![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bicycles
It may seem strange, given the reasons for it, but recent events have led me to read, write, and think more about bicycling, and I've decided that it's now not entirely unlikely that I will obtain a bike sometime in the nearish future.
An increasing number of friends have taken up cycling as an urban commute alternative over the last couple of years. And I used to do this same thing, way back in Florida, biking to school and around town every day, and I always enjoyed it. When I returned to New England for college (and all that came after) I just never thought of it again, even though I wouldn't start driving for another three years. Your guess is as good as mine. At any rate, I've lately become increasingly aware of all the time I spend walking, and as much as I love walking it'd be nice to be able to go a little faster when I wanted to.
I've started paying more attention to the (many!) cyclists I see every day as I walk around. I responded with skepticism when![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
karlvonl commented earlier that most cyclists ignore traffic signals, but now the anecdotal evidence does seem to be mounting up. The majority of the cyclists I see seem to act as if they're just speedy pedestrians, looking both ways at intersections but then crossing at opportunity, no matter what color the light. I've never really noticed before, and I wonder if this is because most people expect cyclists to act thus.
For the life of me, I can't remember how I myself treated traffic signals back in high school. (I do recall that I rocked the manual turn signals something fierce, and this too is something I see many cyclists not bothering with around here.) I assume that all this stuff may be technically illegal but seldom enforced. The page on the topic at massbike.org basically takes the attutude "Aw, c'mon guys, you really should," and cites silly reasons for stopping (It gives you a chance to rest! If you blow through reds on your bike, you'll start doing it in your car!!).
Anyway, this isn't anything I'm gonna start tomorrow, but it's something interesting.
An increasing number of friends have taken up cycling as an urban commute alternative over the last couple of years. And I used to do this same thing, way back in Florida, biking to school and around town every day, and I always enjoyed it. When I returned to New England for college (and all that came after) I just never thought of it again, even though I wouldn't start driving for another three years. Your guess is as good as mine. At any rate, I've lately become increasingly aware of all the time I spend walking, and as much as I love walking it'd be nice to be able to go a little faster when I wanted to.
I've started paying more attention to the (many!) cyclists I see every day as I walk around. I responded with skepticism when
karlvonl commented earlier that most cyclists ignore traffic signals, but now the anecdotal evidence does seem to be mounting up. The majority of the cyclists I see seem to act as if they're just speedy pedestrians, looking both ways at intersections but then crossing at opportunity, no matter what color the light. I've never really noticed before, and I wonder if this is because most people expect cyclists to act thus. For the life of me, I can't remember how I myself treated traffic signals back in high school. (I do recall that I rocked the manual turn signals something fierce, and this too is something I see many cyclists not bothering with around here.) I assume that all this stuff may be technically illegal but seldom enforced. The page on the topic at massbike.org basically takes the attutude "Aw, c'mon guys, you really should," and cites silly reasons for stopping (It gives you a chance to rest! If you blow through reds on your bike, you'll start doing it in your car!!).
Anyway, this isn't anything I'm gonna start tomorrow, but it's something interesting.
no subject
On the whole, I think that's actually reasonable, but in the end, traffic law is designed to protect motorists from each other, and to protect pedestrians from motorists. For the most part, viewing bikes as cars does protect cyclists as well, but there are some exceptions, and in those exceptional circumstances, I think it's appropriate to carefully deviate from traffic law.
The trouble is, most such deviation is not careful, which results in a lot of sweeping "everyone has to obey the same laws" rhetoric that lumps the careful people into the same moron category as the actual morons.
Another angle on the bikes-and-traffic-law discussion
On no-passing-zone roads with one lane on either side of the double yellow lines, motorists expect cyclists to remain on the right side of the road, and for the most part, cyclists expect to remain there. To conform strictly to the law, the cyclist should, as a vehicle, take the lane and cars behind the cyclist pretty much just have to suck it up.
But no one actually wants that. I haven't ever heard anyone argue that no-passing regulations should be enforced in these circumstances. It's generally considered acceptable for cars to pass cyclists on these roads. When a lane of cars is waiting at a red light on such a road, it's generally considered acceptable for the cyclist to pass the cars on the right.
It's pretty clear in this circumstance, that bikes are (at least in terms of common usage and expectation) not the same as cars.
I'm not entirely certain where I'm going with this, but I think it's an important situation to point out, because it's pretty clearly a place where no one actually believes bikes are the same as cars, despite the (I believe) official state position that they ARE the same.