[eckmLJE]

In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane), and how opposed those things often are to the law. As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe, while keeping my first priority never to endanger pedestrians or other cyclists. A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.

Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit. But people have become so inured to the constant threat and frequent (and often fatal) harm of motor vehicles, that they fixate on and exaggerate the threat of cyclists, and illogically insist that they need to follow the same rules of the road as cars.

Cyclists should follow rules of the road -- special rules created for a special vehicle.

[afry1]

Indeed. It feels unsafe to follow the "rules of the road" on a bike because the rules were created for an entirely different kind of vehicle.

I think about this a lot when approaching a stoplight or stop sign.

For any road user, where is the most dangerous part of any road? You guessed it, the intersection.

When is an intersection safest? When it's empty.

So, for a cyclist, it makes the most sense to cross through the most dangerous part of the road when it is devoid of danger; i.e., when it's empty, or when other cars are stopped.

This of course gets a little dicey when you consider protected turns, leading pedestrian intervals, jaywalking, or anything else which would make that "empty" intersection a little less empty and therefore unpredictable and dangerous. But generally speaking, I feel way safer running a predictable red light than crossing it with moving traffic.

[u801e]

> It feels unsafe to follow the "rules of the road" on a bike because the rules were created for an entirely different kind of vehicle.

The rules of the road[1] were first developed in the early 20th century before motor vehicles were very common. They were designed for operators of vehicles like animal driven vehicles, cyclists, and early motor vehicles (anything on wheels).

> So, for a cyclist, it makes the most sense to cross through the most dangerous part of the road [an intersection] when it is devoid of danger; i.e., when it's empty, or when other cars are stopped.

> [...]

>

> But generally speaking, I feel way safer running a predictable red light than crossing it with moving traffic.

I don't see how the second part follows from the first. Your assertion is that it's safe to cross an intersection when it's empty or when other cars are stopped, but then you say you feel safer running a red light. But when the light for cross traffic is green, cross traffic will neither be stopped or not in the intersection.

Statistically, you're far more likely to get hit by cross traffic compared to same direction traffic, so while you may feel safer, you're actually putting yourself in more danger.

[1] https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/RulesOfTheRoad.j...

[eckmLJE]

Here is a grossly simplified illustration:

I'm approaching an intersection on my bicycle and the light ahead is red. The motor vehicle traffic is stopped at that red light. I pass by that stopped traffic and get closer to the intersection. My head is largely above the cars stopped at the crosswalk and I have good visibility. I scan the entire intersection (from an elevated view standing up on my pedals, without any pylons or mirrors obstructing my view as in a car) and note that there are no pedestrians in or entering the crosswalk, and no motor vehicles approaching cross-wise (the intersecting street that has a green light). I can clearly see that the way is clear and it is safe to proceed.

The law would say I should stop and wait for the light to turn green. However, when the light turns green, all the motor vehicle traffic anxiously accelerates and jockeys for position in the intersection. If I'm in a bike lane, some of the traffic may be attempting to turn across my lane (and right into me) to beat the pedestrians into the crosswalk. If I've taken the lane and I'm between a car ahead of me and one behind me, the car behind me may get upset that I'm not moving quickly enough and honk, swerve around me, tailgate me, etc. This is unsafe and frightening, and I seem to be slowing other people down.

Instead, if I arrive at that red light and I can clearly visualize that it is safe for me to proceed, I will then proceed through the light and get out of everyone's way while having an impact on basically no one. Still, the folks in cars will be very upset with me, and sometimes still honk, or write angrily on message boards about bike scofflaws, because I'm breaking the law (I suspect it's more that they're upset they're stuck in their car and experiencing classic road rage), even though if I had remained with them at the light, I'd likely just be getting in their way.

---

To move on from the grossly simplified example, there is a matter of degree to how clear the intersection is. Maybe there is a pedestrian just entering the crosswalk, but I'm in the center of my lane a good 15 feet away from them. That still seems safe to me. Or there is a car approaching the intersection that has the green, but they're still a good 50 feet away and I have plenty of time to make it through the intersection.

On the one hand, some more reckless/careless riders will make closer calls than I would think are acceptable or safe. And on the other hand, many pedestrians who don't have honed spatial awareness will insist they were "almost hit" by a cyclist when it really wasn't close and the person could have suddenly sprinted and not been in danger.

As I learned how to ride in the city, I had to start safer and gradually find my way to what I considered acceptable. I couldn't rely on the law to tell me, because if I followed the law, I'd be risking my life unnecessarily.

I'm not trying to say it's clear or obvious what the rules should be, but just that in the current situation, applying the existing laws evenly to cars and bikes doesn't make sense.

