Good Bike Lanes are Good for Everyone
Vancouver recently tried an experiment where they shut down one lane of traffic on a crowded bridge to create dedicated space for bicycle commuters. This led to predictions of traffic chaos but it’s actually working out nicely as pedestrians and cyclists can now commute safely and cars aren’t frustrated by slower-moving bicycles trying to weave around them. And thus far we’re only looking at the very short-term effect. Improving the safety and quality of experience for cyclists and pedestrians might tempt more people into traveling in those ways, and thus reduce the number of cars trying to share the road.
This heartwarming tale comes to us from Greater Greater Washington and Freakonomics. The larger point is that while there are some real conflicts of interest in urban design and transportation issues, it’s generally not a narrow zero-sum enterprise. Poorly designed systems are ultimately harmful to most stakeholders irrespective of the details of their situation.
87 Responses to “Good Bike Lanes are Good for Everyone”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I agree that getting out of the zero-sum mindset is very important (and whatever happened to Mixner anyway?). In particular, it often doesn’t take much shifting to alternative modes to improve traffic for drivers, in part because those doing the shifting are often specifically the people who would otherwise be supplying additional traffic on the most congested routes.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
DC has many roads that serve essentially the same purpose. I would love to see one lane be shut down in each direction on 14th street to allow for large sidewalks & a bike lane.
Also – I hear they’re converting the 5 way one way 15th st to three lanes north and a dedicated bike lane going the other direction (south). Seems like a pretty cool idea.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I have been actually advocating segregated type-specific facilities for a long time. Nothing sketches out a motorist more than dealing with cyclists or pedestrians, sometimes even motorcyclists, while driving.
This is actually a reason that I find (inner-lane, concrete-direction separated) highway driving a lot more calming than city driving.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
A similar thing was done on a road leading to my workplace. From what I hear, it has dramatically increased commutes for drivers (the road was almost wide enough to legally allow two lanes, so drivers often drove abreast. Once they put in a bike lane, it became officially enforced as a one laner).
I am a bicyclist, and a driver even yelled at me about this in the parking garage, as if its my fault. And I don’t even use that road (I go the other way).
Anyway, what I am saying is that to a certain extent, it often really is a zero sum game.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Bike lanes are the way to go. It’s nice to know that we have members of Congress like Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Oregon who understand and are dedicated to this cause. Blumenauer, co-chair of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus, is the most outspoken bicycling activist in Congress and is doing much to advance this cause!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’m in Vancouver right now, and I have to say that the bike line hasn’t been universally warmly received: motorists are peeved. The whole thing is a 90-day trial, which just started this month, and at this point I really don’t have a good sense as to whether it will be extended.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I’m in Vancouver too and use the bridge all the time, and the change hasn’t been nearly as dire as drivers were predicting. The realty is that people very quickly adapt to these changes – there is another bridge nearby and many drivers are moving over there. And now we don’t have cyclists ending up in the hospital every month!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Can’t wait for them to do this on the Verrazano.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Here in Baltimore, I know some vocal advocates for “more bike lanes” who only use the existing lanes when it’s convenient for them to do so. I can’t fully support bike lanes until more bicyclists start obeying the rules of the road. This includes signaling lane changes, staying off the sidewalk, and stopping at red lights until they turn green. Of course, many riders are great about this. But as a regular pedestrian and occasional driver, I frequently witness dangerous/illegal maneuvers by bicyclists.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I’m also in Vancouver, and I cycle across Burrard Bridge regularly. Previously cyclists and pedestrians had to share a 6 foot wide raised sidewalk with an exposed one foot drop into traffic on one side. This arrangement was pretty dangerous in retrospect, and likely to scare off less confident cyclists.
The new arrangement is considerably safer for cyclists and pedestrians, without inconveniencing motorists too much: the bottleneck for traffic flow is not on the bridge, but in downtown, so the bridge already had excess capacity.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
MR: Bicycles are vehicles and bicyclists have a right to the road. They’re entitled to use or not use the bike lanes as they see fit.
On cyclists obeying traffic laws, I couldn’t agree with you more. Doesn’t matter how many wheels you have, still gotta follow the rules.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I totally agree. Here in Houston we’ve got tons of drivers making illegal turns, running lights and mowing down pedestrians. We should stop building car lanes until they all behave the rules of the road, even though I see the majority driving safely.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Well, just last week I went down to Mount Vernon. Parked and was walking across the GW parkway, in the crosswalk, and came within inches of getting hit by a biker running the stop sign at 25mph. If he had hit me, I would have been dead or seriously injured. And, this is typical of this area. Bikers have absolutely no respect for stop signs, red lights, one way streets, or anyone else. To them, if you are a pedestrian, you are fair game.
