Bicyclists, pick a ruleset. Or get off my lawn. Seriously. This has bothered me for the decade and a half that I’ve lived in San Francisco, and until now I’ve been resigned to joke that it’s the one thing that makes me slightly conservative in San Francisco. What’s going on? It’s simply that bicyclists just don’t follow traffic rules. They don’t stop at stop signs. They act as if they have the immunity of pedestrians, but the access of cars. They dart in and around traffic when they’re riding in regular traffic lanes. They slow cars down when the regular flow of traffic is at the posted speed limit and a bicyclist suddenly appears trudging along at 10mph. Bicycles sometimes wiggle on start, causing cars to dart to avoid them, causing an oncoming traffic hazard. And bicyclists act with extreme indignation if you honk at them. Factor in the monthly Critical Mass event, in which bicyclists deliberately swarm Market Street and spread out, violating traffic rules, in order to disrupt commuter traffic, and we have a real-life conservative slippery slope scenario. But things have become decidedly un-funny since March 29, when a bicyclist hit and killed a pedestrian.
The bicyclist posted his rationale online, saying, “I was already way too committed to stop. The light turned red as I was cruising through the middle of the intersection.” He continued, ”I couldn’t stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find.” This explanation carries within it the tacit acceptance that bicyclists don’t or can’t follow traffic laws as a matter of course. Look, if your vehicle can’t brake in time, you can’t run yellow lights. Interestingly, the SF Critical Mass website rationalizes this death by saying it’s statistically insignificant. Hmmm.
This Critical Mass affect and the chronic problem of bicyclists come up repeatedly in conversation in San Francisco. One of my colleagues simply won’t drive on Valencia. “Bicyclists blaze through stop signs and hop up on sidewalks when it suits them,” said a friend. Another colleague does actually commute on his bicycle, and does actually follow traffic rules, but joined the criticism, saying that when driving, he just doesn’t trust bicyclists.
While I am a driver myself, I also had a month back in my GDC days, in which I bicycled from my home in the Mission to the SoMa headquarters of CMP. It’s pretty treacherous to ride with cars swiping by, and honking at you. What’s worse is that I spent half the time looking down, to make sure my front wheel wouldn’t catch in the vertical cracks in the bicycle lane of the road. This puts bicyclists in a difficult bind, making riding a bicycle in San Francisco an unnecessarily dangerous activity to start with.
My bicycling colleague, ever the rational one, suggested a two-fold action as a solution. The city should on the one hand actually enforce traffic rules fully, and at the same time, repair all the roads. I instantly saw the logic here, everyone gets relief from feeling shortchanged. It would be something I would allocate 5% of my income taxes to. The government has a responsibility to maintain the infrastructure after all.
Perhaps my response to all this underscores my own priorities. For me, consistency is a virtue. And if we’re going to live in a city together, we need to be consistent in how we apply, enforce, and follow rules. If any group gets special treatment and is permitted to disregard the rules, why should anyone follow them? Let’s keep it civil and fix this.
SF: Sorry for the delay — off the radar at a conference without easy access to the interwebs. Gonna be honest, bicyclists just don’t bother me as a species. They make me nervous occasionally, but it’s much the same way I feel when I see a snail on the path by a garden: “Hey there little guy, be careful. There’s danger about.” I don’t expect the snail to abide the warning and I feel the same way about folks on bikes. They’re unpredictable, but if they’re okay with running the risk of a cracked shell, then what am I to do about it? The story about the bicyclist taking out a commuter is pretty disturbing, but I feel like it’s a pretty rare occurrence to be making policy on.
It’s a problem in Vancouver too. It’s kind of scary how entitled bicyclists can appear to be on the roads when it’s a no-brainer: cars always win in a collision, pedestrians always lose (it’s a vicious triangle). There needs to be more education for bicyclists and more responsibility taken by them. Good article, Jamil.
