Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shivetya | Hacker News Reader

there still needs to be laws keeping them off roads over 35 or such; I ride a bike. Unless there is a dedicate bike lane being on a road with speeds like that is just asking for trouble even if it is long and straight.

also, tag them like cars. no reason they should not have tag fees if they want to use the road

View on HN

Bicycle registration has been tried, and it doesn't work from a practical or fiscal perspective: http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/s...

Also, roads are primarily funded by general revenues such as sales and payroll taxes. The idea that your registration fees buy you access to the road is completely absurd. Registration fees in California cover a tiny fraction of road costs, and even registration fees together with fuel taxes are not even a majority of the money spent on roads.

This would make it impossible to do any bike touring at all. The longest trip I did was 2,000 miles and I can tell you: you need to go on highways, period.

Not the interstate, which is not allowed in many places (but is in some!) but highways, which are a different thing.

Also, it's simply just not the direction we should be going in (especially in the US, which is already overrun with cars and sprawl). We need to make the roads more bike friendly, and that doesn't mean adding bike lanes everywhere. How about lowering the speed limits?

People just need to get over the goddamn fact that sometimes another traveler is in your way, and that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The person in front of you turns left and needs to wait for other cars. The person in front of you turns right and needs to wait for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The person in front of you uses a slower vehicle.

Even assuming completely benevolent car drivers (which seems a stretch), i believe that separated bike and car lanes are the only way it should be done. It is unrealistic to expect such different modes of transport (i.e., very fast 2-ton metal boxes vs. completely vulnerable meatbags on frames going 20km/h) to interact well together. If anything gies wrong (again, assume benevolent drivers: the thing going wrong might be oil on the road, a tyre blowout, sleeping driver, etc.) then the cyclist is going to come off second best, every time. This is the main point to keep in mind. Cyclists are vulnerable, and should be kept away from motorised traffic.

(incidentally, i believe the same in the pedestrians vs. cyclists argument: they too should be separated. But i didn't want to get too off-topic)

EDIT: grammar

EDIT 2: Another point: it's not as simple as you are saying, where people should just be more patient if they're in a car behind a bicycle. That may be true, but when a cyclist falls, for example, and a car "rear ends" them, they are going to be dead with a non-zero probability. The other way around (i.e. a car stalls and a cyclist rear ends them -- this has happened to me) then it's again the cyclist who ends up somewhere between just embarrassed and in the hospital.

Where is there a road in San Francisco with a speed limit over 35MPH, but without a separate bike lane? I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it. It's definitely an edge case which should not affect how one thinks about the Idaho Stop.

You never ride on highways? How do you get anywhere?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com