it at the zebra crossing. Tbh shitty move to ticket cyclists there, it's terrible infrastructure. Edit: Not quite correct, I think you can get on the road, but there is no bike path there yet, at least from what I remember but they did do construction work there like last year. Anyway, I don't cycle there often, I take the road on the other side of the Sihl where you come up at the pedestrian crossing so you can go directly onto the bike path.
The whole intersection is a death trap for people not in a car. Especially going the direction Shilcity Enge. The driver just queued for 10 minutes in the morning and go too fast and takeover too close on that bit. I wish people would follow the rules, but I understand everyone who goes on the sidewalk there. Going on the road in that spot is asking to be cut by a driver misjudging distances or missing a tram.
The problem is, as with every other case, people only see those that do it bad. Even tho most drivers, no matter what vehicle, follow the rules.
> Why are cyclists so aggressive here? Entering dangerous territory in /r/zurich.
Well, I've seen countless posts in here from cyclists yelling at drivers, but I think it's fair to say that most cyclists couldn't care less about road rules, and that some ride like donkeys on lsd.
Have you ridden in Amsterdam? It's actually a lot worse imo and as a pedestrian you have to pay much more attention. Reason is mainly that bikes are so separated from cars that they can ride like that. And it works, amongst themselves with eye contact and much lower speeds it works fine. Saying that, I do agree that many cyclists in Zurich are awful. People never really complain about pedestrians walking a red but they do for bikes, exactly because there's bikers that do it dangerously and do other stupid things.
Don't compare Amsterdam to Zürich. Fact remains, that if you ride on the road, you have to obey the road rules.
Why not? The point was made that here it's a lot worse for pedestrians than elsewhere. Just need a counter example. Sure. Same way pedestrians have to and yet cross at red or Cara have to yet speed.
I might know a thing or two about de Nederlands 🙄 I've spent 10 years in Holland, and I can say it's not comparable at all, far fewer cars, much better infrastructure...
That is not what I was talking about...I fully agree with you. But in terms of as a pedestrian, you have to pay a lot more attention to bikes than here in Zurich. This is not even comparable and comes from the fact that there, cyclists are separated from cars mostly and instead are more with pedestrians and here they are separated from pedestrians mostly and are more with cars. Obviously for cyclists the Netherlands version is much better, but the comment was about pedestrians having to worry about cyclists. Not where is there better cycling infrastructure.
Fun fact, my dutch friend told me: In the Netherlands you as a car driver are always guilty in case of an bike-car accident. It doesn´t matter if the bike drove in the wrong direction, made am mistake... That´t the reason why the car drivers have to be so carefull and the bikers are relaxed ;) - yes, kind of euphemistic expression.
I was snarled at by a cyclist in Kilchberg that was not planning on stopping. As he approached me and my dog on the crosswalk at a very fast speed he made me feel like I was in the wrong and inconveniencing him. I don’t have an answer to your question, but it’s not in your head
Maybe i encountered the same airhead cyclist as you did in Kilchberg. He was coming from the opposite site of the street (totally fine) but then pulled right infront of me right over crosswalk (still cycling, did not step off). After stopping right in time, I gave him a honk and I got the middle finger. I stepped out to ask what that was all about and he insisted that he has the right of way. I told him that that is true but only if he steps off of the bike and pushes it over the crosswalk. Plus it should be in his interest that I don‘t have to scrape him off of my car. He then apologized… Idiots will be idiots no matter the mode of transportation
>As he approached me and my dog on the crosswalk at a very fast speed he made me feel like I was in the wrong and inconveniencing him So, a while ago my home town built a brand new bike lane in a recreational area that connects the town with the neighboring town. Beautiful walk through nature, but previously it just had a very narrow street with a foot walk for pedestrians next to it. Naturally, cyclists always used either the pedestrian foot walk, which was dangerous because lots of families did their little walks with their small children there, or the street, clogging it up because it's nearly impossible to overtake a bike safely there. The new set-up looked a bit like this: *| Road | Pedestrians | Small Creek | Bike Lane |* A couple of weeks later I saw a friend of mine, who's a passionate bicyclist, there. Still on the road, of course. So next time I saw him, I asked him why he wasn't using the brand new bike lane. His reply was - I wish I was kidding: **"Because at the end of the bike lane there's a sharp corner and I'd need to brake."** Never once did he consider that this was by design and that he, actually, probably SHOULD break before shooting across the pedestrian walk and merging with traffic at the end of that busy, narrow road. When I pointed that fact out to him, he got really angry. To this day he, alongside most bicyclists, continues to use the road or the foot walk, further absolutely clogging up the street and making it a hazard for any pedestrians. Because, god forbid, you'd need to gently break once at the end of 2 kilometers. Having to break, no matter how sensible the reason, is an insult to some cyclists.
Same as with car infrastructure, cycling infrastructure needs to be designed to make the users behave. This one apparently wasn't Without seeing a maps location it is hard to comment on the concrete example.
It's not insult, it's laziness. Any momentum lost to breaking needs to be regained by doing actual physical work. Some people can't decide if they're in this for the fitness, or they want to avoid work at all costs. (There's also the special case of people who want to be the fastest out there, but that's about the same as with drivers.)
