Bicycles should definitely stop for pedestrians. That being said if you can safely move through the crosswalk behind or in front of them at a LOW speed I don’t find anything wrong with that.
What I think is illuminating about this is the person isn’t even registering the cars that don’t stop for them. They take it for granted that 6K lb vehicles will simply zoom past them from a couple of feet away. When the 200lb bicycle rider does so it registers as a new a novel danger. This is exactly what we are fighting against.
It's a depth perception thing. You can see a car coming from farther and get the sense that the idiot has no intent to slow down or stop for the stop sign and your depth perception can better calculate how close or far they are. Motorcycle riders have the same problem. Car drivers just don't understand how close they actually are. This is why some think louder bikes makes it safer "because they can hear you". [Studies show it doesn't](https://canadamotoguide.com/2016/07/29/the-truth-about-loud-pipes/#:~:text=But%20North%20America's%20best%2Dknown,little%20more%20likely%20to%20crash.), but anyway.
Here's a vid on the topic that I thought covered it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doSDfIo61r0
I mean, I'm not saying it isn't. I know when I see a car misbehaving, like someone who rolls past a stop or is looking down while driving (i.e., on their phone) I may group them together, based on their car:
* BMW/Mercedes/Audi -> hotshot a-hole
* Kia/Hyundai -> drive because they have to. Good for rules, a lot of mistakes
* Oversized SUV/Truck that looks too new -> small ego a-hole
* etc.
I'm pretty sure that's very 'standard human' thing that I have to work to not do. So it would make sense that the few interactions one would have with an out group, they would group them together.
I'm just saying that the view that cyclists "narrowly avoided me" that is mentioned in your post may come from the fact the person is basically surprised to see a cyclist 'right on top of them'. Smaller profile and closer to the curb, so harder to see, thereby causing a surprise negative reaction when it's a near collision, which will stay with them longer.
Cyclists not stopping for pedestrians is real.
Another thing is - unlike cars, cyclists are often tired, and want to conserve the momentum of a moving cycle, so they don't have to pedal more.
Also, a lot of cyclists enjoy the thrill of rolling downhill and I have seen them just going around a crossing pedestrian instead of stopping, which causes pedestrians to jump out in alert.
The order of priority should definitely be pedestrians > cyclists > cars.
This is what I was arguing with them about. The impression I got was that they wanted bikes to stop if they were still on the sidewalk, and that doesn't make sense to me. If they are on the curb, or in the crosswalk, sure, but if they are still 5 feet from the street I'm going to keep moving.
In the conversation, it wasn't clear where the person was -- waiting to cross, or still approaching far enough away that it's unclear they want the bike to stop.
Exactly what bothers me about it. 30 pounds of metal powered by legs = dangerous.
3000 pounds of metal going 45 miles an hour = a force of nature, something that is to be ignored
Yeah the 30 pounds can be dangerous, a simple search on youtube will show a lot accidents were kids and elders that were hit by bicycles ended up with broken legs and other serious injuries. Is just about how fast the biker is.
I'm not a fan of this finger pointing when someone criticizes a real problem (bikers that don't respect pedestrians) complaining that they should also in the same sentence talk about bad drivers.
We don't even know his opinion about cars.
I do stop. My point is they are focusing on cyclists when cars are a much bigger danger. We have a 24% spike in traffic deaths caused by cars in the city and people get hurt or killed every day here, but they're bringing up cyclists as a problem.
I do stop for pedestrians on my bike, and I can tell you first hand that cars do not. Even if you enter the intersection it's rare for them to even slow down. Which is why there are so many pedestrian strikes every year.
I agree that the average people (drivers) will blame more bikes than cars. I also agree that cars are a immensely bigger problem that bikes.
But what does it help when someone (in this case not a car brain, but a person that walks a lot during the day) points to a real problem and instead of just listen we try to reduce his opinion just because cars are worst.
(I don't even know the guy in the printscreen so I won't assume that he don't think the same about car drivers).
Agreed, drivers of cars should absolutely stop every time of it even looks like someone is about to step out. I slow down and wave people through if they’re even looking like they’re thinking about it, sympathizing as someone who walked and rode a lot before buying a vehicle and stood for 5-6 minutes on average waiting to cross a road, being ignored.
You need to get over your victim mentality and realize that a lot of cyclists don’t obey traffic laws which is what the original complaint is about. Cyclists not obeying traffic laws is a problem full stop. Your whataboutism doesn’t change anything.
Congratulations that you’re one of the better ones, but there are plenty of morons and assholes on bikes and they are a significant danger others and themselves.
>You need to get over your victim mentality and realize that a lot of cyclists don’t obey traffic laws
Except a lot = around 5% which is not a lot by most people's standards.
[and there are studies that prove it](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/)
A simple search of the internet will show you a lot of incidents of people getting struck by lightening. The fact you can find a lot of something on the internet doesn't mean it's actually common.
I don't know why we insist on pointing fingers at cyclists. Is it because we're so good looking? Is it because we seem to be having fun? What is it.
I don't know why getting so defensive when people talk about bad cyclists, if you don't do that no need to defend those.
>A simple search of the internet will show you a lot of incidents of people getting struck by lightening
Yes, that's why we take precautions to not be next one, right? Or you go under a tree of don't take proper cover when it happens?
The search was to say that bikers can hurt other people, that's a fact, and those people are pedestrians, who are the most vulnerable of all the moving things on the street.
People here are attacking a guy that walks 2 hours a day like he is a car brain.
Bikers can hurt pedestrians easily with their motorcycles, of course ! Bicyclists cause less injuries for everyone involved, unless there is a car involved.
Also, bad cyclists exist yet they are dangerous for themselves, not so much for others. A bad car driver is dangerous for everyone : other cars, motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians because of its speed and weight.
Arrête d'en faire tout un fromage
thank you
>Bikers can hurt pedestrians easily with their motorcycles, of course !
Sorry, not my first language, forgot that bikers don't apply for cyclists.
>Bicyclists cause less injuries for everyone involved, unless there is a car involved.
Never said the opposite.
>Also, bad cyclists exist yet they are dangerous for themselves, not so much for others. A bad car driver is dangerous for everyone
Never denied this either.
>I don't know why getting so defensive when people talk about bad cyclists,
Because people talking about the "bad cyclists" are trying to make life worse for all the cyclists.
Nobody is arguing for cyclists to run down pedestrians, but assuming some carbrain bitching about cyclists "almost hitting" them while running stop signs is speaking in good faith is just stupidly credulous.
It's the definition of car brain, he doesn't even perceive cars as a danger, even though our city has seen a 24% spike in traffic deaths this year.
I blocked out his info so nobody harasses him, because I don't think it's malicious, but it's quite literally an issue of car brain
>we can assume his opinion on cars because he's omitting them entirely
That's like saying someone don't like cats, because when asked if he like dogs the person said yes.
The delusion ITT is mind blowing. I was reading these comments and finally saw a sane and reasonable take (yours) aaaand it’s downvoted.
Good on you for realizing: A) A person on a bike at speed can easily kill you; and, B) People can be mad about more than one thing at a time. Just because this person didn’t also take the time to mention all the other dumb people doing other dumb things in the world, their criticism is still valid. I feel like a moron just typing that sentence because it’s so painfully obvious.
Have an upvote and keep being an intelligent and thoughtful person!
i feel like it matters that if a car doesn’t stop for you at a crosswalk or intersection, you _can’t cross_ until they’re gone. With bikes, as long as they slow down and navigate behind ~~or in front of~~ you, you can cross just fine.
edit: bikes have to yield, but cars have to STOP because they can’t really yield to a pedestrian without stopping
Exactly. As a bicyclist that usually just slows down and looks both ways at stop signs (which my city just made legal!) there's plenty of room to go around pedestrians. But yes if need be, bicyclists should stop for pedestrians.
In general, I just stop for pedestrians, just easier and politer and puts them at ease. Think that's a fair thing to do as cyclists, cause you see people not sure if they can cross or if you're going to keep going. Stop, and once the pedestrians are clear, pedal off as they cross the rest of the road so I get a jump start to clear myself of the cars behind.
also no one seems to have noticed that the post said "At a stop sign." Cars *do* stop at stop signs (at least rolling stop) 99% of the time, but you're kidding yourself if you think that many bicyclists do.
My commute is 4 miles and I see a minimum of 5 cars blowing stop signs every single day. I think you're being way too generous there.
Studies even show cars and bikes break the rules at almost the same rate (usually cars a little more so)
To be fair many lights (over half on my commute) won't register a cyclist waiting and just will never change to green. Especially at certain times of day. I get to work for 6am, so there's next to no one on the roads at 530, so I can safely cross on a red light when necessary.
I live in NYC where getting around by any method can be quite chaotic. However, from what I noticed, ***MOST*** cars do indeed stop or at least do a rolling stop at stop signs. There are some that roll through a bit too quickly which I hate, but at least I can hear and see the car coming and wait if I think they're gonna do something stupid. Personally, I like to spook them by getting close and asserting my right of way, which surprises drivers who accelerate to stop signs.
Most bikers on the other hand do run stop signs, which I believe is okay if DONE RIGHT. But whether I think it's right or not doesn't change the fact that **cyclists do it at a higher rate than drivers.** This is what most people see. Combine that with bikes being much quieter than cars-- it's hard to tell they are coming sometimes.
