Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivb4boq wrote

Reply to comment by holly_hoots in Cambridge City Council to consider citywide ban on ‘turning on red’ by superfakesuperfake

Cyclists ignore / break (take your pick) just as many traffic laws as drivers, there are just less of them and they (usually) can't hurt the other classes of people on the road, with pedestrians at the mercy of everyone. Everyone transits like an asshole these days.

15

CJYP t1_ivb9a7t wrote

It's actually safer for everyone if cyclists treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

40

WikiSummarizerBot t1_ivb9cw3 wrote

Idaho stop

>The Idaho stop is the common name for laws that allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. It first became law in Idaho in 1982, but was not adopted elsewhere until Delaware adopted a limited stop-as-yield law, the "Delaware Yield", in 2017. Arkansas was the second state to legalize both stop-as-yield and red light-as-stop in April 2019. Studies in Delaware and Idaho have shown significant decreases in crashes at stop-controlled intersections.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

14

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivbp6wo wrote

That's not what the law currently says though, and not what drivers expect.

7

CJYP t1_ivbwzko wrote

Not what the law currently says, sure. My safety trumps the law though.

Not what drivers expect? Only if you're not following the spirit of an Idaho Stop. At a stop sign, you're supposed to stop and only proceed if and when it's safe to do so. Going out in front of moving cars wouldn't be safe, so you shouldn't do that, even if it's legal.

12

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivc2h6g wrote

People don't expect anyone to jump the light. I have no idea why you think it's safer for you to break traffic laws while being sanctimonious at everyone.

0

CJYP t1_ivcguhi wrote

I think it's safe because of that study cited in the Wikipedia article I linked. Do you have any counter-evidence?

> People don't expect anyone to jump the light.

I think you missed the key point. You wouldn't jump a stop sign when people are moving, so you don't jump the light in front of people who are moving. If you do, you're not doing an Idaho Stop. You're just being an idiot. The whole point is you only jump the light when there's nobody coming, and therefore nobody to surprise.

8

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivcn9xr wrote

It seems like we're talking past each other. Drivers don't expect anyone to jump a light because that's illegal. Your perception of the safety of doing so is irrelevant. You don't see every car in every situation, so the expectation of drivers is important to your safety too. In general, drivers rely on the predictability of what's around them because of the inertia of a vehicle. Decisions have to be made in advance to keep everyone alive, and having the expectation that people are following the rules of the road is an important part of making those predictions. If you ever drove, I think this would be pretty intuitive to you.

0

CJYP t1_ivcomlz wrote

You're correct that my perception that an Idaho Stop is safer is irrelevant. However, the linked study showing that it is safer is definitely relevant. I don't understand what you're missing here. The Wikipedia article is right there in my original comment, and the study is cited with a link in that article.

6

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivcoxmv wrote

It's irrelevant because it isn't legal here. If you're doing it and nobody else knows, then it can't possibly be safer than following the law is.

−2

CJYP t1_ivcq50d wrote

I strongly disagree with the idea that whether it is legal or not actually matters. All it changes is whether people do it or not. I doubt most drivers in the states where it is legal actually know about it.

That said, this is conjecture that I don't have direct evidence for. I searched and can't find evidence for or against. So in the interest of not arguing in circles, I'm going to leave it at that and stop replying here.

8

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbzvnm wrote

I believe MA law also empowers cyclists to do what they need to do to preserve their safety — and frequently getting out ahead of parked cars to get around an obstacle i.e. an uber car parked in the bike lane, makes things safer for everyone.

2

wittgensteins-boat t1_ivd4gs9 wrote

Cyclists have full authority to be in an auto lane on a street.
Bike lanes are suggested but not mandatory for bikes.

Edit:

Mass General Laws Chapter 85, Section 11B.
Link:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B

7

devmac1221 t1_ivmi9x7 wrote

And you are REQUIRED BY LAW to move over when there is space to do so. City spends ungodly amounts of money to build you people bikes lanes to ride in and you want to be everywhere else but them. They take away parking and left and right turning and all sorts of shit and you wanna ride in the middle of the street anyway. You people are insufferable

3

wittgensteins-boat t1_ivmmecj wrote

Cite the statute.

