Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluejekyll | Hacker News Reader

> As a dutch person I would absolutely NOT want to ride a bike in the US, it's simply too dangerous.

I understand this perspective, but as a counter to this, if no one bikes in the US then this won't change. I ride all over San Francisco. In the last 18 years of me living here things have gotten better and better for the cyclist, but there are still many areas that can be improved. I encourage you to support local organizations, like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, which can pressure local governments to make changes that improve safety for all cyclists.

For too long in the US we've designed our roads with the idea that cars have some right to the road that others do not. We're finally starting to rectify that in cities across the country, and it's only getting better.

View on HN

In the last 18 years of me living here things have gotten better and better for the cyclist, but there are still many areas that can be improved

I just visited SF, and it was notable to me how much of the city's infrastructure is given over to cars and parking: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/08/19/what-santa-barbara-says. The rhetoric on the Internet made me think the reality on the ground would be different.

Knowing what it was like before, and how much improved it is since then, definitely shouldn’t be taken to mean that it’s ideal by any means.

The point I was making is how much things like SFBC and Critical Mass over the years improved things because of the community involvement.

I’d like to see bicycle boulevards and dedicate roads to bikes, but what we have is better than when I got here, and feels like it’s improveing at a rapid pace now.

You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. However, this isn't the case if you do your test elsewhere. SF has pretty good bike infrastructure and awareness.

I just did my driving test in the city, and this was drilled into my head by my instructor.

> You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn.

Infrastructure shouldn't be designed in a way to cause these types of turning conflicts. The general rule of the road is that vehicles on the right make right turns. Vehicles on the left make left turns, and vehicles in the middle proceed straight through the intersection.

Turning conflicts, like what you're describing, are a significant hazard to cyclists. Cars need to check for traffic[1] on their right, move to the right, and then make their right turn. Cyclists need to pass right turning traffic on the left.

[1] Cyclists are traffic.

By that measure, we shouldn't have crosswalks at intersections, and walkers should walk into the street, past the right turn lane, to avoid turning conflict.

In most countries in Europe (certainly in the UK, and other places I have visited), pedestrians have a separate crossing phase to the rest of traffic.

The US is unusual in expecting pedestrians to cross while traffic is also trying to negotiate an intersection.

In some EU countries(Poland) pedestrians have a green light to go, even though cars turning right also have a green light - cars are expected to watch out for pedestrians crossing, even when they have a green light to go.

I live in UK and the part of the traffic codex that seems to be unknown to literally all British drivers is the one that says "pedestrians have priority over cars making a turn" - so if you are crossing a road near an intersection and a car is making a turn into that road you are just crossing, you have absolute priority even in the absence of a designated crossing - but drivers get really upset and honk and wave as if you are in their way.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-...

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

> part of the traffic codex that seems to be unknown to literally all British drivers is the one that says "pedestrians have priority over cars making a turn"

They have a very efficient system for reminding fellow road users, though. Two fingers in the air slightly apart, a pedestrian’s walking legs upside down, indicating the priority reversal.

People are generally very receptive to this, because it is quintessentially British to understand you have to live together harmoniously to get ahead in life.

Please don’t spread dangerous misinformation, even as a joke.

Note to non-UK-residents: The described gesture is, in fact, a very rude insulting gesture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign#As_an_insult

> dangerous misinformation

Oh come on, making a V sign is not dangerous. Most likely, someone shouts an original insult to you.

I've been followed home and threatened in the US for giving a driver who was tailgating the middle finger. Are you saying that in the UK this would never happen? I certainly wouldn't risk provoking random strangers, especially those who are not following traffic codex.

Very unlikely. Fuels costs are way too high for anyone in the UK to consider diverting from their regular commute.

I think pedestrians have priority almost all the time on UK roads but drivers don't care.

Wow! All along I'd been thinking that those pedestrians who cross near a junction with barely more than a glance over their shoulder were reckless and unjustified. Now I guess I think it's just reckless.

> In most countries in Europe (certainly in the UK, and other places I have visited), pedestrians have a separate crossing phase to the rest of traffic.

I don't have numbers but I think this is the other way around: UK is the exception while most of Europe have pedestrians cross with turning traffic.

