BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I think it's wonderful! (be prepared for some awful stuff in the comments. They probably won't mention your mother, but they might.)

I don't know, seems fraught with the likelihood of negative backlash. And frankly, too complicated for the average op ed page reader. Points I would personally like to see trumpeted in the media, repeatedly; 1. "Those cyclists" who allegedly run lights and stop signs etc. are not a unified group who gather around and discuss ways to break laws, any more than "drivers" gather round and talk about driving technique. Don't lay their behavior on cyclists as a group. Cyclists who do gather around to talk about cycling are the ones most likely to be following laws. 2. With the current explosion in biking, there are so many newbies, it may not occur to them that on bikes they have to follow the same laws as other vehicles. They will learn. 3. The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, so it's entirely possible that the "cyclists" people see flaunting the laws are just as crappy at driving. 4. There are thousands of cyclists out getting around and following the laws every day at any given time. Like anything else, it is the ones who go against the norm who people notice. 5. Every person who gets out of a car and uses a bike to get around relieves traffic and makes it easier for everyone else, including other drivers. Spread that around.

edmonds59 wrote:I don’t know, seems fraught with the likelihood of negative backlash. And frankly, too complicated for the average op ed page reader.

It's hard for a motorist to understand "those darn lawbreaking cyclists". Most don't really care to and probably won't ever unless they or a loved one get on a bike. But I tried to present it as simply and clearly as I could, true from my own experience in the hopes of reaching someone. Variations on not all those cyclists are "those darn lawbreaking cyclists" are all very true, but it's a well worn argument that I don't think is going to convince anyone new at this point. Or maybe it will, but I'm weary of it and want to put something different out into the mix. And I also get a little annoyed at implicitly being lumped in the "bad cyclist" category for doing something that, when you get down to it, is really quite reasonable. I'll probably be submitting, we're a community, but of individuals. But if there are more arguments I haven't thought of against I may hold back. At the very least, I wanted to test the waters here, get some thoughtful feedback before sending it out to the general public.

It will cause a debate I am sure but it will more than likely fall on deaf ears as most readers will not even begin to see your logic. Even bikers who understand the logic may not condone it. Just this weekend I had a debate with a buddy of mine who is in law school and is a RATIONAL person who claims that bikers breaking traffic laws is a far worse offense than motorists(namely bikes running stop signs). I asked him, "why do cars break the speed limit?" Knowing what I was getting at, he said I was being irrational and that a car going 5 MPH over the speed limit(which is being extremely generous) is not nearly as bad as a biker "running" a stop sign. Basically my point is that ALL modes of transportation justify the bending of traffic laws by believing it is safe and practical to do so. A biker slowing at a stop, seeing no cars, and going without completely stopping and putting their feet on the ground is no worse to me than a driver going 5 MPH over the speed limit.

I actually forgot what may be the most pertinent point to your line of thinking, I got caught up in my other thoughts; 6. For drivers who may never ridden a bike, especially as transportation, in traffic, the reasons for doing some of the things "those cyclists" do may be difficult to understand. For instance, on a bike, forward motion is your lifeline and your safety. To require a cyclist to come to a standing stop at every stop sign is equivalent to requiring drivers to put their car in park at every stop sign. When you take your feet off the pedals, you disengage your engine, you lose your forward motion, and when you give up forward motion, you lose the ability to stay upright, as well as losing the ability to get away from approaching danger. There are many circumstances similar to this example where biking and driving are much different activities, and the laws and assumptions formed for driving may not be optimal for cycling.

mjacobPGH wrote:It will cause a debate I am sure but it will more than likely fall on deaf ears as most readers will not even begin to see your logic. Even bikers who understand the logic may not condone it.

Well, there's a couple posters who reliably say stupid or nasty things I expect will unload. That's fine. As long as they don't drag my mother into it. She's a saint. And I'm sure some here will be unhappy, with my riding style, my willingness to talk about it, or both. It's hard to know who is of a mind to be swayed. Generally it's not those who comment so probably won't have a real sense of it after the fact either. But basically, I just have a nagging feeling here that saying not all cyclists do these things, while true, is missing the point that many cyclists do, and will continue to, because it's frankly pretty reasonable in many cases and makes life easier for everyone.

edmonds59 wrote:When you take your feet off the pedals, you disengage your engine, you lose your forward motion, and when you give up forward motion, you lose the ability to stay upright, as well as losing the ability to get away from approaching danger. There are many circumstances similar to this example where biking and driving are much different activities, and the laws and assumptions formed for driving may not be optimal for cycling.

This is great, and another part of the reason I wanted to post here first, to prime the pump so that when the anti-cyclists say anti-cycling things, the counterarguments are right there, at the ready.

Personally, I choose option 2 and don't run red lights or stop signs. I don't think "Really, I'm doing this for your own good" is going to resonate with drivers. And I don't think that's the reason most cyclists run red lights - I think they probably do it just due to impatience... which is the same reason people in cars roll stop signs and speed constantly. So, it sounds more like rationalization to me.

Honestly, I would suggest against publishing it. I do think that your letter could be easily tweaked into advocacy for Idaho stops. Openly admitting to flaunting the law plays into the negative stereotypes about cyclists. Even those of us who do always stop at stop signs and stoplights understand the strong temptation to maintain momentum and get out of cars' way. I think if you framed this as advocacy for changing the current law and specifying that we're all trying to get along and get out of each others way would be much more helpful than trying to explain something that non-cyclists probably can't picture.

salty wrote:I don’t think “Really, I’m doing this for your own good” is going to resonate with drivers.

Maybe not. But I think we do need to be driving home the point that cycling slowly across an intersection is basically jaywalking (well ok, jogging) level of seriousness as a problem. Talking about things in personal terms and explaining an additional motivation (my own safety and desire not to delay others) I hope makes it relatable. At least it's not us vs. them so much.

it sounds more like rationalization to me.

OK, guilty. But it didn't start that way at all and with some more breathing room would've been a non-issue, like I said, it weighed on me. I wanted to be an upstanding member of the community.

mjacobPGH wrote:I had a debate with a buddy of mine who is in law school and is a RATIONAL person

A rational person would have researched the field of law before applying to lawschool and realized that it is an oversaturated field. Most law students aren't rational, they studied some go nowhere liberal arts major, couldn't find a job after their four year degree, and go to law school in order to put off repayment of student loans. ;) Even more so if he's not in a first or second tier school. Sounds to me like he didn't take enough statistics classes if he thinks 5mph is a safer violation of the law (or maybe he is just defending his own lawlessness). Give him a physics lesson... I'm not advocating a cyclist flying through a stop sign at 20+mph but a cyclist that slows down to a crawl and doesn't come to a complete stop is a much different animal than a 2000# car that doesn't come to a complete stop at the same intersection. Make him define exact scenarios when he tries to make an argument about cyclists blowing off a stop sign, then pick apart his scenario and make him start over... lawyer style.

Haha, well he's a pretty smart guy and should do fine. My point is that is the opinion of someone who is generally rational and open-minded. Unfortunately, I think he is blinded by a windshield perspective.

czarofpittsburgh wrote:Honestly, I would suggest against publishing it. I do think that your letter could be easily tweaked into advocacy for Idaho stops. Openly admitting to flaunting the law plays into the negative stereotypes about cyclists. Even those of us who do always stop at stop signs and stoplights understand the strong temptation to maintain momentum and get out of cars’ way.

250 words isn't much to work with in terms of writing an advocacy piece, it's just enough to space to put one thing out there to chew on. Not even enough room to really tell it as a narrative, pure Joe Friday just the facts ma'am stuff. Anyways, I hope it doesn't come across that I'm someone who flaunts the law as a general matter. It weighed on me. And I have tried to go back to pure "effective cycling" a couple times. To the extent I'd like to waive the advocacy flag it's for uphill bike lanes more than for idaho stops, and do so with an analogy motorists here are familiar with... truck lanes. Same problem, power to weight ratio. But before your argument will be heard first you have to reach people where they are. I AM an impatient motorist. One who's courteous and attentive, but still. And that mindset doesn't go away when I'm on a bike. So what I'm saying to them is, I understand, and I'm trying, and if I could just get some respectful space where I am, that'd be good. And hey, by implication, maybe these folks you see out there doing the same are real, decent people, too. By the way, this message was test marketed, if you will, a ways back at a toastmasters meeting with positive vibe following. In person always better than text on teh interwebs so apples and oranges, but my intro speech was titled "I'm 'that' guy".

Drewbacca wrote:

Even more so if he’s not in a first or second tier school. Sounds to me like he didn’t take enough statistics classes if he thinks 5mph is a safer violation of the law (or maybe he is just defending his own lawlessness). Give him a physics lesson… I’m not advocating a cyclist flying through a stop sign at 20+mph but a cyclist that slows down to a crawl and doesn’t come to a complete stop is a much different animal than a 2000# car that doesn’t come to a complete stop at the same intersection. Make him define exact scenarios when he tries to make an argument about cyclists blowing off a stop sign, then pick apart his scenario and make him start over… lawyer style.

Oh dear, flashback to the rather lengthy back and forth with Mikhail on the danger level posed by cyclists vs. cars at stops. Relate-ability usually trumps logic. Beer is a good social lubricant, good luck.

Believing that a car going 5 mph over the speed limit is "not nearly as bad as" a cyclist running a stop sign is a little worrisome, kind of an existentialist position on the law, which should not be a particularly existentialist profession. They are both breaking the law. It's that kind of thinking that got us to "It's not nearly as bad to have our government spying on us as it is to have their government spying on them".

I'm the one who posed the question of which was worse or if they were equally acceptable. In my mind, they are equally acceptable when done within reason(like a car going 30 in a 25 or a biker slowing but not completely stopping at a sign). Here's the real kicker: the core of the argument is that bikers breaking traffic laws is worse because it is much more dangerous for them personally. The point that I keep trying to drive home is that drivers breaking traffic laws is far more dangerous for every other person anywhere near a road so that is far worse. He also wants tougher enforcement of bikers breaking traffic laws while saying "we're never going to fix bad driving." So, we want to fix bad biking using methods that have apparently failed with driving.

@byogman - I think your philosophy works fine for any individual biker, but fails once we start to think of bikes as traffic. Imagine if every time you ran a red light, 40 other bikes followed you through. That doesn't happen now because there aren't so many bike, but hopefully one day there will be. And if we get to that point, it'll be a lot easier for everyone if bikers are already in the habit of following the rules of the road.

mjacobPGH wrote:So, we want to fix bad biking using methods that have apparently failed with driving.

I believe I understand you and I largely agree. But I'd like to point out that it's more like "fixing" good biking by methods that should be, but generally aren't, used against deadly driving. I think Byogman is absolutely right - if bikers waited in the lane instead of careful filtering and more carefully red light violating, that would slow traffic (both car and bike) considerably while endangering bicyclists.

WillB wrote:Imagine if every time you ran a red light, 40 other bikes followed you through.

Imagine if 70 bicyclist (and Teamdecaf rides collects this amount of bicyclists) would all stop at stop sign and strictly one-by-one proceed through intersection. :) I can imagine what drivers would do. Or french/italian style strike -- I propose we get all during rush hours on streets going in different directions (let say group of fives) and go through city acting like this. I think we have enough bikers to completely stop city traffic.

Mick, I'm not in anyway opposed to enforcing traffic laws against bikers(especially the more egregious offenders). However, I find it ironic that the logic is "there's nothing we can do about bad driving but we can solve poor biking with the same exact failed measures." All while poor driving is a MUCH bigger concern for public safety.

Mikhail wrote:Imagine if 70 bicyclist (and Teamdecaf rides collects this amount of bicyclists) would all stop at stop sign and strictly one-by-one proceed through intersection. :) I can imagine what drivers would do.

I take your point, but I think it raises a question about stop signs in general, and not just for bikes. I mean, you can say the exact same thing about cars, except we don't have to imagine what would happen to traffic if every car came to a stop (more or less) on Smallman Street at rush hour. The result is backed up traffic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those cars shouldn't be stopping at the signs.

WillB wrote:

Mikhail wrote:Imagine if 70 bicyclist (and Teamdecaf rides collects this amount of bicyclists) would all stop at stop sign and strictly one-by-one proceed through intersection. :) I can imagine what drivers would do.

I take your point, but I think it raises a question about stop signs in general, and not just for bikes. I mean, you can say the exact same thing about cars, except we don’t have to imagine what would happen to traffic if every car came to a stop (more or less) on Smallman Street at rush hour. The result is backed up traffic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that those cars shouldn’t be stopping at the signs.

Ha-ha. You should take at my arguments with Ben. :) On Smallman it would not happen anything extraordinary. I take sometimes this street during morning and evening rush hours on my car. And stop at every stop sign. And not just stop and go -- real stop, look left, look right, and then go.

This is getting fun, I like. So, WillB, I talked in terms of going through a clear intersection, not blindly following the last guy which of course is dangerous. You are correct to point out that it's tempting to do so since in many situations doing so makes you part of a wall and relatively safe, at least from crossing traffic you're preventing from starting out (once they're really moving you're dead). But yeah, you see it all the time for instance with motorists doubling up on the Pittsburgh left. And it arises naturally and tends to be shrugged off as inevitable on larger group rides. That IS a problem. At a certain point those things resemble parades more than regular traffic and probably need to brake into more groups or be treated as parades and get permitting. But anyways, I don't think we'll be getting to that level of regular bike traffic thickness any time soon. I don't see much point in making personal decisions based on speculation about tempting random strangers into bad decisions at some unknown point in the future. Whoops, made that sound more fun to speculate about than intended...

