The Rules

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 83013 wrote:

see the thing is most of us cyclists are also drivers – so we KNOW if a driver gets anything from doing it or not. In the case of typical cyclist violations, I think most drivers just don’t understand why people do it.

With Idaho stops and filtering, I agree. But with running red lights when noone is coming, cars know why we do it: to save time (ok, sometimes there’s also the “get out in traffic so I don’t have to mix with idiot drivers” reason, but not that often). Cars would save time, too, if they ran reds when no traffic was coming. But they don’t do it. Then they see cyclists doing it and they get annoyed. And to be honest, I don’t see a defense of what the cyclists are doing.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 83004 wrote:

On Quincy Street between Lee Highway and Wilson Blvd, cars drive in the bike lane all the time (and no, I’m not talking about when they’re turning right and legally required to be in that space). They don’t get anything from doing it — they just are driving in the wrong place. They could be 3 feet to the left and not have a problem. Generally, if they see a bike, they get over. On the one hand, no harm no foul. On the other, don’t drive in the stinking bike lane.

Those are door zone bike lanes. So change it to “no harm, no foul until one of the idiots who could have easily driven 3 feet to the left damages my parked car”

I mean the other thing about bike lanes (door zone and otherwise) is that one of the policy rationales for putting them in (at least in the suburbs, if not on L street), in addition to the benefits to cyclists, is that they serve as traffic calming. Even at those hours no cyclists are actually in them. Its less like “bike lanes are good because : MORE CYCLING” than “we need to narrow the lanes to get folks to slow down, and like what else are we going to do with 6 feet (or 3 feet) of road width – might as well put in a bike lane” So if (non-protected) bike lanes are open to motorists when there are no bikes around, that is still defeating their purpose.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 83016 wrote:

With Idaho stops and filtering, I agree. But with running red lights when noone is coming, cars know why we do it: to save time (ok, sometimes there’s also the “get out in traffic so I don’t have to mix with idiot drivers” reason, but not that often). Cars would save time, too, if they ran reds when no traffic was coming. But they don’t do it. Then they see cyclists doing it and they get annoyed. And to be honest, I don’t see a defense of what the cyclists are doing.

Of course they don’t need to run the red–they’ll hit the gas pedal at the green, accelerate past the speed limit, and pass the cyclist anyway. There’s just no point in worrying about what some driver is going to hate, and no reason for you to be defending someone else anyway.

[rcannon100]

@jrenaut 83000 wrote:

I think it’s funny that a thread started over a blog post devoted to reducing cycling to 15 simple rules has devolved into 3 pages and counting of arguing about rules of cycling.

Yah, and they didnt seem to take the hint.

I guess I will have to add some rules

Rule One: If you are worried about rules, you are missing the point.

Rule Two: See Rule One.

Rule Three: Dont be a Dick*

*Hijacking a thread has been ruled by the Court of the US Spremes to be dickish.

** For clarification, this thread is about how people who are obsessed with rules are dickish. Ero, if you are sitting here arguing about the rules, you fall under rule three, or five, or whatever number. I mean who cares. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. :p

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 83016 wrote:

With Idaho stops and filtering, I agree. But with running red lights when noone is coming, cars know why we do it: to save time (ok, sometimes there’s also the “get out in traffic so I don’t have to mix with idiot drivers” reason, but not that often). Cars would save time, too, if they ran reds when no traffic was coming. But they don’t do it. Then they see cyclists doing it and they get annoyed. And to be honest, I don’t see a defense of what the cyclists are doing.

1 Are we talking blow through, or stop and proceed through? For the former, momentum may well be part of the issue.
2. The rationale IIUC is that the cyclist running the red, unlike the motorist, is endangering themself (and so can appropriately judge the time/ safety tradeoff) while driver of the larger vehicle endangers others. Obviously doesn’t hold in a place with lots of peds (though even there a reckless cyclist hitting a ped is going to do less damage than a car hitting a ped). I don’t ever do it (in large part because of my own time/safety tradeoff) but I am skeptical of “optics” arguments.

“But they don’t do it. “

Of course lots of them DO do it.

[dasgeh]

@rcannon100 83021 wrote:

** For clarification, this thread is about how people who are obsessed with rules are dickish. Ero, if you are sitting here arguing about the rules, you fall under rule three, or five, or whatever number. I mean who cares. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. :p

Let me get this straight: You don’t want this thread to talk about the laws, because you want to talk about The Rules. And people who are obsessed with rules are dickish. You want to move this to another thread so y’all can be dicks here?

[lordofthemark]

here are some good rules

http://talesfromthesharrows.blogspot.com/2014/04/unsolicited-advice-for-people-who-might.html

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 83022 wrote:

1 Are we talking blow through, or stop and proceed through? For the former, momentum may well be part of the issue.
2. The rationale IIUC is that the cyclist running the red, unlike the motorist, is endangering themself (and so can appropriately judge the time/ safety tradeoff) while driver of the larger vehicle endangers others. Obviously doesn’t hold in a place with lots of peds (though even there a reckless cyclist hitting a ped is going to do less damage than a car hitting a ped). I don’t ever do it (in large part because of my own time/safety tradeoff) but I am skeptical of “optics” arguments.

“But they don’t do it. “

Of course lots of them DO do it.

I’m talking stop and go once it’s clear. Cars do a lot of dumb things, but they don’t do that.

I agree about not altering our behavior based on optics. I was responding to lordofthemark’s point about drivers not understanding what we’re doing.

