Is this a surprise? America's run on the car for over 100 years; it's deeply ingrained in the culture. Replacing that culture was never a matter of trails, lanes, or bike sharing.
The Seattle bikers disappear when it's cold and rainy.
In Amsterdam, the bikers are more sensible. They wear street clothes, and ride heavy bikes suitable for street clothes and casual use. In Seattle, it has to be a $$$$ racing bike and one has to wear a tour de france spandex outfit. It's the law.
A racing bike for commuting isn't that sensible an option either though. Unless you race in your spare time and want to get miles on the bike, a hybrid or touring bike will be a lot more comfortable and durable on city roads.
People don't actually commute on racing bikes in Seattle all that often. At least not the ones I see. Touring bikes, cyclocross, and similar with slightly larger tires and often disc brakes seem more common.
Where are the hills in Seattle? It may not be as flat as Amsterdam, but it certainly isn’t San Francisco (or even LA, for that matter).
I had the good fortune to essentially never get in a car in Seattle — I always took the subway, or the trolley, or walked. Granted I only ever spent a lot of time at Amazon and the Hutch, most everywhere beyond walking distance of south lake union or the subway is a blank spot on the map to me. But it seemed like a pretty casual place to bike commute.
I rode to work most every day when I lived in SF, and in DC, and for a while in LA. Perversely, it was always safest where the traffic was worst (gridlocked) as drivers couldn’t get going fast enough to severely injure me then. Northern Virginia by contrast was terrifying — soccer moms barreling around at 70mph in SUVs while on cell phones. I think it’s a cultural issue — that wouldn’t fly in the Netherlands.
"Capitol Hill", "First Hill", "Beacon Hill", "Queen Anne Hill". Seattle has a lot of hills, especially if you're traveling east-west. They're called drumlins: https://youtu.be/oSSxdogrv1s?t=190
I used to ride to work in Seattle, about 5 miles with one hill.
I rode my ancient 10-speed I'd had since a teen, and wore street clothes.
It was before the silly bike madness rolled over the city. I first noticed it when I invited my gf out for a ride, and she had to go buy a special bike outfit first.
I live in Seattle, and there's a stark contrast between the Amsterdam bike culture and the Seattle one.
It's as I said. Yes, I'll pass someone once in a while on a bike in Seattle in street clothes, maybe one in twenty. The rest are in logo spandex. The ratio is reversed in Amsterdam.
Nobody wears a helmet in Amsterdam, either. Yes, I know you do :-) Make that one in a hundred. They're riding a sturdy bike often with a basket in front for the groceries. I've never seen a basket on a Seattle bike. After all, you never see a basket on the TdF.
Your argument is disingenuous because you're comparing apples to oranges.
In Amsterdam, and in all of Holland, riding a bike is simply the first mode of transportation we think of. Wanna go to the supermarket? We just go outside and grab our bikes and we're off, no second thoughts about it. This is exactly like how Americans would just grab their keys and get in their car, no second thoughts about it.
I'm guessing the reason you only see people in road bikes and spandex in the US are 1) confirmation bias because you just don't notice the people who ride the city share bikes or the you dismiss people entirely for being hipsters riding fixies and so on, and 2) because riding a bike isn't a mode of transportation in the US.
#2 is the big thing though. Most Americans I have ever met think that bicycles are primarily for exercising or for leisure, but few will say it's a mode of transportation. In Holland bicycling is the primary mode of transportation.
Also we don’t have helmuts because we’ve grown up in a society where people don’t get angry at you for riding your bike. Where people don’t run you off the road for laughs. Where people won’t speed off and disappear if they crash into you. Where people have been trained to pay attention to bicyclists from the moment they can walk outdoors.
A friend recently came to visit me here in Holland. She’s German, so you might assume that she’s used to bicyclists because she’s European or whatever. That assumption would be wrong because I had to grab her by her arms so many times to get her to stop walking because she just was not raised in a culture where you pay attention to bicyclists. Had I not grabbed her arms to stop her all those times she would have stepped out onto a bicycle path and gotten run over. This is the difference between bicycling in Holland and the world, and it makes no sense to compare Seattle and Amsterdam like you are.
Actually I live in Seattle and for 3 years did 1200 miles / year on a bike. My commute is too long to bike now regularly.
