How and when did I say that? I've said MANY TIMES now that drivers are mostly at fault. I don't know how that equates to "appeasing" motorists. I feel like people are only reading what they want to read, rather than what I'm actually saying. Please point to a single instance of me saying or otherwise implying that we should appease drivers,

Sometimes breaking the law is the most respectful thing I can do for motorists, and it can enhance my safety as well. Motorists who are not cyclists are too ignorant to realize this. They are often the most vocal with their complaints.

I believe riding through an intersection against a red light would qualify. And I also said that if safety is a concern, riding two abreast is fine. You seem to be purposely ignoring anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're pushing here, which is that I'm saying it's all cyclists' fault. I'm not sure how else to read your comments, to be honest.

Your words:

"I also believe that we can raise the public’s perception of cyclists, so that they won’t automatically hate seeing someone hunched over their handlebars. We can do this by being specially considerate, obeying all traffic laws"

I often break the law to enhance my safety. If I won't break the law to enhance my safety in an effort to "raise the public's perception" that is the very definition of appeasement.

And when this is called for, absolutely we should do that. Cyclists are much more at risk than drivers in every situation. Our lives are at stake, not theirs. I have never said anything to the contrary.

I wonder if OP is a cyclist, or if he (or she) just likes to stir the pot.

This is something akin to posting on an NRA site, "I saw on the news last night that someone was killed or injured when they were shot. Fellow gun owners, we have to be better. Check out my blog and post back here whether you agree or not."

If you want to have a discussion here, then have it here. Dont redirect everyone reading away from here and to your blog. Just type your thoughts here and allow the discussion to happen. The first thing I, and many others here, thought was that you posted this topic in order to get blog traffic. If that wasnt the case, then why link the blog and why not type your views here?

It appears others have managed to get you to comment here, since the topic is here.

As for cyclists being jerks, yeah I agree they shouldnt be jerks. Drivers shouldnt be jerks. Nobody should be jerks.
I roll thru 4 way stops when there is nobody approaching. Am I a jerk or have I properly evaluated the situation for safety and clear communication, and determined it is OK to continue riding?
I have ridden thru red lights when the light wont change even though there are no cars in either direction, presumably because the traffic system doesnt recognize I am there. Am I a jerk for that?

I dont know if I am a jerk and dont really care.
If cyclists are running red lights in that they never even slow down, that is dangerous and selfish. Thats a whole other issue and I hope they dont hurt themselves or others in the process. There are always jerks in life though. That poor decision making probably wont lead to a lot of others wanting to do the same thing because most people recognize stupid actions and choose not to partake.

[QUOTE=Paul Barnard;21948264]Your words:

"I also believe that we can raise the public’s perception of cyclists, so that they won’t automatically hate seeing someone hunched over their handlebars. We can do this by being specially considerate, obeying all traffic laws"

I often break the law to enhance my safety. If I won't break the law to enhance my safety in an effort to "raise the public's perception" that is the very definition of appeasement. [/QUOTE

Not at all. Not. At. All. In those cases, it's obviously more important to be safe. But being courteous and respectful when we can is not appeasement! It's simply treating the other person right. And when we do that, chances are enhanced that that driver might not react as angrily in their next encounter with a cyclist -- whether it's you, me, or someone else. I never said roll over and let drivers do whatever they want.

Scenario: I arrive at a red light on my bicycle as the first vehicle. Traffic is stacking up behind me. If no cars are coming on the cross street, I can run the red light and make it to the place 3 blocks down the road where I can take a right onto a dedicated bike lane. If I do that, none of the cars behind me will be slowed as we all leave the intersection when the light turns green and none will be tempted to make a dangerous pass. Running the red light after making sure it's safe results in a safer and more harmonious traffic situation.

You would advocate that I wait at the light to "raise the public's perception" while doing so costs motorists time and compromises my safety. I don't engage in that kind of appeasement.

Your blog says we "should obey all laws." Which one is it?

It's fairly unlikely that I'd start a cycling blog and publish multiple times per week if I wasn't a cyclist. And why can't I have a blog, and respond here as well? Can't a person do both?

I recently watched a single YouTube video of two joggers crossing in the middle of the street.
I immediately went onto a large running forum and asked everyone there to not be a jerk when running.
I feel better about myself for doing this.
I in fact believe that what I did could be considered almost heroic.
I’m even thinking of blogging about it :thumb:

I don't come here to be scolded.

No, I meant IS very dangerous, and blowing through , as I meant it , is ignoring the stop sign or light. Failure to stop at a stop sign or red light in California, even if one doesn't care about the safety aspect, is against the law and a ticket in California ain't cheap. I had a friend get a ticket for riding on the wrong side of the street.

Advocacy vs appeasement.

Advocacy: "Cyclists may break the law at times in a way that enhances their safety and the overall flow of traffic."

Appeasement: We should "not be jerks and obey all laws."

Don't be a jerk on the forum.

If by ignoring it, you mean proceed without caution, then I agree. If you mean not remaining at a red light until it turns green IS dangerous, rather than MAY BE dangerous, then you are wrong.

You can tell that to the judge when you contest the ticket, I will wait until it is green.

Even in jurisdictions that have adopted the Idaho rule? A couple of years ago I had to chuckle at myself when I realized I was waiting for a green light in a small Idaho town when there was no traffic around. Then I thought of all the the stop signs I had stopped for earlier. In my defense, I had just crossed the border from Montana a few hours earlier and forgot about the state's law.

IKR. Back in 2017 I was riding the GAP trail in PA. I was in the town of W. Newton walking my bike. Wanted to cross a street and waited at the intersection for the light to turn green, like a good citizen. Light turns green and I enter the crosswalk. "Karen" nearly hits me trying to make a left turn. She yells profanity at me. The only thing she could have been pissed at was that I hadn't crossed on red and thus got in her way.

Having not ridden in Idaho I wouldn't have known either. I guess "When in Rome"....... I was in Chicago at a trade show with my wife and at a very busy intersection while strolling downtown, we started to cross a street in a crosswalk that was not protected by a light. A man ran up to us and stopped us . He said"what is wrong with you? you must not be from around here" . I said no , we're from California. He said that in Chicago pedestrians don't have the right of way and we would be run over! Who da thunk?

A couple of years ago, my son and I monitored traffic at a four-way stop. We scored how well a vehicle made a legal stop if it was the only vehicle at the intersection. About 15% made no stop at all. Mainly they were making a right turn. About 25% made a full stop with a 2-3 second duration and did not enter the crosswalk before they made the stop. The rest was a mix of rolling stops and/or stops made in the crosswalk or bicycle lane. We only saw one bicycle rider (he rolled thru a right turn). There was another family of bicycle riders. The Dad took half the kids on a box turn in one direction and the Mom took the other group in a box turn in the other direction. I would have liked to been able to score more bicycle riders. I ride on that same street and sometime count the cars coming from side streets. I think it more like a 50-50 chance to see a car stop. I am surprised. This is Arizona, and the weather is nice enough that there is always someone out walking, running, or bicycle riding in our subdivision.

Glad to see you abandon the "running stops IS dangerous" argument.

I think another state recently adopted the saw laws. You can treat stop signs as yield signs. You have to come to a complete stop and red lights, but then you can proceed through is it's safe to do so. When Idaho first adopted it, car/bike accidents dropped then leveled off.

I take the same approach here in Philly. Makes total sense because the city has so many narrow streets. Allows a cyclist to stay ahead of auto traffic when there is no bike lane.

I didn't, I just disagree with you. When someone disagrees with you , it does not mean they are wrong, OK? We CAN disagree , it is fine.