Here is my citation. Mass General Laws Chapter 85, section 11B

> Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section...

LINK. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B

2

devmac1221 t1_ivmvled wrote

I stand corrected. I misread the law and I apologize for that.

However, for all of the laws that your insufferable community break on a literal daily basis see Ch. 85 sec. 11b

"When riding on public ways, bicyclists must obey the same basic traffic laws and regulations that apply to motor vehicle operators."

You want to ride in front of cars or however you want and act like the world revolves around you, its on you whatever happens. In all Seriousness though, stay safe out there. Contrary to popular belief noone wants to see anyone hurt

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ivmy1pq wrote

Yes, the same statute states that bicyclists must obey the rules of the road.

1

FirstLastDeposit t1_ivgndfl wrote

I know it’s really dumb when you see idiots on memorial drive though 🤡

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivc2uu9 wrote

There is no law that gives you general license to routinely break traffic rules on your perception of safety. Sorry bout that.

1

jeffbyrnes t1_iwdk5gl wrote

And there’s nothing that says motorists are allowed to routinely break the law in myriad accepted ways, yet we know these things are fully normalized:

  • Going 5–10 MPH over the speed limit
  • Rolling through stop signs
  • Making right turns on red even when it is clearly posted to be illegal
  • Using a handheld device (e.g. phone) while driving
  • “Punish passing” a cyclist (i.e. passing closer than 3 feet)

Compared to the above, the traffic violations that a cyclist can commit aren’t even close in terms of potential and actual harm done.

So if anything, general license to routinely break traffic rules is not only common, but well accepted in the US.

Since my breaking some laws as a cyclist keeps me safe, while others breaking the law as a driver leads to people being hurt and killed, we need to recognize that these two kinds of law-breaking are not the same.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwdl39y wrote

Please. There's no mob on the internet arguing that drivers are right to break traffic laws, or that tax cheats are right to lie on their returns, or that landlords are right to do construction without permits, etc., etc. There are many self-interested behaviors in society that are prevalent, but nobody is standing up claiming to be righteous in breaking the law for selfish purpose... Except one guy who lives in Florida and won't STFU.

1

jeffbyrnes t1_iwdxcbd wrote

The difference is when I break the law while cycling, I’m increasing my safety. If it isn’t making me safer, I’m not doing it.

Until we fix the normalization of scofflaw driving (it’s not enforced many times b/c the enforcers consider those behaviors normal & act the same way, even when they’re working a shift doing enforcement).

I’ve had folks scream at me for obeying the law while cycling, punish pass me b/c I’m going to the speed limit (20 MPH) and am in front of them, and lots more antisocial, dangerous, & sometimes illegal behavior.

Pointing at scofflaw cyclists is a distraction & takes away from the need to solve the much more pressing and more dangerous illegal & antisocial behavior most drivers exhibit.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwdz4b5 wrote

If you're blocking a car lane with your bicycle on a road, you're making a huge mistake. That's not safe or smart, and I'm not surprised you run into conflicts with drivers if you cycle around with that competitive attitude about space on the road. This conflict you're having with heavy moving objects makes very little sense.

0

jeffbyrnes t1_iweqvf0 wrote

Are you aware that there’s no such thing as “blocking the road with your bicycle”? It’s been mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but if there’s no bike lane, cyclists are legally entitled to the entire main travel lane.

So your point here is invalid. Also, if I’m going 20 MPH, there shouldn’t be any conflicts, since I’m going the speed limit.

So I can’t be “blocking a car lane” since I’m traveling at the legal speed limit.

If a car is going faster than me, they’re breaking the law, which is the very thing you’re railing against, and doing so in a fashion that’s far more dangerous & deadlier than if I break the law on my bike.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwew0jw wrote

I can't really debate you on the speed limits on particular roads on which you've experienced this, not knowing really anything other than what you claim. I just think what you're doing is wildly not-smart and your misdirection into this little vignette makes clear that safety is not what you've really optimized on when cycling. You're having a game of chicken with a two ton object, which seems unwise. I can see how this is causing you conflicts on the road and how you would get upset, but I fear you're just being quite immature about the whole thing.

