The argument you put forward is circular. You suggest that, "No driver really knows how a cyclist is going to behave because there is such a range of compliance with the law." But if you change the law in the manner you suggest -- by making it legal for bicyclists to treat stop signs as yields -- what would be any different? Would all car drivers suddenly and magically know what a cyclist will do? No one knows what anyone else is going to do in a given situation. A fair baseline expectation, it would seem, is that everyone would obey consistently applied law.

What you suggest would create different rules for the same public good. Stop signs would no longer mean what they say -- they would mean different things to different users, and unless you were intimately familiar with the law (and you seem to acknowledge that many are not, or at least take their chances by treating it ambiguously) you would be adding greater confusion to an already shockingly dangerous environment (public roads).

It is not just the safety of bicyclists that's at stake, either. Bicyclists can endanger their own life and violate the law however they want (putting aside, for the moment, the greater burden they place on the health care system for everyone else when they do). But by creating different laws for different types of users of the very same public good, you're throwing immense confusion onto an already dangerous environment.

I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been run-down in a crosswalk by a bicyclist who is more concerned about their "momentum" than with the vehicle code. Automobiles, likewise expecting uniform compliance with the law, swerve and make radical maneuvers to avoid stop sign-breaking bicyclists, endangering themselves, other vehicles, pedestrians, and (yes) perhaps even the offending bicyclist herself.

i really think everyone should be forced to get around on a bike for a month. there's clearly a total lack of awareness and understanding by car-infected people.

Not sure if the comment about "car-infected people" was a reference to me, but it's beside the point. Ideally, traffic laws exist to protect the safety of all users of the public street -- not to inconvenience a certain class of user. I am not claiming that the laws, as they currently exist, are ideal. I just have not heard how the changes to the law proposed in this post would actually lead to greater aggregate safety, not less.

Thus far, the argument in favor of amending the law seems to be based primarily upon convenience. That's great -- but convenience should be a secondary objective to safety, as far as public policy is concerned. If a case can be made that these changes would actually increase road safety in the aggregate -- for all classes of users -- I'd be very open to hear it.

Also, I would emphasize again that when a bicyclist -- or a car driver or a pedestrian, for that matter -- violates the traffic code, they are endangering far more people than just themselves, regardless of how conscientious the user you may be.

It seems that the cops are only concerned about cyclist safety when cyclists takes risks with our lives and bodies while the cops are quite willing to look the other way when motorists take risks with cyclist lives and bodies through dangerous moving violations.

With the epidemic of real violence that kills and maims real people, those violations where real harm is done, we need to focus our policing resources there instead of on violations of the law where there is no harm.

Do we want the cops to be pedagogical in nature where they enforce formal compliance with the law, that is prioritize instilling a respect for the law irrespective of any other stakes, as each cop sees fit at any given moment, or do we want to rationalize the work plans of our highly paid police force so that their limited resources can be precision directed at those violations which are the most dangerous to San Franciscans?

Most motorists get this and already allow indeed encourage cyclists to run red lights by waving us through and waiting for us. They realize that they have a gas pedal and a motor behind it, and that any momentary delay for them is nothing compared to the energy required by a cyclist to stop and restart. There are a few jerks out there, cyclists and motorists, but we need to assume that folks are going to do the right thing until they take steps that put life and limb of others at risk.

Further, cop enforcement of the vehicle code needs to be targeted and tailored to reflect public health threats observed through the records of violations, in time, place and modality, rather than to allow any given cop to enforce their largely suburban values as they see fit or to have sporadic sting operations that are nothing short of random and do not have a long term effect on reducing health threats caused by automobile violations.

It seems that the cops are only concerned about cyclist safety when cyclists takes risks with our lives and bodies while the cops are quite willing to look the other way when motorists take risks with cyclist lives and bodies through dangerous moving violations.

-marc

Well, sure. Law enforcement officers are only human, and they all enforce the law in their own imperfect, subjective ways. It sucks.

But this line of thinking just strengthens the notion that the letter of the law is not as important as how it's actually enforced, in a day-to-day manner. That strikes me not as an argument about why the law should be changed, but rather how police recruitment, training, and internal discipline should be reformed.

