Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanobjc | Hacker News Reader

I initially was bah humbugy about these scooters, but after reading an article that points out we have acres of space devoted to private automobiles, and that it really wouldn't be hard to accommodate these electric scooters, I changed my mind.

They look fun, they seem more flexible than the hard-wired go-bike stations, and they don't seem super expensive.

It's pretty obvious that our cities are broken, and SF needs help in particular. I've worked at companies that had to choose between being near bart or near caltrain to provide a shorter commute to different employees. The time it took to walk across soma was non-trivial and annoyed people. Ultimately the caltrain commuters used foot-powered scooters.

As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that. Being in traffic is exceedingly dangerous, and apparently as long as someone else's life on the line you're good with it. If "sidewalks" were a lot larger, then there would be more ability to mix traffic. See: the embarcadero.

Let's work on our cities and have some fun doing it!

View on HN

>As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that.

I strongly disagree with this. I've owned an electric scooter for over a year now and I learned real fast that it's super dangerous to ride on the sidewalk.

The problem with pedestrians is that they are not looking out for scooters. People will wander into your path and depending on how fast you're going you may collide.

Also you can't see people walking out onto the sidewalk from doorways and recessed building entrances and around corners. I see people on those scooters going full speed on sidewalks and if someone happens to suddenly walk out doorway they're getting hit.

When people walk out onthe street they should look both ways for cars before stepping on the road. In my opinion it's ridiculous to expect people to peer out of doorway stoops and look for people on scooters barreling down the sidewalk.

Drive slower around pedestrians. The burden is on you.

Agreed, if I go on the sidewalk I never go faster than walking speed but only if the sidewalk is clear. I'll walk it if there's people on the sidewalk.

Scooters barreling down the sidewalk should use the far side, away from blind doorways, and, obviously, should barrel a lot slower when there are a lot of people out.

I bike commute. I stay on the road as much as possible, but there's parts where it's impractical. So, I get on the sidewalk, go slow, and yield to pedestrians.

That said, Jesus Christ people. Take out your headphones, put your phone away, and freaking pay attention to your surroundings. People wander around like they're the baby from the Popeye cartoons expecting everything else to miraculously flow around them.

Forget about bikes and scooters, it's rude to other pedestrians who may be walking faster, running, or actually paying attention to what they're doing if you're meandering back and forth across the sidewalk and can't even hear someone say "Excuse me". The sidewalk is for walking, yes, but that doesn't mean it's for the exclusive use of any one individual.

I ride a lot and in traffic. I've occasionally thought the same thought you're thinking here and to be honest, I will do whatever I think is safest for me.

But riding on the sidewalk really does mean that the burden of taking care of pedestrians is all on me. And when I've thought those kinds of thoughts, I have to recognize that it feels very similar to the arguments I hear from motorists when they try and put the burden of safety on cyclists who are legitimately on the roads. If I'm not supposed to be somewhere, it's a bad attitude for me to even start down the road of thought that blames the pedestrians for my treatment of their safety.

I disagree. If you were biking around staring at your phone and weaving into oncoming traffic, is that someone else's fault?

Being in a public space necessarily means exercising a degree of care and consideration for other people. From everyone.

> If you were biking around staring at your phone and weaving into oncoming traffic, is that someone else's fault?

No, because the law states that a bike on the road with cars is equal to other vehicles and has no higher priority in regards to right of way.

In contrast, a biker on a sidewalk is not considered equal to a pedestrian. In fact, it is illegal in most cases, but probably not illegal or dangerous enough to warrant strict enforcement.

I consider pedestrians to have just the responsibility of paying attention to their surroundings to not inconvenience other pedestrians, not bikes or scooters.

I feel like this is the key distinction. I strongly prefer riding on roads, even when other people think it looks unsafe, for the simple reason that people on the road (generally) follow rules. You can, within reason, tell well in advance what someone is about to do.

I feel much safer in an environment where there are clear rules of engagement that are, by and large, respected.

(Anecdote: my most recent crash was with a scooter, the rider of which was very inexperienced in traffic and reacted to a tight spot by doing exactly the opposite of what they teach you in driver's ed. Feel free to guess whether this was on the road or on a bike path...)

>In contrast, a biker on a sidewalk is not considered equal to a pedestrian. In fact, it is illegal in most cases, but probably not illegal or dangerous enough to warrant strict enforcement.