I do see the point about cyclists endangering themselves v. drivers endangering others. I think that’s a relevant point when it comes to law enforcement and even policy (what the law should be). But given what the law is, when we’re talking about what cyclists should do, I’m still in the “stop and stay stopped at reds*” camp. The * is for special circumstances: mainly when the light won’t turn green for bikes alone.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 83006 wrote:

Such screeds usually include the statement “almost ALL cyclists blow through red lights”

While the “almost all” is certainly hyperbolic, I find the number to be quite substantial, particularly in downtown and between Ballston and Rosslyn. I would not be surprised if it were less in your part of Fairfax. Unfortunately, most of the perpetrators seem to be middle aged men.

[rcannon100]

@dasgeh 83024 wrote:

Let me get this straight: You don’t want this thread to talk about the laws, because you want to talk about The Rules. And people who are obsessed with rules are dickish. You want to move this to another thread so y’all can be dicks here?

We dont want to talk about the rules. We wanna talk about talking about the rules. You’ve gone from talking about talking about the rules, to actually talking about rules. Well no, now we are talking about law ~ we were talking about “the rules.” So instead of talking about talking, we are actually talking; and instead of rules, we are talking about law.

We want to laugh about how people obsess about the rules, and go around chanting “Rule 5” like it means something. Please see Rule 6: If you aren’t having fun, stop.

You guys have turned this into another Scaflaw Bikes Argument (which is about in the same league of Helmet Arguments), with a metaphysical debate about how slow you have to be going in order to not blow through a light. This started as us laughing (or trying to laugh, or some of us were laughing), and it ended in Godwin’s Law.

Now we are trying to figure out if you are a dick because
(a) one thinks rules that define when someone is a dick are dickish
(b) one thinks there arent enough rules and when given the opportunity one wants local versions of the rules
(c) one thinks the conversation is about the law when whether running a stop sign will lose the respect of car drivers
(d) whether we are all car drivers in the end and cant we call just get a long
(e) whether I have to be riding slower than the slowest guy in freezing saddles (oh that would be me) for it to be considered an Idaho stop
(f) Whether Dickie can ever liberate himself from his dick of a boss
(g) Or Rule 12: “No one cares”
(h) All of the above

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 83028 wrote:

While the “almost all” is certainly hyperbolic, I find the number to be quite substantial, particularly in downtown and between Ballston and Rosslyn. I would not be surprised if it were less in your part of Fairfax. Unfortunately, most of the perpetrators seem to be middle aged men.

The one time I rode the 15th street cycle track, I watched to see how many people rode through the reds (on a Sunday, very little cross traffic esp downtown) and it was about 1/3 were in compliance with the law, and 2/3 went through – almost all after stopping. Maybe I’m not out and about enough (my commute does not take me to red light running hot spots, and my weekend rides are mostly on trails, or in FFX) but my very, very strong empirical sense is that red light blowers (as opposed to stop and proceeders) are a small minority.

[culimerc]

@dasgeh 83024 wrote:

Let me get this straight: You don’t want this thread to talk about the laws, because you want to talk about The Rules. And people who are obsessed with rules are dickish. You want to move this to another thread so y’all can be dicks here?

Yes

[Mikey]

Sorry, I guess I am to blame. So helmets? Required, useless, discuss. . .
@rcannon100 83021 wrote:

Yah, and they didnt seem to take the hint.

I guess I will have to add some rules

Rule One: If you are worried about rules, you are missing the point.

Rule Two: See Rule One.

Rule Three: Dont be a Dick*

*Hijacking a thread has been ruled by the Court of the US Spremes to be dickish.

** For clarification, this thread is about how people who are obsessed with rules are dickish. Ero, if you are sitting here arguing about the rules, you fall under rule three, or five, or whatever number. I mean who cares. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. :p

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 83027 wrote:

I’m talking stop and go once it’s clear. Cars do a lot of dumb things, but they don’t do that.

I think the reason for the difference is pretty clear, eh? A reckless driver does not stop at all, and a safe driver stops and does not go once its clear. A reckless cyclist also does not stop, but lots of cyclists who are far from reckless do stop and proceed once its clear, because of the differences between a bike and a car (lesser danger to others, greater visibility) that we have often discussed.

I don’t think the majority of drivers who stop at red lights, and stay stopped, are doing so because of optics or their belief in the rule of law (most such drivers still violate the speed limit for example) but because they make the reasoned judgement that A. their visibility is not enough to avoid an accident and B. The consequences of an accident could be severe while many cylists (often of course, the same people who in their cars will stop at stop lights) make a different judgement about visibility and consequences.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with taking optics or respect for law into account, but that that does not explain the differences in behavior across modes on this particular item. I mean cyclists on roads seldom exceed posted speed limits, but thats not because they have a greater respect for law.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 83004 wrote:

On Quincy Street between Lee Highway and Wilson Blvd, cars drive in the bike lane all the time (and no, I’m not talking about when they’re turning right and legally required to be in that space). They don’t get anything from doing it — they just are driving in the wrong place.

I think what is happening here is that drivers only see the yellow line and think they are on a two lane road and center themselves in the “travel lane” completely oblivious to the white line indicating the bike lane.

This is a potential problem with the King St. bike lanes. Bike lanes by themselves may not provide sufficient visible stimulus that a road is narrow, thereby slowing traffic. Having occasional large hunks of metal (parked cars) may be more effective as a visual signal that lanes are narrow than empty bike lanes. I worry that traffic speeds on King Street might actually increase with the bike lanes, even if the actual marked road lanes are narrower.

[Author]

Posts