Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

> The sad truth is that while bicycles should be respected as vehicles,

I tend to agree, but I can see both sides. There is also very little (and, as far as I know, zero required) bicyclist education, and many bicyclists make little attempt to drive predictably and safely either out of boldness or ignorance.

Similarly, while stricter rules and enforcement for automobile drivers is warranted, I think the same goes for bicyclists. I don't think it's appropriate to consider bicycles as "first-class vehicles" in all situations, namely in the dangerous situations you list (speed limits >~25mph, multiple automobile lanes, etc.). In those situations, I think it's reasonable to ban bicyclists outright, for the safety of the bicyclists and automobile drivers. Of course, along with that is the need for dedicated bicycle lanes, or better yet, completely separate thoroughfares for bicycles.

View on HN

I don't think it's appropriate to consider bicycles as "first-class vehicles" in all situations, namely in the dangerous situations you list (speed limits >~25mph, multiple automobile lanes, etc.).

Driving a motor vehicle on a road is a privilege. This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons.

Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right. If this clashes with driving habits, driving habits need to yield.

That is an interesting analysis, a right to do x trumps the privilege to do y. Is this the way the law treats circumstances like this?

I am not disagreeing, genuinely curious about the argument

ADDED: I did a little research and found other examples of privilege vs. right[1].

[1] http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

> Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right.

That's a bold claim. Citation?

The actual language differs from state to state, but in general there is no attempt by the states to revoke certain individuals' right of riding a bicycle. (For example, being pulled over for drunk bicycling can get your driver's license suspended, but does not affect bicycling.)

Corollary: When states declare that bicycles on public roads are subject to the same rules and responsibilities as cars (and most/all states do), sanctions on bicycling are not available as penalties.

Not an explicitly enumerated right in the USA, but a "right" in the same way freedom to walk down the sidewalk is a "right": you're not endangering peoples' lives & it's not explicitly prohibited so you "have a right" to do it. If someone attempted to prevent you from walking down the sidewalk they would be denying you that "right."

Driving a motor vehicle does endanger peoples' lives, so we (society) decided you don't have the "right" to do it, but you can be granted the privilege to do so pretty easily provided you have the $$ for administrative fees & can pass a test demonstrating basic competency.

Your question is totally reasonable, but I think it's fair to say one has a "right" to bike on public roads (barring interstates) but not a "right" to drive on public roads as this requires a license & is subject to many strict regulations.

What exception makes "barring interstates" okay but not "barring roads with a speed limit >X"? Not saying I necessarily disagree, just trying to understand your reasoning.

There are places not accessible by roads with bike-accessible speed limits. Those are much more common than places not accessible except by interstate. (Incidentally, biking on the shoulder of the interstate is permissible in my state, with the occasional exception of some cities and bridges without shoulders.)

I'm not sure I follow the thrust of your comment.

I am interested in why sequoia asserts that it's correct (or at least permissible) to prohibit bicycles from interstates but a violation of rights to prohibit them from other roads. The fact that bicycles are not prohibited from all interstates seems somewhat orthogonal...

I think it's reasonable to designate certain very-high-speed roads as "car only" when there are reasonable alternative routes for bikes. If there's a destination you can only get to by interstate I'd say "allow bikes." I'm a biker and strongly pro bike-rights but I recognize that certain exceptions are reasonable for safety & expediency. :)

So hypothetically, you wouldn't object (on "rights" grounds) if there were a non-interstate that was labeled no-bikes when there were plenty of alternate routes to everywhere serviced by that thoroughfare. Sounds reasonable to me.

One possibility: Interstates are big roads that make it faster to get somewhere you could get on another road if you didn't mind going slower. Some (esp. rural) roads with 45+mph speed limits are the only way to get somewhere, therefor bikes need access. Anyway I'm also just waxing; I don't know the exact laws and surely there are exceptions- generally speaking "all but Interstate" seems like a reasonable thumbrule.

Minor nitpick: bicycling also endangers lives. And even though it doesn't happen often, reckless cycling habits may endanger motorists' lives too (by e.g. causing swerving through unpredictable behaviour). I say that as someone who commutes to work by bike.

you're not endangering peoples' lives

This is regrettably untrue. There are far fewer deaths from bicyclists, of course, but if you google you'll see that there's about one a year. Although I'm pro-cycling I have to say I particularly dislike that segment of cycling community which seems to have the attitude that they not only have right of way at all times against cars, but also against pedestrians; I have had far more near-misses from careless or rule-breaking cyclists than with cars.

One per year? Compared to cars, food poisoning, bathtubs, ladders, and almost anything else you can think of, that's close enough to zero to be a non-issue.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1], to which your home country is likely a signatory.