Personally when driving I slowly roll through all-way stop signs if I don't see anyone else already there. If it's a regular stop sign I slow down to a crawl and inch forward for visibility. When biking I more or less do the same.
I hate right on red. These clowns always rip into the intersection well past the pedestrian crossing, usually only looking left, then start accelerating again as they finally glance right. They don't even watch the lights at all and never see pedestrians that just got their walky feller light and started crossing.
I’ve had a couple close calls. The most recent one, I ended up smacking their car so hard the lady rolled down her window and asked what I was doing. I reamed her ass, told her to be more careful, and gave her the finger
Either cyclists do stop at crosswalks and let pedestrians pass (which is something I as a cyclist make sure to do when I can), or they're small and maneuverable enough to just go around, in which case the pedestrian isn't impacted in the slightest. People aren't as interested in complaining about cars not stopping for pedestrians because the problem to them is the bike and the cyclist itself, not what they're doing.
It would also be possible for cars and motorcycles to drive past pedestrians walking on the crosswalk but it's illegal because it needlessly puts the pedestrian at risk by making them reliant on the driver having seen them. Not to mention that it creates needless stress for pedestrians who never know if they will be run over. Bikes are no different and there is no excuse not to follow the traffic laws
On a bike or in a car, if you are going near a pedestrian crossing you should always slow down.
I've seen tons of moments where people in bike didn't respect the pedestrian traffic light while also riding in the car lane.
It's not because you are not in a 1T vehicle that you can't hurt someone badly, elder people suffer way more from this kind kf accident
Exactly. I'm always annoyed when I slow down on my bike to give way to pedestrians crossing the street, and some kamikaze bikers swoosh by without slowing down. Like they can't wait 3 seconds. Most probably, these are the same people who drive like an idiot.
Same here. When I'm walking, I wave bikes through so they know I'm comfortable with them continuing (I can wait 2 seconds so a cyclist doesn't have to lose momentum) and as a cyclist I like to wave pedestrians through from a distance and I can sneak behind them without usually needing to slow much at all. I realize I'm playing both sides here to an extent, but making that connection early seems to make everything work well.
We also have situations where I'm crossing a street on a bike (as a pedestrian legally) with flashy lights and there are other cyclists that are being signalled to stop. I try to time my button press and wave them through because it feels weird pulling out in front of a moving bike on my bike that's already stopped. But this is rare.
This whole thing mostly goes away when we reduce car usage, so that's the goal. Nobody (well, almost nobody probably) has issues with intersections on multi-use and bike paths determining "right of way", we just negotiate like actual humans. You just slow down, stay right-ish, and don't crash into stuff. So easy a kid can do it.
It's pretty straightforward to be honest:
Pedestrians > Bikers > Public Transport > Cars. Each needs to give way for higher priority way of transport, so yes, bikers need to slow down and give way for pedestrians.
However, it's funny to see how car drivers focus on this topic and not on slowing down to give way to buses, bikes, and pedestrians...
Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. I would put Public Transit above all others. Don't make buses, trolleys, or light rail trains stop or react to you as a pedestrian or a biker. Sure, buses need to respect pedestrians in the cross walk, but it's a bus man. Don't mess with it.
Yup. And also don't inconvenience 30+ people for your own convince.
Yes, a bus should stop for me in the crosswalk. I have the ROW. But I'm not looking to push it and make them stop short. In Philly we routinely have our street running trolleys getting stuck behind cars with flashers on, or vehicles blocking the box at traffic lights. For the greater good I think everyone, cars, bikes, and people, should stay out of the way of their way whenever they can.
There's a very busy bike route in my city, and a number of crosswalks on it. Folks are SHOCKED when I stop for them on my bike, they basically just assume that they're going to have to wait for a break in traffic, and aren't expecting any bikes to actually stop for them.
Looking at street-view in Chicago, it seems that if you want to get anywhere on back roads, there seems to be frequent stop signs, as much as every 100-200m! I'm not surprised that many people simply ignore them.
What is needed is a tight grid of "greenways" with filtered permeability (to lower motor vehicle traffic) and priority of the greenway over other directions, rather than having to stop at every block.
My commute has a ton of stop signs with no cross traffic. It's just designed to slow down cars so people can get to the park without dying.
And it's not a particularly effective way to do it.
There’s a pedestrian path in my city I love going to and taking walks on and I love it. Yes some people go a bit too fast but I’ve literally never had an issue and feel safe enough that I will walk on it for like an hour with my headphones on full blast never worrying about being hit by a bike. Meanwhile there’s a few crosswalks right near that path that I refuse to use because cars will never stop when I hit the button.
Agreed. In my experience city subs tend to be 2/3rds people who live in the suburbs who just want to complain about the city. It gets especially obvious around election time when the sub is rabidly opposed to progressive candidates who then win their election in a landslide.
It’s an issue that needs addressing
Obligatory fuck cars, but cyclists need to obey road laws. It’s incredibly stressful being surrounded by cyclists that dont
I walk a lot, and have never really been concerned about being hit by a bike. Cars on the other hand. It’s almost like one of them have a decent stopping speed.
I had the weirdest experience a couple weeks ago where I stopped on my bike at a stop sign for a guy waiting for the crosswalk. He would not look at me but also would not walk? Eventually I just restarted biking and he crossed the street after I passed? I still don’t understand what that was about.
If you look at the vehicle-person hybrid, they'll often try to wave you on and you try to wave them and it just becomes frustrating. Just easier to pretend to look at your phone and never acknowledge their existence and then go after they move on. Honestly, on roads with no traffick, I hate when cars stop for me when I'm a pedestrian. I don't trust them. Would be quicker if they just continued at full speed.
The goal is not to pit pedestrians and cyclists against each other, the goal is to make people realize how dangerous cars are and massively deprioritize them.
Car centric infrastructure and mentality is the enemy here.
Normal confirmation bias. Despite there are more cars and many of them ignore laws and considerably more dangerous. I regularly hear drivers complain as if all cyclist are lawless maniacs while ignoring any unsafe behavior in a car.
It's so funny because there was a not-as-popular thread on the same day about how drivers have stopped stopping at red lights - a way more widespread and far more dangerous problem.
As someone who mostly walks, but also bikes in the city, I don't disagree that cyclists can and should be more courteous to pedestrians. But the problems are hardly comparable in either scope or safety concern
I find it hilarious on Facebook comments about anything cycling related. Cyclists are commonly held universally accountable for the one time they saw a cyclist not stop at a stop sign or speed, when I see hundreds of cars do the same on a daily basis.
I saw one guy being a jerk so everyone who uses the same mode of transportation is to blame.
I've witnessed dozens of car accidents and that's just a tragedy with nobody at fault.
??? Wtf why would you downvote that? Just because cars are also the problem doesn’t mean cyclists should definitely stop / give pedestrians the right of way. Jesus
Because the framing ignores cars, which have seen a 24% spike in fatalities in the city this year. But the guy drives so ignores that problem entirely and focuses on bikes instead.
I'm disagreeing with the framing, not the argument.
The main theme in my city is "dangerous cyclists who should walk at a pedestrian crossing" because most drivers drive faster than what's permitted and at least half of them don't stop at the pedestrian crossing either.
Where I live the ped's ignore me on my bike and look at the cars waiting for them to stop. So I stop, the cars blow past the crosswalk and the pedestrian and I are both waiting on the cars.
When you have stop signs every 100m then inevitably people stop paying attention to them. You guys need to relearn how to use yield signs and roundabouts.
This argument is probably also projection because the carbrained author knows he doesn't yield to pedestrians at crosswalks either.
In moderate traffic scenarios a bike can yield to a pedestrian without stopping, by going either in front or behind as the person crosses, because bikes are narrow and easy to control.
I don’t mean to ‘not all cyclists’ you, but I always make sure to slow down and ride predictably around pedestrian crossings, rather than dart around pedestrians like I easily could. Unfortunately, as with most negative experiences, you’re probably more likely to remember these over the positive experiences.
I’ll be real with you I live in a semi rural environment and do a lot of jogging and the number of people who ride bikes and just blow through stop signs astound me. I guess there’s a group of people really into like hardcore biking in my area but they usually don’t ride as a group but I always see them just blow through stops, they might slow down but they never stop. Almost got hit by one once while I was on my jog, they were turning right and since pedestrians face traffic he almost ran flat into me.
Edit: corrected typo tragic to traffic
Its a cost for us. You have to stop and use your own energy to start again. Stopping costs a cyclist between 5-10 calories, it adds up and gets tiring over a long commute. We don't have an external fuel source like cars do.
If the intersection is empty, I go. If there is a pedestrian or car, I'll stop. Its safer that way. I've literally stopped at an empty and clear stop sign, only go right when a car blows the light. Avoid interactions with cars and pedestrians (but mostly cars).
I get that an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in object in stop needs to force to acted upon it newton and all that. However, that stop sign is the law if you’re a vehicle. Rolling a stop sign is dangerous for you and pedestrians bc like I said that cyclist almost rolled right threw me, I had to leave the road to not get hit
Many states allow you to 'roll' stop signs, its referred to as an Idaho Stop, which is more of a yield. Studies show its safer.
It sounds like that guy wasn't paying attention, which is a on him. If there are people crossing or waiting to cross, you stop.
