Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as drivers?

[Amy.B]

Right, saw this earlier: http://bit.ly/1WyC7dd

'Goading' cyclists??? What do you think? Should a bad cyclist be as accountable for their actions as motorists?

Has anyone ever been goaded by a cyclist?

 

[King Boonen]

Usual rubbish.

Car drivers kill cyclists, cyclists don't kill car drivers, but lets try and force the blame on the victims, not the morons who actually do the damage.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Oh boy.

“The Cycling Proficiency test should be made compulsory for cyclists using public highways. To pass it means reaching a certain level of competency and an understanding of the rules of the road.”

How to explain then the countless number of incompetent drivers who disobey the "rules of the road" every single day of the year?

"Wearing helmets..will cut down on deaths and injury."

He's talking about motorists, right?

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

I don't like being told what to do . He can take is ideas and shove them up is bottom

 

[StryderHells]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Oh boy.

“The Cycling Proficiency test should be made compulsory for cyclists using public highways. To pass it means reaching a certain level of competency and an understanding of the rules of the road.”

How to explain then the countless number of incompetent drivers who disobey the "rules of the road" every single day of the year?

"Wearing helmets..will cut down on deaths and injury."

He's talking about motorists, right?

Having some type of bicycle education in junior schools wouldn't be a bad thing, had it when I was a kid in Oz but it doesn't happen much anymore down here, it's effect might not be that huge in the grand scheme of things but it's a small cost high reward type of thing

To the second point. Helmets work! They might not save a riders life on all occasions but they most certainly can save a riders life. Obviously driver behaviour is more important but wearing is a no brainer

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Exactly what this world needs: more government regulation. But why stop with bicyclists? God knows someone needs to reign in those hooning skate boarders, roller bladers, tricyclists and pogo stickers, too.

The issue of helmets is less straightforward than one might think, owing to the law of unintended consequences. There have been studies concluding that helmet laws discourage adult bicycle riding to the extent that the net effect on public health is greater from the loss of fitness that could be had from cycling than from the reduction of rate of injury mandatory helmets provide (bit.ly/1WQiYDS). Also, a 2007 study (bit.ly/1Y37wY6) indicated that motorists leave a bit less clearance (~8.4cm on average) when overtaking a helmeted bicycle rider as opposed to a bare-headed one, consequently exposing them to a slightly greater danger.

Further, helmet testing standards only certify protection from a fall of 2.2 metres height, far less force than one might receive from a Fabio Casartelli-style crash, and 250 grams of expanded polystyrene wrapped around one's brain case will do precious little to prevent a 2000 kilo automobile squashing it like a grape.

I am not arguing that helmets do not reduce injuries but there are counter-intuitive realities that make mandatory helmet use for "casual" cyclists of questionable value.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

I agree with all the above.

As to this:

To the second point. Helmets work!

My point was simply that if this is the argument presented in that article:

Bicycles should be required to carry identification plates by law, he says, and riders should be required to wear both helmets and high-visibility clothing to cut down on deaths and injury.

Then the same argument should be applied to the motorists as well. A helmeted driver would be at less risk for head injury than an bare-headed one. I suppose that's why they're quite popular on the race circuit. But no one ever seems to suggest the same for the daily commuters where the rate and number of accidents is exponentially higher than what a race car driver is faced with.

Airbags and other safety issues aside, I would imagine that head injuries are quite common in car accidents.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Airbags and other safety issues aside, I would imagine that head injuries are quite common in car accidents.

airbags are known to cause injuries - broken noses, fractured jaws/cheeks, etc due to the sudden forces of the expanding gases...

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

Exactly what this world needs: more government regulation. But why stop with bicyclists? God knows someone needs to reign in those hooning skate boarders, roller bladers, tricyclists and pogo stickers, too.

The issue of helmets is less straightforward than one might think, owing to the law of unintended consequences. There have been studies concluding that helmet laws discourage adult bicycle riding to the extent that the net effect on public health is greater from the loss of fitness that could be had from cycling than from the reduction of rate of injury mandatory helmets provide (bit.ly/1WQiYDS). Also, a 2007 study (bit.ly/1Y37wY6) indicated that motorists leave a bit less clearance (~8.4cm on average) when overtaking a helmeted bicycle rider as opposed to a bare-headed one, consequently exposing them to a slightly greater danger.

Further, helmet testing standards only certify protection from a fall of 2.2 metres height, far less force than one might receive from a Fabio Casartelli-style crash, and 250 grams of expanded polystyrene wrapped around one's brain case will do precious little to prevent a 2000 kilo automobile squashing it like a grape.

