baron von trail 

Maybe they thought a car would come up out of nowhere to get them once they stepped onto the street.

lostarchitect 

He can't, because nobody said it.

People have said it's rare, sure, but literally nobody said it doesn't happen ever. He is one of those people who thinks their point is so important, that it's OK to lie when trying to convince others of it.

kickstart

I prefer to be honest with myself when taking liberties, I see too much evidence of people believing their own BS.

Paul Barnard

So what did you think about the situation I laid out? Would you ride the extra distance with the masses of fast moving vehicles or would you wait for a break and do a 100 yard wrong way sprint?

kickstart

I won't try to assess a situation without actually being there, so my answer is a question. Is there absolutely no possible way to get from A to B that's both safe and legal?
When I take liberties, its because it's quicker, and easier than doing the right thing.

mr_bill

Since you asked. I'd go on Anthony Street. There's even a curb cut.

(p.s. The speed limit on W. Metairie is 35 mph.)

-mr. bill

Paul Barnard

Safe is a tricky term to define. The alternatives involve riding for a short period of time on Airline highway. I do NOT want to do that. Other alternatives involve using the sidewalk for a short distance. I don't mind using the sidewalk for short stretches, but I don't like the sidewalk adjacent to Airline as there are a number of parking lots. When I take the wrong way leg it is absolutely because it is the safest route. When I ride, I ride for exercise, so to take a shortcut because it's less work is nonsensical to my way of thinking.

Paul Barnard

Thanks for putting effort into your response by looking at the map. If you hop onto Anthony you have to ride across a short stretch of grassy area. It appears to be maintained by the homeowners across Anthony St as the grass gets cut at the same time. I don't want to risk riding across a person's private property. A satellite map will show you what I am talking about. Trust me when I tel you traffic moves at 40-45 on W Metairie.

baron von trail 

lol...a guy from Massachusetts telling the guy in Louisiana which route he should to take to ride safe. If that doesn't beat it all...

kickstart

I looked at the map, and saw just that, a map showing countless options without any context to support any opinion. I'll just say I have a hard time believing there's no viable routes available for someone unconcerned with time, distance, or effort.

mr_bill

That's an unbuildable lot by zoning. It's too small for a residential dwelling, and it's zoned for a residential dwelling.

Also, I totally trust you that traffic goes faster than 35 mph.
I also trust you aren't the only sprinting salmon in Louisiana.

(p.s. The sidewalks to nowhere on the north side of W. Metairie are somewhat amusing. No matter - you would apparently walk in the street.)

-mr. bill

mr_bill

Some of us have been in more than one place on this planet. The idea that one salmon has the one true way to navigate is absurd.

And I didn't tell him what to do. I told him what *I* would do.


-mr. bill

Paul Barnard

Any other option puts you on Airline. I will not ride on Airline. I live in a really crappy area to just hop on the bike and go. I'd love it if there were a viable option.

mr_bill

Start at 5:50.


-mr. bill

Jaywalk3r

No. To no reasonable person does it become fact. At absolute best, it becomes motivation to develop a testable hypothesis (which it already has), so that data can be collected in a systematic manner and rigorous analysis can be done. That has already happened. Your observations have proven to be inconsistent with the data.

The Dunning-Kruger effect, combined with confirmation bias.



I always yield when required by the laws of man or physics. I don't stop unless necessary to yield. That's the ideal, and is an approximation of the Idaho stop. However, it's not easy to succinctly codify, while the actual Idaho stop law is. I ride to maximize my safety without detriment to other road users, which requires that I disregard some traffic laws.

You'd know, had you read the evidence I've previously studied, that some of the research considered yielding without stopping, not exactly obeying Idaho stop laws. No evidence was found for increased risk.

It is more dangerous than yielding without stopping, which is a relative comparison. That doesn't imply that stopping is dangerous in absolute terms. Bicycling in the US is drastically more dangerous than bicycling in Amsterdam, but in absolute terms, riding on US streets is quite safe.

Yet, despite being illegal, jaywalking across a street between intersections is frequently the safer option when compared to crossing at an intersection.

I have consistently supported approximations of the Idaho stop law.

That's nonsensical, even for you. I yield when required, thus it is literally impossible for my riding to negatively affect other road users. If you don't get that, then you truly don't understand the whole concept of yielding without stopping.

If another road user is entitled to the right of way, I yield to that road user. If the right of way is mine, then a proceed more quickly than I would otherwise be able if I came to a full and complete stop first. It doesn't get any more predictable than that. My way simply gets everyone through the intersection more quickly.

