I'm a big fan of the "Idaho stop". Essentially it "downgrades" the meaning of stop signs and red lights for cyclists, turning a red light into a stop and a stop into a give way. It makes a lot of sense. Traffic lights and other complications are there because cars are dangerous. People using other modes shouldn't be forced to take the same responsibility as a car driver.
I disagree. I have witnessed a large number of pedestrian collisions because fellow cyclists didn't want to stop. In london the large majority of traffic lights that "make no sense" are normally pedestrian crossings. This is why I stop at red lights, even though its more tiring.
I had to administer first aid to someone who was knocked over on london bridge by a cyclist and was rendered unconscious. The sniveling little shit fucked off and left the man in the middle of the road.
Yes Cyclists are smaller and more nimble, to a point. But that does not mean they are less dangerous to pedestrians.
The rules are there for all road users, or not at all. In the UK at least they are there to protect the most vulnerable: pedestrians.
There are idiots with no regard to others' safety everywhere, unfortunately. I'd rather they were riding bikes than driving cars.
I'm not sure if pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists. Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.
Aha, this make much more sense!
> Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.
Its more the point of impact, the pedestrian gets hit by the handlebars which are small and pointy. The cyclist will normally get cushioned by the pedestrian.
However I suspect that numbers and collisions are tightly coupled to country. the pavement layouts are different.
They don't always work well; in my area some sensors seem to trigger too late, resulting in unnecessary braking, and others trigger too early and might encourage you to speed up for the intersection to avoid getting a yellow or even red just before you enter. Sometimes they give a green for the go-straight lane just when you're switching to the turn lane, which stays red even though there's no traffic..
One of my favorite solutions is simply turning the lights off altogether when there's not much traffic. They do that at quite a few intersections here.
I'm so used to this since I started driving 30+ years ago so I get pretty surpriced when I visit people in Germany and stand in an empty crossing with a redlight. Or have to stop at every single redlight thrugh the whole town.
I'm guessing the signals on railways are much more predictable.
Possibly, but it's mostly just a better system which works because railway lines are linear. On British railways at least (not sure about around the world), each signal informs the driver about the current state of the next two signals.
- Red (danger): absolutely do not enter the next piece of track (with serious consequences if breached),
- Single yellow (caution): the next signal is red,
- Double yellow (preliminary caution): the next signal is a single yellow,
- Green (clear): next signal is double yellow or green.
This way you can tell if you are catching up with the red and adjust speed accordingly (and I guess they would incorporate knowledge about the line, ie. if they know there is only one signal to the next station they wouldn't worry too much about a double orange).
I think the "smart motorway" variable speed limits are an attempt to implement this on the road. Unfortunately a large number of people think the temporary speed restrictions cause congestion and others think smart motorway simply means no hard shoulder.
You can't really treat current traffic signals like railways signals, but motorists would do well to learn to regulate their speed better and understand the concept of average speed.
Where I am - there's pretty good bike infrastructure - and I can get to and from work and anywhere else I bike on good separated but not completely protected bike paths.
I'm assuming not wearing a helmet was proved to be good on an individual level? Does it mean you're less likely to get in an accident? When you get in an accident, are you also less likely to be severely injured?
Also - are there any stats on how likely you are to be injured on different types of bike paths? Like just sharing the road vs separated paths vs protected paths?
The Dutch Cyclists’ Union is particularly vocal about this¹. Their take is that creating a culture where wearing a helmet on a bicycle is normal has a significant negative effect on health in general and safety by raising the barrier of riding a bicycle.
When you need a helmet, you have to lug it around even when you're just popping out for some groceries. The effects of mandatory helmets in neighbouring countries show that these have a non-negligible effect on participation, leading to fewer cyclists. For cyclists however, there is safety in numbers; motorists are more considerate of cyclists simply because they are everywhere and part of the normal roadscape². There is also the simple weighing of risks: head injuries are, comparatively, very rare. The energy devoted to making helmets mandatory are better spent in improving road safety by different means.
For children the risk of head injury occurring is simply higher, which is why you will see many children wear helmets in the Netherlands until they reach their teens.
1: https://www.fietsersbond.nl/ons-werk/fietsers-en-veiligheid/...
2: Almost exclusively low speed roads; up to 30 km/h within built-up areas, 60 km/h without. Faster roads tend to have separate cycleways near or parallel to them and prohibit cyclists from using the roads themselves.
No law in Sweden for adults but many do wear it. Just not mothers apparently. Or students. Or people way past pension. Come to think about it, is it only middle age white males wearing a helmet? Ouch.
I don't have any problem going for some groceries on my bike, the helmet stays on in the store. But we have a pretty cold climate so most hats stays on too, nothing strange there.
I ride fast, too.i feel a bit naked without a helmet. But I ride mainly for fitness.
The Dutch ride for transportation. The bike racks at train stations are filled with thousands of bikes. Very few of them with drop bars. A totally different thing.
In the UK its not a legal requirement, but at least during my commute about 60-70% of people wear a helmet cycling. (I do)
This is probably the key. A cyclist behind the wheel will usually show some consideration for other cyclists. Same for motorcyclists.
Besides, there are just more cyclists in Europe in general. Drivers are used to seeing them, and driver training accounts for them. It's easy to hate the single cyclist on your commute, but when there are hundreds of them, you must accept their existence.
Very gracious of you to clarify they're "not subhuman" too, that definitely makes clear that you are making a balanced and thorough assessment. Thanks for your erudite contribution to this matter, the Nobel peace prize committee will be getting in touch shortly.
I commute in london by cycle. I am also a driver. I expect both driver and cyclist to respect the rules and each other. I do not jump red lights, because that is not what one does.
Over the last 5 years cycling has become much safer and less dangerous. The traffic is slower, and there is more segregation in central london. In the suburbs its not as rosy.
I have not, and did not seek to justify the viewpoint expressed in the article, only to add my observations, which were clearly marked as personal opinions.
Cars and trucks break rules all the time, but drivers don't get collectively punished with logic like "this is the driver that gives all drivers a bad name".
The dehumanization of cyclists is precisely the reason why so many people are okay with the logic of collective punishment towards them. People don't do that with drivers because usually when they're observing the poor behavior of drivers they are driving themselves.
In the UK, it more tends to be packs of 10 or so middle aged men aggressively riding racing bikes delaying all the traffic for 100s of metres behind them.
Of course there are places (many of them in the US) where a road or street exists but no sidewalk so you have to walk, bicycle or run on it.
IMO if you use public bicycle lanes for what is pretty much sport (as opposed to getting where you need to go), there should be a dedicated park or track you could use instead. Imagine if racing motorcycle owners got in groups and maxed out speedometers on city streets…
"Oh no, those racing cyclists got in groups and maxed out their speedometers in the city center ... at the speed limit." See how silly that sounds?
The analogy is imperfect, like all analogies, and the modicum of empathy required to understand the actual point behind it may be missing in those who shout at you, who dares to ride in a bicycle lane slowly, because they take bells off their bicycles to save on weight.
the Netherlands, this doesn't apply. Cyclists might be dicks (especially in amsterdam) but everyone cycles.
In the UK in the big cities, there tends to be lots of cycling. Adherence to the rules of red lights is lax amongst <15% of cyclist. However they are the obnoxious noisy shites whom everyone hates. (fellow cyclists included)
Again, not subhuman, but classic dickheads.
In the US(well NYC), from the time I lived there, cyclists are either raging hippies, or aggressive couriers. On the westcoast it was more of a lifestyle choice.