Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluejekyll | Hacker News Reader

> riding on sidewalks and crosswalks, riding in lanes with moving cars

In one sentence you managed to point directly to the dichotomy cyclists face. Car drivers: “get out of the road it’s for cars!”, pedestrians: “get off the sidewalk it’s for pedestrians!”

In many places there just isn’t safe areas for cyclists that doesn’t end up putting them in conflict with other users of streets.

One thing that’s hard on a bicycle is to keep your cool after a collision or near miss. You end up with so much adrenaline pumping that anger often comes.

Like others on this thread have mentioned though, getting angry at people in cars is not helpful, best case they feel bad, worst case they become angry and now have a multi-ton weapon on their side.

View on HN

> In many places there just isn’t safe areas for cyclists that doesn’t end up putting them in conflict with other users of streets.

Cyclists are unambiguously wrong if they cycle on the pavement. Just as cars drivers are unquestionably wrong when they are in a cycle lane. This is cycle riders doing to pedestrians exactly that they don’t want drivers to do, and this is dangerous for people who are in a more vulnerable position than they are. I have zero sympathy for riders on the pavement, I’ve had too many collisions or near misses, including with small children.

It’s also often more dangerous for the cyclist anyway because drivers pulling out of parking lots, alleys, side roads, etc. nose their way into the crosswalk as long as no pedestrians are in their immediate way. They aren’t expecting a bike going 15-20 mph on the sidewalk.

In my jurisdiction it’s illegal for cyclists to be on the sidewalk but cars must treat them as owning the lane.

My complaint is about cyclists entering a lane with a car which is super dangerous. Just as it would be for a car to enter a lane held by a cyclist.

In my jurisdiction it's also "required" for cars to give a cyclist the lane, but in practice this doesn't happen and violations are rarely enforced. A cyclist claiming the whole lane is also more likely to be on the receiving end of road rage

Again, I’m not saying that cars are perfect. I was just pointing out how I frequently see cyclists breaking traffic laws and norms. I don’t think that because cars are assholes that bikes can be too.

Do you think it’s appropriate that a bike passes a car in its own lane? Do you think the law should be changed to allow this?

Do you think it's appropriate to blame the victims?

> I frequently see cyclists breaking traffic laws and norms.

More frequently than cars? There are over 5 million car crashes in the US every year. 30,000+ people killed.

>Do you think it’s appropriate that a bike passes a car in its own lane?

This is entirely situational. There are cases where it is OK and there are cases when it isn't.

There was an Uber blocking traffic on my street today and I went past them. It would be ridiculous to have to just sit behind the car until their passenger showed up, and I'm sure as hell nit gonna ride my bike into oncoming traffic

>Do you think the law should be changed to allow this?

It doesn't need to be changed. The law in my state already allows this under many circumstances

And do those cyclists “being assholes” kill 50000 Americans a year? Or even close to the proportional equivalent?

The fact that people driving 2 ton steel killing machines complain about cyclists being “assholes” when it’s overwhelmingly their killing machines that, you know, kill cyclists, pedestrians, and other people in killing machines, is a remarkable display of entitlement.

Your complaint is confusing. "Enter a lane with a vehicle"? As in, be on the road while vehicles are on the road?

It sounds as if you think, if there is no dedicated bike lane, that bicyclists shouldn't exist.

In many places, legally, vehicles have no more right to the road than bicycles. The "road" is a shared lane for bicyclists and vehicles.

That it is dangerous is the responsibility of all to mitigate, but the multi-ton steel box has the obligation to yield.

https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/90000/velka/sh...

I don’t think I’m explaining myself properly. I mean that if a car is already in a section of a lane, a bike would ride alongside a car on the left or right side, in the same lane.

Just like you couldn’t have two cars side by side in a lane, you can’t have a bike and a car in the same lane.

We have mixed traffic with bikes and cars on the same road, but they’re supposed to be sequential, not side by side.

Here’s an example of what I mean.