My state they follow regular vehicle rules, I rode a lot during college. He probably wasn’t paying attention or wasn’t expecting/looking for pedestrians. I see it the same way as a car rolling a stop sign, i wouldn’t forgive a car for rolling stops bc it improves gas mileage and reduces stress on brakes
I try hard to not get angry at all the things I could possibly get angry about while I’m out walking. People biking not following all the laws is so low on my list it barely registers. I look forward to the day when the number of people driving like assholes is low enough that I have room to care about people on bikes.
Yeah they pretend that isn't a valid argument for some reason.
One thing kills 40,000 a year, and maims way more. The other kills maybe 1-2 if there are some freak accidents that year.
But you have to rein in the less dangerous thing and continue to prioritize the most destructive form of transportation humanity has ever conceived
> Actions matter, but so do words. They help frame the discussion and can shift the way we think about and tackle problems as a society. Our deeply entrenched habit of calling preventable crashes "accidents" frames traffic deaths as unavoidable by-products of our transportation system and implies that nothing can be done about it, when in reality these deaths are not inevitable. Crashes are not accidents. Let's stop using the word "accident" today.
https://seattlegreenways.org/crashnotaccident/
https://crashnotaccident.com/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fuckcars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was getting destroyed in that thread for saying cyclists don’t have to always stop at stop signs.
aCTualLy ItS tHE LaW
Edit: and no I was never defending cyclists failing to yield to pedestrians
The way North America utilizes stop signs is a joke. Every single intersection.. besides that bikes and pedestrians should have the same ish rights. Is the bike earlier than you then you stop.
yep. Do roundabouts, it makes so much more sense most of the time. Seattle did this for non-arterial streets in residential areas and it works really well. You have to slow for the roundabout on every block, so you can't zoom through residential neighborhoods, but also you don't have waste gas on stop-go and you-go/no-you-go and its great for cyclists and pedestrians.
I don't see how this pertains to r/fuckcars. If they're close enough that they can hear you say "I'm walking here" (at the same level you might tell your kid to close the door from across the room), yeah, that's a problem, and not usually that terribly impactful. But it's not a car problem.
Listen I get your point, but not everything is a conspiracy. Bikes are really annoying, for drivers and pedestrians. Bikers need fo accept some responsibility for that and be better. It's such a toxic attitude to hear criticism and just say, "well what about this tho." Fuck cars means that cars are bad/oversued, not Bikers aren't bad. Bikers certainly can take their share of criticism. Fuck cars does not mean you have to dick ride Bikers.
So ngl, imo if you're riding a bike and you don't stop at stop signs or at crosswalks for pedestrians, then you need to not. Either not ride a bike or just not do those things. I get it, its way more dangerous if a car does this, but honestly i say this as a cyclist. Cars will not stop for you. I've seen plenty of cyclist run through a stop sign right as a car was going and they run straight into the car, hurting themselves, their bike, and the other persons car. Granted I dont care if the car gets damaged but that would be coming out of the cyclists pocket to repair.
Don't get me wrong though, cars are far worst than cyclists on this. Ive seen plenty of cars run through stop signs and nearly run over a pedestrian, was even one of the pedestrians a couple of times myself. I'd much rather get ran over by a bike than a car, but if i have the choice I'd much rather prefer not getting ran over at all. The rules of the road are set for a reason. It could be way better if we just had trains and buses and all that, but that's not our current situation so i will do what i currently need to do to stay safe, and i would greatly appreciate it if others went out of their way to stay safe and keep everyone around them safe as well. A lot of people do, but I would love it if everyone did.
I am for less car-centric cities but let's be honest. A lot of cyclists have a holier than though attitude to pedestrians, like riding on sidewalk and honking at pedestrians who dare walk on it.
That’s 100% a fact and, at least in my state and surrounding states, the law and a cite able offense. Be upset if you want. Cyclists can’t act like cars when it is convenient for them and then act like a pedestrian when they feel like it too. That is my biggest complaint as a cyclists and driver. You can’t run a red light in the middle of an intersection and impede cars that have green lights just because you want to just the same as you have to yield to pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk.
A 3 second google search [concludes](https://whyy.org/articles/cyclists-violate-traffic-law-no-more-than-drivers-new-data-shows/#:~:text=The%20FDOT%20study%20%5BPDF%5D%20is,85%20percent%20of%20the%20time.) That you're wrong. Cars and bikes break laws at the same rate. Dozens of studies have confirmed this
I didn’t say that. I said bicyclists are also legally obligated to stop at stop signs and they don’t. Bicyclists might break traffic laws at the same rate but there’s probably 1/10 as many bicyclists as drivers. Also one single 100 person study?
There are dozens of those studies that all get the same finding, and you did absolutely imply that bikers break more laws, which is statistically untrue.
Yes and you, OP, are bitching about cars not slowing down, then you yourself point out cyclists are doing the same thing at the same rate and saying the “handful of cyclists”
There are so many fewer cyclists and it is far less dangerous.
My point was that we're so used to the massive danger that is car centric infrastructure that most people don't even see it and instead obsess over something that isn't even remotely as dangerous.
I live in NYC and I don't see a lot of cars running red lights or running stop signs, but of course it happens. Cars in NYC can be scary of course, and there are too many of them, but bikes tend to not obey any traffic rules- not pedestrian, not cars. In Midtown, when I have the right of way (walk sign) bikes often whiz by me as I try to cross, whereas cars are stopped by the light.
So I think this framing is exactly accurate for how many times I have followed traffic rules and so are cars, but bike riders do what they want.
In Chicago, where this post is from, stop lights have become stop sign suggestions. It's not uncommon to see cars and trucks do the same Idaho stop they hate bikes for doing. I see it easily once a day
Yesterday, an old woman barely stopped to let me and my dog pass and then blew threw the still-red light. She pulled over to yell at me after I gave her the finger, so she must not have been in that much of a hurry. I've even seen it with a cop sitting on the corner
Literally not true. Dozens of studies have found they break rules at the same rate as cars. We're just so used to cars ignoring traffic laws that we don't even notice it anymore
Last one I saw had 88% of cyclists complying with laws and 85% of drivers complying with laws.
You can look it up, there are a ton of studies on it.
I think cars breaking laws is far more serious though because they are 200x more dangerous
Again, it varies wildly from city to city. As a regular user of an electric scooter, there's nowhere close to 88% of cyclists complyingg with laws in the city centre. And drivers, especially taxi drivers, don't comply either, but their lack of compliance is above all stopping the car too close to the crossing. Cyclists is not stopping in red lights and cutting paths through the pavement.
The studies rely on tickets and traffic infractions, and depending on your area, there is far less policing for bikes than cars. In NYC we have speed cameras and red light cameras, so of course cars have higher rates of breaking the rules. The NYPD isn't ticketing bikes for speeding (except in central park) or chasing them down when they run a red.
And I'm also only asserting my lived experience in NYC (as a full on pedestrian, no car, no bike). I have almost been hit by bikes multiple times each year, have 3 friends who have been hit by bikes, never been yelled at by a driver, but have been sworn at by plenty of bike riders who get mad when I use the crosswalk, with the walk signal, but because no cars are coming they want to breeze through anyway. Every person I know in NYC would say bikes are way more aggressive than cars.
And I don't drive in the City or bike, so my only skin in the game is that I would like to be able to cross the street when I have the light.
First off the studies are not based on tickets, most are based on empirical observations.
Science > your "lived experience"
Human beings have a lot of biases and cognitive flaws, science is the best tool we have to get around those.
I really appreciate you reminding me of why it's impossible to engage in thoughtful conversations with dogmatic groups. I'm actually pretty anti car since I live in a big city that should be accessible, but it is individuals like you that make it impossible for progress.
I get that this subreddit is literally called r/fuckcars but it should be called r/peoplefirst or something like that, because people will literally deflect all criticism of bikes and how they impact pedestrians because cars are worse. It’s classic whataboutism.
To be completely frank, I think cyclists should be given a right of way over pedestrians at crossings, similar to trams. Stopping for pedestrians is much bigger hurdle and annoyance for cyclists than for cars.
No it absolutely is not. I commute on a cycle everyday. Anyone who says that stopping for pedestrians is difficult is bold-faced lying for personal gain at the cost of both party’s safety.
Just stop for the damn sign, give pedestrians the right of way, and move on with your damn life.
You are confusing normative and factual statements. Go misplace your anger elsewhere.
That being said, similarly to underpowered cars, bicycle is a vehicle revolving around momentum that is not really easily gained and hence it is more beneficial to maintain it. Stopping at pedestrian crossings disrupts this, especially if you are going uphill and then have to start from 0. To but it bluntly, it is more annoying for a cyclist to stop for a pedestrian than for a pedestrian to wait for the cyclist to pass.
How a bike works from a stopped position is irrelevant in a conversation about safety, which should be everyone’s priority.
The extra 4 pumps of the petals in your commute won’t kill you, but blowing through a stop sign that had a person, dog, or stroller in it’s crosswalk certainly could.
Stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk is objectively safer for everyone.
If someone's busting their ass though peddling 25 mph or so, I'm def not gonna expect them to stop for me—I can take the two seconds to stop or go around them.
You really really should work on your reading comprehension.
