Missed connection

[baiskeli]

This is my version of a “missed connection” post…

You: headphones, no helmet passing me on the right in the bike lane on Clarendon Blvd. the morning of May 9 about 8 am.

Me: riding safely as usual

You should call your damn passes – especially when passing on the right. I could have swerved right into you.

Dumbass.

Topic

[BTC_DC]

During today’s morning commute, to the approaching cyclist on MVT at the north end of National Airport who decided to come into my lane to leisurely pass another rider.

Did you really yell out “slow down!” at me as you squeezed between myself and the other guy???

And was it necessary to also extend out your elbow to grab as much of the trail as possible and try to knock my arm? Seems especially dangerous as you were approaching the airport bridge where oncoming cyclists will have a decent amount of speed.

[baiskeli]

This is an example of the kind of reaction you get when you protest following the law:

http://www.beezodogsplace.com/2015/08/01/pity-the-poor-downtrodden-cyclists-who-protest-having-to-follow-laws/

[Drewdane]

After years of arguing on the Internet that reports of cyclists routinely “blowing through” red lights and stops signs are exaggerated at best, I got to witness two of my two-wheeled brethren doing exactly that EB on the Pennsylvania Ave bike lanes yesterday during rush hour.

Thanks for making the rest of us look bad, jerks.

[S. Arlington Observer]

Honest question. Does anyone see a difference between stop signs (especially on less traveled non commercial streets) and stop lights? I always stop for stop lights and obey the signal. But on many streets there is a stop sign at every intersection (mainly as a traffic calming tool). Key Boulevard and 11th street in Arlington are examples. Coming to a complete stop at each one would make cycling the routes prohibitively inefficient. I don’t want to reflect badly on cyclists but I do tend to treat such neighborhood stop signs (as opposed to stop lights) as yield signs. Any thoughts on that conundrum?

[dplasters]

@S. Arlington Observer 121539 wrote:

I don’t want to reflect badly on cyclists but I do tend to treat such neighborhood stop signs (as opposed to stop lights) as yield signs. Any thoughts on that conundrum?

I have good news for you, most motorists treat them as yield signs too.

Context is everything here. I roll through many stop signs. I also stop at every traffic light but will cross certain ones if a car isn’t present and the intersection is clear because I know that I won’t be able to set off the light and waiting for two minutes to prove something I know to be true is silly. But yes, I very much see a difference between some stop signs and stop lights.

[Subby]

@Drewdane 121530 wrote:

After years of arguing on the Internet that reports of cyclists routinely “blowing through” red lights and stops signs are exaggerated at best, I got to witness two of my two-wheeled brethren doing exactly that EB on the Pennsylvania Ave bike lanes yesterday during rush hour.

Good news – that doesn’t really change your argument!

[TwoWheelsDC]

@S. Arlington Observer 121539 wrote:

Honest question. Does anyone see a difference between stop signs (especially on less traveled non commercial streets) and stop lights? I always stop for stop lights and obey the signal. But on many streets there is a stop sign at every intersection (mainly as a traffic calming tool). Key Boulevard and 11th street in Arlington are examples. Coming to a complete stop at each one would make cycling the routes prohibitively inefficient. I don’t want to reflect badly on cyclists but I do tend to treat such neighborhood stop signs (as opposed to stop lights) as yield signs. Any thoughts on that conundrum?

Not really a conundrum for me…I rarely make a full stop at stop signs, although I basically never (excepting maybe some right turns) blow a stop sign completely (as in, go through it without slowing). I don’t think drivers have an issue with this, as my getting through the intersection faster generally gets them through the intersection faster. I think the most important thing is to make it clear that you know, and intend to follow the rules of the road…so maybe you roll through a stop sign, but you slow, make eye contact with any drivers at/approaching the intersection, and follow the basic “yield-to-the-right” rules and such. If no cars are present, I usually just slow a bit and proceed. I think drivers (myself included) are less concerned with cyclists following the letter of law than they are making sure cyclists act predictably (so maybe not PAL, so much as PA). Of course, this only applies to intersections, and everywhere else drivers just want you out of the way regardless of how much of a PAL you are….

Stoplights are different, and I almost universally obey them fully (excepting some right turns and times when no cars are around to trip the sensor).

[mstone]

@TwoWheelsDC 121544 wrote:

Not really a conundrum for me…I rarely make a full stop at stop signs, although I basically never (excepting maybe some right turns) blow a stop sign completely (as in, go through it without slowing). I don’t think drivers have an issue with this,

Sure they do, just listen to the complaints. The problem is that we don’t have a good vocabulary for succinctly describing the difference (and, frankly, the “law and order” camp of cycling advocates discourage the creation of such a vocabulary). What you’re describing is basically the idaho stop, but if you say that on the post web site you’ll immediately be inundated by people complaining that cyclists never stop for anything–which is a different thing than the idaho stop. Until we have a better vocabulary, we’re going to continue to be beset by nonsense and we can’t cut through the noise enough to have real conversation about what’s safe, what’s desirable, and what we should socially discourage. E.g., stop sign campaigns which should focus on safety (did a cyclist yield appropriately to cars or pedestrians) instead focus on legality (did a cyclist stop at a easily monitored, low-traffic intersection when nobody was present). I’d love to see safety-based tickets, but that doesn’t seem to be on the table.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 121548 wrote:

Sure they do, just listen to the complaints. The problem is that we don’t have a good vocabulary for succinctly describing the difference (and, frankly, the “law and order” camp of cycling advocates discourage the creation of such a vocabulary). What you’re describing is basically the idaho stop, but if you say that on the post web site you’ll immediately be inundated by people complaining that cyclists never stop for anything–which is a different thing than the idaho stop. Until we have a better vocabulary, we’re going to continue to be beset by nonsense and we can’t cut through the noise enough to have real conversation about what’s safe, what’s desirable, and what we should socially discourage. E.g., stop sign campaigns which should focus on safety (did a cyclist yield appropriately to cars or pedestrians) instead focus on legality (did a cyclist stop at a easily monitored, low-traffic intersection when nobody was present). I’d love to see safety-based tickets, but that doesn’t seem to be on the table.