[u801e]

> I scan the entire intersection (from an elevated view standing up on my pedals, without any pylons or mirrors obstructing my view as in a car) and note that there are no pedestrians in or entering the crosswalk, and no motor vehicles approaching cross-wise (the intersecting street that has a green light). I can clearly see that the way is clear and it is safe to proceed.

It really depends on the intersection, traffic level, how many lanes of cross traffic there are, how fast they're traveling, and if there are any visual obstructions (e.g., parked vehicles, poles, building features, etc). In my experience, many signal controlled intersections have too much traffic to really proceed straight through or make a left without having to wait quite a while for a gap.

> all the motor vehicle traffic anxiously accelerates and jockeys for position in the intersection.

They may do that after the intersection, but most people don't try changing lanes within the intersection. What I do if I have a platoon of traffic build up around me in an intersection while waiting at a light is to proceed through the intersection and pull over at the far side. Once the platoon has passed, I then take the lane on the empty road behind them.

If you run the light instead, then when the light changes to green, they're going to catch up to you while moving at speed as opposed to starting from a complete stop.

> I'm in the center of my lane a good 15 feet away from them

At 10 mph, you're moving around 15 feet per second. That's not enough distance or time to react.

> Or there is a car approaching the intersection that has the green, but they're still a good 50 feet away

At car moving at 25 mph is going about 37 feet per second. They'll get to you a little over a second.

> On the one hand, some more reckless/careless riders will make closer calls than I would think are acceptable or safe.

The problem is that when they cut it too close a collision or a crash caused by evasive acion on the part of the motorist(s) occurs. This is one example[1].

> I couldn't rely on the law to tell me, because if I followed the law, I'd be risking my life unnecessarily.

Exactly in what way would following the law put your life at risk? You mentioned earlier that you felt that motorists would be slowed down by you taking the lane, or you would be at risk of a right hook by remaining in the bike lane. It's clear that the former is a perceived risk, while the latter is an actual risk. In that case, I would just take the lane, proceed through the intersection and move off to the side to let the motorist who was behind you pass (as I mentioned earlier). One you're past the intersection, the motorist isn't going to turn across your path.

> applying the existing laws evenly to cars and bikes doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, the only laws that don't make sense are the ones that require cyclists to keep as far right as practicable on roads with marked lanes and/or require them to use a bike lane. Those laws I ignore, but I still follow the general slow vehicle law that requires use of the right lane when going less than the normal speed of traffic. I just ride in the middle of it and move to the side to encourage motorists to pass when safe to do so.

[1] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches...

[qubex]

Special rulesets can be set up for certain classes of vehicles provided that observable behaviour experienced by other road users is predictable and unchanged. Otherwise it’s just a new recipe for disaster.

[eckmLJE]

Completely agreed. There's plenty of existing cyclist behavior that is not scalable and should be discouraged in whatever bike-specific rules of the road are considered.

[throw0101a]

> […] then the folks in big steel boxes.

Motorcyclists have the colloquialism "cager" for automobile drivers for the big steel cages they are contained in.

[mynegation]

People can barely keep one set of rules in their head. Having to maintain two set of rules will hardly make anyone safer.

[The-Bus]

I would hope that drivers understand how to interact with motorcyclists, trucks, emergency vehicles, and trains all of which have separate sets of rules and could interact with a car.

[joshlemer]

There are already different sets of rules for trucks, cars, bicycles, and pedestrians.

[u801e]

> In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane)

There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.

> As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe,

By breaking the law, you made yourself less predictable to other drivers and pedestrians. That actually decreased your safety because people were expecting you to do one thing, but you did something else. The key to safety is to be predictable and following the same rules of the road as drivers of other vehicles. When I rode my bicycle yesterday, I just stayed in the middle of the travel lane and complied with traffic control devices. I didn't have any close calls or threats to my safety even though I was riding in moderate to heavy traffic.

> Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit ... A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.

The current rules of the road require pedestrians to follow a certain set of rules when crossing or walking along a roadway and group cyclists with drivers of vehicles in that they have to follow the same set of rules in terms of right of way, signaling, and where to position themselves laterally when preparing to make a turn at an intersection.

Some cyclists want to operate in a manner similar to pedestrians (using side paths and crossing at crosswalks), but the problem with that is that even the slowest cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. This means that a cyclist a second away from entering the intersection would be much further away compared to a walking pedestrian. This makes it less likely a motorist or motorcyclist would see them and yield to them compared to the pedestrian. In fact, this is the reason why statistics show that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous compared to riding on the road with traffic.