I’m on a single lane suburban road with a line of 20 cars all going 10mph. A bike rides alongside me going 20 mph in the same lane, passing me and other cars. The bike is 1-2 feet away from the side of my car.

You are contradicting yourself again and somehow still are not getting it.

Pedestrians can shove it. Cyclists on the sidewalk are nowhere near as annoying or dangerous as cyclists on the road, and pedestrians who work to keep cyclists on the road and off of sidewalks have the blood of the unlucky cyclists on their hands...

This is a truly terrible perspective. Many pedestrians are slow and extremely vulerable to the effects of being toppled by a wheeled vehicle. This is particularly a problem when people are leaving buildings onto sidewalks unaware of cross traffic moving at 10+ kph. Bicycles belong on the road with other vehicles.

Show me evidence that cyclists on sidewalks are responsible for even 5% of the fatalities that happen from cyclists being on the roads. I think you're the one with the terrible perspective.

Honestly bicycles belong in their own dedicated spaces. As a driver I don't want them on the road and as a pedestrian I don't want them on the sidewalks. Bike lanes are a start but we need dedicated bike infrastructure.

You say that as if road are for cars and are only "allowing" the bikes to be there by their good grace. It should be flipped around.

Everything about road design is for cars.

I've lived in a place with dedicated bike infrastructure. It was amazing. We should be pushing for that.

And why are cyclists so antagonistic? Not a good look if one wants their group to be taken seriously.

As if the drivers are cool and level headed while mowing cyclists down? People fearing for their lives are allowed to be agitated.

And if you don't want to take a diverse group of people seriously because of some slight you have with a minority of them, you're not really interested in taking them seriously in the first place, and are just looking for excuses. Classic tactic used to neglect lots of groups one's not in. "If the millions of BLM supporters want to be taken seriously, they shouldn't have a few people among them rioting!" is another example.

See this is what I mean by antagonism.

Before roads were for cars they were for horse+buggies, or chariots, or other transport. Cyclists are not first-class citizens on roads and they never will be. And frankly I don't want to get stuck behind one on a road with a dramatically higher speed limit than what you can pedal at. That shit is just rude.

The amount of entitlement that seems to come from the cycling community makes it really hard for others to empathize with your situation. You can make a bad faith argument comparing yourselves to BLMers if you want, but I can see right through it.

Appreciate your sitaution as a minority among minorities and plan your moves appropriately. But thinking that cyclists should get higher priority over multi-ton cars and such you are mistaken.

> People fearing for their lives are allowed to be agitated.

Don't forget that by cycling you are choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight.

> And frankly I don't want to get stuck behind one on a road with a dramatically higher speed limit than what you can pedal at.

In big cities that's never a problem. Cars are stuck behind other cars.

> You can make a bad faith argument comparing

I didn't compare myself to that, only an example. If anything that's a straw man and bad faith on you..

> Don't forget that by cycling you are choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight.

It's not a fight. But you and other drivers looking at it like that is very telling, heh.

> This is particularly a problem when people are leaving buildings onto sidewalks unaware of cross traffic moving at 10+ kph. Bicycles belong on the road with other vehicles.

I can never understand how anyone can make this argument without seeing how it applies even harder to why bicycles shouldn't be on the road with cars going 45+ MPH (~70+ km/h).

Bicycles are closer to pedestrians than cars outside of the slowest city roads.

Agreed. When I got my bike for the first few weeks I would ride on the sidewalk. Until my wife pointed out that in our residential neighborhood, anybody could back out of their driveway and hit me and it would be my fault as I would be in their blind spot. Since then I bike on the road.

Most sidewalks are way too damn narrow for passing a pedestrian IMHO. I stick to bike trails and side streets, sidewalks only exist in my route planning for emergency maneuvers.

Also I live in New Orleans where having a few feet of very broken, ragged sidewalk due to a tree's roots bursting up through them as the pavement slowly sinks is a very common sight. Trust me you do not wanna bicycle on that shit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com