That's a nice straw man you've built up there. And your accusation that it's me that has ignored the data is truly laughable, especially coming from you, who has acknowledged disregarding data in favor of anecdotes, which is among the most egregious errors in objective research.

There are a few reasons, not the least of which is that you're attempting to tear down another straw man that you've built up. Perhaps if you worked on your reading comprehension, you could address the claims I've actually made.

Yes, I get that even though research has shown it to not be true, yours is a common misconception. Personally, I trust objective research.

Congratulations! Your inability to apply basic logic and reason to your posts has made you the first person ever on my block list!

Digital_Cowboy

I am NOT going to go digging through all of the posts but it IS there either Jaywalker or Equnox(sp) or both of them have repeatedly tried to tell us that we didn't see what we thought we've seen or that we've somehow have "misinterpreted" what we've seen. Just go back and look for yourself, because I seriously doubt that you'll believe it unless you do.

Digital_Cowboy

+1,000,000

Some just don't seem to get that.

Digital_Cowboy

I suggest that you go back and re-read it, I was referring to those who have said that I somehow "misinterpreted" what I seen while out on my bike.

Digital_Cowboy

You do know that data is generally collected through PERSONAL OBSERVATION, right?

While I've looked this up, I haven't read enough about it.

As I said, I'd read what you posted, but it doesn't hold up to what not only myself but others have observed. Yet, that doens't seem to matter to you.

Hmm, first you and I believe Equnox(sp) have said that stopping for every red light or stop sign was more dangerous and now you appear to be attempting to quantify it. On the majority of the roads that I use it would NOT be safe to use either the proper Idaho Stop. Let alone an "approximation" of the Idaho Start. IF I would get hit, as the vast majority of them do have active intersections and they're the only way to get to where I want to go.

Again, I see far too many people who are jaywalking and narrowly avoiding getting hit. One of the most recent was a person who had jaywalked, and I heard the squealing of tires and saw them flying through the air. Admittedly I do believe that they actually got hit as no cops were called nor did an ambulance arrive on the scene. But had he NOT been jaywalking he would NOT have "flown" through the air.

No, you were supporting the Idaho Stop and when it was pointed out to you that you are NOT performing a true Idaho Stop you've changed what you're supporting.

The problem is that the law, even the Idaho Stop law requires you to stop.

More justification from you on why it's "okay" to break the law.

Again, data comes from personal observation. How many people have to observe the same thing before you accept it?

I have I've told you that where I live it is far too dangerous to try to attempt the Idaho Stop, but for whatever reason you refuse to believe the person who actually lives there.

I trust what I have witnessed, and I have witnessed far too many people entering active intersections without looking or slowing. Is it always going to result in death, no of course not. But it does cause everyone involved too much stress.

Consider the favor returned.

TransitBiker

I have witnessed it several times in the last 3 months as the weather has warmed up. My reaction: "thanks for making law abiding cyclists like me look bad ***hole". My girlfriend notes "wow, the idiocy is spreading from the drivers to the people on bikes!". To which i wryly reply "everyone is a sweaty faced madman 5 seconds away from committing a crime, where are the cops when you need them?!?".

In all seriousness, road safety involves everyone, including and especially cyclists.

- Andy

TransitBiker

Also, i motion that we start a cyclist oriented chain of rest stops called "idaho stop" with potato based meals & utensils etc. There could be a mechanic shop, a place to order/purchase parts and clothing, wifi/tv etc lounge, stationary bikes to keep warmed up, water refill stations etc etc.... Doesn't that sound amazing?

- Andy

baron von trail 

Seeing how cycling is mostly seasonal...maybe specializing in ice cream would be the way to go. A franchise of small stands called "Idaho" located on the various MUPs throughout the land that can be boarded up after October and re-opened in May.

baron von trail 

I don't know. When I commute, I really do not like the idea of changing routes on the fly. Time is too tight. I already did the work: finding a route I like that I feel is safe and comfortable to ride.

I know that a bird's eye view on Google may show a different route---in fact I know of two---but until someone has lived it, it may not be a better route. The traffic pattern may suck on those roads; they may be bumpy and in general disrepair; there may be dogs, or the road maybe has no shoulder. Lots of things come into play. Pretty much any road I have not ridden before comes with unanticipated issues. So, I stick to what I know.

I can't imagine how someone 1000 miles away can have a clue which route would be "better."

Miele Man

Bicyclists would never just blow through a stop sign. Or would they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60

Cheers

Jaywalk3r

The field of vision was excellent, and the bicyclists checked for traffic and yielded as appropriate. There was nothing unsafe about it, and predictability was (predictably) never an issue.

I'm sure you noticed that none of the cars stopped, either.