[1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/I...

your link doesnt work for me, here's a different one:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

NC General Statute 20-4.01 (49) defines a bicycle as a vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles:

"bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle"

source: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/...

I don't know anything definitively one way or another, but it might be related to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...

There's a middle ground. In Boulder at least, a bicyclist can be ticketed for running a red light, going the wrong way on one-way etc.

This is definitely true. Bicyclists on public roads have (most of) the same responsibilities as drivers, which means penalties for breaking the rules.

There needs to be more of this. As a relatively new biker in NYC (since the bike sharing program launched) I've been amazed at the suicidal tendencies of my (non-bike share) brethren. At a red light? Just pedal out into the middle of the road to see if you can cross anyway. Going the wrong way? Sure!

You should see the nutters on fix wheeled bikes in London I have seen so many that blast through major junctions dodging between pedestrians.

Try watching the junctions around Holbourn tube station and you will see several in a few minuets.

Is that not common? In Denmark where we have a lot of bikes, we have rules specifically written for bicyclists.

And yet Seth Vidal is dead, and the driver remains alive.

In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. In practice, however, riders have a lot more to lose in a collision with a car.

> In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads.

Since you mentioned "an ideal world," I'm going to completely disagree. I think that bicycles and automobiles sharing roads is, at best, a manageable but extremely dangerous situation. Like it or not, bicycles and automobiles behave very differently, and require their surrounding vehicles to behave very differently. In an ideal world, there would be separate thoroughfares for automobiles and bicycles, and neither would be allowed on the other (like we already mostly have for pedestrians)

Excepting of course, the millions of intersections and driveways. You know, besides those.

Well, pedestrians already have separate thoroughfares and are not allowed on roads, right? What's the difference?

(like we already mostly have for pedestrians)

If you're talking about sidewalks, it's barely separate, as in a city there are conflicting paths between the road and the sidewalk every dozen feet (every driveway or intersection).

Crossing a street is a lot different than traveling with the flow of traffic in a lane.

Well, in an ideal world it would be both perfectly manageable and not dangerous, but I think we're both saying the same thing. Cars and bicycles are very different and bad things tend to happen when they share the same roadway.

> This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons.

If that was a sound argument, then one could say that the right to own a firearm is really just a privilege because most states require a license to own a firearm which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. Or similarly that the right to vote is just a privilege because you must register and there are a variety of reasons for the state to revoke it.

Just because a right is regulated does not make it a privilege.

Driving is legally defined as a privilege, just check your state's MVC guide.

Well, talk about moving the goal-posts, but you aren't the original poster so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The right to freedom of movement is not really a right if it does not include by all available means.

For example, to say you have the right to walk from the east coast to the west coast but not the right to drive a car (or ride a train/bus/plane - all arguments that have been made post 9/11) means that you de facto do not have the right to travel from the east coast to the west coast because it is impractical for the vast majority of the population to walk it.

I'm sure there are motor vehicle codes that have adopted the language of privilege rather than right if for no other reason than it makes it easier for them to claim that moral authority later on, but that doesn't make it true in the sense of natural law. Government does not grant people privileges because everything the government does comes from the people to begin with.

Driving depends on a huge amount of infrastructure which is provided or controlled by the government, everything from roads to refined fuel. As far as I know you actually can drive a car without a license, if you do that in your private property (e.g. suppose you own a farm or other big property with internal driveways), but not in any public roads. Yeah we pay for the roads, and oil infrastructure and other things with our taxes... it doesn't matter. Google [is driving a privilege], you'll find citations of court decisions, some people have tried to assert their "right to drive" without success.

Now your moving the goal posts back to the original poster's claim that licensing is the granting of a privilege rather than regulation of a right.

Owning a firearm is an individual privilege. A well armed militia is a community right.

I don't think it's accurate to say that most states require a license just to own a firearm. There are age, mental health, and criminal background restrictions, but that's not quite the same thing. Some states do have gun ownership licenses, but most only require licenses to carry a firearm, and in many of those states, that is technically only required for concealed carry.

Amend "most" with many. A quick scan of wikipedia suggests there are about 20 states that require a permit to purchase or registration of ownership. Federal law also restricts ownership by convicted felons in all 50 states which is essentially the same thing - regulation by any other name.

Do you think it's reasonable that bicyclists are free to travel on most roads without any education or licensing? Why is it that pedestrians are banned from traveling on roads, bicyclists are free to do so with no licensing whatsoever, and automobile drivers require a license?

Pedestrians are not banned from travelling on roads lacking sidewalks.

> but I can see both sides.

