Even before we get self-driving cars, autonomous braking should be mandated so that cars and trucks are literally incapable of coming too close to a cyclist.
I have a feeling that the general populace of hacker news will disagree with us, but I am with you 100%.
I live in a small-ish town on the outskirts of Philadelphia that happens to be in the middle of some sort of really popular biking route. Unfortunately, we have a ton of really small streets with cars parked on both sides.
I understand and appreciate that cyclists have no other place to ride then in the street, and they as much a right to the road as drivers. But it can be quite frustrating to be stuck behind a cyclist who is making no effort to pedal quickly on a road where it is impossible to pass them.
The really frustrating thing though is that they completely ignore traffic rules. If you have to ride in the street and I have to treat you as part of traffic, fine. But why do you get to creep up the side of the street at red lights, then positioning yourself in front of more cars to slow down. And why do you get to run red lights? It seems it needs to be one way or the other. Either you are a pedestrian, and you should be trying to avoid traffic, or you are a participant on the road and you should obey the traffic laws.
I understand your frustration, but (a) there are no easy answers, and (b) as I'm sure you can imagine, bicyclists don't like riding near your car either.
I've pissed people off by following traffic laws on a bicycle as much as breaking them; I'm slow to get going from stop signs and I won't pull to the side of the road so you can squeeze me into a 2ft space of sand and crap next to the curb as you pass me.
A lot of the times that I break traffic laws, the result is me getting out of your way (running the light/not stopping at the stop sign/riding on sidewalk).
Of course yours and my experience could be very different. Traffic isn't too much of a problem here, one way or the other. The biggest problem I have to deal with is if a train comes through town and I have to wait 5 minutes for it to pas.
Why I pull in front of the line of cars stopped at the red light on my bike is because otherwise a car will clobber me. It's not a matter of if but when and the consequences will be severe for my family and me. On my commute I am minimally wearing a bright neon green penny over my clothing. When I have stopped in the line of cars at the light I have had cars almost rear end me. Also when I get to the intersection drivers do not seem to notice me there and turn right directly in front of me or a car from the oncoming lane decides to turn into me. So I crawl to the front. And do you know what happened here a handful of time? Even when I make eye contact with an oncoming car, the moment the light turned green, the driver forget I was there and tried to turn left as I was crossing on the green. So for my safety on this particular intersection on my commute I crawl to the front, wait for the light for the cross traffic to turn red and verify that all the cars are slowing, then I book it across before the light turns green for me and the other people barely awake behind the wheel. In this way I am not there anymore when another car starts going. I know it's illegal, but it is the only way I have found to get to and from work safely as it is the only entrance. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know why I do that. Some people that do not ride bicycles enough just don't have the experience to appreciate what other things might be going on when not in a car.
In the UK this is actually enforced, and we have ASLs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line) allowing cyclists to move in front of other traffic at junctions, and start ahead of them. Is this sort of thing not part of the road system i9n the US?
It's quite rare here in US, I've only encountered it sporadically near some universities. I think they make a lot of sense and wish they were common. Typically here there is enough room for a bicycle and then some ahead of the stopped cars, so it makes little sense to me why the extra markings are not painted on the road - possibly lack of familiarity?
This is absurd. Your solution to the mere possibility of being rear-ended while waiting in the line of cars at an intersection is to "book it" across an intersection before the light is fully turned. And you somehow think this is safer?
I agree Stanley that it is absurd that what I do is safer, but sadly more than an dozen years of experience with this intersection and what I have witnessed there makes it clearly the case based on the level of care taken by too many of the motorists I share that part of the road with, good road to you as well Mr. Drew.
If the biking routes are that popular, one side of the street should be a bike lane separated from traffic. Until such time, cars need to be patient. Each one of those cyclists you are stuck behind is keeping a 3 ton multi-kilowatt biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions car off the road. Cars are huge polluters and energy consumers. Would you be equally pissed off if the residents along narrow streets had speed bumps installed to reduce noise from fast traffic?
