Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymou2 | Hacker News Reader

It is terrible that people equate bike lanes to cycling. Bike lanes are built to kick cyclists off the roads that motorist believe belong to them. It is very ironic that because of the pandemic so many defenders of bike lanes are coming out like mushrooms. I find it ironic, because to me, the pandemic has shown precisely that there is no need at all for bike specific infrastructure. In Madrid, the city where I live, during the worst months of the pandemic, I would go out with my bike and there would be a ratio of like 20 bikes to 1 car. The cyclists that I saw used the traffic lanes as they needed. It was quite something. You would think that proponents of bike lanes would have to shut up. But no, now they say that bike lanes are the solution to the pandemic!

View on HN

Naturally, conditions and attitudes vary from one country and locale to another. I live in the US, which has a fairly high rate of motor vehicle crashes. My view is that our streets are hardly safe enough for cars, and if a car can crash into a car, then it can crash into a bike. In addition to a higher rate of crashes, our cars are bigger, meaning that they can do more damage.

Long before we started adding bike lanes in my locale, cyclists and motorists tended to choose different routes through town. Motorists chose the main streets, which have higher speed limits but also more congestion. Cyclists usually preferred threading our way along residential streets and isolated bike paths. Bike lanes in areas where there are no ways to avoid the high traffic streets seems to simply accommodate how most cyclists prefer to ride anyway.

In practical terms, avoiding cars means that cars are not part of the safety equation. It's also more pleasant. I'm an experienced urban cyclist, yet I still prefer riding in the absence of cars.

Drivers have always been taught to share the road with cyclists, and there are always a few who don't believe it. I don't think construction of bike lanes changes this very much. I have noticed that during the 20 years I've lived in this town, cycling has gotten more popular, there are more bike lanes, but also, drivers have become more aware and friendly towards cyclists on the regular roads.

There are cyclists on both sides of the debate about bike lanes. And surely, if roads can be designed badly, bike lanes can be too. I've seen pictures of some pretty ridiculous examples.

In Sweden until very recently it was _illegal_ to ride your bike in the street, if there was a parallel bike-lane. Then again, this country is virulently anti-cyclist. Some town councils give lip-service to the whole green-biking movement, because they feel it makes them look good. But the infrastructure is terrible, drivers are aggressive and confrontational, and the entire media-debate is based on an unstated understanding that cyclists are ‘stealing’ space from cars.

well, in my neck of the woods there is a fight going on between bicycles and pedestrians. The wave of commuter bikes are taking over paths that used to be reserved for people on foot. It is the same debate: two wildly dissimilar vehicles trying to share the same narrow bit of pavement. If bikes win out over cars for the right of way on roads, what then will the bikes say to pedestrians? Pre-car, pedestrians owned the roads. So too did horses. So why should i not walk my dog in the bike lane?

(Edit: we probably mean the same, but you’re only talking of relatively low-speed streets in Madrid, not roads, where car speed is higher) “Bike lanes are built to kick cyclists off the roads that motorist believe belong to them”

No, they’re built to make cycling safer and more comfortable.

We have motorways for cars (or are you suggesting those should be used by cyclists, too? How do people cycle from Barcelona to Toledo, for example?), sidewalks for pedestrians (at least in many parts of the world), why not have dedicated infrastructure for cyclists?

If what you say is true, the Netherlands is doing it wrong with their “Separate where needed, mix where possible” policy (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/separate-where...)

That may be true, but (IMO) requires more proof than a comment on HN.

If they are built to make cycling safer and more comfortable then why do they care if you use it or not? shouldn't it be your choice? No, what happens is, of course, that you get a lot of harassment if you don't use it. Imagine that you drive a car on a road that you like, then they build another road and people get mad at you because you don't use the new one. That makes no sense right? That's what happens with bike infrastructure, of course it happens because they don't want you to use the regular roads, the motorists want to keep them all for themselves. And obviously, when this happens, security, comfort and convenience are less than an afterthought, in fact they are not thought at all. So, no I do not want special infrastructure when I ride my bike, because then you immediately become a second class citizen. I actively avoid it when I ride.