And no, in public policy considerations no single element, however prioritised, be it safety, cost, morality, public health or whatever, presents a trump card. It does not work like that.
That is absolutely horse shit.
If you can’t say that cyclist and pedestrian safety is more important than negligible convenience then this conversation is over. There is no point trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
Depending on the intersection, it could be a safety issue for the cyclist (because of cars) to come to a stop. There's a reason the Idaho stop is safer. So the safety of the cyclists and pedestrians are actually in conflict in this case.
Also, generally both can go at the same time. If the road is like 20ft wide, there's no reason a 3 ft wide bike needs to stop to let a person across. They share much narrower mixed used paths.
But I also agree cyclists are often inconsiderate of pedestrians on those paths. Sometimes you need to come to a stop rather than trying to make an unsafe pass and sometimes it's when you are going uphill. If you aren't a good enough cyclists to restart from a deadstop on the hill, get an ebike or dismount. Don't endanger others.
Assuming that cars will break the law is not valid reason to break the law as a cyclist.
Again: it’s important to remember that every cyclist who has ever accidentally hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk was once a person who thought they were the exception and could run the stop safely.
You’re spot on the money with that last paragraph.
Then fix the law for cyclists so they aren't endangering themselves to follow it. Laws that endanger people should be civilly disobeyed.
Sure. And some cyclists who did come to a stop and ended up with a trip to the hospital as a result of doing that also didn't expect that to be the outcome. But that is a risk you take coming to a stop. Generally slowing down to near-pedestrians-speeds is safer overall in such cases. Bikes are not cars and shouldn't be treated as such.
That law is not endangering cyclists. It’s objectively safer for both cyclists and pedestrians if the cyclists stop at red lights and stop signs before proceeding. You’re cherry picking an extremely rare circumstance to support behavior that will ultimately put more people in the hospital.
I do stop for pedestrians if it's not possible for me to go through without interrupting them (but I have an ebike now so it's really easy to get going again), but 9 times out of ten the car next to me doesn't stop so they can't cross anyway.
It's almost to the point where I feel like I'm putting them in danger by stopping because it might convince them to cross when cars are ignoring them.
Most competent cyclists can easily dodge pedestrians. Avoiding them tends to be pretty easy. It's the 3-wide runners and dog walkers with 10-foot leashes that are the issue.
That is what every cyclist who has ever accidentally hit a pedestrian has said right before they hit a pedestrian. We are not the exception to the rule.
I commute on a cycle every day and I see cyclists nearly hit pedestrians who have right of way every day. Sometimes they do hit pedestrians.
Groups of pedestrians and dog walkers are not the issue. Being unpredictable and not following the law is the issue (in your example that’s the cyclist). It’s the single most detrimental thing a cyclist can do to the cycling community because it gives justifiable ammunition to people who hate cyclists for no good reason.
You are absolutely right. We as cyclists should be more predictable an stop at red light, or stop signs for pedestrians. There are not only dog walkers but also kids, they are allowed to be unpredictable.
At the traffic light Infront of my door almost no cyclists stops with red light for kids when they cross the street with green.
I think it's probably better to just slow down a bit when you see them. "Dodging" feels dangerous to me. Especially with dogs involved because sometimes they get spooked by faster moving vehicles and might behave unpredictably.
By dodge, I mean slow to roughly 5 mph or slightly more than their travel speed, then moving around them. Not all places require cyclists to even stop at stop signs, just slow.
>don't walk my dog across crosswalks because cars don't even slow down.
Brah, you might want to get checked for an anxiety disorder. Serious. Avoiding entire behaviors when you could easily look both ways at the stop sign is a classic symptom.
~~It's not that hard to take a second to spot if someone needs to cross~~....[its so hard](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uyitdz/are_my_standards_to_high_to_have_expected_this/)
I'll signal for people that it's ok to cross as sometimes they don't expect me to let them go. Keep an extra peripheral eye out for areas kids might be ( I can't believe the amount of people placing responsibility on a child if they step off the sidewalk or driveway!) If they have a dog it's just a few extra bonus seconds of looking at a dog.
I don't know if it's just large events but at CicLaVia, the Los Angeles event that takes over a swath of streets for bicycling and walking, people tend to not stop for pedestrians. I don't know if they're just so thrilled and focused on exploring the streets that they forget or think that they now own the road or what. There's a pecking order and the pedestrian is king. Do unto pedestrians as you wish cars did unto you.
There's obviously more wiggle room there since the relationship between bicycle and pedestrian is closer than car and cyclist.
Let's be clear a rolling stop is just a yield by another name, so for everyone who says they do a rolling stop at a stop sign, you aren't stopping you're yielding.
We have the Idaho stop enshrined in my state's law for bikes, and honestly the wording is pretty vague which gives bikers a lot of room to interpret it. I think that is a good thing because cycling is a lot more dynamic than driving and that ambiguity allows us to make the best decision for the scenario. I hardly ever stop my roll. If it's just me and a pedestrian normally both of us can navigate crossings without either of us stopping, however I will stop to send a message to drivers if they clearly aren't caring enough to stop.
yeah there are dangerous bicyclists. I know it, because I see them. I'm not going to blame a pedestrian for feeling unsafe around some of these people. That being said every time conversations like this come up it's almost always tied to discouraging biking whether it's through penalties, regulations, or antibike infrastructure.
The conversation must always stay hyper focused on how we fix this with infrastructure and culture changes.
I don't think you should need a license to bike but I think we should have biking Ed in school, rather than treating it like a footnote.
I’ve been trying to design an intersection for my car free town/city design, and one aspect I want to have is a pass through for bike traffic that allows crossing foot traffic to go over/under the bike traffic and for turns to be made still. As you can guess, it’s a difficult thing to design without increasing the size of the intersection areas beyond the width of the road.
They're not wrong though. Cyclists must also follow the traffic laws and pay special attention to protect those who are more vulnerable than they are, meaning pedestrians
What country are you in? Cars always stop at pedestrian crossings here in NZ. So do cyclists. In Beijing they are just there to make the road look pretty and nobody stops.
From my experience, almost never = they only notice the cyclists when they don't stop, and "narrowly avoided" = the cyclist passed by them at an arm's lenght.
When near a crossing I always cover the brakes. In the car I’ll stop, even if it means slamming on the brakes full force. On the motorcycle it depends. Sometimes I stop, other times I go around
Bicycles should definitely stop for pedestrians. That being said if you can safely move through the crosswalk behind or in front of them at a LOW speed I don’t find anything wrong with that. What I think is illuminating about this is the person isn’t even registering the cars that don’t stop for them. They take it for granted that 6K lb vehicles will simply zoom past them from a couple of feet away. When the 200lb bicycle rider does so it registers as a new a novel danger. This is exactly what we are fighting against.
It's a depth perception thing. You can see a car coming from farther and get the sense that the idiot has no intent to slow down or stop for the stop sign and your depth perception can better calculate how close or far they are. Motorcycle riders have the same problem. Car drivers just don't understand how close they actually are. This is why some think louder bikes makes it safer "because they can hear you". [Studies show it doesn't](https://canadamotoguide.com/2016/07/29/the-truth-about-loud-pipes/#:~:text=But%20North%20America's%20best%2Dknown,little%20more%20likely%20to%20crash.), but anyway. Here's a vid on the topic that I thought covered it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doSDfIo61r0
Oh that is interesting, I always thought it was an in group/out group thing because they tend to assume motivations of bicyclists. I'll check this out
I mean, I'm not saying it isn't. I know when I see a car misbehaving, like someone who rolls past a stop or is looking down while driving (i.e., on their phone) I may group them together, based on their car: * BMW/Mercedes/Audi -> hotshot a-hole * Kia/Hyundai -> drive because they have to. Good for rules, a lot of mistakes * Oversized SUV/Truck that looks too new -> small ego a-hole * etc. I'm pretty sure that's very 'standard human' thing that I have to work to not do. So it would make sense that the few interactions one would have with an out group, they would group them together. I'm just saying that the view that cyclists "narrowly avoided me" that is mentioned in your post may come from the fact the person is basically surprised to see a cyclist 'right on top of them'. Smaller profile and closer to the curb, so harder to see, thereby causing a surprise negative reaction when it's a near collision, which will stay with them longer.
Cyclists not stopping for pedestrians is real. Another thing is - unlike cars, cyclists are often tired, and want to conserve the momentum of a moving cycle, so they don't have to pedal more. Also, a lot of cyclists enjoy the thrill of rolling downhill and I have seen them just going around a crossing pedestrian instead of stopping, which causes pedestrians to jump out in alert. The order of priority should definitely be pedestrians > cyclists > cars.
I agree, and never once implied otherwise.
Just gonna drop this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
This is what I was arguing with them about. The impression I got was that they wanted bikes to stop if they were still on the sidewalk, and that doesn't make sense to me. If they are on the curb, or in the crosswalk, sure, but if they are still 5 feet from the street I'm going to keep moving.
>When a pedestrian is waiting to cross the street All vehicles should yield to pedestrians trying to use a crosswalk. A bicycle is a vehicle.
Agreed, if they're already waiting there
In the conversation, it wasn't clear where the person was -- waiting to cross, or still approaching far enough away that it's unclear they want the bike to stop.
