It's not really a policy change though is it? Aren't they enforcing laws that cyclists previously were breaking with impunity? I would like them to show their work too, but I don't really see the policy conspiracy angle to this.
Because obviously, this is NYC's biggest problem. I can see the headlines now: "Cyclist Moving Violation Crime Wave Hits as Snowfall Begins, but NYPD Strikes Back"
Most auto drivers, myself included, regularly (and with impunity) break the law against driving over the speed limit. If police announced they intend to start ticketing people for even 1-9mpg speeding violations, we would all agree this was a massive "policy change."
(Note that I'm not saying that these law breaking activities are equivalent; only that there are a multitude of laws that are not enforced, and a change in enforcement is indeed a policy change.)
Even if the numbers are completely made up, I'm not going to be outraged that police decided to enforce laws that cyclists need to be abiding by anyway.
It's about the opportunity cost. What other thing could the police be doing instead of giving traffic tickets to cyclists? After all, the best case outcome of doing so is to reduce pedestrian injuries from 1 per year to 0 per year, which isn't much of a benefit. 16000 people were injured and 178 killed by cars in NYC in 2013. That's a much richer hunting ground for police activity.
"Stop turning a blind eye" doesn't require that many new resources to enforce. The only opportunity cost is the time it takes the officer to write the ticket, which isn't much.
NYPD says they don't even have the resources to investigate fatal car crashes. They didn't bother investigating the death of a three year old girl in a crosswalk this year. The driver didn't even get so much as a ticket. If there's some cop standing around with nothing to do I'm sure they could be assigned to look into the fifty pedestrian injury collisions that happen every day in New York.
>> "If there's some cop standing around with nothing to do..."
Honestly, I have (almost) only ever seen NYPD officers standing around with nothing to do. I don't know if that's because they are drastically overmanned or because they intentionally deploy loafing cops for the deterrent effect.
The enforcement tactic in NYC w/r/t cyclist infractions is to have at least two cops sitting around ticketing every biker who goes by committing a minor infraction. The opportunity cost is everything else those officers could've been doing for those several hours (perhaps ticketing the numerous cars blowing through red lights at the very same intersection.)
I live in NYC, I have seen this happen.
Of course, it is much more difficult and disruptive to ticket a car that has just blown a red light at high speed, than a biker who has blown a red light. Unfortunately, the city isn't allowed to install red light cams in most places because of Albany. Red light cams would be a safe, fair counterpart to increased red light enforcement for bikes. That being said, very very very few people are injured and none are killed because of bikes running reds (neither collision in Central Park this year was at an intersection). Likely hundreds are injured and at least dozens are killed from cars running red lights every year.
Could also be that they are only looking at the subset of collisions involving bicycles where the cyclist was determined to be at fault, which isn't data available in the analysis given here.
They actually started towards the end of the summer, at least here in Brooklyn. Hadn't seen a biker get pulled over for things like not coming to a complete halt at stops signs in 3 years I've been here. Witnessed about 5 of them in the span of 3 weeks, heard about plenty more. I'm all for it. Casual bikers around here are not exactly fun to deal with.
I think one of the issues is that lots of people play fast and loose with the rules when moving about ... whether it be walking, bicycling or driving. And it's so easy to say "well I use this mode and I notice the people who use THAT mode are constantly breaking the rules and that's not safe!".
If there's a demand to enforce the rules more stringently in the name of safety, would those doing the demanding also want to see citations for jaywalking?
I for one would love to see more enforcement of jaywalking. I drive through the intersection of Cambridge and First in Cambridge, MA by Lechmere almost every day, and the jaywalkers who ignore their lights to run for the trolley cause far more traffic problems and almost accidents and then cars or bikes.
The stats presented by the article are very myopic. Bikes are mobile objects that frequently travel between areas covered by multiple precincts. Rather than looking solely at the 5th precinct, they arguably should have presented a wider view of the city's records on bicycle activity. When you do that, it paints a very different picture of some of the statistics.
For instance - "cyclist accidents that caused deaths" : 2013: 0, 2014: 0
That's not relevant to the discussion. This article was disputing a claim that "the 5th Pct. had a 115% increase in bicycle collisions this year", not that NYC in general had an increase.
But the premise of the article asks if the 5th Precinct plans to "start ticketing more cyclists". The tweet didn't say that. It said they'll be enforcing violations, which is what you expect police officers to do with laws that are on the books.
You're right - maybe the stats are bad, and the post is right to ask for clarification. But the post assumes the tweet means they'll change their enforcement tactics, and I don't read that in this tweet.
You should be directing your criticism at the NYPD, which is the group that put forward the claim that there was a 115% increase in bicycle accidents in the 5th precinct.
Whatever the official collisions stats, I often see reckless bikers in NYC, so there should be some enforcement. E.g. bikers who zip by the wrong way against a red light and almost hit a few pedestrians.
This is what gives me hope about our government; that as much as algorithms will provide a troubling future (due to reduced emphasis on false positives in seeking to minimize false negatives) there will be a way to check the work of public pronouncements and perhaps affect change for the better.
I think that Twitter post was flawed, probably due to poor scoping and the conclusions reached by iquantny were not very meaningful due that that poor scoping and incomplete data.
There are lots of flaws in the NYPD's approach to investigating traffic incidents:
The other issue is that that the NYPD does a very poor job investigating traffic incidents... There are 19 investigators citywide (with a 40,000 member police force) and patrol officers routinely screw up the recording of data. ( http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/02/15/nypds-lax-crash-invest... )
Understanding the process in filling out reports and understanding what the data means is critical to analysis. The type of data in this dataset and the quality of the data make it difficult to draw conclusions. In a big city like NYC minor stuff like bike accidents where someone doesn't die, the police either won't get called or won't flush 20 minutes down the toilet filling out reports.
I never really understood the value in ticketing cyclists, or jay walkers for that matter in NYC. Very few people are getting hurt, even in the densest metropolitan area in the country so why are we so worried about it? Because cyclists can be annoying sometimes? Also the city speed limit went down to 25 mph. Isn't this supposed to take care of many of the collisions? Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red lights are going to be discouraged from riding as it just takes too damn long to cycle around smoggy, loud NYC stopping at every goddamn light. But those of us that are aggressive ass-hole riders are just going to be more likely to unsafely try to evade the police. Which is not hard if you know what you're doing.
It doesn't appear to be about safety, as the statistics clearly indicate that it's currently safe. It appears to be about making money and possibly discourage cycling.
> Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red lights
Speaking as someone who bikes/takes transit everywhere (in Seattle, not NYC), what an oxymoron. I'm not saying that at every single stop sign you have to come to a complete, foot-on-the-ground stop, but running lights is ridiculous and will do nothing but increase the hatred for all cyclists held by drivers by antagonizing them. Every OTHER form of transportation seems to do just fine "stopping at every goddamn light". Get off your high horse - even if a bicycle running a light isn't the same threat to public safety as a multi-ton steel death machine doing so, claiming that you can do so and be a "safe cyclist" will do nothing but hurt your credibility.
Eh, I'm a cyclist in NYC and when i come to a red light i slow way down and if there are any pedestrians or cars, I stop. But if it's completely clear, I'll roll through slowly and carefully. It feels pretty safe and I make sure that I always come to complete stops far back if there are pedestrians because they have the right away.
I've heard that some states legally treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs for bicyclists, and I think that's reasonable. I view what I do as the same as jay walking... Technically illegal, but no one is going to stand and wait at a cross walk for 30 seconds for a light to change when it's clear there's no one coming.
