It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.Legalizing the “South Philly Slide”* for Cyclists
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm - by Dan Pohlig. Filed under: Transportation.
Greater, Greater Washington once again comes to the valiant defense of cyclists like me who think that in exchange for me giving up my right to drive and clog our city’s urban streets, I should be able to make my own decisions at stop signs and red lights.
Again, lets get all of the caveats out of the way. Such a policy of legalizing the cyclist’s right to determine whether they need to stop or not must protect the rights of walkers by having stiff penalties for hitting pedestrians. Also, though I would think it should go without saying, giving the same choice to drivers is not an option since a driver who misjudges is more likely to kill someone else than a cyclist who bears just about all of the risk.
So, in short, I concur with GGW:
A cyclist who darts through a red light without stopping and across oncoming traffic is doing something very dangerous. A cyclist who reaches a red light with a completely empty cross street, stops briefly, then proceeds is not. We should enforce the law against the former, and legalize the latter.
And I invite my colleague Mr. Alan Tu, and you the commenters, to take the motorist position in this issue.
*Reference to the South Philly Slide can be found here among Philadelphia’s “Unconventional traffic laws.”
February 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A ‘law’ like this would leave too much to incorrect interpretation. There would be more accidents and more injuries and deaths. This would increase insurance costs and in general not be good for cyclists or automobile drivers.
I am all for sharing the road but half the time I am ’sharing’ the road, I end up getting cut off by a cyclist or witnessing reckless behavior. Since some of the cycling population that I have witnessed does not show proper judgment, I don’t agree with giving them this leeway at stop signs and traffic lights. I don’t understand, if cyclists want the same rights as auto drivers do, why shouldn’t they be held to the same rules?
February 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
When there is little or no traffic, I am guilty of being a “South Philly Slider” (sounds like a tiny cheesesteak burger), though I don’t think it’s a good idea to legalize or legitimize the practice.
Rolling through stops is something of a necessity in a city like Philly that doesn’t have a good bike infrastructure, but it isn’t ideal.
In Portland, probably the best bike city in the US, obeying the rules is a matter of course and a matter of pride. There, they have dedicated bike blvds throughout the city that feature very few stops but intersection obstructions that make them unattractive routes for drivers. That, plus strict bike-safety laws, good bike lanes, bike-boxes that allow bikes to get up front at intersections, and just a general culture of awareness makes for a different set of rules for bikes and cars unnecessary.
I’d rather see an improvement of infrastructure that makes biking easier and more respected than a change of the rules.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Dan P. Red lights should never be optional. Your misjudgment as you ride your bike and listen to a podcast could cause a car to swerve to miss you and crash into a candy store. The only reason you don’t want to stop at red lights is because you think it’s inefficient for a bicyclist to stop and start all of the time. This is exactly why a small scooter like a Vespa is so popular in many countries. Evolve with me.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I’m with Alan on this one. Red means stop, and the person who didn’t do it is at fault for whatever accident occurs, be they a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist. If it makes you feel any better, I think Philadelphia police treat our traffic laws like our drug laws: except for specifically identified problem areas, they’re generally not enforced.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Where are my fellow bike people? The arguments against my position to leave stopping choices at the discretion of the cyclist or pedestrian all focus on what happens when there is an accident.
Let me be clear on what I’m not saying should happen:
1. A car with a green light should never have to stop or even slow down for a cyclist running a red light.
2. A pedestrian crossing the street should never have to stop or avoid a cyclist who does not come to a full stop at a stop sign.
All I am suggesting is that when a cross street is completely empty and a cyclist has a clear view in both directions, he or she should be given discretion as to whether they want to cross against a red light. The lights are all timed for cars anyway, leaving most cyclists in a position of constantly having to stop at the red just after getting up a nice cruising speed. Allowing a cyclist to legally cruise towards the intersection, look both ways and continue without having to come to a full stop makes the trip that much easier.
Of course if ANY kind of accident happens and it is because a cyclist ran a stop sign or red light, then he or she should be held accountable (though, the getting hit by a car part is probably enough punishment).
February 12th, 2009 at 9:19 am
As long as your donor card is up to date, knock yourself out.