Chances are if you are reading this you are part of the solution and not the problem. The vast majority of club and race team bicyclists operate within reason of what the law and safe practice require. As a LAB certified traffic skills educator I can say most of us probably have room for improvement, but that is a different topic.
This is about those who run red lights and stop signs without so much as a cursory squeeze of the brake handles. I’m not talking about riders who come to a red light which doesn’t sense them, wait out a couple of cycles and then treat it as a stop sign (technically illegal in Virginia). Or those who do a “California stop.” I’m talking about those of us who blaze through as if they are on their way to a half off sale down at the local bike shop or treat cycling as an extreme ‘X’ sport.
I understand the arguments about cyclists having better visibility and that we can’t create the kind of carnage and mayhem that a one ton car can make. And I do support steps taken in states such as Utah such as allowing bicyclists to treat certain traffic controls as yield or stop signs.
However, this is Virginia and until the law is changed we should abide by it unless a compelling case can be made that doing so would put a cyclist at grave risk. I don’t believe stopping for red lights or stop signs fits that description.
One would think that compliance is in our own best interests. After all, no one wants to be hit. But lately I’ve had more than one cyclist tell me that they routinely disregard these, rationalized by a perceived need for maintaining momentum.
It’s unfortunate that most police departments are strapped for manpower such that this isn’t enforced more. This disregard negates efforts to build respect with motorists by those who do ride lawfully.
How many times have you seen a motorist radically maneuver in an effort to avert a crash with a red light runner? If a driver and their family crash into a fixed object or another car in an effort to avoid a red light running cyclist, has any less damage and injury occurred than if a car had created the same situation?
A final point to consider is that I’ve been hearing of more cases where motorists or their insurance companies have sought compensation from at fault cyclists following a crash. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, after all we live in a society that puts a high value on personal responsibility. A bike operated on a public street or highway is considered a vehicle and as drivers of vehicles we should be held to the same standards we expect of others.
Same road, same rules, rights, and responsibilities. It works. Just do it.
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"//pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-ffAr_0M34f91E.gif\")
Comments on this entry are closed.
it’s unfortunate that anyone could still write an article like this. after yet another week of terror and mayhem created by cars, and all you can do is rail against….bikers. that’s a level of moral depravity that is difficult to find words for. keep up the good work.
Well said, Bruce. By ones personal example, bicyclists can either create a virtuous cycle of traffic-law compliance or further the current culture of scofflaw bicycling (and motoring). Be the change you’d like to see by resolving to fully observe red lights and stop signs from this day forward.
It’s an excellent editorial, Bruce, and thanks for taking the time put it together. As you know, I posed this question to you recently as well as others, and it seems that folks, who can take a step back and look at the situation objectively, tend to share the same opinions. Everytime someone runs a red light, it hurts our cause. Thanks for all you do.
“How many times have you seen a motorist radically maneuver in an effort to avert a crash with a red light runner?”
Um. Never?
But I myself quite often radically maneuver in an effort to avoid a crash with a cellphone-talker or a right-hooker. I’m sure it’s those sorts of deadly scofflaws that you intended to write your article about, right?
I am baffled by why a bike advocacy organization would post this article.
1 in 55 people in the USA die from a car crash. How many folks die from the use of bicycles?
“This disregard negates efforts to build respect with motorists by those who do ride lawfully.” — Since when is it the task of bikers to build respect with motorists? It is motorists that kill people. Surely, it is motorists that are in need of respect.
Motorists that run a red light, that run a stop sign, that exceed the legal speed limit, or that don’t signal when required by law to do so, (likely ALL motorists) frequently kill people. Bicyclists that do these things do not kill people, do not even injure people.
“How many times have you seen a motorist radically maneuver in an effort to avert a crash with a red light runner?” — What biker runs a red light when a motorist is heading for them?
“Chances are if you are reading this you are part of the solution and not the problem. ” — What exactly is the problem?
1000’s of lives each year in the USA are needlessly lost because of motorized vehicle drivers. Why do we allow these deaths to occur? The USA has the most dangerous traffic in the industrialized world.
Please, advocate for biking being healthy, safe, fun, economical, fast. Advocate for motorized vehicle drivers to not continue the needless killing. But please, no more of these irrelevant, even offensive editorials.
The stop lights, traffic signals, speed limit signs, and most all other traffic signage is put up for cars and trucks, they are useless to a cyclist. Bicycle riding is freedom. I do not need the respect of car drivers. If someone blasts thru an intersection On a bicycle without checking it’s clear first,( unless faulty equipment is to blame) they probably sit on the toilet before checking if the lid is up and poop all over themselves too.
And the solution for all the pedestrians mowed down by automobile rovers (driver is too complimentary a term, it connotes a degree of control)? Why, enforcing some jaywalking laws with teeth!
I’ll be blunt; people railing against Bruce are one of the biggest problems to bicycling being accepted as legitimate. It completely undermines the arguments that advocates make. As a cyclist of 30 years and a bike/ped professional I speak from both a personal and professional perspective. The sense of entitlement is absurd; hold everyone else to account, but not me. Bruce made clear it wasn’t about rolling a stop or not putting a foot down; it is the blatatnt disregard for the rule of law, and yes safety.
As both cyclist and motorist I’ve seen far too many cyclists do really stupid (and dangerous) things and have had to take evasive action both on the bike and behind the wheel to mitigate for their stupidity and disregard. And bicyclists can and do cause crashes, whether by hitting a pedestrian (I personally know a courier here in Richmond that killed a woman by speeding downhill against traffic), or by running a stop and causing an evasive maneuver by a motorist.
Yes, motorists have a greater duty of care for they can inflict much greater damage., but it doesn’t absolve cyclists of their responsibilities. And if you think cycling needs to grow or to receive more support (financially, legislatively, etc) then perpetuating the popular perception of cyclists as scofflaws is the best way to ensure that DOESN’T happen. Perception is reality and the cycling community can often be its own worst enemy. It is the negative perception that galvanizes opposition to making any effort to accommodate us or spend any money on us rogue scofflaws that don’t pay taxes (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).
The examples that Jakob & the editorial give of bike scofflaws are very extreme, the ‘bad apples’ so to speak, and the example of death/injury given is so statistically rare one would suspect the example had been posted by a car advocate.
