If you could do no-hander trackstands, or manual onto your back wheel while stationary - trials style, you would never run red lights.
No handed track standing would be a great way to clothesline everyone else on their way through the red light. No good would come of it.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
There's a lot of situations where it's perfectly safe to run a red, and sometimes it even benefits traffic flow. I jump a lot of green lights so that I'm out of the way and out of the intersection before the cars behind me get going.
And no, I don't make "everyone look bad". I represent myself, not every cyclist out there when I'm riding my bike, just like I don't represent every driver out there when I'm driving my car, every dog owner when I'm walking my dog, every hiker while I'm hiking…peoples bullshit generalizations are their own problem.
No handed track standing would be a great way to clothesline everyone else on their way through the red light. No good would come of it.
Then you'll have to work on arms-folded-across-the-chest-no-hander trackstands (OK, I can't do it yet but I've seen it done). I practice all kinds of skillz waiting at red lights.
Most of the lights on the 10th route are accompanied by stop signs, so those are completely runnable. The ones that aren't are generally too busy to run anyway.
I represent myself, not every cyclist out there when I'm riding my bike
That attitude is certainly your choice. But when we are a very visible minority group (4% of trips I think?) it doesn't hurt to consider the greater cause. People's 'bullshit generalizations' can do considerable damage in political settings, and then become everyone's problem.
Hope everyone's enjoying their beautiful commutes these sunny days. I have (too late) busted out the sunscreen.
I practice all kinds of skillz waiting at red lights.
This. My seated trackstanding skillz have gone through the roof after 2 years of bike commuting. ;)
That attitude is certainly your choice. But when we are a very visible minority group (4% of trips I think?) it doesn't hurt to consider the greater cause. People's 'bullshit generalizations' can do considerable damage in political settings, and then become everyone's problem.
Hope everyone's enjoying their beautiful commutes these sunny days. I have (too late) busted out the sunscreen.
- I don't think the fact that one is a minority requires one to accommodate the majorities prejudices. I prefer to counter with facts. See KenN's quote for the facts that you could use when debating this issue with the car-centric majority.
- I can't believe that getting around by bike is a political act. To me it's just a way to get around. People are free to politicize things all they want, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to accommodate it.
- I don't think the fact that one is a minority requires one to accommodate the majorities prejudices. I prefer to counter with facts. See KenN's quote for the facts that you could use when debating this issue with the car-centric majority.
- I can't believe that getting around by bike is a political act. To me it's just a way to get around. People are free to politicize things all they want, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to accommodate it.
I hear you, but the problem with driver/cyclist antagonization (it can work both ways) is that one party is surrounded by 1 1/2 tons of metal, rubber and glass, the other has a laminated styrofoam bowl on their head for protection. If you choose to take on a car, you will lose no matter how self-righteous you or your cause, like Hotentots against the Maxim Gun.
And no, I don't make "everyone look bad". I represent myself, not every cyclist out there when I'm riding my bike, just like I don't represent every driver out there when I'm driving my car, every dog owner when I'm walking my dog, every hiker while I'm hiking…peoples bullshit generalizations are their own problem.
yes you do represent yourself, but simply by being recognizable as part of a readily identifiable group you also represent the group - cyclists. to outsiders, even though you are an individual within a group your behaviours reflect on the group and the behaviours of the group reflect on you.
while people's generalizations about an identifiable group may be bullshit, as long as they exist they do affect you.
- I don't think the fact that one is a minority requires one to accommodate the majorities prejudices. I prefer to counter with facts. See KenN's quote for the facts that you could use when debating this issue with the car-centric majority.
- I can't believe that getting around by bike is a political act. To me it's just a way to get around. People are free to politicize things all they want, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to accommodate it.
if your behaviours support the generalizations or prejudices of the majority, then yes, you need to consider your behaviours. have you ever listened to a bunch of people who are prejudiced against cyclists and especially commuters because of the poor riding behaviours of a few? they lump all cyclists into the same lot, so that's why the issue issue is politicized. simply by being on a bicycle, you are part of a problem - that's political. while i agree with you that it shouldn't be that way, i'm also not blind to the reality that it's more than just a way to get around. your perception of things doesn't necessarilty reflect everyone else's perception of things.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
There's a lot of situations where it's perfectly safe to run a red, and sometimes it even benefits traffic flow. I jump a lot of green lights so that I'm out of the way and out of the intersection before the cars behind me get going.
You do realize that immediate safety and traffic flow are only part of the equation. Lights are also there to make your actions predicable.
Many days riding home I stop or come very close to stopping at a four way stop om a bike route and riders coming down that hill frequently slow only enough to make the turn. Even when I have the right of way. And I am on a bike. If that person rolled the stop sign in a car in front of one of those cyclists, I'll bet that rider would go all medieval on the driver. Come to a full stop foot out and all? No but slow down enough to look properly and be able to yield to the driver or rider with the right of way.
Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.
Many days riding home I stop or come very close to stopping at a four way stop om a bike route and riders coming down that hill frequently slow only enough to make the turn..
cypress at york is like that. (so are a lot of intersections)
slow down enough to look properly and be able to yield to the driver or rider with the right of way.
Agree 100%.
No need to stop fully most of the time…but don't just blow right through.
you know what pisses me off? riders and drivers who cant navigate intersections which are controlled in one direction by a traffic light, and the other by a stop sign - usually the lights are flashing green pedestrian controlled signals…when a pedestrian pushes the button, the signal turns red and then the traffic which is being controlled by the stop sign proceeds.
Why the F is it so hard for people to remember how to proceed through a stop sign? Bike riders all blow through completely ignoring that if the person coming in the opposing direction had come to a stop first, that person then has the right of way to proceed and the bikes should stop to yield? These intersections are nothing but complete mayhem when busy with both cars and bikes. Cars treat the intersection as if it was a green light, not a stop sign with those turning left yielding to oncoming traffic instead of oncoming traffic coming to stop as expected, at a stop sign….its like van-city has developed its own culture how to proceed through these intersections..3 good spots I can think of are a)where the venables bike path crosses clark, b)where the Union bike path crosses gore and c)where 10th ave E crosses Kingsway, as some examples.
I'm ignoring Smedley.
you know what pisses me off? riders and drivers who cant navigate intersections which are controlled in one direction by a traffic light, and the other by a stop sign - usually the lights are flashing green pedestrian controlled signals…when a pedestrian pushes the button, the signal turns red and then the traffic which is being controlled by the stop sign proceeds.
I don't disagree that they're mayhem, but what we really need is to change the function of all these crossings. Really, they should all be Yield signs or just be normal stoplights covering all four directions.
These weird stoplight/stop signs combos are a weird BC invention that may have made sense at one point, but too many of these crossings are moderate to major thoroughfares in their own right.
If everyone treated intersections as you (and the law) say, I'd almost never be able to leave the West End for the backups it would cause….
I don't disagree that they're mayhem, but what we really need is to change the function of all these crossings. Really, they should all be Yield signs or just be normal stoplights covering all four directions.
These weird stoplight/stop signs combos are a weird BC invention that may have made sense at one point, but too many of these crossings are moderate to major thoroughfares in their own right.
If everyone treated intersections as you (and the law) say, I'd almost never be able to leave the West End for the backups it would cause….
They are a weird invention but they do serve a purpose in some places. Other places would now be better suited to a full signal. Unfortunately I can't see the city changing all of them over to full signals as it would cause huge problems with short cutting through neighbourhood streets. The cost to construct the new signals and the traffic calming that would be necessary would be astronomical as there's 372 (and rising) of them in Vancouver alone.
Forum jump:
