Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: canuguzzi on December 15, 2015, 08:15:14 PM
-
The proposal says that bicycles can treat stop signs as yield signs. The idea is that resources should not be used to enforce low priority laws.
What could possibly go wrong?
With bicycles easily going faster than posted city speed limits, this could create huge impacts (pun intended) to pedestrians and other vehicles on the road, including motorcycles. We tend to be more observant than the typical sled driver but even so, with that proposal you'd have tobwatch for bicycles that just blow through stop signs.
The spped limit for going through a yield sign is 15 mph or conditions, whichever is slower.
Ever see a bicyclist try to stop in a hurry? It is a slide though but rarely a stop.
-
I can stop my bike on a dime
I am not coming to a full complete stop at sign nor light; I don't care if it's legal or not.
filtering and rolling stops on a bike are to non-bicyclists as lanesplitting is to non-motorcyclists.. if you havent mastered it, you cant understand the benefits or safety aspects, it just 'looks' dangerous; so the knee-jerk reaction is to say ban it.
I also refuse to wear a cycle helmet unless i'm mountainbiking..but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
-
I don't come to a complete stop either when riding my bicycle.
-
I almost never stop for stop signs when on bicycle either ; slow down enough to assess the situation , if I can't get all the way across I turn right and pedal slowly til I get a chance to cross . Un-clipping from pedals , putting a foot down and re-starting is unnecessary ; most bicyclists can make it look like they stopped without actually stopping ( < 1 mph ) . Never blow through a stop sign at speed unless I can see for a long way ; that's for Darwin Award aspirants .
One reason they may be considering this in SF is that it's hilly there , and it's hard to start again on a hill .
-
I can stop my bike on a dime
I am not coming to a full complete stop at sign nor light; I don't care if it's legal or not.
filtering and rolling stops on a bike are to non-bicyclists as lanesplitting is to non-motorcyclists.. if you havent mastered it, you cant understand the benefits or safety aspects, it just 'looks' dangerous; so the knee-jerk reaction is to say ban it.
I also refuse to wear a cycle helmet unless i'm mountainbiking..but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Wow...just wow. Safety last here! Legal or not, SF proposing this opens up an interesting legal situation...when a car hits a bicyclist who is going thru a stop sign and fails to yield, who is at fault now? You have to be an idiot to believe that treating it as a yield makes sense...that would imply that the other direction has no stop sign or stop light...what if they do and you still collide. The only time it makes sense to blow thru stop signs is when it's obvious there is no traffic, a situation which NEVER occurs in San Francisco unless it's maybe 3 am...bloody idiots these city council/planner folks making this proposal.
-
A bicycle going 25 mph can't stop on a dime and better than anything else, in other words they can't, there are people run over by bicyclists to prove it.
How is blowing through stop signs the same as lane splitting. As it stands, one is legal (lane splitting) the other is not. A proposal is not the same as a passed law.
As for helmets, its your head.
-
Let the lawsuits begin!
Ralph
-
Cali law says that since bikes and cars share the same roads they share the same laws. If the sign says stop, that is what you do. That said, when I lived in Chicago and biked to work, stop signs were, to me, merely a suggestion.
-
Been a law in Idaho for quite a while. It's even called an Idaho stop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
-
Mayor has threaten to veto. That sets up a huge confrontation between him and the bicycle coalitions. SF already had dedicated bike lanes, allows cars to cross yellow lines to go around bicycles and things like that.
I'm all for the bike lanes. The three riding abreast and expecting everyone else to drive around them, not so much. The stop sign thing? When you see this in practice, it isn't a slow down, look and proceed slowly, its blast through a hope no one gets run over, pedestrian or bicyclist. Happens fairly regularly.
-
Surely common sense says if a bicycle does no slow considerably for a STOP or Yield sign they fail to yield. Stop on a bicycle or motorcycle means putting a foot down (well at least for 95% of us) The ordinance, known as the Bike Yield Law, would instruct cops to treat cyclists who roll slowly and cautiously through stop signs as their lowest enforcement priority. It would, in essence, permit the so-called Idaho stop, in which a person on a bike is allowed to approach a stop sign, check for conflicts with drivers and people on foot, then roll through without coming to a complete halt—essentially treating it as a yield sign.
Motorcyclists get enough bad press from car drivers, let's not take it out on cyclists.
-
I can stop my bike on a dime
I am not coming to a full complete stop at sign nor light; I don't care if it's legal or not.
filtering and rolling stops on a bike are to non-bicyclists as lanesplitting is to non-motorcyclists.. if you havent mastered it, you cant understand the benefits or safety aspects, it just 'looks' dangerous; so the knee-jerk reaction is to say ban it.
