Digital_Cowboy

I do the same thing for pedestrians, and it doesn't matter to me if there are any cars behind me or not when I yield to pedestrians. It's also surprising how many pedestrians are also surprised when someone yields to them.

noisebeam

Are you being sarcastic?

DataJunkie

Congratulations.

KD5NRH

I love to follow and watch when the local police and/or sheriff's department starts doing school bus enforcement. They'll sit either right on the bus's bumper or just out of sight at a high-traffic stop, and wait for somebody to blow past the bus while its lights are on. With a minimum fine of $200, (maximum $1000 and, if it's a second offense, 6 month license suspension) they really get the point across to the ones they stop.

Ed Holland

Yes we should stop.... but there's nothing to say you can't jump off the bike and walk around.

CyclingGiant

I always stop for a school bus unloading kids though its kind of frustrating to have to stay behind one for a while.

B. Carfree

I love the look of wonder on their faces when I say, "after you". They just aren't used to anyone obeying the law. Other than just riding, positive, lawful interactions with pedestrians (and school buses) may be the most important bike advocacy that one can do.

As to the OP, since I'm the SOB who calls the local school district driver supervisor when the drivers violate the safe passing distance law here, it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to not stop when the same drivers put their red lights and stop signs on/out.

jputnam

I don't see any way to pass a stopped school bus on a vehicle *without* being careless -- it's an inherently dangerous act, unless by a "keeping a safe distance" you mean they're doing it on a different road.

The laws protecting children around school buses are Draconian for a reason. Children are inherently vulnerable road users with predictably under-developed traffic skills and awareness.

fuji86

Often times when they are at a stop, they are up against the curb, so you have a choice, stop behind them or try to pass them while they are stopped. And like a school bus, even without a stop sign arm, some city bus passengers will still try to cross the street from in front of the bus. Same dangers apply.

fuji86

Let me also clarify, I'm also the type of cyclist that will safely ride to the left side of the road to keep moving rather than stop for any stopped type of bus. I might even turn right the street before when I see a bus stopped and ride a block over and then forward and then head back over to the original street. You can tell I really don't like to stop when I can keep moving. With buses if the interval of bus stops becomes a game of each of us jumping each other like a game of checkers. Yeah, I stop and wait a couple of minutes. I rarely encounter school buses, it more applies to city buses.

But since this is being brought up about school buses, if it's illegal for a cyclist to pass one while it is stopped, shouldn't it have been illegal for the bus to have passed the cyclist in the first place, especially if the bus driver knew they were going to stop immediately after passing the cyclist ?

Digital_Cowboy

Sadly it's so rare that it does "shock" them to see someone yielding to them. I've had a few try to wave me on, and my reply is "you have the right of way, not me." I agree, if we want to change the impression of cyclists that the general public has we have to set a good example.

Agreed, I will also call on the local bus system drivers when they don't leave enough not room when they pass me. I'll also do the same with cabs or any other commercial vehicle.

ModeratedUser150120149

Did you have your School Bus sign displayed and the required flashing red lights? No? Well, then to the legally operating school bus driver you were just another piece of traffic to be legally contended with as the driver does a daily job. You both follow the law and all is safer because each of you know what to expect from the other.

Dan The Man

I get annoyed when drivers try to hand me the right of way when it's not expected (like at a 4-way that they were already stopped at), and I think it's silly to do it as a cyclist. It only adds confusion. Based on the size of a bicycle and the size of a pedestrian and the width of a road, it is apparent that it should be very easy for both to continue on their path without hitting each other. Stopping just adds confusion and slows down everyone's day with the awkward game of "you go first, no you, no you".

Imagine if you are a pedestrian at a crosswalk and you see a cyclist that is on course to pass in front of you. If they just keep riding, you can safely continue walking, but if they slow down to give you right of way, now they are on a collision course and you have to stop to make sure that they won't run you over. Then you have to wait to see that they are actually stopping and make eye contact before you can continue crossing the street.

