Fu*king Cyclists

[doebedoe]

modern cars, at least many of them, are designed for the eurozone pedestrian impact requirements, done at 40km/h, that are designed to substantially lessen the impact of car vs. pedestrian on the pedestrian.

Good to know. I wonder if US has any such requirement? Given that the average car in the US is over a decade old, I wonder how many have such features.

[::: :::]

Actually mass is nothing!

That is an nonsequitor.

it's about the consequences of impact between masses, not a non sequitur at all

Can cyclists go 25mph through a 15mph school zone because they are more likely to seriously injure a kid than kill them? (both could die)

Fuck that logic.

not at all what anyone was suggesting and you know it

A cyclist (OR AUTO) making a mistake treating a stop sign as a yield can plaster themselves on a truck grill and die, or cause a car to swerve and hit another car in an attempt to avoid. However a bike can't floor it to make space.

you're reaching for an argument

The point is to have safe traffic control at intersections, not to waive laws when failures result in less severe injury.

completely & unequivocally agree

I think a CYCLIST CAN SAFELY treat a stop as yield or a red light as a stop.

BUT I think motorists can do so just as well!

maybe...might work in smaller communities just fine

Ever sit waiting for a left turn signal for 3 minutes at 5am when you are the only car at the intersection? Or do you maybe treat that as a stop sign? Cyclist or motorist, I'm not scoffing at you for treating it like a stop sign.

that's not really what the idaho stop is about, but it certainly isn't unreasonable

[AdironRider]

Even homeboy in the videos is wearing earbuds. And he claims it is legal for him to text and ride. To just make a blanket statement that cyclists are more aware of their surroundings seems to be just as wrong. It seems most people hate cyclists for exactly the opposite reason, that they are either unaware, or dont give a shit, about their surroundings.

I also don't believe bikes have better maneuverability in real world road conditions, I mean a little bit of sand and that bike isn't turning or stopping quickly at all. Isn't that the justification asshole cyclists use to tie up vehicle lanes in the first place?

[summit]

If the law is followed to a T -- I agree, the Idaho stop law would be no more dangerous allowing cars to have the same rules.

But laws are not designed with the expectation they will be followed 100% of the time. The consequences of cars failing the law are much higher than cyclists. Reams and reams of transportation data to back up such a statement -- rather than everyone's anecdotes here.

A blanket statement about acceleration and braking of bikes vs cars is way oversimplified. Some cars may brake faster than some bikes and vice versa. (A Telsa will brake faster than my steel rimmed, caliper brake cruiser. My van brakes far slower than my hydraulic disc braked mtb). Bikes can also dodge things with far less risk to other road users, and in a much smaller space. Cyclists on average also have far greater environmental awareness than those in a car due to wider field of visibility and less environmental sound dampening. Reducing all these safety factors to acceleration and stopping distance ignores many factors of accident prevention.

Most road bikers are not your hydraulic disced mtb.

Most cars are not tesla roadsters

The average car brakes better than the average road bike

Anything but a laden semi outaccelerates a road bike

Bikes can dodge... so can motorbikes. Bikes can also slide out or nail potholes that a car would have rolled over in an avoidance maneuver while the bike is sitting is now down in the intersection. A car can accept jumping a curb to avoid collision.

Cars can have great visibility and windows down, multiple mirrors, collision avoidance systems, better headlights. Bikers frequently have ear buds in cranked enough to drown out the wind noise at 25mph.

Now show me the data that says making stops yield when nobody else present and lights -> stops when nobody else present has an adverse safety impact when applied to motorists vs bikes based on noncompliance? That is your position.

[doebedoe]

Most road bikers are not your hydraulic disced mtb.

Most cars are not tesla roadsters

The average car brakes better than the average road bike

Anything but a laden semi outaccelerates a road bike

Bikes can dodge... so can motorbikes. Bikes can also slide out and be sitting int he intersection.

Cars can have great visibility and windows down. Bikers can have ear buds in.

Now show me the data that says making stops yield when nobody else present and lights -> stops when nobody else present has an adverse safety impact when applied to motorists vs bikes? That is what matters, not your speculation about low speed collision consequences in the given scenario.

You want to talk about average road users. And then use exceptional things (windows down, great-visibility in cars, bikers with ear buds in) to counter. All things can be exceptional; what matters as you state is averages. Average environmental awareness, average stopping distances from normal speed of travel. I'd truly love to see average stopping distances of bikes vs cars--but I doubt such data exists.

