Proposition: All drivers and all cyclists should follow traffic laws

[GiaGiovanni]

If drivers and cyclists are to share major commuter roads for the good of the environment, they must have a common set of traffic laws which they follow. Both drivers and cyclists must honor traffic lights and road signs, must signal when they are turning, must have working headlights for night driving, look out for other drivers and cyclists, must drive carefully and defensively around pedestrians, must honor each others' lanes on the road, etc.

Neither drivers nor cyclists should go through red lights, operate their vehicle drunk or high, cut off other drivers/cyclists, ignore crosswalks and hit pedestrians, or be reckless.

Sharing the same roads means sharing a common set of laws that dictate the safe use of that road. I don't think that this should, in any way, be controversial. Commuter roads are those with posted speeds over 35 mph. This does not count children who should only be riding on streets with 25 mph limits or lower.

Is there a cogent argument against this?

[datasuspect]

1. cogent argument?

physics.

duh.

[GiaGiovanni]

20. If physics is your argument, then bikes should not be on the road with cars at all

It's like having a 150 pound young man playing pro football with well trained 250-300 pounders. It can't work.

[Travis_0004]

29. That already happens.

We call the 150 pound guys 'kickers'

[GiaGiovanni]

31. The place kicker is more like the pedestrian: he shows up temporarily on the field

and does his thing, while the opposing tackles are held back from doing him any harm. It's sort of like a stoplight holding back the cars.

Also, place kickers are heavier than 150 lbs these days.

[oneshooter]

2. Does that include brake lights, turn signals,liability insurance, and road use taxes?

After all the law requires all of that to be legal on the roads.

[zerosumgame0005]

8. we can only dream

of that being applied to bikes

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. The law requires none of those for bikes where I live.

It does, however, explicitly grant bicycles the right to use the roadways (restricted access highways with minimum speed limits excepted, obviously).

[GiaGiovanni]

26. I think that's irresponsible of the state

If you're going to allow bikes to share the roadway with cars, you need to insure that the cyclists are safe and not a danger to others. Headlights and reflectors at night protect the cyclist from being hit and should be required by law everywhere. Proper turn signaling--whether by electric lights or well articulated hand signals--allow vehicles and other bikes to predict your movement and grant you the right of way. Without them, motorists and other cyclists may think you are going straight ahead, and they may hit you trying to pass you.

I do believe that bike insurance will become necessary as more bikes enter the daily commute, and are not just for recreation. Bike insurance is necessary to cover a biker's injuries (in the case of a hit and run), a motorist's injuries (in the case that the bike was judged to have caused the accident), and pedestrian injuries, when cyclists hit pedestrians. There is a Hunter College study demonstrating that over 1000 pedestrians report being hit by bikes in a given year in New York, and some have been hospitalized. (There are apparently many more pedestrians who do not report their collisions.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. The things in your first paragraph are indeed required here.

Bikes are subject to (most of) the same rules about lights as other vehicles. The exceptions are turn signal lights (but you're required to use hand signals) and brake lights (because they basically don't exist for bikes). You can definitely pick up a citation for no lights after dark here in Portland (along with it being a really idiotic thing to do...).

I agree that we might start seeing liability insurance requirements. Not a bad idea...

[Travis_0004]

30. Bikes are often covered by auto insurance

Since most people with bikes also own a car, they have auto insurance.

If somebody hits me (and assuming its their fault), then I can make a claim against their insurance. But because of the physics involved in such an accident, and the fact that state minimum insurance laws are too low, I carry over 100k in uninsured/under insured motorist coverage, so if they hit me, I can sue my insurance for any damages, even on my bike.

Now there are limitations, if I hit a pedestrian, then auto insurance won't help, or if I just fall, then it won't help, but that's why its good to have health insurance.

[GiaGiovanni]

34. It seems cyclists have no insurance coverage for the accidents they cause

Your car insurance covers you if you get hurt on your bike, but it doesn't cover a pedestrian you hit. Nor, it seems, does it cover any accidents with cars that you may cause. That's a problem, and that's why bikers will soon need to carry bike insurance.

[GiaGiovanni]

33. That makes more sense

Riding around without lights at night is idiotic for anyone. Until we all get assigned night vision goggles, we need lights.

[GiaGiovanni]

19. I think that eventually that will happen

As more bikes are in use for commuting, there will be more of a need for Biker's Ed and Bike insurance.

[NightWatcher]

3. Hybrid/electric cars should have to put a baseball card in their spokes

or some other means to make a little noise to let bicyclists know that they are coming up on you. A Prius scared the crap out of me when I was riding yesterday.

[IDemo]

6. I always thought they should have speakers

With varying output noises: Harley, Indy car, galloping horse, locomotive, etc.

[Yo_Mama]

14. I never thought of that

But now I realize that could be a problem.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. I always make it a point...

..to obey traffic laws on my bike(s) (very avid cyclist here...). All the time? Nope. If there's no one around, I don't worry about blowing through stop signs, etc. But I never do stuff like that when it interferes with someone else's right-of-way. Even when it doesn't, but there are others around, I'll ride lawfully for "PR" reasons.

Of course, living in Portland, Oregon makes all that a lot easier: miles and miles of bike lanes and other cycling infrastructure, a car-driving population that's pretty used to seeing cyclists, and so forth.

[GiaGiovanni]

21. Breezing through stop signs when no one else is there might sound ok, but

cars go far more quickly than bikes, and can come up so suddenly that it's hard for a cyclist to react. In the town where I live, cyclists like to go through stop signs and red lights, and, so often, I have seen cars come suddenly from the opposite (perpendicular) direction and almost hit them. This town is known for having bikes on the road, and most drivers are very patient with the bad cycling (and are grateful for the good cycling!). But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes accidents happen. I'm sure you are a very careful and responsible cyclist, but caution is always the best approach.

