That said, I agree completely with your argument and will most likely adopt it myself. The only rule I follow is that I never cut off pedestrians. If they are crossing on a red light without looking (which is common in Montreal) I'll let them know, but the last thing I want to do is run into some poor folk out for a stroll.

2. Regarding declining bus patronage, DOT could try making more less driven on avenues 2 ways - like West End Ave. is or the avenue it becomes further south is. Then MTA can try bus service in both directions on one of those same avenues to see if bus patronage rises. Of course there would then be less room for a good buffered bike lane on those avenues.

3. In midtown I am testing myself by staying stopped at all red lights and only proceeding on green (except on a right turn from a right lane, for example). I have found that because of the intense density of traffic, I get where I'm going just as quickly and with much less stress. I also get a much needed rest every few blocks. I'm not constantly trying to get an extra edge of some kind. Not going the wrong way on a street is also stress relieving for me. Bikers doing that make life very difficult on other bikers going the right way because the bike lanes are usually so narrow and an accident may be more likely.

Common sense and riding skills get us through our rides everyday. There are so many "what ifs" that border on the absurd. Just as we do when walking or running in the city, use your head and do your part and things will fall into place.

Have fun.

I think we cyclists need to be more aware, courteous and respectful of everyone on the streets.

I agree. In my opinion, courtesy and respect are much more important than technical compliance with the letter of the law.

Even when pedestrians and motorists are themselves violating the law (as they do most of the time), it is best to treat them with courtesy and respect.

Meanwhile, not only is is "irresistable" to "break the law" when biking in New York, I find it to be absolutely, 100% necessary. Every morning I take a 3-year-old kid to school on a bike. The "law" would have me ride my child, much of the way either in the middle of traffic, on very busy, almost highway-like avenues or more than one mile out of my way (and up a hill) to get to his day-care center by the approved bike path.

Thanks, but no thanks. I ride part of the way the wrong way on a one-way street, usually on a sidewalk, because it is, far and away, the safest route for me to take. If there are pedestrians walking on the sidewalk, I give them priority. I don't try to pass them. I apologize if I'm in their way. But I'm not going to put my kid at risk to follow laws and adhere to street designs that were created for motor vehicle traffic.

bad argument. i might just find it irresistible to steal your laptop one day. does that mean i can help myself and get away scott free? just because you are tempted to do something doesn't mean that it should be permitted. come on! that kind of argument gives all cyclists a bad name, reinforcing the idea that cyclists are anarchists on wheels with no regard for others.

sonoanonima,
biker and pedestrian
brooklyn, ny

This is not true, at least not in Sweden.(Can't vouch for what the other Scandinavian countries are up to though, but usually Scandinavian laws are fairly consistent.)
What the state HAS ruled is that, unless otherwise regulated(lights, entrances, exits...), the biker or the pedestrian has the right of way over the vehicle. But this is a far cry from giving bikers/pedestrians absolution from traffic violations, a biker/pedestrian STILL has to comply with certain basic considerations.
It's set up as a mutual thing, if you fail to provide the vehicle with a reasonable chance to react you're still fair game, but once a vehicle HAS noted you it is required to let you pass.
The main effect from a biker's perspective is that you don't need to be particularly skilled at track stands any more in order to get through an intersection w/o putting your foot down.
The drivers have accepted the change with surprisingly good humour.

I would say 50% of the cyclists do not slow down at all if they don't see a car approaching or stopped. The remaining seem to slow a bit, and some even stop, but not many unless there are cars already stopped. Some cyclists are traveling quite fast. Other, not so fast. In fact a good portion of them may be traveling slower than many of the rolling stops of the cars.

Since no one really stops at stop signs anymore, cars, bikes and city buses included, I would conclude it's all about speed. Cars normally travel quite a bit faster than bikes, so their rolling stops appear more dramatic. If a cyclist traveling at 10 mph slows a few clicks then continues through a stop sign, it is not so apparent to the observer. Since the cyclist is approaching at 10 mph instead of say, 25 mph for the car, the cyclist theoretically then has much more time to assess the intersection, other traffic, pedestrians, etc.

