Better to say something? Or keep quiet?

Our Community Forums General Discussion Better to say something? Or keep quiet?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 79 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #987707
    jrenaut
    Participant

    @TwoWheelsDC 71065 wrote:

    I guess my follow-up is, why is there not similar outrage directed at jaywalkers? It’s no different and yet many of the same people who rail against bikes jumping lights will jaywalk without a second thought.

    Because then I would have to hate myself.

    On my daily commute, I run ONE light every day. I run the light SB 14th St NW at Thomas Circle (okay, technically it’s two but they’re kind of grouped together) because there are only two ways to safely get through the circle on a bike. You can either take a lane, which I don’t like to do because I like drivers to see me in the bike lane so maybe they’ll support more bike infrastructure. Or you can jump that light so you get to the light at M while it’s still red and then you don’t get right hooked.

    But I jaywalk all the time. Carefully and not entirely unsafely, but all the time nevertheless.

    #987708
    TwoWheelsDC
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71056 wrote:

    you’ve just confirmed the whole “cyclists are scofflaws” image

    Sorry, but this is a total red herring and it would behoove us to kill it with fire…

    #987709
    Steve
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71057 wrote:

    So for the stop-and-run-the-red-if-the-coast-is-clear people, do you do that in a car? Why on a bike and not in a car?

    I stop almost all the time, with only a few places that I think it makes sense to stop-and-run.

    That being said, why on a bike a not a car? Because they aren’t the same (which I think you agree with), and so applying laws universally doesn’t always make sense. I think people do it for the same reasons that people support the Idaho stop (benefits video), which is to say the utility of a bike increases if it doesn’t have to overcome stops so often.

    #987712
    OneEighth
    Participant

    “Fixed gear. No brakes. Can’t stop. Don’t want to either.”

    You with me dcv?

    #987713
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @Steve 71069 wrote:

    I stop almost all the time, with only a few places that I think it makes sense to stop-and-run.

    That being said, why on a bike a not a car? Because they aren’t the same (which I think you agree with), and so applying laws universally doesn’t always make sense. I think people do it for the same reasons that people support the Idaho stop (benefits video), which is to say the utility of a bike increases if it doesn’t have to overcome stops so often.

    Car and bike are not the same. Still, at an intersection like the ones we’re talking about (where the light is just cycling on time, not recognizing road users with the potential to miss a bike), the situation for cars and bikes is the same if they are stopped at red and no one else is around.* I know very few who will go through a red light in a car, even if NO ONE is there, especially if they see the countdown clock is low.

    And while the Idaho stop argument may be behind the people that roll up slowly and go if it’s clear, it doesn’t explain why people go after stopping — e.g. if there is a car with the green coming to the intersection (so cyclist stops), then the car goes through, there are still 15 secs left on the countdown, but the cyclist starts up anyway.

    *If anything, the cyclist has _more_ incentive not to run a red because the consequences are higher if they’re wrong.

    #987715
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @TwoWheelsDC 71068 wrote:

    Sorry, but this is a total red herring and it would behoove us to kill it with fire…

    The red herring is when people use that argument against protecting cyclists. But the fact is, that image exists, and it exists because of our behavior. It would behoove us to stop behaving that way. For example, at a PTA meeting, a parent mentioned that she finds the Custis dangerous because no cyclists stop at red lights. I could only correct her that “few” cyclists stop at red lights. C’mon.

    #987719
    Greenbelt
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71057 wrote:

    So for the stop-and-run-the-red-if-the-coast-is-clear people, do you do that in a car? Why on a bike and not in a car?

    Lots of reasons. Most traffic laws are bent, if not completely broken, by drivers: speeding, signaling, reckless lane changes or passes. There are actually laws against those things, but drivers break them constantly. They are illegal, but not taboo — almost every driver violates these laws, sometimes with deadly consequences, but these laws are rarely enforced and broken as often as not.

    However, proceeding on red light after stop is almost never done by cars. It’s a taboo, because it’s so incredibly dangerous. And it would be enforced — no cop is going to give a pass to someone who violates a full red light.

