Everyone is an asshole here, blowing through red lights. Fuck everyone involved. Nothing to do with cars or bikes. I'm pissed.
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
178 points (92.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
16747 readers
273 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Nope! Cars and bikes have different traffic laws. Where I live what the cyclist did is perfectly legal because they only have to yield but not stop and they expected the car to stop as it should have.
The most dangerous place for cyclists is the middle of an intersection. Bicycles do not have A pillars, and thus no blind spots. If the intersection is clear, the cyclist should continue through without stopping to leave the intersection faster. Bicycles are slow to start, and can only take evasive actions while in motion. So its much safer to not stop.
Those laws are good and make cyclists safer. Some places may have different laws, but any law telling cyclists to stop at all stop signs should be disregarded. Ensuring your own safety is far more important than appeasing bureaucrats.
Edit: Just re-read my own local traffic laws and cyclists can legally treat stop signs as yeild signs here too!
Where I live bicycles and cars have to follow the same rules.
Have you read your state code on the subject? Laws tend to be written with very specific language to cover edge cases and exceptions. "Following the same rules" is rarely the law as implemented.
If you're comfortable sharing your state or province I'll look up the statute for you if you're interested.
load more comments
(3 replies)
My state updated their rules just three years ago. As a cyclist I have noticed a lot of drivers are unaware of this. It's possible there is recent legislation you are unaware of.
load more comments
(21 replies)
Just to be clear, this is different states by state. Some states allow a yield at a stop sign for cyclists. Some require a strict stop like ant other vehicle on the road. There may even be stricter city ordinances too. Know your local laws before cycling through a stop.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
As a cyclist it is safer to yield because bikes can't speed up quickly from a stop. If we maintain speed it's easier to get out of the way if we need to.
If you don’t stop you would be putting yourself in danger in the intersection, stopping allows you to see the dangers and account for them.
If you’re a stopped, the only danger is from behind you at the stop sign. You’re avoiding the danger ahead in the intersection and can now time it appropriately to get through.
How is not stopping at intersections safer? A car can’t also make a maneuver while stopped…. The same logic you’re using is the same for cars, so bikes shouldn’t be singled out and allowed for that reason.
I would love a source for this “being safer”. You keep saying this, and are the only one, provide data to back it up, because it’s bullshit.
Driving and sharing the road is about being predictable, ignoring traffic signs is the most unpredictably thing you can do. Your suggesting is an extremely dangerous way to share the road.
How is not stopping at intersections safer?
A bicycle at a full stop is slower in restoring their speed. This means they are taking longer to clear the intersection than if they'd just yielded. Being in an intersection is always fundamentally more dangerous than not being in an intersection.
And if there are cars also stopped at the intersection, they're now waiting longer than if the cyclist had gone through. So a cyclist is holding up traffic and putting themselves at greater risk of someone blowing the stop sign (either from not paying attention or from weird road rage authority trips like OP) for no reason.
I do agree that the most important thing in driving is being predictable. However, 11 states have yield-at-stop laws on the books. In those states, yielding is the predictable behavior for a bicyclist and it is dangerous for a driver to assume a cyclist will come to a full stop. Everyone operating a vehicle of any kind on a public road needs to be alert, cautious, and aware of local laws.
Most people are only going like 10 to 15 mph on a bike. That's plenty of time to see the entire intersection as you approach. When I was 15 my back tire got hit by speeding car that ignored the sign. It was really scary and if I hadn't stopped before crossing I would have been going faster and not gotten hit. That's why when I look ahead, which I have plenty of time to do, I just go through, plus it's entirely legal too.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I dislike bike riders who are assholes. This isn't that.
They're certainly right about that last sentence, but not in the way they think.
It's always projection.
When I drive I'm aware that I'm in the killing machine which means to me that if a bike comes to an intersection and doesn't look like they're stopping I consider them having the right of way no matter the situation.
