Never in a million years could understand why somebody in a vehicle, who has but to move their foot a half centimeter in order to accelerate, feels the need to be ahead of all the cyclists and make sure all the rules are obeyed perfectly.
Really, who gets a fuck if some dude on a bike saves a half second so he doesn’t have to burn off legs getting up to speed again.
For fuck sakes, I both drive and I cycle, and I’ve never understood.
I admit to being impatient as a driver sometimes… because driving isn’t very pleasant and I want it to be over.
I as well, none of us are immune to normal human things. It’s just the attitude I don’t relate to, the self-centeredness, the rage, the immediate forgetting that they have friends, family, and children who bike or they themselves bike.
This is something I have been also wondering for ages and on top of that they sit in a cabinet shielded from elements in a stable temperature.
Yet they need to speed up to make the turn 0,5 seconds before the bike passes the crossing while almost killing the bicyclist in the process.
Insane.
As a non-USAian I’m a little confused. Do you guys have intersections where BOTH roads get a stop sign? I’ve only ever seen intersections where one road is the default right of way, and the intersecting road has to stop. Both roads stopping seems really confusing.
At a four way stop, the vehicle that stops first has right of way. If all vehicles stop at the same time. It’s the one going straight through the intersection. Then the one that is the rightmost.
What he did was fucking horrible, but please explain to me why it should be okay for a bicycle to not use the stop sign?
Always told my kids that the cemetery is full of people with right away.
About 15% of the US population lives in states with Idaho Stop laws, where bicyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs, and just under half of those also allow them to treat red lights as stop-then-yield signs. This has provided hard data indicating such a practice is measurably safer for cyclists, I believe at least partially because a disproportinate amount of collisions involving them happen in intersections and not needing to slow down for them means cyclists spend less time in those high danger zones. Given how much advice I was given as a driver boiled down to “drive safely, even if that means breaking the law” (especially given in regards to speed limits), I think it is perfectly justified for a biker to do the same, and act in the safer manner even if the laws says to do something else.
A lot of states (can’t speak for the rules in Europe) have laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. This is supposed to be safer for cyclists. It also allows cyclists to be more energy efficient and faster, because accelerating is the hardest part of cycling and it takes a long time compared to coasting through an intersection.
The video below does a good job giving a brief overview of why this change was made.
Personally, I still look both ways before going through a stop sign, and, if I see vehicles, I’ll slow down enough so that I can react if needed. Check your local laws to see how cyclists should treat stop signs.
I used to bike everywhere all the time in a city and I got out in the road, like I was supposed to, and signaled with my arms like a boy scout and followed the law for stop signs and lights, and people were still abusive shit assholes towards me. I put a baby seat with a doll and helmet on the back of my bike and I had a lot less bullshit happen, but people still ran me off the road, rolled coal in my face, screamed and honked at me, everything. To put it simply. A person on a bike is trying to survive, a person in a car is driving. the person trying to survive is less attentive to the strict rules of the road and more alert to when a car or truck is going to try and kill them and how to quickly avoid that. I personally liked to put a ballard tree, or another car between me and the vehicle trying to kill me as a go to solution, this usually requires being close to the side of the road. sometimes I’d rather be closer to a tree or parked cars than correctly obeying signs. go figure.
Because most of the infrastructure it meant to enable cars, the ultimate death machines. It is infra necessitated by and built for them. Look at any of the numerous yt-vids by the channel “bicycle dutch” from mayor dutch cities during rush hour to get an idea of what traffic without cars looks like - no stop signs, no lights, no nothing. Also, moderate starting and stopping increases energy demand per cycled stretch by up to 25%, compared to basically 0 for the automatic driving fatass in the pickup.
Yeah, but in this case there was a stop sign. Being alive and safe is better then being dead and “saving energy”.
In a car centric city, bikes should always be on the look out for cars that may not follow the rules and do whatever they can to ensure they stay safe. Sure it’s not fair, but dying to make a point is just stupid.
Exactly told my kids never trust that right away and though not the law always, always give the car the right of way. Because cars no matter what can KILL YOU! And do every fucking day.