Yes, I wear a helmet, I have WAY too much invested in this noggin to not wear one. Also I played football for 9 years, so I'm used to wearing helmets.
No basket but I can get a week of groceries into my full size chrome backpack. I can't couldn't really have a heavy steel bike with a basket, my commute has too much vertical. Old was 6.5 miles, 500ft climb (kirkland to bellevue). New one is 12 miles, 1100ft climb (renton highlands to seattle).
$5k bike for me, I'm big so I retrofitted a craigslist cyclocross aluminum bike for $400 with discs.
Same is valid for Asian countries. Bikes and bikers clothes culture is focused more on the utility rather than fancy looks. I would blame the US bike market for focusing only on looks.
Bike fenders are not allowed in Seattle, since they weigh too much. So in the rain you get to enjoy the mud stripe up your back. And the brakes don't work when wet, either, which is fun on the hills.
I would love to bike to work everyday, but there are a few things that prevent me from doing so, none of which are the weather like another poster suggests.
1. Lack of showers in basically everywhere I’ve worked. I don’t mind making a 10+ mile trip each way twice a day, but not if it means I get to sit there at work smelly and gross the entire day.
2. The ingrained sense of “fuck bikers” that most people feel in the US. I mean, go on any public forum and ask people what they think of bicyclists riding their bikes on the road, where we are legally allowed to do. You will be met with so much vitriol. People will literally tell you they hope you get ran over and die because you deserve it.
I bike to work every day (10km each way) in Victoria BC, and people are dicks here. You're definitely a second class citizen as a biker. I had a guy that lives on my street that basically did everything except run me over less than 500 meters from my house. I see him regularly and he still did it.
It's not the sweat that stinks, it's the bacteria living in your sweat, which takes hours to foment. If you take a shower and wash it off before you leave in the morning, the ride isn't going to make you smell. It's sitting around all day with damp pits that causes the smell.
> I mean, go on any public forum and ask people what they think of bicyclists riding their bikes on the road, where we are legally allowed to do.
To be fair, there just is no good way to share a 40mph thoroughfare between bikers and cars. Most of the Northern European countries get away with sharing by having MUCH slower roads.
Bikers need their own dedicated lanes that don't interact with automobile traffic.
Our town has put in several bike lanes, and they just seem like asking to get run over at intersections from people turning right. I would feel super uncomfortable riding in one I think. I know the sidewalk is technically not for biking on, but it feels much safer for everyone involved.
It's also a problem with people not being smart enough to pass someone on a bike, which causes everyone in cars anger. I can't wait for cars to be not operated by humans. It will be safer for everyone.
The "fuck bikers" depends a lot on what city you're in. In some places cars go out of their way to make room for cyclists. At times in Boulder I've thought that at times cars can be too polite towards cyclists.
I lived for a while in one of the most bike-friendly cities and have several occasions burned into my memory where I very nearly killed a cyclist not using courtesy, common sense, or most often following the law. A few examples: riding on the sidewalk crossing the street at high speed having not stopped at all, riding the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights, passing me on the right when I'm stopped in a right turn lane with my signal on, and many many occasions of running red lights trusting cars with right of way will slow down enough to leave room.
There are lots of bikers who have much to say about traffic laws, but only the ones that empower them while breaking every law that might require more energy or delay. It is frustrating when traffic laws go largely unenforced (and very gratifying when they do).
While it was never a daily-commute I rather liked biking around the city myself, and I get that it's frustrating for both cars and bikes themselves to share the road. But with many on bikes with the attitude of "fuck you I have the legal right to be here AND the rules don't apply to me" acted out, the response isn't really all that unfair (and crazies taking it too far isn't unexpected).
It's hard to find anyone in a public forum focusing on the best way to share the road where sharing doesn't selfishly mean "you sharing with me".
> The ingrained sense of “fuck bikers” that most people feel in the US.
As a child, I would regularly take 10-20 mile bike rides for fun. That continued up until I went off to college.
When I started driving a car, bikers didn't bother me, because we lived out in the countryside and they're easy to drive by, and even in nearby larger cities bikers were pretty rare, and sensible.
Then I moved to a large metro city. I'm tempted to say that's where my disdain of bikers began, but that's not right. It's not disdain at all, it's fear.
Compared to the car drivers around me, bikers are wildly unpredictable. Car drivers aren't totally predictable, that's how bad bikers are around here.
