Hacker News Reader

Comment by antidoh | Hacker News Reader

“Bicycle riders on public roads have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, and are subject to the same rules and regulations.”

Imagine a car, coming to a red light in the right lane. It then turns right on red, but rather than driving on in the new road, it makes a sudden u-turn, coming back to the intersection. Then makes a right on green, and continues on in the original direction.

If you're a rider, discourage your colleagues from this practice. It's a violation of the responsibilities listed in the quote above, but worse, it promotes contempt for cyclists among us drivers.

It's easier to promote cross-community cooperation when you're not cherry picking your responsibilities.

View on HN

Yes, this is probably a stupid practice. But if you're stopped at a red and see a biker do this safely, without causing disruption, and that pisses you off, then that is 100% your problem not the biker's.

It doesn't piss me off.

But in general, we're all ambassadors for our different communities.

That's good and I agree (and sorry if that came off too antagonistic).

It occurred to me that what I was responding to was actually the notion (which always comes up in this duscussion) that an appropriate response to a discussion of "How not to kill cyclists" is to say "well, but they shouldn't do this thing that annoys but really has no effect on me".

"but really has no effect on me"

Except it does. An intersection is one of the worst places to be "pulling a maneuver." There are too many things happening from too many directions, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic are intermixing.

The base reason we have traffic laws is for safety. A good part of traffic law is flow: direction and speed. Anything with a wheel is a vehicle, and all the vehicles are using the same space. When you have all that lethal metal (and bikes are also lethal metal) moving around, it all needs to be going in approximately the same direction and following approximately the same rules.

At an intersection, you have all these things ... intersecting. And now you throw a bike into the intersection, moving across expected flow. It's unnecessary risk for everyone at the scene.

It only has no effect on me if everyone is lucky. But it still adds risk, to me and everyone else.

Actually it's most likely not legal. (at larger intersections, of course this is not the case everywhere) In most countries (all?) it's illegal to do a u-turn when there's a double line between lanes and usually they're painted a fair distance before intersections to prevent people from overtaking when they're close to lights / stop signs / intersecions which they may not see yet. On a bike you're really unlikely to get to a legal distance from an intersection and come back in time for the same green light.

Also it's confusing pedestrians crossing the street - you expect vehicles coming from one side or the other, not suddenly appearing on your left, because they did a u-turn right after they passed the crossing.

Good point. As a cyclist, I see stuff like this a lot - running stop signs, short-cutting intersections, etc. But cyclists who do that stuff never consider the near or long-term consequences - more annoyed drivers, increasing road rage, etc.

There are consequences to cherry-picking your responsibilities, even if you can't see them right away.

Oddly enough, Portland has integrated a variant of this pattern into some of its bike lanes. There is a busy bike boulevard (Williams Ave), that is commonly approached from a left-turn off a busy road.

Instead of cutting across several lanes of traffic to make the left turn, the bike lane veers right and cuts through a courtyard, depositing the bikers in the orthogonal bike lane. It really helps reduce conflict in this intersection.

Should cyclists do this on their own? Probably not. But if built into the infrastructure its a great trick. You can see it here:

http://bit.ly/Ly64VI

I've been known to do this when there aren't any cars on either side of the stop light, and the light is known to ignore cycles. Other than waiting a random amount of time for a car to come along and trip the sensors, my only other alternative is to go up to the sidewalk and trigger the crosswalk signal - which may be more correct behavior from a legal standpoint; but is not as efficient as me making a U-Turn which I can do much more safely and efficiently than a car can.

Each side wants all of the rights and none of the responsibilities, which should be no surprise. Cyclists like to ignore traffic signals when they're inconvenient. Cars like to pass bicyclists unsafely when staying behind them is inconvenient. Both sides abhor signaling.

I think what we really need is less group labeling. When a car driver fails to signal, we don't generally think, "Man, car drivers are so inconsiderate." (Well, I often do. But I think that's unusual.) Yet when a bicyclist does something against the rules, suddenly this is taken as representative of everyone on two wheels.

Personally, I think a lot of the contention stems from the huge number of 4-way stop intersections in the US. Coming to a complete stop and starting again is rough on a car engine, and especially rough on a bike rider, who must lose and rebuild all that momentum with his own strength. Also, a bike rider starting from a complete start will go through the intersection much more slowly than car traffic, causing an obstruction to traffic flow.

Other countries use roundabouts, and while that's not necessarily the answer, there might be other remedies. California is famous for the "California Stop", where you come to a near stop and roll forward slowly for a few seconds while you wait your turn, which if done systematically, is an option which seems relatively safe and conserving of momentum.

As a rider, I try to time my arrival at an intersection to share the turn of a car going in the same direction and slip through without coming to a stop if I can.

Oh god, I hate the four-way stop with the power of a thousand suns.

They are so common, they work so poorly even when everybody knows what they're doing, and nobody ever knows what they're doing with them. Any time they get the least bit busy they just turn into a total mess. Knowing the rules doesn't help because nobody else follows them.

I often fantasize that the US will come to its senses switch to roundabouts.

