Hacker News Reader

Comment by komali2 | Hacker News Reader

> because cyclists are weird and it's okay to tell them to just ride in amongst trucks travelling 40mph.

This is unsustainable. It's caused blowback from cyclists. "Fine, you want me to play in traffic, I'm going to start doing some dumb shit." I say this as a cyclist, I'm doing only 5 miles round trip but I do it every day. I see people blow red lights, weaving in and out of traffic, hopping onto the sidewalk, blasting through crosswalks inbetween pedestrians.

I mean yea, don't give them bikelanes, this is what happens, they feel scorned or something and start breaking the law.

View on HN

I also bike. Don't give me a bike lane? That's fine, I'll take the middle of the traffic lane. Honk all you like, I'm not going to give you room to try and squeeze between me and the oncoming traffic while I risk getting doored. Cars can wait.

Hey, if they're honking, they see you, and that's the most important thing. I get far more close calls when I stay to the right than when I take up the whole lane.

I fully support these scooters doing the same.

People may complain about scooters and bikes in a traffic lane, but if it catches on, we should see less total traffic since they're more compact and they'll probably avoid the more busy, higher speed roads anyway.

Good luck to you, it's a dangerous game you're playing. It just takes one idiot in a car who doesn't notice you because they're checking their instagram feed, or whatever, for your life to be over.

I knew someone growing up who was a very successful banker. He had everything - 3 kids, a beautiful wife, amazing house, etc. Cycled to work every day.

One day, someone didn't see him.

Doctors managed to save his life but he was unable to use any muscle from his neck down. Had to be on a respirator for the rest of his life. Couldn't talk. Etc.

He killed himself by driving his motorized wheelchair into a pool. He left behind a beautiful family and wife.

Good luck, be safe. For the record, I fully support bicyclists and wish our cities were designed better to promote their safe use. Unfortunately, they aren't right now, and I hate to see people needlessly punished for choosing to cycle to work.

I also knew someone who was very successful and died too young leaving behind 3 kids, a beautiful wife, amazing house etc. (I'm not being flip, this is true). He died in a car accident.

I'll take the relatively small risk of being hit while biking in exchange for the 100% chance of the very positive benefits (free exercise, no traffic, free parking). Driving has about the same risk of killing you and 100% chance of making you fat, miserable, and angry.

You are 15 times more likely to be killed on Britain's roads if you ride a bike than if you drive a car.[1]

If you look at total deaths they may seem comparable to driving, but way more people drive than cycle.

Good on you for dedicating yourself to cycling, but you shouldn't ignore the increase in risk.

[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety...

You'd also have to take into account the reduction in life expectancy from the stress of driving and additional time being sedentary.

> Driving has about the same risk of killing you

I don't think that's true at all. Do you have a source?

> 100% chance of making you fat, miserable, and angry.

As someone who spent 7 years doing a job that required me being behind the wheel of a car for 5+ hours a day, that is 100% not true.

I'm in great shape and actually love driving most of the time. I got rid of my car about a year ago and actually miss driving sometimes.

> Driving has about the same risk of killing you

Doubt that.

Given the same roads (city streets, since I assume you aren't biking on the freeway) ... there's just no way you're more likely to die in a car going 15 mph, than a bicycle.

A friend of a friend, after some yelling traded with an entitled driver, had the motorist turn around, deliberately hit him, then drag him under the vehicle as they fled the scene.

(All of this was captured on video with several witnesses)

Having someone put away on a muder charge is small comfort for never being able to fully use your body again.

Road rage is real. People are assholes. And you're not going to win a bike vs car escalation.

#CriticalMass ... but protect yourself at all times.

Taking your place in the lane is much safer than riding in the gutter.

Happens to drivers all the time, but is not an interesting story because they did not do anything it of the norm to "deserve" it.

Does this also mean we don’t fly planes because of terrorism? I sympathize for the family and such a tragic situation but let’s not blame the biker nor declare biking as not the right transportation because drivers aren’t all awesome at driving.

You should re-read what I wrote, because I certainly didn't blame the biker. I wished him good luck while acknowledging the fault lies in the "idiot" drivers who are checking their phone rather than paying attention.

100% agree, if you don’t take the lane and ride on side of it cars try to pass far to close for comfort or safety. The middle means I’m claiming this lane please pass on left.

I'll take the middle of the traffic lane.

When I'm driving, I want you to do this so I can see you most visibly.