Riding through red lights "because it's too much work" to stop and start up again. Switching between riding on sidewalks and roads with no warning. Cutting across lanes and oncoming traffic with little to no warning. Swinging in and out of bike lanes with no warning. Riding between lanes of cars waiting at a traffic light.
Rules of the road exist for a reason, and bikers who stick to them are fine by me. I definitely don't believe anyone deserves to get hit, but it's hard to have the same amount of empathy for a group that collectively flouts the very things that are meant to keep them from getting hit.
Walking can also be dangerous. Especially if you follow the laws. If find it a lot safer the do the made up crime of "jaywalking" between intersections than crossing legally. I have had several close calls crossing legally because of people just not paying attention. I have had zero close calls crossing between intersections.
Am I right in thinking that American traffic lights don’t actually stop cars for pedestrians? They just sort of give you more priority don’t they? What’s the advantage of crossing away from the lights?
Away from the lights you have 2 directions to check for traffic from. At an intersection you have to be aware of people coming from 4 directions potentially turning towards you.
They may not fully run it, but they often stop in the crosswalk here (GA). I live in a very walkable area and have to be very careful crossing the one major busy street even when they don’t run the light. By the time I’m confident they will actually stop, the light is almost ready to change again.
The walk light will often be on at the same time as the green light for drivers going the same direction. Sometimes a turning driver won't notice you. Doesn't happen that often, but happens often enough that you have to be aware of it.
A lot of times it is just easier to cross in the middle of a block because you have a much better buffer area where random cars can't pop out from. Obviously it depends on the particular road. If it is some 6 lane wide main thoroughfare, I'd probably opt for the cross walk.
We have legal right turns on red here. Cars will look left for a gap, and not notice the pedestrian crossing to their right when the light turns green & walk at the same time. Distracted people might not go until the light turns green (no arrow, so they're supposed to yield), and not notice the pedestrian trying to cross when they got the walk symbol. Compounding matters - several drivers don't stop before the crosswalk like they're supposed to, so people in the rightmost lane go even farther into the crosswalk so they can look left for gaps in traffic - often fast enough they don't have time to react to pedestrians.
Cars turning left on green (but no arrow) often won't notice crossing pedestrians they're supposed to yield to either. They may stop, but now they're blocking oncoming traffic (often hazardous), so they're likely to try and clear the intersection if they feel there's enough room. Of course, they're probably also blocking the visibility of the person tailgaiting them, who will also go through the intersection as a result, enough room or not.
All that turning traffic accounts for 3 of the directions you have to check with a valid walk signal (everything but orthogonal traffic coming from the opposite side of the road) - the 4th comes from people running the tail end of red lights, which happens pretty frequently too. Even ignoring illegally short yellow light timings, people will try to squeeze in. Vroom vroom.
If you’re allowed to turn right while lights are red for pedestrians that only means one lane can cross your path if you’re a pedestrian - the lane your sidewalk runs alongside.
Legal right on red is contributing to the behavior of the car driving east and turning south (who hasn't noticed they now have a green light), as well as the the car driving north and turning east (who's LOS is blocked by a truck, SUV, small van with tinted windows, etc. and is pushing that far up so they can see left enough to spot a gap which they can use to turn right on red)
Note that cars must stop before turning right on a red, so it’s not a total free-for-all. The stopping forces them to yield to pedestrians most of the time.
And to be fair, if these drivers were all properly following the law as written, the problems would be far fewer.
It's not uncommon to have stop lines farther back from the crosswalks for middle lanes to help improve visibility for the right lane - but even the ones that aren't worn down are often ignored by inattentive drivers. You're supposed to fully stop before the crosswalk even when turning right, but many drivers turning right don't fully stop at all - and are at best planning to stop with the crosswalk blocked. You're not supposed to speed up when you see a yellow light. All these things are ticketable offenses, in theory.
Between lax enforcement, lax punishments, lax driver education, and driving while texting, sleepy, high, or just plain drunk... well, I usually don't encounter problems from all 4 directions when crossing a street, but 1 or 2 is pretty common. I feel decently safe crossing, but only because I keep my head on a paranoid swivel. Occasionally I have to kinda hang out in the middle of the crosswalk for a few seconds while I wait for some idiots who failed to yield, and I'll throw up my hands in pantomimed exasperation...