This isn't a "on the one hand, on the other" issue. Even the most foolish and aggressive cyclist is almost never endangering the safety of drivers around him, even indirectly. Yet all it takes is a nudge, honk, door opening, unsignaled turn, etc. to kill a cyclist.

Bicycle etiquette is for all practical purposes not a public safety issue, and IMHO responses of the "but bicyclists can be rude" variety to incidents like these only help perpetuate a driving culture aggressive to cyclists.

> In those situations, I think it's reasonable to ban bicyclists outright

Why not lower the speed limit, or add a bike lane? Just because you perceive the public roads as "car roads" and driving as "normal" doesn't make it so, and I don't think your convenience should trump someone's basic ability to get around.

Unpredictable cyclists endanger other cyclists and drivers - not because they are likely to hit them, but because they train drivers to react inappropriately. Drivers that don't respect cyclists (or pedestrians, or other drivers, of course) should be ticketed; so should cyclists that behave inappropriately - legally they can be, by the way.

> Just because you perceive the public roads as "car roads" and driving as "normal" doesn't make it so

Why not? The roads were built for cars. Driving on them isn't just "convenient," it's exactly what was intended to happen. Don't get me wrong, there should absolutely be more bike lanes and other considerations so that cyclists can travel safely. But, the infrastructure in its current state is definitely built around automobiles, and mixing bikes in is dangerous.

I just spent 4 days commuting around Chicago on bike, so again, I'm all for it. But, as a cyclist, I think you have to approach it like you're in someone else's territory and subject to their whims. I don't believe an indignant "this is my road too" attitude is going to do you any favors.

> The roads were built for cars.

This is untrue.

"The coming of the railways in the 1830s killed off the stage-coach trade; almost all rural roads reverted to low-level local use. Cyclists were the first group in a generation to use roads and were the first to push for high-quality sealed surfaces and were the first to lobby for national funding and leadership for roads. Without cyclists, motorists wouldn't have hit the ground running when it came to places to drive this new form of transport."

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

I mean, that's nice and all, but it seems to be purposely obtuse. Again, just look at the current infrastructure. The width of the roads, traffic laws, signs and signals, intersections, highways, etc. I guess you "got me" in that, at some point, road construction was driven by cyclists, but that pretty clearly shifted some time ago. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The prevailing notion that "roads are made for cars" is self-fulfilling, as people use it as justification for making roads further unsafe for bicycles (and other road users).

Seems like the other way around to me - if roads are made for bicycles then there is no reason to invest in infrastructure like dedicated bike-paths, bike-lanes or even wider shoulders.

Cute.

Because the majority of roads nowadays in use were built in 1830... /sarcasm

Here, even 70 years ago, several roads were just a dusty path through fields and many of them didn't exist yet. When they were actually built as a road, it was done for cars, buses, trucks and it was done from steep consumption taxes on gas and later from country-wide toll imposed on cars.

Of course, YMMV in your country. But I really think that you didn't have asphalt-paved 10 m wide roads 180 years ago.

re: paying for building roads, http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themsel...

Local roads, which bicyclists mostly use, are generally paid for by property taxes or other local taxes, at least in the US. Only highways are paid for by federal gas taxes, and since that tax has been declining in real terms since 1993, highway funding also comes from general tax revenue.

> Why not? The roads were built for cars.

It is amazing how the marketing of car culture change people's perception of this. No, roads were not developed for cars. Roads and streets where predominantly pedestrian avenues prior to motorized vehicles. Pedestrians, cyclists (when the bike was invented), horses, and trollies (again, when invented) all occupied streets and the space was considered public.

Ok, I should have been more clear. I'm talking about the road system that we have in the US today. As I said in my other reply, this point is a historical gotcha that's completely irrelevant to the discussion of modern road use and biker safety.

resu_nimda: Many roads, especially in older cities like Chicago, were not in any way built as 'car roads,' as they were built before the widespread adoption of the car. Many were poorly retrofitted in an attempt to move automobiles in quantity, but this has generally been to the great detriment of the neighborhoods they pass through.

Bike lanes apparently don't help as much as you'd think. There is a psychological aspect to providing a bike lane that makes car drivers think that bikers are already protected by the lane, meaning, in the end, that they don't actually give bikers as much room.

Edit: Bike lanes increase safety but I just added it to point out that it's a relatively complicated situation. I think lower speeds were the biggest factor towards increasing safety. I can't find the study either so the above really isn't worth all that much, my memory being what it is.

The worst is bike lanes painted such that you can only be in them by riding in the door-zone. Fortunately, those seem to be going away.

Bike lanes also don't help when bikers weave in and out of it.

