Is It OK To Kill Cyclists? (NY Times)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Madopal (16.5 mi) on
-
Of course, BSNYC said it more entertainingly and succinctly. (Aware it was linked here, but I pulled the meat paragraph from his piece.)
"In other words, I'll use bicycle infrastructure responsibly if you give it to me, but screw you if you think I'm going to pretend it's there when it's not. And if you think I don't "deserve" the infrastructure I don't have, then you're in denial of both physics and common human decency. The writer of this op-ed, like most Americans, has been brainwashed into believing that "drivers and cyclists share the same rights and responsibilities," as if these vehicles are even remotely the same. Cars and bikes aren't even apples and oranges; they're 20-foot tall genetically-modified elephant/shark hybrids and oranges. Sure, technically you can eat both of them, but the similarities end there. But the reason people are willing to buy into the "drivers and cyclists share the same rights and responsibilities" bullshit is that it's all part of the American take on "equality," which is that it's perfectly fine to hold somebody down and fuck them, even if you've got 100 pounds on them, because technically they're free to fuck you back. (But of course if they do actually manage to fuck you back, you charge them with rape.)"
Sarah D. 1-3.3 said:+1 to all of this.
Madopal (5.8 mi) said:[my response cut for brevity]
-
Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on
-
Relevant to this is that the few times anyone's done a study of who actually obeys traffic law more, it's cyclists by a wide margin.
This whole discussion of whether or not we should be more law-abiding is pretty much a moot point because we already are.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/06/25/94-of-bikes-wait-at-red-lights-s...
-
Permalink Reply by S on
-
Anyone have a link to the actual study instead of just people blogging about it? Google doesn't turn it up so it's hard to tell what limitations the study gives for its conclusions. CDOT says that red light compliance on Dearborn was 31% before the bike lane went in and 81% after so that 94% may be specific to Oregon cities or specific locations the study looked at.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Relevant to this is that the few times anyone's done a study of who actually obeys traffic law more, it's cyclists by a wide margin.
This whole discussion of whether or not we should be more law-abiding is pretty much a moot point because we already are.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/06/25/94-of-bikes-wait-at-red-lights-s...
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on
-
If nothing else, the original NYT op-ed has sparked some discussion. Here's a bit that showed up on The Economist's blogs (I saw it on the internet-BOB list, where a similar discussion is taking place):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/cycling-v...
Skip
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
Well said. We need to bring Idaho stop to the forefront, especially in light of recent stop sign stings on popular routes like Kinzie.
Madopal (5.8 mi) said:Here's my beef.
So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect.
Ok, I've wanted to get into the whole stop/Idaho stop discussion for a while. There are three major reasons I don't think cyclists should treat every stop sign as a stop:
1) Cyclists are not cars, and any collision, should it happen, between a slow moving cycle and anything else, isn't the type that needs such control
2) Cycling needs to have function. Cars get annoyed at cyclists on stop sign laden streets, because they see the cyclists keeping up or going faster. The average speed of any vehicle is limited by constant stops. So, a cyclist on a street treating stops as yields is roughly the same average speed of car on same street, stopping every block. However, if a cyclist has to stop, they average down to the speed of a pedestrian. Cycling loses much of its utility at that point. Crazy speed isn't the objective of riding, but making a 15-20 minute walk into a 5 minute trip to the grocery store is a big deal, and stop signs ruin that.
3) To wit: cars have arterial street options with controlled signals to avoid streets with stop signs every block. Cyclists take their lives into their hands...so it becomes somewhat of a Hobson's choice: ride the back streets and average the same speed as walking, or ride the arterial and risk "I didn't see you" death.
Lastly, I used to have discussions on the boards in South Evanston about the perception of "stopping." A cyclist can adjust their speed by 5 mph to time going through a stop sign with traffic. To a stationary viewer, this speed difference can be almost indistinguishable ("that cyclist just blew that stop sign"), but the difference on when the cyclist crosses the intersection can be close to 10 seconds later, just by slowing down a bit.
I'm just kinda tired of hearing the "rules of the road are for everyone" argument when the rules are stacked against everyone but cars, and especially when we see that a significant portion of drivers ignore the rules on a regular basis...glass houses & all that.