In DC it is illegal to block the crosswalk. But, if the biker doesn’t illegally run the red light, they will pull up into the crosswalk and block it. Forcing the people who are trying to legally cross the street to risk their lives by going around them.
It seems like I can’t go a day without a near miss. IMHO, bicyclists are a safety hazard to everyone.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
The rule in post 9 seems to be
1. no new bike lanes if some cyclists break the traffic laws
2. if we build new bike lanes, bikes not allowed on streets
Those rules would be terrible enough if proposed for motorists, i.e.
1. no new road construction unless traffic law compliance is above a measurable threshhold
2. if we build a new thoroughfare, car traffic should be restricted on the side streets
Those would be, again I emphasize, a bad way to run the roads. But the idea that people feel comfortable making the first set of propositions, but not the second, speaks to this notion that the car should be the default mode of transportation. And that is the mindset that has to be attacked and defeated.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I also live in Vancouver. My guess is that the Burrard bike lane will be one of those things that some people predict will be a disaster but actually becomes an accepted fact rather quickly. It is certainly a whole lot safer now for both cyclists and pedestrians.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
It is significant that the bridge bike-lane experiment here in Vancouver was introduced in July when a large number of commuters are on holiday so the traffic disruption problems are presently minimized.
The last time the same bike-lane experiment was attempted, it lasted only four days because of the outrage caused by the traffic gridlock.
Check out this program after Labour Day when all the commuters are back from their holidays.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I’m with kth. It’s bizarre, all this finger wagging. I don’t like it when bikers do stupid things (I bike myself and am usually very rule-observant). Nor do I like it when car drivers do stupid things. Nor do I like it when pedestrians do stupid things. As a pedestrian I’ve glared at many a clueless biker and driver, and as a driver of two- and four-wheel vehicles I’ve marveled at many a clueless pedestrian. (To take kth’s analogy one step further, does the fact that pedestrians sometimes cross against the light mean that we shouldn’t have crosswalks — or sidewalks, for that matter?)
Unfortunately, I can’t claim perfection in any of these areas — I do stupid things sometimes. And, more importantly, I don’t understand the connection between the occasional reckless biker and the idea of getting more people to bike by making biking safer.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Mary-Well said.Cyclists are akin to the immigrants of the roads! Blamed for everything and held to a higher standard with regard to lawful behaviour.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I’m with mary. I do dumb stuff occasionally on two wheels. The thing is I own that stupid stuff, not so much with most drivers- I look at them with a ‘why you trying to kill me’ look and I get a big FU. Pay attention to driving and everybody is safer.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
+1 to Mary.
When all these cyclist-haters start working themselves up into a froth of rage every time they see a driver exceeding the speed limit, then we’ll know it’s more than just irrational B.S.
Speeding among drivers is pretty much universal is much more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers than anything cyclists might do. But, of course we won’t get worked up over that, because that’s normative behavior, y’know. You might as well get angry at the birds for chirping.
Cyclists, on the other hand, often dress in loud colored clothing, arrogantly fail to show proper deference to drivers, and sometimes have provocative facial hair.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
20: I seriously doubt that your average speeding is more dangerous than running red lights or stop signs, as is de rigeur for Pittsburgh cyclists.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
As long as we’re letting anecdotal evidence rule the roost: just last month I saw a car hit a bicyclist who had the right-of-way and was in the bike lane. (Luckily, he was not badly hurt.) On the other hand, I’ve never seen a bicyclist hit a pedestrian or a car. Ergo, we should not allow cars to drive on roads?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
What’s anecdotal?
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/cyclists-routinely-disobey-law-study-finds/
Does anyone really believe that remotely similar numbers of drivers disregard red lights and stop signs?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I seriously doubt that your average speeding is more dangerous than running red lights or stop signs, as is de rigeur for Pittsburgh cyclists.
Your “average speeding” driver is absolutely more dangerous than slow-rolling stop signs and red lights on a bicycle. Absolutely. Especially in the urban environment.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
24: Oh, bullshit. Seriously. Ever been hit by an object going 30 mph?
Don’t get me wrong – my primary concern is that I’m going to be traveling through an intersection legally and hit a cyclist. Despite the, studies show, widespread disregard foe the rules of the road shown by cyclists, I don’t want to kill or maim one. They’re a danger to themselves.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“Ever been hit by an object going 30 mph?”
