Hacker News Reader

Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0 | Hacker News Reader

<< These are the sorts of systemic conditions that lead to many so-called road user errors.

There is certainly an argument to be made that we are all outcomes of the system in which we operate. That is to say, we all victims of circumstance. Does that, however, mean bicycles should swerve between cars like motorcycles in CA ( and lately -- illegally -- in IL ) or go against the traffic diagonally?

Both examples are admittedly anecdotal, but very recent and both from recent trip downtown.

At the end of the day, it is the user error. Having a tank to drive just happens to be re-assurance that whatever happens, the other user will bear the brunt of their bad decision.. which is supposed to be deterrent. But, apparently, it is not.

I honestly do not know what it is about bikes, but not completely unlike BMWs and Teslas, they seem to attract oddly aggressive drivers.

View on HN

Cars systematically break laws so often that it is simply not commented on. And the reality is the waste majority of bicyclist do not do borderline suicidal rides. Research shows overwhelmingly that most people on get on bikes if there are safe ways to bike.

The evidence is obviously anecdotal because and comment on it because its exceptional, while people not properly stopping at stop signs or going to fast is literally no even worth commenting about.

> I honestly do not know what it is about bikes, but not completely unlike BMWs and Teslas, they seem to attract oddly aggressive drivers.

You seem to indicate that you understand what a systematic issue is but then completely throw it out with this comment.

The reason only 'aggressive drivers' ride bikes (if this is even remotely true, more likely its just those you notice) is because most normal people rationally decide that these places are to dangerous to ride the bike in.

> .. which is supposed to be deterrent. But, apparently, it is not.

Given how few people bike in the US, it clearly is.

> Does that, however, mean bicycles should swerve between cars like motorcycles in CA ( and lately -- illegally -- in IL ) or go against the traffic diagonally?

In my anecdotal experience driving all over the country, aggressive bike riding tends to pair with poor bicycling infrastructure.

Where infrastructure is designed for bikes and following the rules is safe and makes sense, then compliance also goes up. This is much of the point that the article was making.

There are always going to be bad drivers cars and bikes included. The deterrence or responsibility of driving a large vehicle is ignored by the bad driver The deterrence or responsibility of driving a large vehicle is ignored by the bad driver. The point of the article is that we can set an upper limit to the total damage done in a accident by having better roads and cars.

Cyclists just don't see themselves as normal road traffic, so they don't see themselves as having the same responsibilities or held to the same standard, which is something I'm guilty of myself. I've ridden against traffic for short periods or ran red lights on a bike before (where it's clearly safe to do so), since I feel "semi-pedestrian"

"Against traffic" is different as a bike or led though. Sometimes when lanes are very narrow and visibility isn't good, you need to go against traffic (on the shoulder) so that the driver sees your face and responds faster. And you can see to bail if someone hasn't made room.

But if it's a Chicago intersection and you just said I'm on a bike all 12 lanes have to yield to me and you zoom diagonal in front of cars... the Darwin Awards are never short of applicants.

E-bikes and scooters and stuff have made this 1,000 times worse. The number of drunk kids who think they can go max speed down a hill through intersections and cars will just magically make way for them... Terrifying.

Bikes don’t kill entire families when they crash. They don’t need to follow the same rules as cars. Forcing them to follow rules meant for cars makes the roads more dangerous.

That’s why they should be kept on the sidewalk where they belong. Legalize sidewalk biking, ban road biking.

The horror at this from the cyclist community is why anti-cyclist sentiment is so strong.

In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed. In many places side walks are barley large enough for pedestrians and bikes to cross.

And pedestrian infrastructure is just horrible designed for wheeled vehicles in the first place. As people with kid strollers and wheel chairs find out quickly.

The actual solution, that pretty much every other first world country in the world has recognized is to start to build proper safe infrastructure for bikes (and the US overwhelmingly has plenty of space for that). Or to lower car traffic speed such that sharing can be done safely.

If the US had huge sidewalks everywhere and fantastic design for access of wheeled vehicle, your suggestion might make sense, in the actual world, it doesn't, it just makes the world worse for people that walk and those that cycle.

This is literally already all figured out and backed up with plenty of research but somehow people have to come up with their own 'solutions'.

> In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed.

So many people jog in the streets exactly for this reason. Sidewalks are often poorly maintained and falling apart. I'm not sure how anyone handicapped is supposed to get around.

