Hacker News Reader

Comment by RhysU | Hacker News Reader

> the main one is speeding

Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits. Unless the speeding is bucketed, this alone is enough to skew the results to say motorists are worse than bicyclists. Remember, speeding tickets are a revenue source and the incentive is to set limits that produce revenue.

> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk - which is because of cars, and it doesn't happen when there is a bike lane

This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame-- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.

A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal and we would hold the driver accountable. Bikes, not so much.

View on HN

>> the main one is speeding

> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.

>> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk -

> This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient

???

The dissonance is insane

Also, between cyclists and motorists, which one is always grown adults, who passed an exam to use their vehicle, and which one includes children, the mentally disabled and all of those who can't drive and their right to the road cannot be stripped away?

Whoops, I gave it away.

You can in fact blame it on cars

Actually, do you remember that the report mentioned bike lanes solve this problem? You can blame street design, too. Except if cars weren't there, you wouldn't even need the bike lanes.

> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.

And you think the average driver is qualified to make that assessment on a moment-by-moment basis?

Hell, I don't know you, but given the chances I'm gonna go ahead and say you don't know the intricacies of road design either. Most drivers do not even fully grasp the concept of line-of-sight, much less anything more complex than that. Hence, the easy to understand speed limits decided by experts.

But hey, go ahead, tell me specifically where the speed limits are commonly too low in your opinion and why.

> these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.

No, "inconvenient" is e.g. what drivers find yielding to pedestrians. Riding a bike amongst cars is dangerous and unsafe.

> A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal

Speeding is illegal too, so clearly "illegal" is not the reason. It'd be unreasonably dangerous to pedestrians to operate a motor powered vehicle on a sidewalk in a way that a bicycle isn't.

> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.

This is still illegal. Blaming it on what you feel the speed limits "should" be is lame - these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.

...okay, okay, that's a bit too forum-argument, but hopefully it demonstrates the contradiction here.

Further, I'd argue that, while speeding is universally a response to perceived inconvenience, sidewalk cycling can sometimes be a response to perceived safety problems, not just inconvenience.

Obviously it's still illegal and unsafe for pedestrians, but I think handwaving car-based lawbreakers and assuming their violations are justified, while also assuming the least generous intentions for cyclists... just hammers home the initial claim: people perceive car lawbreakering as forgivable when it's common and rare when it's worse, and cyclist lawbreaking as both egregious and universal, because they emphasize more with drivers than cyclists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com