Cyclists are using roads that are subsidized and paid for by gasoline taxes and automobile registration fees. If you really want dedicated lanes and preeminence then pay your fair share. I don't think bicycling would be as attractive if cyclists paid for all the externalities of their hobby.
In Virginia, there is no longer a gas tax. Roads are funded by an extra half percentage added to the sales tax. This means non-drivers now subsidize the roadways with each purchase, while people buying gas/diesel for their mowers and generators no longer do.
That said, how much toward road maintenance would you say the average commuter pays? You're looking at $214/car/year, according to the FHA and Census Bureau (see, for example, http://www.artba.org/about/transportation-faqs/faqs/#4).
How much more roadway is used by a car than a bicycle? How much less maintenance is caused by a bicycle than a car? (N.B. cars are more than an order of magnitude heavier than bicyclists; trucks are two orders more per axle.) How much do you think a bicyclist's fair share should be? How should it be measured, applied, and taxed?
As for registration, I was under the impression that was more akin to registering a firearm; it's chief purpose is enforcement of laws and property taxes, rather than offsetting the costs of highway maintenance. Is there a state where vehicle registrations are a major source of highway maintenance monies?
This is nonsense. Roads that cyclists ride on in the states, which are city roads, hardly ever state highways, are paid for via sales tax, not the state gasoline taxes and registration.
Very few bicyclists just use a bicycle. Most, including myself, own a bicycle and a car, and choose the bicycle for trips where it makes sense(single person trip, short distance, safe route, no cargo).
I would be willing to bet that people like me put less wear and tear on the road since the effects of bike on asphalt are negligible.
Pedestrians, bicyclists & mass transit reduce the number of cars on the road, making the gas taxes that you pay go further. And since buses & bicycle lanes are a lot cheaper than widening the road or other measures that allow more cars on the road, as a car driver you should be happy that gas taxes go towards bicycle lanes.
Really? Ever drive on a public road? What percentage of drivers break the speed limit laws? 95%? 7 nines in California? Cops don't even pull you over until you're driving at least 10-15 over. So obviously speeding is a totally fine law to break, but when I roll through a residential stop sign at 5 mph (that has obviously been installed only to enforce right-of-way) what I'm doing is inexcusable?
Until drivers fall all over themselves to apologize for driving 2 tonnes of metal at 80 in a 55, I'm not going to beat myself up for rolling through stop signs (that aren't stopped at for cars either, by the way).
The problem is not with breaking the law. Drivers and cyclists do this more-or-less equally I'd imagine.
The problem is in breaking expectations.
If I see 10 cars driving 80mph in a 55mph zone, then it is reasonable for me to expect an 11th, and I'm certainly not shocked when I do see that.
At stop signs and red lights when I'm riding my bike I've seen far too many fellow cyclists seem to take pleasure in their ability to do the unexpected and get away with it.
They weave between stopped traffic, overtake slowing cars on the right, breeze through stop signs without yielding, block pedestrians by entering crosswalks and stopping.
These are legitimate bad behaviors on the part of cyclists, and until we admit that and start working on changing the culture towards one of behaving within expectations we're not going to get much respect from all the drivers on the road who largely do adhere to expectations.
Those aren't legitimate bad behaviors, cyclists are just being efficient by using the roads organically. Im travelling right now in Indo, and there are no traffic controls, few sidewalks, the roads are as narrow as a bike path and shared by pedestrians, cows, horse and carriage, and anything else you can think of. Scooter drivers do all the bad things you talk about, and it's amazing how efficient traffic is. You can get from one end of Mataram to ther on a scooter without ever having to come to a complete stop. Nobody seems to get angry or frustrated.
When a driver's expectation is that he shouldn't have to pay attention to what is going on around him, I think it's the expectation that is the problem, not the violation of that expectation. When I return to Canada, I'm going to be an even worse cyclist than I am now. I've learned a lot.
