In Costa Mesa there are many intersections where I get a 3 second green, 3 second yellow and zero overlap on the red light. Some of these require crossing up to 10 lanes of traffic. I go push the pedestrain button for my safety and sanity!

The energy saved by not needing to accelerate from v=0 to v=2 is miniscule. The time lost by introducing ambiguity at intersections can be significant.

The attraction in this proposal is probably less about conserving momentum and more about skill and confidence in re-starting from a stop, especially if foot-to-pedal fastening mechanisms are involved. But many cyclists are unaware or clumsy at a Power Pedal start even with flat pedals, which makes them reluctant to put a foot down. Thus, for their own convenience, they want to roll through intersections without slowing all the way to v=0.

This restarting convenience doesn’t seem to me a strong enough argument for treating cyclists differently from other roadway users. If convenience were a good reason for the law to differentiate between classes of roadway users, how about forcing cyclists to ride far to the right of a lane, for the convenience of motorists who wish to overtake? (Oh wait, we already have 21202 and 21208…)

Of course, it’s important to realize the caveat that such a relationship is only a correlation, not necessarily a cause, likely applicable only to motor vehicles — actually capable of reaching higher speeds — forming the typical majority of vehicles on the road; it ought not to be used as an excuse to discriminate against nonmotorized vehicles which simply are not capable of reaching higher speeds. It is likely attentiveness, lateral positioning, and positioning relative to other vehicles that matter a whole lot more than speed when it comes to minimizing crash risk; as the conclusion of the article states: “You can’t measure safe driving in miles per hour.” Those driving somewhat higher or lower than the average traffic speed may be safer because they are inherently not following or pacing other vehicles too closely within tight traffic packs; instead, they “pass or let pass” more safely.

If cyclists are subject to that provision, are cyclists’ travel speeds required to be counted in the “engineering and traffic survey” required to set that 85th percentile level?

Are there enough cyclists in the traffic mix to make a statistically significant difference in the speed distribution observed during such a survey?

I see very low motorist compliance with 21209(a)(2)/(3) or 21717 or 22100(a). Long vehicles wouldn’t be able to make the turn if they started at the curb or edge, so “as close as practicable” for them could be fifteen feet away. But it’s unusual to see drivers of even normal sized vehicles merging to the curb before turning, unless perhaps they arrive at the intersection on a red signal. This certainly isn’t an enforcement priority.