There is a huge realm of biking scofflaw behavior between the “california stop” and “speeding downhill against traffic”.
Yes, often car drivers call upon bike behavior within this huge realm of biking behavior, as a reason to decry bikers. But reminding the car drivers that they do the very same type of behaviors every day – not signaling, breaking speed laws – silences such inappropriate arguments.
The extreme ‘bad apple’ bike scofflaws that you mention are such a minority, just as they are for car drivers of that type of extreme behavior, that there is scant reason for bike advocates to even concern themselves with them, it simply caters to the erroneous arguments of the automobile industry/advocates and anti-other-modes-of-transport folks.
Concerning the huge realm of biking behavior between the “california stop” and “speeding downhill against traffic”, when we look at the effects of car drivers in this realm of behavior we see multiple deaths as a consequence, this is not the case for bikers.
Bikers have always been accused of being scofflaws by the non-biking traffic and the broad spectrum of biking behavior is unlikely to change. But one thing that can change is the marketing of biking and the methods of bike advocates. Bike advocates can learn from car advocates and car marketing – market and advocate for biking being healthy, safe, fun, sexy, economical, fast. Please cease this type of call for behavior change of bikers – it’s a waste of time, and plays into the hands of the invalid excuses of car advocates and politicians. Or at least, make it a call for change for all modes of transport, not just bikers.
This article, posted on http://copenhagenize.com provides a lot to ponder re this subject:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/11/behaviour-is-tricky-subject-and-getting.html
Regarding, “The sense of entitlement is absurd; hold everyone else to account, but not me” – I am not sure what this is referring to. I don’t consider it to be holding a sense of entitlement when one bristles at biker behavior being stated as the reason for biking not being “accepted as legitimate” whilst car drivers doing the same behaviors, but while doing them also killing people, are presumably already legitimate.
I’m a bike scofflaw and proud of it. As long as the majority of drivers remain oblivious to the safety of cyclists on the road, I will continue to look out for my own best interests and ride by my own rules of survival.
We are all road users, and regardless of the means by which we use our roads, each of us would do better, and endure less conflict, if we all used the same set of rules while using these roads. Many cyclists insist that they are some kind of special case, and therefore they should be exempted from (choose your own) rules.
No.
Predictability is your greatest safety asset. All road users, future drivers and future cyclists, need to be taught the same rules, which they can choose to disregard at their peril at a similar frequency as they do now; the difference being that all road users, cyclists-to-be included, would learn ‘from the book’ how to drive and ride at the same time. The more the cyclist acts as a vehicle, the more respect the cyclist will gain.
There is no way to eliminate the inherent imbalance of hazard between autos and bikes. But, it has been studied and reasonably proven that when bikes behave as traffic, their accident rate falls to that of all other road users, per hour.
Don’t use others irresponsibility as an excuse for your own failure to observe traffic rules. Take responsibility for your own behavior, and be the difference you want to see.
I think the tension here is between ideal behavior of all users of the road, and the real behavior. That is, James Rosar is absolutely right that all users of the road are vehicles and all should be behave consistently and predictably (and I believe most tend to), but the reality is that roads have been primarily engineered for the speed, size, and maneuverability of motor vehicles, and most drivers have not been trained to look for cyclists. So, when we’re sharing the road with motor vehicles, even behaving predictably and following all the rules, we’re at a severe disadvantage. I think that disadvantage warrant occasional “scofflaw” behavior for our own safety.
Until roads are better designed or parallel accommodations are consistently established, the functional differences between cyclists and motor vehicles will always keep even well-behaved cyclists at a disadvantage.
However, these points are, I believe, secondary to my real objection to this post. I don’t object to its subject, which I think is really not all that controversial. What’s frustrating about “calls to virtue” like this is that they reinforce the idea that cyclist’s are ultimately responsible for the danger they face. That is, taking River and Pete’s points, no cyclist, no matter how poorly behaved, no matter how much of a scofflaw, roustabout, hooligan or ruffian, has the potential to cause the amount of damage and death as a single driver distracted by a cellphone call. Take the incident earlier in the year where a driver in Richmond, paying more attention to her GPS than the road, rammed into and largely demolished an entire building. Recently on this blog, there is a post lauding the accomplishments of Radford in improving bicycling accommodations. That only came about because a cyclist was hurt in an accident earlier in the year; not because he was a scofflaw, but because of a distracted or untrained driver.
There have been three bicycle-related deaths in the greater Roanoke region in the past several years. Two of them were from professional cyclists, acting predictably and wearing all appropriate safety gear, who were struck by motor vehicles and killed. The third was a young man whom, it appears, blew through a stop sign onto busy Route 460. He was struck by a tractor trailer and died. His death is unfortunate, but simply reinforces the point that his scofflaw behavior harmed no one but himself.
Meanwhile, the scofflaw behavior of motorists killed two cyclists, and kill more pedestrians and other motorists every day.
Calling out bicycling scofflaws is therefore frustrating, particularly when it comes from within the bike advocacy community, because, frankly, bicyclists are far more vulnerable and far more often the victims of erratic driver behavior. And yet, all across the country, cyclists who have been harmed by motor vehicles are waging uphill battles in court for justicet, such as the rider in Texas who was struck by a truck but was himself charged with reckless driving because it was determined that bicycles did not belong on the road.
The guy blowing through a stop sign is not doing nearly as much harm as the judge who made this ruling. The drivers who struck Mark Wiley and Fess Green in Radford did far more harm than the guy blowing through a stop sign. Unless there is a specific, recent case of a bicycle scofflaw causing significant harm or public nuisance that requires a reminder than we should all obey the law, I’m not sure of the benefit of calling them out. My response, and I think the sentiment behind folks like River, Pete, Chris, and John is an exasperated, “Yes, we know, we know. Now please get back to work reminding the drivers.”
Those critical of Bruce’s editorial should read this New York Times article:
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/nyregion/22bike.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y ] .
Allen,
Thank you for the link, though I’m struggling a bit to see how it serves as a response to folks who are critical of Bruce’s call. I think it’s important to examine the context of the the NY Times piece compared to Bruce’s blog post.
