In response to yesterday’s post about traffic terrorism, this word salad diatribe appeared in the comments:
Would be nice if you show videos of bikers running red lights and stop signs. Or maybe the ones who ignore bike lanes made just for them and ride in the traffic lanes instead. It gets very tiresome to hear about all the poor bikers who get treated so shabbily by drivers. While the evidence is in and I do not disagree with the conclusions here, give the whole story maybe. There are just as many rude and shitty bike riders who put themselves at risk as there are car drivers putting them at risk. In portland oregon (my city) they are spending millions for bike paths and trying to make the roads safer for pedestrians. In fact they are doing so to the detriment of drivers. And yet bike riders still are causing problems just like the car drivers yet that part is ignored.
Tell you what, charlie: When cyclists kill more pedestrians than HGV trucks alone, never mind all other deaths caused by motorized traffic, you might have an argument.
But that’s not what you’re arguing, is it? You’re saying bicycles are a danger by making cagers wait two seconds longer, all because cyclists and pedestrians want to commute and cross the road safely. Oh, the injustice and inconvenience of it for the metal box road ragers.
Any claim of “scofflaw cyclists” being worse than scofflaw cagers is farcical. I and my bike weigh barely over 100kg and go 30kmh when up to speed. Meanwhile a tiny hatchback weighs at least 900kg and goes 50-100kmh, while the majority of vehicles are heavier and faster. Pretending these pose the same danger to others is so wilfully blind that I recommend you see an optometrist and not drive until your vision is corrected.
I can point to dozens of videos where cagers run stop signs, like this one where a white cop causes a crash and falsely arrests the Black driver.
I can point to videos of cagers running through pedestrian crosswalks. I’ll bet he doesn’t know all unmarked intersections are legal crosswalks, and ALL cagers have to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross.
I doubt he can point to a single video or news report of a cyclist caused the death of a cager where the car was going 50kmh. (If a cager was speeding, swerved, and then crashed causing the driver’s death, that’s not the cyclist’s fault.) According to the US’s Governors Highway Safety Association (“Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2019 Preliminary Data“), the US has averaged over 5000 pedestrian deaths from motorized vehicles EVERY YEAR since 1989. I doubt that cyclists have killed 1000 pedestrians in those same 30 years.
PACTS is the UK’s Parliamentary Advisory Committee for Transportation Safety. In their December 2020 report which many call “Who killed whom”:
Figure 6: What kills pedestrians In every 100 crashes where a pedestrian is killed, the other vehicle involved was a: Cars: 65 HGV: 11 Van: 7 Bus: 6 Motorcycle or scooter: 4 Cyclist: 1 Figure 7: What kills cyclists In every 100 crashes where a cyclist is killed, the other vehicle involved was a Car: 48 HGV: 12 Van: 7 Other cyclist: 1
Given that nearly all motorized vehicles have only the driver, there’s a near 1:1 correspondence between cagers and cyclists to their modes of transportation. According to the UK government, there are 3.7 million car trips per day in London, and Cyclist UK says there are 740,000 bicycle trips per day in London. That means there are only 4.5 times as many cagers as cyclists, and yet the number of pedestrian deaths each cause is a 90:1 ratio. And we’re supposed to believe “cyclists are the danger”?
I’m sure he views Cycling Mikey as the “problem” in this video, calls CM the “scofflaw” for standing in front of the car and not the jerk in a merc driving on the wrong side of the road:
Contrary to the lies, myths, and propaganda cagers repeat from ignorance, the overwhelming majority of cyclists obey the law. Also contrary to the lies, myths, and propaganda, “Idaho stops” are more efficient for traffic, and are NOT an impediment. This claim that “cyclists don’t stop at stop signs!” isn’t about lawbreaking, it’s about jealousy that cagers can’t do the same.
What is an “Idaho stop” and where did it come from? An Idaho stop is when cyclists treat stop signs as a yield sign. The cyclist slows while approaching the intersection, and if the road is clear, can proceed without stopping. If a vehicle is coming from another direction, then the cyclist must come to a full stop. It came about because a judge in Idaho was overwhelmed and fed up with nuisance charges filed against cyclists not stopping on empty roads where there were no cars. And even when there were cars, the lack of anything to obstruct people’s view rendered stop signs moot.
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. Stopping — Turn and stop signals. (1) A person operating a bicycle, human-powered vehicle, or an electric-assisted bicycle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person, after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way, if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person, after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way, if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic.
(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section 49-644, Idaho Code.
(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.
Why is it beneficial to legalize Idaho stops? If cyclists stop, they lose all momentum and it takes them longer to start again. That means they take longer to go through and thus spend more time within the intersection. This both endangers the cyclist and impedes the flow of traffic. But if the road is clear and a cyclist enters the intersection at 5km, it takes less time to speed up and clear the intersection. And at 5kmh, it will take cyclists less than a metre to come to a full stop if other traffic approaches. Motorized vehicles can move themselves, so there’s no argument for legalizing this for cagers.
Driver attitudes towards cyclists are almost exactly the same as toxic male drivers towards women drivers. They see only the exceptions and not the majority while blithely ignoring their own ilk’s behaviours. For every ten minute “women drivers” video you find on youtube, you’ll find ten hours of male drivers, and yet men ignore the disparity in the amount. Or the fact that most of women’s crashes are under 60kmh and/or due to inattentiveness, while male drivers are speeding and road raging.
Here’s an item from that communist, vegan, and anti-big business media Forbes, reporting that drivers are the danger, not cyclists. And in The Guardian video below, the UK cops are admitting that the difference is the danger posed comparing cyclists and cars, who can and does cause more harm if they break the law. Emphasis in the text is mine.
May 10, 2019
A new study from the Danish Road Directorate shows that less than 5% of cyclists break traffic laws while riding yet 66% of motorists do so when driving. The Danish Cycling Embassy, a privately-funded NGO, puts this down to visibility: law breaking by cyclists is “easy to notice for everyone” but transgressions by motorists, such as speeding, are harder to spot.
The study was carried out for the Danish government by consulting firm Rambøll using video cameras sited at major junctions in Danish cities, including Copenhagen. It was found that just 4.9% of cyclists broke road rules when they were riding on cycleways. This rose to 14% of cyclists when there was no cycling infrastructure present.
The video cameras counted 28,579 cyclists crossing at intersections. The most frequently recorded transgression was bicycling on the sidewalk. Rule breaking by cyclists was twice as numerous in smaller cities which, in Denmark, have fewer cycleways. The new study had almost identical results to an earlier one carried out by the consulting firm Copenhagenize. This was also a video study and analyzed the behaviour of 80,000 cyclists: it found that 5% broke traffic laws.
Separate studies by the Danish Road Directorate found that two-thirds of motorists routinely flout the law, with breaking local speed limits being the most common offense.
Drivers don’t want cyclists on the road. They don’t want cyclists on the sidewalk. And they don’t want cycling infrastructure to be built because that means less space for cars. And yet they still pretend they’re not trying to ban bicycles.
As the saying goes:
You’re not “stuck in traffic”. You ARE the traffic.
Drivers don’t and can’t grasp that their car is part of the problem, why they can’t get anywhere fast.