Drivers opening their doors into the bike lane without looking doesn't help cyclists avoid weaving in and out of it. And before you say anything: In California (and I believe this is true in many other states), opening your door into traffic (and, yes, cyclists count as traffic) automatically puts you at fault in the even of an accident or incident.

> Even the most foolish and aggressive cyclist is almost never endangering the safety of drivers around him, even indirectly.

I highly doubt that. I have seen dozens of bicyclists cause absolute chaos in traffic. Granted, I've never seen any collisions, but I can't imagine that the chaos I've seen is "safe" compared to the normal flow of traffic.

> Yet all it takes is a nudge, honk, door opening, unsignaled turn, etc. to kill a cyclist.

True, but if your implication is that bicyclists should be able to freely use roads because of how vulnerable they are, then pedestrians should also be able to freely use roads.

> I tend to agree, but I can see both sides.

Like I said in the other comment: a bike is never a threat to a car. A car is always a threat to a bike. While your points are valid, saying that that is looking at "both sides" is an inappropriate way of describing the situation.

If you're driving a long and a bike pulls out suddenly in front of you, unless you have the attitude of "fuck it, just run them over" then yes, a bike can still be a massive threat to a car.

No, it can't. Not in any physical sense. If a car swerves and hits a cyclist at 30kph, the cyclist is almost certain to be injured, if not dead. If a bike swerves and hits a car, they might scratch the paint. When will the false equivalences end?

If a car swerves to avoid a cyclist and hits another car...

...both car's passengers are surrounded by a metal cage that is trying to protect lives.

Are you being deliberately daft? Yes, the people in the cars are safer than a reckless person on a bicycle, but that doesn't mean the bicyclist isn't still putting them in some danger - those metal cages don't always succeed - as well as putting pedestrians and other bicyclists in more significant danger.

Okay, a reckless cyclist can put a driver in some danger, if the driver is going fast enough that the car can't be stopped quickly enough to avoid either hitting the cyclist or swerving into an oncoming lane.

However, in this constructed situation, it seems to me that the driver is being more unsafe by driving that fast.

So, you're in favor of lowering the speed limit to like 15 mph?

Yes: http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/

If that's the parent's position, then I'm not sure I agree but I can't fault them for inconsistency. In an environment where many cars are traveling faster, though, it is nonetheless irresponsible and dangerous to others to ride a bike recklessly (or otherwise be unpredictable near fast-moving traffic).

I will agree that a relatively slow-moving bicycle on a road with fast-moving cars is indeed a dangerous situation for everyone. And I would agree that having similar speed vehicles together seems safer.

However, in places with vehicles going differing speeds, I would put the onus of safety on the faster vehicles.

What was being discussed was cyclists behaving recklessly. Imagine a cyclist blowing through a red light at the bottom of a hill, where they're going ~20ish. Cross traffic with a green light isn't necessarily going to see them until the last minute even if the cross traffic is moving at an otherwise safe speed. Pay attention in a city for a while, and you'll see things like this, and it rightly pisses off both drivers and us other cyclists.

I thought we were talking about whether or not bikes can be a massive threat to cars.

I have been paying attention in a city for a while. I have seen the situation you describe, but it's rare in my experience, even with SF supposedly full of reckless fixie-riders. Dangerous driving is far more common in my experience.

Hmm, yeah, scrolling up, there was more than a little hyperbole on both sides at the root of this thread. I agree a bike is not a "a massive threat to a car"; this doesn't mean it's okay for people to ride recklessly, or that they're not endangering others when they do.

And dangerous driving is probably more common (certainly by number of instances), and it should be condemned as well.

I certainly agree with all of that.

Stop being obtuse.

I wonder if someone could find stats on how many car-on-car collisions are caused by avoiding a bicycle, and compare that to how many car-on-bicycle collisions are caused by a swerving bicyclist (or any cause, really).

And then look at the resulting injuries.

No one is disputing that a reckless bicyclist is a danger to themselves. The question is how much of a danger they are to others, because more people feel more okay intervening when someone is presenting a danger to others.

Then the car serves as the immediately threat to the other car, no the cyclist. This why you are supposed to drive defensively when operating a motor vehicle, so sudden changes in a situation doesn't cause you to crash into someone or something.

When you're behind the wheel of a car, yes. When you're around a car, no.

Even if someone's driving defensively, sudden changes in the environment lead to a more dangerous situation. If they're driving defensively, hopefully they can deal with it, but that is no reason to create dangerous situations in the first place.

Actually, it absolutely can, in the same way that striking a deer in a car can kill the motorists. Horrifying, but true and dangerous.

