This is what the bike does for me, too, bitches.

Pretty bold statement in light of this…

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/10/among-walkable-regions-san-francisco-one-of-most-dangerous/

The biggest assholes about pedestrian safety, in order
1) MTA
2) Motorists
3) Cyclists
4) Pedestrians

I realize San Franciscans have a reflexive tendency to embrace a selfish, “me first” philosophy, instead of trying to operate in an urban environment the way those in other cities do – common courtesy, respect, and following a few basic rules so everyone can get where they want safely. But that would never fly here – people’s self righteousness and self centeredness trump any real cooperation.

Stop signs serve a few useful purposes. First, if followed, they prevent people from colliding (be they on bicycles, sled dogs, driver’s seat, or what have you). Second, they slow down traffic. This is particularly desirable in residential areas where the goal is not necessarily to have the most efficient roads possible (see also speed bumps and traffic calming).

It’s a far less daunting task to cross a street like Moraga than it is to cross, for instance, Lincoln. This would be true even if all of the automobiles were replaced with bicycles. Even if it won’t kill you, it will still hurt, and potentially injure you quite seriously if a bicycle and pedestrian collide at speed.

Are roundabouts a good idea? Perhaps. Is allowing bicycles to ignore traffic safety laws? No.

Second, I would actually suggest taking a look at whether stop signs are the best solution for traffic control at many intersections. I grew up in Seattle, where traffic circles are used extensively to control traffic speeds and intersection navigation, with no stop signs. And traffic safety studies have long suggested that roundabouts, as used widely in Europe, are safer than intersections controlled by traffic lights.

Thirdly, the issue of instability is not that cyclists will fall over at intersections. It’s that a cyclist at a full stop is much less able to avoid oncoming hazards from any direction because it puts them in the least maneuverable and most awkward position compared to being on the move.

I would support a change to traffic regulations like Idaho’s, which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. And, again, this debate seems to hinge on the perceived “lawlessness” of cyclists ignoring stop signs (when wanton disregard for traffic laws is not unique to any class of vehicle), not any actual consequences. If anything, cyclists going through stop signs, along with “careless” pedestrians, may actually force motorists to be more careful and aware when driving, providing a net benefit to traffic safety.

But as it relates to this post, my point is this: Cyclists need to balance their selfish intent to ride totally efficiently at all times with a respect for the rules of traffic. Flaunting the rules only pisses drivers off, and exacerbates a situation of total disrespect and distrust. And that will just keep the situation humming along at a dangerous status quo.

I’ve been in cars where cyclists come flying through an intersection, almost to get hit by me or another car. It’s not cool being in the car in that situation. You put your life in danger, at my hands.

My advice to cyclists is to chill out, observe basic rules, only roll through stop signs slowly and after making triple-fucking-sure that no cars are coming. That, and seriously, give us all a break: Stopping at a red light and putting one foot on the ground for 10 seconds isn’t going to expend too much of your energy.