As an aside, at least where I live, most of the lanes are sharrows anyway, so bikes are entitled to the whole lane. I think not many bikers or drivers are aware of this and it causes grief for everyone involved.

Yeah, that works until they pass you anyway and you get hit by their mirror. Of course it was a BMW.

I hate to break it to you, but you aren't exactly playing this game from a position of power. If an accident occurs, you will be the one seriously injured or worse.

Start doing dumb shit?

I've been seeing cyclist blow through stop signs for 30 years.

Personal anecdote, cyclists blow through stop signs because the infrastructure isn't built for bicycles. Having to come to a stop and then start up on a bicycle is the hardest part and cyclists hate it.

Source: Commuting to work on a bicycle for years.

I don't think the conversation should be on how difficult it is to stop and start on a bike.

The real issue is that bikes aren't any safer treating stop signs as full stops. Visibility and maneuverability on a bike are so high that a complete stop is totally unnecessary for a bike approaching an empty intersection, so long as they at least yield to traffic.

Bikes are not cars, and should not be treated as such.

Exactly.

People who don't bike don't understand.

Imagine having to effectively park you car every single time a stop was legally required.

All moving vehicles should be operated safely, but obeying a stop sign, just because its a stop sign isnt always safe, or efficient.

@drRogers below me...

To anyone bitching about stop signs, they should be bitching about the lack of roundabouts.

There are myriad ways to design infra for non-stoppage cyclists.

How about we have entire zones where cars arent even allowed? If this were the case, then you'd have to design around mobility that didnt involve cars.

I don't think anybody's saying you can't make a California stop as a bicyclist, when I say "blow through a red" or "blow through a stopsign," I'm talking about the bicyclists I see (every day) that disrupt the actual order of expected operation of the stop sign. I.e., moving out of turn, because they were unwilling to slow down.

And I get dinged at because I let cars (who have missed MULTIPLE of "their turns") go. I don't get it.

>To anyone bitching about stop signs, they should be bitching about the lack of roundabouts.

Uh. Roundabouts cost orders of magnitude more than stop signs and eat up several times as much space as a standard intersection.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabo...

>The average construction cost of roundabouts is estimated at approximately $250,000[2]. Roundabouts discussed in this report ranged in cost from $194,000 to just under $500,000, depending on their size (or "footprint" and right-of-way acquisitions that were needed.)

Let's see... 200k$ roundabout or sub 2k$ (probably sub 1k$) for 4 stop signs installed.

That's not a good comparison, you're neglecting the cost of actually building the non-roundabout intersection and just looking at the cost of the signs. Consider the cost to build each from scratch.

I assumed we're talking about existing intersections. This parent post is about San Francisco not Bumsville, Idaho.

Imagine having to effectively park you car every single time a stop was legally required.

Cars do come to a complete stop every time they reach a stop sign or red light. Those that don't tend to get very expensive tickets. Pedestrians also stop at intersections, usually, and those that don't tend to get tickets.

It's just cyclists who seem to think that they're above the law. Guess what? They chose an inefficient form of locomotion, then they get to live with the consequences of that--including stopping at intersections like the rest of us.

I have seen a lot of cars not come to a full and complete stop at stop signs if there's no traffic

I don't see why it should be any different for cyclists.

This argument, of course, does not apply to people going full-speed without yielding through a stop sign or traffic light

I've never had much of a problem stopping and starting on a bike. Not enough to make me ignore stop signs at least.

I’m a cyclist too but I just don’t see how cities could be built in such a way that avoids stop signs unless everything is a roundabout. It’s annoying to stop on a bike; doesn’t mean I am justified in being lazy about it.

bikelanes on the level with the sidewalk which also merge into the crosswalks at intersections. For big intersections with traffic lights you can have under/overpasses for pedstrians and bicycles instead, which also allows more aggressive traffic light cycles for the cars.

I think putting them on level with sidewalks would be a serious danger for pedestrians, moreso than my risk as a biker. I do wish crosswalks were designed so that cyclists can make left turns on them

Uhh, so how exactly would you reccomend building the infrastructure to support the use case of 'never having to stop'? Intersections are a thing, and bridges/overpasses are very expensive - especially if you start demanding them at literally ever one.

Here's a simple fix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Stop signs become yield signs for cyclists. Red lights become stop signs.

Works for me. The only time I have a problem with a bike running a stop sign is when they do it at speed. Riding up, looking both ways, and safely taking your turn without fully stopping seems totally okay to me.