You’re referring to cars, yes? Or is there a bicycle race going on in Pittsburgh at all times, because bicyclists do not go 30 on city streets very often, let alone through stop signs and lights.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Does anyone really believe that remotely similar numbers of drivers disregard red lights and stop signs?
That’s not the relevant question.
Cars exceed the speed limit. Universally. Let me just restate that: Unless they’re delayed by congestion, nearly 100% of drivers exceed the speed limit.
Now, in every one of these threads, the fact that drivers’ lawbreaking is passed off as something minor, whereas cyclist’s failure to come to a full stop, (with feet down, no less!) is always the “real issue”. It’s pretty indicative of just how disingenuous the anti-cycling types argument is.
Given just how dangerous your average driver is to everyone who’s not encased in 4500 lbs of steel, I’m not surprised pedestrians and cyclists (and rollerbladers, etc…) bend the rules…
It’s a good way to keep from getting killed:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
July 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
DTM,
Somebody appears to have chased him off.
Somebody.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Beyond which, we are getting completely off track. It’s not relevant how frequently bikers and drivers obey the law, because transportation networks are not created as rewards for good behavior. Plenty of people jaywalk, which is dangerous, but that’s often an argument for creating more pedestrian access, not less, so that people will have more opportunities to cross the street safely and legally.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
MR,
I think you’re got it backwards; the provision of good infrastructure for bicyclists will change their behavior. Right now, roads are designed so that cyclists are, let’s face it, and afterthought. They are not welcome; no provision is made for them. The roads are designed for cars, and bicyclists are an intrusion that doesn’t belong there.
So, since the road system, with its lanes and controls and signals, isn’t made for bicyclists, is it any surprise that they behave as if those lanes and controls and signals are not for them?
It has long been established that drivers behave in the way the design of the road system tells them too, not the way the law tells them too. You can put a 25 mph sign on a wide, sweeping highway exit ramp, but if the lane is 22 feet wide, the curve is gentle, and there is no oncoming traffic or parked cars or sidewalks or buildings nearby, drivers are going to take it between 45 mph and 65 mph. Similarly, as various traffic calming projects have shown, if you provide visual cues and roadway designs that make it clear that drivers are passing through somebody’s neighborhood, where there are people parking cars and crossing the street and bicycling, they slow down.
Provide bicyclists with clear lanes where they will feel, and be, safe, and they will turn into the most civic-minded, law-abiding people on the road.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I once hit a pedestrian who jaywalked as I was coming around a corner. I probably hit her at about 25-30 mph. She got bruised, and cut her chin, I got bruised, and cut my hands and a tacoed wheel. My 180 pounds at 25mph is a lot different than your 2500pound car at 25mph.
Some cyclists are a danger to themselves, but a dangerous driver is a greater danger to everyone. And Craigo, I see cars run red lights everyday, and when they do it they’re usually accelerating. What’s your point really?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Well said joe.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I have to say, concern for pedestrians getting run over by cyclists is a novel argument. I’ve never heard of a pedestrian being killed or seriously injured in a collision with a cyclist, though I won’t say it has never happened. Probably it has, but, wow, what are the odds?
The current crop of urban cyclists may indeed be disproportionately young, fit, addicted to fast riding, careless, etc. But that’s because you have to be a little bit crazy to risk your neck sharing NY/DC streets with motorists who don’t really care if they hit you. There’s no reason to suppose that the people that would be induced to take up bike commuting, were it safer and less harrowing, would share the same characteristics.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
26: Yes, they do. Call me a liar if you wish, but I see it everyday. If you want to pretend it doesn’t happen, be my guest. But I’m guessing that everyone who reads this has witnessed the same thing, so take that into account.
27: And you can evade the evidence all you like, but it’s there for all to see. For those who can’t understand what I’m saying, when a cyclist runs a red light, it means that traffic perpendicular to them have a green light, and the right of way. It means that an object, whether a bike, a car, or a pedestrian is very likely traveling in the same space the cyclist wishes to illegally occupy. This is leads to a collision.
This isn’t a driver vs. cyclists issue. Reflexive, narrow-minded tribalism causes some to fly past the idea that all bad behavior on the road is bad, and not just that committed by drivers. Trust me, I see bad driver behavior all the time, and I hate it. I see bad cyclists behavior all the time, and I hate that as well, and by pedestrians, etc.
Some here, however, don’t seem to like the idea that cyclists can be just as bad as drivers, and not only ignore the evidence that a majority may run red lights, but support the insane notion that it’s okay for cyclists to “bend the rules”
in this manner. I’m guessing that if a driver ran a red light, they’d be outraged, and justifiably so. But IOIYAC.