That's my philosophy. I primarily walk, but at times drive & bike.
My take is that iff there is no one else who could possibly be impacted by it that running stop signs and red lights is AOK.
The problem I often see with this is that most people only consider one of the other two modes of transportation (no on cares about Segways, muahaha!) and forgets the other one - often the pedestrians.
I'm fine with cyclists slowing down before hitting a red light and then rolling through because I'm at least somewhat assured that they made an active effort to look out for adult or child pedestrians and pets.
What I really hate is a pack of cyclists blowing past a red light when my kids are walking with me across a sidewalk (example: Riverside Drive).
If the drivers are present and having their hatred increased, then the cars are present and you shouldn't be running the red light when cars are present, because yes that does make you an unsafe cyclist in that regard.
No, the colour of a light doesn't make crossing the street unsafe. Even if there are fifty cars waiting at that intersection and a thousand more parked at the next lot.
The drivers that it increases hatred for aren't the parked ones ones, and aren't the ones next to you going the same direction, they are the ones that have to worry about an unexpected cyclist in their path, regardless of if you believe you will be safely out their path by the time they get to where you are.
I am sorry but I felt it was obvious I wasn't talking about parked cars.
Actually I'm pretty sure the drivers getting outraged are the ones sitting at a red light doing nothing except waiting and watching and seeing me cross on red. "Oh I saw that asshole run a red light! (HOW UNFAIR!)"
As for the drivers worrying about unexpected cyclists getting in their path.. no, that has nothing to do with the colour of the light. Yes, it may be a concern, just like unexpected cars getting in their path might be a concern. And it has nothing to do with the colour of the light. So it pays to approach an intersection carefully. Because if you drive enough, you may eventually find out that some intersections don't even have lights to begin with, and a car or a cyclist might've misjudged your speed. Yes, even I could make such a mistake and misjudge someone. That's the risk we all take in traffic. Red doesn't mean unsafe. Green doesn't mean the path is clear. What do you do when the light blinks yellow or turns off? What do you do when the light turns green for you and also for the cyclist next to you?
I run reds, but I judge the safety of it just as I would if there were no lights, or as if I were crossing where there's no intersection. And yes I do account for the fact that drivers are not going by the standard yield rules in a light-controlled intersection. I'm not reckless.
Certainly does not stop at every red light. Specifically pedestrians. Bikes are more maneuverable and faster than pedestrians while decreasing safety only by the slightest margin if even any. I honestly don't see the problem.
Also I think it's important to note that there is no term for "safely crossing an intersection even though the light is red." That and blowing through indiscriminately are both referred to as "running" which I think contributes to a large problem in perception.
As someone that has had to come to some pretty abrupt stops because bikes darted out into intersections from behind cars while they had a red light and I had a green turn arrow. I disagree. I am in Boston not NYC but there is one intersection I go through in my daily commute where this happens at least once a month, and the first couple times it happened was nearly bad.
True but ticketing the reckless ones is needed, and the fact there are reckless ones, enough that I encounter them regularly at the same intersection(its a really long light) indicates to me it should be enforced. So I was disagreeing with your belief that "while decreasing safety only by the slightest margin if even any. I honestly don't see the problem."
Many highway chases are called off because chasing the most dangerous people puts more people in danger than it's worth. It's an unfortunate reality but you can't discourage the extremely reckless by punishing the mildly.
How about a car example: If there is a four-way stop, and a car runs a stop sign because they can see there is no one else waiting, should they be ticketed?
This is a case where if something is done relatively infrequently, it is quite safe. But once it becomes common, it is very unsafe. A lot of other traffic laws are the same.
I'm a bicycle commuter in London, formerly Minneapolis, Santa Fe and Sunnyvale—Palo Alto corridor.
I agree that running red lights is bad in the general case, however I do have some exceptions. In certain circumstances waiting for the light to turn is leaving me in a vulnerable position, or a place where I'm going to block traffic and piss off a lot of drivers. In these cases sometimes I dismount and walk, sometimes I ride out slowly as a pedestrian (London intersections tend to be 3-phase with the walk cycle being all directions, also there are no turns-on-red).
This makes some people angry who want to stick their head in the sand and pretend a bicycle is the same as a motor vehicle. The problem is that it's not. If you are a fast rider in a dense urban area such as London you can at times approximate being a vehicle, but slow riders or fast uncongested roads you can't.
For me it's all about safety and courtesy. I am courteous to pedestrians and I am courteous to motor vehicle traffic. For instance, I move over to let cars pass and I don't take any more space than is necessary to be safe. If a car is stuck behind me I try to go as fast I can until it's safe to make room for them to pass. Similarly if I'm stuck in an unsafe position I may do a technical illegal maneuver to get out of it. This pisses some people off sometimes, usually drivers who have never pedaled in an urban environment ever, but you know what? It's my ass out there on the line and being at times a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian in equal shares, I have a better idea what is safe and considerate than most.
The difference, in my city, anyway, is that lights are timed for cars and not bicycles. A light pattern that usually stops a car twice might stop a cyclist three or four times. A cyclists' lower speed and presence in the open air means that they react to the environment much more quickly. It's nearly impossible for a cyclist to fail to notice cross traffic when approaching an intersection whereas it's difficult for an auto. So, a series of lights that minimally inconveniences a car, and reduces the chance of a crash, inconveniences a cyclist more and hardly reduces the chance of a crash (it may increase the chance since hindrances to cycling reduce cycling rates, which puts people in cars, which are more dangerous per mile.)
Because of all this, the "Idaho Stop" is a recognized, lawful traffic behavior for cyclists in many jurisdictions. It lets them treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs.
Someone claiming to be a safe cyclist who runs red lights may present poorly to people who only drive, or who imagine a cyclist speeding through a red light at 20+ MPH, but it's not an oxymoron and it should be understood by someone who is familiar with cycling.
According to Wikipedia, the Idaho Stop has not been adopted outside of Idaho.
I believe many jurisdictions allow bicyclists to proceed through a red light if they stop and wait for a minute or two and the light doesn't change, as a way to compensate for sensor-activated lights that bicycles won't trigger. But that's quite different.
It seems pretty common. In general, the law around cyclists and how cyclists actually behave is pretty different. And I don't mean to blame the cyclists there. In many cases (like IMO this one) the law is in the wrong and should be changed. In others (e.g. blasting through red lights without even stopping) the cyclists are in the wrong. But making the law better conform to reality here would probably make enforcing the good parts much easier.
There are cases where it's safe to run a red light. Some lights rely on sensors and simply will not change in any reasonable time if there's no traffic. In that case, I'll stop, ensure there's no traffic, then proceed through the red light.
I doubt this applies in NYC, though. If you're proceeding through a red light just to save 60 seconds waiting for the light, you're doing it wrong.
I cycle everywhere, and I stop at every light. But I also realize that the rules of the road aren't some magic tome that came to us from the gods. They were introduced primarily to curb the massive injuries and problems from the early introduction of cars. At that point, bicycles were already around for many many years.
So you combine terrible infrastructure for bikes with road rules that don't protect them, relegate them to the sides, but expect them to follow all of the car-designed rules, which often make no sense for vehicles going <15mph with very low momentum and much, much better vision for the driver.
I do not think bikes need to stop at red lights, current laws and urban design are designed to make it really comfortable for cars.
It also makes is more dangerous for me to stop at red lights - because cyclists are bottlenecks in road. they can easily cause a lot of cars to slow down. I have had situations where I stopped at a red light and 4 huge lorries were behind me and once the signal got green they tried to overtake me.It was a really scary ride. If I got ahead on the mostly empty road I could moved ahead enough to reduce the time I was a bottleneck on the road benefiting both the car drivers and me.
