|
ComradeCosmobot posted:But this is a fairly auto-centric view. The problem from the bicyclist's point of view is exactly the same thing you call out. Because bicyclists accelerate and decelerate slowly, there's an obvious mechanical advantage to avoiding as many stops as possible, which is why there is exactly the tendency to not stop (particularly because, unlike a car, which hides the mechanical costs of accelerating and decelerating from the driver, the bicyclist has to deal with the acceleration every stop in a very physical way). Yes, this is exactly why cyclist compliance with stops becomes an issue when enforcement lags. However, it being a pain in the rear end to start from a complete stop really doesn't trump safety, which is the primary goal of all of this. You will never convince the engineers responsible for designing the bicycle facilities that trading off safety in exchange for a little convenience is a good solution. Keep in mind that we're talking about city that already has an abundance of streets with 20%+ grades. The mechanical energy spent being made to stop at stop signs shouldn't even rate compared to that.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Yes, this is exactly why cyclist compliance with stops becomes an issue when enforcement lags. So clearly draconian enforcement is the key?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:
Starting on a 20% grade is way harder than going from 5 mph. (Fun fact, this is why on certain steep hills in Berkeley, you will see 3 ways stops with everyone yielding to the party going up the hill.) Also, your predictability thing goes away with an idaho stop. If a car is at the intersection, the bike stops. If no car, it is a yield sign. (I don't actually like the red light handling or an idaho stop for urbn areas, so we'll ignore that). If the laws are as such and followed, it will make no difference in predictability than stopping. It will just be less of a pain in the rear end. Also, if traffic engineers would stop putting up loving stop signs loving everywhere, it would be less of an issue. Seriously, we have stop signs at loving roundabouts. The rest of the world gets on just fine with stop signs only at difficult intersections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Keep in mind that we're talking about city that already has an abundance of streets with 20%+ grades. The mechanical energy spent being made to stop at stop signs shouldn't even rate compared to that. Which is why all this enforcement is happening at the Wiggle rather than anywhere else in the city, because it's apparently the main way to avoid those grades, but has all these stop signs that basically every bicyclist in the city apparently blows through when it seems safe instead since there are no good cross-town bicycle options! Huh! EDIT: Safety is a good goal, but draconian enforcement can only go so far when actually doing something for bicyclists instead of attacking them and focusing on making traffic primarily safe for automobiles would probably get better compliance in the long run. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
nm posted:Also, if traffic engineers would stop putting up loving stop signs loving everywhere, it would be less of an issue. Seriously, we have stop signs at loving roundabouts. The rest of the world gets on just fine with stop signs only at difficult intersections. I know, this drives me up the goddamn wall. And don't even get me started on the ways that city engineers gently caress up roundabouts. My god. The old guard don't like alternating 2-way stop controlled intersections - as in, you stop every other block - because reasons (off-peak compliance, which I'm skeptical about), so stop signs go in everywhere. Even this whole complete streets thing is still very new to a lot of these guys who've been designing roads for decades and are used to treating sidewalks as totally optional outside of urban cores. We have too many signs in general on our roadways, and studies have shown that your average driver pays attention to something dumb like 1 out of 5 (or 1/3, I forget exactly). So more signs aren't the solution. I'd love to rip a ton of them out; it's been done successfully in a few european cities, and tends to cause traffic calming, which is excellent for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Having cyclists obey stops differently than other road users might be a good solution outside of peak traffic times, just like how motorcyclists can treat red lights as stop signs. But you start running into problems when this use case is dependent upon other vehicles in the intersection, because this becomes a judgement call. Maybe if it didn't apply if other vehicles were within 20 linear feet of the stop bar or something, or if peds were present at the curb ramps. Something unambiguous, you know? But I doubt that these cops are ticketing cyclists doing this during lulls at 10 in the morning or 3 in the afternoon on residential side streets. They seem to be hitting busy intersections with lots of bike traffic. Education is something that should be pushed harder too, especially since it's not like traffic enforcement is self-funding anyway. But if you really want to make the roads safer for cyclists, push your city council for more traffic calming implementation. Plentiful roadside trees and angled on-street parking are both excellent ways to slow cars the hell down; not speed humps/tables though - those slow down emergency response vehicles. Finally, read up on road diets, aka converting travel lanes into other things (like bike/ped paths and strip parks). They do more to incentivize alternate travel modes and get cars off the road than any number of HOV lanes and bike awareness campaigns. Basically, they work by making the marginal cost of traveling via car more time-expensive, so people pick other modes if possible. However, the main barrier to them is pushback from the public. People love their drat cars. H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:
