So I should be able to ride my bike on the highway?
> Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations.
True, but the current disregard to those laws means that expected behavior is inconsistent with the behavior mandated by laws.
> Adding a new class of movement rules for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict and anticipate for everyone.
Bikes already move and behave differently, just due to mechanics and physics. Bringing expectations in line with this and normalizing behavior INCREASES predictability.
FWIW, if your car is not capable of traveling at the "speed minimum" (typically 10-15 miles below the speed limit on a highway; though I guess some states don't have this concept), then it also is not allowed on the highway.
You can't drive a car at 20mph on the highway either.
Edit: To be clear, I intending to point out the ridiculousness of this language:
> exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions.
There are different rules of the road for Semis, for cars pulling trailers, for motorcycles, for tractors, for public transit.
Do you live in a dense city with a large number of cyclists? I think there's merit to the argument that automobile drivers are already predicting that cyclists will run through intersections, so this clarification would be a significant improvement.
The system is composed of individual interactions, and the rules they suggest (and which research seems to indicate reduce collisions) seem sensible in the context of those individual interactions. What specifically do you disagree with?
This lack of "normal" behavior is very scary for people in cars and even on motorcycles. We don't want to kill bicyclists! Bicyclists make up 2% of road fatalities in DC, vastly disproportionate to their numbers.
I think for all involved, the cyclists need to become more normalized and less random. Standardizing the (IMHO) bad behavior doesn't seem like the right(tm) answer.
The article has this insane circular logic, "because bicyclists already break the law a bunch, it should be made the law" -- rather than how we deal with it in other spaces "time to crack down on people who break the law". The result is the same, normalized behavior. The author wants to normalize to TWO sets of rules, one for bicyclists -- one for everyone else (so everyone has to know TWO sets of rules) -- I want to normalize to ONE set of rules, the current rules of the road, so everyone can follow ONE set of rules -- and punish bicyclists for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. I believe this will be safer for everyone, both in the short term and the long term.
This second point is very important. There are significant differences between a car and a bike. Cyclists have a much better field of view, on account of not having blind spots and being situated much higher. Cyclists are far more invested in avoiding collisions since they have more on the line. Bicycles are significantly less massive and travel at much lower speeds. Bicycles are narrower and more nimble and are therefore better able to avoid collisions in tight traffic.
Any regulatory regime that ignores the differences between these two vehicles is just as nonsensical as one that ignores the differences between a car and a pedestrian. As the article points out, you wouldn't expect a pedestrian to be required to stop at each and every stop sign.
The whole "two sets of rules" argument is not particularly compelling. You already deal with many distinct sets of rules in all sorts of contexts: besides the aforementioned difference in rules between pedestrians and cars, there are fifty states and innumerable other jurisdictions with drastically differing laws, there are rules that apply only to semis or commercial vehicles, there are different rules for highways and surface streets, etc. etc.
Seems we need AT LEAST 3 sets of rules. One for slow bicycles, one for fast motorcycles and one for cars? What other separate rule-sets should we have on the road?
So what is? Do we charge drivers that kill bicyclists following the rules with manslaughter then? Killing people is (IMHO) bad behavior.
I think the answer is a obvious combination of: 1) Make the rules of the road for bicycles make sense given the limitations of bicycles. 2) Make the enforcement of the rules of the road for bicycles more severe.
The combination of these two will help normalize the behavior and save lives. Why are you opposed to this?
2. Absolutely, this is a HUGE part of it -- bicyclists need to start getting FULL FLIGHT tickets for blowing stop signs and such. Few $150 dollar tickets might get them to stop. Policy departments generally hate dealing with bicyclists for tickets, and this needs to be rectified.
I am OPPOSED to TWO SETS OF RULES. It seems insane to retrain the entire population that bicyclists do X at stop signs while you do Y. At a red light, bicyclists do X and you do Y. I think this will amplify confusion and danger.
The differences in driving laws between states is far greater than the proposed differences for bikers vs. drivers. People seem to muddle along fine.
You trust drivers to maneuver deadly boxes of metal at high speeds but not to learn two new rules? I think you are just lazy.
Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error.
> Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver.
However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi...
There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault.
I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers.
I said: >It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible.
What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.
It is my understanding that a new study is underway to see how Capitol Bikeshare (2500+ bikes rented from like little bike vending machines) has impacted this number (very new). Nothing will be publicly released for another year or so, but I suspect the outcome will be a much higher "at fault" rate for unskilled tourist bicyclists making that number even more skewed.
EDIT: Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
Care to dispute any of my points, and not a strawman assumption?
EDIT: > Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
No, reckless bicyclists are a terror. But still less than reckless drivers.
A bicyclist that slows at a stop sign and carefully checks for traffic before rolling through it is not a terror.
Are you done with strawmen yet?
So why is this a bad idea? Especially if we can tie this with stronger enforcement against rogue bicyclists?
Even though I hate aggressive cyclists, I wouldn't want to hit one even if the bicyclist were 100% at fault and somehow magically had insurance to pay for all damage to my car, as the bicyclist would probably be seriously injured if not killed. So I'd end up braking, potentially getting hit by a car behind me.
I got rear-ended by the athletic director for the SF city schools a decade ago when I stopped at a crosswalk for a pedestrian (coming down Twin Peaks into the Castro). That exact layout -- no stop sign, but stop signs on the cross street (and a crosswalk).
(It was an interesting experience for me because I was driving a to-me huge rental car (Kia Amanti) and he had some old Honda civic; since it was on a hill the heights were accentuated, so his car basically went underneath my rear bumper and stopped when it hit the axle. At ~35mph I guess, and really massive damage to his car and <$2k to mine.)
Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations. Adding a new class of movement patterns for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict for everyone. There's no way this would be safer in dense, highly trafficked cities.