SF cyclists protest by obeying the law

[dobby]

The physics:
Bicycles brake slower than automobiles at equivalent speed
Bicycles accelerate far slower than cars
Bicycles have a lower top speed in nearly all cases
Roll stopping is safer and more convenient for everyone involved,
the anti crowd is mostly motivated by dislike and desire to cause discomfort to cyclists, not any true desire for community safety.

[anon34697667]

@onlinehuman

Yes, cars would also require a parade permit if their driving is organized as an “event”

But this wasn’t an event. These were bicyclists riding their bikes through the City, the same way motorists were driving their cars through the City.

[Benjamin_Jones]

Love that point, gatto. I often hear anti-bike crusaders refer to cyclists as a different group from car drivers, which is pretty silly. I was once told that I should pay a license fee to cover my using the road.

I reminded them that I paid all the same car fees as they do, I just choose to use a lot less of the road on the days that I ride a bike.

[mewyn]

@tristis

Unfortunately, while the protesters apparently want to be able to treat stop signs as yield signs, in my experience in SF, about half of the cyclists treat stop signs as invisible. For every conscientious cyclist, there’s an asshole who doesn’t care about cars with the right-of-way, pedestrians crossing the street, or anyone else. I’d be all for the law being changed, but then the cyclists better be prepared to still get ticketed when they don’t actually yield.

Abso-fricking-lutely. It feels to me like there’s no pleasing cyclists in the SF Bay Area. Around my home they recently put in bike lanes. No one is using them. Still, assholes riding on sidewalks ranging from the general casual rider to the dedicated shorts-wearing rider. As a pedestrian this is /infuriating/.

[onlinehuman]

From the article I read, it was an organized protest.

[wysinwyg]

This seems like a pretty pedantic exception to my comment.

Yes, maybe a bicycle can hit top speed more quickly than a car, but that is comparatively so low that it seems almost engineered to avoid the point I was making.

Maybe there’s a point in the curve where the bicycle has a higher m/s^2 value than the car – but certainly not by very much. And if you take the average m/s^2 over the time it takes each to get out of the intersection, the car’s average acceleration beats the shit out of the bicycle’s.

Which is really what I’m getting at – it’s frustrating as hell being stuck behind a bicycle while in a car.

Which, in the OP, is the argument being made by bicyclists for why they should not have to stop at every stop sign (as I understand it). So I’m saying this from a pro bicycle point of view.

[wysinwyg]

@spejic

But the stop sign is a short delay, and one you expect because hey stop sign. Being stuck behind a bicyclist moving 10mph less than you want to drive is a bigger, more annoying delay.

Being stuck behind a bicyclist moving 10 mph less than you want to drive and stopping at every stop sign is an even bigger, more annoying delay than the same scenario without the stop signs.

Hence my comment. I’m really not sure why I had to explain this. Are you drunk by any chance?

Edit to add: And it should be obvious, but apparently nothing is to you. If the bicycle doesn’t have to stop at the signs, then their average speed in this scenario increases and becomes less annoying.

[anon34697667]

@onlinehuman

From the article I read, it was an organized protest.

From the article I read, and the ride in which I participated, it was a bicycle ride through the City, as well as a demonstration fully protected by the First Amendment.

[Purplecat]

This thread is why cycling belongs in the “wrath” category.

[popobawa4u]

@wysinwyg

Yes, maybe a bicycle can hit top speed more quickly than a car, but that is comparatively so low that it seems almost engineered to avoid the point I was making.

Not at all. My point was that there are inconsistencies when classifying the performance of a given mode of transit when its speed is determined solely upon the operator. Bikes go only as slowly as people make them.

@wysinwyg

Maybe there’s a point in the curve where the bicycle has a higher m/s^2 value than the car – but certainly not by very much. And if you take the average m/s^2 over the time it takes each to get out of the intersection, the car’s average acceleration beats the shit out of the bicycle’s.

No way. In urban traffic, it takes cars so long to reach their cruising velocity that they are often more than half way to stopping at the next intersection. I imagine that in huge sprawling areas such as Los Angeles cars reach their greater speeds, but in compact northeastern cities such as Boston and New York the bicycle can reach the speed limit instantly, which is probably going to be no more than 30 MPH. So the bike is always ahead. This is precisely why bike messengering has existed.

But, no doubt, there are many slow and sloppy cyclists out there. I have encountered many of them myself.

[wysinwyg]

I’m not accustomed to bicycles routinely going 30 mph in downtown Boston, so this explanation is not really ringing true to me.

I do see bicyclists – even bike messengers – trying to get a quick start in intersections and not-really-blowing-away-but-at-least-kinda-keeping-up-with-all-the-cars, so I see what you’re getting at, but I think you’re exaggerating (not necessarily intentionally).

[anon43737975]

Usually you can ride two-abreast “when there is space to do so” - which is usually taken to mean when there’s more than one lane available. Usually in a city it’d be discouraged as it makes passing impossible - unless you’re keeping with the prevalent speed of traffic, so passing isn’t necessary.

Here (not SF, not US) I’d consider single-file the correct way to go through a junction unless there’s either a second lane, or a dedicated “cycle box” in the junction layout.

