TransitBiker

Anyone that does not operate as a vehicle is asking for a one way trip. Running red lights is about as clever as taking a toaster in the tub with no GFI.



I personally stop at all stop signs & red lights. Also... i keep many eyes out at merging & yielding spots, and where lanes multiply at intersections, i stop before rail tracks & listen, i always let a bus go before me, i never go on a yellow light, i always stop for pedestrians & always glance around before making a move that isn't a straight line, and i always communicate my intent where possible. I also often walk bike across at the pedestrian crossing, because legally vehicles have to yield to pedestrians, also it can be quicker than waiting for a light. Riding is a privilege, and i treat it as one.

When in doubt, take the high road out.

- Andy

jpatkinson

It's complicated. I grew up in suburbia (Michigan = CARS), went to college in NJ (walked for 4y), lived a couple years in Seattle (public transit), back to Michigan (car), and have been 10y in SF. I learned how to ride a motorcycle when I moved here. I now travel by foot, bicycle, Vespa, SUV, and (rarely) public transit -- I choose my mode based on weather, purpose, or if I have to take my 5yo kid. I suspect those who only cycle have quite a different perspective of life on the streets of SF than those who only walk or those who only drive. I also think it's possible that you can't apply the experience of one city to another.

Regarding the "congestion" in SF: it isn't what you may think. I can make ANY round-trip in SF in a car just as quickly as on my bicycle (though my Vespa wins every transportation contest in SF, hands-down). SF is ~ 7 miles x 7 miles. I live SMACK in the center, and work 2 miles from home. It takes me as little as 10 minutes to scoot (I can lane split in a few spots), 12 minutes to drive, and 14 minutes to cycle one way (if I crank). This city is optimized for car travel, at the expense of cyclists.

As for how cyclists are perceived: Two pedestrians in crosswalks have been killed by cyclists in the past two years in SF (1 and 2), leading to plenty of articles (NYT, Huff, LAtimes) about the sociology of cycling in SF. At least one of these incidents is widely known (article in Bicycle magazine). Just in 2013 alone, four cyclists were killed in SF (usually by trucks). To help people appreciate the attitude towards cyclists here, read THIS.

Maybe my perceptions are "bollocks." Maybe, not.

Mvcrash

Three "E"s of Traffic Enforcement: Engineering, Education and Enforcement. We fail miserably on the Education.

spare_wheel

I visit SF many times a year and your image of the ease of travel by car in SF is silly. Congestion during peak hours in central SF is quite high. Even on a major bike route like Market bikes flow freely while buses and cars are often stuck in gridlock. This is sure to breed resentment -- especially when the fuming cager sees a cyclist escaping the mess of congestion by splitting lanes and rolling lights.

And as for cyclists killing peds...these are incredibly rare events. Similarly, the dog walking ped who caused a cyclist to die is another example of an incredibly rare event that is basically irrelevant when it comes to discussions of public safety on our roads. The fact that you choose to highlight these incredibly rare events is a classic example of *false concern*. If deaths and injury in traffic were really a concern you would, like me, be absolutely up in arms about the direct and indirect harm caused by motorized vehicles.

jpatkinson

Good Lord. If you think my perception is that cyclists breaking laws is a significant cause of societal harm, I just wasted my time "contributing" to this thread.

- JP

spare_wheel

Nah.

I think you are a generally well-meaning person who is overly concerned with the hypothetical emotions of a subset of motorists (and leos). As a consequence of your attempts to *understand* their ire and appear reasonable you end up parroting their irrational arguments.

jpatkinson

$150 ticket for running a stop sign in SF (on a bicycle) isn't hypothetical. I never parroted anything. Sigh.

FBinNY 

I guess that, as far as I'm concerned, you've wasted your time.

IMO- not all law breaking by cyclists is the same. There's going through a red light with due respect and caution, and there's running a red light and sending pedestrians scattering, or cutting off cars. Those are two different things entirely, with only the latter creating a negative impression.

However, I don't believe that most folks see cyclists as a single monolithic class, and blame all cyclists for the actions of a few. Yes, there are some which will use something like this to say that cyclists are lawless, but these folks already hate cyclists. Likewise, when I see negative comments about "cagers" or drivers, I tend to believe they're made by people who are already anti-driver.