I like cycling. It’s green, if done safely it reduces traffic for everyone, and it’s good exercise for those involved. I would just like everyone on the road, driver, cyclist, and pedestrian alike, to be safe. My experience, statistical evidence, and your own words indicate that many cyclists do not truly believe in the “Same Roads, Same Rules” motto. They should.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
This behavior is encouraged by roadway design that doesn’t accommodate cyclists. Yes, yes, everybody should always obey the law not matter how the road is designed, blah blah blah. Drivers on highways that have an 85 mph design speed should always obey the law when the state puts up 45 mph speed limit signs. Guess what – they’re not gonna. People behave as the design of the road tells them to behave.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Bike lanes are extremely dangerous for cyclists. Yglesias should really stop posing as a transit wonk since he obviously has no idea what he’s talking about.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“Fluffy, you SHOULD stop pissing on the rug. And, as a matter of principle, I’m not buying you a bigger litter box until you do.”
That’s not going to make your living room smell any better.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Same roads same rules is a good way to get killed by a car when you ride a bike. I like the motto ‘Pay Attention’ better.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Wear lights and bright colored clothes and don’t ride like a dipshit and you’ll be fine on a bike. Making people read the following would do more than a thousand bike lanes, which are silly patronage operations that kill cyclists by putting them in the door zone:
http://bicyclesafe.com/
July 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Drivers who don’t care for bikers could spend some time driving in Amsterdam; that would be funny.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
35: Road design forces cyclists to ignore red lights?
36: Didn’t know that. Is this true, anyone?
37: That’s, ummm…okay. If anyone would like to make joe’s argument for him in a sensical manner, please do so.
38: I find the idea that obeying red lights and traffic signs would get more cyclists killed, as opposed to less, quite novel. Presumably the slowing/stopped cars in your own lane are quite dangerous and you must flee them as quickly as possible by moving forward into a lane that’s likely occupied by faster-moving traffic. I now understand why Hue City had to be destroyed, in order to save it.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Good info on bike lane pros and cons here, including primary sources: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/bikelanes.html
The most anyone who knows what they’re talking about will say for bike lanes is that they don’t hurt and that if they get people cycling they’re worth doing. My experience (10 years as a daily commuter in Chicago) is that they’re actively dangerous because in a congested area the biggest threat to cyclists BY FAR is getting doored.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I think you’re confused on this red light running thing Craigo. Anyone who rides a bike into cross traffic gets what they deserve. On the other hand, rolling through a red light when there is no traffic coming is preferable to sitting by the cars next to you which are, as you say, quite dangerous and should be fled from as quickly as possible.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Call me a liar if you wish, but I see it everyday. If you want to pretend it doesn’t happen, be my guest. But I’m guessing that everyone who reads this has witnessed the same thing, so take that into account.
I wouldn’t call you a liar; but you certainly don’t know what the Hell you’re talking about. The OP was correct: I see a lot of cyclists. I see a lot of cyclists running through red lights. I think I’ve seen maybe one cyclist run through a red light at 30 mph. It was at the end of a steep downhill, and it was about 3 years ago. All you’ve shown is that you haven’t a clue what 30 mph looks like on a bicycle.
I’m guessing that if a driver ran a red light, they’d be outraged, and justifiably so. But IOIYAC
I’m guessing if someone started randomly firing off a handgun on your street, you’d be outraged, and justifiably so. But where’s your outrage when someone throws an empty Coke bottle on the sidewalk??? IOIYAL!!
July 17th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Some Dude, speaking of knowing what you’re talking about: did you notice that the lane under discussion is a dedicated bike lane, which cars of any kind aren’t allowed in (parking or otherwise)?
Craigo, no, cyclists are not going 30. You’re going to have to show me that on a radar gun before I buy it. If an ordinary person could easily go 30 on a level street on a bike, there wouldn’t be a whole lot for auto dealerships to do.
Joe’s litter-box argument is similar to the one I made upthread: that bike lanes (and other transportation networks) are created to make people safer, not to reward them for obeying the rules. In fact, they are very often made to incentivize an alternative to breaking the rules, which is what a litter-box does as well.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I was pretty impressed with how they deal with bicycles in Shanghai. They actually have separate lanes on every major road. Even better, they have special signals at traffic lights.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I find the idea that obeying red lights and traffic signs would get more cyclists killed, as opposed to less, quite novel.
Yes, education is often a disorienting, heady experience.
“”Women cyclists ‘risk death’ by obeying traffic lights”"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
July 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I can’t fully support bike lanes until more bicyclists start obeying the rules of the road. This includes signaling lane changes, staying off the sidewalk, and stopping at red lights until they turn green. Of course, many riders are great about this. But as a regular pedestrian and occasional driver, I frequently witness dangerous/illegal maneuvers by bicyclists.