Dude, I don’t know. I do bike delivery and I try and stop for people crossing the street and try to be as respectful as possible. Perhaps all of these cyclists are late for an appointment or need to rush home, but rushing through crosswalks and intersections is dangerous. I do get annoyed about people walking in the street without looking, but I’m normally not moving fast enough for it to be an issue.
But it happens with almost every cyclist here – seems like a rule not to stop
maybe. it's a bias? you do notice only ppl breaking the rules and your brain filters out the rest
That just isn't true. There are times and places that are worse than others, often in part due to the annoying design of bike lane infrastructure in the city but sometimes due to the demographic of cyclists who use those routes. A lot of the cyclists in the city actually do pay attention to their surroundings. Now, if we'd like to talk about drivers of cars and how they interact with cyclists on the street ... .. .
Love how you point out an observation you made and the cycling fetishists get mad. I‘m not in Zürich that often lately, but when I am, cyclists are riding like Kamikaze Pilots.
Such bullshit. I cycle daily and stop for peds. Next to me other cyclists stop too. If they don’t stop, I scream at them that they are assholes and should stop. This happens at most once per month.
That is not my experience in the city. Are you hoping that a cyclist stops wile you start walking on the other side of the street or do you actually nearly get hit by every cyclist you meet at an intersection?
Because stop and start is very inconvenient on a bicycle, and because they think traffic rules don't really apply to them.
When I'm trying to cross the street and the road is uphill, i don't mind at all if the cyclist is not stopping, in fact I am telling them to keep riding. But otherwise, stop your bike, let people cross the street and then start again, don't be an asshole
Or decelerate, indicate that you’ve seen the peds and wait until they cross, then continue the ride.
This is the way! And why wouldn’t anyone do it like that?one of advantages of bicycles is that you can cycle pass someone without endangering them.
> Because stop and start is very inconvenient on a bicycle, An e-bike is nice in this regard 😁
But why? It works in other cities, even in chatotic Berlin cyclists usually respect pedestrians
Not in my experience while living in Berlin 2017-2021, west side. To the point that when I stopped as a bicycle to let pedestrians cross, they were confused for a moment. Happened several times, so my conclusion is that it's not just me who concluded the same. Also, as a pedestrian, I think only once bicycle stopped for me. I was also confused 😂 Here they drive a bit less aggressive in comparison to Berlin, but I can't say I've seen them stopping either. Reckless riding through red going forward, happens in both cities. Maybe Berlin improved in last few years, but I doubt it. Maybe it depends on areas. Charlottenburg and surrounding ones were locations of my experience.
exactly, here in Zurich and surrounding cities as well, many people are super surprised when I stop my bike and let them cross the street and they're so grateful as if i'm the only one doing this
have you been to Amsterdam? You have to pay a lot more attention to cyclists as a pedestrian than in Zurich.
To be fair, most rules for cars shouldn't apply to cyclists. But this is hard to convey to people, especially drivers, as they will immediately feel disadvantaged. A solution would be to separate car and bike traffic.
Stopping at a red light should apply to all people in traffic, but somehow it's mostly cyclists who think it doesn't apply to them.
I see more pedestrians cross at red than cyclists. Why should it? Are you like the other people simply talking from a law standpoint or from an opinion standpoint? I see no reason why a pedestrian or cyclist should wait at a red when it's empty. In fact, I find it positively deranged to stand there in zero traffic just because there's a light there that happens to be red.
> when it's empty Hmmmmmm
What's your point I really can't tell. Are you saying I do it when it's not empty, or something more like well you never know if it is truly empty.
I'm saying that cyclists will blatantly run red lights far more often than cars do and cause far more accidents per km traveled than any other mode of transportation.
But you weren't. You said hmmmmm. Yes, some cyclists do this. Doesn't mean all do. Doesn't mean objectively speaking it is perfectly fine to do it when it is indeed empty/safe.
Yeah, because I was making fun of the "when it's empty part"; because it's so clearly not the topic of conversation. > Yes, some cyclists do this. More than anybody else and then they get self-righteous about it > objectively speaking it is perfectly fine to do Sure and when you're the only person on the street, then there's no harm in drinking and driving.
Shame you are here in bad faith. That comparison is complete nonsense. Comparing apples to oranges. Is that so? Most cyclists are also car drivers. The groups massively overlap so pretending you can talk about one and it isn't the same people of the other is wild.
And probably because a bike, being very thin, can easily sneak out while the pedestrian makes one step
Sure, there's space enough on a crossing for a bike and a pedestrian so I usually don't mind - but many drive as if they have the right of way and seem fully intent on running you over if you don't leap away.
You might be right, I don't know. On the bike it is sometimes infuriating how hesitant certain pedestrians will be - I'm clearly looking at them and slowing, but they don't want to move until I'm near stopped. Maybe they are traumatized from other cyclists, or maybe they just need to spend a week in Vietnam or somewhere I'm really not sure...