Seattle? Place yourself in the bike lane stopped at Eastlake and Fuhrman southbound. Very common commute route. No way to not be in the bike lane there given you just crossed the U bridge. (Unless you like riding on steel grating while drivers honk at you.) Then try to make the left onto Harvard Ave (again, extremely popular route) after the light turns green. You have one block to move left across two lanes. Post youtube if possible. I guarantee that proceeding across Fuhrman against the red light, doing your lane changes in the absence of traffic, is safer and less antagonizing if there is even moderate traffic. Only other safe alternative is to use the pedestrian crossings, which kind of fucking proves the point here. There's a million little situations like this.
Errors by cyclists and pedestrians can cause vehicle accidents because mostly drivers expect cyclists and pedestrians to follow traffic rules and adhere to common safety guidelines.
As a pedestrian in Boston, the cyclists who don't follow the rules have been the most dangerous for me. Just because it's safe to blow through a red light in terms of vehicular traffic doesn't mean that you're not going to run over a pedestrian.
I've yet to be hit, but I've come damn close many times. To add insult to injury, most of the time the cyclists has yelled at me to watch where I'm going. The hypocrisy of that one astounded me.
There are lies, damned lies, and... you know the rest.
It's not necessarily a mathematical error. You can make any set of stats show pretty much anything you want. From that same data, one could conclude that collisions on bicycles only ever occur on intersections, and therefore we need to invest more in underpasses, which are completely safe, as this data shows no collisions in underpasses. Underpasses save lives.
As a motorcyclist, I think cyclists should be held to the same rules of the law as other vehicles to make driving predictable and safe. As it stands right now, I have to assume cyclists (via heuristics/profiling) as a wildcard--will they run a red light? Will they weave in and out of traffic unsafely (this is an acceptable practice, when done with ample buffer given their size and speed)?
I think cycling is great (I'm also a cyclist as well). But the fact they don't carry a vehicle registration shouldn't exempt them the rules of the public road to make them predictable users (and unpredictable users, such as those erratically lane splitting, jaywalking, reckless driving, under the influence, speeding, etc, should be penalized to encourage predictable use).
>> "As it stands right now, I have to assume cyclists (via heuristics/profiling) as a wildcard--will they run a red light?"
I feel the same as a pedestrian. I can't count the number of times I've had to jump out of the way of a cyclist running a red light. Predictability is important for everyone on the road so following the same rules as other vehicles on the road makes sense.
As a cyclist, I can't count the number of times I've had to slam on the brakes to avoid a pedestrian jaywalking without even looking for traffic.
Here's the reality in NYC. Pedestrians ignore traffic laws. Cyclists ignore traffic laws. Cars ignore traffic laws. Everyone does whatever they want 24/7, and focusing on one group isn't going to fix the problem. The problem might even be unfixable.
Around here (DC area) I have to assume that about drivers too. I've seen drivers blow through red lights, turn right on red from the center lane while pedestrians are trying to cross the street, even drive the wrong way down one-way roads, or on the wrong side of a divided road. Drivers fail to use their turn signals more often than not. Crossing the street in front of a car is a crapshoot, as people will often look left and then proceed without looking straight again.
Bicyclists can be a nuisance, but drivers are a menace. I know where I'd like to see enforcement concentrated, and it's not on the bicyclists.
As a driver in DC, I can think of many 'almost accidents' and they are about equally distributed between cars and bicyclists. I see a lot fewer bicyclists though when I'm driving. Anecdotally, I find them far more likely to cause a near accident. With cars, they are larger, easier to see and in general behave more predictably. Sure, they may not signal properly a lot, but I leave enough room between cars to let bad behavior not be dangerous. Bicyclists weave through traffic and ignore all signage. It's a lot harder to drive safely around bicyclists. I see them do all the things you're calling out cars for (no signaling, going wrong way down 1 way streets, weaving through traffic and blowing through red lights).
When I'm walking in DC, I don't actually find cars that threatening, I've never been nearly hit by one living here 29 years. Bicyclists here have a dont give a fuck attitude towards every other user of the road/sidewalks though and I've nearly been hit on many occasions .
I do. Because I go holy shit a bike following the rules. I saw one actually stop at an intersection where it's marked stop for pedestrians today. It was amazing.
I ride as well, but do you honestly think that motorcycles aren't wild cards? How many motorcyclists die or get seriously injured yealry as a result of their own recklessness as opposed to bikes. Do you honestly thing that bicyclists don't view every single motor vehicle as a wild card? The damage tables are enormously shifted.
I didn't say motorcyclists aren't a wildcard. To be honest, I see motorcyclists often being pulled over for being unpredictable and think it's a good thing. However, motorcyclists do tend to stop at red lights--which can't be said for 50 of the 100 times I've observed cyclists. And in places like California, lane splitting for cyclists and motorcyclists done safely does increase safety, reducing the possibility that you will be rear-ended by a texting driver [1].
Cycling injuries and public road infractions are often under reported or unreported. Cyclists also have less protective gear (Kevlar padding, body armor, leather, less protective helmet).
At least vehicles that act like wildcards will eventually be pulled over, and with any luck, lose their driving privileges. You should always assume everyone on the road is a loose cannon--however, that doesn't mean you should be a wildcard in return (e.g not stopping at red lights).
The CHP recommendations were: "It is not advisable to lane split when traffic flow is at 30 mph or faster" and "Travel at a speed that is no more than 10 MPH faster than other traffic" until "Land a State Job and Become an Instant Millionaire" scumbag Ken Mandler made a complaint to the California Office of Administrative Law: http://jalopnik.com/one-man-just-made-lane-splitting-infinit...
That's 40mph top speed recommendation for lane splitting. In practice I find I sometimes need to lane split at 50mph when traffic is tightly packed - drivers do not see motorcycles in their blind spots and side-view mirrors when you are riding alongside. I have had cars try to merge into me on multiple occasions when I'm taking the full lane and traveling at the speed of traffic.
When lane splitting, drivers either see me coming up on them in their side-view mirror (the angle of the side-view mirror works to your and the driver's advantage when you are between lanes), or I can see them prepare to make a lane change by signalling, turning their front wheels when stopped, or just pulling out without looking (which will usually happen ahead of you and give you time to brake - drivers do a much better job of not merging into cars in their blind spots, and that's what makes it safe to travel between two cars).
As a cyclist (and a pretty law abiding one at that) I absolutely want you to treat me as a wildcard, one that you have to pay extra attention to since I'm in a pretty vulnerable position on the road.
It's fine to put cars in a "probably won't do anything unpredictable" box, if the worst comes to the worst there'll be some paperwork to fill in (might not be true for you on a motorbike of course). A cyclist the worst thing that will happen will be to the cyclist.
The main difference I see between bikes/pedestrians and cars/motorcycles is that there is minimal cost/effort to reverse and change your mind. So, on a bike or on foot, you can jaywalk or run a red light by slowly peeking out and making sure it's safe. If someone with the right of way is coming, you can simple stop and let them by. You absolutely can't do that with a car or motorcycle.
My general rule, as both biker and pedestrian, is to not get in the way of others who have the right of way. They shouldn't have to change course or worry about you. Most pedestrians (and plenty bikers too) are absolutely clueluess though. They don't look for bike lanes, they walk in the bikelanes, they jaywalk without looking if a bike (or car) is coming, they open car doors without looking, etc. I think this frustrates a lot of bikers, so they end up not caring and trying to ride through a crosswalk full of pedestrians and doing other asshole things, but I don't think that's the norm.