0

jeffbyrnes t1_iwg9ur2 wrote

You can absolutely speak to the speed in Cambridge: the citywide speed limit is 25, but most roads are 20 MPH.

The whole point of my actions is to be safer. If there’s no bike lane, I need to take the main lane to be safe from being doored by drivers getting out of parked cars, which is a far greater risk than moving traffic behind me.

I’m also legally entitled to the entire lane.

Drivers speeding is a near-constant. So again: it doesn’t matter if I take the lane and am going 20 MPH myself, nobody driving should be conflicting with me b/c they shouldn’t be going faster than me.

Said another way: being directly in front of a car is the safest place I can be if there’s no bike lane. I’m at my most visible directly in front of a driver. If I’m to the side? Less visible, and in the door zone for parked cars.

It’s not a game of chicken when we’re all going the same direction.

You’re misunderstanding my point, which is that I can obey every law to a T, and I will endure drivers flagrantly breaking laws in ways that society has decided are completely acceptable.

So if we’ve all decided road laws are optional as a society, why am I being held to a higher standard as a cyclist, even though my behavior is far less risky than a driver?

2

jeffbyrnes t1_iwgcfeo wrote

Y’know, lemme ask this another way: would any of the behaviors I’ve described be acceptable if I were driving my car?

Would someone speeding around me, crossing the double yellow, b/c I was driving the speed limit, be acceptable, much less legal?

Would someone speeding at all, just because, be acceptable or legal?

Because that’s my issue here.

I obey far more moving vehicle laws than most drivers. I never speed (because I can’t! I can’t go that fast) and only rarely disobey a red light to cross when I deem it safer than waiting for cars to be allowed to move.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwhet63 wrote

Hey, it's your life. I'm not a two ton object that needs to be convinced. I'm sometimes on a bike but not trying to get into a pissing contest with cars, as you seem to be. I yield and let them go. Why would you want to be an obstacle? Just sounds like you're making things unsafe for yourself to prove a point. That's not going to help much if you get hurt. Please stay safe. Your bike is an ancient technology with no safety features of any kind.

0

jeffbyrnes t1_iwhugnf wrote

Your entire argument was “cyclists should obey the law”.

So why do drivers get a pass?

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwi2w78 wrote

Who's giving them a pass? But if you think you're some kind of bicycle vigilante Batman who we need to enforce the law through daily conflict while straddling your 19th century contraption, I can assure you that this scenario is not something the public demands. Just give it a rest, man.

0

jeffbyrnes t1_iwixyb1 wrote

I mean, you’re giving them a pass.

You’ve been hot all over this set of comments, lambasting folks sharing that they break some laws in an attempt to be safer while cycling.

Saying “ugh scofflaw cyclists” while not even once acknowledging the reality of driver behavior as far worse is disingenuous.

Also, you keep referring to a bicycle as something antiquated & unsafe, which has its own negative connotations.

I’m hardly a vigilante; I ride a step-through & wear street clothes when I bike places.

Nobody, no matter how they get around, should be punish-passed or otherwise deal with abuse for going places, and yet this regularly happens to many. Hell, I’ve been punish-passed while driving a car.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwj21vz wrote

OK, I think you're speaking a slightly different language here with terms and accusations I don't really understand -- or I don't understand how they're pertinent. I think maybe it's gotten too unhinged to continue onward with this conversation really. Good luck with your bicycles.

0

[deleted] t1_ive56te wrote

[deleted]

−1

CJYP t1_ives3st wrote

I suggest you read my other comments in this thread. I've actually been very consistent. I don't give a single shit what is legal, either for cars or for bikes. I only care about what is safe.

5

vimgod t1_ivejxtl wrote

How many people have bicycles killed? Does your brain even work lmao

3

FirstLastDeposit t1_ivgnpi8 wrote

Have you ever been hit by an idiot on a bike? My fear of stopping at a red light is being hit by another cyclist.