Cool story time: only time I ever got in trouble on a bike was when I (on campus, even) blew through a stop sign at an intersection that was not even publicly accessible. State Police saw me and chased me down and pulled me over on my bike :-). She had a point. I didn't just mosey through that stop sign, I blew it at speed. Dumb kid.

Roundabouts and yield signs. For T-intersections no yield along the top for cross intersections that can't be roundabouts for whatever reason make the yield the direction that has a bike lane if possible.

The problem with coming to a complete stop on a bike is that for people getting to work it means a much more likely chance that you end up there sweaty; and most work places don't have a shower.

Buy a bike with gears then - and stop living out your velodrome fantasies on the road. Gears and proper brakes are good enough for pro road racers.

This is the weakest excuse I have heard for bad behaviour.

"proper road racers" don't stop at stop signs. it is also a strange assumption you made that GP doesn't already use a bike with gears.

I agree it's convenient for the biker, but it's confusing for cars. As a driver making a 4-way stop I see a biker approaching from the side. I know he's planning to roll through the intersection. I can either wait for him (yielding my right of way) or take my turn (forcing him to make an unplanned stop). Meanwhile that indecision further disrupts the flow of traffic.

If it's your turn to go, go. Most likely the cyclist will slow enough for you to get through the intersection without having to make a full stop themselves. They know it's your turn to go and are expecting you to go. It only creates further confusion if you don't follow the rules that everyone knows.

> It only creates further confusion if you don't follow the rules that everyone knows.

Doesn't that seem like an argument for cyclists stopping at stop signs?

IMO just take your turn. Unless the biker looks like he's actually going to be in a place where you might hit him, just follow the rules of the road. Let the biker worry about himself.

> I've been seeing cyclist blow through stop signs for 30 years.

One reason cyclists don’t stop at stop signs is because it’s the biggest energy drain to have to come to a full stop, killing all momentum, and then pick up speed again from zero. If a cyclist approaching a stop sign sees that there is no traffic, and it’s not even a busy street, then that cyclist will likely just keep going. I’m not saying whether that’s right or wrong, just trying to shed some light on why it happens. Of course, if someone is complaining about a cyclist not stopping then that cyclist probably did it on a road with traffic, and so that cyclist was a douche. So yep it’s mostly because stop-and-go drains a lot of energy, and stopping for roads with no traffic can feel unreasonable. But other times a cyclist is just a douche. Scooter riders probably will not feel the same way about stop signs with no traffic, as they’re motor-powered instead of foot-powered.

I'm on my bicycle nearly every day and I "get it," I just don't think it's a valid excuse. Oh no, eat another banana. Whatever. I'm on my bike to get exercise anyway.

I think there's a difference between trying to explain something and trying to excuse it. So yep, no where in what I wrote was I excusing them. Even though they could just eat another banana, people generally aren't so rational like that. Still, laziness (yes, even while cycling) is a common enough occurrence to be an explanation for otherwise irrational phenomena.

Well, why can't a car do the same thing?

Replace all the stop signs with yield signs.

Lots of places around here go one step farther. We have many city intersections with no signs at all. On an intersection of two one-lane roads it makes a certain sense, as long as everybody assumes someone may be coming.

Do you see any scenario in which a 4-way yield would be more dangerous than a 4-way stop?

A yield sign implies that you must be prepared to stop if necessary anyway. Which means going at a speed where you can brake to 0 before being in the middle of the intersection, so maybe 20ft at best

I don't know, ask the cyclists. I'm not their advocate lol.

I cycle in London, and frequently don't use bike lanes (because there aren't any in the bits of town I cycle in). There's no excuse for pulling the dumb shit you list, other than weaving through traffic.

No they are kind being entitled dicks (and it will be 99.9% male offenders) - I did not ride like that in London in the 80's when there where less bikes on the road.

You say scorned, I say entitled.

This might be one of those San Francisco problems. In most places a combination of law enforcement and peer shaming would discourage cyclists from breaking the law.

Cracking down on law-breaking cyclists in SF would "send the wrong message" though, and the local culture trends more towards self-regard than self-awareness.

Cyclists constantly break the law in literally every city I’ve ever seen cyclists in. As long as they’re being safe, I don’t really blame them either - very few cities are designed with cyclists in mind and the letter of the law is usually hugely inconvenient.

Seriously,

I have been a cyclist for a decade.

Saying things like "blowing through a stop sign" is stupid in the vast majority of cases, as stopping can actually be more unsafe.