Also, it is undoubtedly more convenient for a bicyclist to retain their momentum through a stop sign (treating it as a yield). But just because car drivers don't need to expend muscle power to stop and start, their vehicles surely need to expend gasoline power. Stop-and-start driving is inherently inefficient -- it increases wear-and-tear on the vehicle, it expends more gasoline, and most importantly, it puts out more harmful emissions than if the car were just allowed to proceed through an intersection without stopping. But no one's suggesting that we change the law to allow cars to treat stop signs as yields. Why? Because it would be crazy dangerous.

No user of the public street is an island, only endangering their own well-being by using the public good. Every user can have a direct and immediate effect on the safety of other users, in any situation. Creating different laws, for different users, and assuming universal compliance to and enforcement of those laws (like we have right now?) seems like it would only make the streets less safe, for everyone who needs or chooses to use them.

Dear Jessica et al: I think all the bicyclists should have their bicycles taken away for a month so that they are forced to behave like PEOPLE...you know, as in PEDESTRIANS, the folks endangered by both irresponsible motorists AND bicyclists who can't be bothered to obey traffic safety laws!

Here, here, Jessica. I often think mandatory cycling would improve a driver's understanding of how close they should pass a bike.

Deborah - we do get our bikes taken away for the rainy months of January, February, and March. Life is hard enough -- I don't need to ride in the rain, too. You're right: pedestrians trump all here, and cyclists still need to give them right of way, whether or not we change the stop sign/light laws.

Because so many cyclists already break the law, for the most part cars already yield to them at intersections. That's definitely my experience as someone who cycles all over the city almost every day -- the driver doesn't know what I'm going to do, so they let me do my thing and then move on. Changing the law would essentially formalize that yield, and it be incumbent on drivers to know that.

And educating them of the law change wouldn't be that hard. The vehicle code gets changed all the time -- in a couple weeks we're going to be requiring hands-free cell phone talking. The PR campaign on that has been thorough.

So, gname -- unless there's a hardcore crack down, meaning unabated ticketing over the course of several months, cyclists aren't going to change. In fact, I suspect such a crackdown would only incite more revolt. And it's a waste of money in a city with such a homicide rate.

Cops are public employees. Most public employees have work plans that chart out the scope of work that they do each day. Not so for cops, from what we can tell. They pretty much get to write their own work plans as they see fit and there is no accountability to speak of for not doing their job.

So the first step is rationalizing what cops do each day so that our public employees are working along with public priorities.

Cars weigh tons and those tons can kill and maim. Cyclists weigh in the triple digits and can occasionally hurt someone or a car. The financial and environmental costs of stopping and starting are incremental.

The ideal solution would be a 5mph citywide speed limit with no traffic control, everyone drive real slow and yield to everyone else.

As far as different classes of transportation go and different rules for each one, peds are covered by the CVC as are cyclists and cars, with different rules for peds than for cars, i.e. cars need to stop for peds in crosswalks. Peds can cross w/o crosswalk if the street is > 25' wide.

Adding a new class for cycles to the CVC along those lines won't cause the world to end like same sex marriage will.

Amanda, I used to not bike during rainy season, but as soon as I learned that you don't melt when you get wet, I realized that it was not that big a deal.

An example of insane priorities is Townsend Street. Taxis regularly pull illegal fast u-turns at CalTrain without looking. The Academy of Art College bus system regularly blocks traffic lanes, forcing us all into oncoming traffic.

One day on the way to work, a coworker saw a cop ticketing a cyclist at 5th and Townsend, a dead end T intersection, for running the stop sign at 5th as he headed east.

I understand that Supervisor Mirkarimi has issued a letter of inquiry to the SFPD to determine SFPD CVC enforcement trends on an ongoing basis.

After we have those data from the SFPD, we will reconcile them with SFDPH records of observed threat to public health due to violations of the CVC and take steps to legislate the allocation of traffic detail resources accordingly if they are wildly out of skew.

I brought this up with DPH director Mitch Katz at the gym this week and given that his environmental health group has done such wonderful work in bringing a public heatlh perspective to current Planning department plans, he seemed warm to the idea of having DPH empirical data drive CVC enforcement.