Not to mention the fact that a cyclist at full speed can absolutely kill a person, especially a small person.

Any motorist driving irresponsibly should be ticketed and any cyclists doing the same should also be ticketed.

Similarly, a deer (which weighs less than a human on a bike and probably has a lower center of gravity) could never be a threat to a car. Running into a deer couldn't do more than scratch the paint on a car. I've never heard of a single person ever getting killed when they drove into a deer. /sarcasm

Bikes can certainly damage cars. I had a friend who went through a passenger window (breaking through the glass) of a car that pulled out in front of him. If that was the driver's side window, there is a nonzero chance that the driver might have been knocked out or somehow wrecked his car.

Also, cars (and their drivers) can definitely get hurt trying to avoid collisions with bikers by swerving out of the way and colliding with other vehicles/buildings/going off the road into a ditch.

The several grandfather post to this would have said essentially the same thing and would be much less controversial if it just read "a bike is less of a threat to a car than a car is to a bike", rather than using the absolutes of "always" and "never" (which rarely can be used to describe real life situations).

Also, despite historical claims, I'm fairly confident that most roads (by any reasonable definition of most) in the US today were built with the majority of design thought about drivers.

Also a pedestrian, or a jogger, might pull out suddenly in front of you. But this is no ground to make transport by foot a privilege.

I'm a cyclist who has never sat behind the wheel of a car (well I'm lazy now so more of a taxi-ist, but a cyclist at heart) and completely agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that yes, while cars may be far more dangerous to bikes than the other way around, a bike still can be very dangerous to a car.

Bikes are threats to pedestrians. I've never hit a pedestrian on a bike but I've come close. I've also been hit by a car while on a bike (at a low speed, enough to trash the bike but I was able to hop off in time) so I have sympathy here.

Bikes injure pedestrians fairly often. My understanding is they rarely kill (though I'm happy to defer on either to someone bringing actual statistics to the table).

They don't, you need higher speeds for that (freak accidents don't count). Source: the lack of bicycle-caused deaths in the Netherlands.

Well, apparently they do occasionally (though you'd probably be correct in labeling it a "freak accident"):

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/no-jail-for-cyclist-c...

By that logic, pedestrians should be able to walk in the middle of roads, since they're not a threat to a car.

You will need to explain how the fact that pedestrians are even less threatening and more vulnerable is the same as implying this gives them the right to walk on the middle of the road.

I suspect that pedestrians are less threatening because they rarely walk in traffic (both because it's illegal, and because it's obviously dangerous). But for bicyclists, it's legal, and apparently the danger isn't enough to stop a lot of people.

The way you describe it, my impression is that the real problem is that you are not considering bikes as participants of traffic, but obstacles in the way of your car.

I'm not considering automobiles as inherently more "valid" participants of traffic than bicycles. I just consider any road where two types of vehicles of very different sizes which behave very differently to be an inherently unsafe and inefficient road for all participants. Obviously, the occupants of the larger vehicles are much safer in collisions with the smaller vehicles, but that's not my primary consideration. I just think the roads, or at the very least the lanes, should be dedicated to only bikes or only automobiles. Since there are far more automobiles than bicycles on most roads, if building new infrastructure is out of the question, I think it makes sense to not allow bikes to share the lanes. This isn't a condemnation of bicycle commuting, but rather a basic appeal to safety and organization, just like pedestrians are not allowed to share lanes with automobiles. The current situation on most roads, where a small number of small slow-moving bikes occupy lanes in the middle of a sea of automobiles, is just a disaster waiting to happen (and in big cities, it happens all the time).

I'm not considering big rig trucks as inherently more "valid" participants of traffic than passenger cars. I just consider any road where two types of vehicles of very different sizes which behave very differently to be an inherently unsafe and inefficient road for all participants. Obviously, the occupants of the larger vehicles are much safer in collisions with the smaller vehicles, but that's not my primary consideration...

Tractor trailers do not behave very differently than normal automobiles on freeways, and they're generally not allowed on smaller roads.

They can, at least in California: as a pedestrian, you're entitled to cross the road at any intersection (crosswalk lights must be followed, but in their absence you're free to cross at any time). By law, all drivers must come to a complete stop until you have reached the curb.

I don't mean crossing the road. I mean traveling with traffic in a lane.

Ok, since I can't edit the comment any more: my whole point was that the threats are not equivalent, and describing the situation as "car vs bike" as if they are on equal terms is wrong.

Instead people are getting all anal about the use of "never" and "always", and use far-fetched examples where a car can be threatened by a bike when atttempting to avoid running over it and crashing into something else.

