Hacker News Reader

Comment by elwebmaster | Hacker News Reader

Cyclists are just dangerous and until we look at statistics we can’t assume that AI does worse than humans in protecting cyclists. As a driver, it took me many years to get into the habit of shoulder checking when turning right from the right lane. I always have my turning signal but to cyclists it doesn’t mean much, they will always try to pass me on the right on the intersection. Cyclists sometimes behave as though they are pedestrians and other times they behave as vehicles, depending on what is convenient. Or that may just be me trying to rationalize their erratic behavior. There are no traffic lights or signs for cyclists.

View on HN

> As a driver, it took me many years to get into the habit of shoulder checking when turning right from the right lane

If you weren't already doing it all along, that's kind of on you. It's literally on the driving test. I've been hit walking in a crosswalk by a driver who didn't check over their shoulder as I came up behind them while they were stopped. No injuries luckily.

I want to take a kinder view of your comment than some of the other replies currently, in that there's a kernel of truth in what you say. I would rephrase it though, in that it's not that cyclists are inherently dangerous, it's more that mixing modes of transport that have vastly varying capabilities is dangerous. Any time you have vehicles of vastly variable mass and capabilities sharing a road, it's inherently more dangerous than if they were to be separated.

That goes for cars and bikes, and cars and pedestrians, and bikes and pedestrians.

If you are turning across a curbside bike lane then you need to yield. A bike lane is a traffic lane, you need to wait for it to be clear before turning, and yes, you need to check your shoulder on roads with bike lanes.

Bike lanes aside, if they aren't checking their shoulder they could also easily hit a person approaching the crosswalk.

GP is just a shitty driver, is my takeaway.

> I always have my turning signal but to cyclists it doesn’t mean much, they will always try to pass me on the right on the intersection

I suspect you aren't merging into the bike lane when turning right and leaving space for a cyclist to pass you on the right. I've seen many drivers make that mistake. As a cyclist I never pass cars on the right in this situation because drivers don't check.

You are supposed to merge into the bike lane before turning. It's in the DMV handbook. The painted bike lane becomes a dotted line close to the intersection for precisely that reason.

This varies state-by-state. In Oregon the bike lane is not a turning lane, and the locals will express their displeasure if you use it as such. We have bike boxes and lots of no-right-turn-on-red signs instead.

generally it's the motorists who are dangerous to the cyclists... when's the last time someone in a car was injured by a bicycle?

Directly? Don't know that I have. But just a few days ago I saw someone that had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist that did not have right of way through an intersection, slide off the road into a tree. I don't know if they were injured physically, but the financial damage was probably not insignificant.

> Cyclists are just dangerous

Nope. The numbers of people killed or seriously injured in road collisions that don't involve motor vehicles are absolutely tiny. Motorists are dangerous, cyclists are not.

> Cyclists sometimes behave as though they are pedestrians and other times they behave as vehicles, depending on what is convenient.

And? Is that somehow bad? This seems to be a common motorist talking point, but I've never understood what it's supposed to imply.

> And? Is that somehow bad? This seems to be a common motorist talking point, but I've never understood what it's supposed to imply.

Yes, it can be very bad. Drivers not being predictable is a big cause of car crashes. I was always taught that when driving, don't be nice, be predictable. It's also a large part of defensive driving. A cyclist that is sometimes acting like a vehicle, and at other times as a pedestrian is not nearly as predictable.

It seems quite predictable to me. Just assume they could be acting as either!

Cyclists act like cyclists, and are more or less predictable when treated as such. Cyclists are not vehicles, and it doesn't make sense to insist they behave like vehicles. The theory of vehicular cycling was one of the worst things to happen to the development of a safe cycling community in America.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/28/why-john-fores...

> Cyclists act like cyclists, and are more or less predictable when treated as such.

Except when they ignore stop signs and blow through an intersection when it's not their turn, causing a car that has the right of way and is already in the intersection to slam on their brakes to try to avoid killing the cyclist, resulting in the car losing traction due to the weather conditions and to slide into a tree. Saw it happen in front of my eyes just a few days ago.

Or when to avoid stopping behind a car that was already in the turn lane in front of them, they hop up on the sidewalk and then cut off the car via the sidewalk, nearly running down several pedestrians. That one was earlier this afternoon.

Cyclists and pedestrians are not the same, and should not be treated the same, or interchangeably. I agree that the way that infrastructure is set up right now is terrible for cyclists. But it is how things are right now, and ignoring that is silly. It's not at all that different from how having pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same roadway is also not the best of ideas.

But in addition, you know those signs they have up on the side of the road, the "Share the Road" ones? Sharing goes both ways.

Cyclists are no less predictable than motorists if you pay attention. I could give a litany of bad behaviour I've seen too, and the best available statistics say that motorists both break the law more often and cause vastly more deaths and serious injuries.

A shared space doesn't mean you're entitled to bringing an armoured, deadly machine into that space and expect others to take equal responsibility for the danger your machine is imposing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com