Thanks Brent! Agreed on education and awareness, but frankly I think the city is most at fault for not enforcing traffic laws for everyone. If you can predict how a bicycle is going to behave, you can drive – or walk – safely around it.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the facts in this case were slightly different. Imagine that instead of riding a bicycle, Chris Bucchere had been driving a car, and had killed a pedestrian through his own negligence. Would you be writing about it now? Would you be demanding a change in our traffic priorities? Would any media have covered the story for days on end? Of course not, because such a death would be unremarkable. It happens all the time, and in fact happened only recently when a father and daughter were killed by driver in Concord. (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/news/local/Father,-Daughter-Killed-By-Teen-Driver-Mourned-in-Concord/146723075).
The disproportionate attention given to this matter is not only hypocritical. The hype is also attack on the bicycling community as a whole by people who are motivated by resentment at the social change we represent — specifically the change in funding priorities that we have been successful in bringing about.
like
Hi Hugh, thank you for writing in. Alas, it looks like we don’t see the world quite the same way, at least not yet. The drunk driver story you reference does seem quite prevalent to me, so I don’t see the disproportionate response you do. Perhaps being a part of bicycle culture, you’re got more news alerts coming to you in that area.
I’m writing about this now because this really does touch a mounting issue, that bicyclists shift the rules they follow at their convenience.
It is a fact that this case has stirred up more attention than any traffic fatality in San Francisco in years. For a taste of how many articles on this accident have been written you can try Googling Chris Bucchere’s name:
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Chris+Bucchere
Nothing comparable exists for any of the 100 fatalities due to motorized traffic that happen yearly in the Bay Area.
Cyclists do run red lights and stop signs, since bikes need to conserve momentum in order to maintain their efficiency. The full stop required by law simply doesn’t work for most cyclists. This creates two problems. One, it leads to a widespread perception that cyclists are rude and reckless. Two, it leads many cyclists to make up their own rules, leading to confusion and more resentment (with some justification), which is I think what you’re talking about.
(However, the danger from this type of cyclist behavior is still quite low, and far less of a threat to public safety than the attention given to it in the media suggests.)
I get that, and I think an Idaho Rules approach will do a great deal to address this problem. This is the idea, also applied recently in Paris, that cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. So that a cyclist can conserve momentum and continue through an intersection when he or she feels it is safe. (Unlike people inside cars, cyclists have no blind spots and don’t require a full stop to make a good judgement in these matters.)
This violates one of the cherished beliefs of cultural conservatives, which is that the law treats everyone equally (it doesn’t). Your grumpy Clint Eastwood character would certainly not approve. But I think it’s the right approach. It certainly seems to be working in Paris.
Ooh, that Idaho Rules idea sounds interesting. My main thing is consistency/reliability, and if there’s a ruleset that makes sense for the unique challenges of blending cars, bicycles, and pedestrians in a compounded traffic sprawl, I’m all for it. Plus, I like the idea of going with a solution that’s proven in another major metropolis. Perhaps a research trip to Paris is in order.
If I had a dollar for every time a car or pedestrian intentionally fucked with me on my bike I would be god damn Mark Zuckerburg. Here’s is a short list:
- Attempted drive by dooring
- Rock thrown at my head
- Grapefruit hit from behind
- Car Accelerating straight at me and crossing into my lane just to fuck with me
- Getting cut off intentionally when riding by a car totally legally
- Loads of verbal abuse for no reason other than the fact that I’m on a bike
- incidents that are not worth listening here abound.
I follow most of the traffic rules. I’m still safe. Cars put ME at risk every day on my bike.
Please don’t spread bike hatred, it’s already extremely pervasive.
Those would also be bad things. That was similar to the experience I had, my month trying to do a bicycle commute. Without the grapefruit. And the rock. Yeesh.
But I disagree with your comment that I’m spreading hatred. I’m talking about bicyclists in general shifting the rules they follow at their convenience. It seems to me that’s the start of the spiral that leads to bad behavior by bicyclists and drivers alike.
I actually advocate a different set of rules for bikers than cars. Following the rules of the road on a bike sometimes puts me in a more dangerous position than necessary.
Thanks for the reply.
Interesting, it sounds a bit like the Idaho Rules idea Hugh mentioned. A custom ruleset sounds like it makes the most sense.
Thanks for speaking up.
Jobeesh,
You said it right there. You follow “most” of the traffic rules. You’re suspending some rules because you want to. They’re suspending some rules because they want to. See how it doesn’t work for anyone?
