Hell on Two Wheels: Blinded by Science

Sounds like a great reason to *not* build bicycle lanes to me. If you can't manage to keep your bicycle upright at a stop sign, or red light, perhaps you shouldn't use a bicycle to get around. The entire problem with Mister West's logic is that he ignores the accidents that come with people coming from intersecting directions, and not stopping, not yielding, and not looking.

By Mister West's logic, we should do away with stop signs and traffic signals for cars too. Cause, dontcha know, cars are more efficient when they don't have to stop all the time too. Hell, you're more likely to stall at a stop than coasting down the street in gear. So maybe we REALLY SHOULD just not require cars to stop either.

::facepalm::

Ah, this totally explains why the Critical Mass riders are so rude every time. They're afraid of falling down! Thanks for clarifying!!!

Why do bikers run stop signs? Because it saves them time and they can get away with it. Let's just admit it. It will be ok.

Obviously, Mr. Zepeda and Richmondsfblog do not ride bikes, and that is okay, they don’t understand the danger that comes with trying to be responsible, for some, or the only transportation for other. I do agree that there are some places where even bikes should have to stop, by Law. About twenty years ago, I got a ticket for running red light, on the wrong side of the street. The funny thing is I was riding along side the park, and the intersection I went through happened to be the end of the street, where the street I was on crossed. In no way was anyone, and I mean anyone was in danger, but I still got a ticket, since then, I stop for lights, and signs alike. If you don’t ride a bike, try it for a couple of days; see the kind of shit we go through, before you pass judgment. Thanks for the funny article I got a kick out of it.

I ride my bike to and from work in San Francisco every day. My rule is: Assume the worst from cars. I'll let others spend time educating the driving class on how to behave around bicyclists on the streets of San Francisco. Until the day when all cars magically see half-painted bicycle lanes and observe the fact that it's easier to die while riding a bike than if you're in the car that hits the bike, until that day, I ride defensively. I do not give a single car the benefit of the doubt. When drivers do see me, when they yield while turning right and thus crossing a bike line, I thank them.

But as it relates to this post, my point is this: Cyclists need to balance their selfish intent to ride totally efficiently at all times with a respect for the rules of traffic. Flaunting the rules only pisses drivers off, and exacerbates a situation of total disrespect and distrust. And that will just keep the situation humming along at a dangerous status quo.

I've been in cars where cyclists come flying through an intersection, almost to get hit by me or another car. It's not cool being in the car in that situation. You put your life in danger, at my hands.

My advice to cyclists is to chill out, observe basic rules, only roll through stop signs slowly and after making triple-fucking-sure that no cars are coming. That, and seriously, give us all a break: Stopping at a red light and putting one foot on the ground for 10 seconds isn't going to expend too much of your energy.

So, if I don't see anyone at an intersection and I'm in a car, I should just roll through? The defense that nobody was in danger wouldn't fly in traffic court with a car, why should it with a bicycle? If you can't keep from falling over at a stop sign, walk -- don't ride.

Some additional points. First, California drivers aren't really in a position to complain about cyclists who don't make full stops, since we are notorious for the "California roll."

Second, I would actually suggest taking a look at whether stop signs are the best solution for traffic control at many intersections. I grew up in Seattle, where traffic circles are used extensively to control traffic speeds and intersection navigation, with no stop signs. And traffic safety studies have long suggested that roundabouts, as used widely in Europe, are safer than intersections controlled by traffic lights.

Thirdly, the issue of instability is not that cyclists will fall over at intersections. It's that a cyclist at a full stop is much less able to avoid oncoming hazards from any direction because it puts them in the least maneuverable and most awkward position compared to being on the move.

I would support a change to traffic regulations like Idaho's, which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. And, again, this debate seems to hinge on the perceived "lawlessness" of cyclists ignoring stop signs (when wanton disregard for traffic laws is not unique to any class of vehicle), not any actual consequences. If anything, cyclists going through stop signs, along with "careless" pedestrians, may actually force motorists to be more careful and aware when driving, providing a net benefit to traffic safety.

The difficulty of overcoming inertia could be said for any mode of transportation. Feet, automobiles, roller skates, skateboard, sledding, etc. By that logic we should replace all stop signs with yield signs for everyone.

Stop signs serve a few useful purposes. First, if followed, they prevent people from colliding (be they on bicycles, sled dogs, driver's seat, or what have you). Second, they slow down traffic. This is particularly desirable in residential areas where the goal is not necessarily to have the most efficient roads possible (see also speed bumps and traffic calming).

It's a far less daunting task to cross a street like Moraga than it is to cross, for instance, Lincoln. This would be true even if all of the automobiles were replaced with bicycles. Even if it won't kill you, it will still hurt, and potentially injure you quite seriously if a bicycle and pedestrian collide at speed.

Are roundabouts a good idea? Perhaps. Is allowing bicycles to ignore traffic safety laws? No.

Apparently you haven't been to the Sunset, or the Richmond; we LOVE to roll through stop signs!

Thanks for calling out the reverse situation. Whether on a bike or in a car, you're going to encounter someone pulling stupid moves - sf drivers aren't the best, and there are just so many cyclists..

Many cyclist have figured out that by riding on the sidewalk, they can avoid those pesky stop signs.

I have had plenty of near misses with bicyclists, and find them to be the biggest assholes about pedestrian safety. They ride their bikes on the sidewalk, and crash through stop signs, without a care for us, the walker, who is most likely to get hurt by both cars and bikes.

I realize San Franciscans have a reflexive tendency to embrace a selfish, "me first" philosophy, instead of trying to operate in an urban environment the way those in other cities do - common courtesy, respect, and following a few basic rules so everyone can get where they want safely. But that would never fly here - people's self righteousness and self centeredness trump any real cooperation.

"I have had plenty of near misses with bicyclists, and find them to be the biggest assholes about pedestrian safety."

Pretty bold statement in light of this...

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/10/among-walkable-regions-san-francisco-one-of-most-dangerous/

The biggest assholes about pedestrian safety, in order
1) MTA
2) Motorists
3) Cyclists
4) Pedestrians