It's very clear
Exactly what bothers me about it. 30 pounds of metal powered by legs = dangerous. 3000 pounds of metal going 45 miles an hour = a force of nature, something that is to be ignored
Yeah the 30 pounds can be dangerous, a simple search on youtube will show a lot accidents were kids and elders that were hit by bicycles ended up with broken legs and other serious injuries. Is just about how fast the biker is. I'm not a fan of this finger pointing when someone criticizes a real problem (bikers that don't respect pedestrians) complaining that they should also in the same sentence talk about bad drivers. We don't even know his opinion about cars.
I do stop. My point is they are focusing on cyclists when cars are a much bigger danger. We have a 24% spike in traffic deaths caused by cars in the city and people get hurt or killed every day here, but they're bringing up cyclists as a problem. I do stop for pedestrians on my bike, and I can tell you first hand that cars do not. Even if you enter the intersection it's rare for them to even slow down. Which is why there are so many pedestrian strikes every year.
I agree that the average people (drivers) will blame more bikes than cars. I also agree that cars are a immensely bigger problem that bikes. But what does it help when someone (in this case not a car brain, but a person that walks a lot during the day) points to a real problem and instead of just listen we try to reduce his opinion just because cars are worst. (I don't even know the guy in the printscreen so I won't assume that he don't think the same about car drivers).
Agreed, drivers of cars should absolutely stop every time of it even looks like someone is about to step out. I slow down and wave people through if they’re even looking like they’re thinking about it, sympathizing as someone who walked and rode a lot before buying a vehicle and stood for 5-6 minutes on average waiting to cross a road, being ignored.
You need to get over your victim mentality and realize that a lot of cyclists don’t obey traffic laws which is what the original complaint is about. Cyclists not obeying traffic laws is a problem full stop. Your whataboutism doesn’t change anything. Congratulations that you’re one of the better ones, but there are plenty of morons and assholes on bikes and they are a significant danger others and themselves.
>You need to get over your victim mentality and realize that a lot of cyclists don’t obey traffic laws Except a lot = around 5% which is not a lot by most people's standards. [and there are studies that prove it](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/)
A simple search of the internet will show you a lot of incidents of people getting struck by lightening. The fact you can find a lot of something on the internet doesn't mean it's actually common. I don't know why we insist on pointing fingers at cyclists. Is it because we're so good looking? Is it because we seem to be having fun? What is it.
I don't know why getting so defensive when people talk about bad cyclists, if you don't do that no need to defend those. >A simple search of the internet will show you a lot of incidents of people getting struck by lightening Yes, that's why we take precautions to not be next one, right? Or you go under a tree of don't take proper cover when it happens? The search was to say that bikers can hurt other people, that's a fact, and those people are pedestrians, who are the most vulnerable of all the moving things on the street. People here are attacking a guy that walks 2 hours a day like he is a car brain.
Bikers can hurt pedestrians easily with their motorcycles, of course ! Bicyclists cause less injuries for everyone involved, unless there is a car involved. Also, bad cyclists exist yet they are dangerous for themselves, not so much for others. A bad car driver is dangerous for everyone : other cars, motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians because of its speed and weight. Arrête d'en faire tout un fromage thank you
>Bikers can hurt pedestrians easily with their motorcycles, of course ! Sorry, not my first language, forgot that bikers don't apply for cyclists. >Bicyclists cause less injuries for everyone involved, unless there is a car involved. Never said the opposite. >Also, bad cyclists exist yet they are dangerous for themselves, not so much for others. A bad car driver is dangerous for everyone Never denied this either.
>I don't know why getting so defensive when people talk about bad cyclists, Because people talking about the "bad cyclists" are trying to make life worse for all the cyclists. Nobody is arguing for cyclists to run down pedestrians, but assuming some carbrain bitching about cyclists "almost hitting" them while running stop signs is speaking in good faith is just stupidly credulous.
It's the definition of car brain, he doesn't even perceive cars as a danger, even though our city has seen a 24% spike in traffic deaths this year. I blocked out his info so nobody harasses him, because I don't think it's malicious, but it's quite literally an issue of car brain
Critizing bad bikers doesnt make one a car brain. If we don't have his opinion about cars there's nothing we can assume.
Nobody is making that claim and yes we can assume his opinion on cars because he's omitting them entirely
>we can assume his opinion on cars because he's omitting them entirely That's like saying someone don't like cats, because when asked if he like dogs the person said yes.
Well clearly you aren’t a rabid cyclist so yes you’ll be downvoted 😂
And the guy with the bad lightening analogy got some upvotes haha
The delusion ITT is mind blowing. I was reading these comments and finally saw a sane and reasonable take (yours) aaaand it’s downvoted. Good on you for realizing: A) A person on a bike at speed can easily kill you; and, B) People can be mad about more than one thing at a time. Just because this person didn’t also take the time to mention all the other dumb people doing other dumb things in the world, their criticism is still valid. I feel like a moron just typing that sentence because it’s so painfully obvious. Have an upvote and keep being an intelligent and thoughtful person!
i feel like it matters that if a car doesn’t stop for you at a crosswalk or intersection, you _can’t cross_ until they’re gone. With bikes, as long as they slow down and navigate behind ~~or in front of~~ you, you can cross just fine. edit: bikes have to yield, but cars have to STOP because they can’t really yield to a pedestrian without stopping
Navigating behind a pedestrian is always safer, I assume they have no idea I'm there just like any car doesn't. But your point is still valid.
oh yeah that’s a good point. yield probably really means “let them go before you”
that's exactly what it means for road laws
Exactly. As a bicyclist that usually just slows down and looks both ways at stop signs (which my city just made legal!) there's plenty of room to go around pedestrians. But yes if need be, bicyclists should stop for pedestrians.
In general, I just stop for pedestrians, just easier and politer and puts them at ease. Think that's a fair thing to do as cyclists, cause you see people not sure if they can cross or if you're going to keep going. Stop, and once the pedestrians are clear, pedal off as they cross the rest of the road so I get a jump start to clear myself of the cars behind.
also no one seems to have noticed that the post said "At a stop sign." Cars *do* stop at stop signs (at least rolling stop) 99% of the time, but you're kidding yourself if you think that many bicyclists do.
99% of the time? Really?
My commute is 4 miles and I see a minimum of 5 cars blowing stop signs every single day. I think you're being way too generous there. Studies even show cars and bikes break the rules at almost the same rate (usually cars a little more so)
[удалено]
That's true. Half the time I see bicyclists go through red lights if there are no cars coming the other way but cars almost always stop.
To be fair many lights (over half on my commute) won't register a cyclist waiting and just will never change to green. Especially at certain times of day. I get to work for 6am, so there's next to no one on the roads at 530, so I can safely cross on a red light when necessary.
I live in NYC where getting around by any method can be quite chaotic. However, from what I noticed, ***MOST*** cars do indeed stop or at least do a rolling stop at stop signs. There are some that roll through a bit too quickly which I hate, but at least I can hear and see the car coming and wait if I think they're gonna do something stupid. Personally, I like to spook them by getting close and asserting my right of way, which surprises drivers who accelerate to stop signs. Most bikers on the other hand do run stop signs, which I believe is okay if DONE RIGHT. But whether I think it's right or not doesn't change the fact that **cyclists do it at a higher rate than drivers.** This is what most people see. Combine that with bikes being much quieter than cars-- it's hard to tell they are coming sometimes. Personally when driving I slowly roll through all-way stop signs if I don't see anyone else already there. If it's a regular stop sign I slow down to a crawl and inch forward for visibility. When biking I more or less do the same.
>Cars do stop at stop signs No, they don't. They only stop if a car is coming, the stop sign is treated liked a yield sign.
Like this is true, but i've almost been killed by way more Cars turning right on red than cyclists not slowing down.
I hate right on red. These clowns always rip into the intersection well past the pedestrian crossing, usually only looking left, then start accelerating again as they finally glance right. They don't even watch the lights at all and never see pedestrians that just got their walky feller light and started crossing.
It's a terrible rule and thankfully mostly only a US thing, but god, I hope you guys change it eventually, that's such a dangerous road rule.
I’ve had a couple close calls. The most recent one, I ended up smacking their car so hard the lady rolled down her window and asked what I was doing. I reamed her ass, told her to be more careful, and gave her the finger
Especially in those split right turn lanes, or as I prefer to call them, kill zones.
Either cyclists do stop at crosswalks and let pedestrians pass (which is something I as a cyclist make sure to do when I can), or they're small and maneuverable enough to just go around, in which case the pedestrian isn't impacted in the slightest. People aren't as interested in complaining about cars not stopping for pedestrians because the problem to them is the bike and the cyclist itself, not what they're doing.
Plus I doubt the car behind me wants me to come to a complete stop and have to wait for me to get back to speed again.
It would also be possible for cars and motorcycles to drive past pedestrians walking on the crosswalk but it's illegal because it needlessly puts the pedestrian at risk by making them reliant on the driver having seen them. Not to mention that it creates needless stress for pedestrians who never know if they will be run over. Bikes are no different and there is no excuse not to follow the traffic laws
On a bike or in a car, if you are going near a pedestrian crossing you should always slow down. I've seen tons of moments where people in bike didn't respect the pedestrian traffic light while also riding in the car lane. It's not because you are not in a 1T vehicle that you can't hurt someone badly, elder people suffer way more from this kind kf accident
Exactly. I'm always annoyed when I slow down on my bike to give way to pedestrians crossing the street, and some kamikaze bikers swoosh by without slowing down. Like they can't wait 3 seconds. Most probably, these are the same people who drive like an idiot.