As a reasonable adult, I know I shouldn't jaywalk or run a red light because they are rules, but I have confidence via my senses that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others.
"is to not get in the way of others who have the right of way"
IMO that should be the rule for everyone :) The point I was trying to make was that often in these sorts of debates I see a lot of finger pointing between drivers & cyclists, with the cyclists saying, "Yeah, but we're more vulnerable - you all need to be more careful and allow us to do XYZ". But then they ignore that there's a third party who is even more vulnerable and often the behavior the cyclists propose increases danger to that third party.
"that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others."
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm AOK with people doing whatever they like in terms of traffic rules as long as it has zero impact on other people. Running red lights, jaywalking, etc - if no one is around, who cares? I jaywalk multiple times a day around the corner from my house - I live just off a busy main drag with very few crosswalks, so I just wait until there's a massive gap in the traffic on both sides and run across. OTOH I see people crossing that street all the time by just walking out and holding their hands up to signal to drivers that they should stop ... sorry, but no.
Sorry, but yes. In my state, crosswalks are legally defined to exist at every street corner whether or not they are painted lines. Furthermore, the obligation of drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks starts when they step into the street and not a moment before. (Standing on the sidewalk means nothing even if there is a painted crosswalk). Stepping out into a safe gap in the curbside lane and expecting traffic to stop is legally prescribed behavior and is the behavior drivers should expect. And pedestrians should encourage drivers to expect that behavior by actually behaving that way.
How does being a wildcard improve your chance of safety? There's a good chance some won't recognize it as such--elderly drivers have a slower response time.
A baseline rate of wildcards among cyclists encourages greater attentiveness in drivers that interact with me, whether or not I am a wildcard in that moment. It's a herd immunity sort of thing. The practices called "defensive driving" would not be followed by anyone unless there were something to defend against.
I wish all police everywhere started ticketing for more traffic violations. When everyone on the road--cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian--follows the rules precisely, traffic is predictable and safe. When morons wave you through at a 4-way stop, or turn without signaling (yay California), or blow red lights on their bicycle, you have to go into extra-defensive mode because the road is no longer predictable.
It astonishes me how much (many) cyclists blame everybody else for the dangers they are exposed to.
For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. If they're chasing a suspect or heading to a crime scene I'll forgive it, but they usually aren't in a hurry and are actually ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce.
As a pedestrian I have been hit multiple times by cyclists on a sidewalk and in fact when I was in high school I knocked a pedestrian down pretty hard when I was rolling down a steep hill.
> For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street.
You know, this one I understand entirely. When I walk on a road without sidewalks, I always walk on the wrong side of the road, so I can see what's coming and whether they're paying attention. Getting mowed down from behind by someone not looking where they're going isn't on my bucket list.
I'm just saying part of the problem is that cyclists behave as a squishy bag of meat in an accident. Given the prevalence of inattentive motorists, I'm not shocked some folks prefer to risk a ticket.
Probably a decent thing to do in high-traffic/large cities. But in more rural areas, where speed limits are 45-65MPH, getting hit is deadly no matter which direction you are riding. It's safer to see oncomming traffic in this situation so you can get out of the way.
If you are removing yourself from the road for _every single_ car, regardless of the direction of travel, then maybe it doesn't matter.
If you are going to stay on the road with other vehicles: You _never_ ride against traffic. Drivers are less likely to see you if you are biking where they normally don't anticipate any traffic. Even in a rural environment, biking with the flow of traffic gives the driver better visual cues that something else is on the road (you) and they have more time to plan their approach. It also gives them more time to find something appropriate to throw at you.
that doesn't make sense. you are on their right-hand side no matter which side of the street your ride on. the only difference is you see them or you don't (depends which way you are facing).
If you ride against traffic, then you still "don't see" the vehicles that are going in the same direction as you, and you are now on their left. Sure, they're on the opposite side of the road, but you don't know if they are paying attention or what. Thus: no more safety gained by riding on the opposite side of the road, where you aren't supposed to be.
The most dangerous area is, obviously, an intersection, where being on the wrong side of the road is demonstrably less safe[1]. After that, it's the blind spot over the crest of a hill. If you are going against the flow of traffic, you will be moving your slowest when you are in that blind spot. Moving with the flow of traffic -> moving quickly through that blind spot.
Knowing when a vehicle is coming up behind you, with plenty of time to react if necessary, is solved with a $12 helmet mirror.
Also keep in mind that when people come up to a road they expect traffic to be coming from a given direction. They may not expect traffic to be going the wrong way, so they aren't looking for it. For pedestrians, not necessarily a big issue, but for cyclists it kind of is. By going the wrong direction, when you suddenly appear out of nowhere, at speed, you will cause a lot of unnecessary confusion, surprise, and rapid decision making. It's not worth it. Luckily, I see very little of this (Santa Monica).
Walking towards oncoming traffic is, if not the law, then at least the sanctioned way of walking. Riding your bike into oncoming traffic, though, IS against the law since a bicyclist is considered a vehicle just like a car.
Cyclists are vehicles, so are obligated to follow the rules of the road and drive on the correct side.
Pedestrians, in the absence of sidewalks, do have the option to face incoming or outgoing traffic, and the usual choice is to face oncoming traffic as you suggested.
Walking is different because you can stop on a dime and dive out of the way if you see trouble coming. On a bicycle, however, you are usually unable to do this.
Additionally, the increase in speed differential (which is much more significant for cyclists than pedestrians) created by cycling towards oncoming traffic greatly reduces available reaction time of both parties.
When you are travelling in the same direction as the traffic there is usually still a speed differential but it is substantially less. While you no longer have the ability to see potential problems "coming at you", drivers have significantly more time to notice you and react accordingly.
I remember getting a lot of shit from my California friends in college (I'm from New Jersey). Going on living 4 years in California and can conclude that California drivers are a different flavor of terrible at driving!
I see people complain about waving at a four-way stop all the time, and I really don't get it. I wave people through at four-way stops all the time, for the simple reason that it can be hard to tell who arrived first. Especially with rolling stops and the like.
So rather than assume that the other drivers have come to the same conclusion that I have, I make it explicit by waving. Sometimes it's a little confusing if they try to wave you at the same time, but that's life.
I assume they mean when it's clear who arrived first. As a pedestrian, I hate cars waving me through when I clearly get there ~2 seconds after they do.
In general I hate when cars try to wave me by (as a pedestrian) w/ little regard to the total situation. I realize they're being nice but often all they're doing is making a bigger mess for the bigger picture. I always try to wave them along instead, but sometimes they're insistent, and I can almost hear them grumbling "why won't this dummy go?" ... sorry, it's because you're a) holding up traffic behind you and b) I couldn't anyways as there is other traffic I'd need to cross.
Yeah. Never wave pedestrians through. It's faster for everyone for you to zip through than for me to wait for you to slow to a complete stop (like hell I'm walking in front of a moving car). I've had people stop at a green light(!) while I'm waiting on the side of the two-lane road for the crosswalk signal to change. I just stood there and stared until the light changed and they missed their green. I'm not going to cross into traffic because you don't respect the rules.
In a lot of countries and at least in California, according to the DMV handbook, pedestrians have the right of way, whether in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Cars are required to let them pass first, who arrived first is irrelevant there. Waving at them is only a polite redundant sign.
Pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks UNLESS there is a signal; if there is a signal, the pedestrian only has right of way when the signal allows them to cross.
In WA where I am, and I believe in CA, standing on the curb facing the crosswalk != using a crosswalk. Standing around looking like you might use the crosswalk someday doesn't mean anything; using the crosswalk (and having right of way) starts only from the moment they step off the sidewalk. The WA code makes this pretty clear; CA uses the specific phrase "withinin a crosswalk" which makes me believe the interpretation is the same there.
So waving through someone who's not actively crossing is not correctly yielding the right of way. OTOH, drivers should bloody well expect pedestrians to start crossing in front of them when you haven't stopped yet (both states say that a pedestrian may not step out if there is inadequate room for the car to react and stop; by the contrapositive a pedestrian may step out in front of a car if there is adequate distance.)
The exception being a situation where there's not going to be a space behind you. If they're going to be waiting for someone to stop, and it looks like they've been there a while, waving them through can be reasonable.
Always be mindful of the people you're going to be making wait, though.
Agree 100%. Pretty much the only time I get honked at as a cyclist is when one of the drivers at an intersection wants me to go through but the other drivers there don't. Chaos and honking ensues, and I'm the only one who's life is actually in danger. So, drivers: just obey the rules as best you can and we'll take care of ourselves. (but please stop blowing through stop signs without looking - even if you don't hit me you may cause a heart attack)
Better have good insurance. Defensively driving is the best way to avoid accidents and collisions. Always assume the other party will do something wrong, and you will be far safer because of it.
No, I think you're talking about a situation where two cars are pulling up to an empty intersection simultaneously. That's a low-traffic situation. The problem comes when you're at a 4-way stop and people are coming from every direction. Anyone who wants to go through the intersection needs the cars from at least two other directions to let them through. So you, as one person, waving them through is pointless because at least one other person would also have to independently decide to let them through as well. If that doesn't happen, then either the other car listens to you and goes through the intersection and crashes into the third person who didn't wave them through, or you and the other car both end up waiting when only one of you needs to be. Either way, you're being rude to the people behind you, whose trip you have lengthened by the same amount you might have shortened someone else's trip, all the while making the intersection less predictable. Of course, there's always a race condition and potential for deadlock when two cars arrive simultaneously at an empty intersection, and waving people through is a safe and necessary way to solve that. But that's not an issue here, because if an intersection already has cars waiting to go from all four directions, there's a defined order in which they take turns according to the rules.
At 4-way stops in heavy traffic, it's difficult at best to tell the order in which people should go. If there's more than one lane in each direction, it becomes practically impossible.
Imho, 4-way stops are terrible no matter how you slice it: in heavy traffic they're really inefficient not to mention difficult to navigate, and should be replaced with a traffic light. In light traffic they're also inefficient, and should be replaced with a yield from the non-dominant direction.
In Sweden the default rule at an unsigned intersection is that you yield to the right. This means there's a well-defined algorithm for conflict resolution without putting stop signs at every little intersection. Apparently the idea that you could possibly navigate an intersection without signage is absurd to Americans, though.
Actually I'm impressed at how people negotiate when the signs break down. A few days ago, the traffic signals at a major intersection (a heavily trafficked US route and a Minnesota route) on my way to work went completely dark, both roads normally having 55mph speed limits. The intersection had two lanes of traffic on each road plus left turn lanes. Somehow traffic kept flowing. Traffic slowed way down and there were a few hairy moments, but by and large people treated the lights out situation as a stop sign and responded appropriately.
> Of course, there's always a race condition and potential for deadlock when two cars arrive simultaneously at an empty intersection, and waving people through is a safe and necessary way to solve that.
There are very clear right-of-way rules for this situation, and if both drivers can manage to remember those simple rules, no hand signals will be needed.
It's not that simple. There are some situations where you wait, and some where you can go, and there is necessarily a threshold, a point of ambiguity, between them.
It will never be fully predictable: people make mistakes. It is always safer and better to assume that someone will do something unpredictable like run a red light. It could even be because of mechanical error.
When riding motorcycles in ~~Asia~~ some asian countries (did it for 6 years), you assume that people will run the red light. It happens, during rush hour, 100% of the time.
So, you drive appropriately and it is safer because of that.
Edit: changed Asia to some asian countries. I didn't want to be specific but ended up being to general which was wrong.
I'm familiar with the idea, but if people run a red light 100% of the time, that becomes the new norm and therefore what is safe and expected. Don't forget that we're driving around in metal boxes powered by explosions, that didn't always seem safe (and certainly wouldn't to people if we suddenly introduced them to a society hundreds of years ago) but now it does seem safe.
In NYC I couldn't want this more. For example, traffic on the Queensboro bridge gets backed up regularly entering Manhattan in the morning. If you go down to the streets the bridge exits out onto, cars/trucks are routinely parked on the sides of the road during prohibited rush hour windows, essentially restricting traffic down to 1 lane instead of the intended 2 or 3. All it takes is 1 traffic cop to be assigned the beat during the mornings for such important streets and I think traffic would improve pretty dramatically (aside from generating more revenue for the city). I can't ever recall anyone being ticketed for "blocking the box" despite menacing signs even when there is a traffic cop standing in the intersection.
My impression as a pedestrian in NYC is also that blocking the box is far more impactful on traffic and safety than over all speed limit. I agree 100% that police need to more aggressively ticket blocking the box over almost all other traffic offenses.
I work beside one of the on ramps to the Bay Bridge in SF, recently they've started stationing someone there about once a week. He seems very busy but I've been surprised at how little it has improved traffic yet.
Similarly though, I wonder what would happen after a weeklong publicized clamp down on blocking the box.
I'm going to attempt to rationalize why cyclists don't obey traffic laws in cities.
The short answer is that bicycle riding in cities sucks.
It's loud, slippery, uneven, blocked, takes a lot of physical effort, is full of unpredictable giant metal things that can kill you, teeming with large moving meat pillars that will jump in front of you at any moment, you're completely exposed to the weather and can't safely look at a map while you navigate. They've created a few strips of pot-hole ridden, double parked green pavement that they say is just for you but it's not safe even if you're being safe and extremely uncomfortable. Bicycle riding also happens though to be the fastest, most liberating way to get around and is good exercise so you put up with it, but you put up with it while annoying a few people yourself. You block lanes when you feel like it's safer to do so, cross red lights when you think it's safe so you save some time and so you can stay in front of the same wave of traffic as they already know you're there. Some times you make a bad decision that results in a honk but you've also been splashed, cut-off, bumped, blocked and almost doored and you don't have a horn of your own for when that happens. You're up against a torment of danger and uncomfortable that can kill you and the most you can ever do is make someone annoyed or maybe flip a mirror back. You start to realize that the cards aren't in your favor and that annoying drivers in their crash cages, with AC, maps, surround sound, horns, gas pedals and bucket seats really isn't that big of a deal. You just don't equate your presence on the road with theirs and don't think the same laws should apply. Not because you're magically above the law but because through years of experience you can see that the situations are completely different and require completely different attention. You think to yourself, the day cars weight 40lbs and go 15mph is the day you obey all the same laws as them.
Thanks for articulating this, although you may have just started a religious war.
My only addition is why cyclists don't completely stop at stop signs. It's a LOT of work to get up to speed from a dead stop, so it seems a bit pointless to do it when you can clearly see that no one is in the intersection. Also, as you are trying to accelerate from a dead stop, it takes a while to get through the intersection. If there does happen to be a motorist there, they have to sit and wait while you (slowly) go by. It isn't necessarily legal, but cyclists not completely stopping probably helps everyone.
