[ImaCynic]

@lordofthemark 210746 wrote:

“Trolling internet bike forums is a huge waste of time”

Abe Lincoln

Of course. One should avoid doing so and refrain from mis-quoting others.

[ImaCynic]

@trailrunner 210718 wrote:

Maybe not by themselves, but with education and enforcement, they will.

If we don’t have laws, then education and enforcement can’t happen.

Yes, motor vehicle laws are confusing, and probably contradictory in some places. That’s because they, and the transportation system, have evolved over 120 years. Perhaps they need to be re-written from the ground up, but just like the revenue code, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. So we’re stuck with a patchwork of laws, and this is an attempt to fill in the holes.

Ignorance can be overcome with education, and perhaps changing the licensing system. Perhaps it is too easy to get a license, and the standards should be made much harder. Perhaps harder exams should be given every two or three years to ensure that drivers keep up with current laws. Perhaps bicycle and pedestrian safety need to be emphasized more, much more. But ignorance is not a good reason not to create laws to protect cyclists.

“Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.”

Henry Adams

[ImaCynic]

@lordofthemark 210717 wrote:

If you can back this statement up with data, you should publish it. You’d create quite a stir at TRB (Transportation Research Board)

But simple assertions on this forum are worth the paper they are printed on.

Traffic laws are regularly violated, but, IMO, do matter. Many people do NOT want to get a ticket. They also don’t want to be the party at fault in a civil suit. And, yes, being able to recover in a civil suit matters. And showing a pattern of violations by motorists helps us as we argue for better infrastructure I think (for example the notion of unmarked crosswalks, helps to disarm the “well the pedestrian was outside of a crosswalk, ergo jaywalking meme)

Here you go, if you believe in the data published by the US government:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/Data_Stats.aspx

I suspect many new traffic laws were added every year, and yet overall fatalities, still rose.

[ImaCynic]

@Mark 210714 wrote:

In the case I’m referring to, the double yellow line should be ignored because it unfortunately provides no useful information. Motorists and cyclists simply need to use good judgment. I wonder what is the point of putting down meaningless road markers.

There must be sufficient clear line-of-sight distance for a vehicle to overtake another, so even if one spot looks clear, it may not be so few hundred feet ahead. For instance, even at 25MPH, one travels at 37ft per second, so in a span of say eight seconds to pass another, one would have traveled nearly 300 ft, and this entire distance must be clearly seen by any oncoming traffic, so these markers are not as meaningless as you think.

@Mark 210714 wrote:

I agree with your point that laws are not going to make things safer. When I’m on the road, my decisions are based on what I believe is safe, not on what the law requires. But it still wouldn’t hurt if laws were written to be as clear and sensible as possible. Unclear laws citing cyclists as impediments strike me as simply bad laws. The three foot passing law is a good one: it is clear and to the point. Motorists do not know exactly what three feet is, but the law does convey the idea that they cannot pass to close to a cyclist. (Of course, most motorists don’t even know this rule. The good drivers simply understand that they should have a safety margin when passing.)

The issue here is when one’s belief of safe riding conflicts with the law, where the law often removes any room for exercising sound judgements. Want a simple law? Consider China’s rule of the road where the bigger vehicle is *always* at fault in a traffic incursion. Bike hits ped, bike’s fault, car hits bike, car’s fault, bigger car/truck hits car… you get the idea. It basically places the burden on the one that is less vulnerable to not to do something stupid. Now this to me is pretty easy and clear to follow, and understand.

[ImaCynic]

@Mark 210707 wrote:

The double yellow line is essentially meaningless and is ignored by motorists.

I can assure you that this is not the only law being ignored by motorists.

More bicycle laws are NOT going to make things safer; they simply add to confusion and ignorance.

[ImaCynic]

@Steve O 210628 wrote:

If the lane is not wide enough to allow me to ride on the right–and allow room for the driver to pass me with three feet of clearance without partially crossing into the oncoming lane–then I will ride in the center anytime there is oncoming traffic (if the road is clear ahead, then I’ll ride on the right-ish side). I do not want to give a driver room to make her believe she can squeeze by. This is, IMO, common sense and makes me safer, regardless of what the law says. In some places laws are starting to acknowledge this, such as the two-abreast law in Virginia.

^^^ This is spot on. I do the same, particularly around blind curves.