The other possible situation is that you are at a crosswalk and the bicycle is on a course to collide with you. Most people would slow down their stride so that the bicycle passes in front again. The best thing would be for the bicyclist to just move over in the lane so that it's clear there won't be a collision. If the cyclist slows down, again the pedestrian has to start second guessing their intentions and wait to see what the cyclist is going to do.

Trying to yield right of way is only making a simple situation more complicated and dangerous by making your intentions obscure. A cyclist doing something unexpected creates confusion and forces everyone else to stop until it's clear what you are doing. Are you slowing down to turn? Are you just coasting and going to start speeding up again?

The only situation where I see it making sense to yield at a crosswalk to a pedestrian is in heavy traffic where you are penned in on the side by vehicles which are also stopping for the pedestrians or when there are a lot of pedestrians filling the crosswalk.

fuji86

My point is if the bus driver knows that there is not enough room to safely pass a cyclist without almost immediately turning on their flashing lights and deploying the stop arm, shouldn't they legally have to treat the cyclist as if they were a car taking up the entire lane ? I mean, I've had bus drivers city or school, do both. Some have passed me, only to have stopped almost immediately after a pass. I've also had buses lay back until I passed their officially designated & routed bus stop ? I'm not sure they even know the answer to that one, or they were in a situation where indecision forced that driving behavior, or still yet, they were just poor bus drivers ? I mean the arguments are based upon whether a cyclist = motorist or cyclist = pedestrian. But one thing is for certain, a cyclist is more vulnerable than a car. Again, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, even if it's the city or school bus, just the same as it is for a personal car. I don't believe any driver's handbook or even state statute delineates that when a licensed driver is operating a mass transit vehicle, the privilege of licensure and operation of the vehicle becomes a right as opposed to being a privilege.

ModeratedUser150120149

Exactly. If everyone follows the legal rules we all know what to expect and the maximum safety is achieved. If the law doesn't do the job in a specific situation then there are avenues to get the law changed.

Plus, when you are waved through by someone else are you sure you aren't being scammed? Over the years there have been episodes of people running down someone else and then the injured party claiming he was waved across the street and the driver telling the story of the cyclist/pedestrian going when he shouldn't have. Or, what happened to me. I make it a practice of never waving a person through, or that it is OK to back, or anything like that. I learned from watching someone else give another car the right of way on a turn. Only he didn't see the car behind him pass and hit the car he had just waved through into a turn. Guess who got the ticket and the higher insurance bill. That's right the guy who was being "nice" and waved the other car through. When he did that he assumed liability for the action he directed the other car to perform. The passing car was in a legal passing zone and so was legally OK. Lots of other examples. Some of which are folks who are trying to collect on your insurance policy. Or, if you don't have one your assets now and in the future.

wnl256

No, but then I wouldn't be on a bicycle, would I?

A bicycle is also not a pedestrian. I don't understand those who insist on being treated like a vehicle to gain access to roads and highways, then proclaim they are "not a car" when a regulation that governs those vehicles is inconvenient to them. If you want to be treated like a vehicle (and not limited to paths and sidewalks) then act like a vehicle and obey the traffic laws! It's as simple as that.

If you want the same freedom of movement that pedestrians enjoy, then become one. Get off your bike and walk it.

Dan The Man

My point was that there are situations when it is safe to pass by a stopped schoolbus (take a pedestrian for example). So why is it safe for a pedestrian to pass and not a car? How about a jogger vs a car? Rather than just fixating on the rule, why not consider the logic behind it? A pedestrian is smaller and more maneuverable and has less energy than a car. Oh wait, a bicycle is also all of those things. A bicycle traveling at the speed of a pedestrian poses no more threat to society's safety-blanket-wrapped children than a jogger does.

Digital_Cowboy

Good point, we can NOT have it both ways, either we are a vehicle and ALL laws/rules of the road apply to us, or we are not and we do NOT belong on/in the road.

Dan The Man

Yer with us or aginst us!

njkayaker

If the pedestrian is on the sidewalk, then they are required to yield to vehicles that cannot reasonably stop in time (if that's not legally required, it's common sense). In many states (NJ, certainly), if there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk, vehicles are required to yield.

