The Shoal Report

[hozn]

@dasgeh 91645 wrote:

My point is that cyclists are not more dangerous.

I guess I disagree there. The inherent physics of the thing suggest that those moving at greater speed with an additional 30+lbs of weight and less agility in their movement are more dangerous than pedestrians. I’m sure anyone that’s been hit by a bike even at slow speeds would have preferred it if instead someone had accidentally walked into them.

I thought we generally accepted that cars > cyclists > pedestrians when it comes to danger potential and hence understood obligation to yield. Horses get thrown in there somewhere, I suppose, too

[consularrider]

@hozn 91651 wrote:

I guess I disagree there. The inherent physics of the thing suggest that those moving at greater speed with an additional 30+lbs of weight and less agility in their movement are more dangerous than pedestrians. I’m sure anyone that’s been hit by a bike even at slow speeds would have preferred it if instead someone had accidentally walked into them.

I thought we generally accepted that cars > cyclists > pedestrians when it comes to danger potential and hence understood obligation to yield. Horses get thrown in there somewhere, I suppose, too

But my question is why would the pedestrian move around the stopped bike and stand in front of it at the curbside?

[hozn]

@consularrider 91652 wrote:

But my question is why would the pedestrian move around the stopped bike and stand in front of it at the curbside?

Why do cyclists do this to cars at stoplights?

[sethpo]

@hozn 91651 wrote:

Horses get thrown in there somewhere, I suppose, too

Apparently, horses yield for no man…ever.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6340[/ATTACH]

(h/t to Twitter)

[Geoff]

@hozn 91654 wrote:

Why do cyclists do this to cars at stoplights?

I like Sethpo’s fluid dynamics explanation.
But I don’t shoal the cars if I actually think I’m going to get in their way or if I think they’ll have an awkward time passing me, because then I’d put myself at risk.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@hozn 91654 wrote:

Why do cyclists do this to cars at stoplights?

’cause I’m awesomer than a car and I get to go first?

[consularrider]

@hozn 91654 wrote:

Why do cyclists do this to cars at stoplights?

I don’t. Unfortunately, I can only answer for myself.

[cyclingfool]

@sethpo 91660 wrote:

Apparently, horses yield for no man…ever.

And not only horses… all must yield to the Black Knight.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6341[/ATTACH]

(Sorry, someone had to do it… that’s low hanging fruit, even for a swallow.)

[dasgeh]

@hozn 91651 wrote:

I guess I disagree there. The inherent physics of the thing suggest that those moving at greater speed with an additional 30+lbs of weight and less agility in their movement are more dangerous than pedestrians. I’m sure anyone that’s been hit by a bike even at slow speeds would have preferred it if instead someone had accidentally walked into them.

I thought we generally accepted that cars > cyclists > pedestrians when it comes to danger potential and hence understood obligation to yield. Horses get thrown in there somewhere, I suppose, too

In isolation, I’d agree that it would hurt more to be hit by a bike than a walking person, but a cyclist generally gets hurt as well in those interactions, which is why I don’t think cyclists are more dangerous than peds. I think cyclists yield to peds is the rule because cyclists are moving faster and are in the better position to do the yielding, generally. And even if there is a slightly increased danger potential with a bike than a ped, the equation would look something like:
car >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bike>ped

Which is why there are a lot more efforts to protect bikes and peds from cars, like 3 feet to pass laws, separated facilities, higher punishments for violations.

Horses just don’t know any better. You should yield to horses because you might get kicked and.. ow!

[dasgeh]

@hozn 91654 wrote:

Why do cyclists do this to cars at stoplights?

Why are cyclists allowed to filter? I’d say:
1) Safety (weren’t you the first one to bring that up)
2) Cost (usually won’t slow cars down much, if any, because generally cars can pass soon after) < benefit (safety + encouraging cycling)
3) Makes turning safer and easier for cyclists

Why do they?
1) fluid dynamics
2) “culture” i.e. everyone does it
3) safety
4) “helps me without hurting anyone else”

Note: cyclists aren’t allowed, and usually don’t (though, regrettably, sometimes do), pull around cars and totally block the crosswalk and/or intersection. Again, the issue I have at the IoD is that peds come around and block the curb cut, so those legally crossing can’t get onto the sidewalk.

