Stop Comparing Cycling and Driving Violations

[Gummee]

Article today (https://www.outsideonline.com/2348546/stop-comparing-cycling-and-driving-violations) (<-that's a link)

Thoughts?

M

[MattTuck]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

In most cases, traffic laws are intended to either keep someone safe or to keep traffic flowing in an orderly way. As such, I'm much more concerned with the spirit of the law violations, than I am with letter of the law violations.

This article feels very much like trying to create letter of the law equivalencies.

I'd like to see more emphasis on duty of care laws for drivers, and less focus on punishing letter of the law violations.

[weisan]

Matt pal....you are on to something.

[Gummee]

Matt pal....you are on to something.

I'll agree with Matt: While I may not technically follow the letter of the law all the time, I AM following the spirit of the law.

On the moto, on the pedal bike, and in the car

M

[cachagua]

First, this article (and the ones that continue below it) reads like the petulant whining of a frustrated nine-year-old, and really, I think the guy doesn't even deserve an answer.

However I'll note that the premise he bases his argument on -- that bike riders and drivers should be treated as separate categories -- is only self-serving, and using it as a foundation for traffic regulation or enforcement (or even your attitude) will never create an improvement in conditions for either group.

Rather than the inconsistency of saying bike riders are in one situation and should respond to it one way, and drivers are in another situation and should respond in another way, it's better to assign responsibility consistently: if you're on the road, the rules of the road apply to you.

[Gummee]

Rather than the inconsistency of saying bike riders are in one situation and should respond to it one way, and drivers are in another situation and should respond in another way, it's better to assign responsibility consistently: if you're on the road, the rules of the road apply to you.
Umm do you ride a bicycle on the road? The 'rules of the road' are a good way to get yourself in trouble.

The rules of the road say 'stay as far right as practicable' which the car drivers see as 'as possible' and want you to meekly submit to passes in unsafe positions on the road. If you follow the 'rules of the road,' there's a distinct likelihood of ending up in a ditch or as a hood ornament

If you follow the 'rules of the road' at intersections, you're also likely to end up as a hood ornament from a SMIDSY or a right hooker.

So... following the spirit of the law and making sure YOU are safe (cause no one else gives a rat's behind about you) is a better bet than following the rules of the road.

Now, I don't agree with jumping lights, running lights, or running stop signs*. Why give the mouth-breathing idiots more ammunition?!

YMMV

M

*unless you live in Outer Boondockia like I do and you can see for 1/2mi either direction coming up to stop signs. I'll drive or ride a moto the same way in that situation

[rain dogs]

I think very few people who have commented got the jist of the piece at all.

Mr. Snob is correctly pointing out that while cyclists often break the law with their small, and rather insignificant infractions, car drivers break the law ALL the time and brush it off as "that's just the way things are"

He's taken the most common complaints of the anti-cyclist-brigade and proposed the car equivalent. Things that people do in cars all the time and not only do they not see them as a big deal, I bet they're not even aware that they do them.

The perfect example being... coming to a full stop at a stop sign - a foot down on the ground for a cyclist = stopping so that weight shifts back to neutral after braking in a car.