In Washington State this depends heavily on municipality and you need to know exactly which cities you're riding through. State law only says that you have the same duties and rights as a driver when on the road, and that you have the same duties and rights as a pedestrian when on the sidewalk. When I rode to work I checked all three of the cities I rode though and they all allowed bicycles on sidewalks.

I generally choose whew to ride based on the density of traffic. If nobody is on the sidewalk and the sidewalk is in good condition I'll ride on the sidewalk.

Where I'm riding it is completely legal to bike on the sidewalk, so it's not something that should be unexpected.

> I consider pedestrians to have just the responsibility of paying attention to their surroundings

This is what I'm talking about. Many people cannot even be bothered to do that. If you aren't going to take an interest in your own safety, why should anyone else? The sidewalk is not the place to zone out and lose yourself in your Twitter feed.

I'm not sure where that commenter is posting from, but isn't cycling on the sidewalk _illegal_ in most places (except in sidewalk-inset bike lanes)? It's quite reasonable to walk on a sidewalk without expecting bikes to hit you; they shouldn't be there in the first place.

> But riding on the sidewalk really does mean that the burden of taking care of pedestrians is all on me.

The thing is, I have more trust in my ability to watch out for pedestrians than I trust drivers to watch out for me.

Fun fact: After I started wearing a reflecting vest when riding my bike, I think drivers have treated me much more considerately. Maybe they are not so bad after all and just did not see me as easily before.

Indeed, I also bike commute, and when I get onto the sidewalk for any reason, I slow down to a walking pace. I'm also ready to hop off my bike and walk it, so that I am a pedestrian. This seems easier for other pedestrians to deal with.

> I bike commute. I stay on the road as much as possible, but there's parts where it's impractical. So, I get on the sidewalk, go slow, and yield to pedestrians.

Yeah. I bike on the sidewalk sometimes, but when I do I consider it 100% my responsibility to avoid pedestrians. They're not expecting me and they have no reason to look out for me; it's my job to go slow, watch entrances, and not scare people by blowing past 6 inches away from them.

I tried really hard to make it clear that I am looking out for them. Apparently that was insufficient. It is made unnecessarily difficult to look out for someone who is weaving around erratically and completely oblivious to everything around them.

I bike on the road. I expect cars to look out for me. Nonetheless, I take measures to make it easy for them to do that. I wear reflective gear and have lights at night. I bike in an easily visible space. I signal where I'm going and move in a consistent, predictable manner.

There's absolutely no reason that someone on a sidewalk shouldn't expect that another person, whether walking or on a bike, might also need to use the sidewalk and to leave space for them to do so, or at a bare minimum, maintain a modicum of awareness so that you can see or hear someone else approaching.

The bigger, more dangerous to others vehicle must look out for smaller ones.

You expect cars to look out for bicycle, and should yourself look out for pedestrians.

I live in Copenhagen, on a road that's a pedestrian zone shopping street. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect pedestrians to look out for cyclists - I'm in their space! So on the last 100m of my journey home, I must cycle at half speed or even walking speed, depending how busy it is.

If cyclists stopped being careful, cycling through the pedestrian zone would eventually get banned, like it is in Britain. (Or else enforced, I don't know if its already banned.)

> I take measures to make it easy for them to do that. I wear reflective gear and have lights at night. I bike in an easily visible space. I signal where I'm going and move in a consistent, predictable manner.

Because you're on a road. If you don't do those things, you may die. Pedestrians don't expect to get hit by vehicles on the sidewalk to the same degree. I'm a fast walker, I somewhat know your pain, but you're not entitled to tell people how to walk around, unless it's putting other pedestrians in danger.

> There's absolutely no reason that someone on a sidewalk shouldn't expect that another person, whether walking or on a bike, might also need to use the sidewalk

Is cycling on the sidewalk legal in your location? It isn't in most places, as far as I know.

Don't know about the parent but it's so legal in SF and the Peninsula that plenty of sidewalk spaces have sharrows (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking) or signs indicating cyclists are allowed use of the path. These signs aren't necessary for cyclists to use the sidewalk though: we're simply allowed to unless a sign explicitly prohibits it.

Besides the point isn't that cyclists in these spaces shouldn't have to look out for pedestrians, it's that pedestrians make it hard even for other pedestrians to navigate and that perhaps an inequitable share of responsibility for observing one's surroundings exists.

Don't know about the peninsula but biking on the sidewalk is illegal in SF.

Bikking on the sidewalk is illegal, which might be why pedestrians don't expect it to happen.

Same here. If I have to cycle on the sidewalk, I go very slow and I do my best not to scare pedestrians, especially older people who don't feel safe near bikes. Unfortunately, not all cyclists are respectful and it creates tensions. I regularly get scolded by pedestrians.