I think the biggest concern about cyclists is the I-don't-give-a-damn attitude (entitlement). I understand the reasons to run a red-light when safely clear to do, but when the action affects other users of the road, such as on a busy road, that's when it's a no-no (for example, I almost got sidelined by a cyclist running the bike downhill on a sidewalk as I was pulling out of the garage on my motorcycle). Take my opinion with a grain of salt as a fixed gear cyclist and motorcyclist. (And I do try to observe the law on my pedal bike.)
Cyclist red light running does affect pedestrians. Consider this guy who was killed in NYC. [1]
We all have to share the road. For cyclists, motorists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians in no order.
Please demonstrate that there is any such "entitlement" attitude among cyclists that does not exist among drivers. It is dangerous for cyclists and other road users for cyclists to "complete stop" at stop signs. It's not entitlement, it's an evaluation of risk.
As a pedestrian, things like cyclists running red lights "when [they] think it's safe" cause a huge amount of consternation for me. Traffic rules are in place so that other people on the road - pedestrians included - can have reasonable expectations about the behavior of other actors. If I need to wait when I have a "walk" symbol because I don't know whether a cyclist is going to feel entitled to run the light or not, then a cyclist has no right to call me a "large moving meat pillar" because it's the cyclist's own disobedience of the law that is causing the disturbance in the first place. Cyclists, I know you hate dead stops, but don't be assholes to pedestrians who aren't being assholes to you.
Cyclist are neither licensed or registered where I am, so there is no expectation they are familiar with traffic laws nor is there any way to hold them accountable when they do something hazardous (unless they are involved in an accident which incapacitates them). Traffic laws regarding bicycles didn't come up on my driver's test or in the educational material either so I had to look up the laws myself. The laws are difficult to find, difficult to read, and still pretty vague; no wonder even the sales associates at sports shops don't know them.
I don't live in a city so I'm not familiar with bicyclist in that environment, but in the town I live in, which has a strong outdoor recreation community and a University, cyclists also do not obey traffic laws.
This town's claim of being "bicycle friendly" is questionable, but you can get most places safely enough. There are bike lanes or shared lanes on many streets, double-wide sidewalks (which can be used by bicyclists) here and there, and a bike accessible trail system that winds around and through the town if you're willing go a bit out of your way. With a strong cyclist presence in town most drivers are fairly comfortable sharing the road. I've been bicycling around town for several years, both for recreation and to save $400/year on a parking permit for work, and never been involved in an accident.
But I still see cyclist riding up and down sidewalks in the downtown area (which has signs every few hundred feet stating that cycling is not permitted on sidewalks) or cutting off cars at busy intersections (even if the intersection is being directed by a traffic cop). I have even, no kidding, seen a cyclist run a red light in the oncoming traffic lane at night with no lights, reflectors, or a helmet.
141 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 206 ms ] threadResources allocated in one realm means a dip in another. Using bad stats to justify a reallocation should be alarming to local residents.
If you've ever commuted via bike, you probably understand how little sense it makes to stop at every sign and roll no lights.
(Note that I'm not saying that these law breaking activities are equivalent; only that there are a multitude of laws that are not enforced, and a change in enforcement is indeed a policy change.)
Honestly, I have (almost) only ever seen NYPD officers standing around with nothing to do. I don't know if that's because they are drastically overmanned or because they intentionally deploy loafing cops for the deterrent effect.
It is what uniformed police officers are supposed to do in popular imagination. Many in evidence in most UK cities in the run up to Xmas.
I live in NYC, I have seen this happen.
Of course, it is much more difficult and disruptive to ticket a car that has just blown a red light at high speed, than a biker who has blown a red light. Unfortunately, the city isn't allowed to install red light cams in most places because of Albany. Red light cams would be a safe, fair counterpart to increased red light enforcement for bikes. That being said, very very very few people are injured and none are killed because of bikes running reds (neither collision in Central Park this year was at an intersection). Likely hundreds are injured and at least dozens are killed from cars running red lights every year.
Based on my comprehensive understanding (watched The Wire and read articles), made up stats and policing are old buddies.
If there's a demand to enforce the rules more stringently in the name of safety, would those doing the demanding also want to see citations for jaywalking?
For instance - "cyclist accidents that caused deaths" : 2013: 0, 2014: 0
Jill Tarlov was killed by a biker in September:
http://gothamist.com/2014/09/22/jill_tarlov_central_park.php
Irving Schachter was killed by a biker in August:
http://gothamist.com/2014/08/14/cyclist_kills_jogger.php
But the premise of the article asks if the 5th Precinct plans to "start ticketing more cyclists". The tweet didn't say that. It said they'll be enforcing violations, which is what you expect police officers to do with laws that are on the books.
You're right - maybe the stats are bad, and the post is right to ask for clarification. But the post assumes the tweet means they'll change their enforcement tactics, and I don't read that in this tweet.
There are lots of flaws in the NYPD's approach to investigating traffic incidents:
10 cyclists were killed in 2013, 17 in 2012. In 2013 there were 4,000+ cyclist injuries citywide. ( http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrians... )
The other issue is that that the NYPD does a very poor job investigating traffic incidents... There are 19 investigators citywide (with a 40,000 member police force) and patrol officers routinely screw up the recording of data. ( http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/02/15/nypds-lax-crash-invest... )
Understanding the process in filling out reports and understanding what the data means is critical to analysis. The type of data in this dataset and the quality of the data make it difficult to draw conclusions. In a big city like NYC minor stuff like bike accidents where someone doesn't die, the police either won't get called or won't flush 20 minutes down the toilet filling out reports.
It doesn't appear to be about safety, as the statistics clearly indicate that it's currently safe. It appears to be about making money and possibly discourage cycling.
Speaking as someone who bikes/takes transit everywhere (in Seattle, not NYC), what an oxymoron. I'm not saying that at every single stop sign you have to come to a complete, foot-on-the-ground stop, but running lights is ridiculous and will do nothing but increase the hatred for all cyclists held by drivers by antagonizing them. Every OTHER form of transportation seems to do just fine "stopping at every goddamn light". Get off your high horse - even if a bicycle running a light isn't the same threat to public safety as a multi-ton steel death machine doing so, claiming that you can do so and be a "safe cyclist" will do nothing but hurt your credibility.
I've heard that some states legally treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs for bicyclists, and I think that's reasonable. I view what I do as the same as jay walking... Technically illegal, but no one is going to stand and wait at a cross walk for 30 seconds for a light to change when it's clear there's no one coming.
That's my philosophy. I primarily walk, but at times drive & bike.
My take is that iff there is no one else who could possibly be impacted by it that running stop signs and red lights is AOK.
The problem I often see with this is that most people only consider one of the other two modes of transportation (no on cares about Segways, muahaha!) and forgets the other one - often the pedestrians.
What I really hate is a pack of cyclists blowing past a red light when my kids are walking with me across a sidewalk (example: Riverside Drive).
I am sorry but I felt it was obvious I wasn't talking about parked cars.
As for the drivers worrying about unexpected cyclists getting in their path.. no, that has nothing to do with the colour of the light. Yes, it may be a concern, just like unexpected cars getting in their path might be a concern. And it has nothing to do with the colour of the light. So it pays to approach an intersection carefully. Because if you drive enough, you may eventually find out that some intersections don't even have lights to begin with, and a car or a cyclist might've misjudged your speed. Yes, even I could make such a mistake and misjudge someone. That's the risk we all take in traffic. Red doesn't mean unsafe. Green doesn't mean the path is clear. What do you do when the light blinks yellow or turns off? What do you do when the light turns green for you and also for the cyclist next to you?
