"If there weren't cars, we wouldn't need stop signs," says Andy Thornley of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "They're not there for bicycles." Bikers can safely slow down, look both ways, and proceed without sacrificing the momentum necessary to keep cycling, says Thornley. Lawmakers tend to favor the full-stop, in part because not all cyclists are skilled enough to judge the safety of proceeding through an intersection. During a debate in the Oregon state legislature, one representative admitted that he doesn't like stopping at signs. "But I do it because it's the law," he said. Plus, if bikes can cruise through stop signs, why not cars? Why do bikes deserve special treatment?
This piece also has an interesting distinction between "vehicularists" and "facilitators". I think I'm a vehicularist, but I can see both sides.
2 comments:
I can see both sides too, but I'm also a vehicularist, I think. Two main reasons: if bicyclists follow the same rules as drivers, then even drivers who don't bicycle will know what to expect from the bikes, instead of having to learn two sets of rules. And one could argue that the rules aren't there for cars, either, except that they protect them from other cars. Which is also what they do for bikes.
I must admit I like the Idaho stop idea and think it should apply to cars, too. Unfortunately there are always people who take advantage of any leeway you allow.
I can definitely see the advantages of vehicular cycling and am grateful for Dallas's nice system of on-street bike routes, but here is an interesting set of arguments in favor of bicycle infrastructure from a group here in Dallas, where the vehicular/facilitator debate rages especially bitterly:
http://bikefriendlyoc.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/talking-points-by-those-opposed-to-bicycle-infrastructure/
Right now the City's approach is to appease both sides by working on bike infrastructure but not forcing people to use it.
Post a Comment