[igf]

Bicycles are a tool for turning ordinary people into selfish jerks, jealously guarding their precious forward momentum. A pedestrian doesn't mind if they have to stop for a moment, it's no big deal. A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either, it's easy to get back up to speed again. But for a cyclist, having to stop is a minor disaster requiring a massive effort to get back up to speed, so they start behaving like desperate people, and desperate people have little regard for the rules or for the wellbeing of others.

Combine that with the feeling of moral superiority which inflicts those of an environmentalist bent when they're doing something which they consider virtuous, and you've got a recipe for major jerkhood.

[Twisell]

Jerks happen to use various ways of moving around. Some happen to use a bike, please don't use generalization.

While momentum argument is real, my personal philosophy as a daily commuting biker in France is "I'm the more exposed to risk and the more hated road user, so don't get in the way of cars and don't ever dare touch pedestrians"

That being said, yes I do pass red light when I have good clearance and I don't "emergency brake by courtesy" for pedestrians that are not already engaged in crosswalks or clearly far from my course.

Theses two paragraphs are perfectly compatible IMHO. It's just that in order to play with the rules you must know and accept them and be aware that you are doing something borderline. And by borderline I mean something specifically NOT dangerous to others and yourself. If it's dangerous it's just plain dumb and irresponsible.

[pif]

> I don't "emergency brake by courtesy"

It's not by courtesy, it's by driving code. And the fact that you don't judge your behaviour dangerous doesn't imply that it's not perceived as dangerous by people around you: as such, you are just egoistically imposing an annoyance to people contrary to their right. In other words, you're misbehaving.

[Twisell]

Well I don't know how it work in the USA. But here in France half of the time, if you strictly apply the driving code as a biker and "emergency brake by courtesy", the pedestrian will bluntly look at you with a suspecting look for 5 seconds before eventually crossing.

Other half of the times they will say "you go sir" then you debate on who get to go first. At worst you "win" this unwanted honor you then have to slowly start again your momentum under the condescending eyes of the pedestrian that will say later "bike run like jerks!" to his friend.

While on bike, if the pedestrian is not engaged it is really smoother and smarter if you go first and the pedestrian go after. If he's engaged most of the time you can ride behind him, if not then you brake and don't even dare touch him.

Usually the only case you really have to emergency brake at a crossroad is when clearly the pedestrian is about to cross anyway and/or pay really no attention to his surrounding.

[pif]

> Well I don't know how it work in the USA. But here in France ...

Btw, I live in France, too. The same happens to me while driving, too. I agree that regaining momentum is much more annoying while riding, rather than driving. Still, a small amount of time is wasted in both cases. I usually take it as an opportunity to exchange a smile with the grateful pedestrian. That's one of the aspects of France I love :-)

[mrgoldenbrown]

>A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either,

This has to be a joke right? Drivers roll through stop signs all the time. Sometimes they don't even stop. And don't get me started on the "Red light means only 2 more cars can go through" attitude. Anytime I cringe at having gone through a yellow-turning-red, I am always surprised/relieved/disappointed to see several cars follow me through.

[jpindar]

Sometimes I'm afraid to stop at a just-turning-red light because I know the cars behind me expect to be able to speed up and follow me through the beginning of the red light, and if I stop they might rear-end me.

[Thlom]

I'm a pretty relaxed cyclist. I ride more or less upright, but the forward momentum is precious. It's no problem to stop while walking, it takes no more energy to start walking than to continue walking. Same goes for driving a car. On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum.

That said, some "avid cyclists" are total jerks.

[ubernostrum]

On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum.

To which I have to say: that's on you. The only way to have multiple modes of transportation -- motorized, pedal, and foot -- coexist is for everybody to give a little. Which means there are times when you will have to stop and yield and wait for someone else, even if it costs you "momentum".

(and this is the polite version of the response; the impolite version points out that your argument is no better than a driver who gets impatient in stop-and-go traffic; manual transmissions are horrendous to drive in those conditions, but nobody suggests manual drivers should get legal exemptions to red lights and stop signs the way people suggest -- and some places have even established -- for cyclists)

[kazinator]

I never had a problem with a manual transmission in heavy traffic. If you look some five to ten cars ahead to anticipate what is going on and leave a bit of space, you don't have to come to a full stop. You can use first gear to creep very slowly, if necessary. Also, as long as you have some forward momentum, the clutch picks up very easily in second. I handled most congested situations in second gear with just clutch work every now and then.

Also, if I had to come to a full stop, I wouldn't start again if it was obvious that the car ahead of me would be only able to move three feet before coming to a full stop again. Automatic transmission drivers tend to stare at the bumper of the car ahead of them and track every minute movement.

[Thlom]

I understand where you're coming from, but reality is what it is, and how we design streets should reflect it, meaning we should design streets/cycle tracks so that cyclist don't have to stop at every intersection. If we want more cyclists and less cars in our cities.

In Copenhagen they have the "green wave" for cyclists. If you cycle at about 20 km/h you'll get green lights all the way through the city, they even have LED signs counting dow for next light change so you can slow down to hit the green or accelerate to reach the green before it changes to red.

[kazinator]

Take out "motorized" and the traffic code pretty much goes away. Intersections with semaphore lights, all of it. It's all for the sake of motor vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists can stay out of each other's way without anyone having to stop.

[ph0rque]

> On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum.

Sounds like that can be fixed by having electric bikes that generate energy when braking, which can be used to accelerate again.

[7Z7]

I think you are being way too charitable to cars. Maybe it's where you are from, but I can't say that is my experience.