This is what happens when we follow traffic laws

[cvcalhoun]

@thucydides 121204 wrote:

Here’s a little bit of awesomeness in SF yesterday. As a protest, dozens of cyclists fully conformed to the traffic laws along the Wiggle route. Guess what happened? Gridlock. I can’t count the number of times I’ve made this basic prediction to people who hit me with the scofflaw complaints. You don’t want cyclists to strictly follow the traffic laws as written. You want to adjust infrastructure and the laws to account for the fact that bikes aren’t cars. It’s not just better for cyclists, it’s also a lot better for drivers.

And of course, 90% of responses are from motorists pretty much ticked off that we exist. And setting up the false dichotomy that motorists always obey traffic laws, while we are total scofflaws.

[dasgeh]

@thucydides 121204 wrote:

Here’s a little bit of awesomeness in SF yesterday. As a protest, dozens of cyclists fully conformed to the traffic laws along the Wiggle route. Guess what happened? Gridlock. I can’t count the number of times I’ve made this basic prediction to people who hit me with the scofflaw complaints. You don’t want cyclists to strictly follow the traffic laws as written. You want to adjust infrastructure and the laws to account for the fact that bikes aren’t cars. It’s not just better for cyclists, it’s also a lot better for drivers.

To be fair, they more than followed the law: they stayed single file. Just doubling up and filtering (as would be legal here) would cut the delays in half.

That said, the Idaho stop does lead to more effiecient transportation outcomes.

[Crickey7]

This is the kind of advocacy that’s all about throwing red meat to the already converted. To the broader public, it was absolutely tone-deaf. It came across as inconsiderate, peevish, and missing the point about how riding in compliance with the law would work in real life.

If people want Idaho stop, then lobby for it. Frankly, I think there are so many higher priority items on the list.

[thucydides]

@dasgeh 121477 wrote:

To be fair, they more than followed the law: they stayed single file. Just doubling up and filtering (as would be legal here) would cut the delays in half.

That said, the Idaho stop does lead to more effiecient transportation outcomes.

My coworkers whine about filtering and multi-file riding all the time. What needs to be demonstrated are the reasons why and how bikes aren’t cars and why changing the laws aren’t part of a zero-sum anti-car equation. Yes this little stunt was provocative and an exaggeration (protests tend to be just that), but it got the point across in an effective way, in my view.

[mstone]

@Crickey7 121479 wrote:

This is the kind of advocacy that’s all about throwing red meat to the already converted. To the broader public, it was absolutely tone-deaf. It came across as inconsiderate, peevish, and missing the point about how riding in compliance with the law would work in real life.

Well, cracking down on cyclist idaho stops instead of things actually killing people also misses the point. In context, the SFPD announced that they’d be prioritizing enforcement of the behaviors responsible for the most serious accidents in the city (hint: they involve cars), and that each precinct would be responsible for issuing a certain volume of tickets for those especially dangerous behaviors. This precinct missed that target, and decided to target cyclists instead. IMO, that’s hard to justify. The broader public is generally against enforcement of the most dangerous driving behaviors, because they want to break those laws, and are happy to see cyclists targeted instead because cyclist scofflaws. Honestly, I don’t really care about the broader public’s opinion insofar as the broader public wants to drive like a jackhole and kill people.

[dasgeh]

@thucydides 121486 wrote:

My coworkers whine about filtering and multi-file riding all the time. What needs to be demonstrated are the reasons why and how bikes aren’t cars and why changing the laws aren’t part of a zero-sum anti-car equation. Yes this little stunt was provocative and an exaggeration (protests tend to be just that), but it got the point across in an effective way, in my view.

I’m not sure this protest really gets the point across, though, since it likely drew more cyclists to those streets than would normally be there. I find, when talking to people willing to have a real discussion about it, that it’s pretty easy to talk through why filtering and multi-file riding are good ideas. Multi-file should be obvious – less linear space – especially where cars can’t pass anyways (because of on coming traffic, 3 foot laws, upcoming intersections, etc). Filtering is easy to justify when you step back and look at moving people through intersections. You move more people through intersections when the smaller vehicles are allowed to fill all available space. It’s also why, when there’s room for more than one travel lane, they build more travel lanes, even if there is less room further down the road.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 121504 wrote:

It’s also why, when there’s room for more than one travel lane, they build more travel lanes, even if there is less room further down the road.

