What is wrong with cyclists?! From a cyclist.

[NoraLenderbee]

Here is a very informative site about how to ride safely (and legally!) in traffic.

http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/what-we-know/

Bicycling in traffic is safe and easy and does not require athleticism, speed or bravery.

Successful bicycling does require a basic understanding of traffic dynamics and a belief in one’s equal right to the road.

. . .

Most crashes caused by motorist mistakes can be avoided or prevented by the bicyclist—often as simply and passively as riding in a more visible position.

Most drivers are willing to cooperate with a bicyclist who communicates.

Regardless of whether or not motorists believe bicyclists have the right to control a lane, or understand why we need to, they will change lanes to pass a lane-controlling bicyclist. That’s what matters.

[Mr Dumpster Stache]

Is there really any cyclist out there that stops and waits through an entire red light? I have never seen this once in the 3 years I have lived in Denver. Unless its a cyclist on the sidewalk waiting for the walk light...

I don't understand this... Don't you get hit by a car if you go through a red light?? Of course I wait through an entire red light!! Otherwise I'd be dead right now, right?

Only in Big Cities. Where I live, you get red lights with nobody on the road either direction whatsoever. I just ride right through those. :)

[rocketpj]

Well, as a cycling commuter of almost 20 years I confess to rolling through the occasional stop sign when nobody is coming along the cross streets.  Not at full speed mind you, but slowing down so I could stop on a dime, then picking up again.  I do the same thing in my car - just like every other driver.  I don't run red lights because I don't want to die.

I've been driving for 27 years and have had exactly one accident (when a person rear ended me in a traffic jam). 

My parents owned a driver training school, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that the last time almost every one of their students came to a full stop, counted to three while looking left and right, then proceeded was in the test for their license.

I have no issue with cyclists being accountable to the same rules as drivers, there is no reason to make it more confusing.  From what I can see, the vast majority of vehicle operators probably should not have a license to operate anything other than a bike.

Every one of us, when we drive, has plenty of opportunity to observe moronic driving, often many times in a single outing.  But for whatever subconscious psychological reason, many people remember the cyclist who does the same things but is different from all the cars and so easier to recall.

[LennStar]

Here in germany riding a bike is a little more widespread ;)

People mostly behave sensitive, if not always to the words of the law. (Exception is the no light at night problematic, really bad)
That also means that they slow down, but not stop completely at a stop sign. As I do it, both bike and car, if I can see the road for a long way.
If you slow down to less then 10kmh then a bike can always stop before it reaches the road. But completely stopping is a big think for a bike. Its way easier to go from 3kmh then to start at standing ;)
Often lazyness and street design in connection make bikers dont respect law.
For example on a red trafic light: The rider wants to turn right were a seperate bike lane is. (not where he is coming).
According to law he has to stand 2 minutes until green.
Instead he drives 10m on the sidewalk and goes right there and on the bike lane.
If there would be 20m bike lane in front of the red light, everything would go smooth for the biker and cars would not have the hindrance of a bike in a turn (which is one of  more dangerous things).

[Primm]

I see conversations like this on FB and other places on a daily basis, without exaggeration.

I have NEVER read a similar conversation about what's wrong with motorists, despite the fact that I see drivers run red lights / fail to give way / commit other similar "atrocities" every time I'm on the road.

Some cyclists fuck up. Some drivers fuck up. Tarring all cyclists, drivers, pedestrians or other groups with the same brush based on the actions of SOME individuals is ridiculous.

</rant>

[ijingle]

Is there really any cyclist out there that stops and waits through an entire red light? I have never seen this once in the 3 years I have lived in Denver. Unless its a cyclist on the sidewalk waiting for the walk light...

I also commute to work in Denver and this is my observation too. No one (except me and my wife) waits through red lights unless they have to. I feel like a chump with all the other bicycles go past me. Although, more and more I'm starting to go as the other direction turns yellow.

[EricL]

I've been riding my bicycle full-time for about a month (no car). At first I thought most road rage by drivers at cyclists was unjustified, but now I'm not so sure.

I've realized there's 3 types of cyclists (and yes, I'm stereotyping here):

• The "decked out" cyclists. These guys are decked out in their expensive bike clothing riding multi-thousand dollar bikes. Oh, and they think the road. Seriously, if I come across a "decked-out" cyclist, I WILL see them run a red light. Or two. Or all of them. Oh, and every single stop sign too. You'd think if these guys were so athletic, they'd at least have the physical strength to start up from a complete stop. But that's the problem with these guys - they're wimps. They don't signal because everyone else should know what they're doing. When you're parked on a red light at an busy intersection where they can't run the red, they will pass you and park on the crosswalk in front of you. And yet I'm a fast cyclist and will quickly need to pass them thereafter.
• The "clueless" (I'm going to be nice here). These people ride the wrong way in bike lanes, straight at you. Their bikes are complete trash, and they seem to not be far removed from it. They can't seem to ride in straight lines and are all over the road. They're wearing headphones and they can't hear a thing around them. They're actually safer than some though, because since they're so reckless cars give them a wide berth. They have no safety gear, and love riding in all black with no lights or reflectors at night.
• The "honest cyclist". Sadly, these people are few and far between (and I'm elitist enough to call myself one of them). We wear everyday clothes and ride affordable, if well-maintained bikes. We follow the law, meaning stop signs aren't optional. We signal when applicable. We respect drivers and don't think we own the road. And we care about safety, which includes proper safety gear.