I schools every cyclist I see on the sidewalk. The two cyclists that ran into me both said they didn't mean to (and didn't apologize, btw), and I use that as motivation for the scoldings.

Most of my walking is near store fronts and it is exceedingly dangerous to blow by open doors at the clip I see these cyclists doing. It is so frustrating to me to watch this.

Where do you people live where this behaviour is legal?

I was confused about this, too. It's illegal here (unless the sidewalk has an inset bike lane, but they're usually inset to the road instead). You see it occasionally, but I certainly wouldn't expect the people doing it to be so self-righteous about breaking the law.

It's perfectly legal in most suburbs in Washington State. It's not prohibited by state law either.

I walk commute often, and especially when I'm traveling. Sure, cars are dangerous, and bicycles are often irresponsible, but pedestrians are the worst. They'll walk four abreast, gather in large groups at chokepoints, block traffic to take photos, stop for no reason. And no one really cares because most of this bad behavior is limited to sidewalks, so it only affects other pedestrians. But it makes it damn difficult to walk at a decent clip. I'd really love to see "walking lanes" introduced, like bike lanes, for people who are actually walking and not treating the sidewalk like a goddamn park. </rant>

You should take a walk in Venice. All the problems you mentioned plus the peculiarity that there's only the "sidewalk".

It's been awhile, but I've been to Venice. Vegas and London were much worse, in my experience.

Cities can be made to be enjoyable. The pedestrians you describe are doing the right thing. That said, I agree, we should devote less space to inefficient cars, more space/lanes to pedestrians/cyclists/etc.

> That said, Jesus Christ people

Pedestrians aren't going to change, they never have and it's just silly to assume they will. That's why I'm a tedious vehicular cyclist. Road is best, fastest, safest, and least infuriating.

I guess I'd have to be a vehicular scoot. Vrimmm!

That's exactly the situation in China. When you are on the sidewalk you must walk in a straight line. If you make any sudden moves to the left or right then you are liable to get run over. You can't even hear the electric scooters and drivers here go way too fast. I don't wish them on Americans.

How long you live(d) there? It freak me out at first, like many things that are different, but after getting acclimated for a few years I actually think it works out pretty well. I had to get used to the "flow" and get used to being aware.

It now kinda freaks me out to be back in the US... realizing that everyone involved in traffic has their own assumptions of what is supposed/going to happen and won't necessarily be looking around all the time at what's actually going on, and I have to guess and premeditate that for everyone.

It's not a big problems when density is small and there is only one significant traffic element (cars) that's relatively predictable, but if the US is going to scale it's cities they're going to have to figure out how to deal with how to increase traffic density, and it doesn't seem very feasible to add more car roads and sidewalks in metropolitan areas (let's not touch on subways for the moment because that's what communism or Euro-effeminism or just too damn hard or whatever).

It's pretty easy to fit more people on those streets, all ya have to do is:

1. Slow down 2. Look around 3. Take a bit of the chip off the shoulders

Which I feel like all pretty much fly in the face of everything back-to-back World War champions cherish (and great prospects for this upcoming season!).

But I think the point of the article was "look both ways before you cross the street" was total bullshit when it was introduced... and now it's dogma. I don't necessarily wish metropolitan progress and growth on Americans, but I guess I kinda secretly hope for it.

I've been in Shenzhen eight years now as my primary home and work location. Long enough to get trained to turn around and look before I step left or right.

Japan solved the problem of sharing crowded streets by putting liability on the vehicle every time.

If you are riding a bicycle on the footpath and hit a pedestrian, it is your fault and you are going to be on the hook for a large amount of money. It's the same if cars hit a cyclist or pedestrian.

It's arbitrary but it also makes it safe to cycle because cars are vigilant to not hit pedestrians (contrast with western countries, my experience is in NZ where car drivers bully cyclists)

Huh? It's the furthest thing possible from safe to do something that makes you automatically liable for any incident.

You're the one choosing to drive a dangerous vehicle, why should other people be responsible ?

If your society considers a particular transportation mode so antisocial that people who choose it are automatically guilty regardless of the specifics of the incident, no one should ever make that mode choice. It's tantamount to a ban. You aren't perfect, and other people sometimes behave far outside the bounds of what any reasonable person expects (and sometimes do so deliberately to commit insurance fraud). If there's no standard like "reasonable caution" or "due care" to save you, then it doesn't matter how cautious you are, making that mode choice is playing with fire.