I also refuse to wear a cycle helmet unless i'm mountainbiking..but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Then don't force me to brake to avoid you because you blow a stop sign. I've had lots of arguments about this over the years.
-
My house is on a 4 way stop sign, below a good size hill. Every Saturday an Sunday multiple groups of 5-30 bicyclists fly through the stop sign at 30-40mph.
Is your life really that invaluable and with total disregard to traffic signs?
And there has been several bad accidents. No deaths.. Yet.
If I do that with the moped or Guzzi, I'm ticketed.
Share the road, share the laws and stay safe (and most importantly, stay alive)
-
Not a bicycle accident, but last Saturday a teen skateboarder failed to stop, and paid the ultimate price...
http://www.theintell.com/news/local/lenape-middle-school-quarterback-dies/image_b249a8fc-a289-11e5-89f3-87e4e73710b2.html
John
1983 Le Mans III
-
I'm fine with it. Let a few of the arrogant, "share the road" aggressive bicyclists get plastered and then common sense may just reign over posted law. Where I live so close to the People's Republic of Cambridge, there are plenty of pushy bicyclists. Invariably, they are not people just out for a ride, but the day glo dbags in racing gear or urban hipsters. While I'm certain that Darwin will sort this out, it would be nice if someone spoke up and mentioned that "share the road" doesn't mean "cut in front of traffic to take a left turn".
-
I thought bicyclists simply ignored traffic laws :copcar:
They sure do in Austin,TX. And God forbid you ever hit one in this town, your fault, their fault, doesn't matter.
-
Same rights as a pedestrian.
-
Isn't SF the capitol of Don't stop .
-
I'm fine with it. Let a few of the arrogant, "share the road" aggressive bicyclists get plastered and then common sense may just reign over posted law. Where I live so close to the People's Republic of Cambridge, there are plenty of pushy bicyclists. Invariably, they are not people just out for a ride, but the day glo dbags in racing gear or urban hipsters. While I'm certain that Darwin will sort this out, it would be nice if someone spoke up and mentioned that "share the road" doesn't mean "cut in front of traffic to take a left turn".
+1!
I have the same DB problem bikers around here too.
45MPH roads, only one 10 Ft wide lane in each direction, and no shoulders, they still insist on riding two abreast, taking up half the lane. If it comes down to me hitting either another SUV head on with our closing speed at 90MPH, or running over them, guess which I'm going to choose to ensure my own survival?
-
Look out for the other guy!
-
I just tell them they might be right , but they'll be dead right.
-
Those cleated shoes do wonders to cager doors at stop lights. :evil:
-
I have hit 2 bicyclists in my truck in two different incidents. Both were at fault and both times I went to the local precinct to report the accident. Obviously nothing serious, and fortunately neither were killed but they were lucky. One guy was going the wrong way on a one way street and the other was just flying through an intersection on a main highway.
NYC seems to ticket bicyclists for not stopping at traffic lights and the fines are not cheap @$278 bucks; I have no sympathy for their bad choice.
-
Maybe SF just has too many bicyclists and they need to thin the herd.
-
Jeez, do motorcycles have to stop at stop signs? :wink: I live in a rural area with 45-55 MPH speed limits on the back roads. Lots of a bicycle groups rolling along through stop signs.. The riders do check for traffic of course. I don't usually obey traffic laws on my bicycle...easy to do when there's very little traffic. And what car and truck traffic there is around here appears to give pedal pushers plenty of room...
-
Hmm, that is interesting. We will see what the Mayor of San Francisco does.
The closest I have come to a major accident on my motorcycle involved a pack of bicycles. They were practicing for the MS 150. Location was Fulshear, TX where there is a major intersection in town, a bendy-Y type, with a light. Pack blew thru a red light. I had the left turn green arrow. Problem was: I assumed they would stop and obey the traffic laws.
Assume.
Makes an "ass" out of "U" and "me". Sounds like lawyer fodder for me. Houston bicycle deaths have been rising, particularly in the inner city as more people use them for recreation and commuting. Many, if not most of the deaths are at intersections. Driver hostility towards bicycles has risen dramatically.
I only ride my bicycle on low traffic roads, and usually to designated off main road bicycle paths. Mostly I stop at stop signs and lights (always) as frankly I do not want to die on my Cannondale.
I will say this: a bicycle helmet is mandatory all the time. Brain buckets are common sense on any two wheeled device.
And, I can also stop my bicycle on a dime, IF the traction is there.
-
I have mentioned this before: I feel much safer riding a motorcycle or scooter than I do riding a bicycle. On two wheels with a motor, I can keep up with traffic. No one passes me within my lane. On two wheels without a motor, cars are constantly passing me at high speed within inches of my left shoulder. (I have actually been hit by a car in this scenario, fortunately at a low speed.)