    Drivers are set back in their cars and can’t really see around the corners both ways to make sure it’s really clear; they can’t hear what’s going on. Pulling out on red is taboo when traffic could be coming either direction. (Right on red should be illegal and taboo in the city too, in my opinion, but that’s another subject.)

    With bikes, pulling out on red after stop is illegal, but not taboo or routinely enforced. Mostly because it’s perceived like jaywalking, and the only person likely to be hurt is the cyclist or pedestrian.

    I vary a lot whether I Idaho stop or wait patiently, depending on the circumstance. In general, if I’m in a bike lane or a protected bike infrastructure, I wait. If not, it varies. I don’t like to wait exposed in certain lanes because I’m worried that traffic coming up on the red will be going too fast, will be looking up at the light instead of down for me, and might just not see me if I’m not moving, even with my hi-vis and lights. Many drivers have a hard time seeing stopped bikes and motorcycles because it’s not what they’re expecting. They register that we’re there — they really see us — better when we’re moving, not stopped. Otherwise, they often look right through bikes even when we’re in plain sight.

    After several years of commuting, I’ve only had two near misses with cars — both when I was stopped! One of those was when I was stopped on a sidewalk that a driver decided (incomprehensibly) was a right turn lane and went right up over the curb. The other time I was waiting exposed in left turn lane and a guy who wasn’t looking nearly ran into me until I yelled.

    So if I’m out in traffic and I decide it’s safer and more visible to get ahead of the flow by jumping a red, I will. Same thing for riding on sidewalks around Capital Hill — regardless of the legality, if that seems safer for me and non-dangerous to pedestrians, I’ll do it and risk a ticket.

    Safety first. With few exceptions, the laws and roads are for designed for cars, and I’ll follow them when it’s the safest thing to do and bend them when it’s not.

    I rarely bend laws for convenience though, the way drivers do. I’m on my bike, not in a hurry.

    Here’s my hierarchy:

    1. Don’t get hit.
    2. Yield to pedestrians, no matter what idiotic thing they do.
    3. Obey the letter of the law, if it doesn’t conflict with 1. or 2.

    #987722
    guga31bb
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71075 wrote:

    The red herring is when people use that argument against protecting cyclists. But the fact is, that image exists, and it exists because of our behavior. It would behoove us to stop behaving that way. For example, at a PTA meeting, a parent mentioned that she finds the Custis dangerous because no cyclists stop at red lights.

    Well, to be fair, that section of Custis is dangerous, just not (in my opinion) because of the light jumping. It’s things like the limited visibility for cars turning out of Quinn, the bad intersection at Lynn, and mixing pedestrians with bikes on a steep downhill section that make it dangerous.

    @dasgeh 71075 wrote:

    I could only correct her that “few” cyclists stop at red lights. C’mon.

    Every cyclist stops at Fort Meyer Dr, when it actually makes sense to. But going west across Oak with no cars around? I just don’t see the point.

    #987723
    TwoWheelsDC
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71075 wrote:

    The red herring is when people use that argument against protecting cyclists. But the fact is, that image exists, and it exists because of our behavior. It would behoove us to stop behaving that way. For example, at a PTA meeting, a parent mentioned that she finds the Custis dangerous because no cyclists stop at red lights. I could only correct her that “few” cyclists stop at red lights. C’mon.

    If safety legitimately is the primary concern, our behavior would not even be in question simply because cyclists’ behavior has a negligible impact on the safety of road users. Thus, the “image” only exists because it’s a convenient red herring to direct the conversation away from accommodating forms of transportation that aren’t cars. Does some 14-year-old kid riding like an idiot through his neighborhood really reflect poorly on every other person out riding a bike, and should that be a legitimate factor in how a driver behaves around people on bikes? C’mon. I’m not responsible for cyclists’ “image” when I ride any more than I am about drivers’ image when I drive, or pedestrians’ image when I walk, or Apple users’ image when I use my phone. Sure, I try to be PA(mostly)L, but I also recognize that “cyclists” aren’t a monolithic group and shouldn’t be judged as such.