[popobawa4u]

I don’t see how your experiences contradict my saying that the speed is determined by the operator instead of the bicycle.

I worked for years as a messenger in Boston, and was rather obsessive about measuring the start and stop times of bikes versus cars. Because I was always waiting for cars!. Sustaining 30 MPH was certainly doable by the best bikers. The only areas where cars would be going faster were routes out of downtown, such as Commonwealth Ave into Brighton or Morrissey Boulevard to The Globe. And even on those stretches, this was usually because they were speeding.

I agree though that bikes do not brake quite as fast as autos, but this averages somewhat against their being often half the length. The taller center of gravity makes a bike more likely to skid to a stop over a few feet from top speed - provided that it has good tires and properly calibrated brakes.

[thechuck_2112]

Does bicyclists following the letter of the law mean they’re not riding on the sidewalks I’m trying to walk on? If so, then I’m all for it, and I don’t give a damn about what it does to car traffic.

[wysinwyg]

@popobawa4u

I don’t see how your experiences contradict my saying that the speed is determined by the operator instead of the bicycle.

Well, they’re obviously determined by both. The inherent limitations of the bicycle obviously have some impact on speed, but the skill of the rider is also a big factor (same thing applies to cars).

The bigger point is that each of us seems to have experience that points us in different directions. Without a trusted third party to mediate, this is going to be an immensely unproductive discussion.

@popobawa4u

The only areas where cars would be going faster were routes out of downtown, such as Commonwealth Ave into Brighton

For example, in my experience Comm Ave is one of the more slow-moving roads in Boston, not one of the fastest. Probably because I’m usually only there at rush hour.

[Aaron_Hertzmann]

It would be great if drivers followed the laws too. Every day in SF I see drivers breaking the law: running red lights, crossing intersections while pedestrians are in the crosswalk, making illegal U-turns, stopping illegally, and on and on. Thousands of car-pedestrian accidents are reported annually in SF, the majority of which are determined to be the driver’s fault. 20-30 pedestrians are killed annually by cars. Compare this to the number of bike-pedestrian fatalities (zero).

[OtherMichael]

Pedestrians came from miles around
So tired of walking so close to the ground
They needed a change, that’s what they said
Life is better riding on two wheels
But they were in for a big surprise
'Cause they didn’t know the law!

CHORUS
(What is the law)
No block commute
What is the law
(No block commute)

(Who makes the rules)
Someone else
Who makes the rules
(Someone else)

The rules are written in the stone
Break the rules and you get no bones
All you get is ridicule, laughter
And a trip to the house of pain!

CHORUS (in reverse order)

We ride on four wheels not on two
To ride on two wheels breaks the law
What happens when we break the law?
What happens when the rules aren’t fair?
We all know here we go from there
To the house of pain!
To the house of pain!

(What is the law)
What is the law

(Who makes the rules)
Who makes the rules

We ride on four wheels not on two
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
(No block commute)

[gatto]

@mewyn

I’ve been hit as a pedestrian (thankfully at low speeds, wasn’t injured) by cyclist

as a pedestrian, i’ve been hit by a car (thankfully, also at low speed!) left turning without bothering to look that i was in the middle of the cross-walk.

some people seem to “other” folks into “those #%#! bicyclists” – which ignores the fact humans aren’t good at operating any vehicle at speed well most of the time. people don’t even operate their feet well – walking out into roads without looking, running at night without lights, ( tangentially related: walking dogs without a leash ), etc.

driving, i think, is uniquely stressful, and every outlier behavior witnessed pushes on drivers – everyone just has to take deep breaths, and do the best we can.

@mewyn

I forget where, I think somewhere in Canada, the law is to have stop signs treated as yield and red lights as stop signs for cyclists. That’s a sane approach, and I’d agree to that; but here in the SF Bay there’s more than enough cyclists that don’t even do /that/.

it’s probably too much to hope, but maybe? if the cycling laws were like you describe, then maybe? more bicycling people would be willing to meet them. it certainly would be a clear(er) rule for self-policing.

[tristis]

Motorists also get ticketed all the time. Nobody was arguing that cars are not more dangerous than bicycles. That does not absolve all cyclists of any wrongdoing. And not all policing is about preventing deaths.

[pfooti]

My problem with roll-stopping is not that I want bicyclists to come to a full and complete stop every time they get to a stop sign, but to get some sense of what bicyclists should and should not do.

I’m driving a car, stopped at a four-way stop. A bicycle approaches as I get ready to pull into the intersection. Do I stop and let the bike go through? Do I pull into the intersection anyway and hope the bike is stopping? What if I go to let the bike through and then the bike stops? There’s a two-by-two matrix here (me: go / stop, bike: roll / stop) in which one quadrant is an accident, two are fine traffic encounters, and one is both of us sitting and waving, “no you go”.

If bikes behaved predictably and consistently at stop signs, I’d be fine, no matter what the law said.

Full disclosure- I once hit a bicyclist who not only rolled a stop sign, but ran through it at full speed. I ended up with the ticket, because I was in the car. On the long timescale, I did come out ahead (the bicyclist went to the hospital), but I still feel terrible about that. All I want is to know: is that person on two wheels going to jump out in front of my fifteen hundred pound death machine?