I would encourage anybody who thinks cyclocommuters are particularly bad actors to stand on a busy urban street corner and count the percentage of drivers who are actively engaged with their mobile phone. You can identify them easily because they will be shiftily looking downward at sporadic intervals, rolling stop signs, and failing to notice traffic light changes.

In addition to the phone-related dangerous behavior, I would encourage people to count the number of unsignaled turns that happen at an urban intersection. As a pedestrian and a bicycle commuter in Chicago, I have to operate under the assumption that cars will jump in any direction at any moment (especially after having once been hit by a truck making an unsignaled right turn).

People who ride bikes in the city seem to attract extra scorn from the public for their supposedly higher rates of scofflawism. Cyclists do not have true impunity because they are in constant danger, whereas drivers have de jure and de facto impunity. A drunk driver in Chicago received no jailtime for actually killing a cyclist last year, for example. The rulebreaking of the cyclist is always taken as less acceptable. For motorists, there is no strong social expectation to follow the rules. I hope this will change as bicycle commuting gets more popular.

> I would encourage anybody who thinks cyclocommuters are particularly bad actors to stand on a busy urban street corner and count the percentage of drivers who are actively engaged with their mobile phone.

Also, every single time I see a complaint about cyclists, it neatly ignores that a dangerous cyclist would be orders of magnitude more dangerous driving a car. Based on mass alone, stopping distance will be much higher as well as incurring more serious injuries (including much more likely death) and property damage. Every time I bicycle instead of drive, I'm doing drivers and pedestrians a favor. Of course, I stay off the sidewalks and try to do the safest things possible.

I treat it as a game now. How many minutes until I see someone playing with their phone. Rarely more than 60 seconds in stop-go traffic.

It is striking how much safety is dependent on pedestrians accomodating distracted drivers. It seems quite unreasonable that so much responsibility is placed on users who are are no risk to anyone. And any pedestrian that does not comply is treated as if they are introducing the danger themselves. Classic victim blaming.

I wonder how much of the rise of bike culture and disdain of driving in some of the young demographic comes from the problem of smart phone addiction. As highlighted in your first paragraph, many people don't seem to have the discipline to be able to just not look at their phone for 30 minutes while they drive somewhere. Biking could actually be a relief for some of these people as they have a socially good excuse to be out of contact for some part of the day. Sort of like how some people enjoy airplane trips because no one can call them.

Not sure why you're voted down. I personally really enjoy an occasional ride around a few blocks just to clear my mind, get some fresh air and come back relaxed. Working from home, especially with a toddler around, can be taxing in novel ways.

A million times this! I live in Chicago and am an avid biker (been doored by a cab, right of passage i guess?) I am one of the few who stops at stop signs and slows down or stops at cross walks to watch for pedestrians. I attend my local alderman's meetings to push for more protected bike lanes which we are now getting, but my fellow bikers are making us all look bad wrt following the rules of the road. I can't tell you how many times I've almost gotten hit crossing a cross walk by a biker flying down the street without looking or stopping for pedestrians. We are now at the point where bikes are truly getting to share the road, but we are forgetting that we don't just share with cars, but with pedestrians as well. That fact seems to elude most bikers and they are operating like they have total impunity when riding. I'd love to see cops out ticketing bikers for blowing through cross walks with pedestrians present, I'd love to see big fines for running red lights; lord knows our city needs the revenue.

As a cyclist yourself, I'm sure you're familiar with intersections where the sensors controlling the lights do not sense bikes. I think the best way forward is for more states to adopt Idaho's policy: cyclists can treat stop signs like yield signs, and treat red lights like stop signs. [1]

If I'm riding toward a stop sign at a clearly deserted intersection, I would very much like to roll through at 10~15 MPH without risking a ticket. If I'm stopped at a red light and there are no cars making use of the green, I'd rather not dismount, walk over to press a pedestrian crossing button, walk back into the road, and wait. Or stay in the road, wait, and hope that I'll get a green light from a timer instead of a sensor.

It's possible to implement these changes and still be safe on a bike (it has worked for nearly 30 years in Idaho). I think we agree that flagrant violations, especially those that put pedestrians at risk, deserve fines.

[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title49/T...

I also follow the "red light stop, stop sign yield" rule. I'm as annoyed by bikers who just zip through stop signs as everyone else, but when riding attentively and respectfully, I believe the Idaho stop safer and more efficient for everyone, not to mention waaayyy more considerate of bikers (who, until recently, have just been given the finger by norms, laws, and infrastructure in America).