As you can tell, I'm a bit annoyed by cyclists, being one myself. But is the above not even a little correct? I'd love to hear from others - note I live in Silicon Valley.

+1 you got it covered except the "decked out" bicyclists look like total dorks.  Someone who looks like a dork is bad enough.  But acting like an entitled ass drives up my blood pressure so much I wish I could Roll Coal on them.

[Goldielocks]

 When you're parked on a red light at an busy intersection where they can't run the red, they will pass you and park on the crosswalk in front of you.

I do this.  I thought I was supposed to do this so that drivers can see me.  I've recently started biking again after 30 years aways from it, so I have read the rules for my area.  I'm pretty sure I read this because it's not something I would have come up with on my own.

I think beric01 is a fellow cyclist, who gets annoyed by the fancy pants cyclists that pull infront of him and stop him from getting a strong start out of the intersection..   they should remain beside or behind the fellow cyclist, or ask or gesture if they can claim the front.

[Beric01]

 When you're parked on a red light at an busy intersection where they can't run the red, they will pass you and park on the crosswalk in front of you.

I do this.  I thought I was supposed to do this so that drivers can see me.  I've recently started biking again after 30 years aways from it, so I have read the rules for my area.  I'm pretty sure I read this because it's not something I would have come up with on my own.

I think beric01 is a fellow cyclist, who gets annoyed by the fancy pants cyclists that pull infront of him and stop him from getting a strong start out of the intersection..   they should remain beside or behind the fellow cyclist, or ask or gesture if they can claim the front.

Precisely. Imagine if I was a car parked at an intersection behind the crosswalk, and another car pulled around me and parked on the crosswalk. It's incredibly rude, and annoying to boot. It's always those arrogant, "decked out" cyclists. And yet they start SO slow - probably because they hardly ever stop on the first place, since they're so used to just running the lights.

EDIT: and I think I really struck a chord with this thread! It blew up far more than I expected. I was hoping to see some convincing arguments on why so many cyclists feel they're justified in breaking the law, but it seems apparent so far that there aren't any. Happy to hear more opinions though, of course!

[waltworks]

No, you got your answer: bikes are only dangerous to their riders. Cars are dangerous to everyone. So bikes can, and do, flaunt all sorts of traffic laws. No amount of complaining is going to get the police to really care, because they know this too.

You can certainly argue that it's stupid for cyclists to do that, but it's not endangering you in any way. Nor is it inconveniencing you meaningfully. So your best response to rude cyclists is to just shake your head and continue with your routine. Or get out on a bike yourself and experience the fun and freedom (and $avings!)

-W

[NICE!]

How about you try stopping at every stop sign in San Francisco and then get back to me with the condescending comments on fitness...ESPECIALLY if you're riding a single-speed or fixed gear.

Furthermore, what about drivers that sit in the left lane, forcing people to pass on the right? This does not conform to the law, nor does it conform to standards of predictable behavior to make everyone safer. How about the drivers at stop signs that wave drivers/bicyclists through despite the fact that we have laws/a system to determine who goes next? This is unpredictable, inefficient, and unsafe behavior.

How about the people that driver vehicles which weigh many hundreds/thousands of lbs more than is necessary, putting everyone more at risk?

C'mon man, this is like complaining welfare abuse while billions more being wasted/spent questionably elsewhere. In personal finance we call this penny wise, pound foolish.

[ChrisLansing]

Beric01  Your assessment is spot on.    There is no further nuance to be had.    You have somehow been a cyclist for a decade yet have not developed the sense of entitlement and moral superiority that typify so many cyclists.   

Bicyclists are, as a group, the worst vehicle operators on the road.   

You have it exactly right.   Don't let the "cyclist" mentality blind you to the reality that you are seeing so clearly right now.   

I'm also a cyclists and sometime cycle commuter.   

[frugalnacho]

Would you do this in a car?

You're riding on the road, like a car. The laws for cars apply to you. You should follow the rules like a car.

No.  From my experience cops will ticket you for doing it in a car, but they don't ticket people on bikes for doing.  If there was no possibility of getting a ticket while in a car then yes I would roll through stop signs when I am confident it is safe to do so.

I was pulled over and received a written warning after doing the slow-down and roll through at a 3 way stop where there were no cars on the road and I even had great visibility, including being able to see the motorcycle cop a little ways from the intersection parked off the road on the sidewalk.  I saw him and STILL rolled through it because I knew it was safe and thought it was okay for bikes to do so.  He clocked me at 8mph rolling past the stop sign.  That motorcycle cop pulled me over about 45 seconds later. 