I don't think your letter will be clear enough to an audience that doesn't already know your argument. For instance, you never come right out and say you run reds, and it takes until the 5th paragraph until you directly imply it. And while you say at the end that you're given reasons, the only reason you specifically articulate is that pedestrians do it safely and so it's safe for you too. You never really state how it makes you safer, just tiptoe around it. I tried editing it to make some of the implied rationale explicit: ——————- A year ago I became a bike commuter. At first, I always waited for green lights. I don't anymore, and I think I'm safer. Why? When I wait for a green, drivers want to pass me. Some pass much too close and endanger me. (Other options: I could take the lane and keep cars from passing, but this makes me intensely guilty since I am impatient and hate to delay others. I could ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians and joggers with earbuds make this dangerous for everyone.) But if I carefully cross when the light is red and there's no cross traffic, I can eliminate contention with cars. They don't have to pass me, too often unsafely, and I don't have to slow them down. Pedestrians frequently ignore signals and cross whenever the road's clear. They can judge when to do this safely. So can I. What danger does it present to others when I do? Well actually, not much, since I approach intersections slowly and my vehicle weighs thirty pounds, not over three thousand. But it still weighed on me. I relented only gradually, but a couple of close passes were a factor. I’ve had a relatively stress free time out there riding since I began running red lights, and delayed a lot fewer motorists to boot. It’s easy to blame cyclists for running reds without understanding why. And I’m not saying all do, I speak only for myself. But these are my reasons. ——————- I also removed the stuff about stop signs and made it just be about red lights, since the argument for running stop signs is different and wouldn't fit in 250 words.

Bicycles are a fundamentally different form of vehicle and the regular laws of the road do not apply. I pick which ones to follow based on what is safe at the time. Up the one way? No problem! Speeding? I can hit 45 going down Negley! Crosswalks? There was a solid 4 inches between my handlebars and her walker! The road and it's laws are made for cars. Since the laws do not apply to bicycles, bicycles do not belong on the road. (Yes, this is devil's advocate hyperbole with tongue [somewhat] firmly planted in cheek.)

Steven, I agree your version is better. I think I will still tweak it slightly. andyc, thanks for making me laugh this morning.

Sounds to me like he didn’t take enough statistics classes Totally consistent with my experience in law school. (ANECDOTAL DATA ALERT) Imagine if 70 bicyclist (and Teamdecaf rides collects this amount of bicyclists) would all stop at stop sign and strictly one-by-one proceed through intersection. :) I can imagine what drivers would do. Contemplating exactly this point, I once heard the statement that "the only thing that would annoy drivers more than cyclists not scrupulously obeying the law would be cyclists scrupulously obeying the law."

ieverhart wrote:“the only thing that would annoy drivers more than cyclists not scrupulously obeying the law would be cyclists scrupulously obeying the law.”

I like it!

Yes, full two-foot-planted stops, fully owning the lane. That would make for a helluva Critical Mass event.

Civil obedience as a way to protest bad law. I love it!

OK, another version. Kind of a top to bottom rewrite, semi-obsessed I guess. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A year ago I became a bike commuter. At first, I always waited for green lights. I don’t anymore, yet paradoxically am safer. Riding is fun and normally, stress free. Most drivers give a wide berth. But a few will get impatient and try to squeeze by when there isn’t enough space, creating danger. I can only go so fast battling uphill from a stop. You can be assertive and claim the whole lane. I just personally feel very guilty delaying safe drivers significantly on account of the few dangerous ones. You can ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians and joggers with earbuds make this dangerous, too. Most pedestrians will ignore signals and cross if a road is clear. It’s easy to do safely. We demand that drivers wait because their vehicle is so massive that if they misjudge they can easily kill someone. What should we demand of cyclists? Most bicycles weigh 20-40 pounds. Blasting through at speed is dangerous, but approaching cautiously and riding through at 5-10 mph makes a cyclist more like a jogger than a car. It weighed on me, I wanted to be a model citizen. I relented only gradually, but more close passes finally convinced me. Now I get out ahead of the traffic when intersections are clear. Consequently, I create fewer and shorter delays for drivers, and deal with far fewer impatience fueled dangerous passes. I speak only for myself, many cyclists never run reds. But I do, and this is why. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks good. A few minor things though: In your second paragraph, you refer to yourself with the 1st and 2nd person alternately. It might be better to use "I could" instead of "You can" in both places so it's all 1st person. In "We demand that drivers wait because their vehicle is" you have many drivers but one vehicle. "their vehicles are" would be better. In "I speak only for myself, many cyclists never run reds." the comma should be a semicolon (or period). Hope this helps, and that you have your asbestos suit handy. :-)

Steven, thanks again for your close attention to detail. Here's the final version: ———————————————————————————— A year ago I became a bike commuter. At first, I always waited for green lights. I don’t anymore, yet paradoxically am safer. Riding is fun and normally, stress free. Most drivers give a wide berth. But a few will get impatient and try to squeeze by when there isn’t enough space, creating danger. I can only go so fast battling uphill from a stop. I could be assertive and claim the whole lane. I just personally feel very guilty delaying safe drivers significantly on account of the few dangerous ones. I could ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians and joggers with earbuds make this dangerous, too. Most pedestrians will ignore signals and cross if a road is clear. It’s easy to do safely. We demand that drivers wait because their vehicles are so massive that if they misjudge they can easily kill someone. What should we demand of cyclists? Most bicycles weigh 20-40 pounds. Blasting through at speed is dangerous, but approaching cautiously and riding through at 5-10 mph makes a cyclist more like a jogger than a car. It weighed on me, I wanted to be a model citizen. I relented only gradually, but more close passes finally convinced me. Now I get out ahead of the traffic when intersections are clear. Consequently, I create fewer and shorter delays for drivers, and deal with far fewer impatience fueled dangerous passes. I speak only for myself; many cyclists never run reds. But I do, and this is why. ———————————————————————————- With that said, will issue the question one last time. Is this a destructive thing to put out there? Disclaimer: I'm probably pretty close to impossible to convince, that more opinions, more information, is ever really a bad thing, when I think there's something big missing in a debate. But if someone wants to fill that gap in a less flame provoking way (honestly I'm not sure how, I had several much more confrontational versions before version 1 here because I think proof is in the pudding and harping on the reds thing is fundamentally dishonest on the part of motorists). But anyways, if someone has figured out something less confrontational and more constructive addressing this particular issue, I'll step aside... if for nothing else for my poor mother.