I never claimed to have data on safety of Idaho stop laws for cars. Maybe it would have no impact on safety. My claim is that there are higher consequences from low speed impacts from large motor vehicles than bicycles -- which is why potentially one reason the law is constructed the way it is.

[summit]

You want to talk about average road users. And then use exceptional things (windows down, great-visibility in cars, bikers with ear buds in) to counter. All things can be exceptional; what matters as you state is averages. Average environmental awareness, average stopping distances from normal speed of travel. I'd truly love to see average stopping distances of bikes vs cars--but I doubt such data exists.

They are common exceptions.

My point is that on acceleration and braking, the whiskers overlap but the boxes probably don't.

On situational awareness, the boxes overlap far more than the distance between the averages.

See what I'm saying?

[doebedoe]

They are common exceptions.

My point is that on acceleration and braking, the whiskers overlap but the boxes probably don't.

On situational awareness, the boxes overlap far more than the distance between the averages.

See what I'm saying?

We are all sitting here making statistical claims without statistical evidence. Yes I see with what you're saying, doesn't mean my experience with cars and bicycles aligns with it.

[plugboots]

JHC, summit, who gives a fuck. If nobody's around, roll through the stop, and/or go through the light, I know I do all the time. BFD. I don't need the law changed.

[summit]

JHC, summit, who gives a fuck. If nobody's around, roll through the stop, and/or go through the light, I know I do all the time. BFD. I don't need the law changed.

duh... why do cyclists need it changed?

[plugboots]

I'm just yanking your chain, you seem upset. Oh, and I meant I do those things in my car.

[wooley12]

If a cop sees you roll through a stop sign he knows you are not paying attention. IME if you look at the cop while you break the road law and are polite you won't get ticketed.

[Dantheman]

I cracks me up that, of all places, Idaho was 35 years ahead of the curve when it comes to rational bicycle traffic laws.

[summit]

I'm just yanking your chain, you seem upset. Oh, and I meant I do those things in my car.

nah not upset at all... I think its all silly! Special pleading

[dunfree]

Good to know. I wonder if US has any such requirement? Given that the average car in the US is over a decade old, I wonder how many have such features.

eu rules were written in 2009 and started being implemented in 2013 so a number of vehicles should be by now. average light vehicle age is 11.6 years in the US, I suspect the median age is less than that so there should be a decent number of vehicles out there.

[old goat]

I was joking in my post. It will make fuck all difference in reality, and I am generally in support of it.

1. Localities must adopt the ordinance -- it isn't state mandated.
2. Cyclists can still be ticketed blowing through a red light or stop sign without stopping, just like now.
3. The benefit is no power-hungry local cops trying to fuck you for rolling a stop sign on Sunday mornings rides with no one around.
4. In places that put the ordinance in place, car drivers will have to accept that there are different rules of the road for different users -- because the consequences of getting hit by a 2000# car at 15mph, are different than the consequences of getting hit with a 200# bike/rider at 15mph.

Ha, ha. You have to be careful with sarcasm because there are plenty of people in this thread who would say it and mean it. Post the most ridiculous sarcastic thread you can think of and someone will take it at face value and like it. Example "Donald Trump is a great president".
(Mods, please don't move the thread--I'm happy to delete.)

[JongDoe]

How exactly is it unsafe for them to stop at a stop sign. .

Clip ins. I've been riding a hybrid for 4-5 years, but when i got a road bike with clip in pedals I must've fallen over while stopping 3-4 times in the first 2 weeks. Partly because I'm a spas and partly because I had the setting too tight on the pedals. Embarassing is an understatement

[JongDoe]

On the unsafe thing -- go read the study from the University of CO in the article. https://jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/871/875 . The argument isn't that it is "safer" from empirical evidence, it's that the reasons cyclists often do things which go against the letter of the law is because they view such things as safer. Compared to drivers or pedestrians which break the law and rationalize it as saving time. I highly doubt that either Idaho stop law or not is statistically safer (not sure how you would design such a study -- it is incredibly hard to prove prevention causation), but that doesn't mean there aren't other positive beneifts.

Cops absolutely do harass cyclists. Depends on locality I'm sure. How do I know? Because I've been ticketed for rolling a stop sign in my neighborhood on a cruiser bike laden with groceries in the past year. Meanwhile, multiple cars did not come to a complete stop at the same intersection while I was being ticketed. Non-arterial street.