Parent said that cyclists who hit pedestrians are automatically liable, then turned around and called bicycling "safe." That's a bizarre interpretation - with that law, Japan is messaging that Japanese people ought to stay far, far away from bicycling unless they have particularly extreme appetite for risk.

To answer your question, modern cities need some method of transportation faster than walking. At speed, injuring the pedestrians who get in your way is an inevitability. Either you have a tax on the unlucky (and unable to afford real estate in the pedestrian core), or you give at least one such method immunity. In Japan, that method is trains. Japan takes the pedestrian victim-blaming even further than necessary in this case, and bills their families for the cleanup costs.

Yeah cars are totally unused in Amsterdam.

30 seconds of Googling suggests (and a comment upthread) suggest that a defense based on reasonable expectations and circumstances beyond one's control is available to drivers in The Netherlands. The stakes are also much lower when the thing you're assigning is an insurance company payout. Cyclists presumably aren't insured when they hit pedestrians. If there were no defense available, cycling would be a bad idea.

Found this: https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-...

> Cyclists presumably aren't insured when they hit pedestrians.

It is compulsory in some places in Japan. ¥4,000 ($40) per year pays out up to 3 billion yen ($3,000,000) in case you hit someone.

We'll never see this requirement in USA because it would be proof salient to everyone of how much more dangerous driving is than cycling.

We're under no illusions that cycling presents a danger to others in the same way that driving does. When we say cycling is unsafe, we mean it's unsafe for the cyclist.

The point is that your experience in a society that privileges automobile driving has left you with misleading impressions of how other societies function. In other places poor drivers are held responsible for their poor driving, and the sky has not fallen.

> In other places poor drivers are held responsible for their poor driving

As they should be everywhere. What seems crazy, though, is the belief that every collision is necessarily an instance of a poor driver committing poor driving, with no reference to how a reasonable person would have handled the situation differently.

> At speed, injuring the pedestrians who get in your way is an inevitability

Well, that's the point. You are supposed to be riding or driving at a speed that you can safely stop if you need to. This is the same in every country, right?

> Japan is messaging that Japanese people ought to stay far, far away from bicycling unless they have particularly extreme appetite for risk.

Bicycling to work or school is very common here

> Japan takes the pedestrian victim-blaming even further than necessary in this case, and bills their families for the cleanup costs.

They sue for damages because they have to arrange buses for tens of thousands of people. It's not cheap

>stop if you need to

If you're on a 45mph road and someone puts themselves in your path 10 feet ahead, no, we don't say that you should have actually been going 5mph just in case something like this was going to happen. You're required to yield at crosswalks, but there's an expectation that mutual acknowledgement between you and the pedestrian happens at a reasonable distance before the pedestrian enters the roadway. Similarly, if someone enters an intersection on red, you have a duty to try and avoid the crash, but if it's too late, that's on them.

> If you're on a 45mph road and someone puts themselves in your path 10 feet ahead

This is why roads should be designed not to cause such a situation. If you have a pedestrian path really close to a 45mph road the design is bad. I'm not aware of anywhere having such a high speed road where a pedestrian could walk along side it (in Netherlands). Usually it's more closed off with pedestrians being banned.

you can tell beforehand that its possible for somebody to suddenly jump out, so yes, you probably should be going 5mph

It's always possible for someone to enter the road, even a restricted-access freeway.

> At speed, injuring the pedestrians who get in your way is an inevitability.

Solution: _don't cycle on the bloody footpath_; that's not what it's for. Cycle in bike lanes, or, if unavailable, the road.

One vehicle is dangerous to the driver. The other vehicle is dangerous to other drivers.

Which one are you saying should be responsible here?

The reason is that you should be responsible if you are indeed responsible: Insurance fraud is very real. See https://gizmodo.com/people-throw-themselves-at-cars-for-mone...

Because responsibility should be based on what you do, and whether you did anything wrong, and not based solely on what mode of transportation you were using.

Choosing a mode of transportation is something you do.

There are a few exceptions to it. However, that's exactly how it works in The Netherlands. Biker needs to watch out for a pedestrian. Car for bikes and pedestrians, etc. If a car could've avoided the accident no matter if a cyclist was doing something wrong, car is at fault.

This change prevented loads of accidents. Before if a cyclist did something wrong the general thought was "cyclist should've paid attention". But an accident is caused by 2 people, so it makes sense that the one who can cause the most damage is fully aware of that.

