Comments on: In Other Road Users We Trust (Because We Have To)

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:15:03 +0000

It’s a nice thought, but I second (or third, or fourth) Mark’s comment. The rules were not made for promoting anything but car traffic. I don’t trust other drivers; that would be poor biking (the opposite of defensive driving/biking). Following them would often make me less safe.

By: a cyclist

a cyclist — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:20 +0000

i’m a biker and am tired of being the last guy in line to get to use the bike lane and i am tired of being invisible/ignored. cars outweigh me and peds always have the right of way and own jaywalking as a privelege. when u disrespect bikers, they may rebel.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Ghandi

By: Geck

Geck — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:09:34 +0000

I like what Mark said too. Bicycles fall somewhere between pedestrians and cars. In some circumstances car rules should apply, in others pedestrian rules should apply, and in others bicyclist should have their own special rules. Always forcing them into the motor vehicle rules will limit the usefulness and appeal of bicycling as a form of transportation. But until that happens, it is wise to consider how we are perceived.

By: Kaja

Kaja — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:05:45 +0000

I came here to post what Mark said.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:26:26 +0000

This is inanity. I learned in defensive-driving courses to assume the worst on the roads and plan for it; for instance, to increase following distance in dark or rainy conditions to make sure I had time to stop suddenly. If I was trusting the guy in front of me, I would be tailgating.

Similarly, it’s my opinion that cyclists run red lights because it gets them a headstart, away from the pack of cars stopped at the light, and cyclists feel safer with more distance from moving traffic, even traffic moving in the same direction.

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:53:37 +0000

This strikes me as totally naive. I agree with dporpentine. People follow rules because they believe there will be negative consequences if the rules are broken. Take away enforcement, and rules become meaningless.

Also, just because something is a law does not always mean it is the right thing to do.

Should Rosa Parks have just follwed the rules and moved to the back of the bus? Maybe then the klan would have seen that she follows the rules, so they would have stopped lynching people.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:35:31 +0000

You might also argue that some of it is based on fear. Drivers stop at lights and stop signs not just because they are concerned about hitting someone else but also because they are concerned about getting hit by someone else and dying. We judge the risk of getting speeding tickets based on where we are, where we are going, when we last saw a police car, and more.

Cyclists may run red lights because in some cases they judge it as safer to get through an intersection quickly than to have to start from a standstill. Or, they may find that getting ahead of traffic makes them safer.

Or it may be based on a — perhaps misconstrued — perception of statistics. While there are a huge number of fatalities and accidents on the road every year, the vast number of drivers, bikers, and peds still never directly experience the true statistical dangers of being on the road. We humans are not so good at assessing real risk.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:02:45 +0000

This Boston Biker person is hopelessly retrograde. We are seeing a gradual acceptance of the notion that the rules must be different for bikes. Think about the Idaho rolling stop rule, now adopted in Portland. Think about bike lanes on separated grade, or bike lanes painted green to draw the attention of motorists. Look at California changing its environmental laws so that car traffic flow is not the main driver behind approving a bicycle project.

Or on a more basic level: think about how jaywalking has long been accepted in New York, by necessity.

Does the writer really think that by strictly following traffic rules that were designed to maximize the flow of car traffic, riding your bike will magically become safer? No chance! Drivers will still ‘door’ you or rub you out into parked cars at a stop sign or turn through your path because they know you can’t hurt them.

Changing the rules for bikes and educating drivers is the key.

By: Jed

Jed — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:32:44 +0000

So BB has a magic crystal ball that allow him/her to divine the innermost thoughts of the Driver.typicalis, the ones unknown even to the driver, the ones that animate all further attitudes and actions of .typicalis towards other road users. And BB has further contrived a magic system of conduct that will guarantee (or marginally improve) my safety and the efficiency of the road for all users? And all I have to do is let my wheels lock at every stop signal and wait around inhaling CO so that the .typicalis can maintain some feelings of superiority or equality? Yeah… whatever.
Cars and bikes do and should operate according to different schedules of rules because they operate in a thoroughly different manner with thoroughly different consequences for their ill use.

By: dporpentine

dporpentine — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:51:08 +0000

Really? You agree that these things are based on trust? I don’t. I think they’re based on reasonable expectations (which, in turn are built on experience, general cultural expectations, notions of legality, and so on). That’s quite different than trust. I don’t, in any meaningful sense, trust other people on the road. I’m just used to dealing with them.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:01:32 +0000

A perceptive piece. You could also call it a social contract or the honor system. As I never tire of saying, many drivers are without honor. Having seen people behaving better in other countries — where the social contract is stronger — I would add that drivers aren’t the only guilty parties around here. New York road users in general are deficient in this respect.