The focus on enforcement, the article points out, comes on the heels of some massive improvements in bicycling infrastructure: “250 miles of lane over the last four years and thousands of new bike racks,” to quote the article. Though the article doesn’t quantify the increase in bicycle trips, or how many vehicle trips have been replaced with bicycle trips, it intimates this number is significant: “The result has been that bicycling, once a niche, even antiauthoritarian, mode of transport, has entered the New York mainstream.” It points out that 26,000 citations have been issued to cyclists this year, though without context of which kind of percentage increase this represents over previous years, and with the caveat that it is “a fraction of the 800,000 violations issued against motor vehicles.” Finally, the increased call for enforcement seems to be following specific complaints made by the Brooklyn neighborhood unhappy with the installation of bike lanes on its roads.
So, the context for the NY Times call is this: the city has made massive investments in bicycle infrastructure to improve mode parity, it has seen subsequent increases in the number of bicycle trips taken each day and the total number of cyclists on the road, and is undertaking a public relations effort to improve the image of cyclists in neighborhoods upset about vehicle lanes between taken away or limited. In this context, the call for enforcement is appropriate and needed, because the city has invested mightily in accommodating cyclists. It is summed up, in fact, very early in the article: “‘We have been friendly to cyclists. Now it’s time for cyclists to be friendlier to the city.”
(Though, if I were a cycling advocate in NYC, I would dig into those moving violation numbers a bit and determine what costs in lives, injuries, and property those 26,000 bicycle citations represent versus the 800,000 motor vehicle citations).
This blog post, on the other hand, lacks any context other than, “Cyclists should behave themselves.” Well, yes. Of course they should. As should automobile drivers.
The problem with Bruce’s post is that the call for enforcement is not inappropriate per se, but that in Virgina, at least, where most localities lack significant amounts of bike infrastructure, where bike trips still make up a tiny fraction of all trips made, where cyclists are more often the victim of bad driver behavior than the reverse, it is simply a bit tiresome.
I do want to add that, despite my criticism, I do appreciate Bruce offering this post and providing the opportunity to discuss it. I think this is an important conversation to have, particularly as we see growth – however small – in cycling, and particularly in bicycling for transportation.
I agree with Jeremy that the number of citations issued to cyclists versus motorists warrants a closer look. My gut tells me that based on the sheer number of vehicles on the road, cyclists are probably being stopped much more often than cars on a proportional basis.
“Chances are if you are reading this you are part of the solution and not the problem. The vast majority of club and race team bicyclists operate within reason of what the law and safe practice require.”
You lost me right there. In my time riding in the Richmond region, this is one of the worst–absolute worst– groups of riders (short of really small children, who we’ll forgive). Very little regard for lights or stops as a group, with poor signaling as well. Most of them don’t ride daily in urban traffic, which probably accounts for a lot of it– in city riding is a very different animal than a club ride in the country.
While there’s plenty of stop sign running in the fan, the vast majority of it is at speeds far slower than the average motorist blows thru the same sign. And far safer, given basic physics.
I’m fine with enforcement, but make across the board. And:
“A final point to consider is that I’ve been hearing of more cases where motorists or their insurance companies have sought compensation from at fault cyclists following a crash.”
Frankly, in the event of a bike/car crash, the tendency is to blame the cyclist, even if they were riding within the law. If it weren’t, “I didn’t see him” wouldn’t work as an excuse when running over a cyclist. Alas, it works great. “I thought it was deer” works well too.
Once you get honest enforcement of the laws, fine. But we’re not even close yet.
Like too many cycling “advocates”, you’re willing to stick the onus on the cyclist and ignore the automobile. Sorry, it doesn’t wash.
“How many times have you seen a motorist radically maneuver in an effort to avert a crash with a red light runner?”
In twenty plus years of RVA cycling, most of it in city: Never. I’ve see the opposite happen many, many times, though, where the cyclist has had to pull off the “radical” manuver to avert a crash with a red light or stop sign runner or similarly obtuse driver.
I want to say that after reading this article, I agree with some of it’s direction to advocacy, but not all it’s content. It has been my experience with bicycling over many years that there exists many skill levels of riding. Some bicyclists are comfortable with riding in traffic while others really want to be on a path or dedicated lane. There are many levels in between, depending on choice and skill level of the rider. The bicycle is a very unique machine and does not aways fit set laws depending on the rider and the conditions. A very experienced and skilled rider can negotiate the heaviest of traffic conditions safely, but may not appear to follow the laws. This rider is highly trained and experienced and all their actions are for a purpose, not random or for sporting thrills, as perceived. Unless you have actually ridden extreme traffic and have learned these skills, it is hard to understand why existing laws do not work for everyone. I do not believe that all levels of bicycling are properly represented. I have never seen bicycle training programs that address all levels of riding. Instead, we are taught to obey the existing bicycle laws wrote by someone who has touring or recreational experience. I compare it to getting a license for driving a car, then trying to drive a semi or rescue vehicle. It’s not the same and requires more training. We still have a long way to go to improve bicycling laws and our perception to the public. We are not well represented in the bicycling community.
Road etiquette is similar to social etiquette: by assuming a basic level of behavior and interaction between individuals while on the streets, the travel experience is made more pleasant – and safer- for everyone.
Acting politely and showing courtesy and respect works as well on the road as it does between strangers in the parlor.
It would be nice if drivers and cyclists would remember this and demonstrate manners that would make all our mothers proud.
Mr. Nerino – Could you clarify what you mean by ‘all levels of bicycling’, and to what courses you refer to when declaring that ‘we are taught to obey the existing bicycle laws’? And just how the ‘highly trained, skilled and experienced’ rider you refer to manages to elicit the benefits of cooperation from their fellow road users? As a former professional New York City messenger, and now a League of American Bicyclists certified instructor, I’ve seen a variety of ‘methods’ used while riding in traffic, and tried a few myself. Some of those may just be what you end up doing, but what would you teach your daughter, if you had one? Would you teach her to violate laws, or to go beyond them? And if the bicycle is ‘very unique’, do you really want to get specific about how, why, where, when and who is responsible for respecting the exact differences you are proposing? The present vehicle codes, while not yet perfect, can be adjusted and become recognizable by all as being applicable to all vehicles, as few exceptions are truly necessary to allow all vehicles to co-exist on all our surface roads getting us all where we are going with the least danger to each other.
