Hacker News Reader

Comment by yupper32 | Hacker News Reader

E-bikes might be the only think to get me off the side of wanting to ban bikes from roadways. I really don't understand why there isn't a larger group of people who dislike bikes riding on roads.

1. You don't have to be licensed to bike on a road, but you do for motorized vehicles. This doesn't make sense.

2. Bikes can't keep up with traffic. I have to sit behind bikes trying to get up the SF hills daily, and either have to perform semi-dangerous passes or wait while cars back up behind me.

3. Bikes break road laws way more frequently than cars. Blowing through red lights and stop signs like they don't exist, which is dangerous for the biker, the cars, and especially pedestrians trying to cross the road.

E-bikes with a biking test/license would solve most of my issues.

View on HN

You know, sometimes I am extremely glad I do not live in the United States.

There will always be people who cannot afford to drive. Others are making a conscious decision to impose the enormous burden on everyone that is inherent to driving. And this is how you want to treat them.

Sorry not sorry - that is appalling and I'm glad I'm not in that country.

This seems like an aggressive response which doesn't address any of my points.

I support (mostly by voting for and donating to candidates who support these):

1. Free public transportation.

2. Expansion of public transportation.

3. Proper bike lanes (which properly separates bikes from cars, if we're going to have bikes on the road anyway).

4. Higher wages, so people can survive in the meantime.

All those address your concerns without ordinary bikes sharing the road.

All I'm saying is that bikes sharing the roadway with cars doesn't make sense to me for the reasons I wrote above, and that I'm surprised more people don't feel the same way.

You're never going to fund any of those, are you?

So no you don't support them.

All of your comparisons assume that bikes and cars are the same, but they're not. A car weighs thousands of pounds, it has less visibility/manoeuvrability and goes much faster than a bicycle. The risk and responsibility with a car is much greater than a bicycle.

The reason why cyclists use the road is because it's often the only option. Even when there are bike lanes, many times they're right next to parked cars (dangerous), or cluttered with trash bins, garbage, or whatever else.

> All of your comparisons assume that bikes and cars are the same, but they're not.

I think you're starting to get my point. They're not the same, and don't belong together on the same roadway. We can't ban cars, so we should ban bikes.

Cyclists sharing the road with cars is not the only option. Not biking at all is a very valid option.

> They're not the same, and don't belong together on the same roadway

Yes

> should ban bikes

You can build bike infrastructure. Until then bikes will share the roads, and drivers will have to live with it.

Long term it might be better if we find a way out the the car-centric local maxima we find ourselves in, rather than heading further in that direction.

As you suggested in reply to a sibling comment, more bike lanes make sense. Parking on some roads could be converted to bike lanes. Perhaps it makes sense to lower the speed limits for cars, also.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com