Comments on: The Great Bicyclist Responsibility Debate Continues

By: mellow yellow

mellow yellow — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:36:14 +0000

Red Light Runnings! LEGALIZE IT! Most cyclists are doing it already. In fact it seems to be the safest time to proceed at many intersections. Can DOT install bike signals allowing cyclists to do this? NYPD wouldn’t have to change anything in current enforcement practices!

If pedestrians don’t want to be run down, let them stop jay walking, then maybe cyclists can entertain the idea of respecting them on the streets!

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:45:22 +0000

@roadblock And that makes walking what exactly?

By: lyqwyd

lyqwyd — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:09:42 +0000

@JohnB

“But if anything, the smaller and weaker and slower you are, the more the safety need to travel impeccably. That starts with pedestrians and works up. Nobody is exempt.”

so what you are saying is that the strong should be able to do whatever they want to the weak, and the weak better watch out.

By: peternatural

peternatural — Wed, 12 May 2010 20:20:16 +0000

My experience is that bicyclists in SF nearly always yield when they ought to.

When they break the law by rolling through stop signs and red lights, it’s nearly always the case that no one else is present or affected. That’s why I don’t find complaints about this issue to be very compelling.

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:53:30 +0000

In a car-ped or car-bike crash right now, the driver of the car is likely to avoid facing any legal penalties. This (among other things) leads drivers to operate their cars with little regard for the welfare of people on foot or bikes.

I think it would be great if the burden of proof were placed on the operator of the faster and larger vehicle in all collisions. Pedestrians are always assumed to be in the right unless proven other wise. Bikes and non-motorized vehicles get the benefit with respect to motor vehicles, but not with repsect to pedestrians. And maybe you could have a fourth class of large commercial vehicles.

If drivers knew they would be held at fault for any collision with a non motor vehicle unless they could prove the other party was in violation, I believe most people would drive a lot more carefully. At least in crowded urban areas.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:05:49 +0000

I equally drive, ride a bicycle, and walk. Driving is a dangerous activity, we just don’t think of it because we are so used to it, and when you’re in a car you are relatively safe. The only time I’ve been hit by a car was in a crosswalk as a pedestrian. An inattentive driver turned and I ended up on his hood. I was fine, he was probably more spooked than me. As a cyclist I am aware that what I am doing can be very dangerous to pedestrians, so I watch out for them and try to maintain responsibility, not because I have any more “right” to the road or sidewalk, but because I could really hurt them whereas I may not get hurt. The same relationship exists between cars and pedestrians and cars and cyclists. Drivers have a higher level of responsibility not because they have more “right” to the road but because they/I am driving an essentially dangerous object. We/I could really hurt a pedestrian or cyclist regardless of whose fault it is, so we should be more careful. Accidents or more often than not exactly that, accidents. Regardless of who is more responsible for the actual occurrence, in these accidents someone is often killed, underscoring the severity. Drivers myself included have to be the most aware party because, simply put, we are the ones who could get somebody killed, pedestrian or cyclist.

By: JohnB

JohnB — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:38:39 +0000

Sprague

The European idea you cite is not specifically designed to aid bike flow over other types of road traffic. Nor is that generally true in practice.

It’s true that there is less emphasis on stop signs and red lights in Europe. But they make abundant use of roundabouts or traffic circles, the basic principle of which is that you only have to stop at an intersection if there is nothing coming the other way.

This is more akin to an intersection in the US with no stop sign or light. But it benefits all traffic since there is no need to stop when the way ahead is clear.

So I would dispute that it works better only for cyclists. Indeed, since it leads to higher car speeds and flows, it may make things worse for bikes.

With a stop sign or light, a bike can get priority over other road traffic. That rarely happens at a traffic circle or open intersection due to the higher volumes and speed differential of vehicular traffic. Two and four way stops actually help bikes.

Either way, it is not an “excuse” to not obey traffic signs just because some other country does things differently.

By: Sprague

Sprague — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:06:47 +0000

As other commenters have pointed out, U.S. traffic laws (Idaho excepted) and the heavy use of stop signs reflects planning and building for cars and much less consideration of bicycling as a mode of travel. In much of Europe, stop signs aren’t installed so frequently. Instead, the rule is to yield to the vehicle coming from the right. This design certainly works better for bicyclists.

By: Hank

Hank — Wed, 12 May 2010 09:15:31 +0000

@ John B.
It used to be “the law” that blacks had to sit in the back or weren’t allowed to vote. Laws change to accommodate and facilitate behaviors in order to advance society. if we just stuck with “the law is the law” we’d be stoning people in the desert.

By: JohnB

JohnB — Wed, 12 May 2010 04:55:38 +0000

Seven,

Perfectly expressed. The law is the law, whether anyone thinks it is fair or not. Nobody is above the law. It’s an individual responsibility to drive and ride defensively, carefully and legally.

But if anything, the smaller and weaker and slower you are, the more the safety need to travel impeccably. That starts with pedestrians and works up. Nobody is exempt.