I wonder how things would go if many streets had pedestrian crossings were in the middle of blocks and the corners where traffic circles. You couldn't do that everywhere because of buses and truck and other long vehicles. Maybe if you could also drive over the center of them. We have a circle like that here.
Around here we have a wide variety. Sometimes they do nothing. Sometimes they don't change the main traffic pattern at all, but won't ever display "walk" unless you press them. Sometimes they change the traffic pattern. Sometimes behavior changes at different times of day. Sometimes they're legit broken - at one intersection, a button I used only worked maybe 30% of the time, unless you were holding it down at the exact moment the cycle changed, then it worked 100% of the time.
I recently stood at a light for like 15 minutes before I realized a button was available. There was no pedestrian crosswalk scheduled at that light at all. Once pressed traffic in all directions stopped in about 1-2 minutes. It was glorious.
> What changed that I was unaware of? As far as I know, it still makes traffic flow much more efficient in most situations.
Right turn on red was mostly implemented to avoid having cars idling waiting for a timer-only light to turn.
Between modern cars with fast engine stop/start and modern sensor technology which triggers lights when there is no opposing traffic, there are a lot of good reasons to remove that rule again.
A common and smart design I've noticed here (Canada), is that at moderately busy pedestrian intersections the walk signal will turn on a couple seconds before the traffic light turns green. This means when people first start walking, all directions have a red light, and then it's also much more obvious to traffic that people are crossing because they're already on the street while the cars are still stopped.
I think on some intersections pressing the button will make this delay longer, but it's hard to tell from casual observation. Also, traffic light timings are set by the municipality, so it can vary by city and depending on the age of the intersection.
The most dangerous intersections I find are on the multi-lane suburban arterial roads. Pedestrians are less common (than in neighborhoods or downtown) so drivers generally aren't watching for them as much. You really have to be careful with cars turning right on a red - even if there's a walk signal - because they're looking to their left for traffic to see if it's clear for them to go, and not for people coming the right about to walk in front of them.
That doesn’t make any sense - when a pedestrian wants to cross why not give all traffic a full red light? That’s how every traffic light I’ve ever used outside the US works. In the US I’m not even sure what a walk light guarantees a pedestrian?
It guarantees no cross traffic. Turns are still a threat.
I’ve seen the type of light you describe (all pedestrians walk in all directions at once while all cars have a red) in the US but they’re exceedingly rare. In cities there’s always pedestrians and cars waiting in every direction so it would be too slow to be practical.
Keep in mind the traffic light system doesn't know if there's a pedestrian actually crossing the road, so my guess would be that it's a compromise between pedestrian safety and traffic efficiency. The longer you have an intersection stopped (especially with no pedestrians actively crossing) the more congestion (and annoyed drivers aka taxpayers) you get.
People don't always press the buttons, and not all intersections even have buttons. Even with a button press, there's no way to tell the difference between a jogger and a group of elderly people using walkers, so you have to assume the longest possible delay.
That said, there is a thing called a pedestrian scramble intersection [1] with a part of the cycle where all the traffic lights go red and all the walk signals turn on, allowing pedestrians to cross even diagonally. This is relatively rare, only being used at some of the busiest pedestrian intersections in some cities.
Traffic signals need to get a whole lot smarter. If our cars can figure out how to drive, traffic lights should be able to see people and cars and make things much safer and more efficient.
Plus a traffic light's sensors wouldn't even moving around in the environment, so it's got to be that much easier. And they can be positioned all over an area, on both sides of obstacles. And they can be higher up for a better view.
The downside is that every intersection is different and drawing conclusions from all that information will be harder. And the stakes are higher with a system that directs everybody else.
They do two things. First, you get right of way (so highest priority). Second, the only cars they do not stop are right turns. As other commenters have mentioned, the point is to improve efficiency, both since cars can turn right once there are no pedestrians, but also since pedestrians can cross for a longer period of time. On the other hand, it can also be annoying for cars, since they often never get a dedicated right turn without pedestrians.
Honestly I think stop lights aren't a big danger for pedestrians. Crossing at intersections with stop signs is far, far worse -- drivers have to pay attention to multiple directions of traffic as well as pedestrians.
In the UK as well. As someone from Australia, I was so surprised so many people riding in all conditions, when back home it was incredibly rare even though the conditions were so good, all the time.
I feel like in Europe and America, the attitude is
"If somebody breaks the rules, it's morally justified to endanger that person".