I make space for mopeds and give them also extra care if they're doing something dumb just because in a collision I'm not the one getting injured. For example in a congested roundabout I know they're probably going to filter through and pass in front of my car so I just make space so that it can be done safely.
Safe and predictable.
Ha, look at this loser with their empathy!
(/s if it wasn't clear)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Never in a million years could understand why somebody in a vehicle, who has but to move their foot a half centimeter in order to accelerate, feels the need to be ahead of all the cyclists and make sure all the rules are obeyed perfectly.
Really, who gets a fuck if some dude on a bike saves a half second so he doesn't have to burn off legs getting up to speed again.
For fuck sakes, I both drive and I cycle, and I've never understood.
This is something I have been also wondering for ages and on top of that they sit in a cabinet shielded from elements in a stable temperature.
Yet they need to speed up to make the turn 0,5 seconds before the bike passes the crossing while almost killing the bicyclist in the process.
Insane.
I admit to being impatient as a driver sometimes... because driving isn't very pleasant and I want it to be over.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Have you tried being a piece of shit?
Does throwing a glass bottle at a car's windshield when they intentionally tried to run me off the road when I was blading, count as an asshole?
No
Then no.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I know that when I'm super angry, my red face can be read as embarrassed by stupid assholes.
What he did was fucking horrible, but please explain to me why it should be okay for a bicycle to not use the stop sign?
Always told my kids that the cemetery is full of people with right away.
About 15% of the US population lives in states with Idaho Stop laws, where bicyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs, and just under half of those also allow them to treat red lights as stop-then-yield signs. This has provided hard data indicating such a practice is measurably safer for cyclists, I believe at least partially because a disproportinate amount of collisions involving them happen in intersections and not needing to slow down for them means cyclists spend less time in those high danger zones. Given how much advice I was given as a driver boiled down to "drive safely, even if that means breaking the law" (especially given in regards to speed limits), I think it is perfectly justified for a biker to do the same, and act in the safer manner even if the laws says to do something else.
load more comments
(2 replies)
A lot of states (can't speak for the rules in Europe) have laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. This is supposed to be safer for cyclists. It also allows cyclists to be more energy efficient and faster, because accelerating is the hardest part of cycling and it takes a long time compared to coasting through an intersection.
The video below does a good job giving a brief overview of why this change was made.
Personally, I still look both ways before going through a stop sign, and, if I see vehicles, I'll slow down enough so that I can react if needed. Check your local laws to see how cyclists should treat stop signs.
Some places stop signs are legally optional for bikes.
I still do them, because cars always have the right of way according to the laws of physics.
Because most of the infrastructure it meant to enable cars, the ultimate death machines. It is infra necessitated by and built for them. Look at any of the numerous yt-vids by the channel "bicycle dutch" from mayor dutch cities during rush hour to get an idea of what traffic without cars looks like - no stop signs, no lights, no nothing. Also, moderate starting and stopping increases energy demand per cycled stretch by up to 25%, compared to basically 0 for the automatic driving fatass in the pickup.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's literally assault: Threatening to do harm to another person. I don't know why we're censoring this person's username, this should be getting forwarded to law enforcement.
As a non-USAian I'm a little confused. Do you guys have intersections where BOTH roads get a stop sign? I've only ever seen intersections where one road is the default right of way, and the intersecting road has to stop. Both roads stopping seems really confusing.
At a four way stop, the vehicle that stops first has right of way. If all vehicles stop at the same time. It's the one going straight through the intersection. Then the one that is the rightmost.
We have one of these in Wellington NZ. It's the final testing point on your practical driver's licence test and it's only about 20 metres from the testing station. There's no right answer about who gives way but is designed to see how safely you manage a strange situation. However, they are public roads and non-testees have to negotiate it as well. Surprisingly few problems, though.
Do you not have a right-hand rule kind of thing, where people on your right get priority if the crossing roads are equal?
load more comments
(2 replies)
There's literally no lesson here related to not stopping. A car not stopping is independent of the bike stopping or not at a atop sign.
view more: next ›