Hello clicker5,
Thanks for an interesting question.
Ken Kifers Bike Pages at
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/obey.htm has a thought
provoking article on the subject:
Should Cyclists Obey the Traffic Laws?
"...during the sixties, large numbers of people recognized that
obeying the law was sometimes harmful because sometimes the law itself
was wrong. Therefore, we had a civil rights movement, an antiwar
movement, and several other smaller movements in which people
purposely disobeyed the law. In addition, there was a general feeling
of rebellion that caused many people to quit obeying rules and
regulations, and to start living quite differently from what was
"expected" of them...
...I think people are also more likely to break traffic laws when
riding a bike than when driving a car. There's a reason for this that
predates the civil rights movement: police generally pay little
attention to bicycle riders. If you ran a red light in front of a
police officer in a car, he would almost certainly stop you. However,
if you ran the same street light on your bike, he probably would not.
Two reasons probably lie behind this behavior. One is that the officer
recognizes that you're not liable to injure anyone except yourself.
The other is that the police, like everyone else, often think in terms
of motor vehicle laws rather in terms of traffic laws. Therefore, they
focus their attention on motorists and ignore pedestrians and
cyclists..."
At "The Case for Running Red Lights
http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/050400/waynesword.html
Wayne Laugesen puts forth the following explanation:
"The laws of physics are more important and powerful than the laws of
man. So let them run red lights. It's a common practice in Boulder.
Bicyclists ease up to a red light, slow down or stop, look both ways
and ride on through if the coast is clear...
Why they run lights
The truth is, bad laws are seldom obeyed, because it's natural for
people to disobey inappropriate laws...
..."New York cyclists are notorious for running red lights," the
report states. "By now, going through red is an ingrained cycling
tradition. Big-city impatience and the desire to maintain hard-earned
momentum discourage bicycle riders from stopping fully when the law
dictates-the same is true for pedestrians. But, though it may seem
surprising for non-cyclists, many riders point to health and safety as
reasons to disobey red lights.
"For one thing, going through a Manhattan red light gives the cyclist
a block or two of respite from the exhaust fumes of accelerating cars
and trucks," the report states. "More importantly, bicycles and cars
accelerate differently. Motorists waiting behind a stopped bicycle are
in no mood to wait for the cyclist to reach cruising speed. Pressure
from impatient drivers is especially unnerving for novice cyclists,
who need a modicum of open street space to start up. Because motor
traffic occupies that space, the only way bicyclists can start up
safely is by getting in front of the traffic, which often entails
running lights."
And yet another opinion on bicycle laws that supports running stops:
http://guest.xinet.com/bike/stops.html
"Stops should be Yields for Cyclists
One of the ways that motorists, police and the legal system have been
prejudiced against cyclists is in their continued insistence that
cyclists stringently follow traffic laws such as stop signs and red
lights. These laws are important for autos to follow but not for
cyclists. Indeed, there are times where it is very unsafe to obey
these laws..."
The author goes on to present this compelling list:
"Reasons why cyclists should be given the option to yield:
1) Bicyclists have better awareness of surroundings
(better field of vision, higher than cars,
no windows/stereo/cell phone obstructing hearing,
stereo hearing). Yes, cyclists can legally have
one ear covered with an earphone but that is
nowhere near as dangerous.
2) Bicyclists can avoid accidents better
(sharper turning radius, much less width, less
speed and weight to manage, can become flush with
the side of the road almost instantly, can stop
in a shorter distance)
3) Bicycles are much safer to the public
(much less momentum, and much more forgiving
physical structure so much less dangerous to
others)
4) Bicyclists have to expend their own energy
to start and stop--it's a courtesy
to let them pass just as it is to yield to
someone carrying something heavy or bulky.
Even more compelling is the fact that
bicyclists wait at stop lights and stop signs
which were put in place simply because of the
danger posed by motor vehicles. In other
words, bicyclists wait hundreds of hours a year
for motor vehicles! It's the least they can do...
5) Most bicyclists go through stop signs at a similar
speed as most motorists, but due to
the straightaway speed difference, it may seem like
the motorist is "stopping" while the cyclist isn't.
6) Cyclists should be able to avoid the pollution
of stopped cars as much as possible. We are breathing
harder and are not the ones polluting. We deserve
to be spared from this harmful imposition. Pollution
tends to be highest at stops.
7) Cyclists waiting in traffic can cause more problems
for all--not only by blocking turns (which often
elicits prejudicial anger from motorists) but
there is a significantly increased chance of being
rear-ended for the cyclist (so it can literally be
much safer not to stop).
8) Frequent stopping is associated with long-term chronic
knee problems (along with use of "track" or single-
speed bikes, or any bicycle used in a low gear).
9) Stopping during intense physical exercise can be fatal.
Athletes need to come to a stop slowly and cool down
or they risk cardiac arrest and other problems.
10) Most cyclists responsibly "run" stop signs at present, and
in general it's accepted--just like jaywalking.
Only the hyper-intolerant or uninformed find a
problem.
11) Bicycling is the #2 risk factor for repetitive stress
injuries
(RSI) such as Carpal's Tunnel Syndrome, and repeated
hard
stops (rather than soft yields) greatly increases this
risk.
12) Cyclists don't endanger the public like cars do and have
not
been properly accommodated for--this is due in large part
to
corruption such as monopoly practices and short-sighted
planning. Cycling helps everyone yet is discouraged.
Give cyclists right of way to help correct this
unfairness.
13) Pedestrians aren't required to stop at stop signs, yet
can run through them much faster than most bicyclists
would. On top of that they can be wearing headphones
and much less able to avoid a collision. Pedestrians
are also less visible -- no reflectors, smaller size.
No one is talking about outlawing pedestrians from
treating stop signs as yield signs.
14) Places that provide for bicyclists have much lower bicycle
fatality rates than the USA (e.g., Netherlands, about
1/13 our fatality rates per mile traveled). One of the
reasons is that they give cyclists a head start through
red lights, with special zones ahead of motor traffic, and
special bicycle-only green lights. It can be much more
dangerous to stop at a red light than to run it during a
safe period before all the conflicts begin.
15) Cyclists are the ones who have the most to lose
when running a stop sign or light. Let them
decide when to do it."
Interesting and thought provoking point of view, though not one I
would personally subscribe to.
I hope the above has given you some insight and a few perspectives
about bicyclists and traffic laws.
Search strategy: Why bicycle riders disobey traffic laws
Best regards,
-=clouseau=- |
