Hacker News Reader

Many cyclists do ride on public roads for fitness reasons. Beginners might ride in local parks or smth, but I'm pretty sure most of the cycling hours are spent on the roads. Since people who ride more put in significantly more hours and tend to ride roads more. There's offroad cycling, but in many cases it involves cycling on unpaved public roads or other public areas not reserved to bikes only.

I myself spend more hours on public roads on a bicycle than driving a car.

In my personal and not so humble opinion, you shouldn't ride on public roads for fitness reasons. If you need to get from A to B, like from home to work, and you want to do it on a bike, fine. If you want to add some fitness routine to it, it's fine too (your lungs would probably disagree) - but you have to focus primarily on staying safe and not endangering others.

But pure sports? There are parks for that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reclaiming cities for pedestrian and bike travel and creating a maximally energy-efficient public transport system (ironically, the best idea would probably be self-driving, publicly-owned electric cars forming a PRT network). But in current situation one has to stay pragmatic.

There are parks? Where exactly? Riding anywhere but on the road is dangerous. Most reasonably fit road bike cyclist can average 18-19 mph and possibly much faster on a slight declines.

We should be promoting cycling not making it even more difficult. Self driving cars can make cyclist significantly safer for everyone. The most dangerous thing on the roads right now is human controlled cars.

You want pragmatism, but what you're giving cyclists is the exact opposite of a pragmatic situation. Cyclists are being extremely pragmatic when they cycle on regular roads...

If I'd do "pure sports" at parks, many parents with children would be not so happy about that.

I love to go on long bike rides. Like 4 or 10 hours long. Parks is not an option for that. While backroads are awesome. Once out of town, I usually meet a car once in a while. And while in town and suburbia, I guess I can qualify as A to B commuter. Even out of town, sometimes it's sort of A to B commute, because I want to go to some sightseeing spot or fancy cafe in the woods or smth. I just happen to cycle instead of drive. Or sometimes I dispatch my family in a car and go by bicycle myself. It's still A-to-B, isn't it?

Saying what is and what is not a "proper road use" is a very slippery slope. Is it OK to drive to get to a grocery store? Is it OK to drive to some spot in the middle of nowhere for sightseeing? Is it OK to drive for few hours to bbq in an unseen place? Is it OK to drive to go fishing in a nicer lake instead of the one nearby? Is it OK to drive to see friends if you can video call them instead?

In most places a bicycle is given specific rights to use the road.

Generally such laws include things like:

1) May use the turn lanes when turning.

2) Must ride to a specific side of the road unless: You can keep with the speed of traffic, there is not enough safe distance for a car to pass you, or it is not safe to ride on the side of the road. (These rules are generally true of any vehicle that drives slower than general traffic.)

3) Protections to the bicyclist. Either in the form of "vulnerable traffic" laws, or specific bike protection laws.

4) There are even places with laws preventing bicyclists from using the sidewalk.

5) About the only place a bicyclist isn't allowed to ride is on high speed traffic areas like a freeway/highway/etc.

6) Protections for the bicyclist against negligent drivers such as mandating safe driving distances, when to pass, and protecting against specific activities that may endanger the bicyclist.

I do agree that a bike path is certainly much safer (and perhaps more scenic) for fitness, but many people are interested in traveling to a specific location. (Ex, the beach or a park. Riding along the coastline. Etc.)

The main problem with biking on the road isn't that you are doing something wrong... but that drivers do not respect you. Tailing too close, not giving you the right of way when you have it, etc.

Breaking the law /= recklessness. You are probably thinking of negligence per se, something less than recklessness.

And I wonder why you assume that a bunch of motorcycles driving through the mountains would be breaking any laws. I know a group of lesbian harley riders who never go faster than 50 who would take issue with any assumption that riding a bike suggests illegality. For them it is about being seen and showing pride. I did a ride for burn victims a few years back. The kid riding on my bike was all smiles even though I doubt we broke 30 the entire way. He just liked the wind, a bit like my dog when she hangs her head out the window. Riding for fun does not mean riding for speed.

I didn't mean to imply that driving a motorcycle or a bike == illegal, or == driving for speed. As for breaking the law - traffic laws exist to both protect people from deadly accidents and ensure some predictability on the road, the latter of which is needed because humans suck at dealing with surprises, especially over a longer period of time.

What I mean is - going on a motorcycle trip on a scenic route? Sure, it's fine (a self-driving motorbike would probably be even safer though :)). The problem really starts when some people put fun in front of safety and e.g. start speeding.

