safety thoughts

My friend Barry has a clear discussion of why red means stop, and why the "as soon as safe" practice advocated by some is detrimental to the safety of cyclists.

The ASAS philosophy says, among other things, that cyclists can treat a traffic light as a stop sign. If there is no other traffic affected by doing so, once the cyclists stops, he or she is free to go through the intersection. In the case of a stop sign, the cyclist is free to consider it a yield sign, not stopping, but at least being prepared to stop if there is other traffic present. Some proponents of the ASAS idea consider it quite acceptable to "thread the needle," or ride up the right side of stopped traffic. I will not do it myself, and strongly discourage the practice. It does NOTHING good for cyclists as a group. Indeed, it only serves to irritate other road users and further the notion that "all cyclists are scofflaws."

Some would say it's human nature to decide what the law should be, according to one's own interests, and obey what one thinks the law should be rather than obey the actual law. Whether it is human nature is debatable, but the effect remains, and many motorists think the law should be for bicycles to stay off the roadways, or if bicyclists insist on being on the roadway, they, the cyclists, should ALWAYS yield to motorists--motorists, in their opinion, being the ultimate road users. Some cyclists, on the other hand, take a much more militant stance than my own. I don't think I need to weigh in on this debate at the moment, but it is helpful for us as cyclists to consider their position in the interest of developing defensive cycling skills.

When I did a google search on "as soon as safe bicycle," the first link in the resulting list was this one from Bicycle Safe on how to not get hit by cars. On reading the page, I find a couple places where I would change the order of strategies they offer, but I agree with most of what is said there. I encourage readers to follow that link and have a read.


There has been some discussion among local bike safety folks over the tactic of riding "invisible." The Bicycle Safe site cited above echos my thoughts on this closely. Quoting that site: "It's often helpful to ride in such a way that motorists won't hit you even if they don't see you. You're not trying to BE invisible, you're trying to make it irrelevant whether or not drivers see you." In addition, I make myself easy to see, by a) wearing brightly colored shirts or outer layers, b) having good passive reflectors on all sides, c) having good "be seen" lights front and rear, with spare batteries aboard for each, d) riding where I'm supposed to be riding, to more easily be seen by other road users and e) having a decent "see where I'm going" light up front. Some suggest what they call "controlled erratic cycling," as a way to keep motorists from being complacent about their interactions with us. Perhaps there is some validity to this, if done in moderation. However, some are quite immoderate in such things, which again incites motorists who think that one or two examples of bicyclist behavior is the norm and therefore all cyclists should be punished over the one or two who ran a stop sign in front of them a month ago (and if you can find the logic in their position, your logical patterns are more flexible than mine).


There are a couple of caveats: I sometimes act as if a stop sign is in fact a yield sign. I am prepared to stop if there is other traffic to witness my presence. If I am second to arrive at a four-way stop, I am at least second (if not third) to leave the intersection. I stop at traffic lights. However, there is one traffic light that does not recognize bicycles where I will sometimes follow the ASAS principle. I fully realize that I'm being something of a hypocrite here. The alternatives are a) sitting at a light waiting for a motorist to trigger the left-turn light--which could take several cycles of the rest of the light--or b) going some distance out of my way. Given that the light in question is part of the one legal place to cross the Ohio River for something like fifty miles in either direction, and that it ignores my presence as not having enough metal to trigger the light, I consider this case to be one of civil disobedience--I know I could be fined over it, but am prepared to defend myself by saying the signal is faulty as it does not recognize a valid road user and needs to be repaired.