BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

While I do follow traffic laws, I've seen a few cyclists who don't and this seems to be what everyone focuses on. What bugs me is for every cyclist who "rolls" through a stop sign, there are 100s or even 1000s of cars who roll through that very same stop sign, often at a faster rate of speed than the cyclist. I see Pittsburgh car drivers cross a double yellow to pass, make illegal right turns on red, the infamous "Pittsburgh left" (often while I'm trying to proceed straight through the intersection, thanks guys), or gunning it through a crosswalk to cut off the pedestrian trying to get across the road. Lets not even get started on the insane speeding epidemic in this city. I guess a cyclist going 20mph, and slowing down to 5mph might look like they are "blowing through the stop sign" while drivers doing 35mph (ten over the limit!) and slowing down to 7 or 8mph consider themselves "stopped". I've lived in a number of states across the US, and so far Pittsburgh tops my list for car drivers that seem to think the rules don't apply to them. You don't even have to try to look for such infractions; go outside and find ANY intersection and wait five minutes, you can watch a car break the law, and not be cited.

The hypocrisy of all this astounds me. Can any of these car drivers bitching and moaning about cyclists not getting cited honestly swear they follow every posted speed limit, come to a complete stop (no tire rotation) at every stop sign and legal right turn on red, and give the right of way at every yield sign and cross walk?

"Every once in a while, I see them zipping in and out of traffic or running lights," she said.

Another driver being bummed they can't zip in and out of rush hour traffic. Bike envy!

Also, I wonder if whoever came up with "freewheeling" in the title knows they made a pun.

This article not applicable to fixed-gears! Wokka Wokka.

I thought the article was pretty even... for the trib. They spoke with Steve and with a pretty level headed police officer, both of which expressed that motorists and cyclists each must follow the rules of the road.

I do especially appreciate the officer when he stated that "you have misinformed motorists in terms of sharing the road, and misinformed cyclists in terms of obeying traffic laws." Makes sense to me.

it wasn't demonizing, just trite. how many of these same articles have you seen? and then it reinforces it, and gets drivers all riled up without looking in the mirror.

i took it as a call to cite more cyclists too. drivers are rarely cited for the same infractions. yet cars kill.

"If everybody was just a little more courteous, we wouldn't have these problems. Laws or no laws, just be courteous, and we'll all get along fine."

QFT... and it applies to motorists AND cylists

(Full disclosure: I didn't RTFA.)

I'm assuming the reason there aren't more cyclist citations is the same as why there aren't more motorist citations--the cops just aren't looking for that, unless they're staking out a particular area.

"Amir Baigmoradi, 21, of the North Side said he's commuted primarily by bicycle since 2006. He's been hit by a car about five times and was attacked by a motorist Downtown last year, he said."

Amir... What are you doing my man!

"drivers are rarely cited for the same infractions. yet cars kill."

So true. I was crossing at a Liberty Ave. crosswalk today and one car stopped, while another flew right around the stopped truck. A police officer was at the intersection when this happened and did nothing. Had I not been paying attention I would be in a seriously bad way right now.

I get tired of these sorts of articles too. They aren't constructive or interesting. The drivers quoted usually just sound jealous that they can't fit where we can and disobey stop laws, yield laws, crosswalk laws, speed laws... Is there anything legal about the Pittsburgh left? The city takes pride in that move.

Yawn

Another gem

"Every once in a while, I see them zipping in and out of traffic or running lights," she said.

And no one in a car has ever done that? Where does she drive that this never happens to her?

He's been hit by a car about five times...

What are you doing my man!

i was wondering about that too. the way it was stated implies that this is just part of being a bike commuter.

as in you should expect to get hit 5 times by the time you're 21

That guy also had 3 citations in the past 2 years. So it makes you think that he's reckless and the accidents were probably his fault.

Like I said, it's even handed... for the trib.

dwillen, you have written an excellent Letter To The Editor in your post.

dwillen, you have written an excellent Letter To The Editor in your post.

Wait! Wasn't someone supposed to build some sort of auto-responder to these sorts of op-eds/letters to the editor? Maybe dwillen did!

here's some stats for your letter

http://www.city-data.com/accidents/acc-Pittsburgh-Pennsylvania.html

They could have asked me, but it wouldn't be nearly as sensational. I've been commuting by bike for 15 years and had one accident in that time which I could have avoided by riding more "like a car" -- and worrying less about the broad in the red Volvo wagon riding my tail and honking at me.

dwillen, if you write that to the editor, please don't include the comment criticizing drivers for crossing solid yellow lines to pass. I've said this before, but we really do want them to cross a yellow line to pass cyclists -- as long as they can do it safely. We really DON'T want them thinking that they have to squeak by in the same lane or not at all. You might replace it with something about passing aggressively or unsafely.

I assume you meant passing other road users travelling at or near the speed limit, and that you didn't mean what I read, but the statement could be interpreted that way.

