Seattle Bicyclist

[AJP]

We’re not saying “we cannot at all address issues with bicyclists until all bad drivers are dealt with”, we’re saying that bicycles and cars are NOT equally dangerous, by a long shot, and that with our limited resources for police and bureaucratic enforcement, going after cyclists isn’t justified. There’s not good reason to do so. The code of conduct for drivers should NOT be equal to cyclists because they aren’t equally dangerous, at all. It’s a false equivalency. Of course cyclists shouldn’t be jerks, but jerk drivers are capable of far worse damages. By a lot. It’s not the same.

Share This

[JanS]

as in all things, this country’s problem with “whataboutitis” is really becoming a problem – lol…like I said before…we’re all in this together. Let’s look out for one another, and not make excuses for one another when the other is wrong…and keep the roads safe for all of us.

Share This

[TSurly]

@EdSane as Job pointed out, it appears you fall back on the rule of law when unlawful behavior affects you. Your unlawfully behavior (deploying illegal fireworks in a densely poupulated area) could easily cause signicant property damage or worse and I find it laughable that you come on here and criticize cyclist for minor traffic infractions. Perhaps their should be some kind of licensing requirement to buy and deploy fireworks so that when someones house is burned down the responsible party can be held accountable.

To your point though, I’m sure you wouldn’t intentionally shoot fireworks at my house, and I apologize for saying that.

Share This

[EdSane]

@AJP, you just stated we can’t go after bicyclists there are more important things. That fits right inline with my reasoning that we’re only bringing up bad drivers to cloud the issue concerning bicyclist. I think we can walk and chew gum. Specifically, when something is a cultural issue (attitudes), active discussion and civic engagement is what curbs issues. For example, the cellphone law is a step in the right direction but its more the social shaming aspect that will eventually win over the crowd (not police enforcement). However, I don’t see the bicyclist crowd acknowledging any issues without the ‘but drivers’ which tells me this is more about tribal identity then anything else.

With regards to conduct. We all need to display the same conduct to each other when driving, riding or walking. It only works because we have a system of rules and expectations and we take predictable actions. Bicycles should not run up the blind side of a car within inches, they should stop at traffic control signals and yield to pedestrians. They’re not exempt because they’re less likely to cause death or injury to anyone but themselves. In fact their unpredictable actions could have severe consequences when drivers react or over react in an attempt to avoid an incident. Accidents are dynamic and chain reactions happen all the time.

@TSurly, please re-read the firework thread. I stated unequivocally that I did not discharge any unlawful fireworks at all. I merely advocated that they should be legal. I have many friends where they are legal and I went there. But again this line of attack is meant to discredit me the person and not my point or even add to the discussion. The topics arn’t even related unless you want to compare two nights a year to commuting every day.

Share This

[JoB]

EdSane…
Please. “The topics aren’t even related unless you want to compare two nights a year to commuting every day.”

you are being disingenuous… and i am choosing that word to be polite. you have stated that you live in our greater neighborhood so you are not unaware that the fireworks issue is far greater than 2 nights a year… even if you count only those two holidays.. and not the celebration of points scoring or victories for sports teams or other more obscure holidays that are celebrated with fireworks.

the tie that binds these topics is law. You state that bicyclists should obey the law unequivocally.. but that people who set off fireworks don’t need to because that law should be changed… there is dissonance there and a complete denial of the fact that cyclists believe that some of the traffic laws should be changed to better protect them…

but.. if you don’t want to muddle your rant against cyclists with fireworks.. let’s stick to rules of the road .. you might ask yourself why you are not as adamant that drivers should unequivocally adhere to the law.. no speeding. not even up or down Admiral Hill where it is clear people think the law should be changed… coming to an absolute stop at all stop lights and stop signs .. i was nearly t-boned yesterday coming up the hill from Thriftway by someone who totally ignored the stop sign… stopping every time a pedestrian stands on the verge of a crosswalk.. or better yet actually ceding pedestrians the right of way at all times under all circumstances .. that’s the law too… leaving a safe margin around all bicyclists .. etc…

i could go on but i am sure you get the point.

your insistence that one group of citizens should be held accountable for breaking the law while ignoring other groups that don’t is the problem..

it’s the message.. not the fact that you are the messenger.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by JoB.

Share This

[mark47n]

Ed, your attempt to separate cyclists and drivers isn’t going to work as they are one and the same. Also, I suspect that far more cyclists follow the traffic laws than don’t. Be that as it may…

You want to blame the “tribal” aspect and make this assumption that all cyclists are one. They are not. They are no more of one mind that drivers are. In fact, the vast and overwhelming majority of cyclists are drivers themselves. How do you think folks like me get out and ride in the Snoqualmie Valley and other distant places? Would you like me to lump you in with the group of drivers that have tried, actively, to door me, run me off the road or have thrown things at me? Probably not.

