Hacker News Reader

Comment by rngname22 | Hacker News Reader

Sort of buried the lede in this one. Seems like the obvious answer is running of red lights, passing between cars or in gaps that feel dangerous to nearby drivers, going slowly such that those behind the rider are forced to drive way below speed limits, etc.

Before I get pounced on, not saying those reasons justify the level of vitriol or the actions of unhinged drivers or pedestrians.

Asking why the level of outrage towards cyclists is so disproportionate to the offenses committed by some cyclists is a good question, asking 'why would anyone ever be mad at bicyclists?' is not.

View on HN

> Sort of buried the lede in this one. Seems like the obvious answer is running of red lights, passing between cars or in gaps that feel dangerous to nearby drivers, going slowly such that those behind the rider are forced to drive way below speed limits, etc.

As a (law abiding) life-long bicycle user I don't think this is it. You can ride your bike 110% conform with the law and still get a to of shitty situation thrown your way.

The truth is: there are many motorists who think bicycles are toys that don't belong on streets. Cyclists, for them are idiots who slow everything down and block a road that they are not entitled to use. They are in the right because they are bigger, faster and they will let you feel it regardless of how you ride your bike.

I ride a bicycle, but cycling is not my identity. I am a guy on a bike not a "cyclist". In fact I was a professional (car-)driver before. What I observe is that car culture plays a huge role in all of this. Motorists will have aggressions against trucks or agricultural vehicles. But those are heavy and sturdy. Bicycles are easy to scare off the street. And the cliché asshole driver in that BMW will do just that whenever there is a slight annoyance regardless of the law.

That being said many cyclists certainly would profit from learning how to behave in traffic in a predictable way, for sure. But I drive very predictably (and fast) and still have the same things happen to me.

> The truth is: there are many motorists who think bicycles are toys that don't belong on streets

This is unfortunately true. May be the same people that believe that normal cars don't belong on the streets, only sport cars.

Agree 100%. In addition, bikes were legislated to be allowed on roads that were simply not built for them. Not their fault, but it creates a hazard for them AND drivers of vehicles for which they WERE built.

I once had a colleague (an avid cyclist) rage, without a hint of irony, how "his" special built bike paths in and around our rural area were suddenly allowing inline skaters to partake.

I'm a keen cyclists and mostly hate other city cyclists. Inconsiderate about anyone's safety, totally oblivious to any rules or anything going in around them, arrogant and expecting priority at every point. Never looking before turning.

I think some minimum bar should be introduced for cycling on actual roads with cars. Make it an online test, with a certificate. Then police the worst cycling offences.

It's like looking after bumbling toddlers. You shouldn't hit them just because they are annoying but they still are annoying.

The worst thing as a driver is having to care about somebody elses life because he doesn't. Trafic at rush hour is bad. Having to take care of a ciclist who overtook you on the right at the street light and who does not care that driving paralel with you is dangerous is even worse.

I bike as my primary transportation, and I get angry at other cyclists on a near-daily basis. I've even yelled "You're the reason people hate bicyclists!" at a cyclist once.

It wasn't always like this. A decade ago, bicyclists in my town were actually very good. Then the cops stopped writing tickets to cyclists who broke traffic laws, and things went downhill fast.

I wish they'd start writing tickets again.

I also drive, and I understand the anger from drivers. But abusing the cyclists does literally nothing to improve the situation. Making a big stink about citing cyclists might.

It’s the egregious rate of moving violations that has turned me off to bicycle activism.

I see maybe one car a week run a red light in my Brooklyn neighborhood, versus hundreds of bicycle riders. It’s been over a decade since I saw a car driving the wrong way down a one way street, versus a dozen bicycles per day. I’ve never seen a car drive on the sidewalk, but I see a few dozen bicycle riders per day drive on the sidewalk.

And yet the bicycle activists in nyc are shouting for the police to crack down on cars, when bicycles are committing easily 100x more moving violations per mile driven.

Given that most car drivers exceed the speed limit most of the time, they likely commit more moving violations per mile than bicyclists do.

In DE there were some ciclists who lost their driving licence for speeding while riding a bycicle so i wouldn't hold my breath.

This is explained by the vehicle. It's trivial to stop and start in an automatic car as there's little difficulty involved and no actual driver energy expended. Cyclists have to brake and then exert energy to get back up to speed. The equivalent for cars is speeding; how many cars do you see driving at the speed limit? The design of most cars makes it trivial to go over the speed limit; there's only a marginal difference in driver feeling between going 25 mph or 35mph.

