Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us.

Both classes of vehicles have to be diligent.

As a occasional cyclist with a habit of casually breaking all possible traffic rules that are relatively safely breakable, my thinking is that if I crash with a car, it is me who dies regardless who was right. So as long the traffic culture amongst car drivers is so ignorant toward cyclists that me following traffic rules and actually trying to use the rights the rules give me results to life expectancy calculated in weeks, I keep my relaxed attitude towards traffic rules. Once the driving culture is such that I can drive safely by following rules, I start considering following them. The ball on this one is on cars, not cycles.

(To be fair, when I drive a car, I find myself driving similarly badly way too often. So I definitely do not claim changing the culture is easy)

To be fair, SF seems to have four-way stop signs at basically every intersection. I don't think we have four-way stop signs anywhere in Europe. Coming to a full stop and accelerating again every hundred meters slows you down a lot more on a bike. It's a pretty stupid road design for cars too, it kills your fuel economy.

Yep and the fact that only one car goes through at a time and drivers need to keep in mind whose turn it is.

It’s a really awful design. Just have a roundabout. It flows traffic through a lot better.

Or remove all signs and rely on right-of-way. That's the cheapest solution and works pretty well. If traffic is too heavy install traffic lights.

In Idaho it is perfectly legal for bicycles to treat Stop signs as yields, and Red lights as stop signs.

It was attempted to get a similar law passed in CA: AB 1103.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...

Many cyclists would agree that a rolling stop allows them to get through, when there is no traffic, the intersection much faster and more safely due to the dangers of an intersection. I'm not arguing for blowing through at top-speed, and they must stop when pedestrians are in a cross-walk.

Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's correct.

Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous. The act of unclipping from your pedal, stopping, and then starting again and having to clip back into your pedal is far more dangerous than just slowing down sufficiently to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. You're more likely to fall over when transitioning between moving and stopped on a bike than any other time, and falling over at an intersection is very dangerous.

There's nothing dangerous about stopping, I do it all the time and have never fallen. Cyclists who lack the skills to ride with clipless pedals just shouldn't use them. Or at least switch to something like Speedplay which make it easier to clip in and out.

I ride clipped all the time in the city and don't have this problem. If you can't safely use clips in the city, it's your choice to use them anyway. Saying that due to clips, "Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous" may be precise for you and your usage, but it's not a general rule as you made it sound.

I have never had clips, clipless pedals or anything similar. All of my bikes have had flat pedals with a bit of rubber and/or protrusions to keep my feet in place.

I have literally never felt that to be a disadvantage. I'm not racing, I'm commuting.

I've never used clips on my pedals when commuting because of the fact that there are times I have to come to a stop where I may not have time to unclip.

Using clips while riding in city traffic is like using cruise control while driving in city traffic.

Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling. Or you have to use toe-clips, which are a PITA because you have to flip the pedal over to get your toe in.

With clipless pedals, you just mash your foot in and go, and your foot is now in the perfect position and you don't have to think about it. But that transition time is more hazardous than simply having your feet on the pedals all the time.

> Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling.

The pedals on my bicycle have some slight metal protrusions that keep my feet in place while riding and work just fine with conventional shoes. Plus, in dry weather, I don't have a problem with my feet slipping off the pedals. Even in wet weather, they don't really slip that much unless I'm not careful about it.

> Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules

The same thing also applies to motorists and pedestrians. Also, generalizations like this lead to the attitude that it's somehow the cyclists fault if they get hit by the car even if they are following the rules.

I don't follow your argument. Grandparent had pointed out correct cyclist behavior at intersections to avoid accidents. Parent had commented that both motorists and "especially" cyclists made mistakes resulting in violations of traffic rules and expected behavior. I added the observation that many cyclists' incorrect behavior in San Francisco is willful, not only accidental.

Both parent and I agree with GP's point that, "Turning conflicts...are a significant hazard to cyclists"; I simply argued for vigilance in the presence of deliberate rule-breaking by cyclists. Surely you would not argue for less vigilance by motorists? SF drivers are a whole other rant...

If you meant to say that I am making a hasty or sweeping generalization, I did no such thing. I make no claim as to the proportion of two-wheeled scofflaws. Anybody who rides in SF can see it, and some riders have owned up in child comments herein. If your complaint is against motorists who justify their own shitty driving with claims that cyclists are 'always' flouting the rules, then I agree that this is dangerously fallacious. But such a sweeping generalization nonetheless starts with cyclists who clearly break traffic rules.

That's why I wish they would stop. This is about saving lives. And if you are also a rider then you know the apportionment of blame becomes moot when 1800kg of SUV hits 80kg of cyclist. I think GP is absolutely right that good infrastructure design is key to avoiding such risks, but like all transportation systems it has to be built on the assumption that traffic rules will be followed.

Sure.

There's a myriad of reasons why this is the case. Traffic signals and signage aren't designed for cyclists. Google a little.

Further, this is a false equivalence. When a cyclist fails to be diligent, the risks are fairly small. When a motorists fails to be diligent, other people die.

You are being unnecessarily abrasive.

I ride the streets that I'm speaking about. San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure, markings, and signage to promote safe cycling. I think they do good work and I benefit directly from their work. I think the infrastructure is better suited to cycling than your dismissive comment implies.

I disagree with your characterization that the risks to motor vehicle-bicycle interactions are fairly small risks as long as motorists are diligent. But I don't suggest that you accept my risk assessment. My equivalence is grounded in California law[0]. Cyclists have equal responsibility with other drivers. Both groups of vehicles need to be operated diligently.

[0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....

San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure...

They're adapting roads which were created entirely with motorists in mind in an attempt to promote safe cycling. The infrastructure is more well suited to cycling than it was previously, but I'm not sure that folks from Portland would agree. Folks from Copenhagen, most especially wouldn't agree.

In any case, it's a subjective assessment.

You disagree with my characterization and feel like the law somehow proves you right?

Yes, it is equally illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to blow a stop sign. If a motorist blows a stop sign and has a collision with another motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, then likely outcome is injury in one of those cases, and death in the other two.

If a cyclist blows a stop sign and causes a collision, the likely outcome is that they'll end up a stain on someone else's car. It's possible they could injure, or even kill a pedestrian, which has happened all of once that I can tell.

The risk is vastly different. Bicycles aren't really ever considered to be deadly weapons.

Cars also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Almost no one signals, cars rarely come to a full stop at crosswalks (instead inching forward, implying the pedestrian needs to hurry up), and even though I don't have a radar gun I'm pretty sure I see drivers operating at speeds far above the speed limit. Not to mention the drivers who shout out death threats at bikes for merely occupying the lane...

I have a very simple rule. Traffic laws and enforcement of said laws should be proportional to the accident rate.

If the average car driver has 2x, 10x, 100x or anything like higher accident rate than cyclists, and car traffic is several time larger than bike traffic, then it make logical sense that most traffic law and enforcement is put on addressing car traffic and drivers. The only consideration is when funding for such enforcement and laws don't follow strict scaling, in which you have to find the point where putting more funding in bike traffic laws actually produce lower accidents.