The title of this post says it all: It’s not the vehicle type that counts, it’s order on the roads. Traffic laws are not designed to control a particular type of vehicle, they are designed to create order and cooperation among road users.
Although current traffic laws were conceived with motor vehicles in mind, it is a false assumption to say that basic traffic control devices like stop signs and traffic lights only exist because motor vehicles are large, fast moving vehicles which can cause a lot of harm.
The amount of harm a vehicle can cause isn’t the issue. It’s a matter of how to coordinate the movements of vehicles on the roads to reduce the number of accidents. By establishing a basic set of rules about whose turn it is to proceed, less individual judgment is required to ensure safe roads.
Most car accidents are caused by misjudgment or inattention. Less individual judgment on the roads equates with a lower probability of accidents. This is true regardless of vehicle type. It also holds true for those who pass through the roads, such as pedestrians.
Simple rules like stop and go reduce human error by signaling commands to road users. If everyone followed these rules, there would be very few accidents at intersections, where the majority of accidents occur.
With the increase of bicycles on the roads, discussion has arisen about whether or how the traffic laws should apply to bicycles. Even though bicycles are regarded as vehicles under the law, some cyclists see them as “different” from cars in such a way that they should be excluded from the existing traffic laws.
They cite examples like the impracticality of coming to a complete stop at traffic lights and stop signs. Cyclists have to expend a lot of energy to start from a complete stop, which some see as contrary to “proper” cycling.
The low weight of bicycles is often mentioned — in comparison to cars — as proof of how harmless they are. This is supposed to convince us that bicycles should not be subject to the same rules as large, dangerous vehicles capable of causing a lot of damage. We are encouraged to believe that bicycles are a third category of thing, as yet to be defined by the livable street planners.
An advocate of this position wrote a weak article in The New York Times whereby he attempted to prove that running red lights was ethical. I, and a number of other bloggers, responded to his article.
Two of the more prominent blogs on this subject were on the Reuters and The Atlantic Cities websites. Neither of these news sites seems like a likely place for a discussion of whether it is ethical for cyclists to run red lights. Perhaps the recent trend towards proffering lifestyle information swayed them to publish something about bicycling.
As usual, the comment sections provided lots of insight into what people were thinking about cyclists running red lights. The Atlantic’s article was written by a contributing writer who covers transit and lifestyle issues. His readers raised some interesting points. One was a comparison of cycling in Switzerland and the U.S.
“I agree with Peter, below, that changes in traffic regulations would considerably help the situation. At the moment, I live in Switzerland, where many people of all ages ride bicycles, not only to get to work or school but while running errands like shopping and doing their recycling. I rarely see anyone run a stoplight.
But — and it’s a big but — there are very few stoplights and even fewer stop signs. At most intersections there are traffic circles, or the roads have markings indicating that one should yield or give priority to the driver on the right. If no one is around there is no need for drivers or cyclists to stop. When I was back in the US recently I noticed that the fact that there are stop signs or stop lights at nearly every corner requires cyclists to make frequent stops. And as others have noted here, it is a much bigger matter for a cyclist to make a full stop than a driver.
Changing traffic regulations in the US would require everyone to become much more attentive to the presence of others on the streets. I’ve often thought that the prevalence of stop signs and lights reflects the individualism of American culture — one needn’t pay any attention to anyone else, as long as you do what the signs tell you. Negotiating traffic circles, on the other hand, is like dancing — one must pay attention to those around you and be mindful of your position in space in regard to others. It’s also a lot more fun.”
What’s interesting about this observation is that people of all ages ride bikes in Switzerland, yet it’s rare to see anyone run a stoplight. The commenter qualifies this statement by mentioning that there are very few stoplights and fewer stop signs. Most of the intersections consist of traffic circles.
She attributes the prevalence of stop signs and traffic lights in the U.S. to the “individualism of American culture — one needn’t pay any attention to anyone else, as long as you do what the signs tell you.” This conclusion personalizes the situation to a large degree. A more objective interpretation of this phenomenon might focus on the difficulty in getting Americans to cooperate voluntarily. Such a phenomenon might also be indicative of a hectic lifestyle, often self-centered to the exclusion of all but a select few family members and friends.
Traffic circles, in lieu of stop signs and traffic lights, would probably not work well in the U.S. Americans are too aggressive and impatient to safely navigate such unstructured intersections. To avoid catastrophe, they need clearly delineated rules.
Another comment, written by a transportation manager/planner on a college campus, provides insight into the much touted Idaho “roll through stop signs” bicycle law.
“I am amazed at the logic used here and in the article but I will just pick on a couple of the points made. Speeding on the freeway is somehow making it ok to break laws on a bicycle? Jaywalking? Being proud of breaking the law and writing about it? Really? I just don’t see this as an educated, well thought out rationale. More like the views of one-sided bike riders.
I happen to be a transportation manager/planner on a college campus in Idaho and feel it very important to promote and encourage bicycles as a mode of transportation. I am also a casual bike rider. One of our goals is to make bicycling one of the most effective alternative modes to motor vehicles and to do that we need to promote safety and the highest level of cooperation between motorists and bicycles. You can resist the notion that cooperation is necessary but I believe it is critical (unless separation via dedicated bike lanes is available). Safe, effective sharing of the road is much more likely to happen when both are following the same rules of the road.
The problem that I see in Idaho is that the “roll thru stop signs” law has the effect of diluting the other laws related to bicycle use. This odd law leads to unsafe bicycle behavior and less respect from motorist toward bicyclists. Too many bicyclists behave as if there are no rules at all. What happens all too often is that bicyclists blow thru stop signs and intersections. I think we would be much better off by maintaining the law that all moving vehicles obey the same rules of the road. Messaging is more effective and safety would improve.
I have witnessed in Idaho the worst behavior from bicyclists that you can imagine. Yes, there are those – likely more intelligent – conscientious bicyclists, but it is a daily occurrence to witness bicyclists going full speed thru stop signs, intersections, red lights, weaving in and out of both lanes of traffic with little regard for any type of rules of the road.
I am certain that the rolling stops exception isn’t the only reason bicyclists get killed in Idaho but as near as I can tell from the 2009 Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rates by State, 2009 published by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis shows that Idaho is 3rd nationally in bicycle fatalities per million population behind Florida and Delaware, and double the national average.
We need bicycles as a safer mode of transportation in all communities because of the value it brings. Breaking the law and then promoting yourself as being proud of breaking the laws which may encourage other irresponsible behavior will not make it safer. Let’s be more responsible and look at the bigger picture.”
This commenter isn’t in favor of the Idaho law as is evidenced by his observation that “this odd law leads to unsafe bicycle behavior and less respect from motorist toward bicyclists.” He thinks we would be “much better off by maintaining the law that all moving vehicles obey the same rules of the road.”
The Idaho law is the most frequently cited law among the group of cyclists who either flagrantly disregard the traffic laws or who currently obey the traffic laws with the intention of changing them in the future. The only difference between these two subgroups is that the former will run red lights regardless of whether it is legal or not and the latter will only run red lights when it becomes legal. Both groups want different rules for bicycles than cars in order to avoid stopping at traffic lights and stop signs.
As much as some cyclists would like to define bicycles as different and entitled to special consideration, we ought to focus on the fact that all road users must share the same road. In order for vehicles which operate differently to successfully share the road, we must have one set of rules. We must strive for one unified system of road use. Otherwise, we will have chaos where we should have order.