Regarding completely stopping for stop signs while on a bicycle, I think it is unnecessary--as long as the bicyclist slows significantly, looks, and proceeds with caution. The same applies to runners and walkers: slow, look, and proceed with caution.
-
The claim is that enforcing stop sign laws for bicyclists is a low priority and takes up valuable resources.
Low priority because you know, cyclists don't blow through stop signs.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/08/15/107079/Chris-Bucchere-Sutchi-Hui-bicyclist-pedestrian
What this bicyclist did, not even slowing down for stop sight or red lights is common, not an infrequent thing.
Using cleated shoes to crunch car doors probably isn't the smartest thing in the world as some implied.
-
Stop signs and stop lights for that matter are a traffic control creation for cars and trucks - not bicycles, pedestrians or horses.
The first recorded stop sign was installed in Detroit Michigan in 1915.
http://signalfan.freeservers.com/road%20signs/stopsign.htm
Police Officer William L. Potts of Detroit, Michigan, decided to do something about the problem caused by the ever increasing number of automobiles on the streets. What he had in mind was figuring out a way to adapt railroad signals for street use. Potts used red, amber, and green railroad lights and about thirty-seven dollars worth of wire and electrical controls to make the world�s first 4-way three color traffic light. It was installed in 1920 on the corner of Woodward and Michigan Avenues in Detroit. Within a year, Detroit had installed a total of fifteen of the new automatic lights.
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/trafficlight.htm
not-beating-a-dead-horse
-
Actually the proposal is not to make it legal but rather make it a low priority for police to ticket people. In my opinion, it's a good thing since it allows police to stop someone if they see them doing something stupid and ignore the responsible bicyclists who are not causing any problems.
-
Meanwhile in Poland:
http://www.bicycling.com/culture/safety-etiquette/cyclist-survives-collision-with-train-going-90-mph
I've been riding bikes for 40 years...you always have to assume you are going to get hit by a car or someone who doesn't see you. Why increase the odds of getting killed just to be "right". Doing a slow roll thru a stop sign is perfectly fine if you have come down to 1-2 mph as it allows you to stop if needed quickly ONLY if you can clearly see you have the right of way, but blowing thru w/o even paying attention to cross traffic is just suicidal...but if you feel like that's a risk you want to take, go right ahead...your body can't argue with a car or truck or train coming thru the other way.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJw4xIcZDU
-
Actually the proposal is not to make it legal but rather make it a low priority for police to ticket people. In my opinion, it's a good thing since it allows police to stop someone if they see them doing something stupid and ignore the responsible bicyclists who are not causing any problems.
I don't get it. The police ( with input from politicians ) choose anyway what to make a priority and what not to make a priority.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJw4xIcZDU
Clearly, America does not have a corner of the market for stupid drivers.
-
30-sum responses to what should be a spontaneously combusting topic and it's boring.
I miss Lannis!
A stew here with no spice.
Let the lawyers be damned, Darwin be served and physics rule the day!
Todd.
-
You have to be an idiot to believe that treating it as a yield makes sense...
lane-splitting seems pretty crazy to non-motorcyclists
The only time it makes sense to blow thru stop signs is when it's obvious there is no traffic, a situation which NEVER occurs in San Francisco unless it's maybe 3 am...bloody idiots these city council/planner folks making this proposal.
again, no one said anything about blowing thru lights... rolling stop. The distinction is if you have to come to a full stop and put a foot down vs. a rolling stop or a trackstand
as for legality.... i'm sure the law DOESNT SAY that the bikes have right-of-way to 'blow thru stop lights', it is treated as a yield... If there is traffic coming and the cyclists is hit, that would be failure to yield and thus the cyclist at fault.
-
A bicycle going 25 mph can't stop on a dime and better than anything else, in other words they can't, there are people run over by bicyclists to prove it.
How is blowing through stop signs the same as lane splitting. As it stands, one is legal (lane splitting) the other is not. A proposal is not the same as a passed law.
As for helmets, its your head.
My bicycle with me on it can stop on a dime, no I've never hit anyone
once again... this is not about 'blowing through stop signs' it's about a rolling stop/treating stop signs & lights as yield signs.. but you clearly already have your mind made up so think what you want.
As for the parallel with lane splitting, I didn't say it's the same... I said much like lanesplitting looks nuts to non-motorcyclists.... Rolling stops look dangerous to non-cyclists.
-
What is the big deal with stopping at a stop sign?
SF has a lot of visitors. When they see a stop sign they take it to mean someone coming up to it is going to stop. Now they are supposed to figure it really doesn't mean stop for bicycles only?
Go visit there sometime and see what goes on with bicyclists, those that don't obey most traffic laws and courtesy on the road. It isn't the exception, it is a lot.