Hmmm...aside from my personal dislike of the "breaking laws keeps me safer, so it's okay" mindset, the biggest lack I see here is a concrete proposal for change. It's a very well-written description of why you make the choices you do, but, lacking a specific proposal, it's more autobiography than call to action. I don't think it's destructive, but I'm not sure it's particularly constructive either. If phrased in the sense of "this law about red lights works in Idaho, and can work here", I think it would be more constructive; as it stands, any debate this engenders will likely be about you and your choices, not about the merits of actually changing traffic rules.

reddan wrote:Hmmm…aside from my personal dislike of the “breaking laws keeps me safer, so it’s okay” mindset, the biggest lack I see here is a concrete proposal for change.

I don't like the mindset either, it weighed on me. 250 words isn't the room needed for description of why I do what I do AND what I'd rather the law or infrastructure be, believe me I tried to write that letter. I plan on dropping some comments in there to that effect, I hope others here do the same. I think the main point is that the standard complaint about cyclists going through lights is not the black/white moral thing motorists believe, and that it's driven by physics, and by their own behavior (and incidentally was very happy to get a chance in the same go to weigh in on claiming the lane, a common complaint). So it's time for a gut check on the holier than thou thing relating to both these complaints. Maybe (ok probably) it won't work, but talking about all the totally law abiding cyclists out there doesn't do a thing against that either because drivers do see light jumping frequently enough to dismiss those arguments out of hand.

byogman wrote:

Maybe (ok probably) it won’t work, but talking about all the totally law abiding cyclists out there doesn’t do a thing against that either because drivers do see light jumping frequently enough to dismiss those arguments out of hand.

Gotcha, I better understand now what you were trying to accomplish. I find any arguments similar to "I saw individuals break one law, so I can ignore other laws myself" generally unworthy of response; they are fundamentally irrational (and juvenile) arguments, which are not amenable to rational rebuttal. You can't reason with the unreasonable. I mean, really: how can _anyone_ view the statement "I'll obey the 4-foot law when every cyclist stops at stop signs" as a rational one? It, and many similar knee-jerk responses, are thinly veiled code for "I'm not gonna do what you tell me to do! So there! [stamps foot]" [edited to add:] To be more clear, I'm talking about the futility of responding to people who snarl "I see cyclists running red lights all the time", at least with any form of reasoned argument. If they were interested in reason, they wouldn't use that statement in the first place.

Honestly, I am still strongly opposed to this kind of letter being published. In particular, one of the common arguments against the 4-foot passing law is that it endangers the driver who crosses a double yellow to pass. If you are running red lights in order to ensure your safety, a driver could easily argue that they're not paying attention to the 4 foot law because they're doing it to ensure their own safety. Arguing that you can tell when it is safe to run a red is too similar to a driver saying "I am in charge of my vehicle, and I can tell when its safe for me to pass a cyclist without hitting them" and then ignore the law. I realize that the difference is your own safety vs the safety of others, but many many drivers hate cyclists because they're afraid of the guilt of hitting someone, even if it is entirely the fault of a person who gets hit. Running a red and getting nailed is your own fault, but it still puts the guilt on the driver just the same. Again, I think the letter should advocate Idaho stops, and not announce that you're going to pretend as if Idaho stops were the actual law here. I have a strong aversion to advocating breaking the law in a public forum. We're trying to win the public relations battle, and this will do the opposite.

reddan wrote: To be more clear, I’m talking about the futility of responding to people who snarl “I see cyclists running red lights all the time”, at least with any form of reasoned argument.

Message boards tend toward the snarly. The folks who post there are not the folks who'll ever be convinced. From my informal conversations with random folks who learn I used a bicycle for transportation when possible I tend to get a lot of concerned, exasperated, confused or curious statements/questions about cyclists running lights. Variations on the "it's basically jaywalking" argument are not always met with agreement, but often it grudgingly is, and even when not there's almost always a glimmer of some thought happening there and a hard opinion softening a bit. The argument is stronger still with the setup about the dilemma as a cyclist about lane positioning due to aggressive drivers, and how this can help relax the tension and make life easier for everyone. That said, czarofpittsburgh, I understand the false but easy to draw analogy you're drawing to a motorist crossing double yellow to pass and concern that's the only one that would be drawn. The key differences of course being between "must get there faster!"(no matter what conflict and danger I create for others) and "must get there safely" (but in a way which is also incidentally faster and LOOKS more dangerous). You make a strong enough argument to put me back in fence sitting mode, maybe. Won't send it out tonight anyway. Let me share one more aspect of my thinking though, this from a PR standpoint since that was brought up. I'm kind of deliberately setting myself up at the margins of the argument to make room for other pro-bike positions to sound like the reasonable middle path. It didn't start that way, but there wasn't room in 250 words, and I have to say, it's a fun reversal for me, I'm generally the one suggesting compromise. It makes way for someone, maybe Stu? to write something to the effect "why I always claim the lane" if he likes connecting the dots back to my light jumping as a foil and saying it's better to safely control the situation without worry about who you might delay, that safe and convenient passage is a right for all, not just those with cars. That in turn could set the stage for the next letter referencing both, suggesting more bicycle infrastructure as a way to give safe passage while lessening the potential for conflict in lane OR in intersections. As an alternate this could also be taken as Idaho stop advocacy and rewritten that way, I just think it's stronger as a personal experience story. And I also think, while that law would more closely align law to realities, that's actually far, far less important than improving said realities with (ok, I'll say it again) uphill bike lanes universally, protected cycle-tracks when reasonable, 20 is plenty, conversion of less important motor vehicle connectors into bike/ped ones (Pocusset Street in the park), etc, etc...

I think Byogman's letter is something that really needs to be out there. Sure, almost everyone who reads it will either already understand why we go through red lights already or totally reject it, but it is still important to put a little reality into the discussion.

@mick, Cyclists know why cyclists run stop signs and/or red lights. Drivers understand why drivers speed. Pedestrians understand why pedestrians cross against the signal. I don't think a letter to the editor from a driver explaining why they break the law by speeding or by passing cyclists at less than 4 feet would be well-received here. The only way to get non-cyclists to understand why someone might run a red light or a stop light on a bike is to get that non-cyclist onto a bike. Putting a letter like this out there is really bad PR for the cycling community. It plays right into all of the bad stereotypes.

czarofpittsburgh wrote: The only way to get non-cyclists to understand why someone might run a red light or a stop light on a bike is to get that non-cyclist onto a bike.

I think that's a bit absolutist and defeatist. But, in a sense, in prose, that's exactly what I'm trying to do by framing this as a personal story. Thanks to Steven for encouraging more first person. I'm hoping that makes me and these circumstances more relatable than they'd seem coming from someone who sounds too much like a policy wonk. Maybe it doesn't work, but I don't THINK I come across as a self entitled jerk here.