I run reds, but I judge the safety of it just as I would if there were no lights, or as if I were crossing where there's no intersection. And yes I do account for the fact that drivers are not going by the standard yield rules in a light-controlled intersection. I'm not reckless.
Certainly does not stop at every red light. Specifically pedestrians. Bikes are more maneuverable and faster than pedestrians while decreasing safety only by the slightest margin if even any. I honestly don't see the problem.
Also I think it's important to note that there is no term for "safely crossing an intersection even though the light is red." That and blowing through indiscriminately are both referred to as "running" which I think contributes to a large problem in perception.
This is a case where if something is done relatively infrequently, it is quite safe. But once it becomes common, it is very unsafe. A lot of other traffic laws are the same.
I agree that running red lights is bad in the general case, however I do have some exceptions. In certain circumstances waiting for the light to turn is leaving me in a vulnerable position, or a place where I'm going to block traffic and piss off a lot of drivers. In these cases sometimes I dismount and walk, sometimes I ride out slowly as a pedestrian (London intersections tend to be 3-phase with the walk cycle being all directions, also there are no turns-on-red).
This makes some people angry who want to stick their head in the sand and pretend a bicycle is the same as a motor vehicle. The problem is that it's not. If you are a fast rider in a dense urban area such as London you can at times approximate being a vehicle, but slow riders or fast uncongested roads you can't.
For me it's all about safety and courtesy. I am courteous to pedestrians and I am courteous to motor vehicle traffic. For instance, I move over to let cars pass and I don't take any more space than is necessary to be safe. If a car is stuck behind me I try to go as fast I can until it's safe to make room for them to pass. Similarly if I'm stuck in an unsafe position I may do a technical illegal maneuver to get out of it. This pisses some people off sometimes, usually drivers who have never pedaled in an urban environment ever, but you know what? It's my ass out there on the line and being at times a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian in equal shares, I have a better idea what is safe and considerate than most.
Because of all this, the "Idaho Stop" is a recognized, lawful traffic behavior for cyclists in many jurisdictions. It lets them treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs.
Someone claiming to be a safe cyclist who runs red lights may present poorly to people who only drive, or who imagine a cyclist speeding through a red light at 20+ MPH, but it's not an oxymoron and it should be understood by someone who is familiar with cycling.
I believe many jurisdictions allow bicyclists to proceed through a red light if they stop and wait for a minute or two and the light doesn't change, as a way to compensate for sensor-activated lights that bicycles won't trigger. But that's quite different.
I doubt this applies in NYC, though. If you're proceeding through a red light just to save 60 seconds waiting for the light, you're doing it wrong.
So you combine terrible infrastructure for bikes with road rules that don't protect them, relegate them to the sides, but expect them to follow all of the car-designed rules, which often make no sense for vehicles going <15mph with very low momentum and much, much better vision for the driver.
It's the old UI adage, "the user isn't wrong".
It also makes is more dangerous for me to stop at red lights - because cyclists are bottlenecks in road. they can easily cause a lot of cars to slow down. I have had situations where I stopped at a red light and 4 huge lorries were behind me and once the signal got green they tried to overtake me.It was a really scary ride. If I got ahead on the mostly empty road I could moved ahead enough to reduce the time I was a bottleneck on the road benefiting both the car drivers and me.
I've yet to be hit, but I've come damn close many times. To add insult to injury, most of the time the cyclists has yelled at me to watch where I'm going. The hypocrisy of that one astounded me.
It's not necessarily a mathematical error. You can make any set of stats show pretty much anything you want. From that same data, one could conclude that collisions on bicycles only ever occur on intersections, and therefore we need to invest more in underpasses, which are completely safe, as this data shows no collisions in underpasses. Underpasses save lives.
Magic, eh?
I think cycling is great (I'm also a cyclist as well). But the fact they don't carry a vehicle registration shouldn't exempt them the rules of the public road to make them predictable users (and unpredictable users, such as those erratically lane splitting, jaywalking, reckless driving, under the influence, speeding, etc, should be penalized to encourage predictable use).
I feel the same as a pedestrian. I can't count the number of times I've had to jump out of the way of a cyclist running a red light. Predictability is important for everyone on the road so following the same rules as other vehicles on the road makes sense.
Here's the reality in NYC. Pedestrians ignore traffic laws. Cyclists ignore traffic laws. Cars ignore traffic laws. Everyone does whatever they want 24/7, and focusing on one group isn't going to fix the problem. The problem might even be unfixable.
Bicyclists can be a nuisance, but drivers are a menace. I know where I'd like to see enforcement concentrated, and it's not on the bicyclists.
When I'm walking in DC, I don't actually find cars that threatening, I've never been nearly hit by one living here 29 years. Bicyclists here have a dont give a fuck attitude towards every other user of the road/sidewalks though and I've nearly been hit on many occasions .
Cycling injuries and public road infractions are often under reported or unreported. Cyclists also have less protective gear (Kevlar padding, body armor, leather, less protective helmet).
At least vehicles that act like wildcards will eventually be pulled over, and with any luck, lose their driving privileges. You should always assume everyone on the road is a loose cannon--however, that doesn't mean you should be a wildcard in return (e.g not stopping at red lights).
[1] Should only be done at stopped or traffic below 15mph. http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html
That's 40mph top speed recommendation for lane splitting. In practice I find I sometimes need to lane split at 50mph when traffic is tightly packed - drivers do not see motorcycles in their blind spots and side-view mirrors when you are riding alongside. I have had cars try to merge into me on multiple occasions when I'm taking the full lane and traveling at the speed of traffic.
When lane splitting, drivers either see me coming up on them in their side-view mirror (the angle of the side-view mirror works to your and the driver's advantage when you are between lanes), or I can see them prepare to make a lane change by signalling, turning their front wheels when stopped, or just pulling out without looking (which will usually happen ahead of you and give you time to brake - drivers do a much better job of not merging into cars in their blind spots, and that's what makes it safe to travel between two cars).
It's fine to put cars in a "probably won't do anything unpredictable" box, if the worst comes to the worst there'll be some paperwork to fill in (might not be true for you on a motorbike of course). A cyclist the worst thing that will happen will be to the cyclist.
My general rule, as both biker and pedestrian, is to not get in the way of others who have the right of way. They shouldn't have to change course or worry about you. Most pedestrians (and plenty bikers too) are absolutely clueluess though. They don't look for bike lanes, they walk in the bikelanes, they jaywalk without looking if a bike (or car) is coming, they open car doors without looking, etc. I think this frustrates a lot of bikers, so they end up not caring and trying to ride through a crosswalk full of pedestrians and doing other asshole things, but I don't think that's the norm.
As a reasonable adult, I know I shouldn't jaywalk or run a red light because they are rules, but I have confidence via my senses that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others.
IMO that should be the rule for everyone :) The point I was trying to make was that often in these sorts of debates I see a lot of finger pointing between drivers & cyclists, with the cyclists saying, "Yeah, but we're more vulnerable - you all need to be more careful and allow us to do XYZ". But then they ignore that there's a third party who is even more vulnerable and often the behavior the cyclists propose increases danger to that third party.
"that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others."
