@62 That was the best insult I think I've ever received. Unfortunately, while my statement was lacking in detail, it wasn't actually incorrect, so while "specious" was a fun word choice, you missed the mark a bit. You claim that "two sets of rules doesn't serve predictability" after asserting that predictability was the "key to effective traffic movement", implying that 2 sets of rules would make for less effective traffic movement. Well you have no evidence that 2 sets of rules leads to unpredictable traffic. Further, you are posting this to disagreee with a an opinion based on a study that showed that 2 sets of rules made for more effective traffic movement. So, as I said, the data disagree with your opinion.

I used the "any time soon" qualifier to indicate that yes, I understand that data change (data is a plural noun, so since I'm already a douche, I might as well point out that "data changes" is incorrect). So there.

Oh, and if you're going to go around calling people "douche" and insisting that they "advance the discussion", you shouldn't open posts with things like "piffle". It's quite the proverbial glass house, you know?

Bad idea I already have had altercations with bike riders who want to blast through stops even though little old lady me was in the walking crosswalk and had the right of way. They yell and they get annoyed. I was not hiding, I did not jump out in front of them. Too many riders will take this as carte blanche to be bigger assholes than they already are. I want them to follow the RULES OF THE ROAD. A stop sign means stop.

I ride a bike, I can understand the wanting to not have to stop, I would like to keep cruising and not lose my momentum too, but when there is a stop sign you must stop, there are others using the road and they want a predictable controlled set of rules that everyone follows, makes things much easier and safer for everyone.

@102 So Specious was specious? Fuck!

I'll try harder next time.
thx

Way back up to @17:
I like that idea. But it is a really bad one for a few reasons. My fully loaded semi gets 6.5 miles per gallon and seems to be about the worst on the road but with the way you are looking at things it is one of the best on the road. Figured in Ton-Miles per gallon of fuel I am one of the most efficient vehicles on the road at 260. A Prius doesn't even come close to that efficiency. So under those rules I just get to pretty much roll right on thru the intersection (and everything in it). Besides having that high ton-miles rating, the exhaust from my truck is better than the air it takes in when traveling thru most major cities. So I should get a bonus from that. Sounds good to me.

Wow..you can tell a lot of those people commenting don't ride a bike regularly. Bikes and cars are not the same kind of vehicle--applying the exact same rules would be stupid. Long-term, we should aim for totally separate infrastructure for both on any road 25MPH or more, and neighborhood and dense area speed limits need to be 20 MPH no tolerance..In the meantime, anyone on a bike knows it's ridiculous to come to a complete stop at a stop sign unless traffic is coming, and even more ridiculous to wait at a red light for a group of perpetually angry motorists to come behind and finally trigger the weight censors. If you didn't know that many stoplights throughout the USA cannot be triggered by the weight of a bicyclist, then you are in no position to be commenting on cyclists in cities. If you think that we should get off our bikes and press the crosswalk button to cross the street, go play in traffic.

To Jat and all those who feel the same way: motorists were angry long before cyclists came into the picture. They're angry at pedestrians, angry at other drivers, angry at cyclists. I get it: It's a stressful thing for economic, time and health reasons. But when a motorist gets angry, he puts everyone else's lives in danger--the same cannot be said for people on bikes, pedestrians or transit users. Furthermore, a motorist's biggest obstacle are other drivers--no turn signals, running red lights, making hasty left turns, driving drunk, speeding, taking up parking spots, double parking, slamming on brakes, driving and talking or shaving or eating at the same time.

The highest % of bicycle modal share in any American city is something like 5%, for most it's less than 1%. I wonder if motorists are angry because of, in most cities, the 3-5 cyclists they might see each day? Give me a break. A bicyclist does the same violations as a motorist and at worst he puts his own life in danger. These stories of cyclists mowing down pedestrians are so few and far between, and yet it's what drivers like to focus on. Oh and, these jerks on bikes who ride like that..would you rather have them drive cars, seriously? Guess what, 1,200,000 people died worldwide last year in car "accidents", and motorists keep complaining about a "war on cars" despite having the vast majority of transportation funds and systems dedicated to them at the expense of others, every year, in almost every country in the world. Get over it. If any other avoidable, inexcusable thing caused 35,000 deaths in the U.S. year after year, it would be labelled an epidemic. Cars cause them and it's OK simply because cyclists and pedestrians are seen as system-gaming freeloaders who won't follow the rules, when in reality everyone, driver or not, pays for road upkeep and cyclists are causing less wear and tear and less death and injury in a transport system that marginalizes and endangers them in nearly every metropolitan area in the country. WAKE UP. Oh and lastly, only a few nutjobs in the cycling community are trying to force everyone to ride bikes. We simply want everyone to be able to ride a bike for transportation without risking life and limb or being ridiculed, marginalized, or singled out by police and motorists for mistreatment. Do all of us who ride a bicycle a favor and pretend every cyclist is a friend, family member or loved one and get of your high horse of entitlement.

