|
Visibility is also a factor. On a bike, when I approach a stop at the normal 10-15mph that I usually go (unless I'm stomping, which is rare these days) I can see in nearly any direction for a good distance and determine if I can roll through a stop.
In a car, when I approach a stop at 30-35 mph I don't have the visibility nor do I have the reaction time to safely roll through.
Cars are dangerous things; I don't care how good a drive you think you are. Your reaction time and the stopping time, your visibility is not as good as a bike. I'm not saying that all cyclists are better at these things ... but given proper training for either vehicle the bike is simply safer.
Besides, it's not about your cars efficiency (except from a fuel standpoint, and if that's what you're worried about you should probably ride a bike) ... all the car driver has to do is press on a pedal and get going; this requires almost no effort. From a dead stop a cyclist has to balance the bike and move slowly through an intersection; which can be more dangerous than just rolling through if there are no cars present.
My point of view is that motorists are simply complaining that they have to expend a little more effort in turning that oh-so-difficult steering wheel, or pressing on that gosh-darned gas or break pedal. It takes absolutely no effort to drive a car, it can take some mental acuity, and if most drivers were as good as they say they are they would have no difficulty avoiding pedestrians and cyclists.
But that's just my rant. I ride a bike to work every day. I break the rules and ride off-road as much as possible. Which pisses off the motorists who think I should obey every law they obey, but when I do obey the laws they get pissed off because "I'm in their way." As far as bikes are concerned it's damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't so screw it. I don't purposely pull out in front of cars, I don't purposely try to piss off the drivers--I try to avoid them as much as possible.
|