[7e]

It's simple selfishness. Cyclists don't want to lose their momentum. Coasting is fun and exertion is not; humans evolved to minimize their energy expenditure. To fix that, you'd need to redesign the bicycle to be completely battery powered. Even then, acceleration will be slower than not stopping. Cyclists will try to rationalize their behavior in all kinds of ways, but they're just lying to themselves (and you).

[nativeit]

Not like the altruistic endeavor that is driving a car in a dense urban environment. Those are the real heroes.

[0xfaded]

The fix is really quite simple, develop separate routes for cyclists and motor vehicles. Where those routes unavoidably cross have proper intersections. The person you are replying to is right, four-way-stops are a travesty, both for cyclists and cars.

[manualdriver3]

Incorporating manual vehicle operation into the driving test could significantly alter driving habits, a change I've personally experienced after learning to drive a manual as an adult. As GP notes, the desire to conserve energy and avoid stopping and then starting again is common among cyclists, and this principle applies to manual vehicles as well. Having been raised in the U.S., I understand the potential chaos of having no stop signs or traffic lights at busy four-way intersections. However, this system functions effectively in major cities globally, where drivers, perhaps more accustomed to manual vehicles, approach and navigate intersections with greater awareness and negotiation skills.

I believe that mandating manual driving lessons for all learners could foster improved driving behaviors and heightened road awareness. This approach could encourage drivers to be more attentive and considerate of other road users, enhancing overall safety and efficiency on the roads.

[7e]

Sure, have fewer stops. But even if you separate the routes, cyclists will eventually have to stop somewhere (even for other cyclists), and they won’t want to.

[armada651]

You'll see a lot more cyclists acting safely if it's actually safe to cycle. Dangerous cycling infrastructure scares away safe cyclists, so all you're left with are the daredevils who won't stop for anything.

[7e]

It's actually more tha bikes don't have license plates, and aren't pulled over and ticketed by cops. The anonymity drives lawlessness.

[godelski]

> It's simple selfishness.

This is a weird characterization of what's going on given you have an apt description. I've only been struck by cars (twice) when stopped at a stop sign. It's no question that an intersection is one of the most dangerous locations for a cyclist and it is also no question that an intersection can be cleared significantly faster when starting with __any__ amount of momentum vs a complete stop. Specifics will be necessary for making adequate conclusions here. Someone blindly blowing through an intersection certainly clears the intersection faster but that alone doesn't mean the behavior is appropriate or any less idiotic. And someone doing that is very different from someone slowing down and treating the stop sign like a yield sign. An over generalization is just going to lead to irrational conclusions because context is necessary.

[philistine]

Don't give them the time of day. I never understood why cyclists acted the way they act until I started commuting to work. I felt unsafe at intersections when stopped. I felt unsafe at intersections when starting slowly. I read online about some road rules making my trips more dangerous for ME, not the cars. Now I know what I can do that's totally illegal that's keeping me safer.

[7e]

Cycling is dangerous when mixed with cars, for sure. But blazing through at an intersection full of cars which are expecting you to stop is even more dangerous. Stop sign rules exist for a reason (to slow vehicles down enough that everyone can see and negotiate everyone else) and it's safer for all if you obey them. This is an example of the rationalization I alluded to earlier. Cyclists lie to themselves.

Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors.

This is not to excuse drivers, who do lazy and selfish things all the time, like looking at their phones. The root cause is the same--human nature. It just so happens that the incentives are worse when cycling.

[armada651]

> Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors.

You've just described the average cyclist in Amsterdam. They'll do all of that at the same time with a passenger sitting on the rear baggage carrier.

Yet the Netherlands has one of the lowest mortality rates per mile cycled and the US has one of the highest. Despite the US having very strict full stop laws for cyclists.

[7e]

28% of vehicle fatalities in Amsterdam are cycling related. Deaths do happen. If you’re arguing that these behaviors are, in fact, safe, I would disagree strongly. The U.S. drives large trucks at high speeds because the U.S. isn't very dense, even in cities, and car centric. And bike infrastructure is lacking. I agree, making cycling safer makes cyclists safer. But none of this explains why cyclists bike like a*holes in every country, which is the point I was making. In addition to the physics of bikes encouraging selfish behavior, there is the lack of license plates and ticketing.

[armada651]

> 28% of vehicle fatalities in Amsterdam are cycling related. Deaths do happen.

Of course, none of those behaviors are safe. And mandating lights, a helmet, high visibility jacket, kneepad protectors and a license plate would make a cyclist safer. (And lights are mandatory even in Amsterdam)

But it would also discourage people from cycling by making that mode of transportation even more inconvenient than it already is compared to the car. And so because, as you noted, humans seek convenience; they will take the car instead.

> But none of this explains why cyclists bike like a*holes in every country, which is the point I was making.

Again it's self-selecting, since there is no bike infrastructure and you ride in between large trucks you have to be very assertive in traffic. Which tends to select for the more stand-offish types.