Not ‘no danger’, just the least danger.
When we ride our bicycles in traffic, we are teaching our fellow road users what to expect of us, and together we reap the benefits of the expectations we create in everyone else. I would like to believe that I create respect for the way I behave in traffic, and that my predictability gives those that approach me a greater ability to notice and react to other irregularities in the traffic environment, and to put the focus back on their own behavior, rather than mine. Being a bicycle scofflaw may seem to be a victimless crime, but it is being a scofflaw that is the issue, much like cutting into a line that others are (im)patiently waiting in. Your actions violate social norms and cause resentments, which become little time-bombs waiting to blow up the next apparent violator that comes along.
Please don’t do that.
In reference to the response of my question, I commented about there being different “levels” of bicycling. The young teenager on the BMX bike and no helmet riding down the wrong side of the road is on a much different “level” from the “Roadie” bicyclist that is riding correctly. When the BMX bike teen gets run over by a car and the media reports it, he is considered a “bicyclist”. How about the hundreds of “Walmart” bicycles that are sold to people who have no idea how to ride on the street, but they plan on riding there and do so incorrectly. How do you get the word out to these people about correct bicycling and enforce the laws? I know that all the bicycle groups and organizations try to keep the public informed, but it is so overwelming. The automobile had the same problem one hundred years ago. No one was required to have a license originally. As the automobile grew in popularity, we saw the need to have an education and licensing program. Unfortunately, I see this coming for bicycles. I’ll be honest. I ride my bicycle on city streets a lot in heavy traffic, and you know what? The automobile is not my problem. They seem to get around me just fine. It’s the person on the Wallmart bicycle or BMX bike coming the wrong way. I have had plenty of confrontations with these unlawful bikers. I feel that trained bicycle professionals and enthusiasts are actually a very small percentage as conpared to your avarage “Joe” on a bicycle. I think that’s why lawmakers don’t really take us seriously. Anyway, I don’t see anything changing real soon. The economy is bad, people are out of work, and the last thing on a politician’s mind is bicycle advocacy. They have health care reform, road repairs, and the war in the Middle East to worry about. Take a number, maybe we’ll solve bicycling in your life time. It would be also nice if we could make the bicycles in this country (again), instead of in China. Even Trek moved more of their operation overseas (Thanks John Burke). That really helps the advocacy movement. I’m just going to ride my bicycles on the road (made in the USA) and not worry about it. Enjoy it while I can. Good luck on your bicycling advocacy. (Welcome to the age of the Roman Empire)
“The automobile is not my problem. They seem to get around me just fine. It’s the person on the Wallmart bicycle or BMX bike coming the wrong way.”
Wait. Seriously?
I get harassed frequently while riding (for obeying the law). The culprits are ALWAYS (100%) behind the wheel of a car. By contrast, it’s pretty rare for me to encounter a salmon; I just pull out into traffic and pass him on my right.
Where do you live? I want to move there.
“I get harassed frequently while riding (for obeying the law). The culprits are ALWAYS (100%) behind the wheel of a car. By contrast, it’s pretty rare for me to encounter a salmon; I just pull out into traffic and pass him on my right.”
Hey. I guess then we don’t really have a problem.
Stop wasting tax payers money and ride your bike. The cars are not going away. Deal with it.
There really can be no denying the influence that predictability has on improving safety. Every stop sign, light, crosswalk, turn signal, light reflector, bell, and horn used by commuters are designed to enable us to predict what the most likely action a driver, pedestrian, or biker might do. This is not to say that all of these are followed or used, but rather it is to highlight the underlying reason for their existence. Each of these tools as well as others were designed to make it easier to determine what action needs to be taken by a driver/biker/pedestrian. As such, it is imperative that we maximize the use of tools designed to enhance the quick communication and predictability of a said driver/biker/pedestrian. This is not a pro-car or a pro-bike point, rather it is a concept that we all embrace in some form or another throughout our daily lives. We look to trends in the marketplace to determine which stocks to buy, we often ask our spouses about their thoughts on a topic before acting, and we create long and short-term strategies that encompass all of the what-ifs so that we can be ready for the unexpected, and the same is true for those inhabiting the roads and sidewalks. We look to identify the most likely scenario that will occur and adjust our behaviors accordingly. We do this throughout our lives and to say that the onus falls on only one individual is not reasonable. The “costs” of being predictable as a biker and commuter are the same: Several seconds of your time to communicate your intention. Failure to do so for a driver/biker/pedestrian will have different consequences depending on mode, but I am not talking about the consequences. I am talking about the up-front cost of time to communicate and how this cost is to be shared by all, regardless of mode.
I’m merely advocating for all drivers/bikers/pedestrians to design and utilize tools that enhance their predictability so that we others can make smarter wiser decisions about what actions should and should not be taken. Communication is a 2-way street, pun intended, and is the most immediate solution to creating synergy amongst commute-modes take just several seconds and provides others with a predictable scenario for what your actions will be.
I applaud all the responses above, as they show the varying degrees of difficulty that we face in improving and discussing the safety and efficiency of all commute modes. I believe that the most effective means of real change will occur from modifying social norms and not through legislation that only accounts for small parts of the problem. Legislation may help to speed the process of changing those norms, but real change will ultimately have to occur on a social and ethical level.
No. When are bike advocacy organizations going to stop begging this question – and start just outright rejecting it as a legitimate question. Stop playing defense; starting playing offense.
Allvery well to talk about bicyclists choosing take the risk of ignoring traffic laws. But they have no right to put me at risk. That is what they do when they ignore traffic laws. They put others at risk who may be harmed when I try to avoid you.
Florida cycling advocate Mighk Wilson has published an excellent essay that relates to this discussion: [ http://mighkwilson.com/2011/07/i-am-not-a-bicyclist/ ] .
Having moved from Virginia to the Bavaria region of Germany last summer I have moved from someone who biked to work maybe once every two weeks to someone who rides in four of every five days. There is an argument that the infrastructure is better here, certianly the Germans love thier bike paths and lanes, but more importantly cycling works because everyone plays by the same rules. There are few stop signs over here, instead there are a large mix of yield signs and priority road markings. The dirtiest looks I get from german drivers are when I, scared to take the right of way at an intersection or rotary, pause and hold up traffic. Again the reason cycling works so well is that everyone plays by the same rules and is predictable in thier behavior. We will never know that pleasure in the US until we, cyclists and motorists alike (and most of us are both) expect and execute the correct behavior regardless of which vehicle we are using.