-
Permalink Reply by Eli on
-
It seems like step number one would be getting explicit, public support for Idaho stop legislation from the Active Transportation Alliance.
If ATA is unwilling to support this maybe a specific Idaho-stop lobbying group could be formed.
-
-
Yes!!! And the Economist piece was a decent one.
Madopal (5.8 mi) said:Of course, BSNYC said it more entertainingly and succinctly. (Aware it was linked here, but I pulled the meat paragraph from his piece.)
"In other words, I'll use bicycle infrastructure responsibly if you give it to me, but screw you if you think I'm going to pretend it's there when it's not. And if you think I don't "deserve" the infrastructure I don't have, then you're in denial of both physics and common human decency. The writer of this op-ed, like most Americans, has been brainwashed into believing that "drivers and cyclists share the same rights and responsibilities," as if these vehicles are even remotely the same. Cars and bikes aren't even apples and oranges; they're 20-foot tall genetically-modified elephant/shark hybrids and oranges. Sure, technically you can eat both of them, but the similarities end there. But the reason people are willing to buy into the "drivers and cyclists share the same rights and responsibilities" bullshit is that it's all part of the American take on "equality," which is that it's perfectly fine to hold somebody down and fuck them, even if you've got 100 pounds on them, because technically they're free to fuck you back. (But of course if they do actually manage to fuck you back, you charge them with rape.)"
Sarah D. 1-3.3 said:+1 to all of this.
Madopal (5.8 mi) said:[my response cut for brevity]
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on
-
The ATA seems to lie more on the "follow the letter of the law" side, and not the side of "the laws were written with cars in mind and are inadequate for other users of the road". IIRC, last year they sent people out to hassle people on bikes who were not stopping at stop signs, and give them unwarranted lectures on safety.
Eli said:It seems like step number one would be getting explicit, public support for Idaho stop legislation from the Active Transportation Alliance.
If ATA is unwilling to support this maybe a specific Idaho-stop lobbying group could be formed.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah D. on
-
Great - thanks for sharing this, Skip. My favorite part:
"...they obey those rules more scrupulously than Americans do—partly because if they don't, they are likely to annoy or crash into other cyclists, who will give them a verbal hiding."
Skip Montanaro 12mi said:If nothing else, the original NYT op-ed has sparked some discussion. Here's a bit that showed up on The Economist's blogs (I saw it on the internet-BOB list, where a similar discussion is taking place):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/cycling-v...
Skip
-
-
That's fine, but it's not as though the ATA doesn't already advocate for changes to existing law (e.g., weren't they involved in the recent legislation clarifying that it is legal for bikes to pass on the right?). They don't need to support breaking the existing laws in order to lobby for Idaho stop legislation.
-
Permalink Reply by djm on
-
<sarcasm>
It is a necessary evil for the greater good. Cyclists contribute disproportionately less to the gross domestic product than people who travel by motor vehicle. Any measure that would increase the safety of cyclists would slightly reduce the efficiency of motor vehicle traffic. This would result in an economic loss greater than that resulting from the injury or death of a few cyclists. Even the threat of enforcement of existing driving regulations could cause drivers to drive more slowly and further diminish our already depressed economy.
</sarcasm>
-
-
It might be somethign that goes up with infrastructure that supports bikes, like the bike snob piece suggests, but even CDOT's data point shows a pretty high rate of compliance.
The talking point of scofflaw cyclists has no data points, just anecdote and vitriol and doesn't actually give any comparison to automobile traffic law compliance. The idea that cyclists need to do something to curtail the literally homicidal vitriol plays into the faulty assumption that it has a rational basis.
S said:
Anyone have a link to the actual study instead of just people blogging about it? Google doesn't turn it up so it's hard to tell what limitations the study gives for its conclusions. CDOT says that red light compliance on Dearborn was 31% before the bike lane went in and 81% after so that 94% may be specific to Oregon cities or specific locations the study looked at.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Relevant to this is that the few times anyone's done a study of who actually obeys traffic law more, it's cyclists by a wide margin.
This whole discussion of whether or not we should be more law-abiding is pretty much a moot point because we already are.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/06/25/94-of-bikes-wait-at-red-lights-s...
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