    Also, why does this same burden not fall on drivers? How many kids were killed by cyclists in the last 12 months? I’m guessing that number has one digit. How many were killed by drivers? I’m pretty sure that number has at least five. Again, if PTA lady was truly concerned about safety, she should be asking why speed limits in school zones are high and unenforced, or why so many streets in Arlington don’t have sidewalks. That she chooses the cyclists on the Custis of all things to be concerned about, shows her biases/agenda pretty clearly IMO.

    #987724
    culimerc
    Participant

    I hold to -2- policies.
    First is the Idaho Stop
    Basically it says that cyclist can treat a Stop sign as a Yield sign and a Stop light as a stop sign.

    And the second is almost a hierarchy.
    Give the right of way to anything lighter or softer than yourself. Trucks to Cars to Motorcycles to Cyclists to Pedestrians is the way it works in my head.
    And Yield to anything heavier than yourself (mostly out of a sense of self preservation) the same order in reverse.

    #987727
    creadinger
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71057 wrote:

    So for the stop-and-run-the-red-if-the-coast-is-clear people, do you do that in a car? Why on a bike and not in a car?

    Here’s a selection of thoughts that I have when I jump a red after stopping first, or jaywalking in no particular order…

    I have way better visibility and the ability to hear oncoming cars than drivers do so what is the risk of jumping this light? Could I get creamed? Always err on the side of caution, but a low speed road, with no cars within sight or earshot is a likely candidate. Is there an island in the middle so that I can cross halfway? Also, on a bike or as a ped I’m extremely unlikely to hurt someone else by jumping the red, like a car would. To jump a light I have to be very familiar with the light and know the cycles as well as the typical traffic patterns. I’ll never jump a light that I’ve never been to before. You never know if there’s a green arrow somewhere or weird timing or something.

    Clear sight-lines and knowledge of the traffic pattern (or time of day like 5am = NO cars) make jumping a red-light safe and simple. Which leads me to the question – if you don’t jump red lights and wouldn’t jaywalk across a street, why is it acceptable for people to walk to their neighbors house across the street without going to the end of the block, crossing at a cross-walk and then walking back up the block to their house? No one would argue that that is scofflaw behavior, but it’s technically illegal (right?) and a victimless crime.

    What’s the difference between a cyclist jumping a clear intersection on red, and right turns on red? It’s the same thought process. Drivers have good enough sight lines to see someone coming and the risk for causing any kind of a crash is low enough that drivers can “jump the red”.

    #987735
    americancyclo
    Participant

    @dasgeh 71026 wrote:

    why do you run reds on the Custis? We talk a lot about that here, too, and we don’t hear often from people who run them.

    @consularrider 71039 wrote:

    Since I almost never see anyone stop and wait through a red light cycle on the Custis at Scott, Oak, or Nash when there are no cars, people aren’t being honest.

    Maybe they’re not being dishonest, they’re just not being vocal.
    @dasgeh 71056 wrote:

    And I hope drivers see me stopped and think “hey, there’s a cyclist”, because maybe then they will SEE CYCLISTS.

    I believe most drivers are focused on the road and where they are going, if not something else in their car. I have little faith that they even see cyclists stopped at intersections.

    @dasgeh 71056 wrote:

    So wave next time you pass me as I wait for a light. Or better yet, stop and say hi ;-)

    I’d love to, but I think you’ll have to leave the house a bit earlier ;)

    @dasgeh 71057 wrote:

    So for the stop-and-run-the-red-if-the-coast-is-clear people, do you do that in a car? Why on a bike and not in a car?