I wouldn’t go there, because DOTs doing that is why it’s gotten so damned hard to simply cross the street is much of the country. It’s different with bikes because they’re using existing space that would otherwise be unused–unlike creating a 12 lane traffic sewer monstrosity. Of course even in the face of logic the haters still gonna hate because bikes. These would be the same people shouting to get in the bike lane when there isn’t a bike lane.

[baiskeli]

I think protesting the idea that we should follow the law gets us nowhere, and the subtleties of prioritizing offenses is lost in the shuffle.

[GovernorSilver]

@dasgeh 121477 wrote:

To be fair, they more than followed the law: they stayed single file. Just doubling up and filtering (as would be legal here) would cut the delays in half.

After reading the story, I was wondering how narrow the streets are along The Wiggle.

In a hypothetical “literal stop at every stop sign protest” in Old Town Alexandria, I doubt car traffic would be impeded all that much, as there’s just enough room for a single-file line of cyclists and cars on Union St, Royal St, etc.

The roads along The Wiggle would have to be as narrow as Jamieson (westbound lane) heading from West Dr. to Holland Dr. On that one stretch, there’s no parking space on the right side – you pretty much have to take the middle of the lane.

[lordofthemark]

@GovernorSilver 121517 wrote:

After reading the story, I was wondering how narrow the streets are along The Wiggle.

In a hypothetical “literal stop at every stop sign protest” in Old Town Alexandria, I doubt car traffic would be impeded all that much, as there’s just enough room for a single-file line of cyclists and cars on Union St, Royal St, etc.

The roads along The Wiggle would have to be as narrow as Jamieson (westbound lane) heading from West Dr. to Holland Dr. On that one stretch, there’s no parking space on the right side – you pretty much have to take the middle of the lane.

https://www.google.com/maps/search/the+wiggle+sf/@37.770864,-122.432796,3a,75y,278h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sopbVX31EC5tEwlMizcxMiA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26output%3Dthumbnail%26thumb%3D2%26panoid%3DopbVX31EC5tEwlMizcxMiA%26w%3D88%26h%3D60%26yaw%3D278%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D96%26ll%3D37.770864,-122.432796!7i13312!8i6656

[GovernorSilver]

^ I guess I would have to take the middle of the lane if riding on that street. Not enough room to ride to the right and be out of door-zone at the same time.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

I’m generally in favor of protests like this that display the literal effect of following laws that are out-dated, inefficient or petty. It’s within Abraham Lincoln’s school of thought: “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Drivers yelling at me to follow the rules, when I actually am following the rules, is a regular enough occurrence that I’m convinced a large majority of drivers just don’t know the bike regulations. This sort of demonstration shows them the regulations. It also exhibits how the whole traffic system benefits from our “scofflaw” but safe behavior when idahoing a stop.

[lordofthemark]

I agree that a protest like this would not be a priority in DC, Alexandria or Arlington – I think it was a response to a situation in a particular district in SF. AFAICT it has been effective in making its point there – whether it would have been more effective had cyclists ridden two abreast, I do not know.

[kwarkentien]

I’m sorry but I find this whole hullabaloo to be wildly disingenuous. This protest simply shows that if you have a large volume of vehicles proceeding through intersections containing many traffic control devices, you experience delays and backups. Would a similar protest using a comparable volume of motorized traffic have produced a similar result? I say it would. Let us not confound our issues concerning regulation and enforcement with such nonsense that only seeks to rattle the sabers on both sides.

[baiskeli]

@Brendan von Buckingham 121543 wrote:

I’m generally in favor of protests like this that display the literal effect of following laws that are out-dated, inefficient or petty. It’s within Abraham Lincoln’s school of thought: “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Drivers yelling at me to follow the rules, when I actually am following the rules, is a regular enough occurrence that I’m convinced a large majority of drivers just don’t know the bike regulations. This sort of demonstration shows them the regulations. It also exhibits how the whole traffic system benefits from our “scofflaw” but safe behavior when idahoing a stop.

But they aren’t calling for repeal of a law, only to not strictly enforce it.

[Author]

Posts