Tickets for that are $300+ around here, so I was glad to get the written warning.  (I think it helped somewhat that a stranger walking his dog gave the cop a hard time asking what he would have to do to get pulled over.)  Needless to say, I no longer slow down and roll through.  I stop.  Every. Time. 

I have friends who are really active in the biking community here and they were appalled that this happened, but the cop had every right to do it.  I broke the law...

I disagree.  I would be outraged to know that was how my police service was being squandered, especially if there was any real crime on the books.  Pulling over cyclist rolling through stop signs at 8mph that poses no danger to anyone, well that's fucking ridiculous and a terrible misallocation of resources.  I would have been giving the cop a hard time if I saw that situation too. 

[Blany]

I live in a small city.  My usual commute involves one stop sign and four lights. 
The stop sign usually gets a nice roll through.  Not a busy street.  Of the four lights I usually only make a full stop for two.  They happen to be on the busy street.  I stop at these lights for a few reasons.  One is because I want other drivers to see me obeying the law.  The busy streets basically require you to follow the law for safety reasons.  The lights are short enough.
The other two lights seem to be pointless.  The street is never busy and if I get a red I can usually slow down and roll through.  I stop when I think it would be dangerous not to.
Just like being an active engaged motorist, on bicycle you can time lights.  On my regular route I can basically get to a point where I can hit a pace and hit all the lights on their greens.  I just keep an eye out ahead and adjust my speed to hit the light when it is green.  I’ve become efficient.
I would say I don’t fall into any one category identified by the OP.  I follow different rules depending if I am commuting or out for leisure and not on busy streets.
When I’m riding on the bike paths by the lake I will occasionally go helmetless.   When we are at the cottage I rarely put the helmet on. 
I guess I would annoy some people with the way I ride.  Other bicyclists annoy me.  I have to remind myself not to let other people’s actions influence my emotions and mood.

[RetiredAt63]

As a cyclist I try to follow traffic rules, and think of the drivers.

What gets me as a driver trying to drive safely?  We all know all the stupid things car drivers do, so let's not even go there.

Cyclists -  these examples are all from driving in Ottawa.

  - teens who ride on the sidewalk (coming towards me on my right, where they would not be if they were on the road) of a major street, and then cut into the crosswalk at a light or stop sign in front of me.
  - cyclists who are on the sidewalk with a row of parked cars between them and me - I won't see them until the last second if they come out into the road or I am turning into their line of travel.
  - cyclists who are not visible - dark clothes in the rain/snow (daytime), poor lights at night
  - cyclists who ride their bikes when a major snowstorm is forecast, and then have no traction and are all over the road, (if they have good tires and have control I do not count them, they are much better than cars that have all-season tires in the same conditions)
  - cyclists who do not allow themselves time to get into position for a left turn - I would much rather see them over in the left lane/left side of one lane - also those whose only indication that they want to get over to the left is to keep glancing back over their shoulders, if they can't signal a turn because their balance is that bad, why are they on a major street?

I have seen all of these and more, so any time I see a cyclist I go on high alert.  Thank you for the chance to vent.

[CommonCents]

No, you got your answer: bikes are only dangerous to their riders. Cars are dangerous to everyone. So bikes can, and do, flaunt all sorts of traffic laws. No amount of complaining is going to get the police to really care, because they know this too.

You can certainly argue that it's stupid for cyclists to do that, but it's not endangering you in any way. Nor is it inconveniencing you meaningfully. So your best response to rude cyclists is to just shake your head and continue with your routine. Or get out on a bike yourself and experience the fun and freedom (and $avings!)

-W

Excuse me?

I'm a pedestrian, and hell yes, the cyclists that break the law and ride through red lights at high speed into my pedestrian walk path during my walk signal can hurt me pretty badly.  I've been lucky so far that I've managed to get out of the way in time, and haven't gotten too many bruises/scrapes from those that ride (illegally in the area in question) on sidewalks and clipped me coming out of a park area on foot.

And then there's the bcyclist we saw Saturday night, that was on Storrow Drive (a fairly major thorough fare) slowing traffic down considerably, and weaving back and forth between lanes quite unpredictably.  (We thought drunk.)  Sure he might hurt himself the most, but it's not to say he couldn't cause a car crash where other folks are hurt/killed too in the process.

I see a lot of indignant cyclists on here saying, well, cars are bad too!  That's certainly true, but as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right.  Many cyclists follow the law, but those that don't not only can hurt others physically, they also set back general public support for bicyclists.

[waltworks]

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

[Mrs. PoP]

Would you do this in a car?

You're riding on the road, like a car. The laws for cars apply to you. You should follow the rules like a car.

No.  From my experience cops will ticket you for doing it in a car, but they don't ticket people on bikes for doing.  If there was no possibility of getting a ticket while in a car then yes I would roll through stop signs when I am confident it is safe to do so.