I'm all for cyclists following the rules of the road. It is fun to weave traffic and haul ass through the city hopping obstacles, but in the past few weeks in Portland there have been 3 bicyclist deaths, all I believe involving collisions with vehicles in the city. I think we cyclists need to be more aware, courteous and respectful of everyone on the streets. It's tough out there sometimes, but for the most part I enjoy being out there on my bike. We're still the minority and if we want respect on the roads, we need to earn it.

The worst possible situation you can be in, as a cyclist, is a red-light where most of the cars turn right: if you wait for the green light to cross the street, you risk being hit multiple times by cars who won't check their right mirror to see if there's a bicycle.

"Regardless of fairness, it is the responsibility of the 'lightest' vehicle to watch out for larger ones, simple because of that disparity in weight. It's self preservation really, because in a collision knowing that some asshat driver was at fault won't do you much good when you're dead."

This would seem to lead to the opposite conclusion: that the law should place responsibility on the heavier vehicle, since the lighter one already has enough of a reason to watch out. Knowing the driver is at fault won't do you a lot of good if you're dead, but the driver won't be too happy about it when he gets sued.

"In regard to the Idaho law discussions; I've read, perhaps a dozen times here, "It would be the cyclists responsibility NOT to run the red light, so drivers wouldn't have to worry." Yeah. Right. Well currently it's the cyclists responsibility NOT to run the red light at all, and we see how well THAT is working"

This is a question, since I don't drive: do drivers currently worry about running into cyclists in cross-traffic when they (the drivers) have a green light? Since I don't drive, I don't know the answer but it certainly seems like 'no' to me.

Also, I invite you to try to implement any kind of shared space here in Queens, where the DOT denies requests from relatively conservative community leaders to paint crosswalks.

Quoting from a draft version of the UK's Manual for Streets:

7.4.31 The underlying philosophy of Shared Space ... is that streets can function better where users negotiate priority and movement with one another, rather then obeying fixed rules that are set by some public authority... this can work because the need to negotiate causes drivers to travel slowly, and others to watch out and make eye contact before proceeding. In order to achieve this, Shared Space involves the removal (or absence) of road markings, signage and physical limitations on movement such as kerbs and pedestrian guard railing.

7.4.32 Up until 2006 at least, most Shared Space schemes for busy areas were retrofit schemes.

7.4.33 Initial data suggest that this scheme has reduced collisions... Vehicle delays and queues have also been reduced.

In regard to the Idaho law discussions; I've read, perhaps a dozen times here, "It would be the cyclists responsibility NOT to run the red light, so drivers wouldn't have to worry." Yeah. Right. Well currently it's the cyclists responsibility NOT to run the red light at all, and we see how well THAT is working.

It absolutely can be tough, and dangerous to ride a bike at times. I've had a few harrowing moments. And it is perfectly fair to demand equal treatment with automobiles. However equal treatment means following the same rules. Too many cyclists are whiny little pricks who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a full road lane when it suits them, and the ability to weave around traffic, ride the sidewalks, ignore traffic laws, and endanger themselves and others when they feel it would be easier. Bicyclists are a minority on the roadways, that doesn't mean they don't deserve equal consideration, however is does tend to preclude me from wanting to grant them 'special dispensation.'

Yeah it sucks to stop midway down a great downhill when all you want is the momentum to get back up the next side. Get over it. It would be easier for me as a driver to ignore that one-way sign so I could get to my destination faster too. Fair or not drivers in this country do own the roads. They pay far more for the improvement and repair of them (gasoline taxes, tolls, other fees, etc.), not to mention the fact that they drive two-thousand pound vehicles. In an accident, car beats bike every time.

Peds can often be the same way (who the hell doesn't look both ways before crossing ANY street?). Regardless of fairness, it is the responsibility of the 'lightest' vehicle to watch out for larger ones, simple because of that disparity in weight. It's self preservation really, because in a collision knowing that some asshat driver was at fault won't do you much good when you're dead. All he has to do is wash off your blood off his Hummer and buff out the scratches your teeth left on his bumper.

Besides, quite frankly I'd be more open to adjusting the rules for cyclists if they could follow the ones they are currently have. I suspect bicycling safety would increase dramatically if we all followed traffic laws. People would begin to expect us, and as we were obeying the same laws, we would become less unpredictable. Eventually that might allow us to earn the capital for some extra consideration.