Couldn't agree with you more, and I think the only part of my post that hit a nerve with you was related to fines for running red lights, which I should have been clearer about. (in Chicago we don't have those fancy stop light sensors) I too do an Idaho stop when approaching a 4 way stop that has no traffic, it makes the most sense. My main complaint as I live on one of the main bike corridors of Chicago is after a light turns red there are normally a herd of bikers that roll through causing traffic to sit still while waiting for them to exit the intersection. This screws up traffic and makes me irate, just as it would seeing car after car run the red light. We also have a lot of street retail which leads to a bunch of crosswalks, with tourists and children abound. Bikers come flying though crosswalks here and I've seen multiple accidents because of it. When a car hits a bike, the bike always loses, just the same as when a bike hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian always loses. I don't understand how my fellow cyclists can't see that as we complain about cars and their behavior.

Milwaukee Ave I guess? Yea as someone who bikes everywhere in Chicago, I hate going down Milwaukee on a bike too (partly because of all the bikers, definitely the pedestrians and cabs, partly the cars on a relatively narrow strip). At peak times Elston is faster and less stressful for a trip of decent distance anyway.

While we're complaining though, cars need to use their effing turn signals. I always check the signal as I pass through a line of cars at an intersection to let them get over in front me, but usually they'll just cut me off. So far no real issues, but I do have a policy of slapping the car hard as I can as I jerk around it. They're still full enough of that weird baseline road rage/driver anger to cuss at me rather than apologize though. (For those who don't live in Chicago, we have bike lanes on most main streets now, and my complaint is about cars turning into bike lanes without warning...)

> If I'm riding toward a stop sign at a clearly deserted intersection, I would very much like to roll through at 10~15 MPH without risking a ticket

Surely that should apply for cars then int his case. If the intersection is clearly deserted, cars should be able to clear the junction too.

I agree, and judging from the many rolling stops they undertake, so do drivers. When any vehicle has to come to a complete stop for absolutely nothing, they're just putting wear on their brakes and wasting energy. I'm happy to see 4-way stops (which people are terrible at) being replaced by more roundabouts. A roundabout features the desired intersection rules without having to wait for the state to enact Idaho-style bike laws.

As a cyclist, I'm in a very good position to assess how empty an intersection is: no windows isolating me in a sound bubble; low speed, so not much wind noise in my ears or tire noise on the ground; no A pillars obscuring my vision ahead; and my eyes are usually about as high off the ground as those of an SUV driver.

Motorists will tend to be in a worse position for assessing the emptiness of an intersection, and their vehicle is much more dangerous, so the onus to slow down is greater, but coming to a complete stop is often unnecessary. Slowing down to make sure there really is nothing there is sensible.

If I were on a recumbent bicycle, or in a little sports car, I'd have to be more cautious when approaching an intersection because my eyes are lower, and farther back from the front of the vehicle. (I hate riding recumbents in the city, but they're pretty awesome on long distance rides).

> As a cyclist, I'm in a very good position to assess how empty an intersection is: no windows isolating me in a sound bubble; low speed

Also: your head is closer to the front of your vehicle and thus to the intersection.

You can assess the situation long before any part of you or your bicycle enters the intersection.

You can also hear.

If that were to apply to cars, drivers would interpret it as 25-35 mph being okay.

In many circumstances, drivers could easily defeat a failure to stop ticket in court based on lack of hard evidence that you were going over 15 mph.

It should, and in most places it essentially does... as they don't have the American obsession with stop signs, and will indeed mark the sort of low-traffic residential intersection with....nothing at all most of the time.

No, it shouldn't. If the junction is marked as a stop, all users should stop. If you have a low traffic junction like that, then the stop sign Shouldn't be there. But that's a different argument to allowing vehicles/bikes to blow a stop sign.

Unlike bicycles, cars have significant blind spots with the A-pillar and such. Also unlike bicycles, cars are significantly more able to seriously injure other road users.

Cars aren't reliant on the driver's own power to get going again after an intersection and don't tend to fall over sideways if stopped.

If you can't stop your bike without falling over, you have no business cycling on roads.

"sensors controlling the lights" -- yeah, Chicago doesn't have those.

> where the sensors controlling the lights do not sense bikes

Not real bikes, anyway; they might be able to sense some 75 pound piece of pig iron from Walmart.

It's a struggle sometimes as a biker on a daily commute when you get to really know your route. There are a bunch of lights and stop signs on my route that very rarely have pedestrians and cars so I'll take it slow through them (about the same speed as a car not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign), but usually not stop. I'm very thankful that 90% of my commute has bike lanes, but would definitely love for them to be more protected and maybe even get some lights devoted to the bike lane like NYC has down a few of its avenues.