-
Actually the proposal is not to make it legal but rather make it a low priority for police to ticket people. In my opinion, it's a good thing since it allows police to stop someone if they see them doing something stupid and ignore the responsible bicyclists who are not causing any problems.
exactly!
people in this thread act as if cyclists want to run lights at speed and get t-boned by a semi
-
30-sum responses to what should be a spontaneously combusting topic and it's boring.
A stew here with no spice. Todd.
Feel free to add your own spice and make it less boring then if you have something to add to the stew! :)
-
What is the big deal with stopping at a stop sign?
SF has a lot of visitors. When they see a stop sign they take it to mean someone coming up to it is going to stop. Now they are supposed to figure it really doesn't mean stop for bicycles only?
Go visit there sometime and see what goes on with bicyclists, those that don't obey most traffic laws and courtesy on the road. It isn't the exception, it is a lot.
Hate to burst your bubble , but even out here in flyover country we don't expect bicycles , tricycles, cars , or even pedestrians to stop at stop signs . Doubt if tourists to San Francisco are surprised by bicyclists rolling through stop signs .
Dusty
-
The difference is that in California, there is a strong bike culture, particularly in the Bay Area, there are dedicated bike lanes, bike lights etc, so people DO expect cyclists to behave and respect traffic laws and bicycles are considered a moving vehicle subject to the same laws. In other states where there is not even a bike lane or shoulder to ride on, there is less awareness or tolerance of bicyclists...and one has to be even more vigilant.
A rolling stop of 1-2 mph is not a major issue, blowing thru stop signs w/o any regard for pedestrians or cross traffic is suicidal and inconsiderate...and any cyclist who does that will eventually be checked or cause an accident or leave a bunch of pissed off folks. It's interesting that this behavior seems to be tolerated when no one would advocate it on a motorcycle.
-
Hate to burst your bubble , but even out here in flyover country we don't expect bicycles , tricycles, cars , or even pedestrians to stop at stop signs . Doubt if tourists to San Francisco are surprised by bicyclists rolling through stop signs .
Dusty
Keep reading this "rolling" thing. Rolling through would be like coasting through, ready to brake, looking around and yielding to other traffic since you rolled though and if a ped entered the crosswalk, giving them right of way.
Not even close.
-
Rolling through would be like coasting through, ready to brake, looking around and yielding to other traffic
this exactly what every sensible bike group is advocating for.
-
Keep reading this "rolling" thing. Rolling through would be like coasting through, ready to brake, looking around and yielding to other traffic since you rolled though and if a ped entered the crosswalk, giving them right of way.
Not even close.
Hell , there is a three way stop 2 blocks from my house that most drivers treat as a corner at Laguna Seca :laugh: Having ridden in San Francisco , I found the drivers and bicyclists to be quite courteous compared to Tulsa or OKC :shocked:
Dusty
-
Someday, somewhere (not in America), all citizens will be bicyclists, and no one will wear spandex unless they are professional bicycle racers, and everyone will get along...
(https://steverobinson2014.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/copenhagen.jpg)
-
My bicycle with me on it can stop on a dime, no I've never hit anyone
Want to make a wager on your statement? On a dime or a dollar or a yard stick at 25 MPH? I have money to bet :laugh:
-
Would be funny to see what happens when a CHP or Sheriff stops someone in SF limits for blowing through a stop sign.
-
this exactly what every sensible bike group is advocating for.
"Rolling through would be like coasting through, ready to brake, looking around and yielding to other traffic "
Right, we're here to help, trust us. What some sensible bike group advocates and what their sensible members do are two different things.
Like motorcycle riders, how many belong to sensible bike groups? Maybe 1%?
-
Are moped scooters in the same category as bicycles in CA? Should be an enforcement nightmare looming for SFPD. Forgot......SF is a self designated "sanctuary city".
-
OK, 4 way stop sign. In SF they have them on steep hills. Picture yourself in your favorite Guzzi. You get to the stop sign headed north (steep downhill) and you are going to turn west. Right after you stopped a car being driven by an ultimate driver stops at the west side stop sign. All is good.
According to the rules of the road, you now have right of way even if you both arrived and stopped at the same time. Happens all the time, everyone understands how it works and it does work most of the time.
Ultimate driver gives you right of way. Then as you get ready to make your left turn, some bicyclist does the "sensible" thing and passes you on the left and not stopping, goes through the stop sign.
You've committed, clutch is feathering out and because you are on a very steep downhill your choices are limited.
You no linger have right of way according to the ultimate driver, he waited and the next vehicle on his right was the bicycle, not you, even though you were supposed to be next. Ultimate driver takes his turn and because things happen PDQ in traffic yours is the a$$ is ODF because some bicyclist doesn't need to stop at stop signs and the way reality works, bicyclists almost always take the advantage to move on, right, wrong or indifferent.