Let me guess. The cop was a fat ass, donut eating douche who despises exercise.

[Meadow Skipper]

I got a ticket in SF's Presidio for not stopping at a stop sign. It's the stop sign at the bottom of the hill near the pet graveyard for those that know the spot. They were National Park cops for what it's worth.

I'm not surprised they were NPS cops - those guys are dickhead wannabes. IMHO, YMMV, IANAL, etc.

[plugboots]

Clip ins. I've been riding a hybrid for 4-5 years, but when i got a road bike with clip in pedals I must've fallen over while stopping 3-4 times in the first 2 weeks. Partly because I'm a spas and partly because I had the setting too tight on the pedals. Embarassing is an understatement

One of my early clip in forays was on Broadway heading South right at 34th Street. Traffic and pedestrians all kinda closed in around me as I slowly puled up to the light. Oh shit, I can't get out. I slowwwly fall to my left and put my hand on the car next to me, but crash behind it. Dude jumps out ready to kick my ass for touching his car. He sees my all tangled up in my bike, and I start cracking up. He looks at me and pauses, then shrugs, and gets in his car.

I'm sure he said, "Fucking cyclist."

[old goat]

The idea that Idaho stops should be legalized because they're safer is absurd (except for people who haven't figured out their clips). The reason to do it is because stopping at every stop sign on a bike is a particular pain in the ass, especially if you're clipped in, and because accelerating from a dead stop takes a lot of effort. Yes, stop signs are a PITA in a car--but for me they're a lot less of a PITA than on a bike. The reason to change the law is to make it easier for people to commute and otherwise travel on bikes which is good for global warming (and makes more room for cars), and to legalize something that 90% of riders are doing already.

If I am going to just yield at a stop sign I slow down to about the speed that at least half the cars slow down to when they "stop", unless I have very good sight lines. People who blow through stop signs at speed are going to die sooner rather than later.

Re group rides--a herd of bikes does not count as 1 vehicle. I have no problem letting a group of 3 or 4 go through together but when a large group does it, that's just public douchery. At least Minneapolis man is by himself--imagine a group of 30 equally self righteous tools. Of course in many cities you don't have to imagine it. (Same applies to large groups of motorcycles, unless they're biker gangs in which case they can do whatever the fuck they want.)

[Viva]

Why are you guys still riding clips? I switched to clipless in the early 90s.

Anyone complaining about stopping for signs is a fucking pussy / dick. It's not at all difficult to stop 'n' go if one has any modicum of riding talent.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

[doebedoe]

Why are you guys still riding clips? I switched to clipless in the early 90s.

Anyone complaining about stopping for signs is a fucking pussy / dick. It's not at all difficult to stop 'n' go if one has any modicum of riding talent.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

It has nothing at all to do with talent, and as old goat says, everything to do with it being a pain in the ass, and significant waste of energy.

It's not a big deal if you've got 2 or 3 on your way to work. Stopping and spinning back up to cruising speed 20 or 30 times on a residential street, when all you're trying to do is get to you destination without working too hard is significant add to both effort and time.

The idea that bike policy should be designed for those who are fit, know how to trackstand, and want to get a workout in everytime they go to their job, grocery store, or bar, is absurd. It should be designed to increase accessibility to increase cycling as a mode of moving around cities. Less traffic, less pollutants, less space wasted on parking. It's good for cars and bikes.

[Viva]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. etc.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

[old goat]

Why are you guys still riding clips? I switched to clipless in the early 90s.

Anyone complaining about stopping for signs is a fucking pussy / dick. It's not at all difficult to stop 'n' go if one has any modicum of riding talent.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

We're both talking about the clips that hook into the bottom of your shoe. Whatever the technical term for the actual clips is. Calling those pedals clipless is stupid, but that's what they're called, because in the bike world it's assumed that everyone attaches their feet to the pedals. But not in the real world.

When I bike around the neighborhood doing errands I use a cheap bike with actual clipless pedals--IOW you can't attach your feet to the pedals because it's less of a PITA at all the stops. When I ride for exercise on the bike trail or around the lake I use fake clipless pedals--the kind you clip your feet to.

Got to learn me some bike jargon. I'll put it on my list of things to do, right after "learn French".

[mcski]

Ya, I'm clipped in! What genius decided these should be called clipless?!