I really do hope the people posting here about being proud law-breakers get arrested doing something stupid. I am not concerned about your safety. I am just disappointed by your arrogance.
100% agree with the editorial. This is the one thign that pisses me off most about fellow cyclists on the road is that they treat the road as if they’re not vehicles, but turn around and demand other vehicles treat them as such. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. If we’re on the road then we follow the laws of the road as much as any other vehicle is required to follow said rules. The moment one user becomes better than the law is the moment all groups feel they are better.
BikingInLA has a great companion article today, “The dog crap theory of road safety.”
I find it so hilarious that some of the very people crying out against this article, I have personally seen riding helmetless, and blowing through stop signs without signaling. It’s not that STATISTICALLY you are putting others in danger, it’s that you advocate for bicycles and bicycle safety and awareness, and then in broad daylight give motorists a complete reason to disrespect you (via blowing full speed through stop signs). THEY don’t know the numbers, but they do know that you are supposed to legally stop, and you don’t. I totally agree with ‘B’ above in that you want respect on the road, and are being visibly disrespectful. Some of the loudest voices in this comment section, and in Roanoke when it comes to bikes, are also some of the poorest examples of bicycle safety and awareness. How about you stop making it harder on the rest of us?
If all bicyclists wear bicycle helmets, stop at stop signs and have the respect of motorists… the bicyclists killed by motorists would be wearing bike helmets and stopping at stop signs and being respected by motorists.
Oh river… cry me one. I am so sick of little whiners with first world problems. If you ride a bike, you should be prepared for an accident. It’s a vehicle. Don’t ride if you don’t have the stomach. And obey the rules. Because there is one thing that will save you from danger in traffic, and that is predictability. If you don’t follow the rules, you have only yourself to blame.
Aleks, i understand your post, but have absolutely no idea why it is addressed to me or to my comment (if it is).
@river
It is; if I am understanding you correctly, you are implying that there is nothing bikers can do but suffer under murderous drivers, that nothing a biker can do will alter the immutable fact that bikers will continue perishing in front of car grilles. That is not true. There are multiple things. Some are outlined in the article above.
Some bikers’ arrogance really upsets me. I myself bike rather than drive, but I am amazed at the moves some bikers make and expect to ride unpunished.
End rant.
Aleks, thanks for clarifying for me. i think we’re on same page, just approaching from different angles. i was mostly, in the comment you referred to, responding to the comment by Eli B. – the claim that wearing helmets and stopping at stop signs is what bike safety, awareness is about, and how not doing those things somehow damages life for other bikers and how doing those actions will somehow lead to respect from motorists (the irrelevance of seeking respect from motorists is commented on elsewhere on this thread – in fact everything Eli B. mentioned has been dealt with earlier in the thread and i really should’ve just stayed silent!)
Certainly, there are a tonne of things cyclists can do to lower the likelihood of them being in a crash (accidents do not happen!). Following the commonly understood road rules and laws are some of those things, and yeh, the way some cyclists ride on the road is crazy and dumb, and likely we all do and have done that kinda stuff at some time! But riding safely on a bike is a much broader and more complex activity than strapping on a helmet and stopping at every stop sign and likely comes through experience and time on the roads interacting with motorists. But however much predictability and experience one exhibits riding on the road, however tightly one abides by the road rules and laws, more significantly, in terms of keeping ones body alive, is the issue of how motorists interact with cyclists. (the significant differences between cyclists and motorists breaking road rules and laws is commented on earlier in this thread).
By focusing on discussions with other cyclists about the riding behaviors and responsibilities of cyclists we miss the larger issue – motorists. It’s been said so many times before – cyclists breaking road rules and laws results mostly in irritation; Motorists doing the same results in deaths.
Let’s focus on getting motorists to behave responsibly without ignoring cyclist responsibilities and folks getting irritated with cyclists, envious of bikers, etc.
Ultimately it’s a political issue. Just as the motor industry in cahoots with government hijacked public transportation through the years, and rail transportation through the years, so the profit priority continues to allow motorists to drive as they want to, continue to kill other road users, and the penalties often be pitifully minimal.
Education, and respect for all road users, are key issues here. Those who use both modes respect them both. It is those who dismiss or reject the alternate mode that seem to have the least sympathy for the other. This is exactly why I would like to see our student drivers learning how to drive by using a bicycle first and foremost. If nearly everyone on the road had learned how to be a vehicle by being a bicycle first, the animosity between bikes and cars would nearly disappear. Such animosity would be properly reserved for those who disrespect rules and laws, instead of “those” other road users that they do not understand and cannot appreciate. Making separate camps of motorists and cyclists is unnecessary and does a disservice to us all. We all need to have shared the experience of riding bicycles in traffic (well and safely) to maximize the safety of our roads, both for bicycling and for driving. We are all road users, using the same roads and using the same rules. Those who use more power to carry more mass at more speed bear greater responsibility to handle it safely than those with less. The tandem tractor-trailer driver will drive more safely if they had learned to drive using a bicycle first, for having more respect for other road users.
Same person, same rules, different vehicle. Easy.
There’s an interesting tension here between hard-core cyclists and occasional cyclists. Realistically, bike advocacy needs to recognize that to increase the number of bike trips, we want to encourage more people with cars to run errands and have fun on their “Walmart” bikes. They may not know that they are required to following vehicle laws, so following the rules and setting examples for respectful riding is one way to help. Many drivers I talk to in the DC area worry about unpredictable bicyclists (even while they text), and being predictable will help. In the long-term, we need to include riding in drivers ed (or in elementary gym), and we need to have road infrastructure and off-road routes to structurally improve safety.