Once we dedicate enforcement resources to where they are needed, the streets should become safer and cyclists should feel more comfortable riding off the sidewalk.

-marc

Amanda -- You're right. As things currently stand, drivers and pedestrians don't know what bicyclists are going to do at an intersection. (By the same token, no user knows what car drivers or pedestrians are going to do, either.)

But if the law changes, and even if all users of the public street magically know the law has changed, how will that allow them to more accurately predict the behavior of other users? Surely you wouldn't suggest that under the new law, bicyclists would be forbidden from stopping at stop signs (and essentially interpreting the sign in the most logical way possible).

Simply because some people break the law -- and that other people expect them to break the law -- is not reason enough to change the law. Most obviously, not all bicyclists break the law, and not all car drivers and pedestrians expect them to break the law. Changing the law won't change people's expectations of others' behavior.

Again, the argument for changing the law seems to be premised on convenience. Indeed, on those grounds, the case is persuasive. But to my mind, the burden for the vehicle code should be higher. The hands-free cell phone law is certainly not based on convenience -- I'm sure that I'll come to find it somewhat annoying. But it's based on safety -- not just for cell phone users, but for everyone else who uses the roads. And for that reason alone, I wholeheartedly support it.

I would love to hear an argument about why changing the law for bicyclists would increase aggregate road safety, for all classes of user.

I should also note that no one is talking about "the world ending" or the like. I'm also not interested in "bikes vs. cars" or "bikes vs. pedestrians" or "cars vs. pedestrians" kinds of debates. Everyone has to share the streets, and it's pointless to pit one class of user against the other, especially when there are safe and dangerous individual users in each class.

Given that these different kinds of users have to share the street, everyone can have a direct and immediate effect on the safety of others. The smallest, lightest pedestrian can cause an accident among cars or trucks that weigh tons. Simply because bikes are slower or smaller doesn't make them any safer. It's the conscientiousness of the user that determines the vehicle's safety, and by extension, the safety of the system as a whole. It seems to me that clarity and consistency in the vehicle code, in its enforcement, and in its explanatory signage are the most straightforward ways to ensure some modicum of safety in an inherently chaotic environment.

Everyone has to share the street? The question becomes one of enforcement priorities to make that sharing of the street a reality and how to ensure that all actors in the street remain in control of their vehicles at all times. When I learned to drive, my parents taught me that no matter what, it was incumbent on a driver to maintain control of their vehicle.

Empirically, how many pedestrians cause motor vehicle or cyclist collisions? How many cyclists cause motor vehicle or pedestrian collisions? How many motorists cause bicycle or pedestrian collisions? And of all of that, how do the consequences measure up?

If we have to pick, and we do, should the cops enforce bikes running stop signs where we put nobody at risk but ourselves, or should the cops enforce the refusal of many cars to share the streets with cyclists and pedestrians?

At the end of the day, cars and motorcycles are more powerful than bicycles and bicycles are more powerful than pedestrians.

Enforcement priorities should ensure that the most powerful operators who do not play by the rules do not put less powerful actors in harm's way rather than creating some sort of fiction where all users of the streets are equally powerful and should be subject to equivalent enforcement.

We can change the laws all we want, but with hundreds of thousands of interactions on our streets every day, this is all a matter of enforcement.

Again, empirical data of observed threats should underpin any enforcement regime.

Oh, yeah, anyone seen the SFBC on enforcement issues?

[tumbleweed rolls down Guardian politics blog]

[the sound of crickets chirping]

[another tumbleweed rolls down Guardian politics blog]

Didn't think so.

-marc

Marc -- You admit that enforcement of the traffic code is imperfect. Jaywalkers roam the streets with impunity, cars violate the speed limit recklessly, and bicyclists run stop signs more often than not.

Why, then, would a simple change in the traffic code itself affect enforcement? Anecdotes abound of cops catching violators of the code that I just described, but the reason those anecdotes are so noteworthy is because they are so infrequent. When you get a ticket for jaywalking, that's a big deal. When Amanda was ticketed on her bike, that too, was deemed blog-worthy. But based on my own abundant experience, there is no epidemic of cops cracking down on vehicle code violations by bicyclists.