Bicycles do not need to come to a full stop at most stop signs, due to their slow speed.

On a bicycle, by the time I'm at the stop line, I have already checked that everything is clear. My face is closer to the intersection than that of a driver. I'm still coasting and have plenty of time to come to a full stop, if necessary, before entering the intersection.

Why would I stop, other than to obey the law on paper?

[Edit: just saw mohn's sibling comment revealing that Idaho codified my above reasoning into law: cyclists can treat stops like yields.]

I brought my bike to Chicago during a conference... you're not kidding. I don't mind rolling a stop sign carefully when there's no traffic, but cars, bikes, and pedestrians alike in Chicago seemed to be making up their own rules.

The difference between bike accidents with pedestrians and car accidents with pedestrians is that the victims of car accidents aren’t alive to complain about how cars are so dangerous anymore.

The only reason I look both ways on a one-way street in NYC is because I've almost been hit by cyclists going the wrong way on a few occasions (and then been yelled at by that cyclist for not looking).

As an everyday commuter in Boston, I'm definitely guilty of not stopping at stop signs that I bike through everyday and not stopping when there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk (usually trying to get as far away as possible from them), but whenever I have to go down the wrong way of a one way street (Charlestown has is a bit confusing and it happens whenever I'm there) I go slow and sometimes even dismount.

You cannot seriously expect the rules of the road to be the same for multi-ton vehicles capable of 50+ mph speeds and human-powered vehicles that weigh 200lbs tops / max out at 20 mph.

I appreciate the full throated defense of cyclists, but there are days when I max out above both 200lbs and 20mph with my bike :)

Even if you do, the bikes are not going to kill you. Someone on a bike breaking the "rules of the road" is pretty much only risking his own safety, someone in a car it's almost always other people that die.

   Even if you do, the bikes are not going to kill you.

This is not true. It is less likely than with automobiles, but pedestrians are killed by bicycles from time to time. Obviously bicycle-bicycle accidents that happen in traffic are also dangerous.

Yes and people die from drinking too much water too.

Irrelevant to the case of killing other people in avoidable accidents.

Like automobiles, lots of cyclists (and I am one) believe that they are able to safely perform maneuvers they cannot, in fact, safely perform.

It's sensible to ask if there should be different rules for bicycle and automobile traffic. But if we change the rules, it shouldn't be based one what cyclists want or don't want to do, but on analysis of the safety and efficiency for everyone involved, including pedestrians.

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and lose momentum.

Bikes can do pretty bad damage to pedestrians. Even if it isn't your fault as the car driver being involved in a crash with a biker is a pretty shitty experience. Yes, they are not as bad as cars, but it's a bad excuse.

I can expect it, because in large part the rules of the road are precisely that.

I'm a cyclist in NYC. Here's the other side of that: I see you. Let me describe a common scenario:

I'm biking toward an intersection. I see a pedestrian moving into the street from 30 yards out. They're looking down at their phone. I see them the entire time. I know they don't see me. There's no chance we're going to collide, because I see exactly what they're doing and have been tracking them as I approach the intersection. At the last second, as I pass by them, they become aware of my presence and jump back, surprised.

How do you think they tell that story?

I'm sure it has something to do with the maniac cyclist who almost hit them.

You should wait till they cross the intersection instead of timing your cross with the pedestrian. You need to yield to the pedestrian as soon as they enter the cross walk - that's the law and what all road traffic is required to follow.

As others have said, biking infrastructure in NYC (and in basically all U.S. cities) is an afterthought. It's been tacked onto an environment that was totally given over to cars (rather absurdly, given New York's status as the only truly pedestrian city in the U.S.).

What you're seeing is the cyclist's attempt to navigate an environment that's directly hostile to their interests. As long as nothing about that changes, this is what it's going to look like, because I'm not going to follow rules that make no sense for my mode of travel.

With respect, of course, to the fact that this is an unpopular opinion in some circles, I'm still just not going to do it. And, crucially, I'm comfortable with the social and legal consequences of my position.

As a cyclist crossing the street in NYC, it's much the same experience. Pedestrians jaywalk willy-nilly and you frequently end up having to thread your way through an entire jaywalking horde even though you have right of way.

TBF I think it all depends on how much people in the city generally obey rules of the road. I don't think I've ever seen a New Yorker walk more than 2 blocks without jay-walking.

And if you do follow the rules on a bike you often end up sitting in traffic with the cars anyway.

Exactly, because both the rules and, even worse, the infrastructure are made for cars, and only shoehorned for bikes afterwards.