You want to complain that cyclists pass you on the right in traffic while you’re stopped. So, I should not proceed unless you’re in motion? Perhaps you should check your mirrors and then your right side wouldn’t be such a blind spot.

There are rude and inconsiderate people on both sides of this divide but only one of them places their own skin at risk, literally. Often it seems a lot like sour grapes. The cyclist cruises right past on your right as you sit locked up in traffic. Often not going faster than 10 mph. They aren’t careless, they are placing a great deal of trust in you holding up your part of the bargain. The part that says you’ll check your mirrors and stay off your phone. Cyclists literally place their lives in the hands of drivers in this way. They trust that drivers will follow the rules, even if they rant and rave about cyclists, and not kill them.

No one has said that cyclists are exempt from traffic laws. No one has ever made that assertion. I do know that if cyclists followed every single traffic law that drivers would definitely not appreciate it. This was thoroughly demonstrated a year or two ago when this was put into action by the cyclists in a part of SF known as the wiggle. By fully complying they tied up traffic something fierce. Many places in the world have realized that they have to change laws so as to accommodate cyclists. Idaho, Quebec, Holland, much of Scandinavia and the list goes on. These are regions that have realized that it’s not workable to have multiple classes of user follow the same rules and carry the same liability. We do that here already. Large trucks have different rules and different liability. Pedestrians and school buses have different rules and liability. Ultimately, the liability increases with the hazards associated with the vehicle. In this country we’ve decided that cyclists are in the same hazard class as cars and semi’s and that’s ridiculous on its face.

Let’s now discuss the “Idaho Stop Law”. This was adopted in Idaho in 1982. It allows bikes to treat stop signs as yields, red lights as stop signs and allows bikes to move up to the front thereby promoting visibility and keeping traffic moving for everyone. Since this was adopted there has been no rise in injuries involving cyclists. It hurt no one. It improved traffic. Conversely, the malicious compliance action that tied up the Wiggle showed the reverse. If cyclists complied with all laws they would tie up traffic. So, which do you want?

I want the Idaho Stop Law and you should too. It would benefit you, Ed, but cyclists would still move faster than you. It would just mean they were now following the law and that would take all the wind out of the sails of your ship out outrage.

Share This

[EdSane]

@JoB, To me this is more discussion then rant but to each their own I suppose. I’ve grown tired of the ‘fireworks’ discussion and how that thread was essentially everyone talking over everyone else including that it is lost on anyone that my position was that the law should be enforced 364 days out of the year and that blanket bans/prohibition usually do not curb behavior. In fact my thread of logic is consistent to this issue too. I don’t believe enforcing traffic laws will completely stop this behavior either. It is a social/civic issue that I believe will only change over time as opinions evolve (or driver-less cars which ever come first). I’ve already stated that here briefly.

If you wanted to start a thread on bad drivers or a particular spot where many break the law I would participate. I use to rent an apartment on Avalon prior to and after the street conversion for the RapidRide Line. Now you have drivers impatiently going around the bus rather then stopping. I do believe there are bad drivers and I wish SPD had a more beefed up traffic division to handle a city the size that we’ve grown to… The discussion started regarding bicyclists and I was keeping my thoughts to that topic.

@mark, by tribal I mean more the ‘defense as one’ not in the sense that all are one. Similar in my mind to gun rights enthusiast who perceive an attack on even those who break the law as an attack on all.

There are certainly cyclists that feel exempt from traffic laws. As to passing on the right. I’m fine with bicyclist doing that and it is totally legal. I actually think its smarter and safer for the bicyclist to scoot ahead at red lights so they don’t get hit from behind and also as a driver it is easier to see them as I make room to pass. My issue is that some bicyclists insist on passing the car at speed when there is not enough room (e.g. traffic is 15mph and there are parked cars, tight lane with no dedicated bike lane). They shouldn’t be squeezing themselves within inches of my mirror just to get one or two spots ahead.

As to the Idaho Stop Law, I’m not too familiar with it but from what you’ve stated I’d be interested in how Seattle might adopt such a law. The stop sign as a yield sign sounds fine in theory however I wonder if the average bicyclists would slow down as they approached or blow through at speed. I’m not cool with the red light being treated as a stop sign especially on major arterials.

Again my outrage is directed at the bicyclists who break the law and don’t share the road. There are a few I encounter daily. I’m all for common sense laws. I just want a little enforcement too. It doesn’t bother me if a bicyclists gets ahead of me or is faster due to traffic.

Share This

[Author]

Posts