Even if the rules were changed to match your proposal, that doesn't address the issue I brought up about cyclists moving too fast to really be seen by motorists so that the latter have time to see them and yield to them.

[eckmLJE]

I respect that you feel safe in taking the lane and following the law. I agree with what you say about riding on the sidewalk.

One of my greatest fears when riding a lot in the city was being run over from behind. This is more common on country roads, where I believe it's the leading cause of cyclist fatalities in collisions, but I still saw it as a constant threat in the city. Especially when vehicles would intentionally tailgate me in the lane, rev their engine to speed toward me, slow down and repeat, etc.

In _Zodiac_, by Neal Stephenson, the author describes two opposing frames of mind that a cyclist must maintain simultaneously in traffic: 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me, and 2) I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over. Only by riding in a way that is defensive to both cases can I approach a guarantee of safety.

I do not trust drivers to respect my presence on the road. This is a perspective I have learned repeatedly through experience.

With pedestrians, I ride such that no matter what they suddenly decide to do, to respond weirdly to my presence, it doesn't matter. They can start running, they can stop on a dime and turn around, they can fall over, and I will have positioned myself not to be in their way.

I'll also say I don't really have a proposal. I'm not saying everyone should follow the way I ride. Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.

[u801e]

> 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me

If you try to ride in a way that you're not noticed (off to the side, behind parked cars, using the sidewalk, then motorists will not see you until it's too late to avoid a collision. That's not because they're purposefully ignoring you. It's because their attention is focused on traffic, traffic control devices and where they expect traffic or pedestrians to cross. They're not focused on you because you're not where they expect.

> I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over.

This is demonstratably false. There are many cyclists who ride and motorists aren't intentionally targeting them. The motorist who doesn't notice the cyclist is the greatest risk because the motorist won't take actions to avoid a collision until it's too late to do so. Therefore, the safest option is to ride where motorists are looking, which is in the center of the lane.

> Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.

The problem is that different cyclists will come up with different ways to deal with the situation at hand. This makes them hard to predict or know where to check for motorists and drivers of other vehicles. One time, there was a cyclist riding down the sidewalk the same speed I was going on the road. The cyclist suddenly decided to cut across the road right in front of me and I barely avoided a collision with him. I had a trailer and one of my kids in the rear child seat with me and had there been a collision, we would have suffered serious injuries. A cyclist riding in the road directly in front of me is more predictable and won't cause a situation that could lead to a crash with injuries.

I think that eduacation programs that focus on how to safely ride in traffic is the best option. Cycling Savvy[1] is one program that I've found very useful.

[1] https://cyclingsavvy.org/

[avianlyric]

> There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.

Spoke like someone who has little experience of either.

I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.

As would like to remain alive and with all my limbs intact, I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.

[u801e]

> I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.

What happens when you cross an intersection? The physical separation doesn't extend through the intersection and intersections are where most crashes and close calls happen.

> I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.

You're not arguing. You're just dismissing without an actual counter argument.

[avianlyric]

> What happens when you cross an intersection? The physical separation doesn't extend through the intersection and intersections are where most crashes and close calls happen.

Traffic lights prevent car movement, at other junctions the lane is set back, and road is elevated to the level of the cycle lane, creating a natural speed bump. That plus bright paint and very sharp corners on the junctions forces cars to slow down, substantially decreasing both the probability and severity of collisions.

> You're not arguing. You're just dismissing without an actual counter argument.

There’s plenty of literature, studies and statistics out there. Bikes aren’t some new invention, methods for making roads safe for vulnerable road uses is well documented and tested with decades of data.

It’s not my job to educate you. You can do that yourself, if that’s too much effort for you, then don’t bother sharing your views, as they’re clearly going to be poorly informed.

[u801e]

> Traffic lights prevent car movement, at other junctions the lane is set back, and road is elevated to the level of the cycle lane, creating a natural speed bump.

There are virtually no intersections like that in the US where there are barrier separated cycle tracks, nor do they have separate signals for cyclists. And the intersection configuration you're referring to will not work for mid-block intersections due to lack of necessary space.

The one intersection I know of[1] that meets some of the criteria you mention was studied and they found that turning motorists yielded to cyclists 87% of the time. That doesn't sound very safe to me (more than a 1 in 10 chance a motorist won't yield when I go through the intersection).

[1] https://twitter.com/OakDOT/status/1289407831695745024

[avianlyric]

That’s nice, that just means US road planners don’t know how to build safe cycle tracks, and US drivers aren’t very good.

Thankfully I live in a more civilised country.