@byogman, I do think your story makes perfect sense to probably everyone on the board. Those of us who do stop at least understand the motivations and the safety factors involved with treating stop as yield and stoplights as stop signs. I guess I think that people who really hate cyclists do so because they have no clue about the reality of riding a bike in traffic. If everyone had to commute by bike on occasion, I think we'd see Idaho-style laws very quickly. I like your story as a "this is why I do what I do" but the title of the thread asks if PG readers can handle shades of gray--I am positive that they cannot, unless they have experience being on a bike. Getting drivers to relate to cyclists is pretty difficult. There are lots of behaviors that we do that are discourteous but not illegal. Here I am thinking of filtering on narrow roads, like Ellsworth, with many stops that require a driver to slow and pass you over and over again. That kind of behavior is not illegal but it gets people angry. Careful running of red lights is arguably safer than this kind of filtering because it minimizes your interaction with cars, but it's illegal and filtering is not. Actually explaining it to a driver is much harder. They just lump everything cyclists do into one big blob of irritating behaviors without thinking about what is safe, what is legal, etc.

I think your mention of filtering is interesting. I agree that while legal, it's often sketchy. But I wouldn't write it off entirely, I just think it's most useful and least dangerous approaching right turns or when there's the strong likelihood of being able to get ahead of traffic again at the intersection, preferably earlier rather than later during the red. I can certainly understand why the repeat passing scenario generates annoyance. But it's important in terms of justification of "getting ahead of traffic" for both filtering and red light running to explain why the repeat scenario is not such a big deal. A motorist may catch up and want to pass same cyclist again, but that means a motorist behind him is not to that passing point yet and easily could have been had that cyclist hung back at the light. Likewise, thinking of a cyclist further ahead, had they hung back at the light, the first motorist would catch up to them that much sooner and be at another passing point again anyway. The lower bound on the total number of passing situations the average motorist encounters most closely relates to * (1 - /). This can be surprisingly low if cyclists behave in ways that keep their average speed up and motorists don't gun it between lights.

czarofpittsburgh wrote:Cyclists know why cyclists run stop signs and/or red lights. Drivers understand why drivers speed. Pedestrians understand why pedestrians cross against the signal. I don’t think a letter to the editor from a driver explaining why they break the law by speeding or by passing cyclists at less than 4 feet would be well-received here.

I am: 1. Car driver; 2. Motorcyle driver; 3. Bicyclist; 4. Pedestrian; 5. Jogger. I understand all of those 5 types of "people". I do not have problem with drivers rolling stop signs at speed 3 mph (as Ben could tell you) from the "physics" point of view. I do have problem with drivers speeding 20 mph over posted speed limit from the same point of view. But I have problem with people decision to break or not to break law based on their own preferences. Even bad laws. Bad laws should repealed in a normal way. And the reason why I have problem with people deciding that violating law is OK is that there is no end to this process. The line is moved further and further and on never crosses this line. It's just human nature.

OK, right, no angle brackets, lower bound on number of motorist passes: [number of cyclists travelling the same path] * (1 - [average cyclist speed]/[average motorist speed]). This can be surprisingly low if cyclists behave in ways that keep their average speed up and motorists don't gun it between lights. A cyclist who cruises at say, 18mph and a motorist who cruises at 25 (don't laugh) between lights on a road where you get green 3/5 of the time have theoretically no contention if crossings are very clear and far enough spaced out that the cyclist can keep 15mph average since the cars, including stops, have the same average. It's a bit contrived and overoptimistic, but it illustrates the point.

Mikhail wrote:

But I have problem with people decision to break or not to break law based on their own preferences. Even bad laws. Bad laws should repealed in a normal way. And the reason why I have problem with people deciding that violating law is OK is that there is no end to this process. The line is moved further and further and on never crosses this line. It’s just human nature.

What you say is a valid concern and sounds reasonable. But it's also totally un-american. We just fine with our hypocrisy here very much thank you (even if we won't admit it). And not all or even most envelopes get pushed further and further as time goes on, most don't actually because of social norms. That's the real law of the land here. It's common to moan about the decay of these, but most of that is grass is greener old far nostalgia B.S... in most ways things actually get better over time, even mortality due to our motor vehicle addiction.

byogman wrote:

What you say is a valid concern and sounds reasonable. But it’s also totally un-american. We just fine with our hypocrisy here very much thank you (even if we won’t admit it).

Satire? I can't quite tell. ;-) I tend to agree with Mikhail regarding the corrosive effect of choosing to ignore laws you dislike, especially when it's fundamentally for reasons of convenience. It's very difficult to put up a vigorous defense of the need for other people to obey laws unconditionally (see the 4-foot law, for example) when one chooses to ignore equally valid laws that don't suit one's beliefs re: safety or applicability. That's not to say that it's in any way a bad idea to discuss reasons _why_ a given law is good, bad, or in need of modification...that's pretty much awesome in my book. It's even awesomer to work to change crappy laws. But, IMO, advocating the breaking of inconvenient laws without first (or at least, in parallel) actively pursuing the fixing of said laws is lacking in good citizenship. (And, although it should probably go without saying, I do not consider acts of civil disobedience in order to protest truly odious laws to be remotely comparable to choosing to exceed the speed limit, run a red light, pass unsafely, or ignore right-of-way. )

Referring to the bit you quoted, I think it's a real cultural fact. Here law often but not always, follows cultural norms, and cultural norms, not law, are what has the power over mass behavior. I thought my attitude toward it was clear with the self referential hypocrisy. But in case not, no, I don't think it's for the best. But anyways, it's certainly part of the reason my piece is a plea for understanding, not centered around advocacy... if we can get norms accepted less grudgingly there'll be fewer grudge matches. I also think it makes it more relatable than "some know-it-all cyclist thinks they're special" (not what is said, but what is heard when people lead with the idea that the rule should be changed or a wonk-ish factoid). Not to say you can't make that statement later, but you have to establish a connection first. Okay... dwelt too long on that. Now, in terms of actually getting the law changed, I don't know the best approach, but certainly the most amusing was the mass display of civil OBEDIENCE suggested earlier. I would LOVE to do that ride. And I would do it every day in pack, I'd just feel less safe solo. Contrary to what people might think when I pleaded guilty to Salty, it's not all about getting there faster, that's just a pleasant side effect. Among other approaches I've tried to reduce contention is actually, hugging the right and slowing to a crawl behind intersections approaching reds and waving motorists through. Overwhelmingly, they don't understand and a few exceptional ^&*(wads have executed a close pass when I tried to do them a favor. P.S. So as to not snarl my argument I'm assuming I'm doing about as good a job as can be be done making myself relatable, given the topic of my letter, as can be done. If someone wants to suggest changes to verbiage to improve matters though, please do so.

byogman wrote:

Now, in terms of actually getting the law changed, I don’t know the best approach, but certainly the most amusing was the mass display of civil OBEDIENCE suggested earlier. I would LOVE to do that ride.