Now, I’m not saying they’re in the right. What I’m saying is that both you and those people are wrong. They may be doing more harm, but you’re not helping yourself or anyone by deciding you’re the arbiter of which laws you get to follow.
Obey the law, set a good example, and maybe other people will do the same. It’s up to you to make that first step instead of waiting for everyone else to do it.
” Actually advocate a different set of rules for bikers than cars. Following the rules of the road on a bike sometimes puts me in a more dangerous position than necessary.”
Jared, are you saying that motorists don’t also choose for themselves which laws to obey? I often hear this from motorists. The idea is that cyclists are all scofflaws, while by implication motorists are all noble and obedient law obeyers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The most significant law that every single motorist disobeys (with the possible exception of my 78 year old mother) is the speed limit. Motorists, myself included, regularly drive at least 5 miles over the speed limit, and this is tacitly accepted by police who have more important fish to fry. (On the freeway it’s more like 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, but who’s counting.)
Many people will dismiss this scofflaw behavior from motorists as insignificant. But in fact it is one of the biggest contributors to the high number of fatalities that we suffer in our city.
There are other ways motorists bend the law regularly. One of my least favorite is their habit of taking right turns on red without coming to a full stop. I’d like to see a study of how many pedestrian deaths are caused each year as a result of that law being ignored.
The point is not that motorists are all bad or that cyclists are all good. The point is that we the tiny minority — cyclists — are held up to a high standard despite the minor threat they pose to public safety, while the real threat to public safety from the majority means of transportation is ignored.
I drive the posted speed limit in all situations. I haven’t always, in the past, but around the time I was 22 I decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.
What I’m saying is that making an argument about people breaking laws and then directly saying you break the laws is not a good way to make a point.
I don’t hold anyone to a standard that I don’t hold myself to. I don’t break laws, don’t steal, don’t even pirate media. This isn’t because I want to feel superior or holier-than-thou, but because I hope that by doing so other people will do so and then we’ll have a lot less issues floating around.
If you don’t agree with a rule, work to change the rule.
I stand in awe of your commitment to the rule of law, sir!
Too bad you can’t sample the indica.
Great debate being observed from Oxford in the UK. We have many cyclists and similar problems. Short on answers though I’m afraid.
Hey Mick! Yes, this seems to be a far bigger issue that we give it credit for. As a friend pointed out on my Facebook page, this is largely solved in mainland Western Europe, since “Cyclists tend to have a road of their own, separately designated from the ‘motor vehicle road’ and the ‘pedestrian road.’”
“Cyclists do run red lights and stop signs, since bikes need to conserve momentum in order to maintain their efficiency.”
I had this argument. The same thing is true for cars, motorcycles, and joggers too. This does not justify running intersections.
I also have to deal with this in Seattle a lot.
I have found this debate to be pretty fruitless, but here’s where I stand: The roads we have today were made for cars. Bicycles mess up the traffic flow and waste a lot of people’s time and gas (more people drive than bike). It gets even worse when some cyclists don’t obey the law. Saying that some drivers don’t obey the law or that some drivers intentionally do rude or even dangerous things to cyclists doesn’t change that and doesn’t justify breaking traffic rules.
In my ideal world, bicycles would only be allowed in bike lanes, shoulders of at least a certain width, and sidewalks. If you like biking, good for you, but I don’t think cities should strive to make themselves more bikable at the expense of driveability. Not enough people bike or will bike to justify the cost to drivers.
You’ve obviously never been to Europe. A city with less car traffic is a better city on multiple levels. Better for kids, families, socializing, getting around, parking for those who do drive, healthier air, less deaths, healthier citizens, less stressed citizens. If you don’t get that you seriously have not got your thinking cap on.
An urban city with much less people using cars may indeed be better, I don’t know. I understand what you’re saying. If a much larger portion of people were _willing_ to use bicycles, than that would be ideal in many ways as you describe. But that’s not going to happen in big American cities where many workers live in suburban areas and commute to work and (gasp!) like driving to work.
Pingback: A Call To Quora | SOMOFOS