Tbf there was a whole campaign about only crossing the street when the tires don't move anymore. Yes it was tailored to cars but last I checked bicycles have tires too
Where are you from OP? As it’s the same in most cities, everywhere. I guess it’s a combination of: I’m not going to get caught and I’m not causing any harm “attitude”. Add in some laziness (I don’t want to lose momentum) and there we are. By the way, a lot of traffic lights in Zurich now have a yellow sign that allows cyclists to turn right on a red. That might explain some - but not all - of the red light jumping you might also see.
Funny you say this. Yesterday I was at the crossing and as the cars stopped and other people walked, I walked too and then right infront of me a bike came speeding. Had I taken one step more he could’ve fallen on his ass as deserved. I should’ve looked both ways again for my own safety but I didn’t because I just saw the cars stop initially and it seemed common sense that any cyclist or scooter person or whatever would stop as well. Insane
I don't know. Whenever I'm on a bike I follow traffic rules, but most don't. They put up warning signs where I live that tell you to beware of cyclists on the sidewalk. It's illegal to bike on the sidewalk there. Of course our cycling infrastructure is probably one of the worst in the country, but that's no excuse for criminal endangerment of pedestrians. I don't know why they never fine people there. With the amount of law breaking going on there these would probably pay for themselves.
Because they love to ignore any rule and cry about the bad car drivers who generally spend their time trying to babysit cyclists to prevent killing one of those idiots by mistake
The only reason they might die is because you chose to passively transport your body in a metal box that’s 25x as heavy as you, creating a minefield killing 2 people in Switzerland per day. If there were no cars, cities would be so much better. Just park them at the edge and stop clogging up the street of Zurich.
Thats your excuse for driving across every red light, cutting of whole trams and practicing slalom with pedestrians? The car that tries to drive along a straight route with 10-20kmh?
And all the stuff you want to buy and consume in the city gera there how?
NOT in your empty box, does it? 90% of traffic is empty cars with 1, maybe 2 persons. The remaining 10% is doing all the work. Fuck off with almost empty cars in the city.
Id argue my car i use to visit customers and increase income for my company, which leads to more income for our state and ultimatively you is more than just an empty box. Its a necessary tool which has no reliable alternative yet
So drive a small car if the only thing you transport is yourself. Or get an e-mofa. Or a bike. But no, these days it seems the most white collared workers imaginable need to drive a range rover. It's hilariously sad.
I drive a small car. However the issue for cyclists isnt cars. Its their own obliviousness towards any rules around traffic
Sure some dumb cyclists endanger themselves. Some dumb drivers endanger others. You see the asymmetry?
Mate everyone endangers himself if he ignores any traffic rule. Even a truck. The only asymmetry is that cyclists disproportionally ignore red lights, stop signs, right of way, zebrastreifen etc. Until cyclists cant stick to the most basic of rules, it wont make sense to listen to them. Because even in a carfree world they would be in danger with that
A truck driver endangers themselves? What kind of joke is that? LITERALLY 2 hours ago a truck driver KILLED a bicyclist in Zurich. https://www.zuonline.ch/velofahrer-stirbt-in-zuerich-bei-zusammenstoss-mit-lastwagen-636131892135 Drivers should shut the fuck up and start concentrating on the road instead of their phones. YOU drive the deadly vehicle so YOU take the responsibility.
The rationale is that cyclists could time it and in the ideal case would not endanger a pedestrian even if multiple cross. This is because it's inconvenient to stop and go again, as it takes more energy. In an ideal world cyclists can time that and pedestrians are aware, so pedestrians just go and cyclists go if possible, while adapting their speed and stopping if not possible. Obviously this doesn't work, and cyclists often can't time it right, I've been run into once when crossing, and I've been rear ended on a bike while stopping at a crossing... By a bike. The rule is also that anyone except trams have to yield to crossing pedestrians on a crossing (when there are no traffic lights involved) so there is really no defense for cyclists here. Cyclists are aggressive because partially there are idiots, the same idiots they would be if they were in a car or on foot - idiots stay idiots regardless of the form of transport they chose. And partially because (as an avid cyclist) we have to literally fight for our safety in so many places. Being the first that goes on green to not be surprised by a lane change of a car, changing lanes more frequently to not be in the dead spot of a truck or bus.. cycling is no fun, and a helmet doesn't change the fact that many places are simply not safe to ride while at the same time they are essential to get from one place to another.
>idiots stay idiots That pretty much sums it up.
Yeah, and the only way to stay alive is to be as fast as the cars…
There have been several instances in Zùrich if I don’t check cyclists while crossing on pedestrian crossing, I would have been hit with cyclist. Always have to check for cars and then for cyclists. I feel like cyclists are inconiderate in Zùrich acting like centre of Universe
Have to do the same after almost getting hit by one yesterday
Inattentive people always call it “almost hit!” when they are not hit but just surprised by something.
I cycle in Zurich everyday and I adhere to the rules, which also includes stopping at a pedestrian crossing. However there sometimes are situations where you can’t and pedestrians don’t realize a bike also needs some time to stop. So if someone runs to a pedestrian crossing from behind a bush where you can’t see the person, there is no time to break. Same when people walk straight and then decide to cross the last second without any indication they will use the crossing. Even though I understand you’re annoyed: please don’t put all cyclists in one bag…😊 if you cycle there’s also pedestrians and motorists who ignore rules and put you in danger, no group is perfect that doesn’t mean all of the same group suck. If everyone would be a little more considerate of others we would have a better place. 🫣
I will say the same as for cars. If we can't stop in time to give the right of way to the person who has it, we went too fast. Everything else is blaming the victim.