I recently experienced cycling in Taipei. Traffic rules seem to be somewhat "loose" compared to the situation in European cities. Two lanes, but some space? Let's make a third lane. Red light? Better pay attention while running it.
But, and that's my main takeaway, people don't want to kill each other and keep calm in any situation.
Riding the bicycle doesn't feel like "one against them", it's more like "I'm in this chaos together with all the others".
[edit]
I'm not advocating for less rules, but for a more harmonic attitude towards others in traffic.
I can't find numbers specifically for bikes being hit by cars, but it looks like vehicle related deaths per vehicle owned are significantly higher for Taiwan than the US.
If you take into consideration that Americans drive more per person than any other country, driving is much more dangerous in Taiwan. I'd imagine biking is also fairly dangerous.
Oh it sure is, the traffic is crazy after all. But there is no hostile attitude towards each other.
My point is not that traffic rules should be loose -- it is that we're in traffic together and we should relax from time to time, watching out for others.
This is a generalization but very many less developed countries have much less adherence to traffic laws and very many more traffic injuries. The attitude might be better but the outcomes are worse.
Bikers tend to forget the class separations that biking entails. You can only ride to work if your work supports biking. That means a place to lock your bike and a place to shower/change. Most people work at places without such luxuries. And you have to be in a job where you don't have to look nice all day. Public-facing people such as receptionists or sales people cannot bike to work. People who have to haul their own tools cannot bike to work. If your job can tick all the boxes, great for you. But don't lecture those who don't have such options.
I'm reminded of that scene from the IT Crowd where the boss, in bike shorts, is yelling at a room full of people in suits about stress. The ability to bike to work is often a distinction, something to be waved over those in you organization who dare not wear spandex in an office environment.
You don't need to shower or change after biking to work in many climates. Look at the cyclists in Holland. They wear street clothes and don't go fast enough to sweat a lot.
Your argument already starts to show it's flaws when considering the Netherlands where a lot of people bike to work in all layers of the organization ... most notably our prime minister bikes to work, but so does everyone else basically if you live close by.
This is because this issue is now tribal and political. In "Critical Mass" bicyclists gather together and block common roads. Very American, but not an effective way to promote anything.
Was there also some other action where mostly ugly fat people drive around naked - the purpose of which now escapes me.
Also in America you can often see fat bicyclists in tights, to reduce wind resistance I presume?
I feel like biking to work is being promoted just for the sake of polishing city's reputation. Cities would build all these fancy facilities, which are grossly expensive infrastructure to build and maintain, just for sake of feeling that they did something to solve traffic problems. Everyone is aware of problems a biker faces on everyday commute(lack of amenities at work, not safe, weather, lack of infrastructure and motor driver's attitude) all of which needs to be solved for more people to adopt biking.
This is because this issue is now tribal and political. In "Critical Mass" bicyclists gather together and block common roads. Very American, but not an effective way to promote anything.
Was there also some other action where mostly ugly fat people drive around naked - the purpose of which now escapes me.
Also in America you can often see fat bicyclists in tights, to reduce wind resistance I presume?
Keep in mind this is the American Community Survey, which, unlike the full census, only counts about 1% of the population.
Given that cyclist commuters only only account for 0.3% of the population already, the large swings become a little less statistically significant.
I don’t find it hard to believe that cyclist commuting decreased by a few percent overall, but it is hard to believe that
cycling decreased in Oakland by 25% while increasing in Philadelphia by 20% in one year.
88 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 73.2 ms ] threadIn Amsterdam, the bikers are more sensible. They wear street clothes, and ride heavy bikes suitable for street clothes and casual use. In Seattle, it has to be a $$$$ racing bike and one has to wear a tour de france spandex outfit. It's the law.
I had the good fortune to essentially never get in a car in Seattle — I always took the subway, or the trolley, or walked. Granted I only ever spent a lot of time at Amazon and the Hutch, most everywhere beyond walking distance of south lake union or the subway is a blank spot on the map to me. But it seemed like a pretty casual place to bike commute.
I rode to work most every day when I lived in SF, and in DC, and for a while in LA. Perversely, it was always safest where the traffic was worst (gridlocked) as drivers couldn’t get going fast enough to severely injure me then. Northern Virginia by contrast was terrifying — soccer moms barreling around at 70mph in SUVs while on cell phones. I think it’s a cultural issue — that wouldn’t fly in the Netherlands.
