Hacker News Reader

Comment by apathy | Hacker News Reader

Yes because a 20 pound bike does exactly the same damage as a 6000 pound car. Both to driver and victim. Excellent thought process.

Also slapping plates on bikes will totally fix the issue of theft. Cars never ever get stolen, because they have plates.

I disagree with your underlying assumptions and your suggestions. What you are suggesting would penalize the sorts of people who rely upon their bicycles to get to work each day.

View on HN

I think the bigger problem is that people on bicycles don't always obey the laws which are in place to protect both them and motor vehicle drivers. The parent mentioned cyclists who run through traffic lights and similar infrastructure with wanton disregard for the situation (I have witnessed this many times myself). This creates a situation that is dangerous to everyone involved and is quite illegal. However, there is no recourse as there is no easy way to identify them as you would a motor vehicle as there are no plates or identifying items on the bicycle.

Ultimately I agree that adding plates is a bit extreme, but I think it's also disingenuous to say there is no problem and ignore them.

Edit: I would also like to note that I'm not commenting on motor vehicles disobeying laws in similar situations, they routinely do, however that does not take away from the fact that there is an issue here as well.

Stop sign/light honoring daily bike commuter here who often scolds cyclists that do not obey the law, but I think you'll find that the statistics do not bear out the danger you present. How many fatalities (or even serious injuries) result from cyclists blowing through stop signs? If you remove the offending cyclist from that stats, I'd guess you're looking at about zero. I do remember a case in PDX a few years ago where a reckless cyclist struck and killed a man, but it is exceedingly rare.

I seem to remember a trial which was piloted in London (UK) a few years back which permitted a cyclist to go through a red light if turning left. Can anyone shed any light on how this worked out?

Presumably fine? It's perfectly acceptable for any sort of vehicle to turn right after stopping at a red light in Alberta, Canada and I've never heard of it causing a problem.

I know that seems weird for people where right on red is illegal, but it's really no different than what happens at a stop sign.

Turns out it was only a proposal which was never tried after all:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/27/cyclists-run-...

Johnson and Transport for London requested permission for a trial back in 2009, but it never took place. TfL has concentrated instead on remodelling junctions to allow “early release” (where cyclists get a green light before cars) and “hold the left-turning traffic” (keeping cyclists and cars apart on left turns).

> people on bicycles don't always obey the laws which are in place to protect both them and motor vehicle drivers

I'm willing to buy an argument that "vehicular cycling" (using the road in a way that's similar to a car) can be safer in certain circumstances and that obeying traffic lights, stop signs, and so on can help cyclists and drivers share the road more safely. I have certainly felt that way when I've cycled in communities that aren't used to many bikes on the road.

On the other hand, the idea that traffic laws are there to protect cyclists just doesn't make sense to me. By and large, traffic laws in the U.S. seem to privilege the material concerns and safety of drivers.

> On the other hand, the idea that traffic laws are there to protect cyclists just doesn't make sense to me.

I think traffic laws encourage predictability and predictability leads to safety for everyone -- cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Having driven in 3rd world countries a few times where traffic laws were completely ignored, it was always shocking to drive again in the US. Everything seemed so controlled and ordered by comparison.

Bicycles are banned on sidewalks in most major cities because a head on collision can still easily cause a fatality. When the existing traffic laws on bikes are rarely enforced, this becomes a much more likely outcome as the laws are ignored.

Who the hell rides on the sidewalk in a major city? It's faster to ride in traffic in major cities, and since the drivers are usually stuck in heavy traffic, they're less likely to suddenly do something idiotic. It's probably safer for everyone if cyclists ride in the road where they belong downtown, which by itself should be reason enough to ticket lawbreakers. (Of course I'm sure you'll agree that anyone doing 56 in a 55 should be pulled over, too! /s)

That said, if you start ticketing people for riding on sidewalks in the suburbs, pretty soon you won't have any bicyclists at all in the suburbs. Drivers are much, much worse on suburban and rural roads in my experience. Not because they're less skilled or less likely to be texting while slapping the kids and fiddling with the radio, but because they're going faster. Downtown they're all stuck in traffic (haha!).

As an anecdote I've seen this happen a few times (in New York of all places!) and it's incredibly annoying. My observation is that the riders who tend to do this are often inexperienced, which makes the entire situation worse: they wobble on the sidewalk and disrupt pedestrian flow dramatically because everyone gives them way wider berth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com