Comment by u801e | Hacker News Reader

Comment by u801e | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We never turned everything into car infrastructure. Other than controlled access highways like interstates that are restricted to motor vehicles that can maintain a minimum speed, all other roads are shared infrastructure that can be legally used by those who are walking or are using vehicles other than cars.

The fact that some people think we need to separate different modes of transportation is the reason why people aren't trying alternative modes of transportation like cycling. Legally, there's a single set of rules of movement that apply to all vehicle drivers:

1. Keep to the right side of the road

2. Yield to through traffic before entering a roadway

3. Yield to oncoming traffic when making a left turn

4. Make right turns from as close as practicable to the right edge of the roadway

5. Make left turns from as close as practicable to the center of the roadway

6. The vehicle in front has the right of way over the vehicle behind (first come, first served).

Follow those rules no matter what vehicle you're using and there really aren't any issues. I've ridden tens of thousands of miles over nearly 20 years on roads and never had a problem by riding in a predictable manner, signaling my intentions in advance, and following those rules.

all other roads are shared infrastructure that can be legally used by those who are walking or are using vehicles other than cars.

Try walking on the road in any business district and see how long it is until you get a ticket for jaywalking or illegally walking in the road.

And while a rural highway with little to no shoulder may be legally open to pedestrians and bikes, it's practically inaccessible since sharing a road with 50 mph traffic (which means real-life 60+ mph speeds) is risky.

> Try walking on the road in any business district and see how long it is until you get a ticket for jaywalking or illegally walking in the road.

What law are you referring to that makes it illegal for pedestrians to walk on the road facing traffic on a road in a business district.

> since sharing a road with 50 mph traffic (which means real-life 60+ mph speeds) is risky.

I've done it plenty of times and motorists simply change lanes to pass me. Most motorists are only comfortable going 60 mph of they're able to see at least 700 feet or more in front of them. That gives then at least 7 seconds to see a cyclist and the cyclist that much time to see them in their mirrors. That's enough time to tell whether the motorist is slowing down or changing lanes to pass. If they aren't, then you can ride off road to avoid a collision.

In my years of experience riding on roads with 50 mph+ speeds, every motorist either changed lanes or slowed down well before they caught up with me based on what I could see in my mirrors.

What law are you referring to that makes it illegal for pedestrians to walk on the road facing traffic on a road in a business district

RCW 46.61.250 - Where sidewalks are provided and are accessible, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway

As for rural cycling, since there are few cyclists in the USA, there's not a lot of crash data, but rural crashes are around 3X likely to result in a fatality than urban crashes.

Data from the UK is easier to find:

Rural roads were also deadlier than those in urban areas, with a total of 140 cyclists dying in 2020 - meaning that fatalities on rural roads accounted for 64 per cent of the overall number.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/cyclist-deaths-on-rural-r...

> Where sidewalks are provided and are accessible, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway

A charitable interpretation of my original assertion would be: "all other roads are shared infrastructure that can be legally used by those who are walking" would not include roads where sidewalks are provided and are accessible.

> As for rural cycling, since there are few cyclists in the USA, there's not a lot of crash data

In urban areas, most fatal cyclist related crashes involve wrong way cyclists, cyclists who are not using lights at night, and cyclists who are cycling under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. As for rural crashes, while there are higher speeds involved, riding in a conspicuous manner that ensures that motorists have to slow down and change lanes to pass as opposed to squeezing between you and oncoming traffic can go a long way towards mitigating the risk of being involved in a crash.

The idea that "a bicycle is a vehicule like car" has not worked the last 70 years. The only places in the world with large amount of cyclists are places that has infrastructure.

From my own experience living in a city centre without bicycle infrastructure; it was really hard to get relatives to enjoy going out on the bicycle. Now when I live in an area that has separated bicycle paths to most places it was become much easier. I have no problem with riding with cars, so I understand why one would like to argue that is the solution, but it took me at least a decade to hone those abilities to be comfortable.

> The idea that "a bicycle is a vehicule like car" has not worked the last 70 years.

What criteria are you using to make that assertion? From a safety and efficiency standpoint, operating a bicycle as one would operate any vehicle (animal driven like an Amish buggy, farm equipment, etc) does work because it allows one to utilize the existing transportation network and by following the rules of movement, other vehicle operators know what to expect.

Stating that something doesn't work because it doesn't lead to a large number of people utilizing a particular form of transport is a red herring. The criteria you're using basically says that modes of transportation like buses and motorcycles don't work because not many people use them and the mode share is not increasing. But for the people who do make use of those modes of transportation and existing cyclists, it does work for them because they're able to utilize the existing transportation network and can get to where they're going.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com