I rode my ancient 10-speed I'd had since a teen, and wore street clothes.
It was before the silly bike madness rolled over the city. I first noticed it when I invited my gf out for a ride, and she had to go buy a special bike outfit first.
Every ride you remove from a car is a good thing. If people are riding half the year that's better than driving the full year.
I've biked to work for years, always just wore bike knickers and a tshirt. Bike jacket for the rain.
It's as I said. Yes, I'll pass someone once in a while on a bike in Seattle in street clothes, maybe one in twenty. The rest are in logo spandex. The ratio is reversed in Amsterdam.
Nobody wears a helmet in Amsterdam, either. Yes, I know you do :-) Make that one in a hundred. They're riding a sturdy bike often with a basket in front for the groceries. I've never seen a basket on a Seattle bike. After all, you never see a basket on the TdF.
In Amsterdam, and in all of Holland, riding a bike is simply the first mode of transportation we think of. Wanna go to the supermarket? We just go outside and grab our bikes and we're off, no second thoughts about it. This is exactly like how Americans would just grab their keys and get in their car, no second thoughts about it.
I'm guessing the reason you only see people in road bikes and spandex in the US are 1) confirmation bias because you just don't notice the people who ride the city share bikes or the you dismiss people entirely for being hipsters riding fixies and so on, and 2) because riding a bike isn't a mode of transportation in the US.
#2 is the big thing though. Most Americans I have ever met think that bicycles are primarily for exercising or for leisure, but few will say it's a mode of transportation. In Holland bicycling is the primary mode of transportation.
Also we don’t have helmuts because we’ve grown up in a society where people don’t get angry at you for riding your bike. Where people don’t run you off the road for laughs. Where people won’t speed off and disappear if they crash into you. Where people have been trained to pay attention to bicyclists from the moment they can walk outdoors.
A friend recently came to visit me here in Holland. She’s German, so you might assume that she’s used to bicyclists because she’s European or whatever. That assumption would be wrong because I had to grab her by her arms so many times to get her to stop walking because she just was not raised in a culture where you pay attention to bicyclists. Had I not grabbed her arms to stop her all those times she would have stepped out onto a bicycle path and gotten run over. This is the difference between bicycling in Holland and the world, and it makes no sense to compare Seattle and Amsterdam like you are.
Yes, I wear a helmet, I have WAY too much invested in this noggin to not wear one. Also I played football for 9 years, so I'm used to wearing helmets.
No basket but I can get a week of groceries into my full size chrome backpack. I can't couldn't really have a heavy steel bike with a basket, my commute has too much vertical. Old was 6.5 miles, 500ft climb (kirkland to bellevue). New one is 12 miles, 1100ft climb (renton highlands to seattle).
$5k bike for me, I'm big so I retrofitted a craigslist cyclocross aluminum bike for $400 with discs.
1. Lack of showers in basically everywhere I’ve worked. I don’t mind making a 10+ mile trip each way twice a day, but not if it means I get to sit there at work smelly and gross the entire day.
2. The ingrained sense of “fuck bikers” that most people feel in the US. I mean, go on any public forum and ask people what they think of bicyclists riding their bikes on the road, where we are legally allowed to do. You will be met with so much vitriol. People will literally tell you they hope you get ran over and die because you deserve it.
To be fair, there just is no good way to share a 40mph thoroughfare between bikers and cars. Most of the Northern European countries get away with sharing by having MUCH slower roads.
Bikers need their own dedicated lanes that don't interact with automobile traffic.
It's generally illegal to bike on the sidewalk, and less safe.
A family member got a fairly serious concussion being hit by a cyclist on a sidewalk.
It has some safety issues, but the legality is a mixed bag; here's a summary for just the East Bay (of the SF Bay Area).
https://bikeeastbay.org/SidewalkCycling
Now tell that to random people and they will get angry and upset and wish you harm.
It seems like the problem isn’t the lack of bicycle infrastructure, it’s the ingrained culture.
I lived for a while in one of the most bike-friendly cities and have several occasions burned into my memory where I very nearly killed a cyclist not using courtesy, common sense, or most often following the law. A few examples: riding on the sidewalk crossing the street at high speed having not stopped at all, riding the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights, passing me on the right when I'm stopped in a right turn lane with my signal on, and many many occasions of running red lights trusting cars with right of way will slow down enough to leave room.