I don't plan on sending my rant to the editor. No need to fuel the bike vs car fire with my grumpy disposition. I figured it was appropriate for this audience though. If a more level-headed person wants to reword it to sound less ranty and send it in, go for it.

I was talking about cars crossing the double yellow to pass other cars and busses, or to zoom around people attempting crossing the road in a crosswalk, etc. I agree it doesn't sound the best the way it is.

Just sent. (stealing Dwillens' numbers

Your article about bikes, "Motorists don't want to share road with freewheeling bicyclists" was somewhat balanced, but you seem to be missing the big picture.

On one hand, there were 7 bicycle citations in Pittsburgh in the last year.

In addition to the environmental havoc cars cause, in the last two years there were 37 auto-related fatalities in Pittsburgh.

For car drivers to complain about bicycles is, in the words of the famous chemist George Kistiakowsky, "worrying about a pimple on your cheek when you have a goodly case of cancer."

Mick

I have to admit that now that I can and do walk to work, I see infractions by cars even more often. Where once I was kind of worried about being hurt on my bike, I am even more worried about crossing parts of Negley or Penn, or even walking on the sidewalk there and waiting to cross. Not to mention from my office window I see people blow through the Penn-Graham intersection several times per day. This is all in about a six-eight block radius. When I see cars blowing through this one intersection I think about the money the city could be making just by sitting here one week and citing people, and the pedestrians who would be better off that week.

that and forbes/craig. the redlight doesn't mean much to most drivers there

Last night (~6:30 pm) I attempted to walk across the cross walk going from the Pitt library to Schenley Plaza. I sat there, waiting 2 feet out into the cross walk, with cars not even slowing, driving around me to get past. Six cars did this, all one after another before I was able to cross the road. The entire time a Pitt Police officer sat in his car parked RIGHT THERE watching this transpire. I motioned for him to take some sort of action, and he didn't even acknowledge my waving. Can Pitt Police not cite people for traffic infractions? If people know they can get away with this sort of BS with a cop sitting right there, what hope is there? They should be writing articles about the scofflaw drivers and lack of any amount of enforcement.

I ended up riding in someone's car on my way home yesterday, stranding my bike on campus overnight. This left me with the bus this morning (uhg!). I sat at the corner of Lydia and Greenfield (4-way stop sign) for about 10 minutes (9am). While I was there, not one single car (in the essentially continuous flow) came to a complete stop. A few slowed to a very minor roll, most rolled through at >10mph, and a few must have tapped the brake pedal (or not?) and figured they were good to go, because to me, they didn't slow down at all.

How many crossing guards were struck by motor vehicles last year? I remember seeing at least a few reports.

Last night I was waiting in the intersection in the left lane at Forbes and Craig to make a left when the light went yellow. Not one but two drivers went through after that, the second after the light was fully red. By the time I made my left, the light in the other direction had gone green.

SCOFFLAW DRIVERS!

I found these on the first page of a Google search.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/17741570/detail.html

http://www.wpxi.com/news/18528314/detail.html#-

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19713638/detail.html

If the crossing guards wrote more tickets, the motorists would pay attention.

red light cameras. too bad city council messed that one up. all the proceeds in philly go to pedestrian safety needs.

A couple years ago I lived in an apartment with a view of an intersection with a newly installed red light camera, complete with big, red, scary, all capital letter signs that said the fine was something on the order of $400. I went from watching people run the red light to watching people run into the back of the car that slammed on the brakes for the yellow light. Amusing.

I'd rather see stepped up enforcement. Hire a few traffic police who do nothing but sit somewhere and write out tickets all day. The city can't possibly lose money on such a venture. Maybe someone is afraid of losing votes from all the angry motorists who would have to follow the existing traffic laws?

I'd rather see red light cameras with a fine on the order of $10 to the owner of the vehicle. That would limit the political opposition, nobody would bother to go to court to contest it, it would sidestep a lot of the fuss about owner vs driver, and people would probably not slam on their brakes if they just get caught out. But I think it would be enough to stop the flagrant "yeah, I see that light is red, but screw it, I'll run it anyway."

When I ride, I almost always treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs. Whether you'll admit it or not, I expect the vast majority of you do the same. It's entirely safe and an inconvenience to no one so long as you have eyes, respect for pedestrians, and any instinct for self preservation. If bikes were truly expected to behave like cars commuting by bike would be completely impractical.

Instead of always responding to the complaint that cyclists roll through stop signs with "how many cars run that stop sign?" or "it's only one cyclist out of 100" will a point ever come when cyclists can be honest? When articles like this come up the talking point should be a more diplomatic phrasing of something like this: "Not getting themselves killed by people driving in fast-moving multiple ton hunks of metal is a much stronger incentive to ride safely than any law would ever be, yet cyclists don't obey the rules of the road. Why? Because the requirements for safe cycling are must less onerous than what the law currently mandates. Try commuting by bike yourself before telling cyclists how they should behave. Yes, cyclists roll through stop signs, it's not a problem, the law should be changed."

