Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhinoceraptor | Hacker News Reader

Riding a bike in dense urban areas is not much (or at all) slower if you are reasonably fit. Traffic lights will take away a lot of the advantage that cars have.

View on HN

Traffic lights stop bicycles too. And pedestrians.

Yes, but it's often the case that a cyclist will catch back up to a car that hits a red light.

Most cyclists in my area (a significant portion of the transient population is college students) tend to forget that bikes must also follow the rules of the road. My small city is seeing a huge increase in bike paths between the downtown parks, the universities, and other cultural landmarks, closeby.

From what I've seen (which is, of course, anecdotal) it's done pretty much nothing. Cyclists still ride on the road next to the bike lanes and still ignore most traffic signals. I'm all for less pollution and staying in shape, but I can't really get behind building infrastructure for a community who are making the road significantly more dangerous. Not to mention the... interesting(?) conversations you'll have if you ever try to argue against specific[+] dedicated bike lanes or mention that cyclists compulsively break the law under the guise of "safety."

[+] as in, "Since Smith is 2 lanes each direction with a dedicated turn lane and is parallel to and has the same speed limit as Mimosa, while Mimosa cuts through several residential neighborhoods, has the same speed limit but is one lane each way with no dedicated turn lane: Why not Smith St. instead of Mimosa Ln.?" perhaps they have a problem with my runons, not my ideas :P

I often see complaints along these lines - and of course, there are scofflaw cyclists, undeniably. But how many motorists do you see in a day do something illegal? 1? 10? 50? I suspect the percentages of cyclists doing illegal things are similar to those of motorists, but there are (depending on your location) 10X to 100X as many motorists. And physics is on their side - motorists are far more dangerous to themselves, and everyone else, than cyclists are.

It may be the area I'm in, but the proportion of cyclists I see: - run a red light, riding past stopped traffic (often, cutting into the crosswalk as if that makes it any safer or more defensible...) - not stop at stop signs - ignore emergency vehicles - commit road rage is closer to 2 in 3 or 3 in 4. So much so that in my experience, I see far more cyclist "crimes" in a week than I do motorist ones. I've also, in my few years living in this city, seen far more accidents involving bikes than cars. (Now that I think about it, I haven't seen either in a few month. So, maybe the bike lanes are helping and I'm just not seeing how...)

You are completely right about physics being on their side though. I'm not afraid a cyclist is going to kill me by T-Boning me running a stop sign, but I am afraid my SO will get PTSD if they T-Bone a cyclist running a stop sign. (I am also worried about a phantom collision [Florida's term for an accident caused by a vehicle that was not damaged] being caused by my reaction(s) to a criminal biker. I do concede that I could do my part trying to find some course that teaches me defensive driving against cyclists.)

From what I can tell cyclists tend to ignore the rules more often in an attempt to conserve that all-important momentum. Particularly in downtown areas where traffic lights are very close together.

>Since Smith is 2 lanes each direction with a dedicated turn lane and is parallel to and has the same speed limit as Mimosa, while Mimosa cuts through several residential neighborhoods, has the same speed limit but is one lane each way with no dedicated turn lane: Why not Smith St. instead of Mimosa Ln.?

I'm not sure which side you were arguing for in this case, but Mimosa seems like a good candidate for a bike lane. Look at Berkeley's bicycle boulevards if you want to see an example of how driving-unfriendly roads are a great place to put bicycles.

I'm against making already cramped roads smaller, especially when the cyclists are going to ride in the middle of the road, regardless. I will definitely look into it though, any good write ups or should I just check the city's webpage?

Here is the city's info: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/bicycleboulevards/

The boulevards do not actually block out a section of the road for bicyclists. They are entire roads that optimize for low-speed neighborhood traffic where cars don't need to blast past cyclists.

Based on your description of your situation, short-distance traffic (people entering and leaving their homes) would use Mimosa along with cyclists. Long-distance car traffic would be free to use the full two lanes of Smith at high speed without dodging cyclists.

Yes, some cyclists don't follow the rules, just like car drivers. But no one generalizes the rule breaking of drivers to all drivers as they do to cyclists.

I think driver's ed classes should cover cycling, both to give drivers empathy for cyclists, and so they know the rules apply to cycling.

Also, cyclists are not obligated to use the bike lane. It is often filled with debris, or located right next to parked cars which would be dangerous to ride next to.

If traffic lights stopped bicyclists, I wouldn't think they are such a nuisance.

Transportation in Manhattan used to be a solved problem with walking + subways. I applaud someone getting exercise, but I wish that during their recreation they wouldn't plow into pedestrians who actually need to get somewhere.

</rant>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com