I must also take exception to this comment: "should the cops enforce bikes running stop signs where we put nobody at risk but ourselves?" If you were the only person using the street, then sure, you'd only be putting yourself at risk. But you're not, so you are. It doesn't matter how safe or conscientious a rider you may be.

The law is imperfect; its enforcement even more so. I think most people will agree on that. But I still fail to see how changing the vehicle code in the manner that Amanda suggested would increase the aggregate safety for all classes of road users.

"You admit that enforcement of the traffic code is imperfect. Jaywalkers roam the streets with impunity, cars violate the speed limit recklessly, and bicyclists run stop signs more often than not."

What is the public policy argument for enforcing in cases where there is no harm, no foul?

"But based on my own abundant experience, there is no epidemic of cops cracking down on vehicle code violations by bicyclists."

We're all just talking out of our asses when it comes to characterizing the enforcement practices of the SFPD. Once we have the data, we can draw conclusions.

My read is that since 90%+ of all CVC injuries are due to motorists violating the code--and there is evidence to support this--that if cyclists are getting 11% of traffic tickets, then the system is out of whack.

The matter of putting others at risk is crisp and easy to determine. If there is no contention for an intersection, that is there are not two or more actors trying to cross, then crossing the controlled intersection against the light or stop sign puts nobody at risk.

Since it is blindingly obvious when there is contention for an intersection and others are put at risk, why even concern ourselves about less pressing cases until we've resolved the instances where folks are observed to be maimed and killed?

The Idaho Law would increase safety by diverting policing resources from the barely relevant to the critical and pressing by preventing cops from ticketing cyclists for running a stop sign when there is no contention at the intersection. Were the police to enforce against autos which endanger peds and cyclists, then that would change motorist behavior and make the streets safer for us all.

Ok?

-marc

Further, if cop enforcement against motorists rather than against cyclist running stop signs makes the streets safe for cyclists, then cyclists will stay off the sidewalks.

Cyclists riding on the road rather than sidewalks makes the sidewalks safer for pedestrians.

-marc

so... let me get this straight. if the operators of a particular type of vehicle unanimously continue to violate state vehicle codes that were not designed with consideration to this unique vehicle, and more and more people are switching to this vehicle as their mode of transport, then we should continue to beat our heads against a wall by enforcing the archaic laws instead of modifying the laws to accommodate the current situation?

yeah, that makes total sense.

also, who actually thinks that cyclist just enjoy breaking laws? do the cyclist friends you know moonlight as car-jackers? do they launder money? are they involved in political sex scandals? do you think we really want to put our lives in danger? do you think we would ride into an intersection hoping to get hit by 3,000 lbs of steel? let's use facts and statistics not emotional gut responses to evaluate the situation. if we change the laws then we're no longer breaking them, and then there's nothing for the car-types to complain about. problem solved.

Marc -- Your argument about resource allocation -- why should cops spend their time enforcing minor offenses? -- is a logical one, and I think it's probably the most persuasive one for the legal changes I assume you support. I'm just not sure what the current opportunity cost is. Are many cops tasked specifically with ticketing bicyclists, and bicyclists alone? And if they are, are they prohibited from enforcing the traffic code among other violators, or otherwise doing what cops do? I honestly don't know. If that's the case, then that raises a host of other questions. But it doesn't seem to me that bicyclists are presenting an undue burden on law enforcement (see: the ease with which bicyclists already run stop signs, without any consequence).

Also, to clarify. I'm not saying that every jaywalker or speeder deserves a ticket -- I happily and regularly do both. But I don't try to convince myself that I'm not breaking the law, and when I do get a ticket, I don't feel that the cops are out to get me or my particular class of user. I knowingly broke a law that's in place for purposes of public safety. I'm annoyed, sure, but certainly not offended, and I certainly don't think the speed limit should be increased just because I prefer driving fast.

I'm just as bothered by bicyclists on the sidewalks as I am with them running red lights, if not more so. Personally, I'm very much a pedestrian, and I think they deserve the right of way they have.

And I'll be the first to admit that I'm talking out of my ass.