Way to direct the discussion away from the point I'm trying to make. Look at this Dutch national report on bike safety:

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf

The Netherlands has one of the highest percentage of people riding bikes with an estimated 14 million bicycles for 16.5 million inhabitants. It has one of the most developed infrastructures in favour of bike safety, about the safest traffic in Europe in general, and as a culture it is about as bike-oriented as it gets. Despite all of this, travelling with your bike is still 4.7 times more dangerous than travelling with a car.

I am in no way trying to absolve cyclists or pedestrians of their responsibility in traffic safety, but denying that they aren't inherently more vulnerable and that infrastructure design should emphasize their safety is absurd.

That 4.7x can probably be completely attributed to all the safety equipment that protects the person in a car. A more valid metric would be accidents (not injuries) per vehicle mile traveled.

No, it wouldn't, because that's not what we're discussing. The discussion was danger one vehicle poses to the other, and the only significant cause for bike fatalities is car accidents - there are no chasms to fall in in the flattest country in the world, and the speed at which one travels on a bike is much slower so much less likely to be fatal in case of a crash with a stationary object. So this is a very real metric of how dangerous bikes are to cars and vice versa.

EDIT: And even then it's skewed in favour of the car, because for cars the fatality rate is more likely due to crashes with other cars.

I think that a cyclist flaunting traffic laws should always be liable for accidents, but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such. Any city that has resources for this ought to take a hard look at the size of their police force.

Your idea of banning cycle traffic on >25mph roads is misguided. Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.

>Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill

I doubt that, maybe in burst/sprint but not sustained...Hell, the average top speeds in the Tour de France during the sprints is barely 25mph and those are top athletes.

>but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such.

So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on bicycles? That's fairly myopic...

You're right, there are lots of slow cyclists who seldom top 15mph. Nevertheless, the speed limit is a speed limit, and if I can manage 25mph on a 35mph road, I don't see the issue. Mixed-use roads that see cyclists clogging traffic should provide simple painted bike lanes if nothing else.

  So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on
  bicycles? That's fairly myopic...

Fewer than 1000 people die in bicycle accidents a year. It is just not comparable to the danger of auto transport.

considering the amount of people biking vs the amount of people in cars, I'd guess that biking is the far more dangerous mode of transport.

According to this site [1], biking accounts for 1% of trips, but 2% of traffic fatalities.

[1] - http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

You might find this interesting:

  UK figures show that it takes at least 8000 years of
  average cycling to produce one clinically severe head
  injury and 22,000 years for one death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Health_benefits...

So? From the cited article giving that stat - "a mile of driving is ten times safer than a mile of cycling".

You might argue that cycling is safe. You can't argue that it is safer. It simply isn't.

Cycling on its own is very safe, it's the cars that are dangerous.

True, but that's a silly assertion. Cars by themselves are pretty safe. It's the other cars that cause problems. Since the cars are there, biking is more dangerous than being in another car.

> Cars by themselves are pretty safe. It's the other cars that cause problems.

Tell that to Michael Hastings, I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear the news.

If it's not comparable, why are you complaining? Why should I have to respect you more than a car if you're not at any real risk of death? Seems like more effort than its worth, after all I don't really value your life at anything over 0.

Fewer than 2000 people die in plane crashes every year, despite the millions who fly. So I suppose we shouldn't make them follow any rules or safety procedures either, I mean it isn't as if those rules have prevented any deaths. Right?

   Why should I have to respect you more than a car

This is a disgusting perspective, and you clearly have never ridden a bicycle significantly for practical transportation or else you might be able to relate to some of the comments from myself and other cyclists in this thread.

You should respect me because I am exposed, riding a machine with few to no safety devices. It's the same reason I drive particularly carefully around motorcyclists. I do respect them more, so to speak, because they are at far greater risk on the road than car drivers. I want to see that they reach their destination safely, and I know the odds are stacked against them by distracted or arrogant drivers.

Most non-freeway roads don't have minimum speed limits, but I think they should. Based on my own experience, one of the most important factors for road safety is the homogeneity of speed. Having cars (or bikes) going faster or slower than the average flow of traffic have caused the vast majority of congestion and safety problems I have witnessed.

No, laws that are appropriate for cars may not be appropriate for bicycles. Stop signs, for example. There is no justification for requiring bicyclists to come to a complete stop to safely cross an intersection. (There isn't for cars, either, but that's a separate issue.)

No, you don't get to have it both ways. I have routinely seen bikes dash through stop signs and lights when they don't have right of way. On more than one occasion of seen said cyclist get injured; the person driving the car gets blamed despite the bicyclist breaking the law. This is entirely unacceptable and dangerous, I don't care if you don't think the laws make sense every vehicle has to follow them.