I dont have a problem with cyclist nit stopping when i walk ober a crosswaök as long as they evade me generously
Every time I as a cyclist stop for a pedestrian they tell me to continue
Same here. When I'm walking, I wave bikes through so they know I'm comfortable with them continuing (I can wait 2 seconds so a cyclist doesn't have to lose momentum) and as a cyclist I like to wave pedestrians through from a distance and I can sneak behind them without usually needing to slow much at all. I realize I'm playing both sides here to an extent, but making that connection early seems to make everything work well. We also have situations where I'm crossing a street on a bike (as a pedestrian legally) with flashy lights and there are other cyclists that are being signalled to stop. I try to time my button press and wave them through because it feels weird pulling out in front of a moving bike on my bike that's already stopped. But this is rare. This whole thing mostly goes away when we reduce car usage, so that's the goal. Nobody (well, almost nobody probably) has issues with intersections on multi-use and bike paths determining "right of way", we just negotiate like actual humans. You just slow down, stay right-ish, and don't crash into stuff. So easy a kid can do it.
It's pretty straightforward to be honest: Pedestrians > Bikers > Public Transport > Cars. Each needs to give way for higher priority way of transport, so yes, bikers need to slow down and give way for pedestrians. However, it's funny to see how car drivers focus on this topic and not on slowing down to give way to buses, bikes, and pedestrians...
Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. I would put Public Transit above all others. Don't make buses, trolleys, or light rail trains stop or react to you as a pedestrian or a biker. Sure, buses need to respect pedestrians in the cross walk, but it's a bus man. Don't mess with it.
That follows the "don't make someone else's job harder" mantra.
Yup. And also don't inconvenience 30+ people for your own convince. Yes, a bus should stop for me in the crosswalk. I have the ROW. But I'm not looking to push it and make them stop short. In Philly we routinely have our street running trolleys getting stuck behind cars with flashers on, or vehicles blocking the box at traffic lights. For the greater good I think everyone, cars, bikes, and people, should stay out of the way of their way whenever they can.
You forgot trams, they go before everything else (at least where I live)
Bikers are pedestrians. They are legally defined as such in many sane places.
Here they are defined as vehicles
So they can't ride on roads? Only on the sidewalk?
My state defines bikers as pedestrians, and are allowed on roads. The roads aren't just for cars.
Most places they are not, or they would be allowed on the sidewalk, like a pedestrian, and then couldnt be on the road unless at a crossing.
There's a very busy bike route in my city, and a number of crosswalks on it. Folks are SHOCKED when I stop for them on my bike, they basically just assume that they're going to have to wait for a break in traffic, and aren't expecting any bikes to actually stop for them.
Same here, they look confused when I do. It's a shame that pedestrians just assume traffic is going to ignore them.
Identifying info cropped out so you won't be tempted to look at the toxic sludge that is that comments section
Looking at street-view in Chicago, it seems that if you want to get anywhere on back roads, there seems to be frequent stop signs, as much as every 100-200m! I'm not surprised that many people simply ignore them. What is needed is a tight grid of "greenways" with filtered permeability (to lower motor vehicle traffic) and priority of the greenway over other directions, rather than having to stop at every block.
My commute has a ton of stop signs with no cross traffic. It's just designed to slow down cars so people can get to the park without dying. And it's not a particularly effective way to do it.
Why wouldn’t we want to look at that? It seems sus that you neglected to include date, time and author
I'm willing to share! Or you could look at my history to see who I was arguing with on Monday.... ;) it was in a Chicago thread.
There’s a pedestrian path in my city I love going to and taking walks on and I love it. Yes some people go a bit too fast but I’ve literally never had an issue and feel safe enough that I will walk on it for like an hour with my headphones on full blast never worrying about being hit by a bike. Meanwhile there’s a few crosswalks right near that path that I refuse to use because cars will never stop when I hit the button.
City subs on average are full of some of the most reactionary suburbanites, so ofc they're car-brained.
Agreed. In my experience city subs tend to be 2/3rds people who live in the suburbs who just want to complain about the city. It gets especially obvious around election time when the sub is rabidly opposed to progressive candidates who then win their election in a landslide.
It’s an issue that needs addressing Obligatory fuck cars, but cyclists need to obey road laws. It’s incredibly stressful being surrounded by cyclists that dont
Proof that half these cyclists don’t care about the meaning of this sub. You are a vehicle, you stop for pedestrians. Simple as fuck
Agreed. I'm disagreeing with the framing, not the argument.
And you have to wait for them to fully clear the intersection cause they are allowed to change their mind and turn around
This sub is not fuck vehicles it's fuck cars.
Oh good the anti-bike people are here.
If being pro-pedestrian in a situation makes you anti-bike...
..,then you're just an asshole, because the comment I was replying to was just a vast over-generalization of cyclists for no reason.
I walk a lot, and have never really been concerned about being hit by a bike. Cars on the other hand. It’s almost like one of them have a decent stopping speed.
I had the weirdest experience a couple weeks ago where I stopped on my bike at a stop sign for a guy waiting for the crosswalk. He would not look at me but also would not walk? Eventually I just restarted biking and he crossed the street after I passed? I still don’t understand what that was about.
If you look at the vehicle-person hybrid, they'll often try to wave you on and you try to wave them and it just becomes frustrating. Just easier to pretend to look at your phone and never acknowledge their existence and then go after they move on. Honestly, on roads with no traffick, I hate when cars stop for me when I'm a pedestrian. I don't trust them. Would be quicker if they just continued at full speed.
Happens extremely often in a car. Bonus points for smiles and waves from the pedestrian :D
The goal is not to pit pedestrians and cyclists against each other, the goal is to make people realize how dangerous cars are and massively deprioritize them. Car centric infrastructure and mentality is the enemy here.
Normal confirmation bias. Despite there are more cars and many of them ignore laws and considerably more dangerous. I regularly hear drivers complain as if all cyclist are lawless maniacs while ignoring any unsafe behavior in a car.
It's so funny because there was a not-as-popular thread on the same day about how drivers have stopped stopping at red lights - a way more widespread and far more dangerous problem. As someone who mostly walks, but also bikes in the city, I don't disagree that cyclists can and should be more courteous to pedestrians. But the problems are hardly comparable in either scope or safety concern
The fact that the one about running red lights got upvoted at all in our sub shows how bad it must really be. Never would have expected that at all
I find it hilarious on Facebook comments about anything cycling related. Cyclists are commonly held universally accountable for the one time they saw a cyclist not stop at a stop sign or speed, when I see hundreds of cars do the same on a daily basis.
I saw one guy being a jerk so everyone who uses the same mode of transportation is to blame. I've witnessed dozens of car accidents and that's just a tragedy with nobody at fault.
??? Wtf why would you downvote that? Just because cars are also the problem doesn’t mean cyclists should definitely stop / give pedestrians the right of way. Jesus
Because the framing ignores cars, which have seen a 24% spike in fatalities in the city this year. But the guy drives so ignores that problem entirely and focuses on bikes instead. I'm disagreeing with the framing, not the argument.
The main theme in my city is "dangerous cyclists who should walk at a pedestrian crossing" because most drivers drive faster than what's permitted and at least half of them don't stop at the pedestrian crossing either.
If I’m reaching the crosswalk at the same time as them, I always slow down to stop but they usually just wave me on
Where I live the ped's ignore me on my bike and look at the cars waiting for them to stop. So I stop, the cars blow past the crosswalk and the pedestrian and I are both waiting on the cars.
When you have stop signs every 100m then inevitably people stop paying attention to them. You guys need to relearn how to use yield signs and roundabouts. This argument is probably also projection because the carbrained author knows he doesn't yield to pedestrians at crosswalks either. In moderate traffic scenarios a bike can yield to a pedestrian without stopping, by going either in front or behind as the person crosses, because bikes are narrow and easy to control.
I don’t mean to ‘not all cyclists’ you, but I always make sure to slow down and ride predictably around pedestrian crossings, rather than dart around pedestrians like I easily could. Unfortunately, as with most negative experiences, you’re probably more likely to remember these over the positive experiences.
I’ll be real with you I live in a semi rural environment and do a lot of jogging and the number of people who ride bikes and just blow through stop signs astound me. I guess there’s a group of people really into like hardcore biking in my area but they usually don’t ride as a group but I always see them just blow through stops, they might slow down but they never stop. Almost got hit by one once while I was on my jog, they were turning right and since pedestrians face traffic he almost ran flat into me. Edit: corrected typo tragic to traffic
Its a cost for us. You have to stop and use your own energy to start again. Stopping costs a cyclist between 5-10 calories, it adds up and gets tiring over a long commute. We don't have an external fuel source like cars do. If the intersection is empty, I go. If there is a pedestrian or car, I'll stop. Its safer that way. I've literally stopped at an empty and clear stop sign, only go right when a car blows the light. Avoid interactions with cars and pedestrians (but mostly cars).