I see this specious argument all to frequently when discussions about bike lanes come up.
Think about what you’re saying: will the same apply to auto drivers? Maybe until car drivers can cease making dangerous and illegal maneuvers that happen on freeways every day, they will cede their lanes a commuter rail right of way? If they decide to play nice, then they can have their road back.
Because this is the same standard you’re applying to bicyclists who have much less incentive to make illegal maneuvers because they have no protection from getting slammed by a three thousand pound hunk of metal going forty miles per hour.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Bike lanes are extremely dangerous for cyclists.
What I guess would be preferable would be a network of paths, like the ones found along waterways that cars would not be allowed to use. Although many of those are bad, not wide enough to accomodate both cyclists and pedestrians. But if bike commuting is strictly going to be a matter of riding at high speeds on streets shared with cars, showing up to work drenched in sweat, etc, you simply aren’t going to get adoption rates much beyond what you have right now.
The people one would realistically hope to induce to commute by bike won’t much resemble the ones who currently do it. The main difference is that they will be much slower riders, due not just to their fitness level, but also their tolerance of danger, and wanting to do their grooming at home rather than in the restroom at work.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Craigo,
Do you see the word “force” anywhere in my comment? Anywhere? No?
Read what I wrote. If you’d care to disagree with it, have at it.
To answer your cheap, irrelevant question: road design no more forces cyclists to run red lights than it forces drivers to run cyclists who are keeping to the right off the road. Nonetheless, that’s exactly what happens, given certain road designs.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Nobody else seems to be having any difficulty deciphering my childishly-simple metaphor.
I don’t think that feigning profound stupidity is quite as impressive an argument as you seem to imagine.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
But if bike commuting is strictly going to be a matter of riding at high speeds on streets shared with cars, showing up to work drenched in sweat, etc, you simply aren’t going to get adoption rates much beyond what you have right now.
You hear this a lot, but the District has not adopted a comprehensive system of dedicated bike paths, and the amount of bike commuting *has* gone up significantly over the last couple of decades. Watch 16th Street some morning or afternoon. Or East Capitol Street.
Nearly all of that has come from a change in attitude–not a change in infrastructure.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
One reason cyclists take to the sidewalks (and the only reason I ever do) is that they are on a road with no bike lane, and cars are backed up at a light and there isn’t enough room on the street to go between the stopped cars and the curb (or the stopped cars and the parked cars). While this is (in most jurisdictions) illegal and can be dangerous if the cyclist is heedless of pedestrians or doors while on the sidewalk, the alternative is to sit in the middle of idling traffic right behind a car and inhale a bunch of poisonous fumes. If there were a bike lane, the cyclist could cruise past the backed up cars, and if the light still hasn’t changed by the time the cyclist reaches the intersection, the cyclist can wait more comfortable to the side of cars rather than right behind their exhaust pipes.
If my argument is valid, then people who desire to make travel safer and more efficient for everyone should find themselves more likely to support bike lanes, at least if implemented intelligently. People who desire simply to punish cyclists, however, will not be moved.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
43: The problem is that, in practice, you can’t tell if traffic is coming. In dense neighborhoods the line of sight down side streets isn’t sufficient for a cyclist to say “Okay, it’s safe.” I know everyone here is quite proud of their traffic skills and of course they can tell where traffic is coming, just as everyone who speeds is quite sure they can keep their vehicle under control. Both are wrong.
Thanks for engaging in good faith, though. Few here are willing to do that.
44: Okay. I didn’t see what I saw. It doesn’t speak well for your argument or character that you’re unwilling to concede the possibility that a cyclists easily can and do reach those speeds.
45: Ditto. I live in Pittsburgh, by the way, and we have things called hills. I hear that there also other places in the world where streets are not perfectly level.
47: You don’t seem willing to address the point. 43, on the other hand, did a much better, but still deeply flawed, version of your argument, but you don’t seem capable of rational debate. For the record, if a red light is in effect for your lane, it means that cross-traffic is moving. Indeed, it may be coming down the block, even though it’s currently outside your field of vision. Risking this cross-traffic is, of course, much safer than remaining outside it. Also, war is peace.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
51: “Childish” – that’s the word I was looking for. Thanks.
But I don’t think feigning stupidity is impressive. for that matter, I don’t think you’re feigning.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
53: That’s a good point. Do you have a response for the idea that they dangerously “put cyclists into the door lane,” if I’m quoting that correctly?