Yeah, that concept for a ride is hilarious. In all seriousness, though...does anyone know of any real efforts in PA to implement an Idaho-style law? I don't have much free time, but I'd be interesting in pledging a bit of it to such an endeavor. On a related note, would such a law have to be state-wide, or could it be implemented first at the city or county level (and override PA motor vehicle code)? I know nothing about such things...

Wow, talking about relate-ability and totally scanning over the ;-) responding just to text. Whoops....

Idaho got their law because cyclists were running reds, getting ticketed, and it was clogging up the courts. The Idaho court system's administrative director happened to be a cyclist, and thought a good way to fix the problem was to make such behavior legal. So that's one way. Seems to involve a lot of tickets and a lot of luck though. I doubt cities or counties could override state law. Generally, the only power they have is what the state gives them (as they're created by the state). And I don't think the state has chosen to delegate or share that power.

Steven wrote:I doubt cities or counties could override state law. Generally, the only power they have is what the state gives them (as they’re created by the state). And I don’t think the state has chosen to delegate or share that power.

This is certainly true for Townships, and possibly for Boroughs, but cities like Pittsburgh, and certain other municipalities such as Monroeville, have home-rule. As quoted by wikipedia, "Local governments without home rule can only act where specifically authorized by state law; home rule municipalities can act anywhere except where they are specifically limited by state law." I don't know where the question of stop signs and red lights falls on that spectrum, although a police department or district attorney's office could certainly decide ticketing and/or prosecution weren't worth pursuing.

Just a guess, but I think that's very possibly where we are right now. But of course, there's so much neglect out there it's hard to tell if that's due to any conscious decision making. Anyways, a decision to make a big change in enforcement can come from public pressure, someone feeling like they're on a mission, or some combination of both. I don't know that what I'm proposing to put out there would help change a couple minds and reduce public pressure to go after cyclists. And by no means are all cyclists are blameless, but we've seen an overreaction in New York and we're not immune to that here. I think the best cure to overreaction is airing things and doing so honestly and completely. I'm very close to pulling the trigger on this. I don't know that I need this, but I'd feel better about it if someone other than myself and Mick would say they're in favor. Well ok, and my cycling uncle in Brooklyn, Maybe Steven? (at least, I'm hoping your editorial efforts are not just a reflection of a reflexive desire to see better writing in this world). Like I said before, this doesn't have to be in some sort of vacuum. I don't mind being on the margins if people want to follow up with counter editorials along the lines I suggested or others. Whatever builds toward more understanding of what we're faced with now, why we do what we do, and steers us toward a long term path with better infrastructure and rules.

I share others' concerns about this coming across as a "Why the laws don't apply to me as a cyclist" letter. Perhaps it would help if you prefaced this by explicitly stating your goals--something along the lines of the paragraph below? I’ve heard people complain about cyclists running red lights. The reality is, many cyclists I know never run reds. But I do sometimes—not because I feel entitled, but because it’s safer for me, and helps minimize delays to drivers. Please let me explain—and consider this my plea for understanding.

I'm all about wanting to see better writing in this world. :-) I don't run reds, but I'd like to see the practice made legal. I'm undecided whether running reds now furthers that end. In any case, I think explaining the viewpoint of those who do it helps more than it hurts. Thanks, buffalo buffalo, for the home-rule charter info.

OK, here we go again ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A year ago I became a bike commuter. At first, I always waited for green lights. I don’t anymore, paradoxically for my safety. This is my plea for understanding. Riding is fun and normally, stress free. Most drivers pass only when it’s safe. But a troublesome few pass no matter the danger. I could be assertive and claim the whole lane, but feel very guilty delaying safe drivers significantly on account of the few dangerous ones, and I can only go so fast battling uphill from a stop. I could ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians and joggers with earbuds make this dangerous, too. Most pedestrians will ignore signals and cross if a road is clear. It’s easy to do safely. We demand that drivers wait because their vehicles generally weigh 1.5-3 tons and accidents cause many deaths. Bicycles generally weigh 20-40 pounds. Cyclists riding through at 5-10 mph are more like joggers than cars. I hesitated, many cyclists never run reds, and the desire to get there quickly easily breeds bad decisions. I tried hugging the right and slowing well before red lights, waving cars ahead. But this was misunderstood and sometimes drivers would not let me back into a safe lane position. More close passes convinced me to take opportunities get ahead of traffic whenever possible. I’ve delayed fewer drivers, and suffered fewer impatience fueled close passes as a result. I’ve done no harm, but I certainly wish I felt equally safe without having to scout these opportunities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be clearer on making a distinction between waiting for a green to go, as you do, and scofflaw cyclists who don't even try to stop, which is what gets most people's goats. That is the distinction of the Idaho stop. Should you go ahead with this, this is something I would try to emphasize in follow-up comments, but I think it is important to say explicitly at the start. Also, add a "to" to "take opportunities get ahead" in last paragraph.

Well, technically I don't even try to stop, when possible (which is certainly not all the time) I keep a VERY slow roll even with reds. That roll starts a little further back and extends up to but not across the pedestrian crosswalk (unless there's really nobody in which case I'll use those few feet too). Basically want to buy myself a few extra seconds to look into things without foot down. Now, I would stop, period if Idaho rules were in effect, since then the rules are close enough to reality that I may as well stick to them. It's interesting that you mention the scofflaw cyclist thing again. I think it's important to address head on and I needed a better closer anyway. I think maybe people are a little weary of this thread, but here I go again (on my own (cue the eye rolling)): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A year ago I became a bike commuter. At first, I always waited for green lights. I don’t anymore, yet paradoxically am safer. This is my plea for understanding. Riding is fun and normally, stress free. Most drivers pass only when there’s a safe opportunity. But a troublesome few won’t wait and create danger. I could be assertive and claim the whole lane, but feel very guilty delaying safe drivers meaningfully on account of the few dangerous ones, and I can go only so fast battling uphill from a stop. I could ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians and joggers with earbuds make this dangerous, too. Most pedestrians ignore signals and cross if an intersection is clear. It’s easy to do safely. We demand that drivers wait because their vehicles are massive and mistakes are often tragic. Most bicycles weigh 20-40 pounds. Cyclists riding slowly represent a danger more like that of joggers than cars. I hesitated, many cyclists never run reds, and I worried about being tempted into danger by impatience. I tried hugging the right and waving cars ahead before lights. But this was misunderstood and sometimes drivers would not let me back into a safe lane position. Finally, more close passes convinced me to seize safe opportunities get ahead of traffic. There’s no danger if you approach intersections slowly, ready to stop. I’ve delayed fewer drivers, and suffered fewer impatience fueled close passes as a result. Call me scofflaw if you like, but I’m anything but reckless. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're still missing the "to" Stu mentioned. "Finally, more close passes convinced me to seize safe opportunities *to* get ahead of traffic." Also, "impatience fueled" should have a hyphen in the middle. I still think you should explicitly state the behavior you're advocating, and the reason. You talk about seizing safe opportunities to get ahead, and approaching intersections slowly, and talk about the various things you don't do, like hug the right or take the sidewalk. But you never come right out and say "Now I approach the intersection slowly, and if I can see it's clear and safe, I run the red light." Similarly, at the start, you say that some drivers pass you unsafely. You should directly explain how your light-running behavior addresses that problem. You never say "As a result, cars pass me less often." (Or whatever your reasoning is.) Perhaps you could skip the "I hesitated" paragraph to make room, if needed. It's not necessary to describe all your worries and concerns, or every behavior you tried and rejected. It's better to focus on explaining the specific thing you do, and why it addresses close passing, the specific problem you started with.