I was pulled over and received a written warning after doing the slow-down and roll through at a 3 way stop where there were no cars on the road and I even had great visibility, including being able to see the motorcycle cop a little ways from the intersection parked off the road on the sidewalk.  I saw him and STILL rolled through it because I knew it was safe and thought it was okay for bikes to do so.  He clocked me at 8mph rolling past the stop sign.  That motorcycle cop pulled me over about 45 seconds later. 

Tickets for that are $300+ around here, so I was glad to get the written warning.  (I think it helped somewhat that a stranger walking his dog gave the cop a hard time asking what he would have to do to get pulled over.)  Needless to say, I no longer slow down and roll through.  I stop.  Every. Time. 

I have friends who are really active in the biking community here and they were appalled that this happened, but the cop had every right to do it.  I broke the law...

I disagree.  I would be outraged to know that was how my police service was being squandered, especially if there was any real crime on the books.  Pulling over cyclist rolling through stop signs at 8mph that poses no danger to anyone, well that's fucking ridiculous and a terrible misallocation of resources.  I would have been giving the cop a hard time if I saw that situation too.

I get where your outrage is coming from - I was seriously pissed when it happened.  But with hindsight I look at it a bit differently.  My crime was the only real crime the cop was a witness to at that moment.  Stopping me wasn't a waste of time or taking him away from anything else more important.  Had there been a car running the same stop sign would you be outraged if he stopped that car to give that person a ticket?  I probably wouldn't be.  He's a traffic cop in a low crime area and his job that morning was to patrol that intersection (cars roll through that stop sign and speed through there pretty regularly).  It's his job to enforce the little rules that we all want to skate when it's inconvenient.  Hard to fault him for that. 

[beltim]

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

I did a quick google search and found one source in the UK that shows the injury rate to pedestrians by bicycles to be comparable to that of motor vehicles: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars
The fatality rate to pedestrians was much lower for bicycles, though.

[Undecided]

Beric01  Your assessment is spot on.    There is no further nuance to be had.    You have somehow been a cyclist for a decade yet have not developed the sense of entitlement and moral superiority that typify so many cyclists.   

Bicyclists are, as a group, the worst vehicle operators on the road.   

You have it exactly right.   Don't let the "cyclist" mentality blind you to the reality that you are seeing so clearly right now.   

I'm also a cyclists and sometime cycle commuter.   

Even if cyclists as a group are the "worst" vehicle operators on the road, are they the most dangerous? Which is the right grounds for prioritizing actions or complaining?

[Jomar]

I think the main problem you're looking at is a design problem. Infrastructure is designed for cars and reflects the behaviour of drivers. Cyclists, on the other hand, have to actively work against their own instincts in order to comply with the rules set out (and intended for) drivers. Properly designed infrastructure would prevent many of the problematic behaviours we see cyclists expressing, leaving us with only the truly problematic cyclists- that is the cyclists who would otherwise be racking up speeding tickets, DUIs, and reckless driving infractions behind the wheel of a car. Oh, and children, who obviously don't know the rules of the road. See western Europe, especially Holland and Denmark, for examples of this in practice.

Another problem with expecting cyclists to comply with the rules of the road is that cycling is open to everybody of all ages, including children, as it should be, and doesn't require licensing, as it shouldn't, so expecting them to comply with the rules of which they, presumably, could have no prior knowledge of, is, obviously, problematic.

[Undecided]

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

I did a quick google search and found one source in the UK that shows the injury rate to pedestrians by bicycles to be comparable to that of motor vehicles: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars
The fatality rate to pedestrians was much lower for bicycles, though.

"Comparable" is a funny thing, right? What about considering the unexplored implication of the most-common problem, per that article---that many of the pedestrians may be at fault in collisions with cyclists? Also, is it "comparable" to compare the pedestrian collision rate per overall miles driven (which likely includes a great proportion of M and A road miles without pedestrians) to overall miles cycled (which is likely more concentrated in areas that include pedestrians)?

[beltim]

"Comparable" is a funny thing, right? What about considering the unexplored implication of the most-common problem, per that article---that many of the pedestrians may be at fault in collisions with cyclists? Also, is it "comparable" to compare the pedestrian collision rate per overall miles driven (which likely includes a great proportion of M and A road miles without pedestrians) to overall miles cycled (which is likely more concentrated in areas that include pedestrians)?

It's interesting that you see the line

Most collisions occur "when pedestrians step out into the road without seeing or hearing a cyclist", The Times says.

assigning fault to pedestrians.  That sentence contains literally no information on who is at fault.

Your critique about cars driving more on roads without is quite valid, however.  I couldn't get a great number for the percentage of miles driven on roads without pedestrians, but a study from 1994 suggests that 20-25% would be a reasonable guess: http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

[Undecided]

"Comparable" is a funny thing, right? What about considering the unexplored implication of the most-common problem, per that article---that many of the pedestrians may be at fault in collisions with cyclists? Also, is it "comparable" to compare the pedestrian collision rate per overall miles driven (which likely includes a great proportion of M and A road miles without pedestrians) to overall miles cycled (which is likely more concentrated in areas that include pedestrians)?