A pedestrian who assumes that a vehicle slowing down is actually yielding the right of way is a pedestrian who isn't crossing safely.

adamtki

With this kind of thinking, we wouldn't have bike lanes, 3 feet laws, sharrows, on/off ramps for bicycles, and bike racks. We wouldn't be able to bike on shoulders and but wouldn't be prohibited from biking on to the freeway. We'd also get ticketed for having no brake lights and turn signals and fined for "driving" on the sidewalk.

There are special rules that apply to trucks because of their large size. In the same way, the rules above apply to bicycles because of their small size. And if we continue to say there's nothing wrong with the current set of exceptions for bikes, we'd never make any progress towards making biking easier on the roads.

If the law were to make exceptions for bicycles to proceed through school bus stop signs at no more than 6mph and drivers learn it that way, I doubt most people would find that very dangerous. But our mindset is stuck in terms of the dangers as seen from a car. What's really the difference between a 180lb jogger going through this at 6mph vs a 150lb cyclist on a 30lb bike going 6mph? A bicycle is closer to pedestrians than it is to a car. You see evidence of this because the interaction between bikes and pedestrians on the MUP is much safer than the interaction between cars and bikes.

But if we continue to think that bikes should do exactly what cars do and think there's nothing wrong with that, the roads will never get more accommodating towards cyclists. For example, technically at stop signs, we should come to a complete stop. That's because that rule was designed for very heavy and fast vehicles with limited field of vision. Does it really makes sense to apply that to bicycles?

It's one thing to follow the rules of the road because it's the law, but it's another thing to think they actually make sense for bicycles and nothing should be done to change it.

Digital_Cowboy

If you go back and read the post that I was replying to you’ll see that I was agreeing the idea that we cannot “cherry pick” which rules/laws we will obey and which ones we will not obey.

As far as bike lanes, and mandatory bike lane use laws, I am really not in favor of either as they re-enforce the silly notion that bicycles do not belong on the road and should get out of the way of cars.

Sharrows, and bike racks I whole-heartedly support, I have not seen dedicated on/off ramps for bicycles, so I cannot speak to those. Actually in most if not all jurisdictions here in the USA if one fails to signal their turns and stops they can be stopped and ticketed for failure to signal.

I agree, but those exceptions have already been codified into law. When people decide that they can pick and choose which law(s) that they will and won’t obey they are not doing anyone any favors.

Right now the law says that all vehicles must stop for a stopped school bus with it’s lights on and stop sign(s) extended. Until such time that that law is changed we have to obey it. And yes, granted there may not be much difference between a 180lbs person walking/jogging and a 150lb rider and a 30lb traveling at walking speed. But right now the current laws do not make a distinction between the two. And under the current set of laws vehicles have to stop for school buses when it is stopped and has it’s lights flashing and sign displayed. So as legal and legitimate road users we have to obey those laws. Whether or not we agree with them.

Until the law(s) are changed to acknowledge the bicycles the differences between themselves and cars just as has been done with cars and trucks again we must obey them or suffer the consequences. Which could end up having bicycles regulated to only being able to be operated in parks, on MUPs and the like. As by “cherry picking” which laws we will and will not obey we are showing our disdain for the laws in general And people will rightly call for action to be taken against us.

As for the law about stopping at stop lights and stop signs, yes that law makes sense for cyclists as well as for motorists. Yes, we are smaller, lighter, and have a better view of the road. But what about the car or truck that is pulling out of a blind driveway, or from around a blind curve? They will not be able to stop in time to avoid a cyclist running the stop light/sign because of their larger size and mass.

I agree with you that if there are laws which should not be applied to bikes that they need to be changed. But until they are changed they should be obeyed. As by “cherry picking” which we are showing motorists and other legal and legitimate road users that we are “above the law.” And as long as laws are written to read “vehicles will do this or do that” than bicycles as vehicles must also obey those laws.