I am not arguing that helmets do not reduce injuries but there are counter-intuitive realities that make mandatory helmet use for "casual" cyclists of questionable value.

Also, it has been shown that the more cyclists there are on the roads the safer it is. This is because drivers are more aware of the cyclists when they are more of them. If helmets are mandatory, there are fewer cyclists therefore more risk.

Having said that, I am fervently in favor of helmet use. A few months ago I fell without a helmet (despite the fact that I always wear one - except this one time!) and lost consciousness for about 15 minutes. I am positive that if I had been wearing a helmet this wouldn't have happened. I also tend to wear reflective clothing more and more as it is important to be seen.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

airbags are known to cause injuries - broken noses, fractured jaws/cheeks, etc due to the sudden forces of the expanding gases...

Not so much the expanding gasses but rather shrapnel and other debris that is ejected simultaneously. A truly dangerous situation, as the current scandal has been revealing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/business/international/toyota-takata-airbag-supplier.html?_r=0

All the more reason, it seems, that motorists should consider protective headgear while driving.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Also, it has been shown that the more cyclists there are on the roads the safer it is. This is because drivers are more aware of the cyclists when they are more of them. If helmets are mandatory, there are fewer cyclists therefore more risk.

I have a very hard time accepting this premise. I think it could easily be argued that an increase in cyclists tends to escalate tensions between cars and bikes, and contributes greatly to the growing animosity that so many seem to have for cyclists on the road.

I haven't any suggestions for resolving this problem, however. Some people just hate cyclists. And many cyclists only make the situation worse with irresponsible riding habits. That certainly doesn't exonerate those behind the wheel of a car who have no regard for the life of another human being though.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

Also, it has been shown that the more cyclists there are on the roads the safer it is. This is because drivers are more aware of the cyclists when they are more of them. If helmets are mandatory, there are fewer cyclists therefore more risk.

I have a very hard time accepting this premise. I think it could easily be argued that an increase in cyclists tends to escalate tensions between cars and bikes, and contributes greatly to the growing animosity that so many seem to have for cyclists on the road.

I haven't any suggestions for resolving this problem, however. Some people just hate cyclists. And many cyclists only make the situation worse with irresponsible riding habits. That certainly doesn't exonerate those behind the wheel of a car who have no regard for the life of another human being though.

This might be country sensitive. In countries where, in general, cycling is seen as a legitimate means of transportation this would be reasonable to believe that more cyclists equals less risk. In more red-neck countries or regions, more cyclists could maybe translate into increased tension although I am not sure on that.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

This might be country sensitive.

There have been countless reports of such things in Australia, which is likely only exacerbated by what I'm assuming is a somewhat recent uptick in cycling since Cadel's TdF win.

But now that you mention it, the one country I'm quite curious about is Germany. I wonder if there is anyone here can offer some insight. Do cyclists and cars get along in the land of Der Kaiser?

Tensions seem to be reasonably high in England, if YouTube is any indication. Although for the life of me, I can't understand how anyone would try to navigate some of those city roads by bike.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

The hard fact of the matter is that motorists (at least those who do not also have a foot in the cycling world) appreciate neither the unique capabilities of the bicycle nor the threat to life and limb of cyclists that has essentially but one source: motorists. Further, they, the motorists, for the better part, do not see 'riding a bicycle' as a dignified and adult endeavour, therefore they regard those who engage in it as frivolous and unsubstantial. They do not see "eye-to-eye" with bicyclists, nor can they ever be expected to.

Unfortunately, these are the same people who write the highway code. So while they can conceive of a separate set of rules for pedestrians, if only because all motorists eventually also become pedestrians, they cannot conceive of a third category specifically for human-powered vehicles, bicycles included. So cyclists are pigeon-holed into the same legal category as are cars and buses and lorries, which is neither logical nor in the best interest of the cyclists' safety.

Further, the human brain is wired to notice differences. As a side effect of this trait, humans also are more likely to notice the misbehaviour of those not like themselves than they are the identical behaviour among their own kind. So motorists tend to overlook other motorist's nebulous adherence to traffic laws while at the same time focusing like a laser on the "scofflaws" on bicycles. The denounce bicyclists for blowing through stop signs but regard the "California rolling stop" as a motor vehicle sacrament. They clearly are equivocating and hypocritical.

The only place I am aware of where bicyclists enjoy their own special category in the highway code is in the western USA state of Idaho. Under the "Idaho Rule," cyclists may treat a red light traffic signal as if it were a stop sign (free to proceed after first coming to a stop) and a stop sign as if it were a yield sign (may proceed without stopping after slowing as necessary to assure no conflicting traffic). Which seems to me a quite logical accommodation because this IMHO is pretty close to how most cyclists ride anyway. Would that the Idaho Rule would be more widely adopted.