It's myopic not to see the differences between the two vehicles, not to insist that they be taken into consideration if relevant.

Be negligent on a bicycle and a vast majority of the life and limb you are risking is your own. Be negligent in a car and you're putting in mortal danger every other driver and cyclist on the road as well as every pedestrian in the vicinity. The difference between 25lb of metal powered by glutes and quads and 1.5 tons of metal with a tank of flammable liquid and a 200 hp engine is important.

Your point being? Driving or biking on the road makes you a vehicle, all vehicles follow the same set of laws. I don't care if your "I'm a bicyclist" superiority complex makes you think you're above the law; you're not.

According to the laws of California, driving or biking makes you a "driver", but does not make the bike a "vehicle", it's a "device". You are still subject to the laws of the road, though.

> Be negligent on a bicycle and a vast majority of the life and limb you are risking is your own.

I don't think that's true. I haven't personally witnessed any accidents, and I admittedly don't have any data to cite, but I have witnessed many bicyclists cause complete chaos in busy traffic.

I think it's true, depending just how vast "vast" is interpreted. But "I'm taking a bigger risk myself" doesn't excuse putting others at risk.

These numbers are a little off. Most commuters are going to scoot along in the 8-12 mph range. People riding for exercise or training for a sport are going to get up near 20 mph. Amateur bike races will hold sustained speeds of 24-30 mph for a few hours (depending on the terrain). In the TdF this year the fastest team in the time trial averaged 35 mph for 25 min. TdF sprinters can hit 50 mph and 70 mph on mountain descents.

In todays (stage 10) the ITV4 coverage (Chris Bordman ) said they where hitting 65-70kph at today's finish which is over 40Mph

Average speed for the front runners in the Tour de France on an average stage is usually around 25mph, and that's with some gruesome hill climbs. On the faster stages, average speeds can reach 35mph. Sprints often hit 40mph, and on downhill stretches are known to exceed 60mph. I commute 7.5 miles into central London daily where the roads really were originally built around the horse and cart and usually manage ~22mph average if the traffic isn't so bad and I catch the lights right.

It's pretty obvious when a bicyclist is at fault and they are often held responsible when they cause an accident. In the case of most city accidents, police routinely pull video from nearby buildings to establish fault.

In fact, just this morning a lady got hit and put in the ICU at the corner of King St and 3rd in San Francisco, right near the ballpark. Yolanda, the lady who manages the front desk, was reviewing the tapes with the police after the accident. That's the second serious accident involving a pedestrian or bicyclist at that intersection since the beginning of the year. TBH, the speed limit in SoMa needs to be dropped to 25 mph. People drive far too fast in this neighborhood for it to be safe for either bicyclists or pedestrians.

> It's pretty obvious when a bicyclist is at fault and they are often held responsible when they cause an accident. In the case of most city accidents, police routinely pull video from nearby buildings to establish fault.

This is completely untrue, at least in NYC.

"Historically, nearly half of motorists who kill a New York City pedestrian or cyclist do not receive so much as a citation for careless driving."

http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/08/03/nypd-7371-pedestrians-...

I thought we were talking about bicyclists being held accountable, not motorists?

I was responding to the idea that it is obvious who is at fault, when in fact the bicyclist is usually blamed. (Yes, my insinuation is that the bicyclist is not usually at fault.)

As for "police routinely pull video ... to establish fault" -- this is just one example, but recently in DC there was a bike-and-car crash in which a surveillance video proved the cyclist was not at fault, but the police refused to even look at it: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19284/it-must-have-...

Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.

Most cyclists in the TdF, maybe. 25 mph is quite fast on a bicycle.

OT: you mean flouting traffic laws. "Flaunting" means to show off.

"Any city that has resources for this ought to take a hard look at the size of their police force."

Aren't tickets usually a source of revenue?

Perhaps you are correct, and average bicyclists have no trouble traveling at speeds greater than 25 mph, but for some reason they rarely choose to exercise that ability. 10-15 mph seems to be more usual, and 5 mph is not uncommon here in hilly Seattle. Maybe they get going out on the Burke-Gilman bike trail, but they certainly aren't going anything like 25 mph on the streets I share with them.

I'm not sure if your joking but I'll bite:)

> Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.

The average speed of the tour de france winners now is only about 25mph and that is very heavily drug assisted;)

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

Given this I can't really take your statement as a serious one:)

I agree that 25mph is unreasonable for the average cyclist, but to be fair, aren't the Tour de France speeds averaged over a much greater distance?