What matters though is that you, on your favorite Guzzi, are about to leave the gate when from behind and in the left part of your lane, the bicycle breezed through and scewed up the normal order of traffic.
It all happens fast, if it didn't, there would be few collisions.
Like many traffic laws and rules, people fudge a little, posts here prove that. If most bicyclists would follow the proposed rule that would be one thing but they wouldn't. Yield quickly turns into no stopping at all and then into taking the right of way when it isn't supposed to be.
-
Who needs traffic control devices?
https://youtu.be/VPbUpdmAfck (https://youtu.be/VPbUpdmAfck)
-
Here in New Zealand I cycle to work, probably the most dangerous thing you can do. Makes motorcycling look like the safest thing out.
I also don't stop at stop signs, I slow until nearly stopped and make sure the way is clear then get through as fast as I can. It's all about minimising the time in the dangerous area.
-
OK, 4 way stop sign. In SF they have them on steep hills. Picture yourself in your favorite Guzzi. You get to the stop sign headed north (steep downhill) and you are going to turn west. Right after you stopped a car being driven by an ultimate driver stops at the west side stop sign. All is good.
I won't ride in SF, my brother left a foot and leg below his knee there.
Now my lifted 3 ton jeep with 1/4" plate Armor bumpers I love to drive in SF, especially in the Financial District around all the expensive European Cars. I look at riding a motorcycle in SF like walking at night on the nastier streets in Sacramento or Stockton -- it's just a matter of when.
-
Stop light is GREEN, me making right turn on Vespa...........cyc list on right side of me on sidewalk. Light is GREEN for him, he goes through intersection, I almost hit him. Guess who would be at fault - ME!
-
Hey all. San Franciscan here. Perhaps I can add a little context to this discussion.
Though similar rule changes have been a priority for bicyclists for a while here in the city, the current push is playing out against the back drop of a fairly ham-fisted crack down on cyclists by the police captain of a central San Francisco neighborhood. This neighborhood contains perhaps the essential east-west bike route here in the city. If you live in the primarily residential neighborhoods on the west half of the city and commute to the main commercial/business districts or transportation hubs on the east half of the city, you almost certainly take this route. This seven block long zig-zagging route, known as "the wiggle," hits a stop sign at every intersection on primarily quiet back streets. Over the summer the captain announced he was going to be making enforcing full stops on bicyclists a priority, and he made good on that promise. In the months since, there has as often as not been one and often times more officers stationed on or near the wiggle stopping and ticketing bicyclists for failing to come to complete three second stop with one foot on the ground. Many of the people swept up in this dragnet approach are generally safe, sane, and conscientious cyclists conforming to a common and logical practice. Are there reckless bicyclists? Certainly. But they are far and away a minority, and this approach is having a suppressing effect on bicycling in general, not on dangerous behavior or at the most problematic intersections.
All of this is taking place in a city that has rising property and violent crime rates, but dropping arrest rates. As a cyclist, I'm irked by what strikes me as a wrong headed and disproportionate approach to traffic safety. As a general road user (pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist public transit passenger and driver) I'm irritated by city policy that can only serve to discourage people from bicycling which-we need much more of-and encourage people to take cars instead. As a citizen and three time victim of theft this year alone, I am incensed that resources are being devoted to this pet project instead of where they are needed.
The proposal doesn't even implement the "Idaho Stop," the common name for allowing cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs and stop lights like stop signs. For what it's worth, I support full implementation. It encourages bicycling, which we sorely need more of, by legalizing safe and sensible behavior. But that isn't even the case here. The ordinance in question would simply make enforcing rules against safe behavior a low priority.
-
OK, 4 way stop sign. In SF they have them on steep hills. Picture yourself in your favorite Guzzi. You get to the stop sign headed north (steep downhill) and you are going to turn west. Right after you stopped a car being driven by an ultimate driver stops at the west side stop sign. All is good.
According to the rules of the road, you now have right of way even if you both arrived and stopped at the same time. Happens all the time, everyone understands how it works and it does work most of the time.
Ultimate driver gives you right of way. Then as you get ready to make your left turn, some bicyclist does the "sensible" thing and passes you on the left and not stopping, goes through the stop sign.
You've committed, clutch is feathering out and because you are on a very steep downhill your choices are limited.
You no linger have right of way according to the ultimate driver, he waited and the next vehicle on his right was the bicycle, not you, even though you were supposed to be next. Ultimate driver takes his turn and because things happen PDQ in traffic yours is the a$$ is ODF because some bicyclist doesn't need to stop at stop signs and the way reality works, bicyclists almost always take the advantage to move on, right, wrong or indifferent.