Even following the rules you still save time because you're at the top of the queue with the lead car every time. When I bike into work I never have to wait 3-4 turns of the light to proceed.

Yes, I do follow the rules: lights, stop signs, etc. Whether driving my car or riding my bike, I'm sharing a resource and we are all trying to get somewhere. It's only fair.

It's a similar situation in Philly, every day I watch bikers run red lights and stop signs or speeding in a 25.

I've yet to see a cop pull over someone on a bike

Philly here as well.

There are practical reasons for bikes going through red lights and stop signs.

1. We want to clear the intersection and get to the other side ahead of the traffic. Car-bike accidents occur most often at intersections rather than mid-block. Getting through the intersection before the light turns green is a way to relieve worry about getting right hooked or sideswiped by a car. Cross traffic, if any, is visible and avoidable. Cyclists choose to "risk it" because the real risk at intersections comes from oncoming and in-flow traffic.

2. It takes a lot of energy to start up again from a dead stop. Average speed will drop A LOT from stopping unnecessarily, moreover, it is far more tiring to get back up to speed. It means more sweat and discomfort.

Some people feel, especially on forums such as this, that all traffic laws need to be observed "to the letter" by every vehicle including bicycles. That's overly strict and impractical. It is why cops almost never "pull over" cyclists who run stop-signs. There is no good reason to do so unless the cyclist was deliberately precipitating emergency evasive maneuvers from motorists.

>There are practical reasons for bikes going through red lights

I'd hardly call "I have a desire to be killed by a car" or "I harbour a blatant disregard of the saftey and wellbeing of those around me" practical reasons. The laws are written for the protection of everyone, not solely to inconvenience you.

Stop signs aren't something we really have in my country, but cycling through red lights has been the cause of death and injury for both cyclists and pedestrians.

I find it horrifying that you're so quick to disregard even the most fundamental rules of the road and worse yet aggressively defend your anti-social behaviour.

Here's a good article that links to a study on Scofflaw cyclists:

https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-study-shows-scofflaw-cy...

“Bicyclists, perhaps despite popular conception, really don’t break the rules at any greater rate than any other modes: pedestrians or drivers,” said Aaron Johnson, one of the authors. “When there’s a disregard for the rules it tends to come from efforts to negotiate infrastructure that really wasn’t built for them.”

    > quick to disregard even the most fundamental rules of the road and worse yet aggressively defend your anti-social behaviour.

Such behavior is, actually, the norm. It has been going on since the dawn of traffic control. Cars and bikes are intrinsically different. Traffic laws can't address everything and are broken (or deliberately not enforced by police) for pragmatic reasons all the time.

You see bikers speeding in a 25mph? Are all the bikers in your city national-level endurance athletes on TT bikes?

It's so sad that people born into a world where cars are everywhere just have no concept anymore of what is human. You put a random dude on a bike and they are never going to average 20 mph, struggle to even get to 18 mph. Barreling up 15% inclines in SF at 30 mph is not normal.

It doesn't make sense to penalize bikes the same way as cars. A car is deadly, a bike isn't. It would be like assigning the same penalty to throwing a punch and a gun shot.

You can definitely kill someone with a bicycle. And a punch.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/gay-basher-ge...

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/10/stanley-park-pedestrian-d...

This is just recent local news from my neck of the woods, off the top of my head.

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it has anywhere the same likelihood of happening. Not even sure what argument you're trying to make.

This is why concealed guns are banned in most states and fists aren't.

> Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it has anywhere the same likelihood of happening. Not even sure what argument you're trying to make.

Ok, go stand in the street and I'll hit you with a bicycle. I can come to the emergency room later and you can tell me how it didn't hurt that much.

> This is why concealed guns are banned in most states

False, by the way. They just require a license... like a car.

You're likely confusing the (intuitively low) probability of someone being hit by a cyclist with the conditional probability of someone sustaining a serious injury or being killed given they've been hit by a cyclist.

The fist cannot be banned because it is a configuration of the human hand.

> It's a similar situation in Philly, every day I watch bikers run red lights and stop signs or speeding in a 25.

I've yet to see a vehicle not speeding in a 25. It's honestly infuriating when people are actually going 24 in a 25, because despite these limits being in a mostly urban area, there are almost zero pedestrians there and it's a 3 lane wide road in good condition.

How much can a bike possibly be speeding in a 25 to be a danger? 28mph? Come on.

Running a red light is a big no-no however.

When's the last time you saw a driver doing 25 or under in a 25 zone? I ask because my commute has drivers who will threaten your life for doing the speed limit.