The problem with roundabouts in the US is that they're often added to intersections that were originally not sized to be large enough to accommodate them properly. They're also more expense to install than four signs.

I agree I prefer a roundabout to a four way stop.

I can see the cost, although I imagine it would be more than made up for by the savings in fuel consumption and vehicle maintenance. As for the size, though, I seem to recall seeing a lot of very small roundabouts in Europe. Do they really need more space?

IMO the major problem with roundabouts in the US is simply that American drivers find them frightening and confusing and simply won't put up with them.

> They are so common, they work so poorly even when everybody knows what they're doing, and nobody ever knows what they're doing with them.

4 way stops are just evil. Where I live, nobody comes to a full stop (even though think they think they do), and because the danger is a little less than a full intersection with a traffic light, people will go out of turn because they think their time is worth more than everyone else's.

I think it's interesting to analyze these things in terms of how many different things you have to pay attention to.

With a roundabout, you need to look to the left (or right, for those in the appropriate countries) for oncoming traffic in the roundabout, and yield to it. You also need to check your entrance's crosswalk for pedestrians, and wait for them. Separately, when you exit, you also have to check that crosswalk for pedestrians, and wait for them. In total, you have to pay attention to two things as you enter, and then separately one thing as you exit.

With a four-way stop, you have to check all three other entrances when you arrive. You must also check your crosswalk, of course. You must also simultaneously check your destination crosswalk, since it's simply not reasonable to wait for pedestrians while in the middle of the intersection. You also have to check both other crosswalks, because pedestrians there can influence what the cars there will do. Thus there are a total of seven different things you must all check simultaneously to make it through a four-way stop.

> Each side wants all of the rights and none of the responsibilities, which should be no surprise. Cyclists like to ignore traffic signals when they're inconvenient. Cars like to pass bicyclists unsafely when staying behind them is inconvenient. Both sides abhor signaling.

Can we please stop with the moral equivalence nonsense. Yes we should all be more considerate, but please at least try to acknowledge the incredible power imbalance here.

I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that they're somehow equivalent. I'm just pointing out that both types of people behave like, well, people, and both want to bend the rules to best suit them. I'm not saying that both are equally bad for it.

> “Bicycle riders on public roads have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, and are subject to the same rules and regulations.”

Not wholly true. Cyclists aren't required by law to have insurance, a riding license or a license plate to even be on the road. Cyclists might get fined or punished for disobeying the law, but in most places, they can't be banned from getting on the road again like a car driver would.

But the increased restrictions on operating a motor vehicle come from the assumption driving one is a privilege, to be earned upon demonstration of appropriate competence (incl. liability insurance). Likewise, the usual consequences of a abusing a motor vehicle far more disastrous than abusing a bike, prompting a greater required performance to avert such consequences.

I don't dispute the intent of increased regulation on motorists, but that original statement in itself is misleading, especially because it is stated often by bicycle advocates and then taken at face value.

I think the argument is that "when you are on the road, bicycles have near identical rights and responsibilities as cars".

It's not identical - bicycles aren't allowed on motorways in the UK, for instance.

Neither are under-powered motorcycles in the US. But where any vehicle is allowed, it's responsible.

Not all motor vehicles are required to carry insurance. In CA for example, Mopeds, Motorized bicycles, and certain classes of scooters do not require insurance and some only require a one time registration fee. Some also do not need to display a license plate. Off highway-on highway vehicles are also a special consideration.

In many places, including the whole of CA, you can get points or loose your license for violations on a cycle. DWI on a bicycle is equivelent to DWI in a Car for example. And I've even met someone it happened to. Not exactly something they like to brag about ;).

Without further information, I have no reason to think that the scenario you described is illegal. In fact, I've seen any number of motorists, motorcyclists, and cyclists do exactly that.

Incidentally, the whole notion of cyclists being subject to the same laws as cars is rather ridiculous. Bicycles are not cars, just as cars are not "road train" semis.

"Without further information, I have no reason to think that the scenario you described is illegal."

It depends on where and when you are. Traffic laws vary from place to place, and change over time.

According to wikipedia, u-turns are generally legal in Indiana and generally illegal in Oregon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-turn

In Colorado, u-turns are subjectively legal under safe conditions. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue-MV/RMV/12126578...

In Colorado, you will be fined and assessed costs and points for a subjectively illegal u-turn: http://www.denvertrafficlawyer.com/index.php/legal-services2...

I don't know what "points" means to a bicyclist, or one who has or doesn't have a driver license.

Yes, Oregon's U-turn law is a constant source of annoyance in the pacific northwest. Meanwhile, if U-turns were made illegal in California, navigating the bay area would have a twilight zone quality to it.

I've been told it's illegal here in Texas -- evading a stop light. I can't find the Texas law saying so, at least not after 5 minutes of searching.

>Incidentally, the whole notion of cyclists being subject to the same laws as cars is rather ridiculous.

That may very well be how you feel; but, according to California vehicle code, bicycles and automobiles are bound by pretty much the same traffic laws, with few differences --such as a few sidewalk exceptions, having to keep right, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

Reply on news.ycombinator.com