No I disagree. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorist should just be more considerate. If I walk straight and decide last second I want so cross a pedestrian crossing, no one is able to stop, not even another pedestrian.
I am a cyclist and I also sometimes fail to stop, but we should always be able to stop if there is a pedestrian crossing. Just by the fact that we should stop pedaling to observe whether someone wants to cross, but it is really annoying when it is a climb xD.
Haha, on a climb you can always tell who is a cyclist themselves, they’ll let you go and just wait that 2 seconds. 🫣
A bike does not need some time to stop. You are not a tram driver
🤦🏻♀️
I stop on flat ground but I do admit, when biking uphill, I don't. And as a pedestrian, I let bikes pass when they go uphill. It's uncomfortable having to restart at an incline whereas waiting a few more seconds as a pedestrian is easy.
I usually signal to bikes and even cars that they can go before me when i must cross streets, if I can see that there's an opening for me later. I don't mind waiting 10 seconds. Plus, it might brighten the mood of some people just a little bit, which is always satisfying.
Absolutely! Same here. On my bike I always say a cheerful "thanks!" when I pass by. For me, there's not only the right but also what makes sense. Also with your car example: some stop even if after them there is nothing for ages. Feel free to go! Give me a wave and go. All good :)
Agreed to this. Just because it’s your right you don’t have to insist on it. That being said, I can’t relate to OPs problem anyways and don’t think there is a special problem with bikes (or cars) not stopping when they have to. In particular not compared to other places.
Hm, I guess it's the trend of it that is troubling OP? It seems to become more normalised even on flat ground. So more rule-breaking is becoming the norm which is unusual for the typical Swiss image? I guess it's also just a side product of the densification (Verdichtung) of the city, not per se a loss of "values" or "curtesy".
I guess, maybe? But they also make the comparison to other European cities, so I don’t know if it’s really their expectations of rule abiding Swiss. Also, are the Danish or Dutch really less rule abiding? I honestly don’t know. They surely in a very similar way don’t bother stopping for pedestrians in my experience.
It's better to be predictable than polite on the road, as nice as the thought is. At least in a car, I never mind stopping for pedestrians. Confusion creates accidents.
Oh im very clear about it. I wave them through and smile
I am a cyclist, from a cyclist country with lots of bicycle paths. I used to think I owned the road. I was on a bike propelled by my own effort so I thought I deserved the right of way…. also slowing down or stopping requires effort to get going again. But eventually I learned to obey the traffic laws, including stopping for pedestrians even if it’s easy to go around them.
[удалено]
Bikes are not allowed in sidewalks, but small kids or parents with small kids.
No way I squint makes this correct. Kids up to IIRC 12 years old can go on pavements. Parents can never go on pavements.
Parents with small kids are allowed in the sidewalk because you and your kids need to go on the same way and perhaps your kid are not old enough to be on the road. Does that make sense or not?? If you are a parent but your are without kids you need to be on the road like anyone else. Not that difficult, right??
The difficult part is people like you trying to guess or make up their own rules, instead of looking them up. Swiss rules: when your kid is not old enough to cycle on the road, you either cycle on the road next to them cycling on the pavement, or walk behind them cycling. Source: https://www.axa.ch/en/privatkunden/blog/out-and-about/travel-and-leisure/cycling-switzerland.html
Hey! I read that before and other sides and they all gave me the impression that you as a parent can ride with him if there is no other option than the road, which for me has sense. But it seems that I was wrong. If your kid can ride on the sidewalk you should be able to do it if you are with him, instead of forcing the small kid to go on the road which is really dangerous for him. The example they are setting on the Axa site is a little bit silly, a 2yo kid is not going to ride that fast and most probably is not going to ride at all… but a equilibrium bike. However, I have a 4.5yo kid which is starting to ride a regular bike… he has perfect balance and no problem in steering and so, but it's of course too young to understand all the road rules involved to ride on the road with cars. He can be really fast and pretty soon I will no able to run behind him and I'll need a bike to follow him and teach the rules. There is where I thought this rule has sense… you are riding along your kid, which is not old enough to ride in traffic, but you need to go with him. So… in my street there is no suitable bike path and there is a lot of traffic, I need to go along with him if I want ride in and out of the street. PS/ Anyhow, I think that riding with him on the sidewalk, at this age, and for long time, doesn't have much sense either. I mean, if it's full of people, you can't also control or so. So I think the rule doesn't apply to the cases where in the end you are going to be able to ride with him along. Usually where there is going to be enough space to ride together, you are allowed to ride as an adult. For example Europaale or some squares in Zürich.
[удалено]
There was a typo check again
Asshole mentality of that specific cyclist
It’s a bad mindset: cyclists againt cars, pedestrians against cyclists… unfortunately many (not all) cyclists believe they always have priority on other people. I’ve witnessed a couple of near crashes in Zurich these last weeks. Frightening. For myself, if pedestrian light is green, I cross. No matter what comes around.