If you've ever driven with manual drivers you'll see that they tend to creep at stops or run reds more frequently than automatic drivers because of the added difficulty of shifting into gear from a stop. It's all just based on vehicle design incentives.

> It's trivial to stop and start in an automatic car as there's little difficulty involved and no actual driver energy expended

There is car energy expended. A running car needs a lot more energy than a bycicle to brake. That's why the impact between a car and a bycicle puts the bycicle in disadvantage.

Fortunately, bicycles are not responsible for 100x more injuries and deaths than cars, too. To me, that suggests that "number of moving violations per mile" may not be the most important metric.

There's a clear distinction between these two modes of transit which is suspiciously absent in this comment: A car or truck is a quickly moving multi-ton metal box with a stopping distance of ~40 feet at only 20mph. As such, a vehicle is an immediate threat to anything around it. In contrast, bicycles may pose an indirect threat to others e.g. causing an accident (a threat posed by vehicles as well) but their immediate threat i.e. loss of life due to collision is essentially zero.

It's also worth noting that drivers tend to be less alert than bikers. Distracted drivers (e.g. drivers on their phone) are a major cause of vehicles running stops signs/lights. When bikers run stop signs/lights, they are generally very aware since their lives depend on them being aware -- they are acting with intention.

In any case, for these reasons and others, there are states that actually observe what is called an Idaho Stop for bikers which allows them to roll through stops signs and lights if it is safe to do so.

I agree 100%.

Look, if you're biking down the same road I'm driving on, all I want from you is for you to follow the rules, be visible, and be predictable. That includes stopping when you're legally required to stop, signalling when you intend to turn, using a headlight if it's dark, riding in the right direction, and either pulling all the way the fuck over and walking your bike through the intersection or using the left turn lane if you want to turn left (not riding your bike through the crosswalk). Do these things, and we don't have a problem. I'm more than happy to give at least 3 feet of space when passing (I try to give more and will switch lanes if it's practical to do so), and to generally give due consideration to the fact that you and your vehicle together weigh ~200 lbs, while my vehicle alone is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15x that, and I can go way faster than you.

For some reason, this appears to be controversial on the internets. I've written more or less the same thing on Reddit and gotten tons of downvotes for it. I attribute it to the "smugness" the article mentioned. And, I'm not going to go running people over or anything, but you should definitely remember that in California, people generally don't even get prosecuted for killing cyclists unless they're either impaired or leave the scene.

Govern yourself accordingly.

> I see maybe one car a week run a red light in my Brooklyn neighborhood, versus hundreds of bicycle riders.

On the other hand, I see cars run red lights on a daily basis in my city. I've almost been t-boned twice on my bike from cars doing that.

In some countries driving the wrong way for cyclists on a one way street is allowed. I don't know who thought this is a good idea.

On the flip side, can cyclists become reflexively mad at every car they see? Consider how many a-holes are out there when you drive, those a-holes are also dangers to cyclists and everyone else. Should confirmation bias then dominate how we interact with anyone at all? (The reason I point out those aggressive drivers, they actually do violate more road laws than your average cyclist. I know that sounds controversial, but the majority of cyclists are out of sight on paths/quiet roads, obeying traffic laws. Meanwhile those aggressive drivers are speeding 100% of the time, running stop signs, even blowing red lights. The cyclists that are often seen and running around blowing lights, are a vast minority, just as are the overly aggressive drivers).

The main reason for me is that 90% of them ride on or very near the lane/shoulder divider, putting their handlebars firmly in the vehicle lane.

There's a fair bit of anxiety running the mental calculation of how much margin is between my left side and oncoming traffic, and my right side and those handlebars, at 60mph. Is this the day I die in a head-on collision because this asshole can't be bothered to utilize the other SIX FEET of the shoulder?

Otherwise I don't mind them at all. It's just the entitled attitude of "I'm going to endanger us both by riding as close to you as possible, and if you clip me, it's your fault, because the law is on my side".

The shoulder is typically 6-7 feet wide. It's paved just as well as the rest of the road (better, in fact, as it tends to be worn down less). There is absolutely NO reason for cyclists to ride on its edge rather than its center, other than ego and entitlement.

Please for the name of everything decent slow down from 60mph when overtaking cyclists, especially if there's incoming traffic. If it's not safe to overtake, it's not safe. It's not worth your life or the cyclist's because you are in a hurry and they're an idiot.

If there was a consistent pattern that cyclists followed, I’d be more tolerant (than I am).

Many cyclists want it both ways: to be a car when it’s convenient (ride in middle of road) and be a bicycle when it’s convenient (run red lights).

I have no problem with cyclists, I just think roads should be engineered with them in mind where applicable, self governance isn’t working well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com