Hacker News Reader

Comment by rollingpebbles | Hacker News Reader

Pulled over, off the street, on a bicycle in Palo Alto to comment...

In California, it's the law for automobiles to give bicyclists 3 ft / 1 m of clearance. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer...

Other things like bicycle lanes and intersections need to be designed to minimize risks like in the Netherlands.

Bicyclists and drivers have responsibilities to follow safe practices like:

- not running stop signs

- using proper reflectors, clothing and lighting

- not getting too close to other traffic or occupying their blindspot(s)

- not getting caught between curb and turning vehicles, and turning vehicles eliminating space to prevent bicycles from occupying space that is unsafe.

- not riding on sidewalks because it's mostly illegal

View on HN

Often running stop signs and red lights (while taking due care) is safer for cyclists. This has started to be recognised with some places legalising it.

Source?

From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them.

What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.

> Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws.

You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green).

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... [2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [3] http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-...

Thanks, interesting read.

I think the key here is that stop sign is treated as a yield sign and not an automatic right of way. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but is quite different from what I've been observing in my neighborhood.

It's particularly disingenuous to request a source, and then immediately proceed to make an argument based on anecdotes.

Alright can you explain this? This happens all the time where I live and almost every time the cyclist winds up mismatched with the flow of traffic and cuts off cars.

If going straight at a t-junction there is no point in stopping for example. If at the lights and it's clear and there is a backlog of cars behind it is safer to move off on the red light before the cars as to avoid being caught up in the mass of accelerating cars when the light turns green.

Some of those things you've listed are not safe practices at all.

Riding on the sidewalks are legal in some places (sidewalks are OK to ride on in Seattle as many of the multi-use trails join up with them and the roads do not have shoulders), and same with "running" red lights - in Idaho cyclists are allowed to do this[1] as it's proven to be safer[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com