Hacker News Reader

Comment by lacampbell | Hacker News Reader

My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them.

If you work a menial job, or your family doesn't respect you, or you're looked down on by society - or maybe a combination - then your commute home is maybe the only time you have real power, protected by a big metal shell. So the anger at cyclists is more about 'how dare they slow me down when during the small pocket of time in my existence when I wield power?'.

I'm a long time cycle commuter relucantly turned auto-commuter. I thought I'd start hating cyclists too once I joined the herd but they're practically a non issue.

View on HN

> I'm a long time cycle commuter relucantly turned auto-commuter.

I just made that transition last month after getting hit by someone driving a truck while I was on my way to the bike trail. In the report the police lied and said I changed lanes by crossing a broken white line. The motorist and I were in the same lane, and there isn't even a broken white line on the road. If I can't safely make it just half mile to the trail and if the cops are going to blame me after someone plows into me from behind, I guess I'd better put myself in a huge metal cage with crumple zones and airbags.

On the plus side, I'm finding that I kind of like jogging for exercise.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity, and with respect. I am a guy who has had several unpleasant dealings with police. But what could they gain by lying in their report?

They get to put it in the pile of completed cases and not have to start a long process of figuring out what's what. I have had similar experiences.

One time I even included in the report the full photo ID of the driver, the name and phone number of a witness, and I got a letter back saying "We're not investigating this case further for two reasons: 1. lack of evidence, 2. not knowing whether there's a traffic camera in the area." I called the witness and they had never been contacted by the police. And why is it ever a reason that they don't know whether there's a traffic camera in the area? Can't they at least just check that first and then say that there is no traffic camera in the area??

Man, I hate hearing that. Really sorry you’re going through it.

I think it might be as simple as a driver will not generalize about drivers, because they are one. They might generalize about categories of drivers, but not all drivers. A driver that is also never a cyclist is free to generalize about all cyclists without including themselves.

Once you manage to overtake a tractor once, it doesn’t ever re-overtake you and make you do that work again. On sections of road with large amounts of traffic and stoplights, I’ve had to wait behind and overtake the same bicycle 5 times before I finally got far enough ahead. Most bicycle encounters are non-issues, but it’s these extended ones where it seems to the driver that they’ll never be done with this one particular bicyclist that stick in the memory and cause long-term resentment.

I sympathize with this. And I, as a biker, don't really like being passed repeatedly either. But there are few good options: stopping in the bike lane but behind you defeats the purpose of the separate lane; I can join the car lane, and sometimes do if the flow is indeed slow enough, but then I risk being in the way if things do start moving faster, and/or pissing off a different driver who wonders why I'm not in my own lane, even though the average speed ends up being the same.

I'd suggest that the driver that is repeatedly getting ahead and then finding herself waiting at a stoplight might try driving slower between the lights, but that depends on the road conditions, and whether the lights are actually correctly timed. And on short blocks it risks causing jams. There's not really any way to apportion blame: it's a situation where it's hard for any of us to win. Maybe we just have to try to relax and get along as best we can.

If there’s a real bike lane, the overtaking shouldn’t be a problem as it should be safe for cars to pass in their own lane without needing to take any of the next lane over. Unfortunately, many “bike lanes” are too narrow and too poorly maintained and filled with parked cars. Then there’s the cyclists that think it’s appropriate to ride on the divider between the bike lane and the car lanes instead of in the lane itself.

>Maybe we just have to try and relax and get along as best we can.

That seems like the best plan, certainly. Once everybody can see each other as people instead of the enemy, there might be some chance of getting the infrastructure fixed.

>Then there’s the cyclists that think it’s appropriate to ride on the divider between the bike lane and the car lanes instead of in the lane itself.

People don't want to get doored. That's the main reason why I do this and deem this necessary. There are well traveled bike lanes out where where you do need to ride on the margin of the lane because it wasn't built parking protected and there was no space buffer set aside for car doors.

So your problem isn't with the cyclist, its with having so many cars on the roads that you can't drive faster than biking speed?

What do you expect would happen if those riders weren't on bikes? When I'm not on my bike, I'm driving (if transit worked for me, I wouldn't be on my bike)

No, my problem is with the city planners that can’t get their act together and build the appropriate infrastructure to support all the road users.

And it’s with bicyclists that don’t understand the idea of a queue for controlling access to limited resources.

And it’s with drivers that think they own the road and pass bicyclists at patently unsafe speeds and distances.

There’s plenty of blame to go around; there’s no need to restrict it to just one party.

So in that situation, aren't you the annoying vehicle that needs to be passed? You're holding up faster traffic for those 5 blocks!

I beg to differ.

The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules.

[1] The aggressive driving antics of some Prius drivers have been attributed to a lack of engine noise in the Prius and thus absence of revs found in an ICE vehicle

[2] Science Confirms That BMW And Prius Drivers Are The Worst

https://jalopnik.com/science-confirms-that-bmw-and-prius-dri...

edit: punctuation

In my jurisdiction, cyclists are not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules as drivers are (for instance, the fines are halved). This makes sense, because the consequences of cyclists disregarding the rules are not as dangerous to other road users.

I don't think these opinions are mutually exclusive. I have certainly observed both. Entitled cyclists are very common around the urban area I live, but when I ride to the outer suburbs there's more of a car culture where they people invest heavily into the self-image that their vehicle supports. Their need to rev engines as they pass suggests that the power play is important to them.

The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement

You betray yourself by the language you use - 'entitlement'. They are entitled to use the road, etc, just like any other user. I see many dangerous road users (all vehicles), but I never think of them as entitled - as if they shouldn't be there. Just sloppy/dangerous/ignorant.

It bothers people more because they know they could kill them with their car. The same way you might call out a smaller person acting rudely, but not a large, fit looking person.

An air of entitlement not to the road, they feel entitled to flouting the rules & to not be penalized or reprimanded for doing so -- like not stopping at signals or intersections as if its beneath them.

Similar to how car drivers feel entitled to being able to go 5mph over the speed limit without being penalized or reprimanded.

Cycling is morally superior to driving a car alone as an able bodied person. Cars pollute a lot and they and their infrastructure take up a lot of valuable space in cities.

As someone who is concerned about climate change and enjoys cycling, I'm still going to have to strongly disagree with this one. There are plenty of reasons why one might choose to drive over bike; calling one strictly morally superior to the other is extreme. Morality isn't that simple.

There are many good reasons to burn coal too.

Please take off your selection bias glasses and start observing the behavior of all motorists through the same lens that you use to view cyclists. I think you will find that the proportion of bad behavior is not meaningfully different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com