If on the other hand a law says that “motor vehicles must do this or do that” than it can be argued that it doesn’t apply to bicycles, but likewise given that most states have granted bicycles the same rights, duties and responsibilities as motor vehicles/vehicles than it can also be argued that those laws also apply to bicycles. At least until such time as they are changed to exclude/exempt bicycles, does that not make sense?

And getting back to the topic of the OP given that children are known to behave in an unpredictable manner. Does it NOT make sense to operate as safely as possible when around them? Do you really want to explain to a parent that “even though you were only traveling at 6mph” why you felt the need to pass a stopped school bus? Where a small child behaving as small children do and ran out in front of you and you hit him/her.

Is it really THAT important to “shave” a minute or two off of your travel time by passing a stopped school bus? Again that is the same circular logic that motorists use when they pass cyclists too closely, i.e. “I didn't hit you, so what is your problem?”

adamtki

My point is that some laws such as this one needs to be revised. I don't advocate breaking laws that will break down driver/cyclist relationship. But we do need to push for more practical laws for cyclists and get out of the mindset that since we're vehicles too in every way, and that the law always makes sense to us too.

Simple - two kinds of stop signs. One that applies to everyone, and one that applies only to vehicles over x lbs. I'd be an idiot to apply the rolling stop sign to all situations!

If I were allowed to pass kids getting off the bus, I wouldn't be buzzing them. I'd give them space depending on my speed. At 6mph (which is quite slow), I'd probably give them about 5 feet.

Let's phrase it a different way. If there were no law stating you had to stop when a school bus has the stop sign out and you see kids getting off the bus, would you still stop? By your reasoning (that it's a dangerous siutation for the kids), you still would - cause kids are kids - they are unpredictable. Then in that sense, riding the MUPs are out of the question for you, cause they're loaded with kids. YOu'd be stopping every time you see a kid within 50 feet of you. But I'm sure you don't do that because you know that passing a kid at 6mph is not THAT dangerous.

Of course the speed is irrelevant without knowing how far you are from the people you're passing. Safe passing is all about picking the right speed based on how far you are from them, how unpredictable they are, and how bad the consequences can be. And at most school bus stops, I believe there are safe ways to pass them on a bike (but not in a car) just like there are safe ways to pass kids on the MUPs.

Digital_Cowboy

True, BUT until such time that they are changed we are obligated to obey them, wouldn't you agree?

Don't you think that that would cause more not less confusion?

The sad thing is that the reality is that those who would do so slowly and safely are in the minority. I mean law has written that we're to stop for school buses, and yet we hear about cars "blowing past" school buses and hitting and injuring or worse killing school kids. So considering that only a small minority would be capable of doing safely, doesn't it make sense to pass a law that says that all vehicles must stop for a school bus that has it's lights flashing and stop sign deployed?

Yes, I would, why take the chance of hitting a child? Actually the MUP that I most commonly ride on going out to the VA. I don't ever remember seeing children on that weren't strapped into a stroller. I understand and realize that in other areas that MUPs are "loaded" with children of all ages. That hasn't been my experience. About the only place that I have encountered small children is when I am riding through the park(s) in my area. And whether I am encountering children or adults in the various parks I always slow down my speed. As well as paying attention to their actions. And if need be in order to pass them safely I'll move over into the grass to allow them the full use of the sidewalk/MUP.

Exactly, and if one is pulling up behind a standard school bus. How is one to know IF there are any children in front of the bus getting ready to cross the street? Whether sitting in a car or on a bike one can NOT see around the bus.

So you're saying that with a 10' or longer bus that you CANNOT see in front of that there is a "safe" way to pass it so as not to endanger the children who are getting off of the bus? How do you determine that it is safe to pass a stopped school bus when you cannot see the road in front it?

jjermzz

Think about the reason that school bus has the stop sign. I believe its to allow kids the freedom to cross. I was hit by a car that was passing a city bus. My knee got all the impact when I was 9. Now you can try to pass to the right, but that's where all the kids are. Now think about the increase danger you put yourself everyone in.