It's interesting that you see the line

Most collisions occur "when pedestrians step out into the road without seeing or hearing a cyclist", The Times says.

assigning fault to pedestrians.  That sentence contains literally no information on who is at fault.

Your critique about cars driving more on roads without is quite valid, however.  I couldn't get a great number for the percentage of miles driven on roads without pedestrians, but a study from 1994 suggests that 20-25% would be a reasonable guess: http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

It's interesting that you think my description of an "unexplored implication" that pedestrians "may be at fault" suggests that I thought it assigned fault to them. You can't be serious.

Edit to add: I'm not just bickering with this---surely there's relevance in the rate at which the pedestrians are to blame for these collisions, and the article doesn't explore the difference, even after suggesting at least one sensory difference that "may" make for a difference in the rate when considering cars and bikes.

[waltworks]

Yep, I'd conclude from that that bikes are about 1/5 as dangerous to peds as cars. And of course they are about 1/1000 (1/million? Has anyone in a car ever been killed by a bike?) as dangerous to people in cars as... people in cars.

-Walt

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

I did a quick google search and found one source in the UK that shows the injury rate to pedestrians by bicycles to be comparable to that of motor vehicles: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars
The fatality rate to pedestrians was much lower for bicycles, though.

[Beric01]

Yep, I'd conclude from that that bikes are about 1/5 as dangerous to peds as cars. And of course they are about 1/1000 (1/million? Has anyone in a car ever been killed by a bike?) as dangerous to people in cars as... people in cars.

-Walt

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

I did a quick google search and found one source in the UK that shows the injury rate to pedestrians by bicycles to be comparable to that of motor vehicles: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars
The fatality rate to pedestrians was much lower for bicycles, though.

Can't a driver be killed while trying to avoid a reckless cyclist, and then veering off the road/into another vehicle? I would be surprised if such accidents haven't happened, though of course a cyclist wouldn't be mentioned in the incident.

[CommonCents]

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

Please reread my post.  I did not state that bicylists are as dangerous as cars.  I said:

I see a lot of indignant cyclists on here saying, well, cars are bad too!  That's certainly true, but as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. 

My point was that while drivers of car do indeed drive poorly at times, this doesn't mean that cyclists should ride poorly in return and disregard laws applicable to them, as some have admitted doing in this very thread.  Both need to improve (along with perhaps skateboards).  Both are a hazard to the public if not properly attentive to others, the laws, etc.  One may be more of a hazard, but that doesn't mean that society should ignore the other.  We don't disregard the man who killed 2 people because someone else murdered 20 and is worse.  We prosecute both because both are in the wrong.

And in the same vein that you've responded to me, surely you don't meant to suggest a byclist moving at 15 mph or faster on a metal vehicle that smashes into a pedestrian is the same as a person walking along at 3 mph and bumping into someone?  Have you ever seen a pedestrian via a bike accident?  I have.  My brother was about 7 and he went to the hospital to get sewn up and had a concussion.  Never seen that with someone walking along and bumping into someone.

[beltim]

Yep, I'd conclude from that that bikes are about 1/5 as dangerous to peds as cars. And of course they are about 1/1000 (1/million? Has anyone in a car ever been killed by a bike?) as dangerous to people in cars as... people in cars.

-Walt

How'd you get 1/5?

[beltim]

It's interesting that you think my description of an "unexplored implication" that pedestrians "may be at fault" suggests that I thought it assigned fault to them. You can't be serious.

Edit to add: I'm not just bickering with this---surely there's relevance in the rate at which the pedestrians are to blame for these collisions, and the article doesn't explore the difference, even after suggesting at least one sensory difference that "may" make for a difference in the rate when considering cars and bikes.

I was serious.  Apparently I was wrong.  In this case, I'm quite glad I was wrong.

I definitely agree that there's relevance in the rate of fault.  Just as there is relevance in the rate of fault of car/bicycle accidents.  There have been studies on the second, and while there's disagreement, I don't think there's enough data to overturn a null hypothesis of 50:50 blame.

[hybrid]

I've got a friend who is a high-ranking police officer in a college town, and I actually asked him about the ped vs bike thing and his response was that he does not see peds get injured that way very much, and it's not really a priority for them. They have more problems with skateboards.

I will concede your point, though - it is *possible* to hurt someone with a bike. Just like I can hurt someone by walking down a sidewalk reading a book and bumping them. But I don't think you want to argue that bikes are just as dangerous as cars, do you? My point was that they are much, much less of a hazard to other road users, and hence they are held to a lower standard (not many rules, if any about safety equipment, no licensing for the operator or the vehicle, minimal enforcement of traffic laws by police, etc). If they were as dangerous as cars, we'd want to make sure they obey all the rules just as much as cars do. But they aren't.