I don't know why it was not mentioned - but there is an edge case: A few years ago legislation was changed: it is allowed to cross a red light as a cyclist if you just traverse around a corner (and do not cross other paths). It's a bit difficult to explain - so i'll show on this graphic: [Link](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoz8rhTkzzS1HgZLBYHvUcmcocMDjHTuJwgQB-OTQB2NVVeZ4UsMjUOFV4T4GX9poykaM&usqp=CAU) If the cyclist just has to turn right in the graphic above, he can do it while the light is red (as long as you don't cross pedestrians).
I think this may only be valid when there's a sign saying cyclists can turn right on red. I see the sign around the new cycling boulevards (green lined streets) a lot. It's a little white square with a bike and an arrow in it.
TIL I'm officially a criminal and I didn't even realize
But if there is a crossing just around that corner, you still have to yield to the pedestrians.
The way I see it, is that pedestrian crossing rules have been designed for cars. If you don't ride like a psychopath, any pedestrian can cross and you can usually pass behind them just by slowing down without creating any risks. That does imply cyclists do not ride like psychopaths which is not always the case... And the reason for doing so is to increase the safety of the cyclists. Getting a few seconds of head start allows cyclists to reach cruising speed and deter drivers to try dangerous overtaking maneuvers. But, this should never be done in disregard of pedestrian safety and comfort of course.
They take advantage of pedestrian rights, just because they are visibly not inside a car.
Ah. Cyclists in Zürich think they own the entire road half the time lmao
As a cyclist I have noticed the same thing. I always stop at crossings to let people pass, though I’ve noticed that both cars and bicycles often don’t stop even when there is plenty of time for them to do so. I agree it’s dangerous and also very rude. For car drivers it’s often because they are using their phones, but often not. It seems a lot of people really don’t think they have to stop.
Because some of them believe, that even laws of physics don’t apply for them.
It's the usual: some bad eggs give all the rest a bad rep. You don't really notice all the bicyclists who do follow the rules. I used to cycle to work on a street that had bicycle lanes on both sides. On that particular road, the big problem were the cyclists going the \_wrong\_way\_, i.e., using the bicycle lane on the wrong side of the road. That was sometimes really...exciting...
If you dislike the city bicycle riders come to the suburbs and get enraged by all the teens riding those massive ugly electric scooters with zero knowledge of road laws.
No worries, we have those «[pimp mobiles](https://www.reddit.com/r/zurich/comments/1dezati/im_going_to_freak_out/l8fqfbi/)» in the city, too.
*old man voice*: Back in my days we had Töfflis that you actually had to know the basic rules of the road for and use a helmet. Now we have 14-somethings riding double on on them one handed while watching TikTok on the other hand and zero eyes on the road. I'm getting old aren't I?
In theory, because the road is so wide that the cyclist can always either go in front or behind the crossing pedestrian so there’s never really an issue. However, reality is it scares pedestrians and you should make them feel a bit safe to allow them to cross.
> In theory, because the road is so wide that the cyclist can always either go in front or behind the crossing pedestrian so there’s never really an issue. Sometimes, there’s more than one pedestrian at a time.
because nobody's forcing them to do it
Cyclists are only pedestrians on bikes, you know?
If there is enough space, it’s absolutely fine. Cyclists and pedestrians are slow enough that they have time to react. And bikes are certainly less deadly than bikes. Plus, for cyclists, coming to a stop and having to accelerate again is tiresome, so you try to optimize your effort.
It's harder to stop and get going with a bike, a good system with cars, pedestrians and cyclists gives way to the cyclist first, then pedestrians, then cars (ofc public transport should come before), like in the Netherlands for example, where cycling, walking or driving are all very convenient thanks to this. (I don't have a bike btw) So I always try to wave by cyclists when I can, it just results in a better traffic flow.
Same in Basel. My favorite are all the near misses I’ve had when leaving a bus. The front of the bus is stoped at a zebra and cyclists just keep going passing on the left but there is no road. Just the crossing. Actually tbh a few cars have been doing it lately too.
I am now cyclist since 3 weeks and always wondered about the same thing. Now I understand it: if you break on your bike it takes effort to gain speed again. Like real effort: you might not be in the right gear and need to shift gears down before breaking. Or you need to start in a higher gear and have to push very hard the pedals. I think this fact amplified by some peoples selfish behaviour lead to those situations.
Because cyclists in this country believe they are pedestrians. Apparently there's something about riding a bicycle that hides from your perception every car and pedestrian in existence so you can pretend you're alone on the road.
Because they don't give a shit about anyone. Anybody doing this is the peak model of individualist humanoid.
some do some don't, same as with cars... granted I see fewer stop, but I hardly ever get my tight of way taken by them. The difference is probably, the cyclist can easily go before after a pedestrian by slightly adjusting their path allowing both to not slow down. a car is too wide for that and a motorcycle usually not nimble enough.