It's enraging and I yell at people when I see them doing it. But I can understand why people are so terrified of turning using the left lane - you have to cut across at least two lanes of car traffic and cars get really loving mad at bikes using the left lane to turn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:It's enraging and I yell at people when I see them doing it. But I can understand why people are so terrified of turning using the left lane - you have to cut across at least two lanes of car traffic and cars get really loving mad at bikes using the left lane to turn. Yeah, I tend not to do it myself, but I also try not to ride my bike on the crosswalk either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, when you get to a busy intersection, walk your loving bike. There's nothing more annoying than watching a bicyclist attempt to turn left in the intersection, especially with California's new "keep three yards(?) away" law. Just walk the loving bike across the crosswalk; you're a bike, not a car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
All the bicyclists around SLO who blast right through stop signs have the car drivers so nervous that they tend to wave me (on my bike) through stops that I haven't even stopped at yet, screwing up the flow of the intersection and making everybody confused. Bicyclists who refuse to stop at stop signs because of the lost momentum are complete babies. One bicyclist I yelled at for sailing through a stop yelled back, "I'm a biker! The laws don't apply to me!" so I'm all for stepping up enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
"Im lowering pollution!" *Forces 1000 cars per day to stop/re-accelerate" Some bicyclists would help the environment more by getting back in their cars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:"Im lowering pollution!" What? Please explain your logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
California reduced water usage by 27% in June. Woot.quote:LOS ANGELES — Water use in California dropped by more than 27 percent in June, surpassing the 25 percent statewide cutback ordered by Gov. Jerry Brown in what officials called an encouraging development as this state struggles through one of its worst droughts in history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Now watch as everyone will freak out over July not being as big a drop in usage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Now watch as everyone will freak out over July not being as big a drop in usage. The article specifically says they're measuring from 2013 as a baseline.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What? Please explain your logic. Cars use the most fuel accelerating (particularly from a stop). Bicyclists weaving in and out of lanes, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks force cars to slow down and stop repeatedly. When one car does this all of the cars behind it do as well. In "downtown" areas this can lead to congestion backing up several blocks across several lights. (Which of course leads to more frustration etc.. as well as burning fuel.) Keeping traffic moving at a steady 25-45 is better than 0, 10, 15, 10 , 0, 10, 15, 10. (Specifically in Seattle) having three bicycles riding parallel blocking three lanes at 10mph is not unseen during morning work traffic on certain streets. Dedicated bike paths would be best for all involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Now watch as everyone will freak out over July not being as big a drop in usage. This last July was one of the wettest on record, I think we'll be ok but we won't do nearly as well this month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Reminds me of when Enron was loving with us and the call went out for Californians to cut electricity use to avoid rolling blackouts. And we were able to cut power consumption by 15-20% in the affected areas, pretty much trivially (people ran their dishwashers later at night and set their A/C at a higher temperature, businesses did things like turn off one-third of the light fixtures in their offices and stores). There's often lots of low-hanging fruit for conservation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I didnt experience this as "a thing" until Seattle, but basically: I think this makes a case for less stop signs in general. In my parents suburb, recently a stop sign got put up at a three way intersection. The "third way" serves a loop that contains about 15 houses. It's rare to come to that intersection and meet anyone there. The other street is the main way out of the suburb. It's a pretty slow street, but still, hundreds of people probably go through there every day, but now have to make this ridiculous stop for no reason. The only reason I can think of that justifies its existence is there is a big park there and tons of soccer kids not even from the neighborhood wandering in the street like little idiots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:The only reason I can think of that justifies its existence is there is a big park there and tons of soccer kids not even from the neighborhood wandering in the street like little idiots. Usually that's why a stop sign gets put up. That or someone was run over at that intersection already. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Gavin Newsom announced he wants to be Governor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Well hey what do you know: http://m.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/07/30/this-is-what-happened-when-bicyclists-obeyed-traffic-laws-along-the-wiggle-yesterday quote:The protest hadn't even started before the first motorist laid on the horn. ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Yes, because a horde of protesters on bikes, all riding in single file, directly in the middle of the street, is exactly the same as normal bike traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
