Hacker News Reader

Comment by makomk | Hacker News Reader

The thick, heavily reinforced roads with stabilized foundations generally have much nicer surfaces to cycle on than narrow cycle paths though, at least around here. Probably because a lot of the deterioration is caused by weather rather than traffic and the cost reduction is mostly through having lower standards and accepting more deterioration.

View on HN

I'd take a rough separated cycle path over a shared car road any day.

Depending on what type of bike you have. On a mountain bike, anyday. On a road bike with paper thin tyres that easily puncture, maybe not so much.

Usually the concern is getting hit by car traffic.

At least in the US, drivers don’t drive well around cyclists, and sometimes that’s intentional to boot. Better to not share the road with people who are actively trying to hurt you with a metal object weighing several thousand pounds.

Road bikes aren't really designed for being in traffic in the first place so that places some of the downsides of that on the user. I've used one for many years, so don't get me wrong, I love riding one but it is abundantly clear to me that when my bike tires fits into the slots of a drain that that is my problem and not the problem of whoever designs and maintains the road.

In many places a road bike isn't actually street legal (no bell, no fenders, no lights, of course you could add those).

It sounds peculiar that some places would have requirements for bells and fenders in order for a bike to be "street legal"; this strikes me as more of a quaint historical holdover than anything else. Some cyclists might be more comfortable with ringing their bell a than raising their voice if they need to urgently signal the attention of another road user, but a requirement for a bell on any bike is mystifying to me. Likewise fenders; cycling on wet roads can cause dirty water to be sprayed onto a vehicle that is driving close behind a cyclist, but people don't tend to cycle on road bikes in wet weather in the first place (unless their bike has been adapted), and people should maintain a safe stopping distance, especially in wet conditions. But the use of lights when cycling at night is a perfectly reasonable legal requirement (more or less universal in my experience), and perfectly effective temporary lights can be easily attached to road bikes if necessary.

Definitely concur, for commuting I ride a pretty wide tire for that reason. I've actually really enjoyed cross-bikes for city commuting, since they're designed for a bit more of a pliable ride and more comfort while still running pretty fast overall.

Just put some good tires on your road bike and you wont deal with flats. I have used gatorskins which have always been indestructable, tubes last for years and are only replaced when I put new tires on the bike. I'm moving to the continental gp5k for the next set because apparently the puncture resistance is good enough these days in those more standard road bike tires. Unless you manage to hit an upright nail you shouldn't worry too much.

Bikes are a lot less delicate than people seem to think. My daily driver has road bike rims and tires. They're quite durable. The region has some bike paths that are crushed limestone on hard clay, and sometimes I find myself on gravel roads, off-road shortcuts, or even "easy" mountain bike trails.

The main issue is comfort. Riding rough roads on hard tires gets old after a while. Also, real MTB'ing, where the trails are designed to be challenging, is its own beast.

I also prefer avoiding car traffic if possible.

It's me that is not durable, if I had to ride daily on 80psi road tires I'd shake to bits!

Funnily enough I do MTB, and I have a full suspension and a fully rigid frame both offering their own challenges.

No they don't, cyclists prefer concrete bike paths which both last longer and have a smoother surface.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com