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm AOK with people doing whatever they like in terms of traffic rules as long as it has zero impact on other people. Running red lights, jaywalking, etc - if no one is around, who cares? I jaywalk multiple times a day around the corner from my house - I live just off a busy main drag with very few crosswalks, so I just wait until there's a massive gap in the traffic on both sides and run across. OTOH I see people crossing that street all the time by just walking out and holding their hands up to signal to drivers that they should stop ... sorry, but no.
For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. If they're chasing a suspect or heading to a crime scene I'll forgive it, but they usually aren't in a hurry and are actually ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce.
As a pedestrian I have been hit multiple times by cyclists on a sidewalk and in fact when I was in high school I knocked a pedestrian down pretty hard when I was rolling down a steep hill.
You know, this one I understand entirely. When I walk on a road without sidewalks, I always walk on the wrong side of the road, so I can see what's coming and whether they're paying attention. Getting mowed down from behind by someone not looking where they're going isn't on my bucket list.
If you ride with traffic and get hit, your relative speed at collision will be 15 mph and the collision will push you away from the car.
If you ride against traffic and get hit, you're dealing with a head-on collision at 45 mph relative speed.
That's why I always ride with traffic.
If you are going to stay on the road with other vehicles: You _never_ ride against traffic. Drivers are less likely to see you if you are biking where they normally don't anticipate any traffic. Even in a rural environment, biking with the flow of traffic gives the driver better visual cues that something else is on the road (you) and they have more time to plan their approach. It also gives them more time to find something appropriate to throw at you.
If you ride against traffic, then you still "don't see" the vehicles that are going in the same direction as you, and you are now on their left. Sure, they're on the opposite side of the road, but you don't know if they are paying attention or what. Thus: no more safety gained by riding on the opposite side of the road, where you aren't supposed to be.
The most dangerous area is, obviously, an intersection, where being on the wrong side of the road is demonstrably less safe[1]. After that, it's the blind spot over the crest of a hill. If you are going against the flow of traffic, you will be moving your slowest when you are in that blind spot. Moving with the flow of traffic -> moving quickly through that blind spot.
Knowing when a vehicle is coming up behind you, with plenty of time to react if necessary, is solved with a $12 helmet mirror.
[1] http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
Pedestrians, in the absence of sidewalks, do have the option to face incoming or outgoing traffic, and the usual choice is to face oncoming traffic as you suggested.
Additionally, the increase in speed differential (which is much more significant for cyclists than pedestrians) created by cycling towards oncoming traffic greatly reduces available reaction time of both parties.
When you are travelling in the same direction as the traffic there is usually still a speed differential but it is substantially less. While you no longer have the ability to see potential problems "coming at you", drivers have significantly more time to notice you and react accordingly.
Lesson learned: I'm the best driver in the world!
So rather than assume that the other drivers have come to the same conclusion that I have, I make it explicit by waving. Sometimes it's a little confusing if they try to wave you at the same time, but that's life.
So waving through someone who's not actively crossing is not correctly yielding the right of way. OTOH, drivers should bloody well expect pedestrians to start crossing in front of them when you haven't stopped yet (both states say that a pedestrian may not step out if there is inadequate room for the car to react and stop; by the contrapositive a pedestrian may step out in front of a car if there is adequate distance.)
Always be mindful of the people you're going to be making wait, though.
Better have good insurance. Defensively driving is the best way to avoid accidents and collisions. Always assume the other party will do something wrong, and you will be far safer because of it.
Imho, 4-way stops are terrible no matter how you slice it: in heavy traffic they're really inefficient not to mention difficult to navigate, and should be replaced with a traffic light. In light traffic they're also inefficient, and should be replaced with a yield from the non-dominant direction.
In Sweden the default rule at an unsigned intersection is that you yield to the right. This means there's a well-defined algorithm for conflict resolution without putting stop signs at every little intersection. Apparently the idea that you could possibly navigate an intersection without signage is absurd to Americans, though.
There are very clear right-of-way rules for this situation, and if both drivers can manage to remember those simple rules, no hand signals will be needed.
It will never be fully predictable: people make mistakes. It is always safer and better to assume that someone will do something unpredictable like run a red light. It could even be because of mechanical error.
When riding motorcycles in ~~Asia~~ some asian countries (did it for 6 years), you assume that people will run the red light. It happens, during rush hour, 100% of the time.
So, you drive appropriately and it is safer because of that.
Edit: changed Asia to some asian countries. I didn't want to be specific but ended up being to general which was wrong.
Similarly though, I wonder what would happen after a weeklong publicized clamp down on blocking the box.
Anyway, the cops should be focused on those who are in tenuous control of two tons of steel, going three times the speed of a bicycle.
The short answer is that bicycle riding in cities sucks.
It's loud, slippery, uneven, blocked, takes a lot of physical effort, is full of unpredictable giant metal things that can kill you, teeming with large moving meat pillars that will jump in front of you at any moment, you're completely exposed to the weather and can't safely look at a map while you navigate. They've created a few strips of pot-hole ridden, double parked green pavement that they say is just for you but it's not safe even if you're being safe and extremely uncomfortable. Bicycle riding also happens though to be the fastest, most liberating way to get around and is good exercise so you put up with it, but you put up with it while annoying a few people yourself. You block lanes when you feel like it's safer to do so, cross red lights when you think it's safe so you save some time and so you can stay in front of the same wave of traffic as they already know you're there. Some times you make a bad decision that results in a honk but you've also been splashed, cut-off, bumped, blocked and almost doored and you don't have a horn of your own for when that happens. You're up against a torment of danger and uncomfortable that can kill you and the most you can ever do is make someone annoyed or maybe flip a mirror back. You start to realize that the cards aren't in your favor and that annoying drivers in their crash cages, with AC, maps, surround sound, horns, gas pedals and bucket seats really isn't that big of a deal. You just don't equate your presence on the road with theirs and don't think the same laws should apply. Not because you're magically above the law but because through years of experience you can see that the situations are completely different and require completely different attention. You think to yourself, the day cars weight 40lbs and go 15mph is the day you obey all the same laws as them.
Depends on the city
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ
My only addition is why cyclists don't completely stop at stop signs. It's a LOT of work to get up to speed from a dead stop, so it seems a bit pointless to do it when you can clearly see that no one is in the intersection. Also, as you are trying to accelerate from a dead stop, it takes a while to get through the intersection. If there does happen to be a motorist there, they have to sit and wait while you (slowly) go by. It isn't necessarily legal, but cyclists not completely stopping probably helps everyone.
Cyclist red light running does affect pedestrians. Consider this guy who was killed in NYC. [1]
We all have to share the road. For cyclists, motorists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians in no order.
[1] http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/new-yorks-cycles-of-death-our-a...
I don't live in a city so I'm not familiar with bicyclist in that environment, but in the town I live in, which has a strong outdoor recreation community and a University, cyclists also do not obey traffic laws.
This town's claim of being "bicycle friendly" is questionable, but you can get most places safely enough. There are bike lanes or shared lanes on many streets, double-wide sidewalks (which can be used by bicyclists) here and there, and a bike accessible trail system that winds around and through the town if you're willing go a bit out of your way. With a strong cyclist presence in town most drivers are fairly comfortable sharing the road. I've been bicycling around town for several years, both for recreation and to save $400/year on a parking permit for work, and never been involved in an accident.
But I still see cyclist riding up and down sidewalks in the downtown area (which has signs every few hundred feet stating that cycling is not permitted on sidewalks) or cutting off cars at busy intersections (even if the intersection is being directed by a traffic cop). I have even, no kidding, seen a cyclist run a red light in the oncoming traffic lane at night with no lights, reflectors, or a helmet.
Bike Lanes by Casey Neistat.