Also, its so freaking tiresome to assume that every single human being is a fucking moron.

Cyclists have all their faculties, they can see, hear, move, discern. Thus, they are making a judgement to "blow through" a stop-sign in the same way anyone else makes a decision.

I once was yelled at by a guy who was waiting for a crosswalk, but all lights were red and all traffic was stopped - there was literally no traffic, and I was on the side of the T in the street, on Embarcadero in SF, where the bike lane continued through the intersection. There was literally no reason for a bike to stop for the light, as there was no reason for any other vehicle to interfere with the bike lane.

So I continued on, and this guy got so angry and was yelling at me and flipping me off becuase I didnt obey the red light.

It didnt make sense to "obey" so I didnt.

This can happen a lot, where the rule is to stop, but all other inputs are contrary to the rule.

So, be smart, be aware, stop when it is necessary, but not necessarily when it is "required".

The issue with this is that, on my motorcycle, I nearly take out (especially on left turns) bicyclists blowing through reds that don't see me. I can't stop midturn without high risk of going down and taking out the cyclist (and pedestrians) with my sliding motorcycle, it's a risky situation all around.

The laws like "just stop at red" don't care about your perceptive ability, they care about everyone's perceptive ability. It takes a HUGE amount of swarm intelligence and error-correcting to make traffic work, single bad actors are auto-corrected for usually, but get two in one instance, or have a faulty error-corrector present (a tired driver, a bicyclist failing to see a motorcyclist in dark gear, etc) and there's your accident.

So while I understand the argument that you, or jaywalkers, make, I don't agree. Partly because of tragedy of the commons, but also because I simply don't trust the perceptivity of you + all other cyclists. It's too prone to error. Just go with the safe option.

I don't disagree with you, and as you clerly point out - its not a level playing field.

I just cant agree with saying that the lowest common denominator is correct in all cases, and thus, people should have personal responsibility for personal risk, and thats just how the world needs to be.

Shaking fists be damned.

I'm inclined to be sympathetic to cyclists, however, I strongly disagree with you. When people get to choose which of the rules they get to follow, they always choose the rules that benefit themselves without regards to those of others.

Cyclists aren't only putting themselves at risk, they are putting others as well, as is the case with anyone operating a vehicle. A cyclist choosing to ignore traffic rules can indirectly cause someone who expected them to follow those rules to take an action that greatly amplifies the risk of that cyclists' own decisions.

The fact that cities are not designed well for traffic that is not traditional vehicular should not be an excuse for people to put themselves and others in greater danger.

This reminds me of one time at an old job in Philadelphia. We had a visitor from California, and we were walking with them to lunch, and they were stunned that we ignored the traffic lights. I told them to look at the cars not the lights, because the lights have no real bearing on whether or not a car is coming. Which in turn reminded me of this George Carlin bit:

As an example of how hopeless California is, when I first got there, a policeman gave me a ticket for jaywalking. You have to understand the kind of people who live in California. They are willing to stand, passive and inert, on a curb, when absolutely no traffic is coming, or maybe just a little traffic that could easily be dodged. They simply stand there obediently and wait for an electric light to give them permisiion to proceed. I couldn't believe this cop. I laughed at him. The ticket cost me twenty dollars in 1966. Since that time, I figure I have jaywalked an additional thousand times or so without being caught. Fuck that lame-ass cop! I've managed to pro-rate that ticket down to about two cents a jaywalk.

Should cars follow the same logic?

In rural or non-traffic-laden areas, yes.

If you can see a mile in any direction when in a car, and there is nothing coming, why stop?

(also, anecdotally - this is in my DNA, my great grand-father was driving in San Francisco when they were installing stop-lights. He refused to have a machine tell him what to do and would run all lights.)

The problem with that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8boWQvgo18U#t=04m44s

Not the best example because that place didn't have a stoplight, but in any case, the driver didn't see a firetruck with its lights on because the sun was right behind it.

So even in rural areas with "nothing for miles," the room for error exists.

I'm not sure I agree - I've never lived in an American city where cyclists didn't blow through reds. I hear it's the norm (though still illegal) in the UK as well.

It used to happen a lot in LA as well, until they started building out bike lanes and ticketing cyclists for traffic violations like running red lights. It still happens, but way less now than it used.

That, and a lot of the more reckless cyclists ended up donating their organs...

Car drivers and cyclists blow reds at much the same rates. Only car drivers end up killing a significant number of people doing so, though.

Also: outgroup, confirmation bias.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com