-Walt

I think Walt makes some excellent points in the 2nd paragraph above. I don't think the habitual and plentiful rule breakers are doing the rest of us cyclists any favors, however. Now having said that, I routinely blow through stop signs in my own neighborhood when there is no traffic whatsoever. Not when I get out to the main roads though, then I follow all the rules. Hmmmmm, do I really have any room to complain?

[Beric01]

It's interesting that you think my description of an "unexplored implication" that pedestrians "may be at fault" suggests that I thought it assigned fault to them. You can't be serious.

Edit to add: I'm not just bickering with this---surely there's relevance in the rate at which the pedestrians are to blame for these collisions, and the article doesn't explore the difference, even after suggesting at least one sensory difference that "may" make for a difference in the rate when considering cars and bikes.

I was serious.  Apparently I was wrong.  In this case, I'm quite glad I was wrong.

I definitely agree that there's relevance in the rate of fault.  Just as there is relevance in the rate of fault of car/bicycle accidents.  There have been studies on the second, and while there's disagreement, I don't think there's enough data to overturn a null hypothesis of 50:50 blame.

Speaking on blame for accidents involving cars+cyclists, I've seen some local studies suggesting cyclists were around 50% at fault in accidents. Really puts to rest the "innocent cyclist vs. car" myth.

That's part of the reason why I feel so safe when out riding. If I simply follow the law and signal/don't make sudden/unexpected movements, I'm already far safer the the average. While I don't have statistics on car accidents with me, I would suggest that a higher percentage of auto were due to operator carelessness than bicycle accidents, which are more due to willful lawlessness.

[Undecided]

It's interesting that you think my description of an "unexplored implication" that pedestrians "may be at fault" suggests that I thought it assigned fault to them. You can't be serious.

Edit to add: I'm not just bickering with this---surely there's relevance in the rate at which the pedestrians are to blame for these collisions, and the article doesn't explore the difference, even after suggesting at least one sensory difference that "may" make for a difference in the rate when considering cars and bikes.

I was serious.  Apparently I was wrong.  In this case, I'm quite glad I was wrong.

I definitely agree that there's relevance in the rate of fault.  Just as there is relevance in the rate of fault of car/bicycle accidents.  There have been studies on the second, and while there's disagreement, I don't think there's enough data to overturn a null hypothesis of 50:50 blame.

Speaking on blame for accidents involving cars+cyclists, I've seen some local studies suggesting cyclists were around 50% at fault in accidents. Really puts to rest the "innocent cyclist vs. car" myth.

That's part of the reason why I feel so safe when out riding. If I simply follow the law and signal/don't make sudden/unexpected movements, I'm already far safer the the average. While I don't have statistics on car accidents with me, I would suggest that a higher percentage of auto were due to operator carelessness than bicycle accidents, which are more due to willful lawlessness.

What percentage of those at-fault cyclists were children? The older NHTSA fact set that included bike info (2003, I think) says that about 1/3 of cyclists injured in car-bike accidents aren't old enough to drive, I think. Generally, not accounting for that is one of the major flaws I see in concluding what you want to conclude (seemingly about the adult cyclists you see, but maybe you don't see any issue with lumping kids in here).

None of which is to say that cyclists shouldn't behave reasonably and be responsible for their actions, but let's not too much into data without thinking about what it represents. 

[CanuckExpat]

It might be important to point out that you can't forget about the Pyramid of Humanity:

[Sylly]

I disagree.  I would be outraged to know that was how my police service was being squandered, especially if there was any real crime on the books.  Pulling over cyclist rolling through stop signs at 8mph that poses no danger to anyone, well that's fucking ridiculous and a terrible misallocation of resources.  I would have been giving the cop a hard time if I saw that situation too.

And I disagree. Part of the benefits of enforcement is deterrence. The police in that instance, or any similar instances, have no way of knowing that the illegal behavior isn't a permanent habit of the offender. It may have been perfectly safe in that one instance, but he has no way of knowing, and should NOT assume, that it won't happen again, in less safe circumstances. If it prevents someone from making a habit of it, and executing it on less safe circumstances, it's enforcement well worth doing.

[waltworks]

Police enforcement of laws is generally governed (outside of the mood of the cop and any political considerations - ie a mayor who wants to crack down on something) by a set of rules that, among other things, looks at the potential danger posed by the behavior to society at large. This is why you see very limited enforcement of littering laws, jaywalking, riding a bike through a stop sign, speeding 3mph over the limit, etc. All those things are illegal, but they aren't important enough to spend time on unless the officer has nothing else to do. Even then the court costs/paperwork generated arguably make it a losing proposition to enforce the law from a societal standpoint.

Why do we have those laws? Because in the rare instances when your littering/stop sign running/jaywalking DOES cause some serious problem, the behavior is illegal and you can be held responsible easily.