@Steve O 210628 wrote:

I disagree with this. If cars are never allowed to cross the double yellow and are also required to allow three feet to pass, then they could end up being stuck behind a cyclist for many miles, much of that unnecessarily. The law states that they may cross the line and pass, but only when safe to do so. I personally have experienced hundreds of cases of cars moving over to the oncoming lane and passing me with lots of clearance in a completely safe manner. In the absence of a law like this, I believe we cyclists would be more endangered, not less.

The rub here is “but only when safe to do so”, and I have no confidence on drivers’ ability to make that judgement. Besides, if this “allowed to cross double yellow” is a new law and won’t take effect until July, why have drivers been do so already? Again, laws only seem to matter after the fact, and when there is no enforcement, it is largely ignored. Recall the four-way stop intersection video that you posted?

Keen situational awareness and assertive riding are the best bet to stay alive out there. Laws can only be used to punish those that run you over, if they ever get caught.

[ImaCynic]

The postings here so far clearly demonstrated the problem with the current bicycle laws – vague, inconsistent, and open to interpretation. The only consistency is that these are guaranteed to change whenever one pedals into another jurisdiction. These laws are confusing enough for a cyclist, so can one really expect a driver to know AND follow? I think not. An average cyclist/driver simply do not have the bandwidth or a law degree to parse all these while on the road.

Rules of the road need to be the same, for two wheels or four. I much rather see some real effort in creating a uniform set of traffic laws that span across jurisdictions and vehicle types than having to deal with these esoteric bike laws conjured up by those that likely have never pedaled an inch in their adult life.

[ImaCynic]

@lordofthemark 210612 wrote:

They have the right to cross a double yellow line when passing a human powered device such as a bicycle.

This is the law in Virginia.

Again, why is there a double yellow? It usually means that there is insufficient line-of-sight for safe overtake. By passing this law, a driver may legally be able to cross it, but it does not reduce the danger involved in doing so. If an oncoming car appears during the overtake, the driver will likely swerve back into its own lane, right where the cyclist is. This kinda sucks for the cyclist, but hey, it is legal!

This is yet another unintended consequence of passing something that they believe it is safer for all. It is not.

[ImaCynic]

Basic road cycling etiquette calls for switching to a single line whenever there are cars back. Insisting on riding two abreast while holding up traffic sends the wrong message and perpetuates the “cyclists do not care” stigma.

Double yellow means no passing when I last checked the traffic laws, so the notion that a car has to completely cross the double yellow to overtake a cyclist makes no sense. When put in this situation, a driver has two choices; 1) wait, or 2) squeeze around the cyclist without infringing on traffic violation, and I suspect the driver will most likely choose the latter as I would do the same. Three feet? Are you kidding me? Expecting a typical driver to know what three feet looks like is akin to a three-year old understanding the meaning of life. As I like to say, relying on traffic laws will kill you, every time.

The sense of road entitlement is pervasive among both drivers and cyclists, and to me this is so woven into the cultural fabric here that I don’t expect any real changes, regardless of what the law says.

[ImaCynic]

“The vehicle involved in the crash drove away from the scene but was later found…The driver…is cooperating…”

Hopefully from behind bars.

[ImaCynic]

Strap on a butterfly net and snag a few! Some of you may recall seeing this

[ImaCynic]

Wonder how many environmental variables were considered in the simulation… On the drunk driver example, what if there was another oncoming car behind the drunk driver? How would Waymo choose which head-on collision is “better”?

You may recall the Uber autonomous car that struck and killed a woman crossing the road with her bike few years back? Here’s a good article on the likely causes:

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/uber-finds-deadly-accident-likely-caused-by-software-set-to-ignore-objects-on-road

I suspect much has improved since this incident, but still, the machine is only as good as the hooman that programs it.

[ImaCynic]

@ursus 210404 wrote:

There are probably also other intersections in Addis Ababa without signals.

I believe this is one of the biggest and busiest there, so I suspect what’s shown is the norm there.

[ImaCynic]

@Brett L. 210397 wrote:

Obligatory google search tells me that that intersection is responsible for 8% of all traffic incidents within Addis Ababa.

I’m surprised that it’s only 8%. Can only imagine what that number will look like if that same intersection existed here.

This is a good example of having acute situational awareness and devoid of any road entitlement, or perhaps the concept of “share the road” should really look like.

[ImaCynic]

@Brett L. 210397 wrote:

Obligatory google search tells me that that intersection is responsible for 8% of all traffic incidents within Addis Ababa.

I’m surprised that it’s only 8%. Can only imagine what that number will look like if that same intersection existed here.

This is a good example of situational awareness and without being entitled, or perhaps what “share the road” should look like.

[Author]

Posts