Hacker News Reader

Comment by etempleton | Hacker News Reader

I am not a cyclist. And it is because I think it is unsafe to do so on most all roads where there are cars.

Roads may not have originally been designed for cars, but that is what they are for now. You can make a philosophical debate that they shouldn’t be, and I would agree with you, but that is our shared reality.

The issue then is that cyclists are frustrated because they feel they have the same right to the road as cars do and drivers are frustrated because all but the most elite cyclists simply cannot keep up with posted speed limits.

The answer is full separate lanes either elevated or with a curb or barrier. We have them for pedestrians, we have them for cars, why not for cyclists where it makes sense?

It would be expensive, especially initially, but in cities it could help alleviate traffic congestion.

View on HN

> cyclists simply cannot keep up with posted speed limits

Do you not understand what the word "limit" means?

Speed limits + cars set an implicit speed minimum that is required for both safety and to not cause mad cars who are trying to go the speed limit. There's a reason you'll get pulled over for going 20mph on a US highway, and it's a legal oversight to have high speed streets that don't have minimums, or worse are designed to share with bikes even though the average bike won't hit a safe speed minimum.

So the legal maximum is ignored, the absent legal minimum is demanded. Doesn't this seem inherently dysfunctional?

The maximum is there precisely so drivers can respond to slower traffic, not so all traffic will conform to that maximum.

> Doesn't this seem inherently dysfunctional?

The whole point of the thread is that bikes and cars sharing the road with these sharrows is dysfunctional so yes, that's the point...

> The maximum is there precisely so drivers can respond to slower traffic, not so all traffic will conform to that maximum.

I don't know of a single place in the US where the maximum isn't treated as something to conform to. I've driven in the Northeast, South, and California. You'll get honked at for going noticeably under the maximum in all three places. What you describe just simply isn't the practicality of the US roads.

Try driving 15mph in a 45mph zone and see how long it takes you to get pulled over.

Driving significantly slower than the speed limit is unsafe, too.

In many jurisdictions there is also a legal minimum speed stated within the statutes, often based on some value below the posted limit. They are often unknown to most drivers (and cyclists) because the minimum speeds are almost always not placed on signage on the roadway. But legally, there is often a minimum speed as well as the more well known and visible maximum speed.

I absolutely understand what the speed limit is. And understand that in most jurisdictions it is perfectly legal to go under the speed limit, however that makes it no less annoying. When you are following someone in a car going incredibly slow are you not annoyed? You want to pass them, but you don't want to do so unsafely, so you have to wait for a safe opportunity the whole time just wishing they would go the posted speed limit. Then someone behind you gets even more impatient and passes both of you creating an unsafe environment for everyone.

I agree but an easy fix for those lanes are already there, there is already too much space in American cities devoted to cars. The easy way to do this is to take out a lane for cars and devote it to cyclists or scooters and what not. Also take out street side parking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com