As a pedestrian I prefer the "normal" way of sharing the crossing with turning cars. In UK you'll have to wait for a way too long time for the pedestrian green light, and as a result (?) people cross pretty regularly against the red light. This is the case for London at least -- could also be that people are just more impatient in such a crowded metropolis.

There's a difference between a pedestrian moving at 3 to 6 mph and a cyclist going 10 to 20 mph. This is why crossing intersections as a pedestrian at cyclist speeds is much more hazardous to cyclists (compared to pedestrians moving at typical pedestrian speeds) because drivers don't expect someone moving that fast when they're making a turn across a crosswalk.

There's no way to eliminate turn conflicts except for eliminating all grade crossings. Even on protected bike lanes the right hook is still a significant risk. Drivers need to have it drilled in to their head to look before turning. Even if a bike isn't entering from a protected lane, there could be a pedestrian using the crosswalk.

> Even on protected bike lanes the right hook is still a significant risk.

That's because the infrastructure design is deficient here (which is putting a straight through lane to the right of a right turn lane). Either the cyclist needs to stay in the lane that's meant for straight through traffic, or there needs to be some form of intersection control that only allows traffic to proceed in a phased fashion like a traffic light.

For the latter option, the light would only allow cyclists to proceed through the intersection or allow other vehicles to proceed through the intersection, but not both at the same time.

The hook usually happens at unsignalized intersections (e.g. an alleyway) in my experience. Adding more signals is not the solution. Nor is making "every lane a bike lane." Even in a wide sharrow'ed lane a driver will make a pass, followed by a right turn which cuts the biker off.

Drivers often make mistakes here, and especially bicyclists. A lot of cars try to turn from the middle lane, which makes passing on the left more dangerous for cyclists. On top of that, many cyclists attempt to pass on the right, while cars are turning right.

You are absolutely correct, but so many people don’t know the rules well enough to even realize they’re breaking them.

Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us.

Both classes of vehicles have to be diligent.

As a occasional cyclist with a habit of casually breaking all possible traffic rules that are relatively safely breakable, my thinking is that if I crash with a car, it is me who dies regardless who was right. So as long the traffic culture amongst car drivers is so ignorant toward cyclists that me following traffic rules and actually trying to use the rights the rules give me results to life expectancy calculated in weeks, I keep my relaxed attitude towards traffic rules. Once the driving culture is such that I can drive safely by following rules, I start considering following them. The ball on this one is on cars, not cycles.

(To be fair, when I drive a car, I find myself driving similarly badly way too often. So I definitely do not claim changing the culture is easy)

To be fair, SF seems to have four-way stop signs at basically every intersection. I don't think we have four-way stop signs anywhere in Europe. Coming to a full stop and accelerating again every hundred meters slows you down a lot more on a bike. It's a pretty stupid road design for cars too, it kills your fuel economy.

Yep and the fact that only one car goes through at a time and drivers need to keep in mind whose turn it is.

It’s a really awful design. Just have a roundabout. It flows traffic through a lot better.

Or remove all signs and rely on right-of-way. That's the cheapest solution and works pretty well. If traffic is too heavy install traffic lights.

In Idaho it is perfectly legal for bicycles to treat Stop signs as yields, and Red lights as stop signs.

It was attempted to get a similar law passed in CA: AB 1103.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...

Many cyclists would agree that a rolling stop allows them to get through, when there is no traffic, the intersection much faster and more safely due to the dangers of an intersection. I'm not arguing for blowing through at top-speed, and they must stop when pedestrians are in a cross-walk.

Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's correct.

Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous. The act of unclipping from your pedal, stopping, and then starting again and having to clip back into your pedal is far more dangerous than just slowing down sufficiently to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. You're more likely to fall over when transitioning between moving and stopped on a bike than any other time, and falling over at an intersection is very dangerous.

There's nothing dangerous about stopping, I do it all the time and have never fallen. Cyclists who lack the skills to ride with clipless pedals just shouldn't use them. Or at least switch to something like Speedplay which make it easier to clip in and out.

I ride clipped all the time in the city and don't have this problem. If you can't safely use clips in the city, it's your choice to use them anyway. Saying that due to clips, "Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous" may be precise for you and your usage, but it's not a general rule as you made it sound.

