Cyclists may be right to run stop signs and red lights. Here’s why
-
Read the article before posting.
There is no entitlement, and it’s not edge cases. The Idaho stop rules make sense in all cases.
You’re pissing on the wrong leg. Don’t mistake disagreement for ignorance of the article. I live in entitled cyclist central, and I’ve even been shot at while driving by one who got pissed at me for not seeing him wearing all black riding at night with no lights running a red. I got no time for cyclists’ bullshit, even being one. We can follow the same rules as everyone else, and should. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard/seen/read cyclists saying that they’re better people than car drivers so shouldn’t have to follow the rules. It’s a LOT. I currently live in one of those states with “similar laws”. It’s a nightmare, and cycling culture has devolved in part because of it.
-
You’re pissing on the wrong leg. Don’t mistake disagreement for ignorance of the article. I live in entitled cyclist central, and I’ve even been shot at while driving by one who got pissed at me for not seeing him wearing all black riding at night with no lights running a red. I got no time for cyclists’ bullshit, even being one. We can follow the same rules as everyone else, and should. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard/seen/read cyclists saying that they’re better people than car drivers so shouldn’t have to follow the rules. It’s a LOT. I currently live in one of those states with “similar laws”. It’s a nightmare, and cycling culture has devolved in part because of it.
Yeah and pedestrians can follow the same rules too, it’s just fucking asinine to make them do so because it’s drawing a false equivalency between two things that aren’t equivalent.
All the egregious cyclists behaviour you’re bitching about is still illegal with the Idaho stop rules.
-
The title is a bit clickbait-y. I went into this one feeling strongly opposed it. Afterwards I’m still not sure, but I get that there’s some nuance to it.
Relevance:
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
Author: Steve Lorteau | Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
Excerpts:
Interactions between different users on roads are often a source of frustration, the most prominent being those between motorists and cyclists.
For example, many motorists are frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without coming to a complete stop, which drivers are required to do.
As a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who specializes in urban law issues, I have studied various regulatory approaches that have been adopted around the world, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of equality.
On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over discourages people from cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favouring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.
Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.
Problem is its a nuanced thing that only some folks have the sense to make a proper call. When there is no vehicle cross traffic at all. It kinda makes sense. I remember a guy though who would go through on reds for a very busy street in afternoon rush and it was quite annoying. I mean by the time the drivers get all pissed he is well away while me and the others stopped at the light are there as targets of it.
-
Yeah and pedestrians can follow the same rules too, it’s just fucking asinine to make them do so because it’s drawing a false equivalency between two things that aren’t equivalent.
All the egregious cyclists behaviour you’re bitching about is still illegal with the Idaho stop rules.
False equivalency, eh? No. And you’re looking right past my point, which is that giving cyclists an inch leads them to take a mile. Pedestrians who don’t walk in the street following the same rules… talk about asinine arguments. The Idaho rules and their derivatives absolutely open the door to the very egregious behavior I mentioned, save for the gunshots.
So, I’ll break down why the article is nonsense. The author of the article’s premise is basically “First off, I am very smart. See? I’m an academic. That said, bikes shouldn’t have to follow the same rules. Why? I have two reasons. The first is that having to stop and start is a drag. The second is that if a bike hits a car, it doesn’t matter”.
It’s also a drag to have to stop when you’re driving. Inconvenience is irrelevant. The bike hitting a car thing, that’s absolute crap. First, a cyclist might not be hitting a car. Maybe another cyclist. Maybe a motorcycle rider. Second, depending on the nature of the crash, that car could be totalled depending on any number of factors. Considering that cyclists don’t have to carry insurance, and a whole lot of people can only afford basic liability insurance, a cyclist hitting a car could well mean some poor person having to pay out of pocket and not being able to afford it, losing their car, and that unraveling all kinds of things in their life. Lives are ruined every day in the US by people losing their transportation. Or it could just be that some asshole runs into your car, puts a dent in it and fucks your paint up, and you have to pay out of pocket because this dickhead whose judgement is missing happens to be no worse for the wear and decides to scoot rather than deal with a problem that’s “not his”. Or it gets reported properly and you have to sue this dude to get the money to fix your car before the scrapes start rusting.
I call that “it’s no big deal” attitude entitled.
But what’s more, it’s a traffic incident. It means police getting involved, it means insurance companies and the potential for the driver’s rates to go up through no fault of their own, and if the cyclist is seriously hurt or worse, it means a lot of heartache and trauma for everyone involved, maybe more people than that. Discounting the realities of how disruptive, expensive, or downright bad it can be even if it’s the cyclist running into a vehicle or the incident just being their fault is irresponsible at best and a bad faith argument.
Going back to the idaho rules specifically, those same rules would make perfect sense for a car, too. We’ve all been stuck at a red light at night with nobody coming for blocks. If the coast is clear to go, it’s clear to go, right? Well, no, the rules are in place because capital P People are a bunch of idiots, and they’d be crashing cars more than they already do if those rules weren’t there even when they don’t seem to make sense in the moment. The same is true for cyclists. As many times as cyclists have blown through their red light into my green light, I’ve seen them do that to others even more. Same of cyclists shooting in between me and my parking spot while I’m very obviously parallel parking, backing up with my blinker on and moving.
Different sets of rules for different vehicles sharing the same space are a bad idea, full stop.I have spoken.
