The Chainlink

Stop Sign Check Point - 8/26/2011

I was just wondering if anyone else got stopped at rush hour for not "stopping" at the intersection of Milwaukee, Clinton and Fulton? I mean, I get it, but it really bothered me given that just a few 100 feet up Fulton bikers are run off the road for turning traffic and the Milwaukee bus stop. (Not to mention all the craziness in the Loop)

The cop also told me that "ideally" bikes should be stopping fully, including putting both feet on the ground at the stop sign. I'm sure cars will totally yield right of way to a cyclist having to start from a dead stop.

 

Anyways, just curious people's thoughts on this. Thanks!

Views: 1156

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeff Schneider on August 30, 2011 at 10:20pm
As noted in the article, "Pedestrian deaths caused by bicyclists are extremely rare."  Bicyclists can often be rude and inconsiderate (I don't approve of that, btw), but their actions rarely kill or even injure anyone.

Anne said:

WRONG
Cyclists can and do kill pedestrians

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/11/pedestrian-hit-by-bicyclist-la...


Dan Korn said:

Jeff Markus said:
Until all users of the roads (autos, trucks, busses, bikes and pedestrians) begin to act as parts of the traffic equation with specific roles and responsibilities we will continue to have the bloody mayhem of todays road madness.
B.S.!  Bad cyclists don't kill anyone.  Neither do bad pedestrians. Motor vehicle drivers do, and not just the bad ones.
Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on August 31, 2011 at 1:58am
I stand by my statement as a rebuttal to Jeff's comment about "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" coming to an end only when "all users of the roads" change their behavior.  The bloody mayhem, which I take to mean serious injuries and fatalities, is almost solely caused by motor vehicles.  It's (the drivers of) cars and trucks doing the killing, and only they can stop doing it.

Let's deal in some facts:  On average, one pedestrian is killed every single week in the city of Chicago, by a motor vehicle.  Exactly zero are killed by bicycles, even the ones operated by yahoos who run red lights and ride the wrong way and do all sorts of stupid things.

We can all come up with hypothetical, imagined "Rube Goldberg" scenarios of crashes being caused by errant cyclists.  And we can all recite anecdotes about "almost" getting hit by a cyclist, or "nearly" getting killed.  But none of those nice stories change the facts.

You can even scour the entire nation to find one specific example of a pedestrian being killed in a crash with a bicycle, and while that's a fact, and a tragedy, it's still anecdotal, and statistically, it's rarer than someone being killed by a bee sting.

Chris B asserts that, "Elderly pedestrians and children are the most vulnerable to some cyclist who is not paying attention."  Yet, if we look again at the facts, the number one killer of children and young adults in the United States is motor vehicle crashes.  Not just in traffic, but overall.  Creating a rhetorical equivalence between the dangers posed by bikes and cars by characterizing them as merely "relative" is misleading at best.  That's like saying that the danger posed by jumping off the top of the Willis Tower is "relative" to the danger posed by jumping off a milk crate.   So it may be true that if someone is doing something dumb on a bike, it's more dangerous to children and elderly people than it is to other people, but it's certainly true that that danger is statistically insignificant compared to the danger that kids, along with the elderly and just about everyone else, face from cars.  If you want to save the lives of children, it's about cars, not about bikes.

So, yes, the absolutism of my statement that "Bad cyclists don't kill anyone" is not literally true.  There are lots of ways that people can do stupid things which endanger other people.  But far and away, people doing stupid things, and even not-so-stupid things, in cars, is what makes our roads so deadly.
Permalink Reply by Rhea Butcher on August 31, 2011 at 8:39am

I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.

I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.

Permalink Reply by Duppie 13.5185km on August 31, 2011 at 8:55am

Dan,


I agree with your argument. But to make this reality you might need to adjust your messaging. This "car bad- bike good" argument is going to be rejected by the majority of people in this country.


Dan Korn said:

I stand by my statement as a rebuttal to Jeff's comment about "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" coming to an end only when "all users of the roads" change their behavior.  The bloody mayhem, which I take to mean serious injuries and fatalities, is almost solely caused by motor vehicles.  It's (the drivers of) cars and trucks doing the killing, and only they can stop doing it.

