An article on the Medium site has the headline “Drivers: the law was made for you, not cyclists. Worry about your driving, not their riding.”
So, what is that supposed to mean? That cyclists should be able to ignore the traffic law, and that is just fine?
Certainly, the law applies to motorists. But, while saying that the law is made for motorists and not cyclists may be a convenient way to excuse many cyclists’ cavailier attitude toward the law, it is incorrect both as a practical matter and as a historical one. Ignoring the rules of the road can put anyone at risk. And William Phelps Eno, who developed those rules, didn’t even ever learn to drive a motor vehicle. He set out the principles of traffic law before motor vehicles were common, when horses and buggies — and bicycles — were the predominant road users, aside from pedestrians.
Are there are problems with specific provisions of the law? Yes, certainly, and as they affect both bicyclists and motorists.
If bicycling is to be a useful means of transportation, people have to be able to get to and from where they want to go, and by reasonably convenient and safe routes. Bicyclists are concerned about bans, and about restrictions on what part of the road we may use, enacted for the convenience of motorists, though supposedly in the best interest of bicyclists. Such restrictions can seriously reduce safety and convenience.
The Medium article mostly takes up a different concern, with stop signs, arguing that bicyclists should not have to stop for them. In that light, the headline is misleading, and about stop signsI am somewhat in agreement with the author. Let’s look at what stop signs are supposed to accomplish, and at how well they — and the law behind them — accomplish that.
The law poses two requirements at a stop sign: to stop, and to yield. Yielding prevents crashes. Often, slowing is enough to enable yielding. If it were “incredibly dangerous,” as the article says, for either motorists or bicyclists to yield without coming to a full stop at most intersections, there would be many more crashes than in fact occur. Pointing the finger of blame at either motorists or bicyclists for not stopping distracts from some important concerns about stop signs.
In fact, there are many more stop signs than necessary in the USA: they are often installed as a quick political solution to a behavior problem. In Europe, far fewer stop signs are used: yield signs are more common, and drivers understand the rule for uncontrolled intersections: yield to the driver approaching from the right. The rule is the same here, except that the overuse of stop signs leads drivers to assume that if there is no sign ahead of them, drivers in the cross street must yield.
Stop signs require a stop before the crosswalk even if there is nobody in the crosswalk or about to use it. Yielding to traffic in the cross street may require pulling ahead past the stop sign through or into the crosswalk to look for cross traffic — increasing the incentive to ignore the stop sign.
Now let’s look at a few statements at the end of the article. The uathor really goes off the rails here:
But, you say, reckless cyclists and/or pedestrians could be causing accidents, couldn’t they? Certainly, although any time cyclists or pedestrians are involved in car accidents, the blame will almost always go to the driver, since they were obviously not paying enough attention or going slow enough to be able to react in time.
Who is at fault under the law does not depend on whether the person is riding a bicycle or driving a car. It depends on who was violating the law — who, for example, ran a stop sign. Aside from that, police in the USA rarely issue citations against motorists involved in collisions with bicyclists, even when the motorist was clearly in violation. What is this about “obviously”?
It’s the same reason a driver rear-ending another driver is always at fault. It’s up to you, driver, to pay attention to what’s happening on the road and it’s up to you to make sure you are able to react in time.
No, it isn’t the same thing. A driver rear-ending another driver is always at fault — well unless the leading driver suddenly cut in front and slammed on the brakes — because it is practical for a following driver to slow or stop, but not for a leading driver to be constantly looking back or to accelerate, possibly into another crash scenario, to avoid being rear-ended. Certainly, drivers should pay attention and attempt to avoid collisions even when someone else is violating the law, but if a bicyclist runs out from a stop sign, the bicyclist is at fault for the collision.
Cyclists and pedestrians are always able to react more quickly,
Nonsense. Always? Everybody? Granny crossing the street with her walker? Cyclists with only a coaster brake, twice the stopping distance of other bicycles and three times that of cars with antilock braking?
they have a much wider field of vision,
More nonsense. Motor vehicles have rear-view mirrors. Most bicyclists use none. Turning the head to look back is in any case required under the law only when changing lane position or entering the roadway — again, a reason that the following driver is held at fault in rear-end collisions.
and they don’t have the capability of causing as much damage as a several-thousand-pound motorized vehicle, even one driving slowly.
Well that’s true, though it brings up the red herring of vehicle weight.
So chill out, drivers; you don’t own the roads, you just act like you do. And unless you obey every single traffic law 100% of the time, you have no business criticizing the people you’re supposed to be keeping an eye out for.
Good citizenship has to go both ways. While perfect conduct is not to be expected of anyone, pointing the finger at a group that one does not identify with is a really effective way to avoid taking responsibility for one’s own actions.
Chances are, if you hit someone, it’s going to be your fault, no matter what.
Nonsense, as I hope I have shown.