July 17th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
For the record, if a red light is in effect for your lane, it means that cross-traffic is moving.
Again, wrong.
If a red light is in effect for your lane, it could mean cross-traffic is moving. It could also mean that there is no cross-traffic coming. Or that cross traffic has stopped because their light has gone to yellow, then to red, and the red-light for your lane is about to change to green. Folks that leave the house on occasion, and go about their lives are pretty familiar with such ambiguities.
I suppose you’re one of those pedestrians that stands glumly, staring at the “Don’t Walk” sign, as all the normal, well-adjusted pedestrians do what humans do: i.e. look both ways, make sure no cars are coming, and just walk across the street.
Do you yell, “Jaywalker!!” after them? Do they seem to care?
July 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“You don’t seem willing to address the point. 43, on the other hand, did a much better, but still deeply flawed, version of your argument”
what’s deeply flawed? I ride in downtown San Francisco all the time, and if I see traffic coming I don’t cross. Pretty simple. Why this annoys you just can’t tell. When rules are written with cyclists in mind I’ll follow them.
I’ll give you that bikes can go 30mph down hills, we got those here too. But anybody blazing a light at 30mph on a bike gets what they deserve. A car doing it, somebody else pays the price.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
45–yes. Both kinds are very dangerous. Problem with dedicated paths is where they intersect w other traffic. Euro cities have had bad results. really, its not as if these issues haven’t been studied in detail.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I usually drive, but have occasionally been a pedestrian. Yet I always see pedestrians crossing the road against the light. It seems like they think the laws don’t apply to them.
I will *never* support sidewalks until pedestrians learn to obey the laws just like cars.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I suspected you had not actual rebuttal to my point. Thanks for confirming it.
Once again, here’s the argument you can’t answer:
It has long been established that drivers behave in the way the design of the road system tells them too, not the way the law tells them too. You can put a 25 mph sign on a wide, sweeping highway exit ramp, but if the lane is 22 feet wide, the curve is gentle, and there is no oncoming traffic or parked cars or sidewalks or buildings nearby, drivers are going to take it between 45 mph and 65 mph. Similarly, as various traffic calming projects have shown, if you provide visual cues and roadway designs that make it clear that drivers are passing through somebody’s neighborhood, where there are people parking cars and crossing the street and bicycling, they slow down.
Provide bicyclists with clear lanes where they will feel, and be, safe, and they will turn into the most civic-minded, law-abiding people on the road…“Fluffy, you SHOULD stop pissing on the rug. And, as a matter of principle, I’m not buying you a bigger litter box until you do.”
That’s not going to make your living room smell any better.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Cyclists go on the sidewalk because they dont know better. Problem isnt lanes, its that people think bikes are toys so they arent taught to ride safely. Cant tell you how many times Ive seen someone with a helmet on but no lights going against traffic–in a bike lane! Street design is part of the answer but really we need better education, possibly even (and advocates hate this idea) licensing, if only because a mandatory safety course would save lives. Of cours sharing the road should be taught to drivers too
July 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
57: Cropping my post to eliminate a section inconvenevient to your argument – ahh, intellectual honesty. Here’s what you missed: “Indeed, it may be coming down the block, even if it’s outside your field of vision.”
You see, there are these things called buildings, which are often found between streets. They’re solid objects, generally impossible to see through. This has the effect of blocking the view down the street. Unfortunately, traffic may be traveling along this street, despite your wish to cross it.
Remember, the study differentiates between those who “run” red lights, and those who slow or stop, and then run it anyway. The former can’t tell if traffic is coming. The latter generally creeps up to the crosswalk or beyond to peek – also illegal and dangerous, by the way.
But I know, I know. Everyone has fantastic eyesight, lightning-fast reflexes, x-ray vision, etc. No matter how reckless the behavior described in the study may seem to mere law-abiding mortals, the superhuman abilities of those who run red lights ensure that they never, ever cause accidents or near-misses.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Craig [may has well have] wrote:
Remember, the study differentiates between those who “jaywalk”, and those who slow or stop, and then jaywalk anyway. The former can’t tell if traffic is coming. The latter generally creeps up to the crosswalk or beyond to peek – also illegal and dangerous, by the way.
But I know, I know. Everyone has fantastic eyesight, lightning-fast reflexes, x-ray vision, etc. No matter how reckless the behavior described in the study may seem to mere law-abiding mortals, the superhuman abilities of those who jaywalk ensure that they never, ever cause accidents or near-misses.
Man, you must be blast at parties. “You over there! TIE YOUR SHOES!!!”