You’re still missing the “to” Stu mentioned. “Finally, more close passes convinced me to seize safe opportunities *to* get ahead of traffic.” Also, “impatience fueled” should have a hyphen in the middle.

A hazard of rewriting obsessively at odd hours. I'm not really advocating what I do. Just defending myself and by extension some, but not all red light running cyclists against the charge that we're reckless and create a hazard mainly by trying to relate the some of the feeling of being on the road on a bicycle. And pointing out, truthfully, that I at first tried to just hang back and let cars ahead to relieve the tension and suffer fewer dangerous passes is important to establish some credibility. I've done a little more rewording, hopefully which addresses some of the other editorial concerns as well: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A year ago I became a bike commuter. At first, I never rode through red lights. I do now, yet paradoxically am safer. This is my plea for understanding. Riding is fun and normally, stress free. Most drivers pass only when there’s a safe opportunity. But a troublesome few won’t wait and create danger. I could be assertive and claim the whole lane, but feel very guilty delaying safe drivers meaningfully on account of the few dangerous ones, and I can go only so fast battling uphill from a stop. I could ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians and joggers with earbuds make this dangerous, too. Most pedestrians ignore signals and cross clear intersections. We demand that drivers wait because their vehicles are so massive that mistakes are too often tragic. Most bicycles weigh 20-40 pounds. Cyclists riding slowly represent a danger much more like that of joggers than cars. I hesitated. Many cyclists never run reds, and I worried about being tempted into danger by my own impatience. Instead, I hugged the right and waved cars past before lights. But this was misunderstood and often drivers would not let me back into a safe lane position. Finally, more close passes convinced me to seize safe opportunities to get more breathing room using the open road ahead. There’s no danger if you approach intersections slowly, prepared to stop short. I’ve delayed fewer drivers, and suffered fewer impatience-fueled close passes as a result. Call me scofflaw, but I’m anything but reckless. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I’m not really advocating what I do. Just defending myself and by extension some, but not all red light running cyclists against the charge that we’re reckless and create a hazard mainly by trying to relate the some of the feeling of being on the road on a bicycle." I think, instead of telling people about your feelings, you should make a clear, rational argument. You do a fine job presenting the case that you're not harming others, but fall down on presenting the case that there's a safety benefit for yourself (though you assert that there is). So what is your safety-based reason for running red lights? "Get more breathing room" is the closest you come, but it's still not clear how that relates to the problem you stated at the beginning, close passes. Do you think you're reducing the number of times you're passed, by running reds? Or do you think being farther from the cars stopped at the light increases your safety? Maybe you run red lights because you don't want to get rear-ended by an inattentive driver? If it's not any of these, and if there's no other safety justification for running reds, perhaps you should reframe your letter as "I'm certain I'm not endangering anyone else, so why should I have to wait just because cars do?" Then you could delete most of the material about how cars endanger you, and how paradoxically you're safer, since it's not relevant to your argument.

The heart of my argument, and the concluding sentence of my second to last paragraph is "I’ve delayed fewer drivers, and suffered fewer impatience-fueled close passes as a result." There are more variables and a lot of ways to refine this, which, if you like we can have as a sidebar discussion, just focusing on the letter for now. I thought this was a reasonably clear description of cause and effect. Maybe it needs an introduction earlier in the piece? I don't know, it's so hard to say even a fraction of what I want to say already, I'm loathe repeat myself. I guess if nothing else I can swap in "impatient" for "troublesome" to zero in early on the idea of impatience as the proximate cause of much of the danger.

I think it may not be obvious to readers that you running reds=fewer people passing you overall, and as a result, fewer close passes (if that's the argument here). I'm guessing that most readers/drivers will assume that they would just catch up to you after the light turns green.

I think Byogman is saying that, yes, they will catch up, but because it will take them a while to do so, they will then wait patiently behind Byogman instead of trying to pass, or else pass more carefully because they won't be as annoyed at Byogman. Perhaps they won't catch up until they're almost at the next light, for instance. Is that it, Byogman? If so, I'll observe that I didn't get that this was the argument you were trying to make until your last post. I figured it was one of the three examples I gave before.

Even if I am only delaying the pass, at such time as they do catch up, I'm going my full speed, which, while not full speed for them by any means, is a much closer approximation of it than what I can manage in the first few seconds starting from a light. This closer match to speed decreases the dangerous "must pass" feeling on single lane roads, and in the case of multi-lane roads, makes it easier for them to smoothly slide to a leftward passing lane. Plus cars space out better the further you get away from the lights so gaps are easier to find. Plus they'll have seen me up ahead for longer so they will have had more opportunity to find that gap. And let's not forget the intrinsic condition that generates the potential passing situations, the (generally) lower average speed (including stops) of bicyclists. Running reds helps. The intrinsic number of these situations a motorist faces is [number of cyclists travelling the same path] * (1 – [average cyclist speed]/[average motorist speed]). These average speeds include stops. If we're stopped less, the ratio of cyclist speed to motorist speed increases, and the number of required passes decreases. Remember it's not just that one driver or even the drivers at that light, but the drivers behind them! So, not only less pressured and safer passing, but fewer passes, sometimes many fewer. That's my experience. As you might imagine, there's really no room to cram all this justification into 250 words. But I thought breathing room was a fair condensed description.

Well Byogman, you've had agood discussion of the pro's and con's of your letter and even buffed it up a touch. Now it's your decision to send it in or not.

byogman wrote: And not all or even most envelopes get pushed further and further as time goes on, most don’t actually because of social norms. That’s the real law of the land here. It’s common to moan about the decay of these, but most of that is grass is greener old far nostalgia B.S… in most ways things actually get better over time, even mortality due to our motor vehicle addiction.