I almost always treat stop signs as stop signs and red lights as red lights if for no other reason than to set an example to other cyclists and to give motorist one less thing to grip about.

I still make it to work downtown faster than I could drive it. As much as certain motorists behavior annoys me, I agree with the sentiment that if we are to bike on roadways, we must follow the laws of the roadways whether they were intended for cyclists or not.

Until the law is in fact changed, then it is in fact the law.

I am not saying it is justification for motorists threatening to run cyclists down or any other shenanigans, but it pisses me off during my commute when a cyclist "yields" to a stop sign only to run right in front of a car that has right of way, or doesn't even stop at a redlight but rather moseys through even tho there is cross traffic.

Even though it seems cyclists are the ones proclaiming to motorists that it is the motorists who are lazy, it seems to me that many cyclists are just too lazy to want to pedal again after stopping. Go ahead and try it, worst case you get nicer calves.

netviln, That type of behavior isn't even covered in the Idaho laws.

To which behavior are you referring? I think it would be great to have laws like Idaho, but we don't, so my point is to earn the right to use the roadways, you need to follow the existing laws, whether you agree with them or not.

netviln: if your trip into downtown involves a good stretch of bike trail or a stop sign-free road, then yes, biking might still be faster than driving a car, but if such a route isn't an option, I stand by what I said: commuting by bike and strictly following the law isn't practical.

"it pisses me off during my commute when a cyclist "yields" to a stop sign only to run right in front of a car that has right of way, or doesn't even stop at a redlight but rather moseys through even tho there is cross traffic."

I don't see how that's relevant. I don't do that and I don't think most of the other "idaho-style" cyclists do either. The behavior you describe is definitely not safe, I'm saying that done properly, idaho style riding is safe. I've ridden this way for 10+ years without getting hit by a car, and the Idaho law hasn't resulted in a cyclist bloodbath as far as I can tell.

"Even though it seems cyclists are the ones proclaiming to motorists that it is the motorists who are lazy, it seems to me that many cyclists are just too lazy to want to pedal again after stopping."

It's not an energy expenditure thing. I, and I would suspect most other riders, ride everywhere about as fast as my legs, lungs, and heart allow. Energy saved by only yielding at a stop sign is just used to pedal harder between stop signs. The issue is that this law has a cost--slower commute times for everyone--and no benefit in terms of safety.

I apply the notion of "who's gonna notice, who's gonna care" with Idaho-style stops. Downtown, with vehicles of every type everywhere, I follow the letter of the law, since I am very visible and trying to be the example others will follow.

If there's clearly nobody to stop for, and nobody to see me, piffle, I'll roll through the sign at speed. If I can't see clearly, I'll at least slow down enough to decide if I really have to stop.

At lights, I'll at least stop; the bigger problem is whether my sitting there will trigger the light to change. I've been snarled at because I didn't wait for a light to change, even though I waited over 15 seconds; it should've in that time. (Maybe I should've sat there, taking the lane, and waited for the guy to lean on his horn for me to get out of the way.)

Yeah, we're nibbling at the edge of the law here. No, I would not blow off a sign or light if it made any difference to someone else, and definitely not if it compromised my own safety. But I also believe implementing Idaho here would be a good thing.

Final thought: I bet we've killed and maimed far more unhelmeted motorcyclists in PA since 2003 than bicyclists who properly looked both ways before blowing off a light or sign.

I agree with netviln but in practice I'm a little closer to stu. I ALWAYS stop for lights, and maybe I will scan and then run it once a year if it's late at night and there's no chance that anyone could see me. But I don't always come to a complete, complete stop, foot down, etc.

Except for this:

"If there's clearly nobody to stop for, and nobody to see me, piffle, I'll roll through the sign at speed. If I can't see clearly, I'll at least slow down enough to decide if I really have to stop."

I never roll through a stop sign at speed unless there is someone standing in the intersection with a flag. The problem with flying through when "clearly nobody to stop for" is that just once, you're going to do it when there is "not clearly anybody to stop for" and that is going to hurt. It's important to practice good habits because you don't always have time to think critically about each situation. Or you're tired, or distracted, or there's not enough sugar in your brain and it's made you stupid. It's the good habit that will keep you safe even when you're being stupid.

Exception - if "at speed" for you is 5mph, I take it back.

What would be better than implementing Idaho here would be replacing stop signs with yields, making the yield law have some teeth, and enforcing it. Or installing traffic circles. After all, rolling through intersections can save a lot of gas and rubber for autos, too. Maybe that's wishful thinking.

i rode a bunch in santiago, chile. they have problems of their own in regards to crazy drivers, but one thing that struck me was on many of the slow speed, residential streets, at many four-way intersections, they had four way yield signs. it seemed to work, because drivers didn't want to run them at a high speed in the chance that someone else was doing the same thing.