1

CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivba810 wrote

If you want it to be a law then get it on the ballot. Until then, you're unpredictable on the road and makes it less safe for everyone. Just because you disagree with current laws on stop signs and stop lights doesn't give you free reign to bypass them.

−2

CJYP t1_ivbabwz wrote

I just posted a link showing it's safer for everyone and you're telling me it's less safe for everyone?

3

CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbar8h wrote

Yes, being unpredictable on the road makes it less safe. Do you enjoy people changing lanes without turn signals? What about turning on red when there is a no turn on red?

And your argument is beside the point when it's not legal in Mass. If it's safer, then make it a traffic law and then it can be taught and properly enforced when a car fucks up and hits a biker who practices it.

0

CJYP t1_ivbaxlj wrote

Those people are in cars and can kill me. Bikes can't do that. If you want to go against the evidence I posted that it's safer, you're going to have to provide counter evidence of some sort.

9

CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbbb3q wrote

Counter evidence: I've been hit twice (once resulting in physical therapy) by bikes while crossing in a crosswalk while I have the right of way. Once in Boston near BU, and once in Central Square. Despite that, I still support bike lanes, I still support bus lanes, I still support all of it.

It doesn't change the fact that everyone is an asshole when transiting in this state and if you want the Idaho Stop to be a thing here then get it passed and in the books.

And just to be clear, for whatever reason, my primary and preferred mode of transit is the T

8

CJYP t1_ivbbqpf wrote

Anecdotes aren't evidence. But even if they were, that anecdote wouldn't be - if you're treating the red light like a stop sign, you still wouldn't go while people are crossing. So that behavior would be illegal even if Idaho Stop was legal.

I agree that everyone is an asshole while transiting in this state. I don't agree that the law trumps safety.

4

CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbebav wrote

"I don't care what the law says I'm doing my own thing" really sums up every discussion about bikes/cars around here.

5

CJYP t1_ivbextf wrote

I'm not going to sacrifice my safety (or others safety) at the altar of the law. I'm just not. The law isn't some sacred thing that's worth dying for.

4

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivc0nv6 wrote

Fair enough. There are people trying to get it on the books but MA has a very car obsessed culture. I always stop and stay stopped at red lights because I don’t want to be “that cyclist”, but that is really the only reason. I have frequently had to deal with very unsafe scenarios (an uber car blocking the bike lane) that would have been much safer if I had been able to get out ahead of the stopped cars.

4

CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivc209b wrote

Yeah I'm glad we're improving our infrastructure to make things safer. Still a ways to go though and I wish we'd spend more on our public transit infrastructure to meet the goal of getting the ever increasing number of cars off the road.

2

brucesloose t1_ivdkc3v wrote

You have a reasonable hypothesis - unpredictable behavior is the key factor driving safety and bikes should always follow laws designed around cars.

The next step is to look at data.

Data shows that cyclists need to yield at busy intersections, but if it is safe to cross at a point in time, they should - red light or not. Less fatalities that way.

Green lights are still very dangerous and depending on the traffic at an intersection, red lights can be safer than green lights. Crossing an empty intersection at red or away from an intersection is safer for bikes and pedestrians than crossing a busy green light.

Unfortunately, when you are at a red light, you just don't know how busy the next green light will be.

Drivers can't follow the same logic because cars are the reason roads are dangerous. If you are in a car at a red light, there is at least one weapon at that red light (your car).

5

crazicus t1_ive0p0g wrote

It’s not really that unpredictable though, is it? It’s already pretty common practice, enforcing stops would actually be seen as the change in policy.

3

Shapen361 t1_ivg7s5o wrote

I see some drivers break traffic laws. I see most bicyclists break them. A bike running into a pedestrian won't kill them but has the potential to cause a good chunk of damage. A car would do worse, but I haven't seen a car drive the wrong way down a one way street or barrel down a sidewalk, things I can't say the same for bikes.

2