25 mph up a hill is fast, but the tour de France is a silly comparison, they sustain those speeds for 4 hours at a time, commuters aren't going to do that. Commuters also rarely face anything resembling the climbs in the tour.

True but on the other side most commuters aren't going for speed, or using great bikes, or proper shoes so I think the expectation would be that the tour de france winner would still average a much faster time than a commuter.

Where do you live? There aren't even any roads with speed limits < 30mph here in Rochester, New York, and it's the same in Buffalo. What you're proposing up here would mean banning bicycles on all but specially marked bicycle paths.

Especially in the city, it's prohibited to ride on the sidewalk; you must use the street even where there are no specially marked bike lanes. So, what you propose seems particularly outrageous to me; the only remaining options to get around the city would be having a car or using public transportation (or going on foot.)

> What you're proposing up here would mean banning bicycles on all but specially marked bicycle paths.

Well, think about it this way. Why are pedestrians banned from walking on roads, even when there are no nearby sidewalks? The answer, I believe, is that it's extremely dangerous, both to the pedestrian and to automobile drivers, and that it would cause massive inefficiency in the flow of traffic. The reality is that bicycles, like pedestrians, necessarily behave very different than automobiles, and most of our roads and traffic laws are designed around automobiles. Similarly, bicycles are not allowed on certain types of roads (many bridges, freeways, etc.) Obviously, its a continuum, and bicycles can fit in with automobiles better than pedestrians. The question is simply where to draw the line.

Can you cite this? Because it's certainly legal for pedestrians to use the roads in my state, sidewalk or no.

There's no massive inefficiency, the cars pass the pedestrians, the cyclists, the skateboarders and all the other road users, when safe to do so, just like the law says they should.

I think most non-freeway roads technically allow pedestrians (with local exceptions), but under strict rules that place them well outside the flow of traffic. I'm not aware of any areas where pedestrians can walk with the direction of traffic while occupying a lane.

anecdotally, i can't even remember the last time i saw a bicyclist stop at a stop sign.

even the guys in their $10k road bikes and full outfits, who ostensibly take bicyclig VERY seriously, just blow through stop signs like they weren't even there. sometimes even stop LIGHTS if it's a t-stop.

especially when they're riding in their large groups. and sometimes they even ride on the wrong side of the road (LOL)

i live in santa monica, maybe it's especially bad here.

If we're going anecdotes, I can't remember the last time I saw a car stop at a stop sign either.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2013/stop-sign-compliance-temecula-...

i understand you're being snarky, or perhaps willfully defiant/facetiously ignorant despite your common-sense understanding of the difference, and you probably are a bicyclist, but a car that slows to an almost-stop is much different than a bicycle that just completely blows through it at full-speed without even slowing down, which is pretty much what all bikes do here in southern california.

where I live, anyone who pays attention realizes that most bicyclists are either casual, ignorant weekend riders or very serious road bikers who just simply don't give two shits about the law. commuters who follow the law are VERY rare.

I'm not trying to be snarky -- I rarely see cars stop for stop signs; I normally see cyclists slow down at stop signs, and I rarely see any cyclists completely blow through them. (I also rarely see cars completely blow through stop signs.)

My common-sense understanding of the difference is that a cyclist can more readily hear what is happening near an intersection, has fewer visual obstacles to see what is near an intersection, and is often already moving slower than a car. That makes me feel that a cyclist rolling through a stop sign is far less dangerous than a car doing the same.

My experience has been in SF/Oakland/Berkeley.

Anyway, the reason I added that link in the earlier comment was to illustrate my frustration with the "all cyclists break laws all the time, they need to be safer like cars" fable -- the article links to a study that found that by 1996, only 1% of cars stopped at the stop sign being observed. Of course there are cyclists who break laws, but there are far more drivers who break laws, and they are the more dangerous offenders.

Meta: go!

Interesting... I've noticed your username above several rather anti-social comments in several different threads over the last day or so. I wonder why.

/Meta

To be honest, I don't think alxndr was being snarky. I see plenty of drivers plow through stop signs at 5-10 mph. I also see plenty of people on bikes plow through stop signs at 5-10 mph. Both are in the wrong, but the fact that the person on the bike was going the same speed before the stop-sign doesn't seem hugely relevant to me. What does seem relevant is that plowing through at 5-10 mph in a car is far more likely to injure or kill a pedestrian or cyclists than doing so in a car, for simple reasons of mass and vehicle width.

Frankly, your little rant sounds like the self-serving justification I usually hear from several of my friends and relatives for raging at cyclists. Those friends and relatives are among the least courteous and defensive (that is to say, the most dangerous towards other drivers and cyclists around them) drivers I've ridden with. I hope for your sake and mine that you are not like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com