I’m late to the party but forgive me because I rode my bike. I don’t make the rules , I just break them, or at least that is how I am made to feel. With all do respect for following the rules of the road, quite often I am reminded of them by passing motorist, that I often do not. As a 24/7/365 urban commuter my needs vary radically and at times ensures my proximity to heavy traffic where often I am further reminded of my interloping ways of daring to share the road by the not so rare few whom seem to wish me harm. The means by which I have been accosted has been a learning experience gained beginning at childhood resulting with my now patterned way of cycling & rightfully so. I am so vunernable as to be easily abused by those whom see me as the minority and nuicance. It really all comes down to a matter of speed. If a cyclist could routinely travel as fast as motor vehicles which is routinely above the speed limit there would be less conflict. Cycling in the far right side of the right lane where motorist seem to wish to travel even on a three lane roadway would not be neccasary. Roadway engineering for motor vehicles and speed in most all circumstances has resulted in a single use padadigm. The resulting tensions amoungst varied road users the result and enormity. Rules of the road indeed.
I’m surprised how many cyclists here are ranting against common sens and courtesy. The writer of this article is. Orrect in that too many cyclists ride in a manner that breeds dislike for cyclists. Case in point 1: I was recently on a bike tour of the Katy trail and stopped for lunch at a bar and ended up speaking with a bunch of locals. They were fine with the trail. What they didnt like was the way some cyclists rode the roads 3 or 4 abreast, thus hogging the lane at a mere 15 to 20 mph impeding traffic and making passing dangerous on local winding roads. Case 2: a coworker who used to race would leave the base (Air Force) on his cycle at about 25 mph. The traffic would be thick. Yet when arriving at a right turn that a lot of cars use at 45 mph, instead of him allowing the cars to pass he would take the whole lane and force 100 other people to slow down radically for him. The cars rightly find that rude and dangerous and Amany drivers have told me so. Yes the road is multi use but if you want to build hatred toward cycles, ride rudely like this. And please nobody fire back about people texting. Two wrongs do not make a right nor good cycle to car relations. Cycles can slow for cars too. It’s part of the game.
I really don’t mean to be dismissive, I would rather be helpful; I expect that you would each find helpful answers to the issues you have brought up in the thread above your own answers, were you to give it a thorough and thoughtful re-reading. If you still have specific questions, please re-post with those questions. But thanks for your interest and concern. Happy Holidays!
I made the above comment on October 19, 2010. On October 16, 2011, I was the victim of a hit and run while riding my bike. The driver hit me from behind in the middle of a 4 lane intersection right after the light turned green. He fled the scene as soon as he saw that I was able to get up off the pavement. Multiple witnesses got the license number and called 911. When the State Police arrived on the scene, he didn’t even bother to speak to any of the witnesses, and no charges were ever filed against the 85 year old driver. He’s still out there, and I’m more convinced than ever that it is my responsibility to look out for my own survival on the road.
In an ideal world, we would all follow the rules and we would all respect each other. Sadly, the world we live in is far from ideal, and I’m not going to take it upon myself to change the world. I’m too busy just trying to stay alive.
The assumption that law abiding cyclists will lead to greater respect of their space and right to be on the road is pretty difficult to believe. Motorists don’t even have respect for each other! The 2nd case in Bruce Gunn’s above post is a perfect example of a cyclist obeying the rules and claiming the road as is his right and still being the target of driver’s ire regardless. I am a proud “scofflaw.” I’d rather be a scofflaw using a red light to put a little distance between me and the rest of the traffic than sitting at a stand still surrounded by cars sucking exhaust in 100 deg. heat.
Alexander,
By your reasoning, cyclists can be as rude as we want without any negative reactions from pedestrians or motorists. You defy cause and effect and logic. Act rude and people will generally be rude back to you. Be polite and most people will be polite and courteous back to you. Most people are decent, rational beings.
In the example you referenced in my previous post of the coworker who took the entire lane and slowed a large line of cars to a standstill, you are technically correct. I never disputed the legality of it. But the result of this riders legal, though somewhat obnoxious riding techniques is that he regularly reported to me that drivers in this area are constantly honking, yelling or throwing things at him! On the contrary, I’ve been riding the same roads he rides and for many more years than he did, yet I have never had a rider honk, yell or throw anything at me unless I did something to provoke it. The only time I’ve gotten a honk in this area, was when I made a sudden left turn from a shoulder and crossed the road right in front of a 60 mph car. It was a dump move and the guy hit the brakes, then tapped the horn. Otherwise, drivers here are extremely polite to me. I give them leeway and they return the favor. When possible, I ride the wide shoulder. They nearly always move over an entire lane to give me room. Cause and effect.
Granted, there are jerk drivers with some anti-bike attitude. Nothing will change them, but they are not the norm, at least where I live.
The concept you seem to be missing is that there are things you CAN do and things you SHOULD do. I, for example, regularly ride a 4 mile section of a two lane highway with very wide shoulders. Legally, I could ride the center of the lane, make them all slow down, then pass me one at a time. The result would be honking and yelling…and the drivers would be justified in being upset with me. Why? Because my behavior would be legal, but highly rude. So, I choose to ride the shoulder, despite some road debris, and I never get honked or yelled at.
The same behavior happens with tractors in this area. If a tractor or combine takes the lane for 10 miles and backs everyone up, drivers get annoyed and tensions rise. I get annoyed at that too. But when the farmer pulls his tractor far enough to the right to allow people to pass, the tension level stays low. No honking.
As far as red lights, I think it depends on the situation. If you run a red and cut off cross traffic, you are promoting negative attitudes toward cyclists. But if your light running or stop sign blowing doesn’t in any way affect drivers, then I don’t see a problem. I ignore stop signs when nobody is around or if the cars are going my same direction. And nobody honks at me. The one time I’ve been honked at for this type of issue was when I blew through a stop sign when a car had pulled up on a cross road a few seconds before me. I was wrong. He tapped the horn and I deserved it. I reinforced a negative attitude toward cyclists, so I have changed my riding so that when cars are around I try to be polite to them.
Again, I ride politely and don’t get yelled at. Other riders I know who ride “legally”, but rudely, frequently complain of rude drivers. Hmmm. What could possibly be the source of the rudeness? Nah, couldn’t be the riders. 🙂
I would love some feedback from recreational cyclists (not those who use as a form of transportation) – I am writing a position paper and need different perspectives.