What matters though is that you, on your favorite Guzzi, are about to leave the gate when from behind and in the left part of your lane, the bicycle breezed through and scewed up the normal order of traffic.
It all happens fast, if it didn't, there would be few collisions.
Like many traffic laws and rules, people fudge a little, posts here prove that. If most bicyclists would follow the proposed rule that would be one thing but they wouldn't. Yield quickly turns into no stopping at all and then into taking the right of way when it isn't supposed to be.
Dude no need for a whole soliloquy, just say you think bikes are stupid, it's ok really
-
Hey all. San Franciscan here. Perhaps I can add a little context to this discussion.
Though similar rule changes have been a priority for bicyclists for a while here in the city, the current push is playing out against the back drop of a fairly ham-fisted crack down on cyclists by the police captain of a central San Francisco neighborhood. This neighborhood contains perhaps the essential east-west bike route here in the city. If you live in the primarily residential neighborhoods on the west half of the city and commute to the main commercial/business districts or transportation hubs on the east half of the city, you almost certainly take this route. This seven block long zig-zagging route, known as "the wiggle," hits a stop sign at every intersection on primarily quiet back streets. Over the summer the captain announced he was going to be making enforcing full stops on bicyclists a priority, and he made good on that promise. In the months since, there has as often as not been one and often times more officers stationed on or near the wiggle stopping and ticketing bicyclists for failing to come to complete three second stop with one foot on the ground. Many of the people swept up in this dragnet approach are generally safe, sane, and conscientious cyclists conforming to a common and logical practice. Are there reckless bicyclists? Certainly. But they are far and away a minority, and this approach is having a suppressing effect on bicycling in general, not on dangerous behavior or at the most problematic intersections.
All of this is taking place in a city that has rising property and violent crime rates, but dropping arrest rates. As a cyclist, I'm irked by what strikes me as a wrong headed and disproportionate approach to traffic safety. As a general road user (pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist public transit passenger and driver) I'm irritated by city policy that can only serve to discourage people from bicycling which-we need much more of-and encourage people to take cars instead. As a citizen and three time victim of theft this year alone, I am incensed that resources are being devoted to this pet project instead of where they are needed.
The proposal doesn't even implement the "Idaho Stop," the common name for allowing cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs and stop lights like stop signs. For what it's worth, I support full implementation. It encourages bicycling, which we sorely need more of, by legalizing safe and sensible behavior. But that isn't even the case here. The ordinance in question would simply make enforcing rules against safe behavior a low priority.
I thought all along there was more to the story . This should put this issue to rest , the whole thread was beginning to turn ugly .
Dusty
-
. Over the summer the captain announced he was going to be making enforcing full stops on bicyclists a priority, and he made good on that promise. In the months since, there has as often as not been one and often times more officers stationed on or near the wiggle stopping and ticketing bicyclists for failing to come to complete three second stop with one foot on the ground.
I have a fair amount of dealings with California State Government and have learned to do research. True to form I see nothing in the code that mandates a cyclist put a foot on the ground and not move that foot for three seconds. what is this a "traveling" call like basketball? However being a native Californian I know SF is special and they have their special interpretations of Laws. which is one more reason I won't ride a motorcycle in SF
Rats, now I have to look to see if the "foot on the ground for x seconds" is in the code for motorcycles.
-
Dude no need for a whole soliloquy, just say you think bikes are stupid, it's ok really
Bicycles aren't stupid, the proposed rule is. I didn't make this personal but you just did so knock it off.
SF goes to the max to protect bicyclists. There are special bike lanes, cars can cross over yellow and double yellow lanes to go around them, busses have special carries to haul them around and critical mass allows them to stop traffic completely while they ride in circles in intersections.
Riding a motor cycle in SF is near madness. The streets just as they are are treacherous. Add the traffic and it can be a real nightmare. I'm in favor of bicyclists having equal protections , the same as everyone else, but not more than that because when that happens it takes away from everyone else.
That car that crosses the yellow center line to give the bicycle a 3' safety zone? Sure but then do the sane for motorcyclists, they take up about the same amount of space, are as hard to see and are an vulnerable on city streets.
-
http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/8-things-top-bike-cities-have-done-to-promote-safer-cycling
When cities go out of their way to make things easier for cyclists, the minimum that cyclists should do is abide by the laws and be grateful for that extra effort the cities are doing to help them out, how bloody hard is it to figure that out....honestly. There's no real justification for doing anything but, particularly in a crowded city.
It's similar to renegade/redneck 4x4 drivers who drive off the trail, don't tread lightly or ruin access to BLM land for the rest of the responsible 4x4 adventurers, clearly there were a large enough group of cyclists who were not adhering to the rules of the road which caused the severe crackdown...pretty sure the message is being received, and now maybe folks have learned a lesson, so they can "lighten up" the enforcement back to normal.