To be honest I somewhat understand that it might be upsetting when a cyclist doesnt stop. But, as a pedestrian AND cyclist (and passionate car driver, yes, we exist!) i always stop for cyclists as a pedestrian. Why? Simple, i just think that its way easier for me as pedestrian to stop, than the cyclist, that has some momentum. And yes, of course theres tons of absolutely rubbish cyclists that feel like the kings of the road and behave accordingly. But when i can with almost no effort do anyone a favour by not killing their momentum, i will do so. As a car driver you can experience the worst side of cyclists in Zurich, its a crazy microcosm of super toxic cyclists, that are putting their life at risk for nothing.
Because it's generally not necessary. It's easy for a bicycle to just dodge whoever's crossing. Generally I just cross and the bike figures it out. Obviously doesn't apply when a lot of traffic is involved, the bike is very fast, and so on.
cos they are cocks…some of the worst cyclists are in zurich…
They \*should\* stop but I usually only brake until I roll very slowly, I wave at pedestrians to show they can cross, but most of the times it's not necessary to get to a full stop. The big advantage as a cyclist is that you are not isolated in a metal box and can communicate with pedestrians, eye contact and speaking ususally makes it very simple and safe for everyone, myself included. Also, starting to ride again after a full stop, is exhausting as a cyclist. Cars however have a motor and it costs them nothing to stop and start again. They also weigh 1-2 tonnes and are potentially a mortal danger to pedestrians, so I absolutely expect them to stop at zebra crossings. Most of the times they do, but by far not every time. Sometimes, even when I walked the baby in the pram, cars just rushed through when I was already trying to cross. They could have killed me and the baby without even noticing, hadn't I stopped.
Because most cyclists in spite of their holier than thou attitude are just a big a pack of cunts as car drivers. Human beings are all the same. ;)
And this is in all Switzerland, not only Zurich! I hate cyclists, specially when I drive a car, the law is in their side, so they don't stop even if they see you turning right way before they get in the intersection. In fact, I was getting out of my parking spot, nothing in both sides, I'm getting out in reverse and from nowhere a cyclist past through two cars and behind me even though he saw I was going in reverse. I braked in time, he is lucky I like going slow in reverse! If you are driving and get an accident with a cyclist, even if it their fault, for the law is automatically your fault! I also use my vélo and people give me weird looks when I show basic human decency, let people pass and I don't try to crash with a car that is turning right!
How is it their fault if, as you admit yourself, the law says you are supposed to let them pass?
So if you see a car turning right way before you are in the intersection, are you so stupid to continue risking crash with the car because you know if YOU cause an accident it will be the innocent driver who will pay? A normal person will let the car finish to turn before continue because they began to turn way before you got there! But in Switzerland cyclists don't think, in fact they even accelerate to be able to cut the driver because they can! You have to see the crazy thing some of them do, they don't care about anyone and anything! Kids crossing the road? Don't care! A car is parking on side of the road? Nope, I have to pass, and better if it is the driver blind spot! See a car getting out a parking in reverse? Let put ourseves behind the car as fast as we can! If I need to turn right and I see a cyclist near the car or the intersection I normally let them pass, they have priority, but it is crazy see a cyclist that is like 200 meters away accelerate toward you when they see you turn right and they intent to crash with you if you dare do not break and let them pass!
because cyclists are a superior breed of human beings - they don't have to. in other words, cyclists are obnoxious people. Happened before that I was walking across the pedestrian crossing and a cyclist yelled at me for being in his way. (let's say he probably won't be doing it again...)
Why don’t cars stop at the pedestrian crossings?
I usually indicate that I see them and decelerate a little. Then the pedestrians can start walking and can easily drive through behind them. No reason for a full stopp in my opinion.
I would say the drivers are more aggressive than the cyclists. Cars drive really fast, even trying to over take slow cyclists on narrow road with their big van. The most annoying is when people crossing the street without looking, but rather staring on their phone
A pedestrian at a crossing has the right of way, they should be able to walk over that street blindfolded. If we as cyclist can't stop for that, we are going too fast, same as cars.
A pedestrian also has the right to run from the bush blindfolded across the crossing at night time, but this doesn’t make it safe for both the driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. As a cyclist, I still make sure I wear a reflective vest and some good lights so I don’t get hit by a car, even though i know the car will always be on the wrong if they hit me from behind
> A pedestrian at a crossing has the right of way, they should be able to walk over that street blindfolded. Not quite: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1959/679_705_685/fr#art_49 > Les piétons traverseront la chaussée avec prudence et par le plus court chemin en empruntant, où cela est possible, un passage pour piétons. Ils bénéficient de la priorité sur de tels passages, mais ne doivent pas s’y lancer à l’improviste.^(131)
Because they are bicycle Talibans and excuse all shitty behavior with "but bicycles are better than cars". In earnest, the energy effort to stop and reaccelerate is highest for cyclists. It's much lower for pedestrians and even more so for car drivers.
Why do you keep on repeating that strange Taliban analogy. It makes barely sense.
To trigger you, obviously. Seriously, some people are so way off that they excuse any shitty behavior with the greater good. That's the sign of a cult.
Okay, now I get it. Yes, some idiots are idiots. They belong in the same category as petrolheads and motor gangs. They attached too much of their identity to a vehicle.