There are lots of bikers who have much to say about traffic laws, but only the ones that empower them while breaking every law that might require more energy or delay. It is frustrating when traffic laws go largely unenforced (and very gratifying when they do).
While it was never a daily-commute I rather liked biking around the city myself, and I get that it's frustrating for both cars and bikes themselves to share the road. But with many on bikes with the attitude of "fuck you I have the legal right to be here AND the rules don't apply to me" acted out, the response isn't really all that unfair (and crazies taking it too far isn't unexpected).
It's hard to find anyone in a public forum focusing on the best way to share the road where sharing doesn't selfishly mean "you sharing with me".
*note: it wasn't at all because they were following the rules of the road.
As a child, I would regularly take 10-20 mile bike rides for fun. That continued up until I went off to college.
When I started driving a car, bikers didn't bother me, because we lived out in the countryside and they're easy to drive by, and even in nearby larger cities bikers were pretty rare, and sensible.
Then I moved to a large metro city. I'm tempted to say that's where my disdain of bikers began, but that's not right. It's not disdain at all, it's fear.
Compared to the car drivers around me, bikers are wildly unpredictable. Car drivers aren't totally predictable, that's how bad bikers are around here.
Riding through red lights "because it's too much work" to stop and start up again. Switching between riding on sidewalks and roads with no warning. Cutting across lanes and oncoming traffic with little to no warning. Swinging in and out of bike lanes with no warning. Riding between lanes of cars waiting at a traffic light.
Rules of the road exist for a reason, and bikers who stick to them are fine by me. I definitely don't believe anyone deserves to get hit, but it's hard to have the same amount of empathy for a group that collectively flouts the very things that are meant to keep them from getting hit.
Otherwise, it's just too dangerous from my perspective. Too many drivers do not pay attention.
A lot of times it is just easier to cross in the middle of a block because you have a much better buffer area where random cars can't pop out from. Obviously it depends on the particular road. If it is some 6 lane wide main thoroughfare, I'd probably opt for the cross walk.
Well that’s just bonkers.
Where I live when a pedestrian wants to cross the lights stop all cars for the duration.
Cars turning left on green (but no arrow) often won't notice crossing pedestrians they're supposed to yield to either. They may stop, but now they're blocking oncoming traffic (often hazardous), so they're likely to try and clear the intersection if they feel there's enough room. Of course, they're probably also blocking the visibility of the person tailgaiting them, who will also go through the intersection as a result, enough room or not.
All that turning traffic accounts for 3 of the directions you have to check with a valid walk signal (everything but orthogonal traffic coming from the opposite side of the road) - the 4th comes from people running the tail end of red lights, which happens pretty frequently too. Even ignoring illegally short yellow light timings, people will try to squeeze in. Vroom vroom.
Legal right on red is contributing to the behavior of the car driving east and turning south (who hasn't noticed they now have a green light), as well as the the car driving north and turning east (who's LOS is blocked by a truck, SUV, small van with tinted windows, etc. and is pushing that far up so they can see left enough to spot a gap which they can use to turn right on red)
Every red light in this situation has a get-out clause, and no green light can be trusted.
Note that cars must stop before turning right on a red, so it’s not a total free-for-all. The stopping forces them to yield to pedestrians most of the time.
It's not uncommon to have stop lines farther back from the crosswalks for middle lanes to help improve visibility for the right lane - but even the ones that aren't worn down are often ignored by inattentive drivers. You're supposed to fully stop before the crosswalk even when turning right, but many drivers turning right don't fully stop at all - and are at best planning to stop with the crosswalk blocked. You're not supposed to speed up when you see a yellow light. All these things are ticketable offenses, in theory.
Between lax enforcement, lax punishments, lax driver education, and driving while texting, sleepy, high, or just plain drunk... well, I usually don't encounter problems from all 4 directions when crossing a street, but 1 or 2 is pretty common. I feel decently safe crossing, but only because I keep my head on a paranoid swivel. Occasionally I have to kinda hang out in the middle of the crosswalk for a few seconds while I wait for some idiots who failed to yield, and I'll throw up my hands in pantomimed exasperation...
Some buttons trigger the “walk” sign but don’t actually change the traffic signals for cars.