Liable? That's why cars have mandatory insurance. The amount of damage which can be done is way higher than e.g. 2 cyclists hitting each other.

>"If a car could've avoided the accident"

That's a pretty crucial distinction from strict liability, and is much closer to what we have in the US (at least on paper, you have a duty to avert a collision if you can, regardless of right of way).

Unless you mean the most trivial sense of "you could have avoided the accident by not driving."

"Needs to watch out for" is quite different from "is always at fault if it collides with."

The impression I get from statement made here it actually seems to be hugely different. Too much of "should watch out", etc. It's more of a "in case cannot be proven, car is in the wrong". In practice, good luck proving that the bike was doing something weird. As result, they watch out.

I don't understand your comment of "strict liability" btw. It's not black/white situation. However, in general they rule against the car. As result, people on bicycles abuse this (especially in Amsterdam). But there's the benefit of a super huge bicycle usage, so although it's not perfect, it seems worth it.

strict liability is a legal term of art that means something along the lines of "you are guilty no matter what the reason." It's used in North America can be found often in things like traffic tickets or regulatory offences. For example, if you were speeding, it doesn't matter what the reason is, for example it doesn't matter if your odometer was broken or if the posted street signs were impossible to see due to fog or whatever, all the prosecution has to prove is that you were going at a certain speed and you are automatically guilty no matter what.

The individual you are replying to was saying that comments here made it sound like strict liability for drivers and cyclists. That even if you were driving as carefully as possible, if a cyclist suddenly appears from behind a bush and cuts exactly in front of your car while you were doing 80 km an hour and you did everything humanly possible to stop and avoid him, you would still be at fault. He's saying later comments seem to suggest otherwise.

I agree this is a good default. But because of this, here in South Korea we have con artist pedestrians getting purposely "bumped" by cars and going off to lie in a hospital bed, leeching medical bills from the driver until he settles.

Everything you said about scooter applies, and has always applied, to bicycles. This is not a new problem. It's now more prevalent because more people ride scooters. It would also have been a problem if more people rode bikes.

The solution is consideration and attentiveness from pedestrians, people riding scooters, and people riding bikes.

If I ride my bike on the street, I pay attention to the rules of the road as well as possible dangers. These include cars ignoring the right of way, pedestrians walking onto the street suddenly between parked cars, and people opening car doors.

If I ride my bike on the sidewalk, I ride slower, and am attentive to people walking unpredictably, coming out of doorways, or coming around corners full speed.

I would like for pedestrians to behave more responsibly, both on the sidewalk and on the street. I am doing my part. No one is "king of the road/sidewalk". You can't put all the blame on any on party. Everyone needs to adjust their behavior for a safe society.

> I strongly disagree with this. I've owned an electric scooter for over a year now and I learned real fast that it's super dangerous to ride on the sidewalk.

What speed do you travel at? Max, average, and typical speeds?

One solution is to have lines for bikes and scooters.

In fact, for example in Paris (where I live), there is a lot of dedicated lines for bikes, and there are also dedicated bus lanes that bikes can take. When I commute by bike, I think only 1/3 of the road is actually in the main traffic.

Also as a pedestrian, bikes and scooters are a bit of a nightmare. Personally I instinctively rely on hearing when crossing a street, and because bike and electric scooter move silently it's not difficult to miss them, specially as there are also smaller than cars, so also more difficult to see.

> As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that. Being in traffic is exceedingly dangerous, and apparently as long as someone else's life on the line you're good with it.

As someone who uses electric skateboards and scooters fairly regularly, I disagree. Bicycle lanes are the most appropriate place for them.

Supposedly Steve Jobs predicted the Segway would cause cities to be "redesigned". He was wrong, but I don't think he was far off. The rising popularity of light electric vehicles may actually prompt cities to build more bike lanes to accommodate them.

It's getting better, but a lot of places still don't have bike lanes. I'll ride on the sidewalk if I don't feel safe in the road, but I'm extra careful when I do.

So basically, you make peds feel unsafe so that you can feel safe.

The risk of a fatality or life changing accident is much much higher for a cyclist colliding with a car, than it is for a pedestrian being hit by a bike

The risk may be higher but it's not insignificant. Here is an example from the UK:

"The number of pedestrians fatally or seriously injured in collisions with cyclists has doubled since 2006"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/number-pedestria...

If it was really significant you'd have quoted the number, not the headline:

In 2016 three pedestrians died in such incidents across Great Britain while a further 108 sustained serious injury.