fronz posted:Gavin Newsom announced he wants to be Governor. He's had a site up for his campaign for a while now. Leperflesh posted:Naw. Newsom wants to be governor. Everything he's done has been aimed at that, beginning from before he ran for SF mayor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Yes, because a horde of protesters on bikes, all riding in single file, directly in the middle of the street, is exactly the same as normal bike traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Yes, that's right, the protestors are in fact not biking how they normally do! Which is why it's stupid for them to claim that what was seen during the protest will be representative of traffic if bicyclists are made to stop at stop signs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Which is why it's stupid for them to claim that what was seen during the protest will be representative of traffic if bicyclists are made to stop at stop signs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The law also requires them to ride single file, if I understand correctly. The law also requires them to pull over if there are five or more vehicles lined up behind them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The law also requires them to ride single file, if I understand correctly. If that's true it's kind of dumb. Regardless, you never see that many bicyclists riding in the same small area at once, aside from when critical mass does it's thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Won't somebody please think of the cars! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Won't somebody please think of the cars! No one is saying "please think of the cars". But the protest, which was meant to show how stupid it is for cyclists to obey stop signs, because it would supposedly create a giant backup of cyclists at every intersection, is not representative of what would actually happen, because there are never that many cyclists in any one spot in SF...aside from during critical mass (when there are way more cyclists than during the protest). Hell, half the bike lanes in the city are completely empty 90% of the time. And only 3% of SF's workers ride a bike to work. There just isn't the level of bike traffic to create that kind of bike traffic jam apocalypse, except on rare occasions, like critical mass. And it's not like critical mass gives a poo poo about stop signs, or lights, or any traffic laws. They're a giant moving traffic jam to begin with. Rah! fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Is there any evidence that the Idaho stop actually results in more injuries/fatalities? Everything I've seen on the internet indicates it's neutral or good, e.g. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop)quote:Idaho is both the largest and longest practitioner of the safe stop. Mark McNeese, Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the Idaho Transportation Department says that "Idaho bicycle-collision statistics confirm that the Idaho law has resulted in no discernible increase in injuries or fatalities to bicyclists."
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Is there any evidence that the Idaho stop actually results in more injuries/fatalities? Everything I've seen on the internet indicates it's neutral or good, e.g. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop) Its a pity that Idaho doesn't have any dense large cities to make a meaningful comparison to the places in California we're talking about. For context, Idaho's largest city is less than half as dense as LA and less than 250,000 people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For context, Idaho's largest city is less than half as dense as LA and less than 250,000 people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its a pity that Idaho doesn't have any dense large cities to make a meaningful comparison to the places in California we're talking about. The article also mentions that it's been successful in Bordeaux, which is denser than LA. edit: huh, treating stop lights as yield signs is actually more extreme than what the Idaho stop is described as usually (which is stop sign as yield sign, stop light as stop sign). Cicero fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Get rid of all traffic signs and signals; make every intersection a yield sign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
withak posted:Get rid of all traffic signs and signals; make every intersection a yield sign. Instead of yield signs, do roundabouts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Make all cars ride bikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Privatize all roads and let the individual owners establish the traffic rules for their property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Paris is apparently in the process of trying it out: http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-09/paris-follows-path-idaho-and-lets-bicycles-run-red-lights Yeah I saw that, and even I would be uncomfortable going that far, although I think obeying a stop light when you're on the far side of the far side of a tee is silly and should probably be a yield since your only realistic risk is bicyclists turning your way. Rah! posted:Make all cars ride bikes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Instead of yield signs, do roundabouts. This would also be acceptable. Intersections without the space to build a car-sized roundabout can become bike-only.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:47
|
|