July 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
61: I didn’t address it, because you’re not addressing mine. I’m arguing the common-sense position that ignoring red lights and stop signs is dangerous and illegal behavior, despite the exceptionalism and impatience of some cyclists.
I support bike lanes, providing that they’re really safe for cyclists and not dangerous as one poster alleged. But bike lane or no, the evidence shows that if a cyclist sees a red light or stop sign, he’s going to pretend that he doesn’t.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I’m arguing the common-sense position that ignoring red lights and stop signs is dangerous and illegal behavior, despite the exceptionalism and impatience of some cyclists.
Boy, I’d sure like to see some numbers to back that up.
Because if it’s so common for cyclists to treat red-lights and the stop-signs as yield-signs (basically what we’re talking about), and cycling fatalities (even serious cycling injuries) are so rare, it seems to me the “common-sense position” is that cyclist behavior is not all that dangerous at all.
Either that or the average American driver is just so skilled and alert that he’s able to compensate for the cyclist’s flaws.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
64: You’re evading the point, which is transparent for anyone reading this. The ad hominems aren’t worth my time, even if they’re worth yours.
37% of cyclists in the study didn’t even slow or stop before running the light. As a thought example, suppose a cyclist does this, which you hold is perfectly reasonable. This being a dense neighborhood with poor lines of sight (and presumably because a cyclist who doesn’t slow has very little time to check) he doesn’t see cross-traffic coming, and there’s a collision. You’re the judge. How do you apportion the blame?
July 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Wrong. I don’t pretend I don’t see a red light or stop sign. I see it. I choose to roll through it when it’s safe. What’s so hard for you to understand about personal responsiblity? Cycling in an urban enviornment is about efficiency. If I stop at every light, which is every block where I live, even when there is no traffic coming then I’m never going to get anywhere. You should ride a bike on the street more, then you might know what you’re talking about
July 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
my last comment referenced 65, oops
July 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
68: Let’s be honest. It’s not about inefficiency, it’s impatience. You don’t want to wait.
And again, you’re ignoring the point. In a location like, say, midtown Manhattan, you can’t tell if there’s no traffic coming all of the time, maybe not even most of the time. They have a large number of building inconveniently obstructing lines of sight in places like midtown Manhattan. Yet more than one out of three cyclists, despite not being able to tell if cyclists are coming, chose to run the light without slowing. More than half ran the red light in all cases (with the difference being the category you put yourself into, those who slow or stop and the run it).
July 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
37% of cyclists in the study didn’t even slow or stop before running the light.
Sorry, no that’s not what study said. The study said, “Thirty-seven percent rode through red lights, while 28.7 percent paused to look — then ran the light.” It’s poorly written, so the meaning is ambiguous, but the likeliest interpretation is that 28.7 “paused to look”, meaning they came to a brief stop, looked, then continued on through the intersection.
37% rode through without “paus[ing]“. In other words, they approached the intersection, determined that it was safe to proceed, then rode through without coming to a stop.
Depending on the time of day and the intersection, this could be perfectly safe behavior.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
67.Sightlines. Ever ridden a bike in midtown Manhattan? Being on a bike puts your eyes above the level of most cars, you can see a lot. Streets are pretty wide, as you approach a corner you can see more and more, your sightline improves. Crossing Avenues you tend to have cars bunched in groups with pretty few soloists. These solo cars can be seen across 4 lanes pretty well, the near lanes become visible as you approach the corner. You really can cross the street. It can be done. You act as if cyclists stare straight ahead and close their eyes as they hurtle through intersections.
It’s inefficient to slow down, stop, then pedal from a stop get back up to speed and do it again- all because this red thing( or THE LAW if you will) tells me to.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Ah, here’s the actual wording:
More than one-third of cyclists (37%) did not stop at all at red
lights. In addition, another 28.7 percent paused at a red light
but then went through the light while it was still red.
Not to pick nits, but its a misrepresentation to say the study claims 37% “didn’t even slow”.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
71: That’s incorrect. You obviously didn’t read the study, therefore you probably shouldn’t be commenting on it.
From page 7: “More than one-third of cyclists (37%) did not stop at all at red lights. In addition, another 28.7 percent paused at a red light but then went through the light while it was still red.”
July 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Nice, you’re a self-refuting troll! V. convenient…
July 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Also, this behavior was more pronounced among men (who tend to be more reckless overall) and among those who don’t wear helmets, whoobviously have little disregard for safety.
It was also far more common at night, when it’s actually far more difficult to see a cyclist.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
It was also far more common at night, when it’s actually far more difficult to see a cyclist.
