Comments on: Counterpoint

By: Zak

Zak — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:36:46 +0000

That’s interesting. Temecula is so new I wonder how long it would take for people to slow down. There is one stretch of 4 lane road that doesn’t have a stop for 1.3 miles. Connecting neighborhoods. That is crazy to me. Anyway…great discussion. I think we all agree that assaulting someone with a car unacceptable regardless of road conditions.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:30:34 +0000

Zak, the streets weren’t all that narrow. The low speed limit worked (works), I think, because it had (has) been in place so long and the town is littered with stop signs, even major thoroughfares have stop signs. Also, Alameda was once mentioned in a New York Times Article when residents were hiding in bushes with radar guns and calling the police on speeders.

Anyway, I think in most suburban neighborhoods, replacing stop lights with stop signs would be enough to, at least moderately, control speed.

By: Zak

Zak — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:58:46 +0000

Infrastructure changes would be a huge issue, but I do think they would make streets safer. I never run red lights…that’s just stupid.

Idaho Stop Law would be the easiest thing to do…and should be done.

Speed limits need to be lowered. I was riding my daughter home yesterday in our cargo bike and she was talking to me…I couldn’t hear a word she was saying with cars flying past me. The posted speed limit is 45mph. Way too fast for a street that connects schools, libraries, businesses, and homes.

Lowering speed limits would have to go as far as changing infrastructure. Here in Temecula the streets are wide and fast. No amount of reduction, with a sign alone, will slow people down. You drive how you see. I would imagine your home town had narrow streets…not the suburbia streets we have today.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:09:08 +0000

The problem with roundabouts is the need many communities would have to completely redesign infrastructure to install the roundabouts but I do agree that forcing cyclists to come to a complete stop at every controlled intersection can cause confusion and delay, not to mention, stopping isn’t always safest.

This is one of the reasons I like the idea of the Idaho Stop Law. It leaves some responsibility on the cyclist but also acknowledges that bikes and cars are not equally as dangerous to others.

I often pull a near trackstand (I think the near trackstand is the bike equivalent to the California Rolling stop)at stop signs and am forced to bob my head wildly to tell cars to go through the intersection ahead of me. I do, however, stop and wait at every red light I fail to time right.

Having grown up in a town with a max speed of 25 mph, everywhere, I also think that speed limits, especially in residential neighborhoods, could and should be lowered (at least in my neighborhood) and those laws should be enforced more stringently than they are now.

By: Zak

Zak — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:45:52 +0000

I cringe when I hear “…but cyclists always run stop signs!” Like that is a free pass to assault someone. It’s ridiculous. Virtually all road users break laws and a daily if not hourly basis. I think we need to look at the system and look at stop signs and signals and how effective they are. I actually think roundabouts are the way to go. I roll through stop signs when no one is around. As of late I have experimented with coming to a complete stop and planting one foot on the ground when I arrive at a stop sign. I will say that from my observations that people in cars expect you to roll through. People wave me through even if I arrive after them. If I come to a complete stop at a busy four way stop all sorts of crazy ensues.

By: hnielson

hnielson — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:02:21 +0000

Precisely. I was trying to say that both parties don’t have the right to break the law whether it’s blowing through a stop-sign or intentionally injuring cyclist. But let’s be honest here on what is the more severe infraction.