Some buttons are placebo, perhaps with a secondary function of emitting a loud tone to let blind people know the walk signal has turned on.
Some buttons trigger the traffic lights to stop.
Some buttons turn the traffic light to a 4 way red light.
I have encountered all these types of buttons on the east coast of the US in various states.
We need to get rid of that rule now that the justification for it no longer exists.
What changed that I was unaware of? As far as I know, it still makes traffic flow much more efficient in most situations.
Also, at least where I live, the walk light wouldn't be on at the same time as someone turning right on red that would be going into my path.
What guarantees this exactly? I'm having a hard time seeing how this is possible.
Right turn on red was mostly implemented to avoid having cars idling waiting for a timer-only light to turn.
Between modern cars with fast engine stop/start and modern sensor technology which triggers lights when there is no opposing traffic, there are a lot of good reasons to remove that rule again.
I think on some intersections pressing the button will make this delay longer, but it's hard to tell from casual observation. Also, traffic light timings are set by the municipality, so it can vary by city and depending on the age of the intersection.
The most dangerous intersections I find are on the multi-lane suburban arterial roads. Pedestrians are less common (than in neighborhoods or downtown) so drivers generally aren't watching for them as much. You really have to be careful with cars turning right on a red - even if there's a walk signal - because they're looking to their left for traffic to see if it's clear for them to go, and not for people coming the right about to walk in front of them.
But why on earth would you turn the tragic light green while the walk signal is still on? Why not one at a time?
I’ve seen the type of light you describe (all pedestrians walk in all directions at once while all cars have a red) in the US but they’re exceedingly rare. In cities there’s always pedestrians and cars waiting in every direction so it would be too slow to be practical.
People don't always press the buttons, and not all intersections even have buttons. Even with a button press, there's no way to tell the difference between a jogger and a group of elderly people using walkers, so you have to assume the longest possible delay.
That said, there is a thing called a pedestrian scramble intersection [1] with a part of the cycle where all the traffic lights go red and all the walk signals turn on, allowing pedestrians to cross even diagonally. This is relatively rare, only being used at some of the busiest pedestrian intersections in some cities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble
Plus a traffic light's sensors wouldn't even moving around in the environment, so it's got to be that much easier. And they can be positioned all over an area, on both sides of obstacles. And they can be higher up for a better view.
The downside is that every intersection is different and drawing conclusions from all that information will be harder. And the stakes are higher with a system that directs everybody else.
Honestly I think stop lights aren't a big danger for pedestrians. Crossing at intersections with stop signs is far, far worse -- drivers have to pay attention to multiple directions of traffic as well as pedestrians.
At the company I'm working at there is some programs where you can buy a bicycle and the company pays you some percentage of the price back [1]
[1]: https://www.jobrad.org
I recently experienced cycling in Taipei. Traffic rules seem to be somewhat "loose" compared to the situation in European cities. Two lanes, but some space? Let's make a third lane. Red light? Better pay attention while running it.
But, and that's my main takeaway, people don't want to kill each other and keep calm in any situation.
Riding the bicycle doesn't feel like "one against them", it's more like "I'm in this chaos together with all the others".
[edit] I'm not advocating for less rules, but for a more harmonic attitude towards others in traffic.
If you take into consideration that Americans drive more per person than any other country, driving is much more dangerous in Taiwan. I'd imagine biking is also fairly dangerous.
My point is not that traffic rules should be loose -- it is that we're in traffic together and we should relax from time to time, watching out for others.
Taiwan's HDI is between Austria and Luxembourg.
I'm reminded of that scene from the IT Crowd where the boss, in bike shorts, is yelling at a room full of people in suits about stress. The ability to bike to work is often a distinction, something to be waved over those in you organization who dare not wear spandex in an office environment.
Was there also some other action where mostly ugly fat people drive around naked - the purpose of which now escapes me.
Also in America you can often see fat bicyclists in tights, to reduce wind resistance I presume?
Was there also some other action where mostly ugly fat people drive around naked - the purpose of which now escapes me.
Also in America you can often see fat bicyclists in tights, to reduce wind resistance I presume?
Given that cyclist commuters only only account for 0.3% of the population already, the large swings become a little less statistically significant.
I don’t find it hard to believe that cyclist commuting decreased by a few percent overall, but it is hard to believe that cycling decreased in Oakland by 25% while increasing in Philadelphia by 20% in one year.