I'm a cyclist, and it irks me a little bit every time I see cyclists act as if the rules don't apply to them. In San Francisco, this happens almost every day.

As a pedestrian, I've almost been struck a few times by cyclists running red lights while crossing Market Street. Most of those cyclists yell at me for having the audacity to be in their way. In San Francisco, it seems that I'm the exception for actually stopping at red lights on a bicycle.

Incorrect. You are not allowed to slam on your brakes for no good reason. It's of course very hard to prove that you did. (This does not relieve the follower from maintaining a safe distance, but you could be held partially at fault.)

Also, what about if you merge into my lane right in front of me and then slam on your brakes? In that case, you made it impossible for me to maintain a safe distance.

> You are not allowed to slam on your brakes for no good reason

I never said no good reason...

>hat about if you merge into my lane right in front of me and then slam on your brakes? In that case, you made it impossible for me to maintain a safe distance.

This has been arbitrated in court (at least in my neck of the woods), if you merge and in doing so cause an accident you're a fault. The entire law system is setup to relate to the actions that a "reasonable" person would do. It isn't reasonable to expect the person who you've just merged in front of to immediately be at a safe distance (in fact you, the merger, are responsible for merging in a way that's safe.)

Car drivers routinely ignore certain rules too: speed limits, full stops at stop signs, etc. They do this because doing so is mostly safe. It's the same with bicyclists: the rules they ignore are mostly safe too. The confusion is that, because cars and bikes are different, the rules that are safe to bend are different in each case.

That's all well and good, but when was the last time you saw a cyclist getting pulled over for running a stop sign? Or speeding (Which they tend to do down the large hills we have, and then continue on to blast through intersections at 40+)? I can tell you the last time I saw a car getting pulled over, just a few hours ago. Just because you think it's 'safe' to bend the rules, doesn't make it safe or legal. It's highly hypocritical of cyclists to complain that there aren't enough legal safe guards for them when they ignore the already established ones that are designed to keep all vehicles on the road safe.

A buddy of mine biked to work from Somerville to Boston and he got a ticket from an officer in Cambridge. He had stopped at a red light, but his tire was over the stop line.

Just because you don't see it happen, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Same guy was almost destroyed by a truck as we were riding through an intersection with the green light because the truck decided to speed up for the yellow light and run the red light.

That's not true. If I'm a motorist, moving at speed, and I slam my brakes to grab that nifty parking spot, I am liable. Not the person who rear-ends me.

In every U.S. jurisdiction I'm familiar with, the person doing the rear-ending is liable, not the person who brakes unexpectedly. The idea is that everyone should leave stopping distance. In heavy traffic, people generally don't leave this distance, but it's still the law.

I was wrong about liability (the rear-ender is liable, unless you can prove negligence or recklessness on the part of the driver ahead), but I run a serious hazard of stopping short myself as a cyclist that the motorist does not (except for motorcyclists). There is a good chance I will be killed by the car or truck behind me. This is why, while I have always been able to stop my bicycle in time, it is a frightening experience in traffic.

Not in every jurisdiction. PA for example is no-fault. The idea is that while you shouldn't be driving so close behind, you also should slam on the breaks. Both are equally reckless.

Not in my jurisdiction. You're responsible for maintaining a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you, to allow for unexpected stops. It doesn't matter if they stop for a cat, a toddler, or hallucinated giant killer marmosets from outer space.

As far as I know, this is standard in driving laws across the U.S. Is there somewhere this doesn't apply?

If you're a motorist at speed (and I'll take "at speed" to mean normal street speed); you're almost probably not looking for a parking spot. Further, if you're going "at speed" --25-35mph -- the person behind you should be, at minimum, 2-3 car lengths behind you. If they aren't, they're failing to maintain a safe distance. You're not liable if the person behind you, driving unsafely, rear-ends you.

Clearly you've never driven in the DC area. Seeing cars slam their brakes at 25-30mph to grab a spot on a busy street is laughably commonplace.

What jurisdiction do you live? Everywhere I have ever lived if a vehicle hits you from behind, it's their fault, period.

Yeah, it's extremely hard to set up a circumstance where the person in behind is not at fault.

If you get hit and get propelled into the car in front of you, it's your fault you hit the car in front of you (although this may vary by state).

If the manual transmission car in front of you shifts into neutral on a hill and slides back into you, it's your fault.

The person behind is usually in control of the space between cars and they are held to be responsible for it. You can possibly make it not their fault if you shift directly into someone's lane at speed right in front of them and then hit the brakes.