[IDemo]

5. Idaho law

For bicyclists, stop signs effectively become yield signs for either vehicular or pedestrian cross traffic. Stop lights are effectively stop signs; one must stop but may proceed when traffic allows.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. That's the law, and a good one at that.

It's one of the times that bicycles should be treated differently under the law. I wish that my state would adopt Idaho's law.

[bhikkhu]

11. Generally thats how it works in Oregon as well

Its so much faster to brake, stop, turn, or react in any way on a bicycle, and (assuming no headphones or cellphones) a cyclist usually has a much clearer view of the surroundings.

[GiaGiovanni]

22. The stoplight law sounds problematic

To proceed through a red when you think there is no traffic, especially on a 4-lane highway, is dangerous. A car can suddenly approach an intersection far more quickly than you can get across it. I can understand some variations if you're on small country roads or suburban streets under 35mph, but for anything 35mph or over, cyclists need to stop for their own safety.

[meow2u3]

28. It's the law, and a good one at that

Pennsylvania has the same stop sign laws regarding bicycles. These laws exist for the safety of the bicyclist. If you're on a bike and run a stop sign, a car cannot always see you.

[GiaGiovanni]

35. The Idaho law allows cyclists to run the stop sign

That does cause safety issues for bikes since, as you say, cars cannot see them.

[meow2u3]

36. If bikes can run stop signs, what's to say there won't be accidents?

I think bikes running stop signs are accidents waiting to happen.

[GiaGiovanni]

37. I'm in total agreement

I've seen a couple of near misses this year.

[smirkymonkey]

42. As a pedestrian, I am in total agreement.

Every day I see so many ped/biker near msses. The bikers really need to follow the rules of the road. It should not be the burden of the pedestrians to have to look out for them in crosswalks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. In California cyclists are liable to the same traffic laws

The problem is cyclist many a times don't know, or worst...don't care

[GiaGiovanni]

23. I find this to be very true

We have some great cyclists here, and I'm always grateful to see hand signals for turns and headlights for night riding. However, I live in an area with lots of cyclists and so many of them go through red lights on 4-lane roads or dart from between parked cars right in front of an oncoming vehicle. Unfortunately, where I live, these are the rule and not the exception. It is the responsible cyclists who are rare and I have great appreciation for them. Perhaps it is different in other parts of the state.

[bhikkhu]

10. Only if they do first

[oldhippie]

12. No, cyclists are special .....

.... just ask them.

[Fumesucker]

13. Interesting that you don't mention the single most common violation among drivers

Speeding.

Get speeding by car drivers (and I'm a licensed driver) under control and we can start seriously looking at what bicycles are doing wrong.

[Ikonoklast]

16. Only after you prove you NEVER exceed the posted speed limit in your motor vehicle.

And please don't tell me that you always drive the posted limit, because we both know that to be untrue.

[Fumesucker]

18. I have exceeded the speed limit plenty of times, probably nearly every time I drive a car

That's my point, it's the most common and one of the more dangerous violations, practically every driver does it at some juncture and most do it regularly.

Go ahead, clean up speeding which is far more dangerous to others than anything anyone on a bicycle can do and then we can start talking about how dangerous bicycles are to others.

[GiaGiovanni]

24. Speeders are one main reason cyclists and motorists should be particularly careful

Responsible cyclists and motorists drive defensively. On can rant and rail about speeders until doomsday, but this is not going to change them. Nor will the police be able to catch all of them. Therefore, responsible users of the road must take proper precautions. This means not taking certain risks, like going through stop signs or red lights, lest a speeder fly by in the opposite (perpendicular) direction and take you with them.

[Fumesucker]

38. I wasn't "ranting and raving" about anything

Indeed your OP reads more like a rant than my post you are replying to here.

You also admit that drivers *will* *not* obey the traffic law as it relates to maximum speed.

Your entire OP was meant as a slam on anyone who is riding a bicycle rather than driving a car, you weren't even particularly subtle about it and you certainly weren't fooling anyone except those who wish to be fooled.

[GiaGiovanni]

39. "Rant and rail" was the expression and it did not refer to you

Drivers will not always drive the exact speed limitL some drive slower and some drive faster. Speeders are a problem for everyone and police should be alerted to excessive speeding.

[Fumesucker]

40. I was the one who mentioned speeders because you certainly didn't in your OP

So your comment was obviously aimed at me.

And if you're going to turn in every speeder you see you'll be on the phone to the cops the entire time you're on the road.

I'm a speeder, you're a speeder, practically everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car is a speeder at least some of the time.

[GiaGiovanni]

41. It was not a personal comment, but a general one

However, if you would like to spend a few moments in perturbation, that is your right.

[Robb]

17. Why? Criminals won't follow the laws, they're criminals!

It makes no sense to legislate restrictions on cars at all, because the laws only inconvenience lawful car owners.

Sincerely,

NRA Robb

[GiaGiovanni]

25. Laws are usually followed by the law-abiding and ignored by criminals

But, with driving, there is a grey area of "good" people who are, nonetheless, neglectful or uninformed about traffic laws. In California, we have many drivers who seem to not understand basic defensive driving or basic driving habits, like slowing down when it rains (to avoid hydroplaning and accidents), putting on headlights in the fog (CA had to make a law about this), or not using the right shoulder as a driving lane. These drivers are not criminals, but they do need better driving habits.

[zappaman]

32. And don't forget...

Solo Drivers should be appreciative of buses, bicyclists, pedestrians and car-poolers -not resentful!