[jnva]

What’s more dangerous: a person riding one horse on the trail or a person riding a motorized bicycle that has less than one horsepower?

[hozn]

@dasgeh 91667 wrote:

Why are cyclists allowed to filter? I’d say:
1) Safety (weren’t you the first one to bring that up)

Yup, I agree; that’s exactly why I do it (when I do it). E.g. if right lane is right-turn-only, I would much rather be out in front of the right lane where I’m not in anyone’s way when the light turns green. This is, e.g., crossing Reston Pkwy. Reston may have great walking/cycling path infrastructure, but riding on or crossing the main artery roads is not a bike-friendly experience.

Anyway, that was my point; getting out in front of cyclists might feel safer to peds the way it does to cyclists. Anyway, I agree that standing right in front of the cyclists is probably causing more problems than it is avoiding; standing off the side in front of the cyclists seems quite reasonable (that is the behavior I typically observe, but I have the luxury of riding out here in the ‘burbs where there’s little reason for anyone to be in close proximity to another person ever).

[Dickie]

@dasgeh 91667 wrote:

Why are cyclists allowed to filter? I’d say:
1) Safety (weren’t you the first one to bring that up)
2) Cost (usually won’t slow cars down much, if any, because generally cars can pass soon after) < benefit (safety + encouraging cycling)
3) Makes turning safer and easier for cyclists

I promised I wouldn’t stick my neck out as it always gets chopped off, but this is an area I am always confused by. I am assuming we are talking about filtering in traffic? As a rule I never filter for the simple reason that I find it far more dangerous. Drivers are not expecting it, and I never really know what they are going to do even when stopped. I hate being next to a car, I can no longer see it’s turn signals or assess the drivers intentions. I also don’t like reducing my margin of error by squeezing myself into a space, and I have never understood the increased safety benefits. Perhaps I don’t understand what filtering is, or I have not witnessed it performed correctly. When I am in traffic and approaching stopped vehicles at an intersection I act like traffic and sit in the lane with the rest of the cars and wait my turn. The car(s) directly behind me are very aware of my presence, and when traffic starts moving I roll until I feel balanced and then move to the right to let cars pass. Rarely has a car buzzed me in this situation and generally they wait for a safe time to pass. I have not been barked at for this practice, and in fact quite the opposite…. been thanked for being predicable. The idea that you are safer by filtering to the front is lost on me… all those cars you just passed now have to pass you again, at speed I might add, and possibly annoyed.

A few weeks back I had to drive my 3 ton truck to a job site, it required a stint on Fillmore road from Columbia Pike to HWY 50 during rush hour. As you might know, this road narrows terribly in a few places. A line of vehicles I was following approached a cyclist…. we all waited until each of us had the required 3 feet to pass (I was amazed). Eventually we came to a stop light, the cyclist squeezed and filtered back to the front of the line…. actually having to brace himself against my truck mirror to get by. Apparently this is completely legal and endorsed by many of us… but at the end of the day, that law did little to help the cyclists safety as all those same drivers (pissed off I can only assume) became frustrated and irritated, passing the cyclist with far less room. I was equally annoyed but waited again. The point being (and not a popular idea on this forum); although filtering is legal, it certainly wasn’t the safest choice in this situation.

[Powerful Pete]

On my commute home I often ride the 15th street bike lane southbound. The lane ends at the intersection of 15th and Penn (or rather, there is an arrow there and what would be the bike lane is taken up by food trucks all the way to Constitution/Pennsylvania).

At rush hour, the light at 15th and Constitution/Pennsylvania ensures that the cars are bumper to bumper. I “filter” through to the light, and then proceed to get on the sidewalk paralleling 15th next to the Washington Monument and the Holocaust Memorial.

I do this because the one time I tried to ride that portion of sidewalk took forever and was, frankly dangerous for myself and all of the pedestrians.

[jnva]

I started commuting by bike full time so that I could filter through stopped traffic downtown. It doesn’t seem that dangerous to me in city traffic. Doing it on back roads in the suburbs is different though. Definitely don’t do it there, even in arlington it’s dangerous. But filtering through stopped K street traffic – why would you wait in traffic when there is plenty of space to filter through?

[Author]

Posts