Hacker News Reader

Comment by TrevorJ | Hacker News Reader

Eh, this is just extending the argument into absurdity I feel.

I didn't see it as absurd at all - there is a huge contingent of bicyclists who should never be on a sidewalk, while at the same time there are massive numbers of casual e-cyclists who should never be riding in traffic.

Ann Arbor recently changed it's laws to reflect that - and I think the cyclists who are aware they shouldn't be on sidewalks, and the e-cyclists who stick only to the sidewalks know who they are.

Sidewalks? You don't seem to have the first clue about what you are trying to comment on. The only bikes that belong on sidewalks are those ridden by very young kids, and indeed that is the law in much of the world.

In many neighborhoods in California, unless you are a serious cyclist, you genuinely run the risk of being run off the road by a driver in some areas, and will absolutely be yelled at or honked at if you take your "bicycle" (E-Bike or otherwise) onto the road with other vehicles. In 5+ years living in Redwood City, I rarely ever saw what I would call "Utility Cyclists" (Just some person trying to get to their job, or get to the grocery store) ever ride a bicycle on the road.

Ann Arbor changed the law to make this legal: http://www.annarbor.com/news/bicyclists-dilemma-ride-on-the-....

And recently for E-Bikes as well: https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2021/09/ann-arbor-movin....

And yes, I know that California law states that bicycles have to be on the road, but that doesn't reflect reality. And, in fact, at least in Redwood City, I never once (In 5 years of walking every day, and seeing dozens of cyclists every day) saw a police officer cite a cyclist for riding on the sidewalk - though, that isn't the case in Southern California, where I read an NYT article that people of color are routinely stopped/searched for doing so - in much the same way people are cited in some cities for "Jay Walking" - which is a universally accepted behavior in other cities.

But, one thing I think you and I can agree on, that cyclists on the sidewalk have to show the utmost in courtesy to pedestrians, and not go racing along at high (> 8mph or so) speeds - essentially occupy the same speed as your typical jogger might. Also, another topic we might agree on - Bicycle Lanes just make things safer for everyone, cyclist and pedestrian alike.

No e-biker should be on a sidewalk.

There are informal norms. Cyclists who cycle on sidewalks should be relatively new and should make sure to behave explicitly with all of the rules of the road (ie. don't run a red from the sidewalk as a cyclist, very dangerous. if you must, dismount and walk across or wait for the pedestrian light). Cyclists on the street are generally more experienced and do not have to explicitly follow all rules IMO.

If you're piloting a vehicle on the road, you should follow all the rules of the road. This is the reason people hate cyclists.

Laws have social interpretation around them - there are plenty of road laws I see routinely broken for convenience by cars that are effectively unenforced.

"Idaho stops", ie. treating stop signs as yields is both enshrined in law in a few different areas and should be law in many others.

Idaho stops are perfectly acceptable in my view.

Not just informal norms, in many states formal laws, just ones that are hardly ever enforced this century. (Many of them on are on the written part of your driving test, though people don't take those often enough to remember their details.)

For example, Kentucky law requires bicyclists over the age of 11 to use the streets. (Prohibits sidewalk usage.)

Washington state law allows sidewalk usage, but also requires wider sidewalks than the Kentucky minimum, and includes a lot of very specific wording about pedestrian right of way on sidewalks (sidewalks are theirs first) and mandate being very careful in overtaking pedestrians and other cyclists.

I don't know that it is -- electric scooters are controversial -- some folks want them on sidewalks; others in bike lines; yet others only in mixed traffic with cars.

That's the point, I read the post as satire making fun of the top level comment.

"Free pass" for electric motorbikes? What is that person on about? Why have meaningless distinctions between pedaling or not, when the overriding goal should be "promote bike use over vehicle use"?

What societal good, what good to the citizen, is it to place burdens on e-bikes that are not pedal assist?

That's a valid and useful rhetorical technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Although it can be applied with a bit much snark sometimes. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com