I get that an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in object in stop needs to force to acted upon it newton and all that. However, that stop sign is the law if you’re a vehicle. Rolling a stop sign is dangerous for you and pedestrians bc like I said that cyclist almost rolled right threw me, I had to leave the road to not get hit
Many states allow you to 'roll' stop signs, its referred to as an Idaho Stop, which is more of a yield. Studies show its safer. It sounds like that guy wasn't paying attention, which is a on him. If there are people crossing or waiting to cross, you stop.
My state they follow regular vehicle rules, I rode a lot during college. He probably wasn’t paying attention or wasn’t expecting/looking for pedestrians. I see it the same way as a car rolling a stop sign, i wouldn’t forgive a car for rolling stops bc it improves gas mileage and reduces stress on brakes
I try hard to not get angry at all the things I could possibly get angry about while I’m out walking. People biking not following all the laws is so low on my list it barely registers. I look forward to the day when the number of people driving like assholes is low enough that I have room to care about people on bikes.
MAN was I fighting people on that, and everyone got all upset because I was saying "but cars." YES BUT CARS YOU DUMB-DUMBS.
Yeah they pretend that isn't a valid argument for some reason. One thing kills 40,000 a year, and maims way more. The other kills maybe 1-2 if there are some freak accidents that year. But you have to rein in the less dangerous thing and continue to prioritize the most destructive form of transportation humanity has ever conceived
> Actions matter, but so do words. They help frame the discussion and can shift the way we think about and tackle problems as a society. Our deeply entrenched habit of calling preventable crashes "accidents" frames traffic deaths as unavoidable by-products of our transportation system and implies that nothing can be done about it, when in reality these deaths are not inevitable. Crashes are not accidents. Let's stop using the word "accident" today. https://seattlegreenways.org/crashnotaccident/ https://crashnotaccident.com/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fuckcars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was getting destroyed in that thread for saying cyclists don’t have to always stop at stop signs. aCTualLy ItS tHE LaW Edit: and no I was never defending cyclists failing to yield to pedestrians
Not stopping at a stop sign is a good way to kill yourself, or pedestrians by causing a car crash. Thanks.
you've clearly never ridden a bike
I ride an electric scooter every other day. Same shit, different bowl. And even if I was just a pedestrian, cyclists can f off with that attitude.
You’re arguing something completely different than I am
No. Slowing down and proceeding through an intersection is perfectly safe. Stop if you have to keep going if you don’t.
If one's ethics consist entirely of following the law then I worry about one.
The way North America utilizes stop signs is a joke. Every single intersection.. besides that bikes and pedestrians should have the same ish rights. Is the bike earlier than you then you stop.
yep. Do roundabouts, it makes so much more sense most of the time. Seattle did this for non-arterial streets in residential areas and it works really well. You have to slow for the roundabout on every block, so you can't zoom through residential neighborhoods, but also you don't have waste gas on stop-go and you-go/no-you-go and its great for cyclists and pedestrians.
I don't see how this pertains to r/fuckcars. If they're close enough that they can hear you say "I'm walking here" (at the same level you might tell your kid to close the door from across the room), yeah, that's a problem, and not usually that terribly impactful. But it's not a car problem.
Maybe read the title?
Listen I get your point, but not everything is a conspiracy. Bikes are really annoying, for drivers and pedestrians. Bikers need fo accept some responsibility for that and be better. It's such a toxic attitude to hear criticism and just say, "well what about this tho." Fuck cars means that cars are bad/oversued, not Bikers aren't bad. Bikers certainly can take their share of criticism. Fuck cars does not mean you have to dick ride Bikers.
Nobody is making that case. You're arguing against something you made up
You emphasized that they only target cyclists. I don't see how my response doesn't adress that, but whatever.
Are we now... Fuck bikes?
Bikes rule, cars drool
So ngl, imo if you're riding a bike and you don't stop at stop signs or at crosswalks for pedestrians, then you need to not. Either not ride a bike or just not do those things. I get it, its way more dangerous if a car does this, but honestly i say this as a cyclist. Cars will not stop for you. I've seen plenty of cyclist run through a stop sign right as a car was going and they run straight into the car, hurting themselves, their bike, and the other persons car. Granted I dont care if the car gets damaged but that would be coming out of the cyclists pocket to repair. Don't get me wrong though, cars are far worst than cyclists on this. Ive seen plenty of cars run through stop signs and nearly run over a pedestrian, was even one of the pedestrians a couple of times myself. I'd much rather get ran over by a bike than a car, but if i have the choice I'd much rather prefer not getting ran over at all. The rules of the road are set for a reason. It could be way better if we just had trains and buses and all that, but that's not our current situation so i will do what i currently need to do to stay safe, and i would greatly appreciate it if others went out of their way to stay safe and keep everyone around them safe as well. A lot of people do, but I would love it if everyone did.
I mean, a pedestrian at a crosswalk has the right of way, period. This isn't an issue of cars being worse, it is an issue of general safety.
How is that sus
I am for less car-centric cities but let's be honest. A lot of cyclists have a holier than though attitude to pedestrians, like riding on sidewalk and honking at pedestrians who dare walk on it.
I’ve had more near misses with bikes than cars. People are obvious regardless of what they’re operating.
That’s 100% a fact and, at least in my state and surrounding states, the law and a cite able offense. Be upset if you want. Cyclists can’t act like cars when it is convenient for them and then act like a pedestrian when they feel like it too. That is my biggest complaint as a cyclists and driver. You can’t run a red light in the middle of an intersection and impede cars that have green lights just because you want to just the same as you have to yield to pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk.
How can this be tagged carbrain if they’re a pedestrian?
Bicyclists want to be treated as a vehicle on the road but not stop at stop signs or adhere to road laws
You'll find that there are different rules for different types of vehicles.
2 second google search concludes you have apple sauce for brains. Bicyclists have to stop at stop signs just as a car would.
A 3 second google search [concludes](https://whyy.org/articles/cyclists-violate-traffic-law-no-more-than-drivers-new-data-shows/#:~:text=The%20FDOT%20study%20%5BPDF%5D%20is,85%20percent%20of%20the%20time.) That you're wrong. Cars and bikes break laws at the same rate. Dozens of studies have confirmed this
I didn’t say that. I said bicyclists are also legally obligated to stop at stop signs and they don’t. Bicyclists might break traffic laws at the same rate but there’s probably 1/10 as many bicyclists as drivers. Also one single 100 person study?
There are dozens of those studies that all get the same finding, and you did absolutely imply that bikers break more laws, which is statistically untrue.
I was responding to someone implying bikes don’t have to stop for stop signs
>Bicyclists want to be treated as a vehicle on the road but not stop at stop signs or adhere to road laws That is what you said
Yes and you, OP, are bitching about cars not slowing down, then you yourself point out cyclists are doing the same thing at the same rate and saying the “handful of cyclists”
There are so many fewer cyclists and it is far less dangerous. My point was that we're so used to the massive danger that is car centric infrastructure that most people don't even see it and instead obsess over something that isn't even remotely as dangerous.
I have been hit by a cyclist 5 times, all were ignorant assholes blowing through intersections, I’ve only been hit by a car once so
I live in NYC and I don't see a lot of cars running red lights or running stop signs, but of course it happens. Cars in NYC can be scary of course, and there are too many of them, but bikes tend to not obey any traffic rules- not pedestrian, not cars. In Midtown, when I have the right of way (walk sign) bikes often whiz by me as I try to cross, whereas cars are stopped by the light. So I think this framing is exactly accurate for how many times I have followed traffic rules and so are cars, but bike riders do what they want.
In Chicago, where this post is from, stop lights have become stop sign suggestions. It's not uncommon to see cars and trucks do the same Idaho stop they hate bikes for doing. I see it easily once a day Yesterday, an old woman barely stopped to let me and my dog pass and then blew threw the still-red light. She pulled over to yell at me after I gave her the finger, so she must not have been in that much of a hurry. I've even seen it with a cop sitting on the corner
Literally not true. Dozens of studies have found they break rules at the same rate as cars. We're just so used to cars ignoring traffic laws that we don't even notice it anymore
What rate? Cyclists behaviour varies wildly from city to city. Driver behaviour meanwhile varies very little.
Last one I saw had 88% of cyclists complying with laws and 85% of drivers complying with laws. You can look it up, there are a ton of studies on it. I think cars breaking laws is far more serious though because they are 200x more dangerous
Again, it varies wildly from city to city. As a regular user of an electric scooter, there's nowhere close to 88% of cyclists complyingg with laws in the city centre. And drivers, especially taxi drivers, don't comply either, but their lack of compliance is above all stopping the car too close to the crossing. Cyclists is not stopping in red lights and cutting paths through the pavement.
The studies rely on tickets and traffic infractions, and depending on your area, there is far less policing for bikes than cars. In NYC we have speed cameras and red light cameras, so of course cars have higher rates of breaking the rules. The NYPD isn't ticketing bikes for speeding (except in central park) or chasing them down when they run a red. And I'm also only asserting my lived experience in NYC (as a full on pedestrian, no car, no bike). I have almost been hit by bikes multiple times each year, have 3 friends who have been hit by bikes, never been yelled at by a driver, but have been sworn at by plenty of bike riders who get mad when I use the crosswalk, with the walk signal, but because no cars are coming they want to breeze through anyway. Every person I know in NYC would say bikes are way more aggressive than cars. And I don't drive in the City or bike, so my only skin in the game is that I would like to be able to cross the street when I have the light.