Of course, I also read an article the other day about a shopping mall that painted fast and slow lanes on the floor for pedestrians. Traffic controls for pedestrians. Never underestimate the faith Americans place in the incompetence of their fellow citizens.
Replace bike with car. You seem to think that drivers are not massive traffic law violators? Speeding, double parking, tailgating, failing to signal, need i go on? Expecting an entire group to act like pristine angels before life saving laws can be put in place is asinine at best.
the problem is bicyclists tend to do things that are far more dangerous / serious:
* running red lights
* running stop signs
* driving down the wrong side of the road
* driving on sidewalks
bikes are far less dangerous than cars, which is why nobody minds that they routinely break far worse rules. in addition, bicyclists routinely break the rules you mentioned.
The problem is that these things only seem more dangerous. At the end of the day, momentum kills. Speeding in an automobile, especially in urban areas, is far and away the most dangerous thing of any of the "crimes" here, and it's treated as though it should be expected, not reprehensible as it is.
A cyclist yielding at a stop sign isn't going to kill anyone. The car flooring it after each one and rolling the crosswalks may.
Agreed, and I wish there would be fines and enforcement. Though for half of those you can frequently argue that the biker is avoiding more-common dangers to themselves, like having to squeeze between parked and moving cars where there isn't enough room to do so safely.
In the vast majority of America, including the vast majority of cities, biking is ludicrously poorly supported and heavily favors killing bicyclists over losing a lane. Not that this is any surprise, but it is what it is.
As a resident of Brooklyn, I see cars that do those things more often than bicycles that do those things. (granted, the car driving the wrong way on a one way is usually one going in reverse at 30mph, or a police radio car with or without sirens on)
As a sometime cyclist, I agree that cyclists should abide by traffic laws. I assume this was downvoted for tone. The premise is undeniable. Bicycles should obey the laws. Greater rule adherence means a more predictable, and thus safer, street.
He's being downvoted for content, not tone. Opposing failsafe systems that can prevent tragedy until millions of people start behaving in a way that common sense shows people (whatever their mode of transport) are not likely to is:
a) monumentally callous, b) completely idiotic and c) a sadly all too common, stereotypical response.
Can you imagine someone saying "I'll support seatbelts when everyone stops drinking and driving". No, because it would be a stupid thing to think or say, just as it is to wish death and injury on large number of perfectly blameless cyclists because of the behavior of some.
Stopping at a stop sign in residential neighborhoods as a cyclist is frequently stupid. Idaho even has a law that lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs, which makes perfect sense. Cyclists aren't a large threat to other road users (pedestrians/cars/other cyclists) the way cars are.
Burlington, VT (last I knew, anyway) has a similar law -- stop signs are effectively yield signs, while red lights are stop signs, as far as cyclists are concerned.
Like the law to come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign, including the four ways that blanket every neighborhood? No thank you; cyclists treat stop signs as four-dimensional yields for some damn good reasons.
There's a lot of terrible bike-riders (riding on the left side of the road around a blind corner...), but there are also a lot of terrible laws and signage. Don't delude yourself into believing that strict adherence to rules will solve the world's problems.
Non-cyclists don't typically understand the very real cost of losing momentum at a stop sign/light. Cyclists don't tend to understand that unfairness aspect many drivers seem to feel when cyclists cheat.
That said, some states are starting to address the stop sign/stop-light problem for bicyclists (well, sort of). Virginia, for example, lets cyclists (including motorcycles) treat stop lights as stop signs after a certain amount of time/cycles. I'm sure most cyclists would prefer they be treated like flashing yellow or flashing red lights (yield sign and stop sign equivalent, respectively), but we've got a ways to go before that can happen.
I think we'll need to start licensing street riding and overhaul traffic law to include bicycles on the road before things get much better.
I understand that it is seen as unfair, but write that off as Stockholm syndrome. It does suck that cities are constantly erecting even more traffic signals (etc), but the appropriate response is to blame the job-justifying behavior of city hall, not to go zero-sum and get mad at the people who can better skirt them.