Let's deal in some facts:  On average, one pedestrian is killed every single week in the city of Chicago, by a motor vehicle.  Exactly zero are killed by bicycles, even the ones operated by yahoos who run red lights and ride the wrong way and do all sorts of stupid things.

We can all come up with hypothetical, imagined "Rube Goldberg" scenarios of crashes being caused by errant cyclists.  And we can all recite anecdotes about "almost" getting hit by a cyclist, or "nearly" getting killed.  But none of those nice stories change the facts.

You can even scour the entire nation to find one specific example of a pedestrian being killed in a crash with a bicycle, and while that's a fact, and a tragedy, it's still anecdotal, and statistically, it's rarer than someone being killed by a bee sting.

Chris B asserts that, "Elderly pedestrians and children are the most vulnerable to some cyclist who is not paying attention."  Yet, if we look again at the facts, the number one killer of children and young adults in the United States is motor vehicle crashes.  Not just in traffic, but overall.  Creating a rhetorical equivalence between the dangers posed by bikes and cars by characterizing them as merely "relative" is misleading at best.  That's like saying that the danger posed by jumping off the top of the Willis Tower is "relative" to the danger posed by jumping off a milk crate.   So it may be true that if someone is doing something dumb on a bike, it's more dangerous to children and elderly people than it is to other people, but it's certainly true that that danger is statistically insignificant compared to the danger that kids, along with the elderly and just about everyone else, face from cars.  If you want to save the lives of children, it's about cars, not about bikes.

So, yes, the absolutism of my statement that "Bad cyclists don't kill anyone" is not literally true.  There are lots of ways that people can do stupid things which endanger other people.  But far and away, people doing stupid things, and even not-so-stupid things, in cars, is what makes our roads so deadly.
Permalink Reply by Joel on August 31, 2011 at 10:05am

If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through.  If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.  

 

In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.


Rhea Butcher said:

I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.

I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.

Permalink Reply by ad on August 31, 2011 at 10:19am


Not to stir the pot, but what exactly is your point?  I don't think anyone on here is working under the false premise that cars are not extremely dangerous when operated in a negligent manner (or even when they're not being negligent), especially in realtion to pedestrians and cyclists on the roads.  We all (presumably) ride bikes and understand the dangers cars present. 

 

Exactly how does all of that excuse a cyclist's conduct in acting reckless, though?  Just because a car is a much more dangerous instrument doesn't give a cyclist a license to act however they want.  You're essentially creating this false dichotomy where people can't be concerned about both types of reckless conduct.     

 

True, there needs to be a much greater focus than there is now on catching/educating/preventing reckless autombile drivers who endanger pedestrians and cyclists.  There also needs to be a greater focus across the nation on properly prosecuting crash-related crimes when they occur.  That said, I'm not going to get upset when the City assigns three or four officers to conduct what amounts to an educational outreach program for cyclists for a few hours a couple times a summer.  Based on the sketchy things I've seen both cars and cyclists commit on City streets this summer, I would say there is quite a bit of room for improvement on both sides.

 

To the extent you're saying we need to redesign laws to take into account the realities of riding a bicycle, I'm fine with that and all for it.  Under any system of laws, though, a cyclist is going to at least have to yield the right of way in certain situations.  The reckless cyclists I'm concerned about (i.e., the ones cutting lights in busy intersections and running stops when pedestrians and cars in the other direction have the right of way) out there simply aren't doing that, however.     


Dan Korn said:

I stand by my statement as a rebuttal to Jeff's comment about "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" coming to an end only when "all users of the roads" change their behavior.  The bloody mayhem, which I take to mean serious injuries and fatalities, is almost solely caused by motor vehicles.  It's (the drivers of) cars and trucks doing the killing, and only they can stop doing it.

Let's deal in some facts:  On average, one pedestrian is killed every single week in the city of Chicago, by a motor vehicle.  Exactly zero are killed by bicycles, even the ones operated by yahoos who run red lights and ride the wrong way and do all sorts of stupid things.

We can all come up with hypothetical, imagined "Rube Goldberg" scenarios of crashes being caused by errant cyclists.  And we can all recite anecdotes about "almost" getting hit by a cyclist, or "nearly" getting killed.  But none of those nice stories change the facts.

