Hacker News Reader

Comment by shiroiushi | Hacker News Reader

>What also matgers is the quality of the infrastracture, with lanes with a paint seperation and bicycle paths on walkways being the worst and separate infrastructure with hard barriers being the best.

I partially disagree: I'd rank lanes with paint separation the very worst, and bicycle paths on walkways as being in the middle. Painted lanes are extremely hazardous and deadly to cyclists, whereas bicycle paths on walkways are only somewhat hazardous to pedestrians. They're not great like the separate lanes with hard barriers as you said, but they're not nearly as horrible as trying to get cyclists to ride alongside fast-moving cars and trucks.

View on HN

Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful, at least in London where there’s a lot of pedestrians and they uniformly ignore the markings and treat them like any other path. Crashing into a pedestrian is certainly less bad than being crashed into by a car, but most cars do pay attention and try not to hit you (regrettably not enough, admittedly), and you can make good progress.

I think I prefer to be on regular unseparated road, at least in busy areas where road users are used to cyclists. Rural or suburban areas are a different matter, the relative speeds of road traffic and number of pedestrians no doubt flips the trade off.

>Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful

I never said they were great, just better than riding alongside cars. I ride on walkways every single day here in Tokyo, frequently very, very, very close to pedestrians; it IS stressful trying to dodge the chaos of pedestrians and also other cyclists who are all crammed together on narrow sidewalks. It's still better and safer than riding with cars, which is why all the other cyclists here (esp. mothers with children) do it too.

>but most cars do pay attention and try not to hit you

It doesn't matter: just one car not paying attention will likely kill you, or at least cause lifelong injuries. Running into a pedestrian is not at all likely to cause such trauma: the masses and the speeds are both far, far less.

I’m simply providing an alternative view; this is about perception of relative risks, so there is not an absolutely correct position. It might also be that in Tokyo the speed of traffic is higher or road users less conscious of cyclists so the risk of collision is worse, or that the conformance of pedestrians to the shared path rules is better, but in London my experience is that cyclists aren’t that fond of the shared paths.

Most collisions with cars are also not even likely to be as dangerous as you suggest - the really hazardous traffic is lorries, buses etc. I think you also downplay the risk of serious injury when colliding with a pedestrian - to both of you. This also confers potential legal risk, as you are the road user likely to be liable in this jurisdiction should a vulnerable path user incur a serious injury.

No doubt risk averse cyclists like mothers with children are likely to prefer these shared paths whatever the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean they are outright superior and the specific context is likely to matter a great deal.

Correct, as a London bike commuter for over a decade I can confirm that nobody in their right mind uses a shared cycle path. They’re dangerous for pedestrians, and you can’t make any kind of decent progress on them as they’re filled with bins, lampposts, blind driveways, and best of all even bus shelters. Then when you get to the end of it at some random point you’re not expecting there’s no way of joining a road without having to cede priority.

Kids riding to school is the only use case they satisfy.

> Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful, at least in London where there’s a lot of pedestrians and they uniformly ignore the markings and treat them like any other path.

Play loud, obnoxious music from your bike using a portable speaker (or even your phone in a pinch). Doesn't conform to British cultural standards but greatly helps people get out of the way. Of course there's always those with their earphones/headphones so loud that they won't notice you, but it's a minority.

People living in the area would appreciate having less noise in their homes, whether it comes from car traffic, "loud pipes save lives", or anything else.

In open carry states: bike softly, and carry a big gun.

My experience in Hamburg, Germany as well, which is why I ranked them as equally bad, although as mentioned in my other response it ultimately depends on the city and on how it is implemented.

I couldn't agree more, in my experience in over a decade of daily bike commuting it was segregated bike lanes (Vancouver downtown) would lead to near misses almost weekly, I'd be biking up the hill and cars would regularly right hook me, the signage for cars was confusing, and being separated meant that the cars were not looking for you, they'd cross your path and 'right of way' doesn't mean much in a 20lb bike vs 4000lb car situation. My other pet peeve is bike lane roundabouts. A bike can go through a roundabout at 50km/h but you'll have a hard time stopping in time for a car entering the roundabout (who has the right of way if they're there first) Absolutely deadly and not considering the capabilities of bikes - or E-bikes - at all. On the other hand, getting your bike chops, and learning to drive defensively is a scary prospect for a newer cyclist, mistakes can be deadly, ride safe and keep your head on a swivel!

I live in a city where the bicycle paths on walkways are so bad that this distinction is hardly there — I certainly know I would take a well sized lane over a narrow, indistinguishable from the walkway with missing bricks and tree roots every day of the week, especially in pedestrian-heavy areas.

But that balance heavily depends on the city, how well behaved motorists are there, how crossings are implemented how many pedestrians are there and (in my case) which material was chosen for the non-street bicycle paths. In my city they used slightly darker bricks and no bicycle symbols — that is basically indistinguishable from the rest of the walkway for pedestrians and after a few years those bricks have the tendency to present you with a bone-shaking surface.

Safety is important and you are correct that painted on lanes kill more cyclists, but safety is not the only metric, comfort is also important or how uninterrupted you can ride, how stressful interaction with other people is, etc. And in a city with a ton of pedestrians and uncomfortable bicycle paths on walkways you need to be more on alert there than on the road.

TL;DR: Which one is better cannot be answered for every case without knowing the context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com