I also believe that the majority of motorists who have the "scofflaw" view of cyclists are fixed and rigid and will never be disabused of that position, so there is no point trying. Which, if I'm right, leaves just two viable options. The first is to become a political activist and push for the establishment of a separate highway code category for HPVs. And the only other option is to gird your loins and prepare to spend the rest of your cycling life suffering the slings and arrows of outraged motorists.

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

The hard fact of the matter is that motorists (at least those who do not also have a foot in the cycling world) appreciate neither the unique capabilities of the bicycle nor the threat to life and limb of cyclists that has essentially but one source: motorists. Further, they, the motorists, for the better part, do not see 'riding a bicycle' as a dignified and adult endeavour, therefore they regard those who engage in it as frivolous and unsubstantial. They do not see "eye-to-eye" with bicyclists, nor can they ever be expected to.

Unfortunately, these are the same people who write the highway code. So while they can conceive of a separate set of rules for pedestrians, if only because all motorists eventually also become pedestrians, they cannot conceive of a third category specifically for human-powered vehicles, bicycles included. So cyclists are pigeon-holed into the same legal category as are cars and buses and lorries, which is neither logical nor in the best interest of the cyclists' safety.

Further, the human brain is wired to notice differences. As a side effect of this trait, humans also are more likely to notice the misbehaviour of those not like themselves than they are the identical behaviour among their own kind. So motorists tend to overlook other motorist's nebulous adherence to traffic laws while at the same time focusing like a laser on the "scofflaws" on bicycles. The denounce bicyclists for blowing through stop signs but regard the "California rolling stop" as a motor vehicle sacrament. They clearly are equivocating and hypocritical.

The only place I am aware of where bicyclists enjoy their own special category in the highway code is in the western USA state of Idaho. Under the "Idaho Rule," cyclists may treat a red light traffic signal as if it were a stop sign (free to proceed after first coming to a stop) and a stop sign as if it were a yield sign (may proceed without stopping after slowing as necessary to assure no conflicting traffic). Which seems to me a quite logical accommodation because this IMHO is pretty close to how most cyclists ride anyway. Would that the Idaho Rule would be more widely adopted.

I also believe that the majority of motorists who have the "scofflaw" view of cyclists are fixed and rigid and will never be disabused of that position, so there is no point trying. Which, if I'm right, leaves just two viable options. The first is to become a political activist and push for the establishment of a separate highway code category for HPVs. And the only other option is to gird your loins and prepare to spend the rest of your cycling life suffering the slings and arrows of outraged motorists.

Pretty much right on.

It always irritates me when motorists say that bicycles are "vehicules" and therefore should be constrained by the same rules as cars. It doesn't take a lot of analysis to conclude that a bicycle is a totally different object than a car.

In France there is a relatively new change (cedez le passage cycliste au feu) that allows cyclists to turn right at a red light without stopping (must yield to cars coming from the left and pedestrians). Note that cars cannot turn right on a red like in many countries. This is a major step forward for me, as it formalises a difference in the rules based on the difference between a bicycle and a car.

I personally practice the "Idaho stop" even though it isn't allowed legally. If done with caution, there is no danger. Fortunately the police where I live pretty much leave cyclists alone.

Sometimes motorists have legitimate complaints, I often see cyclists shooting through stops or red lights without even looking, and it is amazing how many ride at night without any lights at all.

 

[ray j willings]

I just have come back from France [ not paris] and its so much better riding there than in London [GB]
The attitude of drivers is so much better. More chilled.

 

[tomshooter]

I've spent a great deal of time cycling in France and in particular in Paris and wholeheartedly agree with Ray, it is far better cycling over there! I'm always overwhelmed too with how drivers will beep at cyclists in France, not in a negative way however - it's often accompanied by "Allez...Allez!". Superb!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

My first experience of riding in Europe in the 1990s I found rather disconcerting. In the sense that I was getting so much respect on the roads that it was freaking me out.

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

we should all move to the south of France

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

we should all move to the south of France

Unfortunately that is already what a gazillion people have previously decided to do.

 

[Archibald]

Re:

The hard fact of the matter is that motorists (at least those who do not also have a foot in the cycling world) appreciate neither the unique capabilities of the bicycle nor the threat to life and limb of cyclists that has essentially but one source: motorists. Further, they, the motorists, for the better part, do not see 'riding a bicycle' as a dignified and adult endeavour, therefore they regard those who engage in it as frivolous and unsubstantial. They do not see "eye-to-eye" with bicyclists, nor can they ever be expected to.