Back to my coffee now... :)
-
I treat bicycle riders with the same respect I do other vehicles. Run a stop sign and we get into an accident an you'll be praying for the cops and ambulance to arrive quickly.
-
I don't see 'low priority' a bad thing. Treating a stop sign as a yield is something I do on a motorcycle quite often. If there are good sight lines and the way is clear, I DO NOT put a foot down.
Who stops at every stop sign every time?
If it is not safe to proceed, you do not proceed. It's not that difficult.
The bicyclist/motorcyclist is responsible for his safety in this situation. I am going to put it in the same category as helmets and lanesplitting and smoking and drinking. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Freedom.
Bill Lovelady IS
Eskimo Spy
-
If you're a cop in the city what would you rather do to keep your numbers up . Ticket bicyclists or chase down criminals ?
btw .. why is public money spent on "No Dumping " signs ? Implies it's OK to dump where there is no sign .
-
I don't see 'low priority' a bad thing. Treating a stop sign as a yield is something I do on a motorcycle quite often. If there are good sight lines and the way is clear, I DO NOT put a foot down.
Who stops at every stop sign every time?
If it is not safe to proceed, you do not proceed. It's not that difficult.
The bicyclist/motorcyclist is responsible for his safety in this situation. I am going to put it in the same category as helmets and lanesplitting and smoking and drinking. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Freedom.
Bill Lovelady IS
Eskimo Spy
this guy gets it
-
Motorcycles are far, FAR safer than bicycles.
I've had plenty of people just cut me off at lights, turning right into my path as I try to go straight. I normally try and ride on the sidewalk because of this, either that or I go to a park with roads where I'm very unlikely to get hit by someone going fast. It's just not worth it to ride on the surface streets, too dangerous.
All that said, if I have to ride on the streets, I never respect stop signs on a bicycle if I think it's safe to roll thru them. It's more dangerous in my opinion to stop at a sign and lose your momentum than it is to roll thru it if nothing is coming to endanger you.
Stoplights are a different matter.
-
I treat bicycle riders with the am respect I do other vehicles. Run a stop sign and we get into an accident an you'll be praying for the cops and ambulance to arrive quickly.
Are you saying you'd make no attempt to avoid striking a cyclist?
-
I never respect stop signs on a bicycle if I think it's safe to roll thru them. It's more dangerous in my opinion to stop at a sign and lose your momentum than it is to roll thru it if nothing is coming to endanger you.
What's the dangerous part of losing your momentum...having to dismount or put a foot down??
-
What's the dangerous part of losing your momentum...having to dismount or put a foot down??
Analogous to lane splitting , less time exposed in a dangerous situation . I don't really understand why people think San Franciscans are bad drivers , opposite of my experience .
Dusty
-
Interesting how some folks think that sitting at a stop sign is more dangerous than blowing thru it...mind boggling! :)
-
Interesting how some folks think that sitting at a stop sign is more dangerous than blowing thru it...mind boggling! :)
I don't think anyone is saying that. Blowing though a stop sign, as you put it, is dangerous. Some percentage of riders (and drivers for that matter) will drive recklessly no matter what the rules of the road are. The Idaho Stop, which lets bicyclists treats stop signs like yield signs (and, again, is not being fully proposed in San Francisco right now) does not legalize blowing through a stop sign, any more than a yield sign legalizes someone blowing through an intersection when they do not have the right of way. A biker who blows through a stop sign when they don't have the right of way would still be violating the law.
One possible explanation for why this rule change might make for safer bicycling is that it reduces time spent, and increases the maneuverability in an intersection. The majority of accidents occur at intersections and the amount of time it take a bicyclist to move through an intersection if starting from a complete stop is significantly higher than the amount of time it takes a bicyclist to move through an intersection if they merely slow down-even to a virtual crawl-but don't abandon all forward momentum. Bicycles depend on forward momentum for maneuvering. Even if you don't bike, you should be able to imagine how awkward, slow, and relatively immobile a bicycle is when at a complete stop and for the first few moments afterward. It's not much different from a motorcycle in that regard, except that it takes far more than a flick or the wrist to regain enough momentum to maneuver safely.
Under most circumstances, a bicyclist can yield to traffic at an intersection without coming to a complete stop. It is easy for a bicyclist to slow down enough when approaching an intersection to allow a car, another bicyclist, a motorcycle or a pedestrian through the intersection without coming to a complete stop. They can then move through the intersection more quickly and with greater maneuverability. This seems much safer to me, but rather than take that on good faith, you might look at Idaho, where this rule was first implemented. In the year that the rule was first in effect, cyclist injuries as a result of a collision dropped 14.5%.