    There is an intersection not far from my house that I travel through a few times a week in a car and a few on a bike. I have never jumped a light in my car. On the bike I can see a lot better, and I’ve grown to know the traffic patterns. I also know that if I wait for the signal with the rest of the traffic, I’ll be battling for space on an uphill where drivers tend to speed up over 40 mph relatively quickly and try to cross over two lanes of traffic to make a left hand turn. It’s much safer for me to proceed when there is no cross traffic and get a 40 second head start on the traffic that allows me to position properly, if not get to my turn lane without danger.
    @dasgeh 71075 wrote:

    a parent mentioned that she finds the Custis dangerous because no cyclists stop at red lights.

    The lights on the Custis are on the last .6 miles. That’s 15% of the entire trail length. There’s a lot of the trail that doesn’t have this ‘danger’ Plus, how is this ‘dangerous’ to her?

    #987737
    PeteD
    Participant

    Downhill or uphill on that stretch of the Custis, I will stop and wait for the full cycle at Lynn and Fort Myer ever time. Intersection of Doom!

    The difference here versus say riding through the rest of Arlington/Falls Church for me is that this part of the trail is on sidewalk.

    Now, if it were on a dedicated bike lane on the asphault (which isn’t happening downhill, since Lee is one way uphill at that point), I’d stop and wait at every red light. When I’m on a sidewalk, I’m a pedestrian, and have to deal with pedestrians, even though I’m on a bike. So if I weren’t on a bike, would I jaywalk that red? If the answer is yes, then I’d probably jump the red as well on the bike… And that stop at Nash, sheesh.

    But when I’m on Washington/Wilson/Clarendon/Vietch/Lee Hwy/etc, I’m a car, and cars stop and wait at all red lights. To me, that’s the difference.

    And then lastly, If I’m at a red light, and there’s a child/kid/impressionable youth on a bike near or at the intersection, I’ll stop and wait.

    –Pete

    #987741
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @TwoWheelsDC 71083 wrote:

    Again, if PTA lady was truly concerned about safety, she should be asking why speed limits in school zones are high and unenforced, or why so many streets in Arlington don’t have sidewalks. That she chooses the cyclists on the Custis of all things to be concerned about, shows her biases/agenda pretty clearly IMO.

    @guga31bb 71082 wrote:

    Well, to be fair, that section of Custis is dangerous, just not (in my opinion) because of the light jumping. It’s things like the limited visibility for cars turning out of Quinn, the bad intersection at Lynn, and mixing pedestrians with bikes on a steep downhill section that make it dangerous.

    The PTA lady was talking about why she didn’t use the Custis to walk/bike her kid to school. Instead, she drives. Because downhill cyclists don’t stop, they increase their speed. So in this particular context, she had a point.

    FWIW, I think the burden falls on drivers, too and I advocate that drivers not break the law while driving either.

    @americancyclo 71097 wrote:

    The lights on the Custis are on the last .6 miles. That’s 15% of the entire trail length. There’s a lot of the trail that doesn’t have this ‘danger’ Plus, how is this ‘dangerous’ to her?

    The thing about trips, if one section is too dangerous to travel, the route is too dangerous to travel. An alternative route for her would be much longer, and would also have danger spots. Also, it seemed like her thought process is “the cyclists run lights, they must not follow any rules; therefore the trail must be dangerous” [because think about driving – the drivers that run reds are the really scary ones that you get out of the way of]

    #987743
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @TwoWheelsDC 71083 wrote:

    If safety legitimately is the primary concern, our behavior would not even be in question simply because cyclists’ behavior has a negligible impact on the safety of road users.

    I believe the logical conclusion of this argument is that everyone can ignore traffic laws that don’t contribute to “safety”. I find that very dangerous. We don’t want drivers to start adopting it.

    Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Honestly, Greenbelt’s make total sense (though really don’t apply to the Custis, since it’s a sidewalk). creadinger, PeteD and americancyclo all make good points (sidewalk v. bike lane; cyclists having a better ability to know what’s going on that drivers). There’s a lot that sounds like rationalizing because you don’t want to wait.

    For me, it still boils down to respecting the rule of law. If you don’t like a law, work to change it; don’t just ignore it. The rule of law benefits us all, and I don’t want others to individually start picking and choosing which laws to follow.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 79 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.