So while you might be annoyed that the police don't do much do enforce traffic laws when cyclists are involved, there is at least a logic to it dictated by the limited police resources available.

-W

I disagree.  I would be outraged to know that was how my police service was being squandered, especially if there was any real crime on the books.  Pulling over cyclist rolling through stop signs at 8mph that poses no danger to anyone, well that's fucking ridiculous and a terrible misallocation of resources.  I would have been giving the cop a hard time if I saw that situation too.

And I disagree. Part of the benefits of enforcement is deterrence. The police in that instance, or any similar instances, have no way of knowing that the illegal behavior isn't a permanent habit of the offender. It may have been perfectly safe in that one instance, but he has no way of knowing, and should NOT assume, that it won't happen again, in less safe circumstances. If it prevents someone from making a habit of it, and executing it on less safe circumstances, it's enforcement well worth doing.

[frugalnacho]

I get where your outrage is coming from - I was seriously pissed when it happened.  But with hindsight I look at it a bit differently.  My crime was the only real crime the cop was a witness to at that moment.  Stopping me wasn't a waste of time or taking him away from anything else more important.  Had there been a car running the same stop sign would you be outraged if he stopped that car to give that person a ticket?  I probably wouldn't be.  He's a traffic cop in a low crime area and his job that morning was to patrol that intersection (cars roll through that stop sign and speed through there pretty regularly).  It's his job to enforce the little rules that we all want to skate when it's inconvenient.  Hard to fault him for that.

But that's my point, it's not a real crime.  I don't think it's his job to enforce little rules and laws that have no bearing on reality.  That's a waste of time and resources, even if those rules are technically written down.  What if a car rolled through that stop sign while he was harassing you?  Even if no other crime was committed, what benefit was it to pull you over?  Are you, or society, any better off for it? 

Traffic cops are the worst and I have no respect for them.  What a useless job.

And I disagree. Part of the benefits of enforcement is deterrence. The police in that instance, or any similar instances, have no way of knowing that the illegal behavior isn't a permanent habit of the offender. It may have been perfectly safe in that one instance, but he has no way of knowing, and should NOT assume, that it won't happen again, in less safe circumstances. If it prevents someone from making a habit of it, and executing it on less safe circumstances, it's enforcement well worth doing.

Thank god he has deterred people from safely rolling through stop signs at low speeds.  I can't imagine the carnage that would unfold if that problem was left unchecked.  All kinds of people would be slowing down and checking cross streets to ensure it is safe to cross, without coming to a complete stop!

[boognish]

I have zero problem with cars or bikes circumventing the law if it can be done safely and courteously. No harm, no foul.

But yeah, if you're endangering yourself, others, or just generally being a dick, knock it off.

[Runge]

I get where your outrage is coming from - I was seriously pissed when it happened.  But with hindsight I look at it a bit differently.  My crime was the only real crime the cop was a witness to at that moment.  Stopping me wasn't a waste of time or taking him away from anything else more important.  Had there been a car running the same stop sign would you be outraged if he stopped that car to give that person a ticket?  I probably wouldn't be.  He's a traffic cop in a low crime area and his job that morning was to patrol that intersection (cars roll through that stop sign and speed through there pretty regularly).  It's his job to enforce the little rules that we all want to skate when it's inconvenient.  Hard to fault him for that.

But that's my point, it's not a real crime.  I don't think it's his job to enforce little rules and laws that have no bearing on reality.  That's a waste of time and resources, even if those rules are technically written down.  What if a car rolled through that stop sign while he was harassing you?  Even if no other crime was committed, what benefit was it to pull you over?  Are you, or society, any better off for it? 

Traffic cops are the worst and I have no respect for them.  What a useless job.

And I disagree. Part of the benefits of enforcement is deterrence. The police in that instance, or any similar instances, have no way of knowing that the illegal behavior isn't a permanent habit of the offender. It may have been perfectly safe in that one instance, but he has no way of knowing, and should NOT assume, that it won't happen again, in less safe circumstances. If it prevents someone from making a habit of it, and executing it on less safe circumstances, it's enforcement well worth doing.

Thank god he has deterred people from safely rolling through stop signs at low speeds.  I can't imagine the carnage that would unfold if that problem was left unchecked.  All kinds of people would be slowing down and checking cross streets to ensure it is safe to cross, without coming to a complete stop!

I tend to agree with your sentiment in regards to specific cases, but just to play a bit of devil's advocate. If laws are never enforced, then why even have them as laws? If you don't think that police should be enforcing a law, then why don't you just say that the law shouldn't exist at all?

Also, traffic cops are not universally useless. Speed monitoring, stop sign/light monitoring, and other laws that promote general traffic safety are in my opinion completely necessary. Otherwise the roads would be complete chaos, terribly inefficient as a whole, and much more dangerous.

[waltworks]

We have laws for relatively harmless stuff because when that behavior DOES result in something really bad (ie, an injury) prosecutors (and civil litigators) need a way to hold the defendant accountable. That doesn't mean we actually want them enforced all the time.