But note, none of these deaths occurred on the pavement:

In 2016, 43 pedestrians died in collisions involving a vehicle on the footway or verge. None of them involved a cycle.

-- https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pe...

Risk is an aggregate of damage and likelihood. Pedestrians are moving much more erratic than cars. This makes them more dangerous, unless you live in a community so violent that drivers actively harass cyclists.

No. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16928450

You can't control peoples feelings.

Not the same type of scooter, but here in Amsterdam they put them on the bike path a few decades ago. And it's a major nuisance for cyclists. They are not compatible modes of transport and it's dangerous.

So the city passed a new law last year to start transitioning them back to the road.

What makes them incompatible? If they’re approximately the same size and speed I don’t see a reason they can’t share the same paths.

> As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that

Nothing self-righteous about that.

Sidewalks are -- as the name itself suggests - meant for WALKING on the SIDE of the road, not for riding scooters and other vehicles which pose a danger to other people walking. Only exception being people on wheelchairs, but they aren't driving at break-neck speeds like an electric scooter rider, or a bicyclist.

If we're gonna play that silly game, what about roads, from the old English rād meaning 'journey on horseback'.

Why is the Old English meaning of the precursor word relevant? The modern word is road and it means thoroughfare.

Right. It's almost like the name of something has no bearing on what the thing could be used for.

I always get a kick out of manipulating widgets on my bank's online "dashboard".

In the case of sidewalk vs rad vs road, you're making the wrong argument.

We do not have "rads" anymore, we have "roads." "Road" is derived from "rad" but they are two different words with different meanings.

A sidewalk is a walking area on the side of a road, and that meaning of the word has not changed. Bikes, for example, or prohibited from sidewalks in most Western jurisdictions (lack of enforcement notwithstanding), and essentially all Western jurisdictions prohibit motorized vehicles from sidewalks. In both cases, it is because the sidewalks are meant for "pedestrians", i.e., people walking.

What's your point? When roads were reserved for horses, would you ride your donkey on the sidewalk?

Yes, thank you. That is exactly my point. The name of 'sidewalk' has no bearing on what you could use the sidewalk for.

Roads were never reserved for horses.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-pedestrians-r...

Well reflexively referring to the DEFINITION of a WORD is not an argument. When there are no dedicated cycleways, either pedestrians share with at least some cyclists or scooterists or you have children cycling on the road.

When there are pedestrians, cyclists and cars sharing a space with only two different speed zones, cyclists driving on the sidewalk will have to limit themselves to walking speed, or cars driving on the same road as bicycles need to slow down to cyclist speed.

The same "children cycling on the road" argument (which is only dangerous if the cars on the road are going faster than the children) can be applied to children walking on the sidewalk where people cycle at full speed.

1) An auto going 30kmh is a great deal more dangerous to a pedestrian or cyclist than a cycle doing the same.

2) Cars pose a risk to cyclists, even if cars are going the same speed, which is a fictional scenario, as many motorists don't go the same speed as cyclists and instead overtake them dangerously ASAP.

3) The risk posed by cycles to pedestrians is far less than the danger posed by autos to cycles.

Driveways/sidewalk crossings are not necessarily designed for cycling speed traffic. Motorists do not expect bicycles when crossing sidewalks.

Streets were originally for pedestrians, buster. The idea that they weren't was actually manufactured by the auto industry.

Sidewalks weren't invented to get people off streets, either.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-pedestrians-r...

Now: should our transportation infrastructure support cars? Yes. Society moves on. Should it also support bicycles and low-speed electric vehicles? Also yes.

The problem with this is that it's the same attitude as the car drivers have about "their" roads. If we listen to the drivers who say nobody but cars should ever be on the road, and the peds who say nobody but pedestrians should ever be on the sidewalk, what's left for cyclists, scooters, or any other form of transit?

> If we listen to the drivers who say nobody but cars should ever be on the road.

It's not drivers who say this, but the Law. Ever heard of 'Jaywalking' Tickets?

I used one today for the first time, and loved them. Faster than an uber, 3$ instead of 10, environmentally responsible, and fun to ride. As long as we fine people for being assholes (riding on the sidewalks, parking in stupid places) I think they're a great step forward.

I have more sympathy for pedestrians. They go around 2-3mph. Auto traffic around 25-50. Bikes and scooters are way closer to cars than pedestrians. So, its a matter of risking the safety of cyclist, or pedestrians. No clear win there I can see.

Sidewalks also have two-way traffic whereas the bike lane should be only one direction (which is also the direction of car traffic).

walking 3-4, scooter 10-15, cars 25-60. each is about 3x more than the previous.