Because, following your argument, “it is terrible that people equate sidewalks to walking. Sidewalks are built to kick pedestrians off the roads that motorist believe belong to them.”

For inner city streets that historically is correct, but if you ignore that and just look at the end result, you can describe that equally well as parts of the road set apart for pedestrians.

> So, no I do not want special infrastructure when I ride my bike, because then you immediately become a second class citizen.

When you treat cycling as second class, you get bad infrastructure for sure.

Like I said in my other comment. The Netherlands treats bikes as a priority mode of transportation. As such, cyling infrastructure is continously made with comfort and safety in mind.

Hell, cars tend to be inconviencienced in order to provide safer infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

I'm a keen cyclist and I prefer to ride on the road rather than on bike lanes. It tends to be a faster way to get around, especially since roads don't have the same habit of ending abruptly that bike lanes do, and it is rarer that one has to slow down for slower traffic ahead. However, not everyone is capable of cycling fast enough to move safely in the flow of traffic on the road, and not everyone is confident enough to ride in and among cars. I expect, given the demographics of this website, that you (like me) are a reasonably fit and confident young man - perhaps the subset of the population most likely to be undaunted by road cycling. For people like us, it is likely that the road will always be the preferred way to travel. But a cycling culture must be all-inclusive.

Fitness and confidence is easily overtaken by stupidity and resentment by car drivers on the road, at least around here. The white spray painted bicycles you see along the road can attest to that.

In case people don't get the "white spray painted biycles" reference, see [1].

Berlin just got 15 more of those bikes this year already (which is more than usual, maybe due to corona).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_bike

Yet, the people who want bike specific infrastructure are perfectly happy with bike lanes that require that car drivers see you and react in 20ms when you suddenly cross their path. Instead of being in front of them with plenty of time, like you would if you were using the same road. For example, in Madrid there is such a white painted bike next to an intersection between the regular road and a bike path. The cyclist riding the bike path was killed when he crossed the road. Such a road design is just criminal: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/08/28/madrid/1503932795_982370....

As if bikes aren't suddenly appearing out of nowhere when they use the same road as cars? When there's a cycling path you'll at least know where they will be coming from.

The solution to that problem is not putting cyclist and cars on the same road, we've tried that and it's worse. The solution is separating bike and car infrastructure so that there are as less as possible crossings between roads and cycling paths.

I think that most people can learn. Why do you think you are so special? I think that bicycle specific infrastructure actually sends the wrong message and prevents people from learning. It is a crutch, it creates a vicious circle from which people never get out, never become confident. They do not know what to do when the bike lane ends.

I'm too and I think you're crazy, or maybe where you live bike paths are especially crappy and roads really wide. I don't like cars driving slowly behind me waiting to take over, busses nearly hitting me, and having to choose between being stuck in car traffic and slowly manœuvring between cars stuck in traffic and parked cars. Just give me a reasonable decent biking lane.

> especially since roads don't have the same habit of ending abruptly that bike lanes do

Nobody wants bad bike lanes. Imagine your bike lane were straight, as wide as a regular road lane and had smooth tarmac. Would you still ride amongst the cars?

This depends on relative numbers and local culture; if there's not many cyclists and drivers behave aggressively or recklessly towards them, cycle lanes encourage people to try it in comparative safety.

Cycle lanes are a trap for those who do not know. What exactly are the skills that you need to ride your bike in the normal road that are not needed when you ride on a bike lane?

You need mainly velocity and acceleration. Unless you have a powerful ebike, most bikers accelerate 5x slower than usual car, even slower than scooters, and max speed around 25-30kmh on flat road. So they become obstacle that is often difficult to avoid safely in the car.

There are +-2 countries that I've seen implement bikes seriously - Netherlands and Denmark. Both have more bikes than residents AFAIK. The magic is to have dedicated bike lanes that nobody else uses. You only slow down/stop on intersections with car roads or pedestrian paths, otherwise its all for you, wide enough to overtake slower biker.