…when there’s far less traffic, and obvious gaps in traffic are more likely. Same reason you’ll sometimes see light-controlled intersections with flashing yellow lights during off-hours.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
but easier to see a car
July 17th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Oh, one other thing: that sampling is *heavily* weighted in favor of “commercial” cyclists (i.e. couriers).
Craigo sez, “Always wear your helmet!!!”
July 17th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
77: You ignored the fact male and helmet-less riders (ie, more reckless riders) are far more likely to run red lights.
Also, if there’s far less traffic at night and it’s okay, why is it okay during the day, when there’s (according to you) far more?
And, less traffic in Manhattan between 6 pm and 10 pm (the night hours of the study). Uh-huh. We’re not talking about Idaho, here.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
79: I’m not sure why that matters to you. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving, whether you’re cyclist, commercial, general, behind the wheel of a sedan, truck, whatever.
Also, they provided subgroup breakdowns.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
81. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving, unless it’s safe. In which case it isn’t dangerous. Why you can’t understand this is beyond me. I think they were right on upthread somewhere; “TIE YOUR SHOES”, indeed.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I said:
[It was also far more common at night]…when there’s far less traffic, and obvious gaps in traffic are more likely. Same reason you’ll sometimes see light-controlled intersections with flashing yellow lights during off-hours.
Craigo said:
77: You ignored the fact male and helmet-less riders (ie, more reckless riders) are far more likely to run red lights.
Um, Huh?
Also, if there’s far less traffic at night and it’s okay, why is it okay during the day, when there’s (according to you) far more?
I’m not sure this parses the way you intended.
Anyway, this is just getting silly. Look, clearly if such behavior were dangerous, it’d be showing up in the accident statistics. It’s not. Instead, we’ve got a bunch of drivers and fellow-traveling concern-trolls with a hair up their ass because some guy in a Molenti jersey didn’t put both feet down at a stop-sign. The arrogance!!
Meanwhile, there is someone else, on some other comment section somewhere–probably in a thread concerning sidewalk construction–who won’t stop beating the dead horse that pedestrians are the scourge of the Western world, and jaywalkers should have their feet cut off.
(Oh, and the fact that drivers universally exceed the speed limit in urban environments by 5-15 mph is insignificant when talking about traffic safety.)
Tiresome. I’m going to go ride, sans helmet, to my local bar…and run a few stop-sign/red-lights in your honor. I’ll let you know if I kill anyone, or wind up dead on the side of the road.
Given the stats, it seems unlikely, though.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
So is speeding on a highway exit ramp. So is speeding through a neighborhood in your car. People SHOULD not do that.
Now, in the real world, people WILL speed on highway exit ramps and neighborhood streets, and will bob and weave around traffic on their bicycles regardless of the rules of the road, more or less often based on the design of the roads.
If you want people – drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, whatever – to behave a certain way on the roads, if you are unhappy with how they are making their way through the street, if the established pattern of roadway usage is working a certain way, the issue is with the roadway design.
I don’t think people SHOULD drive 40 mph down a residential street. That’s dangerous and thoughtless. However, if the street consists of 55 feet of unmarked pavement width and big, wide curves, they WILL. If you really want to do something about it, you need to redesign the street.
You put the cart before the horse: roadway design begate behavior. Holding forth on what bad people some bicyclists are isn’t going to change that.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
joe from lowell: “roadway design begate behavior”
I like the way you think! Bad design causes bad behaviour, which designers then blame on bad users (user centred design 101).
Kyle
July 18th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Just the other day I had a cyclist raise his fist and shout obscenities at me. Why? Because I pulled out right in front of him at a 4-way stop at which he had no intention of stopping. I never saw him – because I couldn’t see him – but even if I had, I would have expected him to stop. He, however, seemed to expect me to know that he was going to plow through.
Of course I do get angry when drivers ignore the rules of the road. But the difference is that with cyclists what I’m afraid of is that I’m going to hit them. They present a daily threat to me that I will injure or kill one of them and that I will be found at fault even if I wasn’t, and have to pay the consequences.
After you’re dead in the intersection and I’m traumatized for life, no one will know that you decided with impunity to run the red light because you thought it was safe. You won’t be there to absolve me of blame. (Although judging from experience you might blame me for not having ESP).
July 20th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
After you’re dead in the intersection and I’m traumatized for life, no one will know that you decided with impunity to run the red light because you thought it was safe. You won’t be there to absolve me of blame.
As has been pointed out over, and over, and over, and over:
Since the chance of that happening are statistically almost nil for an adult excercising due caution, I’ll take my chances, thanks, just as I do when I jaywalk.