You can even scour the entire nation to find one specific example of a pedestrian being killed in a crash with a bicycle, and while that's a fact, and a tragedy, it's still anecdotal, and statistically, it's rarer than someone being killed by a bee sting.

Chris B asserts that, "Elderly pedestrians and children are the most vulnerable to some cyclist who is not paying attention."  Yet, if we look again at the facts, the number one killer of children and young adults in the United States is motor vehicle crashes.  Not just in traffic, but overall.  Creating a rhetorical equivalence between the dangers posed by bikes and cars by characterizing them as merely "relative" is misleading at best.  That's like saying that the danger posed by jumping off the top of the Willis Tower is "relative" to the danger posed by jumping off a milk crate.   So it may be true that if someone is doing something dumb on a bike, it's more dangerous to children and elderly people than it is to other people, but it's certainly true that that danger is statistically insignificant compared to the danger that kids, along with the elderly and just about everyone else, face from cars.  If you want to save the lives of children, it's about cars, not about bikes.

So, yes, the absolutism of my statement that "Bad cyclists don't kill anyone" is not literally true.  There are lots of ways that people can do stupid things which endanger other people.  But far and away, people doing stupid things, and even not-so-stupid things, in cars, is what makes our roads so deadly.
Permalink Reply by Joel on August 31, 2011 at 10:22am
It is my favorite justification for any poor behavior, "My behavior isn't bad because there is someone doing something even worse than me."

ad said:

Exactly how does all of that excuse a cyclist's conduct in acting reckless, though?  Just because a car is a much more dangerous instrument doesn't give a cyclist a license to act however they want.  You're essentially creating this false dichotomy where people can't be concerned about both types of reckless conduct.     

 

Permalink Reply by Rhea Butcher on August 31, 2011 at 10:28am

"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."

 

-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes. 



Joel said:

If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through.  If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.  

 

In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.


Rhea Butcher said:

I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.

I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.

Permalink Reply by Joel on August 31, 2011 at 10:34am
Slow to less than 3mph, just enough to keep your momentum and not have to restart.  Make eye contact with the stopped driver and wait for their signal that you can go through.  If there is more than one car at the intersection, stop.  

Rhea Butcher said:

"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."

 

-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes. 



Joel said:

If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through.  If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.  

 

In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.


Rhea Butcher said:

I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.

I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.

Permalink Reply by Rhea Butcher on August 31, 2011 at 10:42am
Interesting. Maybe my problem is that I wear sunglasses. ;)
Permalink Reply by ad on August 31, 2011 at 10:45am

What would you propose as a change in the law for cyclists approaching a four way stop situation where other cars are already present and have the right of way under current law?

 

No matter how we redesign the laws, there is conceivably going to have to be some type of "right of way" recognition on shared roads on the part of cyclists requiring them to stop on occassion.  Even things like the Idaho stop legislation, which itself is hard enough to get passed, requires cyclists to stop and yield the right of way to cars or pedestrians who legally have it by reaching the intersection first.   

Rhea Butcher said:

"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."

 

-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes. 



Joel said:

If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through.  If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.  

 

In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.


Rhea Butcher said:

I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.

I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.

Permalink Reply by Rhea Butcher on August 31, 2011 at 12:36pm

When talking about changing laws, I am talking about what constitutes a stop. Apologies for not being clear. I am not advocating blowing through a sign or light when there are clearly cars or peds present, with the right of way.

 



ad said:

What would you propose as a change in the law for cyclists approaching a four way stop situation where other cars are already present and have the right of way under current law?

 

No matter how we redesign the laws, there is conceivably going to have to be some type of "right of way" recognition on shared roads on the part of cyclists requiring them to stop on occassion.  Even things like the Idaho stop legislation, which itself is hard enough to get passed, requires cyclists to stop and yield the right of way to cars or pedestrians who legally have it by reaching the intersection first.   

Rhea Butcher said:

"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."

 

-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes. 



Joel said:

If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through.  If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.  

 

In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely.  You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.


Rhea Butcher said:

I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.

I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2008-2013   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service