TL;DR: have as much fun as you want, but not at the expense of safety. Want to have additional fun coming from doing dangerous things? Go do it somewhere where you endanger only yourself (and those who consciously decided to participate in such activities). Racetrack, private roads, whatever.

Lol, a self-driving motorcycle isn't anywhere near possible atm. Driving a car is to riding a motorcycle as walking is to ballet. There are all manner of strange physics (Google "countersteering"). Add to this the vast differences in threat profiles, the regular need for evasive maneuvers, serious judgment calls re emergency braking in corners, the weight-shifting of the rider, the potential 'bail out' decision, the lowside v highside decision (laydowns) ... I haven't heard even a passing joke about an autodrive two-wheeler. Even automatic transmissions are near fantasy beyond small 2-gear scooters.

Any sudden, unexpected, movement by an autodrive motorcycle would probably see the drive thrown free, or at least result in a weight shift great enough to down the entire package.

I meant it as a little joke, but since you bring it up - no, I actually think that autodrive motorcycle is not only feasible, it's not that harder than a self-driving car. Why?

Because all those "ballet-like" things is basic feedback control issues, the kind of which you learn about on control theory 101 in college. You can pretty much convert the problem of steering the self-driving motorcycle into the problem of self-driving car by adding a module that accepts car-like inputs and translates them to dynamic balance control. We've solved the basics with segways, which are smart-high-schooler level electronics projects.

Also, generally, whatever you can do on your vehicle a machine can do the same using the same control inputs, only better. Manual gear shift included.

I take it you haven't driven a motorcycle. I can ride one, at speed and around corners, without touching the controls. Remember that the rider may represent 30+% of the vehicle mass. Moving your weight around on the bike has as much control over direction as the handlebars. Unless you are going to strap the rider into a seat (ie make it a car) attach him to a hydraulic arm, or install a 200lb gyro, no machine can take directional control.

This all comes to a head at the transition point of countersteering, where the controls reverse around 20ish mph. The rider's balance controls whether turning the handlebars right means right or left. If the rider isn't in sync with the autodrive, everyone is in the ditch.

I'm genuinely curious, as an occasional motorcyle enthusiast myself, whether it's physically possible to counter the movements of the rider in addition to and counter to their movements, which represent a large portion of the vehicle mass. My gut feeling based on the segway is, yes, it's possible. But I'd love to hear any analyses to the negative.

My guess is, you could put a 1m vertical pole behind the driver with some mass attached to the top end of it and motors controlling it at the bottom. That should give you enough angular control to compensate for whatever rider is doing.

Given the close interaction between the rider and the bike, I'm not sure how comfortable would such a vehicle be. It may turn out to be nausea-inducing.

I wonder if a "feet first" design would be once solution. The lower centre of gravity should be easier to stabilise. I don't know whether the riding style of an FF makes the same use of the rider shifting their weight as with a regular bike.

It's probably possible to some extent. It's like having a anxious pillion rider on your bike. I remember when I first took my little sister along on my motorcycle, she'd lean the wrong way in the curves because she was scared the bike might fall over or something. Made controlling the bike harder, but not impossible.

(That experience taught me to always tell people to lean into the curve if they've never sat on a motorcycle before)

> > So my friends and I riding motocycles through the mountains on a sunny afternoon are reckless endangerment? > If you're breaking the law then yes, you're reckless, period. If not, then enjoy it all you want.

The speed limit (and various other laws) are very much all or nothing. Riddle me this, which of the following is safer to do on the same road with a speed limit of 50:

a) Driving a brand new porche with brand new tyres on a sunny day, doing 55

b) Driving a car from the 70s with tyres that are almost worn out (but still in the legal range), at night, in heavy rain, doing 48

now consider that a) is illegal and b) is legal.

Breaking a law should not be a binary decision, making it a 0/1 choice makes the world worse for everyone, because to be completely safe, the restriction has to account for the worst case and that means that the vast majority will be artificially limited and feel like the law is needlessly overreaching. This is not a good situation to be in.

We can barely handle a binary law. Humans don't have enough cognitive power to have fuzzy laws. If cars in both a) and b) were self-driving, we could consider flexible traffic laws, because the cars would be accurately aware exactly how dangerous the situation is. Humans are not smart enough.

His point was that you can't just say "they're reckless if they're breaking the law", and you certainly can't say "they're only reckless if they're breaking the law". There is a lot of nuance to it and in some situations, breaking the law is even required to prevent a catastrophy and it's reckless not to.

Fair enough.