Unfortunately, these are the same people who write the highway code. So while they can conceive of a separate set of rules for pedestrians, if only because all motorists eventually also become pedestrians, they cannot conceive of a third category specifically for human-powered vehicles, bicycles included. So cyclists are pigeon-holed into the same legal category as are cars and buses and lorries, which is neither logical nor in the best interest of the cyclists' safety.

This is why I believe it should be mandatory that to gain your drivers licence you should have to spend 3 months regularly riding a bike on the roads you intend to drive on.
Do that, and the next generations will behave far differently as drivers than the current batch...

 

[Tonton]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Great contributions, folks. Personally, I'm in favor of a universal "Idaho" rule, therefore a different set of rules between drivers and riders. But then, here's the trick: where do motorcycles, mopeds fit? Should it be a matter of two vs. four wheels, or motorized vs. non-motorized vehicles? I'm on the fence wrt helmets: obviously they save lives (Geraint would agree - '15 TdF) but I hate to wear one. I didn't grow up wearing one...

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Great contributions, folks. Personally, I'm in favor of a universal "Idaho" rule, therefore a different set of rules between drivers and riders. But then, here's the trick: where do motorcycles, mopeds fit? Should it be a matter of two vs. four wheels, or motorized vs. non-motorized vehicles? I'm on the fence wrt helmets: obviously they save lives (Geraint would agree - '15 TdF) but I hate to wear one. I didn't grow up wearing one...

In France we now have a similar rule for some red lights. Cyclists have the right to yield, without stopping, when turning right at a red light (or going straight at a T intersection). This allows cyclists to clear the intersection without any danger. I believe this also exists in other cycling friendly European countries.

Personally I practice the Idaho stop regularily, with much caution of course. The problem is when cyclists run stop signs or red lights without looking and without respect for others.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Great contributions, folks. Personally, I'm in favor of a universal "Idaho" rule, therefore a different set of rules between drivers and riders. But then, here's the trick: where do motorcycles, mopeds fit? Should it be a matter of two vs. four wheels, or motorized vs. non-motorized vehicles? I'm on the fence wrt helmets: obviously they save lives (Geraint would agree - '15 TdF) but I hate to wear one. I didn't grow up wearing one...

In France we now have a similar rule for some red lights. Cyclists have the right to yield, without stopping, when turning right at a red light (or going straight at a T intersection). This allows cyclists to clear the intersection without any danger. I believe this also exists in other cycling friendly European countries.

Personally I practice the Idaho stop regularily, with much caution of course. The problem is when cyclists run stop signs or red lights without looking and without respect for others.

And if the 'idaho' law was legal, this would go up or down? Rhetorical question.

Bike lanes, wide shoulders, remove cyclists from the car mainstream, would go a long way. And then have all vehicles actually obeying the driving laws..both groups often don't.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as driver

Great contributions, folks. Personally, I'm in favor of a universal "Idaho" rule, therefore a different set of rules between drivers and riders. But then, here's the trick: where do motorcycles, mopeds fit? Should it be a matter of two vs. four wheels, or motorized vs. non-motorized vehicles? I'm on the fence wrt helmets: obviously they save lives (Geraint would agree - '15 TdF) but I hate to wear one. I didn't grow up wearing one...

In France we now have a similar rule for some red lights. Cyclists have the right to yield, without stopping, when turning right at a red light (or going straight at a T intersection). This allows cyclists to clear the intersection without any danger. I believe this also exists in other cycling friendly European countries.

Personally I practice the Idaho stop regularily, with much caution of course. The problem is when cyclists run stop signs or red lights without looking and without respect for others.

And if the 'idaho' law was legal, this would go up or down? Rhetorical question.

Bike lanes, wide shoulders, remove cyclists from the car mainstream, would go a long way. And then have all vehicles actually obeying the driving laws..both groups often don't.

I am not sure on this, maybe an Idahoan could let us know how cyclists behave there.

One major problem is that the French, in general, are undisciplined. This means that all user groups of the public space (pedestrians, cyclists, drivers just to name a few) tend to show little respect for the rules and other users. Implementation of the "Idaho stop" could lead to chaos, or maybe those who already act like idiots will continue to do so and those who are responsible will continue to be so.

Another problem here is that we often don't have the space in our cities for separate cycling infrastructure. When there is the space, there isn't a cycling culture so most roadway modifications totally ignore the needs of any users other than cars. There is a huge lack of awareness and knowledge among roadworks departments, except in a few regions.