+ Belgium

So are you saying that when a driver of car encounters slower traffic they collide with it? I don't think that's the case. In fact I've been driving my bike daily to work for 13 years, and never been hit from behind by a car. I've had a few close calls and they've always been on intersections with cars coming from the front turning left or from the sides. So velocity and acceleration are not important when sharing the road. Vehicles of different kinds have always shared the road without any problem. If you encounter a vehicle slower than you, you just need to slow down, adapt your speed and pass if safely to do so. It's that easy. By the way, those countries already had cyclists before they kicked them off the roads. Do they have more now or less? Also how do cyclists interact with other cyclists? don't they have to follow any rules either? don't they need any skills?

From my experience, as a cyclist speed and acceleration helps with avoiding car-related danger. If you're fast enough, cars won't needlessly overtake you (in rush hour, most car traffic may not exeed 30 km/h for example due to roads being packed too full, that's easy to match for a trained cyclist).

Also at intersections, being really quick at acceleration allows you to get out of the danger zone of cars crossing your path before there's a conflict. Think about right-turning trucks starting after a red traffic light.

I think fitness (and maybe reaction time) is some reason why severe cycling accidents seem to happen to older cyclist at a higher rate. In Berlin out of 15 cycling deaths this year, more than half of them are age 60 and higher [1], 3 are beyond 80 years of age.

[1] https://adfc-berlin.de/radverkehr/sicherheit/information-und...

It’s absolutely untrue to say that cyclists are ‘difficult to avoid safely’.

Every time I drive I encounter cyclists. Sometimes I have to drive more slowly than I might want to for a short time, while I’m waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake. Not once, ever, have I found it difficult to avoid the cyclist safely. Anyone who finds this difficult would not be fit to operate a motor vehicle.

> What exactly are the skills that you need to ride your bike in the normal road that are not needed when you ride on a bike lane?

There should not be a set of skills to acquire to be on a road with cars. Roads in city centers should be safe enough for children to cycle to school.

For bigger arteries, this is achieved with segregated traffic in bicycle lanes. For smaller roads, this is achieved with sane city centre speed limits and respectful driving. That is the way it is implemented in countries like the Netherlands and they are in no way achieving this with extraordinarily skilled drivers or cyclists.

Your skills on a bicycle should be as basic as keeping safety distances and signaling your intentions. If I am putting 3 tonnes of metal in motion, it is ny duty to not act recklessly. This is the mindset that needs to change (on top of the infrastructure change).

So do you mean to say that bicycles do not collide with each other and therefore there is no need for them to have rules to share the road/bike lane or whatever? So, for example If I am being passed by another cyclist, can I just turn left without looking behind? I think you may wish that there was no need for skills, but that's just not reality. You need to know how to keep riding on a straight line for example, because other drivers of bicycles, cars, or whatever, expect that you won't suddenly cross their trajectory without warning. Since you also need to change your lateral position, regardless if you are riding on a bike lane or a normal road you need to be able to ride a straight line while looking behind, for yielding or lane negotiation. Also you need to do the same things when on a curve trajectory. Of course you need to be able to calculate the speed of other vehicles. For example, when entering a roadway, bike path, or whatever, you need again to be able to yield properly. I mean, we are talking about vehicles, I am not talking about fooling around in the park. In fact, it turns out that bike paths require additional skills. It requires additional skills because you need to figure out when its design contradicts the rules of the road. For example, when you have a right turning lane, that is exterior to a bike lane that just goes straight. That's a very dangerous situation where cyclists and motorists have to outsmart the engineer to avoid the right hook type of accident. Again, the bike lane discourse that bike lanes are easier to use is just false.

> So do you mean to say that bicycles do not collide with each other and therefore there is no need for them to have rules to share the road/bike lane or whatever?

Not to be rude, but is the worst example I've ever seen of arguing against the weakest possible reading of something the comment you are replying to didn't say.

I've raced bikes and been in bike-on-bike crashes at 70km/h, and I've been hit by a car when I was riding at about 20km/h. Give me the bike-on-bike crash any day.

I'm not a huge fan of bike lanes, but OTOH I have to admit I've basically stopped riding most roads after being hit and having constant near misses.

How about the skill to pedal 80km/h?

