stop signs
Oct. 18th, 2009 09:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacHere's an interesting article on whether bicycles should obey traffic laws, particularly stop signs. The problem, as the article explains, is momentum: having to stop frequently is extremely fatiguing on a bicycle, and pointless when there's clearly no cross traffic.
What the article doesn't mention is that it's equally pointless for cars. Nevertheless American traffic enforcement is obsessive about coming to "a complete stop" and frustratingly vague about what counts as "a complete stop" while pretending that it's a simple binary condition. I've learned by hard experience that coming to a complete stop is insufficient; you need to stay stopped for some small but unknown number of seconds, but no cop will tell you what that number is or admit that there is one.
I warn visiting Britons who might be driving in the U.S. about this obsession, because it would be completely alien to them. (The other thing alien to them is that "keep to the slow lane except when overtaking" is never followed here, even though Americans think they do it.) Aside from a few blind intersections, the stop sign is essentially unknown in Britain, and even the traffic light is rare. Traffic is managed by roundabouts and a system of painted lines which indicate who yields to whom. If there's somebody coming, and you have the yield line, you stop; if nobody's coming, you just go.
A much more civilized system, and what I follow on a bicycle. I do not run red lights, however. If there is no cross traffic and the light had slammed red just as I arrive - which happens often enough that I am inclined to disbelieve in coincidence - I will sometimes turn right onto a small cross street, make a U-turn and come back. But that's the closest thing to an exception, and I won't do it if there's traffic. I also stop at the stop sign if there's traffic. And only on narrow local roads, and not if they're congested, will I pull out into the traffic lane before making a left turn. I never do what I see many bicyclists doing, which is crossing multiple traffic lanes into a signalled left turn lane. I consider that insanely dangerous. To make a left turn at a major signal I use the pedestrian walk lights. (But I ride, not walk, across the intersection.)
The common thread here, though, is: only if it's safe, only if there's nobody coming. I would not risk startling or confusing a car driver, or even worse - for them, if not for me - a pedestrian. I regret that, in my capacities as a pedestrian or another bicyclist as well as as a car driver, I often see dangerous, arrogant behavior by bicyclists, to the extent that it's sometimes startling to see a cautious, polite bicyclist. But then I noticed something. Dangerous, arrogant bicyclists are always wearing spandex. Most of those who aren't, don't.
What the article doesn't mention is that it's equally pointless for cars. Nevertheless American traffic enforcement is obsessive about coming to "a complete stop" and frustratingly vague about what counts as "a complete stop" while pretending that it's a simple binary condition. I've learned by hard experience that coming to a complete stop is insufficient; you need to stay stopped for some small but unknown number of seconds, but no cop will tell you what that number is or admit that there is one.
I warn visiting Britons who might be driving in the U.S. about this obsession, because it would be completely alien to them. (The other thing alien to them is that "keep to the slow lane except when overtaking" is never followed here, even though Americans think they do it.) Aside from a few blind intersections, the stop sign is essentially unknown in Britain, and even the traffic light is rare. Traffic is managed by roundabouts and a system of painted lines which indicate who yields to whom. If there's somebody coming, and you have the yield line, you stop; if nobody's coming, you just go.
A much more civilized system, and what I follow on a bicycle. I do not run red lights, however. If there is no cross traffic and the light had slammed red just as I arrive - which happens often enough that I am inclined to disbelieve in coincidence - I will sometimes turn right onto a small cross street, make a U-turn and come back. But that's the closest thing to an exception, and I won't do it if there's traffic. I also stop at the stop sign if there's traffic. And only on narrow local roads, and not if they're congested, will I pull out into the traffic lane before making a left turn. I never do what I see many bicyclists doing, which is crossing multiple traffic lanes into a signalled left turn lane. I consider that insanely dangerous. To make a left turn at a major signal I use the pedestrian walk lights. (But I ride, not walk, across the intersection.)
The common thread here, though, is: only if it's safe, only if there's nobody coming. I would not risk startling or confusing a car driver, or even worse - for them, if not for me - a pedestrian. I regret that, in my capacities as a pedestrian or another bicyclist as well as as a car driver, I often see dangerous, arrogant behavior by bicyclists, to the extent that it's sometimes startling to see a cautious, polite bicyclist. But then I noticed something. Dangerous, arrogant bicyclists are always wearing spandex. Most of those who aren't, don't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 05:38 pm (UTC)I used to ride a bicycle a lot. When I felt it was appropriate, I rode in the car lanes, for example when making left turns on big streets. In that situation, it is necessary for bicyclists to keep up with the car traffic, be visible, make signals, and obey the same rules that apply to cars.
I don't think there is any meaningful correlation between what a bicyclist wears and the safety of their behavior. Wearing spandex could be a sign of a serious recreational or competitive cyclist, or it could be a dilettante with too much money.
The hard thing, by the way, is identifying dangerous car drivers.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 09:55 pm (UTC)It is depressingly easy to make this correlation regarding bicyclist garb, which is why I did so. It's almost as easy with drivers: the majority, though not all, dangerous drivers are wearing cell phones.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 11:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 01:58 am (UTC)I have also changed my bike route because I needed to cross low-traffic streets with traffic signals: my bike was not heavy enough to trigger the signal and the button for the pedestrian light is very far away -- impossible for a bicyclist to reach without getting off the bike and walking onto the sidewalk for a bit. Very frustrating. Sometimes the scarier-looking routes are better. (E.g., Mathilda is safer to ride down than Hollenbeck in Sunnyvale -- nice bike lane on Mathilda, regardless of all the cars zipping by quickly vs. residential Hollenbeck with parked cars and crazed parents driving like maniacs to drop their kids off at schools.)