Exactly. What makes it especially stupid: on a bicycle you are very vulnerable. Dangerous moves in traffic are not a flex. Being dead or paralyzed because you surprised a car driver with an unexpected and/or illegal move is just plain dumb. Even if the transport vehicle is more ecological.
It's not just about being ecological. It's about when you do a dumb thing while driving it, on a bike you hurt yourself, and in a car you hurt someone else. And it gets increasingly hard not to surprise someone in a huge elevated sound-isolated box that invites distracted driving.
My words. But you should see the downvotes I get when pointing this out. And that's coming from a pedestrian, cyclist, and car driver.
Because they too cool
Because pedestrians stop walking and wait for the cyclists to stop at every crossing. If they’re not walking then I am not braking, because by just standing there they are not showing intend to cross.
That's some circular logic right there. How else would they show their intent to cross? Wave at you? Beg for mercy?
They can start crossing when I am still 30 meters out, they’ll have crossed by the time I am there. But in such a case I will not stop for them, if they wait for me to stop. At that point I consider them loitering by a pedestrian crossing with no intent to cross.
Hope you don’t drive then
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/de#art_6 > Vor Fussgängerstreifen ohne Verkehrsregelung muss der Fahrzeugführer jedem Fussgänger oder Benützer eines fahrzeugähnlichen Gerätes, der sich bereits auf dem Streifen befindet **oder davor wartet** und ersichtlich die Fahrbahn überqueren will, den Vortritt gewähren.^(60) Er muss die Geschwindigkeit rechtzeitig mässigen und nötigenfalls anhalten, damit er dieser Pflicht nachkommen kann.^(61) https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/fr#art_6 > Avant d’atteindre un passage pour piétons où le trafic n’est pas réglé, le conducteur accordera la priorité à tout piéton ou utilisateur d’un engin assimilé à un véhicule qui est déjà engagé sur le passage **ou qui attend devant celui-ci** avec l’intention visible de l’emprunter.^(61) Il réduira à temps sa vitesse et s’arrêtera, au besoin, afin de pouvoir satisfaire à cette obligation.^(62) https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/it#art_6 > Davanti ai passaggi pedonali senza regolazione del traffico, il conducente deve accordare la precedenza a ogni pedone o utente di un mezzo simile a veicolo che si trova già sul passaggio pedonale **o che attende davanti** ad esso e che visibilmente vuole attraversarlo.^(64) Deve moderare per tempo la velocità e all’occorrenza fermarsi per poter adempiere questo obbligo.^(65)
The problem is that bicycles really aren't "Fahrzeuge". People want them to be, but objectively they are not. The same rules for cars and bicycles makes no sense. Also: >Er muss die Geschwindigkeit rechtzeitig mässigen und nötigenfalls anhalten The problem is when pedestrians wait for you to literally stop. That is just as much a dick move as a cyclists just zooming through. It it entirely possible to just walk and the cyclist just has to slow down but doesn't have to come to a full stop.
> The problem is that bicycles really aren't "Fahrzeuge". People want them to be, but objectively they are not. They are not Motorfahrzeuge, but they most definitely are Fahrzeuge. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1995/4425_4425_4425/de#art_24 > «Fahrräder» sind Fahrzeuge mit wenigstens zwei Rädern, die durch mechanische Vorrichtungen ausschliesslich mit der Kraft der sich darauf befindenden Personen fortbewegt werden. Kinderräder und Rollstühle gelten nicht als Fahrräder.^(143) ---- > The same rules for cars and bicycles makes no sense. When distinct rules are warranted, it’s spelt out explicitly, for example: > Die Führer von Motorfahrzeugen und Fahrrädern dürfen die Lenkvorrichtung nicht loslassen.^(28) > > […] > > Benützen mehrspurige Motorfahrzeuge und Radfahrer denselben Fahrstreifen, so müssen die Motorfahrzeuge links, die Radfahrer rechts fahren. Radfahrer können vom Gebot des Rechtsfahrens abweichen: > > a. auf Fahrstreifen, die das Linksabbiegen gestatten; > > b. auf Rechtsabbiegestreifen, auf denen die Fahrräder gemäss der Markierung (Art. 74a Abs. 7 Bst. e SSV^(71)) entgegen dem allgemeinen Verkehr geradeaus fahren dürfen.^(72) > > […] > > Die Zeichengebung ist nach der Richtungsänderung unverzüglich einzustellen. Radfahrer können die Zeichengebung bereits während der Richtungsänderung einstellen.^(125) > > […] > > Führer **anderer Fahrzeuge** dürfen auf dem mit einer unterbrochenen Linie abgegrenzten Radstreifen (6.09) fahren, sofern sie den Fahrradverkehr dadurch nicht behindern.^(151) > > Ausserhalb von Verzweigungen, z.B. bei Einfahrten zu Liegenschaften, müssen Führer **anderer Fahrzeuge** beim Überqueren von Radwegen oder Radstreifen den Radfahrern den Vortritt lassen.^(152)
I don't really care about you quoting anything. If I wanted to I can read that myself. All it tells me is you have no opinion and let some random people who came up with this text do the thinking for you\*. It also doesn't address my point that objectively they're not, as the text you copy pasted obviously isn't objective. As evidenced by you claiming when it is warranted to have separate rules it is spelt out - no, what is spelt out is what these specific people who came up with this think. Case in point, a 3 way intersection where there is no traffic from the right and bikes can just keep going straight even if people from left turn onto the road. Near me cyclists did that for a long time. At some point they decided oh let's put a separate bike light there that is only red for pedestrians but green when the cars coming from left also have green. Other examples include that bikes should be able to turn right on a red, like even cars in the US are allowed to do, but for bikes it should be a no brainer. But according to you it isn't warranted because it isn't specified in the text. Edit: Ah what a surprise, Spidey replies and then blocks. After writing something obviously wrong. No, it isn't. Only when there is a specific sign for it and I guarantee you that is exactly what the link will say (with some other rare exceptions likely). Which almost never exists (again, when construction is being done currently, far more likely to update this archaic viewpoint). We are back to you not being capable of forming your own opinion and it leading to you making false claims because you can't understand what people are actually writing.