P.S. I drive a car, too.

Wow..you can tell a lot of those people commenting don't ride a bike regularly. Bikes and cars are not the same kind of vehicle--applying the exact same rules would be stupid. Long-term, we should aim for totally separate infrastructure for both on any road 25MPH or more, and neighborhood and dense area speed limits need to be 20 MPH no tolerance..In the meantime, anyone on a bike knows it's ridiculous to come to a complete stop at a stop sign unless traffic is coming, and even more ridiculous to wait at a red light for a group of perpetually angry motorists to come behind and finally trigger the weight censors. If you didn't know that many stoplights throughout the USA cannot be triggered by the weight of a bicyclist, then you are in no position to be commenting on cyclists in cities. If you think that we should get off our bikes and press the crosswalk button to cross the street, go play in traffic.

To Jat and all those who feel the same way: motorists were angry long before cyclists came into the picture. They're angry at pedestrians, angry at other drivers, angry at cyclists. I get it: It's a stressful thing for economic, time and health reasons. But when a motorist gets angry, he puts everyone else's lives in danger--the same cannot be said for people on bikes, pedestrians or transit users. Furthermore, a motorist's biggest obstacle are other drivers--no turn signals, running red lights, making hasty left turns, driving drunk, speeding, taking up parking spots, double parking, slamming on brakes, driving and talking or shaving or eating at the same time.

The highest % of bicycle modal share in any American city is something like 5%, for most it's less than 1%. I wonder if motorists are angry because of, in most cities, the 3-5 cyclists they might see each day? Give me a break. A bicyclist does the same violations as a motorist and at worst he puts his own life in danger. These stories of cyclists mowing down pedestrians are so few and far between, and yet it's what drivers like to focus on. Oh and, these jerks on bikes who ride like that..would you rather have them drive cars, seriously? Guess what, 1,200,000 people died worldwide last year in car "accidents", and motorists keep complaining about a "war on cars" despite having the vast majority of transportation funds and systems dedicated to them at the expense of others, every year, in almost every country in the world. Get over it. If any other avoidable, inexcusable thing caused 35,000 deaths in the U.S. year after year, it would be labelled an epidemic. Cars cause them and it's OK simply because cyclists and pedestrians are seen as system-gaming freeloaders who won't follow the rules, when in reality everyone, driver or not, pays for road upkeep and cyclists are causing less wear and tear and less death and injury in a transport system that marginalizes and endangers them in nearly every metropolitan area in the country. WAKE UP. Oh and lastly, only a few nutjobs in the cycling community are trying to force everyone to ride bikes. We simply want everyone to be able to ride a bike for transportation without risking life and limb or being ridiculed, marginalized, or singled out by police and motorists for mistreatment. Do all of us who ride a bicycle a favor and pretend every cyclist is a friend, family member or loved one and get off your high horse of entitlement.

P.S. I drive a car, too.

107 & 108 ftw despite the double post and humorous misuse of 'censors'. The roads were not designed for bikes, and the bicyclist deserves the benefit of some tweaking of traffic laws.

@110: Do you really think cars and bicycles present similar levels of risk to the pedestrian?

@111, bikes seem to be able to damage each other pretty well, which stacks up well against the damage they can do to pedestrians. At least cars have more surface area than your average bike.

http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2014/05/1…

@112: As I suspect you know, I was not expecting anyone to give a straight answer since it seems clear to me that cars are much, much more dangerous than bicycles. Cars are much more powerful and carry much more kinetic energy. I googled for 1 minute and this was all I could find for bike on ped crashes: http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/pedestri….

They found ~1000 injuries requiring a trip to the hospital per year in NY state.

In comparison, there are about that many pedestrian fatalities in just NYC per year from motor vehicle and around 10000 injuries. These vague stats are from

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/nyregi…

The only report of a bicycle killing a pedestrian I could find was the infamous case in San Francisco. The data is sparse, so it could be that there is an undocumented holocaust of peds done in by bicycles, but my naive assessment is that bicycles pose a threat for serious injury about an order of magnitude less than cars and essentially no risk of death to pedestrians in an urban environment.

OK, some more googling found this story:
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/04/05/…
which contains mention of a second bike-on-ped fatality in SF in 2001. Two documented fatalities. You know of any more, ChefJoe??