But it's a stupid comparison for safety. Colliding with a scooter will rarely be fatal, regardless of the 3x. But cyclist often get killed.

There's a LOT more energy being transferred into whatever the car hits both because it's going much faster and because it's much heavier.

The chance of collision should also be considered. Since intersection collisions are the same or worse for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, we should consider overtaking while there is insufficient space which seems like it would be a strong function of extra space on either the road or the sidewalk and relative speeds. Im not sure why you listed 60 as I'm not really aware of any roads with such a limit that also reasonably expect bicycle traffic.

All the roads around my house have a 55 limit. If I didn't bike on them I wouldn't bike at all.

Wow. Is this Arizona?

Missouri

Arguing "Sure bikes will hit you, but it will rarely be fatal!" is not terribly convincing. Its reasonable for pedestrians to want bikes off the sidewalk. The chance of collision is far greater.

I know its a hard statistic for bikes to swallow. There seems to be no winning for them. But that's my whole point.

so we're willing to kill people because we want to avoid bumps and bruises?

Seems fucked up.

This is a completely irrational way to look at it.

The risk of a pedestrian fatality posed by a collision with a car travelling 30kmh is closer to the risk from a car going 5kmh than that of a car going 50kmh.

Look at the chart here:

http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/safe_speed/

The risk from speed is non-linear.

Risk the pedestrians in speed zone greater than 30kmh, because risk of fatal injury is far lower.

Don't know many bikes in my community that go 5mph. They're going 20, commuting miles to work.

Anyway, the pedestrians don't risk either now. So saying "Folks should be comfortable adding a reasonable risk of death, since it could be far worse!" is not compelling.

It’s insane how we don’t even notice how much public space is devoted to cars:

For a typical residential street, it’s 2/3: two lanes of traffic, two lanes for parking, vs two sidewalks. All are about the same width.

That primacy of the car is what needs to change. Autonomous driving could go a long way, by allowing offside parking and increased utilization of shared cars. But even before, just inconveniencing drivers by eliminating one lane of parking would open up enough space to accommodate safe bike and scooter lanes.

Next up is the wasteland of endless parking lots the US is so fond of, and that unnecessarily decreases density to maybe a third of what’s easily possible. But it’ll take far more time to heal that particular hellscape.

Strongly agree with this! The problem for SF is that it also needs buy in from the rest of the Bay Area to continually upgrade mass transit into the city. If CalTrain had higher throughput to take more cars off the road, then replacing car lanes with bike/e-mobility lanes would be more feasible.

Yes, absolutely! I was just saying this on another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16934196 There is so much space needed to accommodate the everyone-in-a-car model. The space for active use is only one part of it; where to put them when they're idle is a problem unto itself.

"only peds belong on sidewalks"

It's worth remembering that peds (otherwise known as "people") used to be able to roam the street freely. Can't find the source now (at work) but in the 1920's a judge in New York bemoaned the then-ridiculous idea that cars would mean children could no longer play in the street, which of course they had every right to do.

> As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that.

If people have bicycles or scooters on sidewalks, they should be walking them, not riding.

> As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks",

It should be pretty clear that both car lanes and pedestrian paths are both unsafe for scooters.

Add a bike path, just like e.g. The Netherlands, Denmark, etc. The bike path is generally designed for up to 25-30km/h. Certain scooters and electric bikes may go above that. In Netherlands scooters and electric bikes are divided into 2, ones which can reach up to 25km/h and ones which can reach up to 45km/h (above is not allowed). This with different regulation for each.

There might be a case for adding yet another special path, e.g. scooter path for traffic up to 45km/h.

Way more people can travel around on a bike path than a car lane (occupies more space while often just having 1 person).

Just because scooters can go that fast, it does not mean that they should be allowed to do so. I think speed limits make sense in many situations.

If you ride your scooter capable for going 50km/hr that fast on a road in a 30km/hr zone, you are speeding. Perhaps the same should be true if you are riding your scooter too fast in a bike lane. It should definitely be true if you are riding your bike or scooter on a sidewalk too fast or recklessly.

How fast is too fast remains to be seen.

some before and after in the netherlands https://twitter.com/schlijper/status/987269913311137797

I do like roads a bit, when it's where kids can play and also have some cars at times. But the green/bike version has a lot to offer. It's relaxing just by looking at it.