That's not a necessary skill. You know, there is a principle of traffic engineering that says: First to come first to be served. That means, if you are using the road, and you find a slower vehicle in front of you you are not allowed to run over him or kick him out of the way in any way. You are allowed to pass if safe to do so or just wait behind if not safe.

There is a principal in motorcycling that says: it doesn't matter if you had the right of way, you are the one who will wind up in the hospital, and the car driver will be fine.

I'm an avid cyclist & ex-motorcyclist. Self preservation & being a courteous road user tops what I might technically be entitled to do.

Also I find that drivers behave more aggressive towards me precisely after they build a bike lane. Because of course they expect you to use it, that's why the built it, so that you get out of their way.

All road users should be considerate.

If there is a dedicated cycle lane and a cyclist disturbs cars traffic (which bikes usually do simply because they tend to go much slower than cars) by insisting on cycling on the road I can understand that drivers do not appreciate it, though it of course does not excuse dangerous maneuvers.

The problem with this is that car drivers usually just assume that the cyclists could just safely use the bike lane, while in reality many bike-lanes are statistically more dangerous than just driving on the road.

In Germany there used to be a a general obligation to use bike-lanes when present, which was overturned by court, because of the safety argument.

As a cyclist I'm harassed at least once a weak by drivers who think I should use the non-obligatory bike-lane. This makes it very difficult to consciously chose the safer road instead of the (too narrow, too badly lit, too close to foot-traffic, too damaged, full of glass shards) bike-lane.

Should the bike lanes be removed, then?

I think that the solution, as I mentioned in another comment, is to build 'proper' bike lanes instead of painting a 1m wide corridor on the side of the road and calling that a "bike lane". Obviously this usually can only be done when building a new road.

> Should the bike lanes be removed, then?

Yeah, for Berlin at least it's a very difficult question trying to find out how to move forward from the current half-assed state of affairs.

There is some sort of new law/policy that defines how proper bike infrastructure should look like [1] defining minimum width and stating that bike-lines should not be put onto foot-walks. However not many actions where performed based on that law which was also drafted in a way that prevents bringing forward proper legal action when not adhered to.

Maybe also something needs to be done WRT driving school, where bike-related issues are not really taught as far as I'm aware of. Most drivers (and maybe most teachers at driving school) still believe that cyclists do not belong onto the road and do not understand how driver behaviour endangers them. Minimum car<->bike overtaking distance (1.5 m) for example is generally ignored by more than half of cars.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Mobilit%C3%A4tsgesetz

It is funny, in those places I never got any harassment before. Car drivers never had a problem with me, It seems that I never disturbed the apparently so important car traffic, they just passed and went their way. So what exactly was the purpose of the bike lane? Clearly, to kick me and other cyclists out of the way because they didn't like us. That is just plain discrimination. And I am not saying that I don't facilitate passing when safe for me to do so. I think we cyclists have to do that. But the bike lane is just obnoxious.

In the Netherlands it's the other way around. We're removing full roads in cities in favour of bigger cycling paths and more walking area.

We've also got cycling roads where cars may drive as a "guest". So really slow driving speeds and only short distance until they go back up to the main road again.

The big difference here is that the bike is a priority vehichle here, instead of a nuisance for cars.

Cycling paths/roads aren't just for city infrastructure. It also is a way of providing safe intercity traffic for cyclists. You can cycle between major cities here without having to share the road with any cars.

Having experienced Dutch segregated bike lanes, I'm not sure how you can argue against these.

The key though, is to treat bicycles as a priority, rather than as an afterthought. One important provision in Dutch law is that if a car driver crashes into a cyclist, it is assumed that the car driver has been negligent.

"that motorist believe belong to them"

Not sure how roads are paid for where you are, but where I live half the cost of roads is funded by gasoline taxes and various other fees on vehicles and drivers.

Where I live, the local roads are paid for by property taxes. County and state roads are funded by a mixture of tax sources, and bikes are forbidden on expressways.

But money is fungible, meaning it's hard to pin down what money is used for what. A lot of what consumes road funding is the damage to roads caused by heavy trucking. Also, cyclists largely avoid roads that carry a lot of motor vehicle traffic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com