-
Those dang cleated shoes can be a bitch to clip in after a 'complete' stop. :thewife:
-
I don't think anyone is saying that. Blowing though a stop sign, as you put it, is dangerous. Some percentage of riders (and drivers for that matter) will drive recklessly no matter what the rules of the road are. The Idaho Stop, which lets bicyclists treats stop signs like yield signs (and, again, is not being fully proposed in San Francisco right now) does not legalize blowing through a stop sign, any more than a yield sign legalizes someone blowing through an intersection when they do not have the right of way. A biker who blows through a stop sign when they don't have the right of way would still be violating the law.
One possible explanation for why this rule change might make for safer bicycling is that it reduces time spent, and increases the maneuverability in an intersection. The majority of accidents occur at intersections and the amount of time it take a bicyclist to move through an intersection if starting from a complete stop is significantly higher than the amount of time it takes a bicyclist to move through an intersection if they merely slow down-even to a virtual crawl-but don't abandon all forward momentum. Bicycles depend on forward momentum for maneuvering. Even if you don't bike, you should be able to imagine how awkward, slow, and relatively immobile a bicycle is when at a complete stop and for the first few moments afterward. It's not much different from a motorcycle in that regard, except that it takes far more than a flick or the wrist to regain enough momentum to maneuver safely.
Under most circumstances, a bicyclist can yield to traffic at an intersection without coming to a complete stop. It is easy for a bicyclist to slow down enough when approaching an intersection to allow a car, another bicyclist, a motorcycle or a pedestrian through the intersection without coming to a complete stop. They can then move through the intersection more quickly and with greater maneuverability. This seems much safer to me, but rather than take that on good faith, you might look at Idaho, where this rule was first implemented. In the year that the rule was first in effect, cyclist injuries as a result of a collision dropped 14.5%.
Many bicyclists use pedestrian crosswalks to navigate through intersections. Few drivers or rides of motorized vehicles can react fast enough to a bicycle being behind the limit line on second and in the middle of the intersection the next.
If most bicyclists would obey traffic laws that would be one thing but its hard to say they do. Signaling is another area they routinely do not follow traffic laws. When you allow some leeway and make it a law, then the give an inch take a mile thing sets in.
One reason this proposal is wrong is because it changes a law understood by anyone across the country to mean something else for only one group of people. If approved, anyone from anywhere other than SF would have to know that bicyclists do not need to stop at stop signs. Great. This isn't like having different speed limits, those are posted, it is posting a stop sign but saying it does not apply to certain people.
It would be one thing if such a law would be adhered to by bicyclists but the chances of that are slim.
If bicyclists are so skilled and can really ride as well as claimed by some here, then why can't they also moderate their speed and then at the stop sign do the balancing act waiting their turn. Either they can or they can't.
Here is this comes down to: telling everyone that at a red light, bikes can treat it as a yellow, the effect is nearly the same.
If this proposal makes any sense at all, then why not just remove stop signs and replace them with yield signs so that everyone plays by the same rules of the road? If bicyclists maintain the car drivers disobey traffic laws to a greater degree than bicyclists then spend just a day driving your car or motorcycle among them, you'll see first hand how few bicyclists actually obey any traffic laws.
-
The law of the sea...... who get's the 'right of passage'? :thewife:
-
In my many years of riding motorcycles and Bicycle's, I have found that most folks believe that size has the right of way.
Bob
-
In my many years of riding motorcycles and Bicycle's, I have found that most folks believe that size has the right of way.
Bob
lol :popcorn:
Tickets for cycling do not accumulate on your driver’s license.
California Vehicle Code 1803 spells out the rules for reporting traffic violations to the California DMV. It has this important exception you should be aware of. CVC 1803 (b) says:
The following violations are not required to be reported … Violations for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/california-traffic-tickets-while-cycling-points-on-your-license/
-
In my many years of riding motorcycles and Bicycle's, I have found that most folks believe that size has the right of way.
Bob
Not in SF. Just the way it is.
-
Are you saying you'd make no attempt to avoid striking a cyclist?
Never said that.
-
I'm waiting for this thread to be deleted.
-
I treat bicycle riders with the same respect I do other vehicles. Run a stop sign and we get into an accident an you'll be praying for the cops and ambulance to arrive quickly.
Are you saying you'd make no attempt to avoid striking a cyclist?
Never said that.
Oh, a self-proclaimed tough-guy then? Women too? Some of those ride cycles & can be pretty tough.
(http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv17/Rander/Debbie-Road-Rash_zps5phoouvw.jpg) (http://s665.photobucket.com/user/Rander/media/Debbie-Road-Rash_zps5phoouvw.jpg.html)