Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulnpace | Hacker News Reader

Here is one that bicyclists really hate:

Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic.

I used to live on one such road and the bicyclists regularly insisted I travel >30 MPH below the speed limit because of a long uphill section that was double yellow due to many curves and hillsides blocking the line of site for passing. Bicyclists would get visibly angry at drivers who were not willing to break the law and pass on a double yellow and also risk a head-on collision. It was among the most arrogant and inconsiderate things I've seen people do on a regular basis.

View on HN

I don't think I understand.

Apparently it's unreasonable for one set of road users to say to another "When we're around, you have to go much more slowly on this road than you would like to".

But it's not unreasonable for one set of road users to say to another: "You must not use this road at all".

Actually, I'm not being entirely sincere. I think I understand very well: you think that car drivers are proper road users, entitled to use the roads conveniently and safely, and cyclists are impostors who have no such right unless it causes zero inconvenience to car drivers. I, on the other hand, think that that is bullshit. Unless some road is specifically designated as not-for-everyone, car drivers are allowed to use it even though that exposes cyclists to some danger, and cyclists are allowed to use it even though that exposes car drivers to some inconvenience.

"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense", so let's do a little arithmetic. Suppose you are stuck for a full mile behind a cyclist who makes you drive at 15mph where you could otherwise have driven at 45mph. Then that mile will take you 4 minutes instead of 1 minute 20 seconds. It's cost you about two and a half minutes. That's probably less time than you spent, e.g., writing the comment above.

If the cyclist isn't allowed to use that road, or any other "narrow back-country roads", then most likely they have to take a much longer route. (If they can get where they're going at all. Not everywhere is on the main roads.) If they have to go an extra 3 miles, at that 15mph speed, that's an extra 12 minutes. Is your time 4.5x more important than theirs?

Yes, the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is hostile and should receive lashes for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world.

I think the problem here is there is scarce resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to.

All people shall travel at the speed of the bicyclists. This is good and just and non-negotiable.

(And your math is flawed - how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass - can you even see your incredible bias here?)

I did not say (and don't believe) that "the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed". You just made that up. Most of the time, when a car meets a bicycle, the car overtakes. The only question is what happens in places where that isn't safe. The answer you suggested is that bicycles shouldn't ever be on those roads. I don't think that's a good answer.

I did not say anything about you (or others who might disagree with me) being "hostile". You just made that up. (You are being pretty hostile, as it happens, but I wasn't complaining about that.)

And of course I didn't say anything about punishing people for being "angry haters"; again, you just made that up out of nothing.

I agree that the basic problem is scarce resources. I have no idea why you think I "cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as [I] expect them to". I didn't say anything remotely like that, and I didn't mean anything remotely like that.

I did not say (and don't believe) that everyone should travel at bicycle speeds. Cars should be able to travel at car speeds when it's safe. Bicycles should be able to travel at bicycle speeds when it's safe. The only difficult question is what to do in the unusual situations where both of them can't safely do their thing. Again, your solution was to say that cyclists shouldn't be on those roads at all, and I don't think that's a good solution.

> how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass

I agree: they should totally do that, if there are a bunch of cars behind them and there isn't going to be a safe place for ordinary overtaking soon, and if they're actually safer to drive past when stationary than when cycling. (It's what I do if I'm on a bicycle in that situation.) I'm not sure what makes you think I don't think they should do that.

If you'd said "If you're cycling on a road where cars can't get past you, stop and let them past every now and then" I'd have nodded my head and thought "yup, good advice". But you didn't. You said "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic." and the only thing you said about overtaking was to complain about how cyclists encourage drivers to overtake.

(I don't know the specific roads you have in mind, but from what you said the situation I was imagining was one where the road is so narrow that you can't safely pass them even if they're standing beside their bicycle rather than riding it.)

If your actual complaint was that some cyclists could give you a safe overtaking opportunity and don't do it, maybe you should have said that, rather than complaining about the fact that they're on the road at all?

Yes, the universe shall operate on the car's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is a hostile and should be run down and mutilated at the first possible opportunity for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world.

I think the problem here is there is scare resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to.

All people shall travel at the speed of the car. This is good and just and non-negotiable.

I completely agree with you on these points.

When unbending, the cyclists’ stance on this kind of thing feels very misattuned to physics and social awareness.

Doesn’t it create more carbon emissions to cause cars to be on the road for twice as long, running at less-efficient speeds?

Especially when a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass.

And sure, equal rights to the road, I can get behind. If a thoroughfare is intended for different types of vehicles with average speeds that can differ by an order of magnitude, it feels aware and attuned to me that the operators of these vehicles respectively know when to relax a tight-fisted grip on “rules no matter what”, and adjust according to the situation.

> a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass

But then they wouldn't get their Strava KoM! Oh, the horror.

How are the bicyclists both insisting that you travel below the speed limit and getting angry at you not overtaking them?

That doesn't add up, I'm more inclined to believe they were road users minding their own business and you were annoyed that the road didn't provide an opportunity to overtake them.

What would you propose as an alternative? Many such roads are the only route available.

You sure sound like a driver who owns the road. Nobody expects you to pass on a double yellow. You are supposed to slow down as needed to stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass.

> You sure sound like a driver who owns the road.

I hear this often, but it doesn't make sense to me. I have one single route to get to any destination, and because one person wants to ride a bicycle on this round, >5 cars will often be lined up behind the bicyclist traveling >30 MPH below the speed limit.

Of course, it's the drivers who feel they own the road in this scenario (even if it's one driver).

This is the transportation system that exists. I didn't create it.

> Nobody expects you to pass on a double yellow.

The bicyclists literally try to wave cars past them when they can see the other side of a corner. You are making an assumption, and that assumption is wrong.

I never did this because the bicyclists care that I leave and have zero accountability for their waving. Twice I had bicyclists do this and cars arrive around the curve during the time that I would have been passing. Literally, the bicyclists were actively trying to create head-on collisions.

Fortunately, most people on that road were very well aware that traffic was both busier than the bicyclists understood and faster due to higher speed limits that the bicyclists were generally oblivious to.

I don't own a car, but do own a bike. At least where I live, I also have the same single route as you to commute to work (there might be lovely alternative cycle lanes where you live).

No bicycle lanes. In fact, passing while completely in the other lane violates the law because the vehicle cannot be greater than 10 feet from the bicyclist due to how narrow the road is. The bicyclist's presence means they are, according to law, deciding the speed all traffic shall flow at. It is odd to me how bicyclists find this to be an acceptable situation and anyone disagreeing to be in the wrong, so much so they will downvote someone expressing direct experience on the matter.

So this is the only road and there's no alternative bike path. It's too narrow for overtaking so presumably there's also not enough space for stopping on the side. You said yourself that cyclists tried to let you overtake which you didn't because it's illegal.

So what I don't understand is what else you think a cyclist can do in this situation other than not existing and bothering you. There's no alternative route.

There is easily enough room for a bicyclist to stop on the side because there are driveways a-plenty plus utility pullouts. These things cannot do anything to increase the usable width of the road for a car.

I see a really consistent trend of people who feel it must be the case that the bicyclist must be justified in what they are doing, then go on to make assumptions that are wrong, just as you here assumed something about the road that is wrong.

Honestly, you could have said from the start you wanted them to pull over.

You started with "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic.". That sounds to me like, don't do it at all, not "please pull over every so often to allow card to pass".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com