Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2muchcoffeeman | Hacker News Reader

It’s not symmetric though. In a car your mistake has a much higher ceiling to the negative consequences.

And with great power comes great responsibility.

I’ve been honked for waiting for a safe way to pass a cyclist. The car behind me then just zooms past the cyclist after I make a manoeuvre. It’s not like all driver are out there trying to be responsible as much as possible.

View on HN

When I stop to make way to either pedestrian or bicycle or kid (that is more dangerous than a pedestrian) I position my car in such a way that the car after me is as blocked as possible.

That means going more to my left (but not to much as to leave enough space on my right), turning a little (the car takes a little more space) and even turning on the turning signal (not the parking signal)

They get pissed (the cars. Walking Grandmas wave at me to greet me), so I hope I don't get shot at some point.

Most roads aren’t even meant for cyclists but they feel so entitled as to take up entire lanes sometimes.

Depends on the local laws, but mostly likely they are entitled to take the lane.

If there's not enough room for a car to pass safely (e.g., a wide shoulder, a bike lane, etc.), cyclists are encouraged to ride in the middle of the lane. If the cyclist rides on the side, cars try to squeeze past and eventually the worst will happen. Remember, 99% safety is almost certain death for a regular cyclist.

Also though, if a slow-moving vehicle is impeding other traffic, they should pull over at the next safe opportunity and allow traffic to pass.

It’s not really safe to pull over for a bicycle in most street configurations in the US because that puts you squarely in the dooring zone of the parked cars.

I'm simply stating what the traffic laws state. A slow-moving vehicle has the obligation to get out of the way when it can, to allow other traffic to pass.

Here's one example:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427

right, but in effect that's basically zero percent of the time on a street with parked cars. pulling into the front of a driveway is also not safe. And safe passing in WA is three feet.

From WSDOT:

> Pass at a safe distance. Leaving an extra safety buffer in time and space when passing people gives you more ability to see and react, and it’s also the law. Be aware that a bicyclist needs to be positioned in the lane a safe distance away from opening car doors, grates, and other hazards not visible to a driver. Drivers need to move into the other lane when possible or leave at least three feet while passing (RCW 46.61.110). Darkness and weather conditions may affect a driver’s ability to gauge distance.

The reason is that most of the time inside lane is occupied by parking cars, which either outright block the bike or you get into door zone.

>>> Most roads aren’t even meant for cyclists

Source?

You're supposed to take the lane if it's unsafe to pass.

So entitled because that is frequently the codified law. Often the exact same law that allows people to drive cars on the road. In other words they are just as entitled to the road as any other road user. Can you point to some source that indicates that most roads aren’t for cyclists?

In all of the places that I have commuted as a cyclist the rule is that cyclists are to ride “as far to the right as is practicable” or similar. Meaning the lane positioning is for the cyclist to be as far to the right as they judge is ‘practicable’, not as far to the right as is possible. Sometimes it is not ‘practicable’ to be on the shoulder or in the right side of the lane.

Can you point to which law made cycling on the road illegal ?

What state do you live in?

The roads are paid for by my taxes so I'll use them fully, thank you very much.

It's rare that riding on the side is viable. Easily 90%+ of drivers do not know when and how to pass a cyclist so I have to play babysitter and manage their behavior by positioning myself appropriately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com