As a bicyclists myself I treat it as if driving a car. Stop at stop signs and damn sure at red lights. But I seen bicycles blow through them too.
That’s literally assault: Threatening to do harm to another person. I don’t know why we’re censoring this person’s username, this should be getting forwarded to law enforcement.
When I drive I’m aware that I’m in the killing machine which means to me that if a bike comes to an intersection and doesn’t look like they’re stopping I consider them having the right of way no matter the situation.
I make space for mopeds and give them also extra care if they’re doing something dumb just because in a collision I’m not the one getting injured. For example in a congested roundabout I know they’re probably going to filter through and pass in front of my car so I just make space so that it can be done safely.
Safe and predictable.
Ha, look at this loser with their empathy!
(/s if it wasn’t clear)
Everyone is an asshole here, blowing through red lights. Fuck everyone involved. Nothing to do with cars or bikes. I’m pissed.
Nope! Cars and bikes have different traffic laws. Where I live what the cyclist did is perfectly legal because they only have to yield but not stop and they expected the car to stop as it should have.
Just to be clear, this is different states by state. Some states allow a yield at a stop sign for cyclists. Some require a strict stop like ant other vehicle on the road. There may even be stricter city ordinances too. Know your local laws before cycling through a stop.
The most dangerous place for cyclists is the middle of an intersection. Bicycles do not have A pillars, and thus no blind spots. If the intersection is clear, the cyclist should continue through without stopping to leave the intersection faster. Bicycles are slow to start, and can only take evasive actions while in motion. So its much safer to not stop.
Those laws are good and make cyclists safer. Some places may have different laws, but any law telling cyclists to stop at all stop signs should be disregarded. Ensuring your own safety is far more important than appeasing bureaucrats.
Edit: Just re-read my own local traffic laws and cyclists can legally treat stop signs as yeild signs here too!
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
As a cyclist it is safer to yield because bikes can’t speed up quickly from a stop. If we maintain speed it’s easier to get out of the way if we need to.
If you don’t stop you would be putting yourself in danger in the intersection, stopping allows you to see the dangers and account for them.
If you’re a stopped, the only danger is from behind you at the stop sign. You’re avoiding the danger ahead in the intersection and can now time it appropriately to get through.
How is not stopping at intersections safer? A car can’t also make a maneuver while stopped…. The same logic you’re using is the same for cars, so bikes shouldn’t be singled out and allowed for that reason.
I would love a source for this “being safer”. You keep saying this, and are the only one, provide data to back it up, because it’s bullshit.
Driving and sharing the road is about being predictable, ignoring traffic signs is the most unpredictably thing you can do. Your suggesting is an extremely dangerous way to share the road.
Most people are only going like 10 to 15 mph on a bike. That’s plenty of time to see the entire intersection as you approach. When I was 15 my back tire got hit by speeding car that ignored the sign. It was really scary and if I hadn’t stopped before crossing I would have been going faster and not gotten hit. That’s why when I look ahead, which I have plenty of time to do, I just go through, plus it’s entirely legal too.
Depends on the intersection, my city has tons of blind intersections due to walled communities everywhere. You can see ahead of you but can’t see the cross streets
I agree with that. Not directed at you, but I assumed people would realize that going through the stop sign is only really done at intersections that have good visibility (and low traffic, obviously if a lot of cars are around you’d probably have to stop) and I think I may have assumed wrong.
I have never bought this argument. I don’t believe it’s safer to blow through a stop sign. It’s just inconvenient to have to stop.
Cyclists also have a much, much better overview of the situation than a car driver in their isolated cabin with all the blind spots.
Let’s be honest here, you have blind spots as a cyclist as well. Yeah, you can have the equipment to see 360 without twisting to look behind you, but most don’t have that.
Having a blind spot because it takes a moment to turn your head is way different from having a blind spot because there is a headrest and multiple metal pillars in the way at minimum. Also on a bike you can probably actually hear surrounding traffic, which helps a lot with spatial awareness.
They’re certainly right about that last sentence, but not in the way they think.
Prepared for Terries vibes.
