Hacker News Reader

> You've got a right to use the lane just as much as I do, but be a good citizen and actually let me pass you safely. If you hear me coming up behind you or notice my flashing high beams, please dip to the right a bit so that I can continue past you and leave you safely.

Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users?

As you say, bike user have just as much right to the lane as car users. That means they can use the entire thing, just like car users do. If their rights are equal, why do you expect bikes to squeeze over and force them to share the lane side-by-side with you?

You’re missing the major point that bikes go much slower than cars, so it makes sense for traffic flow to let cars pass safely.

Nothing against letting cars pass safely. Just think that demanding bikes let you invade their safety buffer isn’t how you perform a safe pass.

> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users?

I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike.

Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed?

[1] Depending on how slow the obstacle is moving, the annoyance can range from muttering-under-the-breath to honking in disbelief at the inconsideration shown by the obstacle.

When you see a line cars all slowing following some obstacle for a large amount of time, it's unreasonable to expect that the drivers won't be annoyed. When you're on your bike, wouldn't you be annoyed at slowing to less than 10% of your speed for the duration of your journey because of a slower-moving obstacle?

> I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike. > > Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed?

Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles.

Prehaps driver should take some time to realise that cyclist don’t like holding up traffic either, they don’t do it for finishes, they do it because the lack to cycle infrastructure means they have no other options.

Don’t want bike slowing down car traffic, build dedicated infrastructure for them so they don’t have to share the same space as cars. Everybody wins, cyclists don’t need to worry about being hit by cars, car don’t have to get stuck behind bikes.

> Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles.

That wasn't the point I made.

People get annoyed by obstacles; it's a people reaction, not a car-driver reaction.

Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles?

How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely?

> Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles?

I'm sure they would. But it's much harder to kill a person with a bike during a road rage incident, than it is to kill a person with a car. That's the fundamental difference here, cyclist annoyance has never led to pedestrian death, can you honestly say the same is true of car drivers?

> How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely?

I'm not justifying "not allowing cyclist to use the road safely", I'm pointing out that people don't like obstacles. It's not specific to cyclists like you make it seem, and not specific to car drivers like you make it seem.

It's unreasonable to expect that people not be people.

> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users?

Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic.

To your specific question, have you ever seen a line of cars behind a tractor or school bus on a rural road? Or an octogenarian doing 48 MPH on a highway?

How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers.

It's not about the bicycle, it's about slow traffic blocking fast traffic.

Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better.

> Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic.

This is clearly a cultural thing. It doesn't exist where I live, there's no such thing a flash-to-pass, and would actually be illegal to perform here.

> How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers.

I strongly believe that cyclist sharing space with pedestrians need to be patient, slow down and give pedestrians plenty of space. I also believe that cyclist that don't should be vilified. However a big difference between car vs bike and bike vs pedestrian is that car vs bike = dead cyclist, bike vs pedestrian = injured pedestrian and cyclist. Cyclist kill between 0 to 2 pedestrian a year in the US, cars kill over 7000 pedestrians and around 1000 cyclists every year in the US. Cyclist's aren't perfect, but they're 4000x less dangerous than car drivers.

> Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better.

I agree it's courteous, and I certainly make an effort to do this. But the arrogance of drivers to demand that vulnerable road users make way for them, and failure to make space is a licence for drivers to injure and kill vulnerable road users is beyond comprehension.

The cyclists who are "taking the lane" are actually just preventing you from doing the unsafe thing, which is trying to squeeze past them without changing lanes. Nobody's ever making you do that, ever.

I tend to be pretty considerate when I'm on my bike. I have good situational awareness thanks to years of urban cycling, so I can adjust my own speed to the flow of traffic and rarely get a bunch of cars backed up behind me for very long.

I also avoid routes where drivers are not entirely in control of their cars, such as congested multi-lane roads. What I mean is that cars are closer together than a safe stopping distance, so that they can't really react in time if there is a slow-down, plus a lot of the drivers are quite inattentive.

You can get a sense for which roads are dangerous based on where car crashes occur. For instance rear-end crashes mean that even a car going slower than expected is vulnerable to getting hit, which requires exceptionally inept driving.

In my experience, "you" are much more likely to unsafely squeeze past me if I dip to the side of the road.

When I stay in the centre of the lane, "you" actually prefer to wait for the next lane to be free over smearing me out over the pavement. Thanks!

"You" might be annoyed, but I actually get to come home and see my wife and kids, which matters a lot to me (and surely even more to them). Sorry for being selfish!

Many cyclists die every year, typically in collisions involving motor vehicles. It goes without saying that very few drivers are killed in those collisions. The risks are widely asymmetric. So if we want to talk about the worst of a group, I'd encourage you to spend five minutes on r/idiotsincars. Compare anything in that subreddit with your example here: you have drive more slowly than you'd like in a situation where you acknowledge the other person has equal rights?

Also, wow at this:

> I don't see your side of the story, and probably never will unless I kill one of you.

  > "Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike
  > riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the
  > proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

A cyclist must be courteous for you not to kill them? The instigator on an unsafe pass is the person passing, not the person getting passed.

  > "Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike
  > riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the
  > proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

Overtake a cyclist like you would overtake a car. Move to the next lane. If you can't safely do that, you shouldn't be driving.

>> Don't want me to hit you?

Not a bike rider, but if you don't want to hit anyone, then you should try not to, regardless of whatever anyone else is doing.

Btw, you proably didn't intend it that way but your comment comes across as threatening to hit somebody.

  > "Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike
  > riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the
  > proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

Why do you keep copy/pasting this same bit of text without explanation? Should I assume you have no interest in this conversation and you do not think any of your interlocutors are worthy of engaging with on an individual level?

I thought that the explanation was obvious, just that people were not reading my entire post. I actually considered moving that portion to the top, but did not want to change the context of my original post.

That bit of text demonstrates that I'm not describing how I, Dotan Cohen, feel. That bit of text demonstrates that I am presenting the side of a large portion of car drivers. The bike riders cannot reason with them, because for every driver they educate there are countless hundreds more who have not been educated.

I personally respect all users of the road, be them on two, four, or more wheels, and be them powered by gas, diesel, electric, or muscle. In fact, I'm usually the slow poke being overtaken on the road, and when people pass I do dip right to ease their passing (I'm in an electric Model 3 today, previous to that it was a FWD Impreza).