Jessica -- Unanimous is a big word. I certainly do not think that every single bicyclist operates in an identical way. Some, when they see a sign that says "stop," do just that. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I don't think bicyclists "enjoy" breaking laws. I think it's just far more convenient for them to conserve momentum, and I don't blame them for doing that. When I'm on a bike, I don't want to stop at every stop sign -- it's annoying. But it's ignorant and rather selfish for bicyclists to think they can run stop signs at their own peril, and theirs alone. Roads are shockingly dangerous places, and when anyone -- in a car, on a bike, or on foot -- thinks that they belong to them alone, bad things happen.

My problem with bicyclists running stop signs has nothing to do with the law. I don't care if people break the law in nonviolent ways, especially if it has no effect on me. It has to do with the fact that it's just not safe -- it doesn't matter what the law says.

Also, it seems you might be trying to impugn me in some way ("car-type"?). If so, I'm not sure why. It certainly doesn't advance the discussion in a meaningful way, and indeed, it strikes me as an "emotional gut response" that you accuse me of. If I'm mistaken, apologies.

Speaking of cops and bikes, I think that it would be a grand idea to get cops to ride bikes IN ADDITION to walking beats. This would essentially blow that whole petty 'Well, we need cops in cars for emergency responses' excuse out of the water.

Plus, what would really light a fire under that whole environmental review hold-up would be if some cops were to experience the dangers of riding bikes in SF. Think about it: what would spotlight this disgrace, punish careless drivers, and push for major bike transit reforms than if some cops were run over by some Yank-Tank-driving maniac. It would also make cops respect bikers and to sympathize with them more than they sympathize with drivers. The only thing worse and more preposterous than a cop in a car is a cop on a horse.

Marc -- I understand your argument, but I don't think I agree with it.

I agree that cops have a tremendous amount of leeway, and the manner in which they enforce the law is largely subjective. On one hand, that's how it should be. Cops should be able to exercise judgment and common sense. In the situation you describe, if a cop had been around, he should have gone after the most dangerous red-light runner. If two cops had been around, they should have gone after both red-light runners. To a certain degree, it's a good thing that cops can exercise independent judgment and are not dogmatic automatons.

On the other hand, cops' discretion is a very bad thing, for all the reasons you mention. Bias and prejudice can lead to unfair enforcement of the law or outright harassment. If too many violations go by uncorrected, the resulting disrespect for the law can be a very corrosive thing. This is all very bad.

But I remain unconvinced that bicyclists, as a class, face targeted, undue harassment by police. Individual anecdotes of bicyclists getting tickets for running stop signs does not count as harassment -- for now, it's a moving violation. Bicyclists are certainly inconvenienced by poorly designed bike lanes, lack of bike lanes altogether, rude drivers, and bad weather. But getting caught breaking the law is something different.

Likewise, I remain unconvinced that the current law as it concerns bicyclists places an undue burden upon law enforcement. If the law was changed, I don't necessarily think that more cars would receive speeding tickets or more jaywalkers would be caught. More importantly, I can't see how it would affect the things that police should really focus their energies on -- violent crime. I don't think the issue is comparable to the "drug war," for example. Drugs suck up an immense amount of law enforcement resources. If they were legalized, or if the current policy gained some semblance of sanity, those resources could be quickly redirected and would, I think, have an immediate effect on crime. I just don't see that happening with bike laws.

Your solution, then, seems well-intentioned but perhaps too indirect. Of all the things city government could do to encourage bicycling and other, non-car forms of transportation, it seems that changing the law would have little effect. How many non-bicyclists would take up riding if they suddenly were allowed to run through stop signs?

The problem, it seems, is with law enforcement. I can see how changing the law so that bad cops have less cover to do shady things could help. But it seems like a more direct solution would rest in the police department itself, with things like recruitment, training, and discipline.

More to the point, it doesn't make much sense to legalize unsafe behavior, especially if the law is not placing an undue burden on either law enforcement or upon the population at large. It's a problem when laws aren't enforced, sure, but should we legalize littering, too?

I do appreciate your points, however. It's gratifying to have a reasonable, substantive discussion on the issue

Like I've written, cops get to pretty much call their own work plan, enforcing the laws they choose to and ignoring others at will. Not only are the laws enforced completely subjective per cop, but against whom they enforce the laws is also a judgment call with all of its attendant biases, race, class, gender and even transportation modality. Suburban cops are much more likely to take the motorists' side against a cyclist because they tend to bring values other than ours to work every day.