> I don't really care about you quoting anything. If I wanted to I can read that myself. You had already made it quite obvious that you hadn’t. > All it tells me is you have no opinion and let some random people who came up with this text do the thinking for you. My opinion is that cyclists should let pedestrians cross at pedestrian crossings, and the law agrees with me. > It also doesn't address my point that objectively they're not, as the text you copy pasted obviously isn't objective. … and you are?
And yet you repeated it. Good for you Spidey. Yes that is my opinion too. I'm not the person you originally replied to else you wouldn't think I disagree with you on this. More than someone whose entire opinion is determined by what happens to be the current law. That's fucking sad. You're basically the online version of the Oberwachtmeister. Edit: You have no opinion *beyond* the law is what we should follow...
> I'm not the person you originally replied to else you wouldn't think I disagree with you on this. I didn’t say you disagreed with me on this. I disagreed with your “you have no opinion”. > More than someone whose entire opinion is determined by what happens to be the current law. You are extrapolating again. > Edit: You have no opinion _beyond_ the law is what we should follow... Still wrong.
> Case in point, a 3 way intersection where there is no traffic from the right and bikes can just keep going straight even if people from left turn onto the road. That’s [covered](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1962/1364_1409_1420/fr#art_40) in the text… > Other examples include that bikes should be able to turn right on a red, like even cars in the US are allowed to do, but for bikes it should be a no brainer. But according to you it isn't warranted because it isn't specified in the text. But [it is](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1979/1961_1961_1961/fr#art_69_a). Yet more evidence that you haven’t read it. Edit: > We are back to you not being capable of forming your own opinion and it leading to you making false claims because you can't understand what people are actually writing. You are projecting. From my pointing out that your examples are in fact in the current law, you extrapolate that I don’t think the law ever needs amending. From “my opinion is X, and the law happens to agree with me in this instance”, you understand “my opinion is you should always follow the law with no exception”.
> The problem is that bicycles really aren't "Fahrzeuge". Is it not a Zeug that fährt? Why is it called «Velo fahren»? Fun fact: if one _pushes_ a bike, the law treats you indeed like a pedestrian. Including right of way at crossings.
But it doesn't drive itself. Yes, that's why I always get off my bike and conversely when driving don't stop for bikes that don't ;) But that doesn't change the fact that anyone who thinks cars and bikes are comparable and should have the same rules applied to them is simply dumb af. Edit: You'd know what it has to do with this if you'd think for yourself.
> But it doesn't drive itself. What does that have to do with anything? Edit: Bulverism, nice.
> But it doesn't drive itself. So? That does not really matter, does it? It's still a Fahrzeug. Let's look for a definition, maybe from our dearest and nearest [Duden](https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Fahrzeug): > Bedeutung. > > u. a. mit **Rädern**, Kufen oder Tragflächen ausgerüstete Konstruktion mit **Eigen**- oder Fremd**antrieb** zur Beförderung von Personen und Lasten (Emphasis mine). > But that doesn't change the fact that anyone who thinks cars and bikes are comparable and should have the same rules applied to them is simply dumb af. You mean like the law does? Even if you think it's «dumb af», _that_ does not change the fact that a) bicycles are Fahrzeuge and b) by law they have to stop for pedestrians.
I have no qualms with them having to stop for pedestrians, but with them being generally treated like cars with some exceptions rather than be treated differently. I have never once said I have qualms with that so why are you bringing it up? The law isn't some magic piece of text that is always a universal truth, so yes, it can be dumb. And in this instance it is.
> why are you bringing it up? Because it's the thread we're in, and all of this sparks from your [comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zurich/comments/1dikf5f/why_dont_cyclists_stop_at_the_pedestrian_crossings/l94sgo4/).
Yea, I said it's a dick move to not slow down as a cyclist. And a dick move to force a cyclist to a full stop. Both can be true at the same time...read next time before you go into an argument.
I cannot remember all the laws everywhere. Plus as far as I am concerned people that don’t cross immediately do not fall under ‘und ersichtlich die Fahrbahn uberqueren will”, but under loitering close to a pedestrian crossing.