The problem with American cities is that we only have two spaces: the road and the sidewalk. Bike lanes are sometimes added to roads, but they're still just lanes on the road. The roads have all been built and designed for cars. Sidewalks have been built for pedestrians. Bikes, scooters, skateboards, etc. just don't fit well into either space.

There's a great YouTube channel, BicycleDutch [1], that goes into some detail about the Dutch approach to thoroughfares. They almost always build three spaces: a road for cars, a path for bicycles, and a sidewalk for pedestrians. This results in a huge number of people using bicycles to get around; in Amsterdam 30% of people always commute with a bicycle and over 40% usually do.

Of course, it generally wouldn't be practical for an American city to just convert all its roads to also include a separated bike path. Instead they could look for areas where a bike path could be built without costing too much, drawing political ire, or significantly interfering with current use. Railroad tracks are good opportunities. As an example, Minneapolis converted an unused railroad corridor to a separated bike path, called the Midtown Greenway [2]. As of 2016 34,000+ people used it daily [3]. Portland, OR, has converted two former railways into bike paths, the Springwater Corridor trail [4] and the new Trolley Trail [5]. We have plenty of other separated paths here as well.

Where there just isn't enough horizontal space, a more radical approach would be to build an elevated bike path over a few major thoroughfares (i.e. main downtown streets) or freeways that connect commuters to other separated or multi-use paths. Xiamen, China, built an elevated cycle path -- really more of a bicycle highway -- last year [6]. Dallas [7], Phoenix [8], and Detroit [9] have all built parks over freeways that contain some mixed-use paths, though not always with transportation in mind.

Ultimately bicycles/scooters/etc. don't really fit well into the current American infrastructure, but it seems like a solvable problem.

1: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC67YlPrRvsO117gFDM7UePg

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Greenway

3: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/...

4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springwater_Corridor

5: https://ncprd.com/parks/trolley-trail

6: https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/china-cy...

7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyde_Warren_Park

8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_T._Hance_Park

9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_696

In the US there is also https://www.railstotrails.org/ which is trying to convert old railways into trails suitable for e.g. bicycles.

I moved to SF 6 months ago.

Compared to my previous city (Paris), transportation in SF is shockingly poor.

That was actually a big surprise to me. It is so much easier to plan a city built recently compared to old Europe where you have a mess of old tiny roads you can't get rid of.

So I would have expected my SF commute to be easier than my Parisian one was.

However, Paris has a great subway infrastructure (and public transportation in general) that SF sorely lack.

Everything is centered around a car-first infrastructure which has failed to scale in order to accommodate the current traffic.

I don't want to own a car and even less to commute with one.

I have done it for a couple of years, that's x minutes every day where I can't do much and have to stay focused on the road.

Subway/walking commute on the contrary are often pleasant and let me listen to podcasts and read articles (pocket is great for this).

In the end, I bought a boosted board, it is a great commute shortener.

The biggest downside is that it is pretty hard to maneuver a longboard on the very poor SF streets. Some are in great shape, but most of them around SOMA are pretty bad when you use a skate.

It would be easier if my skate had bigger wheels, like scooters have.

It looks like a great alternative, I would love to see more of these on US streets.

PS.: I think it would be hard to share the sidewalk though. Unless it is very large, like on the embarcadero, there it is not an issue.

The problem with sharing the sidewalk is that the usual eskate/scooter speed is way too fast to share the sidewalk. Sooner or later somebody will exit a building just as you pass by and you are both going to get hurt.

We either need extra large sidewalks with a space reserved to small vehicles; or streets with protected bike lanes.

Streets without a bike lane are also pretty dangerous on this kind of vehicle. I am always on my guard : if I fall, I fall in the middle of the traffic.

Also, bike lanes are poorly engineered for scooter and especially skates. They have tiny wheels compared to bikes. So you have to avoid potholes, manholes, and all kind of obstacles. Even the paint of the bike lane is an obstacle; it is often very slippery.

Some better civil engineering is needed here.

So you're saying you don't like sharing the road with heavier, less maneuverable, and faster moving objects, so you bring your scooter/bike on the sidewalk?

Makes sense.

You forgot to add "that can, and do trivially kill people."

Bicycles and scooters being driven on sidewalks tend to not do that.

> As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that.

Ever see an elderly pedestrian get plowed into by some 200 lb kid on a skateboard?

I used to live near and work on Mill Ave. in Tempe near ASU, which is a very congested pedestrian strip. It's also full of maniacs on bikes, scooters, and skateboards weaving in and around pedestrians at full speed, coming within inches the whole time. One false move and you'd get plowed.

Like speed with like speed, I say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com