Hacker News Reader

Comment by lutorm | Hacker News Reader

if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards

The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already. For example:

* Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles.

* Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles.

Of course, in these cases it is the motor vehicles that are allowed to do things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing that these these rules shouldn't exist either?

View on HN

There are motor vehicles that are barred from freeways.

From: http://vespamotorsport.com/?p=654

In California, any scooter with 150cc of displacement or more is legally classified as a “motorcycle” and all motorcycles are freeway legal (see California vehicle code section 400). Any scooter with less than 150cc of displacement is not freeway legal, therefore, even though you still need a motorcycle license to ride a scooter in this class.

Similarly, Scoots (scootnetworks.com, those electric mopeds you see going around SF) are classified as, well, electric mopeds, and therefore are not freeway-legal (but they don't require a motorcycle license).

> "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles.

Incorrect. Cars are required to drive at the speed of traffic or get off the road. Example: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425

Bikes have the extra privilege of using the road at slow speed.

That may be incorrect in Washington, but it is correct in California. See CVC 21202.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c...

there still needs to be laws keeping them off roads over 35 or such; I ride a bike. Unless there is a dedicate bike lane being on a road with speeds like that is just asking for trouble even if it is long and straight.

also, tag them like cars. no reason they should not have tag fees if they want to use the road

Bicycle registration has been tried, and it doesn't work from a practical or fiscal perspective: http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/s...

You never ride on highways? How do you get anywhere?

Where is there a road in San Francisco with a speed limit over 35MPH, but without a separate bike lane? I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it. It's definitely an edge case which should not affect how one thinks about the Idaho Stop.

Also, roads are primarily funded by general revenues such as sales and payroll taxes. The idea that your registration fees buy you access to the road is completely absurd. Registration fees in California cover a tiny fraction of road costs, and even registration fees together with fuel taxes are not even a majority of the money spent on roads.

This would make it impossible to do any bike touring at all. The longest trip I did was 2,000 miles and I can tell you: you need to go on highways, period.

Not the interstate, which is not allowed in many places (but is in some!) but highways, which are a different thing.

Also, it's simply just not the direction we should be going in (especially in the US, which is already overrun with cars and sprawl). We need to make the roads more bike friendly, and that doesn't mean adding bike lanes everywhere. How about lowering the speed limits?

People just need to get over the goddamn fact that sometimes another traveler is in your way, and that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The person in front of you turns left and needs to wait for other cars. The person in front of you turns right and needs to wait for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The person in front of you uses a slower vehicle.

Even assuming completely benevolent car drivers (which seems a stretch), i believe that separated bike and car lanes are the only way it should be done. It is unrealistic to expect such different modes of transport (i.e., very fast 2-ton metal boxes vs. completely vulnerable meatbags on frames going 20km/h) to interact well together. If anything gies wrong (again, assume benevolent drivers: the thing going wrong might be oil on the road, a tyre blowout, sleeping driver, etc.) then the cyclist is going to come off second best, every time. This is the main point to keep in mind. Cyclists are vulnerable, and should be kept away from motorised traffic.

(incidentally, i believe the same in the pedestrians vs. cyclists argument: they too should be separated. But i didn't want to get too off-topic)

EDIT: grammar

EDIT 2: Another point: it's not as simple as you are saying, where people should just be more patient if they're in a car behind a bicycle. That may be true, but when a cyclist falls, for example, and a car "rear ends" them, they are going to be dead with a non-zero probability. The other way around (i.e. a car stalls and a cyclist rear ends them -- this has happened to me) then it's again the cyclist who ends up somewhere between just embarrassed and in the hospital.

And 18-wheelers are treated differently than a pickup truck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com