I have never had clips, clipless pedals or anything similar. All of my bikes have had flat pedals with a bit of rubber and/or protrusions to keep my feet in place.

I have literally never felt that to be a disadvantage. I'm not racing, I'm commuting.

I've never used clips on my pedals when commuting because of the fact that there are times I have to come to a stop where I may not have time to unclip.

Using clips while riding in city traffic is like using cruise control while driving in city traffic.

Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling. Or you have to use toe-clips, which are a PITA because you have to flip the pedal over to get your toe in.

With clipless pedals, you just mash your foot in and go, and your foot is now in the perfect position and you don't have to think about it. But that transition time is more hazardous than simply having your feet on the pedals all the time.

> Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling.

The pedals on my bicycle have some slight metal protrusions that keep my feet in place while riding and work just fine with conventional shoes. Plus, in dry weather, I don't have a problem with my feet slipping off the pedals. Even in wet weather, they don't really slip that much unless I'm not careful about it.

> Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules

The same thing also applies to motorists and pedestrians. Also, generalizations like this lead to the attitude that it's somehow the cyclists fault if they get hit by the car even if they are following the rules.

I don't follow your argument. Grandparent had pointed out correct cyclist behavior at intersections to avoid accidents. Parent had commented that both motorists and "especially" cyclists made mistakes resulting in violations of traffic rules and expected behavior. I added the observation that many cyclists' incorrect behavior in San Francisco is willful, not only accidental.

Both parent and I agree with GP's point that, "Turning conflicts...are a significant hazard to cyclists"; I simply argued for vigilance in the presence of deliberate rule-breaking by cyclists. Surely you would not argue for less vigilance by motorists? SF drivers are a whole other rant...

If you meant to say that I am making a hasty or sweeping generalization, I did no such thing. I make no claim as to the proportion of two-wheeled scofflaws. Anybody who rides in SF can see it, and some riders have owned up in child comments herein. If your complaint is against motorists who justify their own shitty driving with claims that cyclists are 'always' flouting the rules, then I agree that this is dangerously fallacious. But such a sweeping generalization nonetheless starts with cyclists who clearly break traffic rules.

That's why I wish they would stop. This is about saving lives. And if you are also a rider then you know the apportionment of blame becomes moot when 1800kg of SUV hits 80kg of cyclist. I think GP is absolutely right that good infrastructure design is key to avoiding such risks, but like all transportation systems it has to be built on the assumption that traffic rules will be followed.

Sure.

There's a myriad of reasons why this is the case. Traffic signals and signage aren't designed for cyclists. Google a little.

Further, this is a false equivalence. When a cyclist fails to be diligent, the risks are fairly small. When a motorists fails to be diligent, other people die.

You are being unnecessarily abrasive.

I ride the streets that I'm speaking about. San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure, markings, and signage to promote safe cycling. I think they do good work and I benefit directly from their work. I think the infrastructure is better suited to cycling than your dismissive comment implies.

I disagree with your characterization that the risks to motor vehicle-bicycle interactions are fairly small risks as long as motorists are diligent. But I don't suggest that you accept my risk assessment. My equivalence is grounded in California law[0]. Cyclists have equal responsibility with other drivers. Both groups of vehicles need to be operated diligently.

[0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....

San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure...

They're adapting roads which were created entirely with motorists in mind in an attempt to promote safe cycling. The infrastructure is more well suited to cycling than it was previously, but I'm not sure that folks from Portland would agree. Folks from Copenhagen, most especially wouldn't agree.

In any case, it's a subjective assessment.

You disagree with my characterization and feel like the law somehow proves you right?

Yes, it is equally illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to blow a stop sign. If a motorist blows a stop sign and has a collision with another motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, then likely outcome is injury in one of those cases, and death in the other two.

If a cyclist blows a stop sign and causes a collision, the likely outcome is that they'll end up a stain on someone else's car. It's possible they could injure, or even kill a pedestrian, which has happened all of once that I can tell.

The risk is vastly different. Bicycles aren't really ever considered to be deadly weapons.

Cars also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Almost no one signals, cars rarely come to a full stop at crosswalks (instead inching forward, implying the pedestrian needs to hurry up), and even though I don't have a radar gun I'm pretty sure I see drivers operating at speeds far above the speed limit. Not to mention the drivers who shout out death threats at bikes for merely occupying the lane...

