Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fricken | Hacker News Reader

The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them.

There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced?

If I say everyone needs to wear clown shoes to work on Wednesdays, is that a rule? It doesn't mean jack-shit because I can't enforce it.

Drivers are held more carefully to the rules of the road, but given that they're ensconced in a protective metal shell, they have a lot more leeway with the law of the jungle. With cyclists it's the other way around.

View on HN

> The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them.

The same as with Idaho stop, it does not matter. Looking at something that approaches the intersection, do I have to think what that is? What if it is a bicycle with electric assist? Moped? Scooter? Is it electric? Is it with ICE? Something in between the moped and the bike? Where do I draw the line? That is way more thinking than just following the rules of all-way stop/or main road/yield.

> There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced?

Rules are there for your benefit, not police's.

> Drivers have to obey the rules of the road. Cyclists only have to obey the law of the jungle.

This quote right there pretty much explains why there is so much anger towards cyclists

The rules are definitely not there for my benefit, the bearing they have on my safety is incidental. I've got more important things to look out for than the traffic signs. The roads were designed for cars and any attention given to cyclists, the rules they shod obey, or design features to accomodate them is largely an afterthought.

It really doesn't matter how cyclists behave, the anger will still be there, because cyclists are part of the wrong tribe, their presence on the roads in any capacity is viewed as a violation of the natural moral order.

When I'm cycling, whether or not I'm obeying the rules has little material effect on a driver's ability to get from A to B, I'm courteous, but their blood pressure still goes up. My advice to them is to see a doctor and get it fixed.

According to the laws of New York State, bicycles are vehicles. They are required to follow the laws and traffic patterns, not make their own.

This is a reasonable post undermined by a ridiculous last sentence. Cyclists need to obey laws but those laws should not be the same as for cars because the impacts those laws seek to prevent are not the same.

I phrased the last sentence poorly. I've changed it.

> The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked

When, and by who?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com