Just to note, I have heard Alexandria police claim that in their enforcement campaign on Union Street, they only ticketed cyclists who were egregiously violating stop signs, not folks who were idahoing them. On the other hand I have heard cyclists contest the truth of that claim. Leaving aside the question of veracity, it does seem possible to speak about the difference, at least in some environments – though a better defined vocabulary would surely help.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 121550 wrote:

Just to note, I have heard Alexandria police claim that in their enforcement campaign on Union Street, they only ticketed cyclists who were egregiously violating stop signs, not folks who were idahoing them. On the other hand I have heard cyclists contest the truth of that claim. Leaving aside the question of veracity, it does seem possible to speak about the difference, at least in some environments – though a better defined vocabulary would surely help.

I actually think that anecdote supports my position: what, exactly, does “egregiously violate” mean? Given that there was subsequently disagreement, I’d argue that’s prima facie evidence that the vocabulary is too vague to have a meaningful discussion without including scenarios or diagrams or something to augment the deficient vocabulary. Worst of all is “blow through”–I pretty much ignore everything that’s said after a claim of “blowing through” anything unless the subject is a tornado because the phrase is so devoid of meaning.

[CaseyKane50]

@mstone 121552 wrote:

Worst of all is “blow through”–I pretty much ignore everything that’s said after a claim of “blowing through” anything unless the subject is a tornado because the phrase is so devoid of meaning.

So, you would just say that the bike rider captured by TwoWheelsDC in his video at
http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6843-My-Evening-Commute&p=121489#post121489 “failed to stop”?

[mstone]

@CaseyKane50 121554 wrote:

So, you would just say that the bike rider captured by TwoWheelsDC in his video at
http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6843-My-Evening-Commute&p=121489#post121489 “failed to stop”?

I’d focus more on the fact that he unsafely interfered with other users’ right of way. Or just say “dumbass”. But mostly, the point is to focus on what’s unsafe–if he did exactly the same thing on an empty street with good visibility, would it still be “blowing through” and/or would it matter? The problem with the “blew through” phrase is that it’s equally applicable in common usage to a person taking the groceries home on a 3 speed coasting through a stop sign at an empty intersection at 4mph as it is to the dumbass in the video.

[MFC]

@lordofthemark 121550 wrote:

Just to note, I have heard Alexandria police claim that in their enforcement campaign on Union Street, they only ticketed cyclists who were egregiously violating stop signs, not folks who were idahoing them. On the other hand I have heard cyclists contest the truth of that claim. Leaving aside the question of veracity, it does seem possible to speak about the difference, at least in some environments – though a better defined vocabulary would surely help.

I received one ticket in Old Town about 6 years during a crack-down when the officer recognized that I had slowed down, and a couple of lectures/warnings in Old Town and DC. That being said, I think it is better to ride considerately, look out for police officers, and hope for the best (although a full stop is always an option).

[vern]

@mstone 121552 wrote:

I actually think that anecdote supports my position: what, exactly, does “egregiously violate” mean? Given that there was subsequently disagreement, I’d argue that’s prima facie evidence that the vocabulary is too vague to have a meaningful discussion without including scenarios or diagrams or something to augment the deficient vocabulary. Worst of all is “blow through”–I pretty much ignore everything that’s said after a claim of “blowing through” anything unless the subject is a tornado because the phrase is so devoid of meaning.

I think it would be very difficult to create meaningful and specific language to codify a legal Idaho stop. What seems more plausible to me is an application of something well understood by drivers…using the language of right turn on red for such situations as discussed here. So, instead of an Idaho, a stop and then proceed through the intersection if on-coming traffic will not be hindered.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 121552 wrote:

I actually think that anecdote supports my position: what, exactly, does “egregiously violate” mean? Given that there was subsequently disagreement, I’d argue that’s prima facie evidence that the vocabulary is too vague to have a meaningful discussion without including scenarios or diagrams or something to augment the deficient vocabulary. Worst of all is “blow through”–I pretty much ignore everything that’s said after a claim of “blowing through” anything unless the subject is a tornado because the phrase is so devoid of meaning.

It meant that the cyclist in question did something more than an Idaho – that they proceeded through a stop sign without slowing and yielding (or – here my memory is the problem – that they ran a red without stopping first, as a proper Idaho would involve) The cyclists stated (to me, not present at the meeting with LE) that the folks ticketed had done proper Idahos. I think in this case the debate was really about police veracity, not a misunderstanding of what was involved in a proper Idaho stop. Though yes, I do understand where vocabulary could be at issue – there are several different ways to NOT do a proper Idaho – from proceeding through a stop sign at an empty intersection at speed, to proceeding recklessly amidst pedestrians.

[Author]

Replies