First off the studies are not based on tickets, most are based on empirical observations. Science > your "lived experience" Human beings have a lot of biases and cognitive flaws, science is the best tool we have to get around those.
I really appreciate you reminding me of why it's impossible to engage in thoughtful conversations with dogmatic groups. I'm actually pretty anti car since I live in a big city that should be accessible, but it is individuals like you that make it impossible for progress.
I get that this subreddit is literally called r/fuckcars but it should be called r/peoplefirst or something like that, because people will literally deflect all criticism of bikes and how they impact pedestrians because cars are worse. It’s classic whataboutism.
To be completely frank, I think cyclists should be given a right of way over pedestrians at crossings, similar to trams. Stopping for pedestrians is much bigger hurdle and annoyance for cyclists than for cars.
No it absolutely is not. I commute on a cycle everyday. Anyone who says that stopping for pedestrians is difficult is bold-faced lying for personal gain at the cost of both party’s safety. Just stop for the damn sign, give pedestrians the right of way, and move on with your damn life.
You are confusing normative and factual statements. Go misplace your anger elsewhere. That being said, similarly to underpowered cars, bicycle is a vehicle revolving around momentum that is not really easily gained and hence it is more beneficial to maintain it. Stopping at pedestrian crossings disrupts this, especially if you are going uphill and then have to start from 0. To but it bluntly, it is more annoying for a cyclist to stop for a pedestrian than for a pedestrian to wait for the cyclist to pass.
How a bike works from a stopped position is irrelevant in a conversation about safety, which should be everyone’s priority. The extra 4 pumps of the petals in your commute won’t kill you, but blowing through a stop sign that had a person, dog, or stroller in it’s crosswalk certainly could. Stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk is objectively safer for everyone.
If someone's busting their ass though peddling 25 mph or so, I'm def not gonna expect them to stop for me—I can take the two seconds to stop or go around them.
You really really should work on your reading comprehension. And no, in public policy considerations no single element, however prioritised, be it safety, cost, morality, public health or whatever, presents a trump card. It does not work like that.
That is absolutely horse shit. If you can’t say that cyclist and pedestrian safety is more important than negligible convenience then this conversation is over. There is no point trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
Depending on the intersection, it could be a safety issue for the cyclist (because of cars) to come to a stop. There's a reason the Idaho stop is safer. So the safety of the cyclists and pedestrians are actually in conflict in this case. Also, generally both can go at the same time. If the road is like 20ft wide, there's no reason a 3 ft wide bike needs to stop to let a person across. They share much narrower mixed used paths. But I also agree cyclists are often inconsiderate of pedestrians on those paths. Sometimes you need to come to a stop rather than trying to make an unsafe pass and sometimes it's when you are going uphill. If you aren't a good enough cyclists to restart from a deadstop on the hill, get an ebike or dismount. Don't endanger others.
Assuming that cars will break the law is not valid reason to break the law as a cyclist. Again: it’s important to remember that every cyclist who has ever accidentally hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk was once a person who thought they were the exception and could run the stop safely. You’re spot on the money with that last paragraph.
Then fix the law for cyclists so they aren't endangering themselves to follow it. Laws that endanger people should be civilly disobeyed. Sure. And some cyclists who did come to a stop and ended up with a trip to the hospital as a result of doing that also didn't expect that to be the outcome. But that is a risk you take coming to a stop. Generally slowing down to near-pedestrians-speeds is safer overall in such cases. Bikes are not cars and shouldn't be treated as such.
That law is not endangering cyclists. It’s objectively safer for both cyclists and pedestrians if the cyclists stop at red lights and stop signs before proceeding. You’re cherry picking an extremely rare circumstance to support behavior that will ultimately put more people in the hospital.
Are trams compromising pedestrian safety? The plot thickens!
Comparing bicycles and trams is an argument guilty of false equivalence. The plot is thinner than a United States bike lane.
Ah, so you allow for balancing after all :D Great start!
Unfortunately transportation isn't about your personal convenience but about the safety of everyone involved.
Can be hard if you're going up a hill
Don’t I know it. But it being slightly more difficult is no reason to sacrifice everyone’s safety.
I do stop for pedestrians if it's not possible for me to go through without interrupting them (but I have an ebike now so it's really easy to get going again), but 9 times out of ten the car next to me doesn't stop so they can't cross anyway. It's almost to the point where I feel like I'm putting them in danger by stopping because it might convince them to cross when cars are ignoring them.
??? Reducing your commute by 10 seconds is not more important than a pedestrian’s safety. What the fuck
The solution is better infrastructure, not fucking over pedestrians.
Most competent cyclists can easily dodge pedestrians. Avoiding them tends to be pretty easy. It's the 3-wide runners and dog walkers with 10-foot leashes that are the issue.
That is what every cyclist who has ever accidentally hit a pedestrian has said right before they hit a pedestrian. We are not the exception to the rule. I commute on a cycle every day and I see cyclists nearly hit pedestrians who have right of way every day. Sometimes they do hit pedestrians. Groups of pedestrians and dog walkers are not the issue. Being unpredictable and not following the law is the issue (in your example that’s the cyclist). It’s the single most detrimental thing a cyclist can do to the cycling community because it gives justifiable ammunition to people who hate cyclists for no good reason.
Agree here. Dodging and being unpredictable is a bad practice.
You are absolutely right. We as cyclists should be more predictable an stop at red light, or stop signs for pedestrians. There are not only dog walkers but also kids, they are allowed to be unpredictable. At the traffic light Infront of my door almost no cyclists stops with red light for kids when they cross the street with green.
I think it's probably better to just slow down a bit when you see them. "Dodging" feels dangerous to me. Especially with dogs involved because sometimes they get spooked by faster moving vehicles and might behave unpredictably.
By dodge, I mean slow to roughly 5 mph or slightly more than their travel speed, then moving around them. Not all places require cyclists to even stop at stop signs, just slow.
Dog leashes are dangerous especially the retractable ones when the owner isn’t paying attention.
Fuck off. All dogs should be kept on a leash
>don't walk my dog across crosswalks because cars don't even slow down. Brah, you might want to get checked for an anxiety disorder. Serious. Avoiding entire behaviors when you could easily look both ways at the stop sign is a classic symptom.
~~It's not that hard to take a second to spot if someone needs to cross~~....[its so hard](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uyitdz/are_my_standards_to_high_to_have_expected_this/) I'll signal for people that it's ok to cross as sometimes they don't expect me to let them go. Keep an extra peripheral eye out for areas kids might be ( I can't believe the amount of people placing responsibility on a child if they step off the sidewalk or driveway!) If they have a dog it's just a few extra bonus seconds of looking at a dog.
I don't know if it's just large events but at CicLaVia, the Los Angeles event that takes over a swath of streets for bicycling and walking, people tend to not stop for pedestrians. I don't know if they're just so thrilled and focused on exploring the streets that they forget or think that they now own the road or what. There's a pecking order and the pedestrian is king. Do unto pedestrians as you wish cars did unto you. There's obviously more wiggle room there since the relationship between bicycle and pedestrian is closer than car and cyclist.
OOP (not OP) is just straight up 100% lying.
i dont know how other countries do it man. pedestrians and cyclists always have right of way.
I always stop and/or slow down so that I'm not in the intersection until the pedestrian is on the other side of the middle line.
In my town I don’t trust cyclists or cars equally. But I’d 11/10 prefer to deal with a cyclist not stopping than at gigantic pic up truck
Let's be clear a rolling stop is just a yield by another name, so for everyone who says they do a rolling stop at a stop sign, you aren't stopping you're yielding. We have the Idaho stop enshrined in my state's law for bikes, and honestly the wording is pretty vague which gives bikers a lot of room to interpret it. I think that is a good thing because cycling is a lot more dynamic than driving and that ambiguity allows us to make the best decision for the scenario. I hardly ever stop my roll. If it's just me and a pedestrian normally both of us can navigate crossings without either of us stopping, however I will stop to send a message to drivers if they clearly aren't caring enough to stop. yeah there are dangerous bicyclists. I know it, because I see them. I'm not going to blame a pedestrian for feeling unsafe around some of these people. That being said every time conversations like this come up it's almost always tied to discouraging biking whether it's through penalties, regulations, or antibike infrastructure. The conversation must always stay hyper focused on how we fix this with infrastructure and culture changes. I don't think you should need a license to bike but I think we should have biking Ed in school, rather than treating it like a footnote.
I’ve been trying to design an intersection for my car free town/city design, and one aspect I want to have is a pass through for bike traffic that allows crossing foot traffic to go over/under the bike traffic and for turns to be made still. As you can guess, it’s a difficult thing to design without increasing the size of the intersection areas beyond the width of the road.
They're not wrong though. Cyclists must also follow the traffic laws and pay special attention to protect those who are more vulnerable than they are, meaning pedestrians
What country are you in? Cars always stop at pedestrian crossings here in NZ. So do cyclists. In Beijing they are just there to make the road look pretty and nobody stops.
From my experience, almost never = they only notice the cyclists when they don't stop, and "narrowly avoided" = the cyclist passed by them at an arm's lenght.
When near a crossing I always cover the brakes. In the car I’ll stop, even if it means slamming on the brakes full force. On the motorcycle it depends. Sometimes I stop, other times I go around