I have a very simple rule. Traffic laws and enforcement of said laws should be proportional to the accident rate.

If the average car driver has 2x, 10x, 100x or anything like higher accident rate than cyclists, and car traffic is several time larger than bike traffic, then it make logical sense that most traffic law and enforcement is put on addressing car traffic and drivers. The only consideration is when funding for such enforcement and laws don't follow strict scaling, in which you have to find the point where putting more funding in bike traffic laws actually produce lower accidents.

This works only on roads where cars and bikes go the same speed. There are many roads where cars want to go faster than that.

Cars and trucks and buses don't really go the same speed and it still works for them. Plus, on city streets where traffic is going 40 mph or less, the speed difference isn't really that great.

Buses and trucks are a bit bigger and less vulnerable than bikes, and their speed difference with cars isn't remotely as big as that between cars and bikes. It's really not a comparable situation.

Bikes taking up the place of a car, would really slow car traffic down to a crawl. There's a good reason they get separate lanes.

> and their speed difference with cars isn't remotely as big as that between cars and bikes.

Cyclists can go between 10 to 20 mph. Some faster ones can go 25 to 30 mph. On a city street, you have cars going between 20 to 30 mph. On other roads, they may be going up to 40 mph. Given typical speeds, you have a 0 to 30 mph difference.

On highways, there are trucks that are limited to 55 to 60 mph amongst cars that go 70 to 85 mph. In that case, you have speed differences ranging from 10 to 30 mph.

> Bikes taking up the place of a car, would really slow car traffic down to a crawl.

Not really. If there are multiple lanes of traffic going in the same direction, then they don't slow down traffic any more than a bus would. If there's a single lane of traffic going in that direction, then cyclists are far more easy to pass compared to a bus or truck. In many states, it is legal to pass cyclists by crossing a double-yellow line when safe to do so. Second, it's much easier to see around a cyclist compared to a bus or car.

  > Cyclists can go between 10 to 20 mph. Some faster ones can go 25 to 30 mph. On a city street, you have cars going between 20 to 30 mph. On other roads, they may be going up to 40 mph. Given typical speeds, you have a 0 to 30 mph difference.

Are you talking about cyclists or motorcyclists here? Racing bikes, recumbent bikes or e-bikes? Because regular cyclists do not get anywhere near those speeds.

Average cycle speed is about 15 kph, which is approximately 10 mph. 40 mph is more than 60 kph. Muscle-powered cyclists might reach those speeds if they're professional Tour de France racers going downhill, and even then only the downhill experts.

Also, on highways you've got multiple lanes, allowing for easy overtaking.

> Are you talking about cyclists or motorcyclists here? Racing bikes, recumbent bikes or e-bikes? Because regular cyclists do not get anywhere near those speeds.

I'm talking about cyclists. On a hybrid/commuter bike, I have no problem cruising at 15 mph (and I'm middle-aged and a bit overweight rider). Most people who regularly commute can maintain speeds similar to what I can. Could you cite your source about the average speed of 15 km/h?

> Also, on highways you've got multiple lanes, allowing for easy overtaking.

There are many streets in cities that have multiple-lanes for same direction traffic.

Average cycling speed depends a lot on how hard the cyclist is willing to work for it. Most aren not willing to work at all, and on a regular city bike, that means most people will go about 15 km/h. Speed maniacs (like me) will have an average speed of over 20 km/h (on a cargo bike) or even 30 km/h on a sport or racing bike.

I'm completely unable to not work myself into a sweat when cycling, but I'm not remotely average. Average cyclists include children, elderly people, disabled people. People with kids, people with cargo, and many, many people not in any kind of hurry.

  > There are many streets in cities that have multiple-lanes for same direction traffic.

In Amsterdam, there's about a handful, and some of those have higher speed limits. They're the main thoroughfares that you don't want obstructed with slow traffic. The vast, vast majority of streets have only a single lane for cars in each direction, and a bike lane or bike path next to it.

Drivers tests in the US are a joke.

That you think it's easy to pass drivers tests in the US is a joke.