For what it's worth, I don't even really bike that much these days and certainly encounter my share of idiotic bikers when driving/walking. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give in to blowhard legality tropes when it's clear that the real nuisance bikers are doing things that are so stupid (against traffic, on sidewalk, left turn from right lane, texting) that they don't care about even bodily harm. Meanwhile there are plenty of actions that are illegal yet affect nobody else that can be performed prudently and thoughtfully.
Also, any observably-broken traffic light can and should be treated as a stop sign. What else do you do, strictly follow the narrow part of the law that you've been told and patiently wait for the police to hold your hand?
I don't get it. This is not a zero sum game. If a cyclist breaks the law, does that mean you can now pass the next one closer?
You seem to lack the necessary maturity to operate a multi-ton vehicle, getting agitated and trying to portray driving in the street as some tit-for-tat game. Stop and think about what you are doing.
As someone who was nearly run down by a cyclist running a red while I walked a cross walk this weekend, I agree wholeheartedly. Boston is in a constant battle between cyclists and motorists and neither side is playing by the rules.
I ride a bike and drive a car. And while doing both, I do my best to obey the laws and not injure other people. In Boston, and more specifically in my area of Cambridge we have major issues with drivers turning without looking at the bike lane and bikers running through red lights or riding on sidewalks.
In MA, we have very specific laws regarding how bikes are to be treated under the law and whenever riding I abide by them because they exist to keep myself (most important) and others safe. As the biker nearly hit me (I fortunately jumped out of the way with less than a foot of clearance), he yelled at me calling me an asshole and continued through the intersection with himself having a red light.
I watched a college kid die last year while walking to work as he slammed into the side of a truck. It ignited a debate about who was at fault and if trucks should be allowed to turn at that intersection. Nothing but finger pointing was done, a young man was killed, and just last week another pedestrian was hit at that same intersection crossing the street to catch the T.
Our transportation is changing in this country and instead of adjusting, in most areas we're just pointing the finger, much like you did in this post.
I'm also in the Boston area (Somerville) and have been wondering about the proper way to respond to right turns with a cyclist in the bike lane behind me.
When I have right-of-way and use my turn signal ahead of time, shouldn't I have the ability to turn right without waiting for the bike to pass (similar to how the cars behind me must wait for me to make my turn before continuing?)
I believe (so don't take it as fact), if your turn signal is on and they're behind you, you have the right of way. IF they edge forward to the line (as many do, which I think is legal?) and are to your front-right you should wait.
Again, driving and biking laws get muddled so it's hard to tell.
I'm not pointing fingers. I'm saying both parties are guilty. I just thing that the level of danger posed by the automobile drivers demands greater attention. Less than one person per year is killed by a cyclist. Drivers kill 100 in the united states every day.
I'm a cyclist as well as a driver and I give a lot of space to cyclists when overtaking them but I don't see that working too well. When cyclists/pedestrians get used to the system they will start to abuse it and rely on the systems to force the vehicles to avoid them/stop.
Also what defines too close? If you stray 1mm inside that zone do the brakes come on hard regardless of other traffic? What happens when the cyclist has come close to the car (overtaking either side in traffic).
Autonomous braking exists for those kinds of events: When a person steps out in front of a car, for example. Yet I don't see people deliberately jumping out in front of cars just to mess with them.
It's not deliberately jumping out to mess with them (although that might be a hijack risk in some regions of the world) but the person in a hurry seeing a street full of uncrashable cars and just running across the road in a much smaller gap than they would normally risk.
Google 'russia dashcam' videos and have your worldview adjusted. Incredibly, in Russia people apparently throw themselves in front of cars to try to get injury compensation. It doesn't happen often but often enough that people have made compilation videos. That and a whole pile of crazy drivers are the reason that dashcams are so popular in Russia in the first place, they give the driver some evidence to show what happened prior to the accident.
For trucks, ASL360. This uses 4 cameras around the vehicle and some simple software to synthesize an "eye in the sky" view. Actually, I'd like this on my car.