This chaotic pattern of enforcement leads to disrespect for law and order, and is criminal in itself when policing resources are not dedicated to enforcing laws with demonstrated dangerous consequences.

So we can try to change state law. I doubt that such a project will fly. Or locally we can call upon progressive supervisors to take the enforcement of certain laws against bicyclists under certain conditions off the table as an option for the cops.

Twice on my ride from 2d and King to City Hall via 9th and Brannan this afternoon, automobiles blew through red lights twice as I was already in the intersection on a green. The fact that I left the mark and was doing a track stand far into the crosswalk, even with the lane of parked cars before the light turned green and I entered the intersection is in itself a violation of the vehicle code. But when compared to a car blasting through a red light at 35mph, the real public policy question is "where should our scarce resources go?"

We can pass all the laws we want but we need to determine enforcement priorities politically and under sunshine. We can either spend all of our resources enforcing one crime, spend them all divided equally amongst all crimes, or triage the worst offenders. But unless the laws are being enforced, it does not make a difference that laws are in place, people are going to do what they want whether it is obey or ignore.

-marc

Hey Amanda, I ride too. Every day. Through downtown San Francisco and downtown Oakland. I wish that one day you realize that your actions affect others. Has it ever occurred to you that your opinion that its just too annoying to come to a stop may have something to do with the free-for-all environment you experience. I'd encourage you to consider that the law doesn't exist to break your will and that it provides the means for a common understanding of expected behavior from strangers that share the road with you. I wish for you to find the maturity to realize that it is nearly impossible to get ticketed in this town and instead of resenting the experience, that you might see it as a warning that you are taking your life in your hands by running stop signs. It only takes one mistake to change your life forever. I'd recommend a bike that has gears. The easier gears really take all of the hassle out of starting from a complete stop. I've found that stirrups, while not as efficient as clips, make city riding a lot more pleasant. All of us have to deal with the angry drivers you have left in your wake. Please reconsider.

I'M NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT HEEDLESSLY BLOWS THROUGH STOP SIGNS.

Just to make that clear. As I stated above, I function under the premise that no one can see me and act accordingly. I see some cyclists that don't even pause at intersections. Not me, and as far as I'm concerned, that kind of "go ahead and hit me" attitude makes us all look bad.

I actually fully stop at most intersections and lights. To not is just plain stupid. There are also some instances when fully stopping is a waste of time and energy.

I still think we should have a mature discussion about how the California Vehicle Code isn't working when it comes to bikes.

Gname makes the argument that changing the law is only premised on convenience for cyclists. As our current transportation system stands now, convenience=cars. That needs to change. We need to make driving very, very inconvenient. Could we do that by dominating the streets with bikes? By making walking and biking the favored transports on streets? Besides walking and skating, cycling is one of the only truly emissions-free modes of transportation. I'm all for incentivizing it, and that includes sharing the road in such a way that more cyclists feel safe. Would changing the law to let bikes slide through stop signs further that? Maybe it sounds counterintuitive, but maybe it would heighten driver awareness at every intersection. Let's have the discussion and figure it out.

Amanda -- I agree that the country's transportation system grossly favors cars, a reality that stems from the ugly collusion of automakers, oil companies, and tire manufacturers 100 years ago. No question there. No question, either, that the system is bad for many, many reasons.

But I take issue with the statement that we should make driving "inconvenient." Instead, I think we should unveil the real costs of driving that have been hidden and subsidized by government for decades. When people are presented with a more accurate price point, they'll change their behavior (see: driving rates declining as a result of rising gas prices in recent months). Sure, making driving "more expensive" and making it "more inconvenient" make seem like two sides of the same coin. But why should government base its decisions on how to make life more inconvenient for people? Philosophically and rhetorically, it seems silly.

Likewise, I'm not comfortable with the talk of any class of user "dominating" the streets. Cars may do that now, and it's bad. Bikes might do that in the future, and that too would be bad. Ideally, we'd have car-only roads, bike-only roads, pedestrian-only roads, etc. But we don't -- maybe we can work toward that? Until then, many kinds of user inhabit a single kind of road. Couching the debate as one of cars vs. bikes vs. pedestrians may be tempting, but I can't see how it's helpful.