It actually is a joke how bad some tests are. In a lot of cities in Florida your test is done in a parking lot with no real world driving with other cars, and it omits a lot of things, like parallel parking. Ideally licenses should be able to be transferred across states, but tests like the majority of ones in Florida mean drivers from there may be inadequately prepared for driving in some other states like CA.

I really hope this is an exaggeration.

Still, the US is not the only place with very mixed standards for driving tests. I once heard that the easiest way to get a Dutch driving license was on the Caribbean island of Saba, where you'd get your license if you could drive around the central square without causing an accident. I knew someone who got his license there, and he didn't dare to drive a car in Netherland. Fortunately he had a Dutch motorbike license.

It's not an exaggeration. Taking a look at Hillsborough Country[1], two of the three DMVs have "on-site test tracks".

1: http://www.hillstax.org/services/services-driver-licenses.as...

The biggest problem, to my mind, is that there is no process for retesting.

IMO you should have to re-take the test every 5 years starting at 50... and maybe ever year starting from 70 or 75.

Here in NC, the road test was maybe 10 minutes long, in very light traffic. No parallel parking.

The written portion of the test consisted of sign identification and a few very easy multiple choice questions.

I did this when I was 15. That as almost 20 years ago. Have never, and will never, need to do anything else.

Your comment is ignorant and insulting, since you're basically calling him a liar.

My US driving test was a joke. I pulled out of a parking space, pulled up to a road, took a right turn, drive 100-200 feet to an intersection, took a right turn, then took another right turn into the same parking lot I had just left, then parked. That was my entire driving test.

The original comment is ignorant and insulting, since it's implying I'm incompetent enough to have failed a joke of a test twice.

The original comment never stated that all driving tests everywhere in the US are all a joke. Believing that is ridiculous: the US is a big place and things vary dramatically from locality to locality.

"Drivers tests in the US are a joke." is referring to arbitrary driving tests, and implies any driving test (including the two I failed) is a joke.

The guy is correct. MY driving test was a joke, and other people have testified their tests were a joke too. Therefore the statement is correct. He never said ALL driving tests in the US are a joke.

It sounds like you're taking this personally, and have some kind of issue because you failed two driving tests.

  > For too long in the US we've designed our roads with the idea that cars have some right to the road that others do not.

This used to be the case too in Netherland. Until the 1990s, cars had right of way over bikes in most (not all) situations. A car coming from the left would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. This was only fixed in the 1990s.

Bikes have always been popular, but quite a lot of the things described in this article have been fairly recent developments.

Agreed. I don't blame anybody for not wanting to ride in the city. But I've been in SF since 2000 and I'm amazed at the progress that has been made in this direction. (Thanks in no small part to the SFBC.)

And these improvements are happening all over the US. I've been pleasantly surprised to re-visit places and see how much progress has been made.

I've lived here for 20 years and I think you probably just have Stockholm Syndrome. The built environment is still trash and hasn't changed noticeably the entire time. There have been a few tiny marginal improvements, such as a handful of signals for bikes. Bike share I guess. Otherwise total stasis.

Which area of the city do you live in? I’ve seen numerous improvements to major commuter corridors over the years. Some examples:

- Valencia street being narrowed and bike lanes on both sides, improved protection is being worked on.

- protected lanes continue to be improved on Market, but it’s still not great.

- the wiggle through the lower haight is nearly a bike boulevard

- Ceasar Chavez, still not very safe, but traffic has been slowed down and bike lanes added on both sides.

- folsom street now has protected or very wide bike lanes to third street, and Howard now has wide bike lanes starting at 6th.

I mean yeah, it’s not amazing, but it is safer and is continuing to be improved. It will be a long time before we’re like Holland.

Completely agree. I've lived and biked in SF for over a year, and have seen great improvements in this short time.

Not to mention the coast, Embarcadero to Marina to the presidio, all super bike friendly. In general I think the city is quite bikeable. Sure I wouldn't want my kids to bike around it, but I wouldn't want them in SF in general lol.

Biked all my life in the Netherlands, now in (suburbs of) Toronto.

It's completely different here, I wear a helmet, go much faster, have a much nicer bike, have to pay more attention and would never ride drunk.

I still take it over sitting in traffic any day.

Change will happen faster if the decision makers realize induced demand - building car capacity (supply) induces more demand of drivers... building safe bike infrastructure induces more people to ride.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com