Hm, when I came here (1995) exceeding speed limit by 5 mph on a freeway in most cases caused a ticket. One of owner of a company I worked for at one point got ticket and we discussed it, about 7 colleagues got tickets, a couple friends got those two. An citations was between 6 and 9 (except one -- 25). By 2000 it's was ok up to 10 mph. And ypu got ticket for 11. This was the first and only time I've got a ticket -- 13 mph. By 2005 it's became a norm not to exceed 15 mph. And this was a year I drove 25,000 miles. A lot of miles from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati and back in one day. And I did a lot cruising just with police cars going 78 mph. No attention. Today we see 25 over and police car riding alone in the city (2nd, Penn, Greenfield, Panther Hollow -- just to name few) and no reaction. I can tell you the same story with shopping carts people leaving in parking lots. I even called police in one dispute. It used to be some rare fact that people drop a cart in the middle of the lot or park it between other cars. Amount of garbage that people through out of car is growing. And I can tell you this first hand -- PMTCC adopted part of Allegheny River Blvd (from Washington to Nadine) and we clean it twice a year. And I can tell that amount of garbage bags is growing every year. I have two daughters 6 years apart and I can tell you about changes in school culture since I watched then to go through Elementary, Middle, and then High Schools in the same district. There are a lot of changes in social norms here.

I've yelled at people for throwing garbage. It's something that really baffles me - why do people throw garbage where they live? Even animals shit in the corner. On freeway speed limits, part of the problem is that they are too low in certain places. I drive east on 376 every morning and between the Monroeville exits traffic is usually between 65 and 80 (speed limit is 55). I see one person pulled over about once a month but also, I don't know that I've ever seen an accident along that stretch.

Thanks to all for your feedback, special thanks to Steven. While by no means perfect, I think the final version of the letter is much improved from the first. I'm not sure I feel like there's a straightforward and clearly better way to change it, at least to my eyes. Most here discouraged me from sending this in, and I respect their opinion. Conversely, most casual conversations I had with cyclists I know personally, rather than through this forum, encouraged me to send this in. So it was back in my court, I had to make up my own conflicted mind rather than pawn my decision off on others. So if you're wondering, I'm sending it in tonight. We'll see, but I expect another callback on this letter, and for it to eventually run. I know this will be flamebait. But to a degree anything about bicycles pro or con is that. Opinions just run really strong. The only thing we can do is try to enrich the discussion. The improvements in the letter and the seeding of a productive discussion started here have already done that, and will make its release to the general public far more productive.

It has been my experience that in the majority of cases, the editors will reword or excise parts either for space or what they think is clarity. Assuming they print it at all, of course. I wish you luck.

Well, got the callback again today, so we'll see.

It's in print! http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/letters/2013/10/26/Bikes-and-red-lights/stories/20131026006

Let the flaming begin! Does one have to belong to the book of faces to post a comment? I take issue with the first comment- it is not a senseless act, but rather a well thought out strategy. It would make as much sense to crucify people for turning right on red.

2 cents added

Is it weird that I'm kind disappointed by the relative lack of flaming? Maybe I need to be more confrontational next time, accuse motorists' harping on lights of hypocrisy based onmy experience with their behavior under each scenario? I had versions like that. Oh well.

I already jumped in once. I don't feel like jumping in again. If I did, it would be to press my point about changing the law to allow for more-safe behavior if current law makes a situation less safe.

I suspect the change in the commenting system, along with the semi-paywalling and other changes, have greatly thinned the flock at the PG.

My take on this is that taking the lane, where appropriate, solves the passing issue while being completely legal. But is more inconvenient to drivers than byogman's strategy. Byogman is breaking the law to go a little faster, while slowing drivers less.

A thing I feel is missing from almost all of these conversations is the distinction between "the law" and "the rules of the road". The real clash, in my opinion, is that we (the whole vehicle community) need to establish the rules of the road to safely incorporate bicycles (and pedestrians). The discussion sort of has to start with the law, but it does not end there. As people have noted time and again, by any measure cars violate the letter of the law vastly more often than bicycles. Many of those violations are much more dangerous as well. The two most obvious are speeding (nearly universal) and the very generous definition of "stop" at most intersections, but there are certainly others. Because cars and trucks have established the "rules", their drivers are essentially blind to the infractions that are "permissible" -- not just the trolls, who are for the most part the distilled essence of those "rules" taken to an extreme -- but quotidian, reasonably responsible drivers. "Stop" is an interesting one -- a large majority of Pittsburgh drivers drop to maybe a few mph and roll on through if an intersection is clear. That alone is an argument for bicycles taking the lane; I want lateral space to maneuver when that SUV hood eases out from the right. What is "stop" for a cycle?? Foot down? I don't like to unclip, but I generally come to pretty much a track stand, and motion cars with the right of way through. I'm aware, however, that this is unnerving to some drivers. You could make a good argument that for the "rules of the road" the nonverbal communication of a foot on the road is much stronger. Another I find totally normal as a driver (almost unique to Pittsburgh) is wrong-way parking. It is simply what people do here. As a cyclist it terrifies me; this is yet another argument for taking the lane -- if you are in the door zone and a grill turns out of a wrong-way parking job, you are screwed. I have a tough time with cycles going straight through red lights, even after a compete stop. Too much can go wrong. I also won't turn right on red, but that seems a much grayer issue to me when it comes to the "rules of the road", and there the Idaho law seems to me to make a ton of sense. In a perfect world the law and the "rules" would be the same, but we are not in a perfect world. How do we change the rules? To me, every ride is a (mostly nonverbal) communication with cars. Be assertive but try to be polite. Take the lane firmly but give space willingly when safety permits (but stay out of the door zone please -- I used to live and cycle in Boston; any vehicle can and will do anything allowed by the laws of Physics, more or less randomly). Encourage cars to treat you as a vehicle; it drives me nuts when people stop to let me take a left turn (not uncommon), when as often as not the next car back is going to pull around them. Yield to the vehicle on the right at a 4-way intersection, but also assert your turn to the extent safety allows. I'm sure there are many more things, and I am sure some of what I do is not the best. I'm interested in other views.

^Damn, +100.

@Byogman, I think you've got your answer on whether PG readers can deal with gray: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/letters/2013/11/01/Bikes-on-roadways/stories/201311010045

I like this comment: Mike Cherepko2 hours ago I believe it is important for cyclists to carry firearms. :F I think we should add to PA vehicle code. :F

My weapon of choice would be a katana mounted to the left handlebar. Close passes... solved! In all seriousness, I did respond. Basic gist, you complain that we aren't visible enough, but riding on the sidewalk makes us even less visible. So... ?