Bicycle Advoctea working against themselves?

I've been reading a number of bicycling forums, bolgs and so on and have noticed something interesting. Many bicyclists SUPPORT being able to run red lghts and stop signs as well as not using either reflectors or lights at night because "statistics" don't support that many such bicyclists get hit or killed. These bicyclists also don't seem to be all that against riding the wrong direction on streets either. What gets me is that they wonder why so many motorists and pedestrians want bicyclists to be either licensed or off the roads entirely. Posting that it's okay to ride through red lights/stop signs or to ride without lights or reflectors at night and to ride in the wrong direction on streets is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to advocating for bicycles on the roads. Talk about giving the other side ots of ammunition to use a gainst you! Makes me wonder why there is such strong denial that those behaviours exist and are at times quite frequent.

Cheers

On Mon, 16 May 2016 20:46:26 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I've been reading a number of bicycling forums, bolgs and so on and have noticed something interesting. Many bicyclists SUPPORT being able to run red lghts and stop signs as well as not using either reflectors or lights at night because "statistics" don't support that many such bicyclists get hit or killed. These bicyclists also don't seem to be all that against riding the wrong direction on streets either. What gets me is that they wonder why so many motorists and pedestrians want bicyclists to be either licensed or off the roads entirely. Posting that it's okay to ride through red lights/stop signs or to ride without lights or reflectors at night and to ride in the wrong direction on streets is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to advocating for bicycles on the roads. Talk about giving the other side ots of ammunition to use a gainst you! Makes me wonder why there is such strong denial that those behaviours exist and are at times quite frequent.

Cheers

One can only speculate. Perhaps the bulk of the approximately 700
people that die on bicycles annually in the U.S. are those who are
running red lights and stop signs, failing to use reflectors and
lights and driving the wrong way.

Perhaps what we perceive as danger, danger, is simply Darwin in
action?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 16/05/2016 11:46 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I've been reading a number of bicycling forums, bolgs and so on and have noticed something interesting. Many bicyclists SUPPORT being able to run red lghts and stop signs as well as not using either reflectors or lights at night because "statistics" don't support that many such bicyclists get hit or killed. These bicyclists also don't seem to be all that against riding the wrong direction on streets either. What gets me is that they wonder why so many motorists and pedestrians want bicyclists to be either licensed or off the roads entirely. Posting that it's okay to ride through red lights/stop signs or to ride without lights or reflectors at night and to ride in the wrong direction on streets is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to advocating for bicycles on the roads. Talk about giving the other side ots of ammunition to use a gainst you! Makes me wonder why there is such strong denial that those behaviours exist and are at times quite frequent.

Cheers



All of those things are illegal in Quebec. I don't see many people
advising to break those laws except maybe the stop sign law. We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

On 5/17/2016 5:08 AM, Duane wrote:
On 16/05/2016 11:46 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I've been reading a number of bicycling forums, bolgs and so on and
have noticed something interesting. Many bicyclists SUPPORT being able
to run red lghts and stop signs as well as not using either reflectors
or lights at night because "statistics" don't support that many such
bicyclists get hit or killed. These bicyclists also don't seem to be
all that against riding the wrong direction on streets either. What
gets me is that they wonder why so many motorists and pedestrians want
bicyclists to be either licensed or off the roads entirely. Posting
that it's okay to ride through red lights/stop signs or to ride
without lights or reflectors at night and to ride in the wrong
direction on streets is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to advocating for
bicycles on the roads. Talk about giving the other side ots of
ammunition to use a gainst you! Makes me wonder why there is such
strong denial that those behaviours exist and are at times quite
frequent.

Cheers



All of those things are illegal in Quebec. I don't see many people
advising to break those laws except maybe the stop sign law. We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of sense.
But in most locales in my area the police already informally have
adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at 20MPH, but
slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going to get you a
ticket.

Per Duane:
We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

At least one state in the USA does that - but I cannot recall which -
but the common name for it is "Idaho Stop".
--
Pete Cresswell

On 17/05/2016 3:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Duane:
We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

At least one state in the USA does that - but I cannot recall which -
but the common name for it is "Idaho Stop".

Same thing here in Quebec though it's also sometime called an American stop.

On 5/17/2016 12:50 PM, Duane wrote:
On 17/05/2016 3:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Duane:
We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

At least one state in the USA does that - but I cannot recall which -
but the common name for it is "Idaho Stop".

Same thing here in Quebec though it's also sometime called an American
stop.

Vehicles have been doing the "California Stop" for a long time. I warn
my kids to not do it while driving. But it's hopeless to educate SwMBO
who has gotten a ticket for doing it but still does it.

The thing is, that even for cars, a rolling stop is not a big deal but
it's such an easy ticket for cops that they love giving them out. In San
Francisco, there are some places where a rolling stop for cars is the
rule rather than the exception, due to a steep hill, especially with a
manual transmission.

On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 2:11:43 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2016 12:50 PM, Duane wrote:
On 17/05/2016 3:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Duane:
We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

At least one state in the USA does that - but I cannot recall which -
but the common name for it is "Idaho Stop".

Same thing here in Quebec though it's also sometime called an American
stop.

Vehicles have been doing the "California Stop" for a long time. I warn
my kids to not do it while driving. But it's hopeless to educate SwMBO
who has gotten a ticket for doing it but still does it.

The thing is, that even for cars, a rolling stop is not a big deal but
it's such an easy ticket for cops that they love giving them out. In San
Francisco, there are some places where a rolling stop for cars is the
rule rather than the exception, due to a steep hill, especially with a
manual transmission.

It's interesting riding with other cyclists and experience the continuum of compliance -- from the scrupulous to the scofflaws. I've been riding lately with a bunch of older racers, and stop signs are regarded as yield signs.. I rode with my son and his cohorts in SLC, and they didn't so much as slow down for some stops. It's "what they do." I usually slow and always stop when there are cars, if only cars behind me. We have sting operations for cyclists who fail to stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60 This intersection got a sting, for obvious reasons.

-- Jay Beattie

On 5/17/2016 3:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Duane:
We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

At least one state in the USA does that - but I cannot recall which -
but the common name for it is "Idaho Stop".

It's Idaho, Pete.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/17/2016 6:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:


It's interesting riding with other cyclists and experience the continuum of compliance -- from the scrupulous to the scofflaws. I've been riding lately with a bunch of older racers, and stop signs are regarded as yield signs. I rode with my son and his cohorts in SLC, and they didn't so much as slow down for some stops. It's "what they do." I usually slow and always stop when there are cars, if only cars behind me. We have sting operations for cyclists who fail to stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60 This intersection got a sting, for obvious reasons.

I almost always make a show of acknowledging a stop sign, but it's
rarely a complete stop. I do slow way down, conspicuously look both
ways, and stand while pedaling away. But I seldom completely stop
unless I actually need to for real life traffic purposes. The only stop
signs I sometimes roll at speed are those put up in low traffic
residential streets, obviously to reduce car speeds. But those
generally don't meet legal warrants anyway.

I've done my near-stop directly in front of a police car, at a four-way
stop, and never heard a whisper about it.

The other day, at a fairly busy four-way stop, I did my usual trick,
which is waving through the guy to my right who had the right of way. I
find it reduces the "You go... no, you go" politeness wars, and gets
things moving a lot more quickly.

This guy was so amazed he shouted out the window "Are you sure??" before
waving thanks and proceeding.

--
- Frank Krygowski