-W

[Sylly]

So while you might be annoyed that the police don't do much do enforce traffic laws when cyclists are involved, there is at least a logic to it dictated by the limited police resources available.

I understand police resources are limited. Clearly I'd rather them be answering some serious call than be ticketing a fairly harmless thing like rolling through a stop sign with nothing else around. But in the example Mrs. Pop cited earlier, the police wasn't doing anything else. So the issue of limited resource doesn't come into play, whereas my point of it being a future deterrent does.

Thank god he has deterred people from safely rolling through stop signs at low speeds.  I can't imagine the carnage that would unfold if that problem was left unchecked.  All kinds of people would be slowing down and checking cross streets to ensure it is safe to cross, without coming to a complete stop!

You're clearly set on your stance and I'm not going to change your mind, but I'll clarify my point once. The enforcement isn't just a deterrent for the behavior in the exact same circumstances -- it's a general deterrent for making it a habit, which may end up becoming such a habit that it happens in less safe circumstances (e.g. faster, in less isolated areas, etc.). One may argue one harmless law-breaking isn't an indicator it'll lead to more, possibly less-harmless law-breaking. But neither is it an indication otherwise. As Mrs. Pop stated, the warning then became enough deterrent for her to now stop every time, which is the kind of effect I'm talking about, and IMO is a positive effect of such enforcement.

[RetiredAt63]

One thing that has changed is how we treat children (who grow up to be adults) on bicycles.  When my friends and I were old enough to start bicycling outside our own little neighbourhood, one day that spring we all went over to the fire station with our bicycles.  There the police and firemen had set up a cycling center - they checked out our bikes, made sure the seat was the proper height, put us through an obstacle course (orange cones) and made sure we knew and used the rules of the road and turn signals.  Then we paid our $2 (a lot of money back then) and got a small metal license plate which was attached to the front wheel axle.  This happened every year, there was a day set and everyone knew they had to go to it to get their license, and they couldn't ride their bike in our town without it.

So, my point is, our town took our cycling seriously.  Kids still broke rules, but they knew they existed.  Small data set, but I don't remember anyone being in a car accident, and helmets didn't exist.  Mind you, we were not doing much riding on major streets, but we were what, 8?


Fast forward - My cub pack did the same thing when my DD was that age - and the kids were so much less aware of the rules of the road, and how to set up a bike, etc.  Why are we then surprised when they become teenagers who ride carelessly?  And then adults who ride carelessly?

Oh, and children, who obviously don't know the rules of the road. See western Europe, especially Holland and Denmark, for examples of this in practice.

Another problem with expecting cyclists to comply with the rules of the road is that cycling is open to everybody of all ages, including children, as it should be, and doesn't require licensing, as it shouldn't, so expecting them to comply with the rules of which they, presumably, could have no prior knowledge of, is, obviously, problematic.

[frugalnacho]

So while you might be annoyed that the police don't do much do enforce traffic laws when cyclists are involved, there is at least a logic to it dictated by the limited police resources available.

I understand police resources are limited. Clearly I'd rather them be answering some serious call than be ticketing a fairly harmless thing like rolling through a stop sign with nothing else around. But in the example Mrs. Pop cited earlier, the police wasn't doing anything else. So the issue of limited resource doesn't come into play, whereas my point of it being a future deterrent does.

Thank god he has deterred people from safely rolling through stop signs at low speeds.  I can't imagine the carnage that would unfold if that problem was left unchecked.  All kinds of people would be slowing down and checking cross streets to ensure it is safe to cross, without coming to a complete stop!

You're clearly set on your stance and I'm not going to change your mind, but I'll clarify my point once. The enforcement isn't just a deterrent for the behavior in the exact same circumstances -- it's a general deterrent for making it a habit, which may end up becoming such a habit that it happens in less safe circumstances (e.g. faster, in less isolated areas, etc.). One may argue one harmless law-breaking isn't an indicator it'll lead to more, possibly less-harmless law-breaking. But neither is it an indication otherwise. As Mrs. Pop stated, the warning then became enough deterrent for her to now stop every time, which is the kind of effect I'm talking about, and IMO is a positive effect of such enforcement.

I understand your point I just think you are wrong.  It's not a slippery slope argument, and her stop sign running is not going to grow more and more reckless until people start dying, that's just not going to happen, just likes it's not going to happen to me.  I can safely blow through stop signs 90% of the time.  The very fact that I am still alive after partaking in such an activity for so long should be proof enough that it's not dangerous, and won't cause me to start driving like a maniac through stop signs and red lights.  After all this time I still safely traverse every single intersection I go through without exception.  You make it sound like it's a gateway behavior.  Perhaps Mrs. Pop would have graduated to serial killing if she had not been stopped that fateful afternoon.

Now that the police man has bullied her she will now stop at every single stop sign.  She will take longer to get where she is going, will use more energy, and nobody will be any safer for it.