I also see you’ve taken no real effort to educate yourself. I assume you’re going to continue finding way to blame cyclists for road issues, rather than consider that the issue is more complex than cyclists = bad?

[pclmulqdq]

As a non-cyclist, a lot of us don't particularly care what keeps you safe if you behave erratically and not according to the written rules. We want you to behave in a way that keeps everyone safe. A lot of cyclists - and a lot of drivers - do not.

The right thing to do is to follow the rules as written and lobby for change rather than to go about doing things that the rest of us don't understand because you perceive them as safer.

I think the Idaho stop is actually a good rule as long as you have to slow down to 10 mph/15 kph as you go through the stop sign - I have lived in NYC and nearly been on the receiving end of an asshole on a 20 mph bike several times.

[btbuildem]

As a non-cyclist, it would behoove you to listen to someone with first-hand experience, and decline the opportunity to make yourself look like a dunce by speaking your mind.

[pclmulqdq]

Hold on, I have no firsthand experience of cyclists because I don't ride a bike through the street? So all those times I have walked (and driven) around cyclists mean nothing at all because I'm not the one on the bike?

Right now, we have car-centric rules that apply to cyclists, and that is pretty unsafe for cyclists and drivers, but pedestrians are often the ones on the receiving end of cyclists' bad/unpredictable behavior today.

I agree that cyclists need different rules, but I also think that cyclists need to have those rules written down and follow them. If you have walked around NYC for any length of time, you will experience an area that has: (1) a lot of cyclists, (2) decent infrastructure and well-defined rules for cyclists, and (3) a lot of cyclists who break those rules when it is convenient. That is completely untenable.

[avianlyric]

> We want you to behave in a way that keeps everyone safe.

What evidence do you have that their behaviour significantly impacts the safety of others?

The statistics clearly show the drivers are largest cause of injury and fatalities on the road, and bikes cause so few injuries and fatalities that the stats are basically just noise.

Additionally if you look at UK police reports of incidents between bikes and cars, the police almost never attribute blame to cyclist behaviour. Only something like 10% of cases are cyclist found to be partially at fault, and never fully at fault.

[pclmulqdq]

Police in those cases are not trying to root-cause the accident. They are assigning legal blame. Here in the US, if you are driving a car and a child suddenly runs out into the road in front of you, you are at fault regardless the circumstances. The child's behavior was the root cause, but the car was at fault.

I have been involved in two pedestrian-cyclist crashes (never seriously hurt) and witnessed another ~5, and in all cases, it wasn't reported to the police. These were in NYC, where the police won't pay attention to anything short of a homicide, so people rarely report things. I suspect that a lot of pedestrian-cyclist incidents don't get reported, even when one of them ends up in the ER.

Where I live now there aren't many road cyclists, but like the child, if a cyclist does something unpredictable and a driver doesn't notice, I assume the driver would still legally be at fault.

[avianlyric]

> Police in those cases are not trying to root-cause the accident. They are assigning legal blame. Here in the US, if you are driving a car and a child suddenly runs out into the road in front of you, you are at fault regardless the circumstances. The child's behaviour was the root cause, but the car was at fault.

That might be true in the US, not so much in the UK. The police reports try to determine root-cause, including any mitigating circumstances for any party involved. Insurance might consider that as “legal-fault”, but the courts don’t. They’ll use it as part of their evaluation, but judges and magistrates also include other information that might be pertinent when trying to divvy up fault.

> Where I live now there aren't many road cyclists, but like the child, if a cyclist does something unpredictable and a driver doesn't notice, I assume the driver would still legally be at fault.

Has it occurred to you that if a cyclist making a minor error results in a car hitting them, it might be that the driver was far too close to the cyclist? It not like a bike can accelerate or change direction extremely quickly, giving a bike a couple of meters of space is usually all you need to ensure that a collision doesn’t happen if either parties do something unexpectedly.

Finally the most common cause of bike-car incidents is driver doing stupid things like pulling out in front of bikes, or more likely, turning across them unexpectedly. Cars can behave just as erratically and unpredictably as bikes, difference is, car occupants rarely suffer serious consequences.

[mynegation]

You should care about other people safety no matter what. As a driver - if I can prevent an accident - it is my moral responsibility to do so - even if the other party is blatantly breaking the rules.

[pclmulqdq]

I mean this only in that bicyclists like to use "I am just doing what keeps me safe" as justification for behaving like an asshole and endangering others. I still suggest trying to avoid accidents no matter how much of an asshole the other party is.

[bombcar]

It's like "loud pipes save lives" - it may be true in some way, but it's a post-facto justification for 90% of the people using it.