In a previous life, during heavy winter storms, I would commonly walk in the streets because they were maintained while the sidewalks were covered in ice. The city once changed its plowing algorithm due to angry drivers but for sidewalk maintenance they act almost powerless.

Years ago I visited Amsterdam and the pedestrian experience was incredible. It was like walking around a theme park. Ever since that experience I can't unsee the hell we've created in the states with our cars-first mentality.

That's a terrible idea. Biking on the sidewalk should be illegal for everyone except young kids. Sharing the sidewalks is dangerous when the speed difference between the average cyclist and the average pedestrian is something like 10 mph.

Anti-cyclist sentiment is so strong because they don't want to ride on sidewalks?

That makes no sense at all, something tells me you hate cyclists and will continue to hate cyclists wherever they are.

You're victim blaming.

My favorite unsubstantiated theory about anti cyclist sentiment is that exposes the radically car centric nature of US society and people don't like noticing that.

That can work by widening sidewalks and designing them so that bicycles can cruise safely at full speed, protected from and prioritized over cars, and also clearly separated from the walking sidewalk so there are no unpleasant interactions. The bonus is that if one acquires the space for this by removing car lanes, then the city becomes a little bit nicer for everyone.

> That’s why they should be kept on the sidewalk where they belong.

You think mixing 2 kph pedestrian traffic with 20 kph bicycle traffic is a good idea?

(Sidewalks are probably called that for a reason.)

Different modes of transport have different capabilities, dangers, and responsibilities. Horses, bikes, cars, HGVs, pedestrians—all different, actually there's no real shame in ignoring car laws when you're not driving a car. You have to use your brain and accept the fact that these laws were only made with cars in mind.

I don't think this is controversial but I think HGVs should obey traffic laws

I don't think this is controversial but HGVs tend to have even more stringent traffic laws, ones that cars don't have to follow. In my country HGVs have lower speed limits than cars, for example. I don't think this is controversial but it would be strange for cars to follow rules that only apply to HGVs.

Lane splitting motorcycles and bicyclists are literally always illegal btw.

Lane splitting is for air cooled engines stuck in traffic, where they literally need to move or shut down. (It is technically illegal to park the vehicle with engine shut off in case you can't restart). It has absolutely never been legal for anyone to shoot through gaps in traffic because of erectile dysfunction compensation. It is only in the absolute emergency that you need to walk your bike around to keep it from melting.

In general I do agree. Campaigns to "see motorcycles" just end up with 80yo biker gangs thinking it's okay yo blast their engines in residential. Campaigns to "share the road" lead to bicyclists who will absolutely charge an SUV just to get on the news. I'm all for road safety but it absolutely requires bike clubs of all types to stop being twits.

Lane splitting in California is legal for motorcycles

No one is charging your SUV on a bike to "get on the news" that's borderline delusional. If you seriously think this is real my advice is to try biking on a shared road. Survival instincts will show you the truth of that concept.

This is false.

California passed AB 51 in 2016 which codified lane splitting under California law. There is no mention of "air cooling". There are guidelines that say you should not go more than 10 mph faster than traffic and not faster than 50 mph total.

> Lane splitting motorcycles and bicyclists are literally always illegal btw.

Maybe in the United States of America. There are a great many developed countries where lane splitting by motorcycles and bicycles is not only legal, but even expected and encouraged.

At least as early as 2002, the MSF in California taught that lane sharing is legal in California.

I'm piling on at this point, but I appreciate that this got me to go read and learn a few more things (that the internet says are true, anyways).

Lane splitting has never been illegal in CA, but is apparently illegal in all other US states. (Having been in CA for about 10 years, I've gotten used to it, but think it's still crazy. Definitely have seen it on highways in the midwest before that, too)

This link was informative: https://www.kqed.org/news/11680481/10-things-you-need-to-kno...

Basically, not illegal; the 2016 law passed just said, "CA Highway Patrol can make guidelines", which was in response to a previous attempt by the CHP to give those guidelines. Helpfully the article includes those guidelines, too.

> Lane splitting has never been illegal in CA, but is apparently illegal in all other US states.

Splitting and filtering are legal in other US states:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting#Legal_status_in...

When traffic is really slow, lane splitting is really useful. A splitting motorcycle can easily be moving 2x to 3x the speed of cars sitting in a jam.

However, I agree that lane splitting gets more and more dangerous as traffic starts flowing faster.

> Lane splitting motorcycles and bicyclists are literally always illegal btw.

The state of of California would disagree with you:

* https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/programs/california...

As would several others:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting#Legal_status_in...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com