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 02:04 am (UTC)[re-reads three or four times]
Oh, you mean that kind of screeching to a halt that a car makes when it brakes suddenly. Maybe that explains why I got the tickets: I don't usually drive like that. I bring the car gently to a stop without rocking back and forth like a maniac. Apparently if you don't do that visibly enough for the cop's dim eyesight, he thinks you haven't stopped. Good grief.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 04:11 am (UTC)The law is the law
Date: 2009-10-19 05:39 pm (UTC)As long as it's the law, any bicyclist travelling on a road must obey it. It's annoying when the police bring purely subjective judgments into traffic citations, too, but that's what court is for: you can argue your case to a judge, or even in front of jury in many jurisdictions. I agree about the correlation between spandex and flagrant disregard for the laws of the road. I live near White Rock Lake in Dallas, a wonderful spot for joggers, dog-walkers, and bicyclists. Sadly, many of the latter are all decked out in spandex and zooming through stop signs without making the slightest effort even to slow down (my time! my time!). This occurs even in dangerous conditions, such as twilight or during rainy weather. On numerous occasions, I have been walking my dogs and have nearly been plowed into at 20 mph. These cyclists will often swear loudly at me for being in their way as they pass through the stop sign -- I am not kidding. Luckily, the police sometimes set up out there and ticket these cyclists. I love that; I'll just stand back and watch with a big smile on my face.
Even so, they continue to do it. It's gotten so bad that I'll sometimes dare to just stand there and block the intersection, forcing them to stop. I know it's passive-agressive. Sue me; I'm not the one running the stop sign. I'm the reason the stop sign is there!
Re: The law is the law
Date: 2009-10-19 05:56 pm (UTC)I condemn bicyclists who ride in a manner dangerous to those around them, and did so in the post. But forcing them to conform exactly to stop signs when there is nobody else who'll be affected by it - not the situation you're describing - is stupid. And for that matter it's stupid with cars too.
And a "the law is the law" attitude is dangerous as well. First, I note that cops seem to have their own idea of what exactly "the law" requires, which is not written into the statutes and which they are unwilling to share with others, particularly in advance. Second, it's a purely binary attitude which would condemn someone driving 40 in a 35 zone as severely as someone driving 90. "The law is the law," after all, it's clearly marked, and they both broke it.
Is a stop sign just a suggestion?
Date: 2009-10-19 06:51 pm (UTC)As for the "purely binary attitude which would condemn someone driving 40 in a 35 zone as severely as someone driving 90", my understanding is that the cost of the ticket increases with the severity of the violation. The punishment is not equal. All that is binary is the question: speeding or not speeding? Technically, you can get a speeding ticket for going as little as 1 mph over the limit.
And as for your view that "forcing [bicylists] to conform exactly to stop signs when there is nobody else who'll be affected by it [...] is stupid", the problem is that you may not absolutely *know* there is no one there to be affected by it until you've already broken the law and confirmed you were right. But what if you weren't right? Often, people think the coast is clear and proceed, only to find out it wasn't clear after all. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the stop sign is just a suggestion. I may find is slightly annoying to have to stop when I don't see anybody coming the other way, but I stop just the same. Without fail.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 09:14 pm (UTC)Here's some more news for you. At least, this is how we are taught in California. On a freeway, if you are going the speed limit (or any speed, for that matter) in the fast lane and find speeders piling up behind you, you change lanes to the right. That is the proper course of action that avoids either error.
If the road is single lane and the faster traffic cannot pass (e.g. a winding mountain road), you must pull over and let it by. The specific rule is a maximum of five cars behind you: at that point, you must pull over into the first available turnout, or risk a ticket.
In either case, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you are going, or how fast or slow the other traffic is. You cannot obstruct it, but you are not expected to exceed the speed limit in order not to do so.
Technically, yes, you can get a speeding ticket for even 1 mph over. But unless road conditions are bad (e.g. horrid weather) - in which case you can get a speeding ticket even UNDER the posted speed limit - the point is that you never do. Because even cops are not as rigidly binary as you are.
If you looked at the article I linked to, you will note that giving bicycles tickets for running stop signs is very rare. Because, again, cops for all their flaws generally have more sense.
Now, your last paragraph argues that it's not just illegal to coast through a stop sign, but physically dangerous. If so, then the entire yield system in Britain is even more dangerous. But in fact it works perfectly well. And even in the US, accidents can and do happen even with stop signs, and not just because drivers, pummeled by egregious and unnecessary ones, tend to discount them. You can stop and do everything right and still be hit by an unexpected cross car, even one not driving illegally. So, again, this is not a binary difference between safe and unsafe.
For that matter, I have recently noted through personal experience that your back highways in Texas have speed limits that would be considered excessively high in California, or even across the state line in Louisiana, where the speed limit abruptly lowers considerably as you cross the border. If California's and Louisiana's idea of a safe speed is correct, and if safe has this binary edge that you're assuming, then Texas not only allows but encourages unsafe driving. You should be alarmed. Actually, I had no problem with the speed and found driving in Texas to be a pleasure, but then I don't have this weird idea of what's safe and what isn't.
bycyclist vs. pedestrian
Date: 2009-10-26 12:46 am (UTC)