I personally live in the Hanover area (Ashland/Rockville). Simply put, the roads are too narrow and winding for a bike and a motor vehicle to occupy at the same time and I will never understand why this is still a “Bike Path”. There isn’t even a shoulder area for bikes to ride on or for emergency pull-offs, in addition for the past 6-8 months there is constant construction (Cedar Lane) – and still there are constant groups of cyclists. Why is the decision even made to ride on these roads which are so dangerous, why not make an effort to ride on roads where there is room? My personal experiences with cyclists have been that in the past about 90% are very courteous, obey rules of the road, have even stopped on these narrow roads to allow vehicles to pass, etc. However, in the past couple years, the attitude has changed. This worries me because I have 2 teenage daughters learning to drive and these are the roads they have to learn on since this is where we live. I have had 3 incidents with cyclists in the past year that scared and frustrated me.
1) While driving around a corner (with hardly any visibility for me) a small group of 5 cyclists had stopped and were taking a water break in my lane – I slammed on breaks but still had to swerve because I couldn’t stop in time – had there been a car in the other lane there would have been an accident. I’m not sure if an inexperienced driver could have made that split minute decision?
2) While trying to pass a group of cyclist on Cedar lane near Elmont Elementary, one cyclist would wave me around and as I began to pass another cyclist would swerve out infront of my car, like playing chicken or something. This happened twice so I changed my course. This was very disturbing and (sorry to admit) made me angry at ALL cyclists for about a week, I’m not sure what they were trying to accomplish.
3) This was more unintentional, however, cyclist was heading towards me and a car was passing him, he (the cyclists) was on his phone and trying to stay as far to the right as he could, but, there must have been some rocks or something because his bike got loose and wiggly and he could not hold it straight with one hand, he got his feet down and stopped until the rest of the vehicles passed. It scared me to see that because I know it could have ended up with an injury.
My position with this paper is to change the location of some bike courses to more suitable conditions, or to have the roads made safter to allow for bike and vehicles. It does make me nervous for the cyclists and kids that are out here in the country driving big trucks that barely fit on these roads. Would a 16, 17, 18 year old decide to swerve into a ditch or into on coming traffic to avoid a cyclist, or would they even be able to make that decision? Not every driver of a vehicle has years of experience yet, people forget that so quickly. . . and just like all of us experienced drivers did years ago, young drivers WILL make mistakes, I promise! So the attitude that I’ve read from some cyclists seems absurd, arrogant, and dangerous to themselves and my daughters.
So again, feedback from another point of view would be helpful, thanks!
SMP,
My view as both a recreational rider and commuter.
I don’t know that road, but the concept is the same everywhere.
On point 1, those cyclists were completely out of line and suicidal. They endangered themselves and you. It reminds me of a story a bus driver on Martha’s Vineyard told me about how a man was leading a pack of kids on a bike ride up island. The man stopped all the kids in the middle of the road, just below the crest of a hill, on a road just like you describe. The driver did not see them until nearly on top of them. The bus driver, as a result, has a bad attitude of bike riders. That route wasn’t even a designated bike route. The real route did not have bus traffic and was much less used than the one the man chose to endanger his kids on.
On 2, this practice is done by some cyclists, but I find it rude and dangerous. Then only time I’ve seen a rider do it was when I was first learning to ride a racing bike. The guy training me had been a professional racer and had ridden with groups in training. So, we were riding along a straight, country lane with a full shoulder and we came to a railroad track that crossed our road diagonally. He was in front. I was just going to do as I always do when crossing tracks and turn a little left to cross them at nearly perpendicular. Instead, he swerved out into the middle of the road, blocked two cars approaching from the rear at about 50 mph, and waved me on. As if I needed him to due such a stupid thing! I was embarrassed for what he did. I say all this because I believe it is a practice learned in some racing and/or riding clubs as a self preservation technique. One rider moves into the lane to prevent cars from passing the other riders while they are crossing an obstacle. Idea being that if a rider caught a wheel on the tracks and fell, the car wouldn’t not run over the rider. I bet riders on here would say I’m nuts for disliking this technique, while others would agree with me. I just don’t see why a guy would ride into the street and endanger himself, when he didn’t need to, just in case I might be uncoordinated enough to not know how to cross a RR track.
On 3) texting and talking while driving and riding is stupid and dangerous. Nuff said.
As to the routing of the bike lane, I don’t know the road and other options. Is it the only or shortest route to some place that’s popular? If yes, perhaps a bike lane or wide shoulder needs to be made. That sounds like the intelligent thing for the county to do. Too many country roads do not have bike/walking areas and there are no reasonable alternatives for a cyclist. For example, my SIL lives in Nashville area. The road going from her house to the grocery store has no shoulder and neither do any of the roads going that general direction. A cyclist or pedestrian risks his life to get to a store. People should be able to use roads to cycle and walk to stores without being killed by a car! Too often, counties ignore this need. They think: Well, nobody’s riding there, so there’s not a need. But remember: Build it and they shall come. Don’t and they won’t or they’ll use their legal right to ride there until a county person gets smart enough to notice it’s a popular riding area and should build a shoulder or bike lane.
Also, counties should periodically sweep shoulders. Often, like in my area all the time, the mowing crews more the grass, which throws rocks, glass, grass, whatever, all over the shoulder. Then nobody sweeps that off, so the cyclist either has to get bullet proof tires, or ride in the road.
I agree with you that some cyclists attitude is messed up and dangerous. At the same time, they ride the way they do because they think it’s the safest way to ride. Perhaps not the stuff you described, but other techniques.
For instance, there’s a debate about how a group of, say, five riders should ride on a road such as you describe. Single file or 5 abreast? Many say abreast because it forces cars not to pass them closely, and thus endangering the rider. It also gives a shorter passing target, one bike length vs 5 bike lengths.
But I find it more dangerous, because if I were in a car and rounded a corner to find the road blocked by 5 bikes going 15 to 10 mph on a 50 mph road or higher, I might have no option but to run them over if a car is coming the other way. But if they were single file, I could at least squeeze by them and not have to hit them if I didn’t have enough room to slow.
Anyway, sounds like a shoulder needs to be built if there aren’t other routes that are very close to that road. Don’t expect a cyclist to take a 20 mile detour to some bike path that takes him way out of his way. Not gonna happen. It takes too long. It mean another hour or more of riding.
Good luck with that. I’m with you on this. I drive the roads too and dislike when bikes or motorcycles or other cars drive irresponsibly.