As far as the vehicle code is concerned, convenience is a secondary concern. Safety should always be paramount. That's why I would still resent bicyclists who run stop signs and red lights even if it were to become legal to do so. It's a behavior that endangers the offender (they might get hit), other users of the road (it introduces needless unpredictability and inconsistency into the driving environment), and the population at large (risky individual actions raise the cost of insurance and reduce available health care resources for everyone else).

If changing the law would result in greater safety, I'd be all for it. I just haven't heard such a case, and I can't come up with one on my own.

(Also, I should note that my last comment was a response to Marc's most recent comment, yet it somehow appeared as if I posted it prior to Marc's.)

The notion that all users of a public conveyance are equivalent and should be treated the same is as detached from reality as the notion that all crimes are equivalent and should be enforced the same.

One purpose of government is to moderate the impacts of power imbalances in society. This is why kids get special protections and adults do not. This is why pedestrians get special rights to walk through the crosswalks and cars don't get the right to run them down.

Further refining this in light of contemporary developments in politics and environmentalism is the way to go. If those smaller minds for which mindless consistency is a hobgoblin are troubled by that, too bad.

At the end of the day, there is no public policy case to be made for making motoring easier and a strong public policy case to be made for lowering barriers to cycling and walking.

-marc

Marc -- As I've said before, I'm not concerned with laws that make driving, bicycling, or walking "easier" or "harder." Safety, not convenience, should be paramount.

In a perfect world, every user's convenience ("easyness") would be maximized. Pedestrians could cross the street wherever they wanted, cars could drive as fast as they chose, and bicyclists would only need to stop when they needed a rest. Until we get to the point in which each class of user has their own dedicated transportation infrastructure (a noble goal to work toward, I think), we can't have everyone do whatever they want, even if that is the "easiest" thing to do. Hence, laws.

That being said, I do not see how the laws we're talking about would make bicyclists' jobs significantly "easier" on a practical basis. As we all acknowledge, bikes already run through stop signs all the time. Changing the law to make such action technically permissible won't result in a vastly largely number of bicyclists doing it. How many people don't bike because of the current law? How many more people would bike if the law was changed?

Indeed, are you so interested in making driving "harder" that you're willing to make drivers guess what bicyclists will do at stop signs? They already have to guess about that. Changing the law will not only have zero practical effect, but it will formally codify this inconsistency and uncertainty. How does that make any bicyclist (or driver, or pedestrian) safer?

You're quite right that one purpose of government is to correct power imbalances in society. Though I think your extrapolation of this premise to road users is a stretch (drivers are bicyclists are pedestrians -- users can choose their categorization at any given time based on their needs and desires), it's a fair one. As you rightly say, cars don't get the right to run down pedestrians at a crosswalk. This is uniquely applicable to our present discussion: why should bicyclists get that right? Of course they shouldn't, which is why this debate shouldn't be about "rights" or convenience, but about safety.

Think about this another way. Forget convenience, power relationships, environmental justice, or whatever personal grudges we each may hold. All things being equal, which is safer: fast or slow? Clearly the latter. Even if you think bicyclists deserve the right to treat stop signs differently than any other class of user, and even if you automatically assume that every bicyclist is perfectly conscientious and aware of their surroundings at all times, things going slower are always going to be safer than things going faster. Stop signs don't just regulate traffic flows -- they slow the system down. Think of them as speed bumps. Especially in a city as dense as SF, we should welcome any device that does that.

One further point on consistency. Like it or not, SF residents are not the only users of SF streets. Laws and vehicle codes are already more complicated than most people can understand. I think there's a great deal of merit in keeping law as simple, consistent, and clear as possible. If the law is to be made less simple, less consistent, or less clear, there should be a compelling reason to do so. In my mind, greater safety is such a compelling reason. Greater convenience is not.

If a red sign on the road says "stop," cars and pedestrians must stop. Why shouldn't bikes?

Also, I fail to see how referring to anyone as "small-minded" (whether directed to me or not) advances the discussion in any meaningful way.