Bruce, you have some amazing notions about what cyclists should and should not be doing.
“if I were in a car and rounded a corner to find the road blocked by 5 bikes going 15 to 10 mph on a 50 mph road or higher, I might have no option but to run them over if a car is coming the other way.”
Actually, if you come around a corner and you can’t stop for an obstacle in the road, be it cyclists, a tractor, a horse and buggy, THEN YOU ARE DRIVING TOO FAST. This is the exact reason that rear ending someone is ALWAYS your fault. Are you implying that it would somehow be the cyclists’ fault for getting run over by the driver? Are you also implying that you would rather mow down 5 cyclists than get into a car accident? Are you a sociopath?
You mention that stopping traffic at railroad tracks is “a stupid thing” I wonder if you think its stupid when commercial vehicles, school buses, tractor trailers, firetrucks, mail trucks, and gasoline tankers do the EXACT SAME THING. You seem to think very little of bicyclists’ rights to use public roads in the same way that motorists use them.
In previous posts you have mentioned that there is a big difference between legal riding and courteous riding. I am baffled by this suggestion. The thing that I find most confusing is that you seem bent on moving the standard for our behavior while cycling away from a codified norm, in this case, the law, and instead basing the standard of behavior on whether or not what you’re doing might make a driver frustrated, angry, or upset. This is deeply misguided for two reasons. The first is that most of the time just doing the speed limit and driving normally is likely to make the driver behind you frustrated angry or upset, much less riding a bike at a fraction thereof. The other reason is that different drivers consider different practices to be acceptable. The bottom line is that if you’re obeying the law you aren’t being a jerk, but if you’re angry at someone else for obeying the law than YOU would then be the jerk. This whole line of reasoning is exactly why I remain a scofflaw. If obeying the law isn’t enough for most drivers, what’s the point? Maybe I’ll buy a jersey that says “I’m sorry” on the back.
@SMP, The suggestion that cyclists are somehow a threat to your daughters would be hilarious were it not for the hundreds of bicyclists who are killed each year in traffic accidents. How many of the drivers in those accidents were killed our even injured? We can all play the “what if” game and imagine situations in which a cyclist causes a motorist to crash, and I’m sure that has happened, but those cases are extremely rare. The fact is that motorists are dangerous for cyclists not the other way around. Viewing cyclist/motorist dynamics in such a backward way is unhelpful at best and stupid at worst. I would love to compare the number of issues you have had with cyclists in the last 10 years with the number of issues you have had with other cars, or the number of times I’ve been right hooked by some jackass that can’t afford the extra one second it takes to wait for me to get through the intersection.
At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter if they are riding abreast or single file, 30mph or 12mph the issue is that DRIVERS need to be cognizant of slower moving vehicles on all roads, not just bike routes. The cyclists and the motorists do not sensibly bear similar responsibility on the roadway. When you drive two tons of steel around the roads at speed you are creating a greater risk to ALL road users, cars and bicycles alike. Drivers seem to think that they can create more risk without taking on more responsibility. This is the real issue with the idea of equal rights and responsibilities for all road users, the reality is that without changing the laws of physics you cant mandate equality on the road. It just isn’t appropriate to hold these two groups to the same standard of accountability.
Alexander,
Stop twisting everyone’s words and meanings. I’m finding conversations with you to be fairly pointless since you’re not trying to understand what I want to say. Instead you’re telling me I’m a sociopath. Please.
The fact that a driver might have trouble stopping when cresting a hill or going around a turn to avoid hitting an object or person in the middle of the road has nothing to do with going too fast. I’ve driven plenty of mountain, windy roads to know that if you round a bend doing the speed limit and something is stopped in the road, it can be tough to stop in time. I would never intentionally hit anyone, so spare us all your hyperbole and intentional misrepresentations.
The bus driver I referenced earlier was not speeding, but when a driver crests a hill, the expectation of driving legally is to not find someone standing in the middle of the road. We regularly run into deer all the time precisely because of the unexpected.
My point is that as cyclists, we need to minimize that type of situation or we endanger ourselves and potentially cause accidents.
Then, your reference to fire trucks and other vehicles is completely irrelevant to the discussion. They have a requirement to stop at RR tracks to ensure a train isn’t coming so that children in the bus doesn’t get injured by a train, or to prevent chemicals in a truck from being spilled by a train accident, etc.
That has nothing to do with the discussion of cyclists blocking traffic while others in the group cross the RR track. They aren’t crossing the driving lane; they’re staying on the shoulder and crossing a RR track. This issue should have been very simple for you too understand. Why do you find it so hard?
Oh, because you’re not trying to understand! You just want to be a scofflaw. And in the process damage whatever respect drivers have for cyclists and by and by those people will push through laws to limit your cycling rights, simply because you and others like you want to push your ultimate “rights” rather than show a bit of courtesy.
As to the courtesy issue, why do you find the issue so challenging? There are plenty of things a person can legally do, but shouldn’t most of the time. I could legally drive on an interstate at 45 mph, but should only do it if I’m experiencing car problems or some other issue restricts my speed such as visibility issues. To drive around an interstate at that speed just because you can is a bit rude, stupid and dangerous.
I do not dispute and never have disputed a cyclist’s right to ride in a lane. I do it all the time. I road from Mannassas Va to Pigeon Forge in a lane on Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge. But I stay to the right side of the road the entire time. When I ride locally, I could legally ride the middle of the lane, but I don’t because the law requires me as a slow moving vehicle to move to the right of the lane so as not to impede traffic flow. Do you obey the law? Something tells me you don’t. I do it to be safe and polite and so that other people won’t come to think of cyclists as incredibly illegal and annoying and something that should be outlawed.
And your rant at SMP about drivers needing to be cognizant of slow moving vehicles is really silly. Nobody here disputes that requirement, so stop the straw man arguments. You’re entire response has been your straw men that you knock down to make yourself think your cool and so you can go on ignoring your responsibilities as a cyclist to obey the law.
And one of your favorite non-sequiturs is the way you bring up the bad drivers. Fact is most drivers are good drivers and respect cyclists. And most cyclists are good and respect drivers. You seem to respect nobody and no laws.
And then you wonder why many people don’t like bikes. Well, it’s pretty simple. It’s Alexander and others like you.