Hacker News Reader

What was your desired outcome from talking to the police about that? The job of the police is to enforce the laws as they are, not pick and choose which laws they care about. The fact of the matter is, what you are describing is illegal. If you want that changed, you need to talk to politicians, not police. That's like complaining to a cashier about grocery prices.

You're looking for "Idaho stop"

Yes that's it, thank you!

Vaguely interested in what the hypothetical Dutch Protocol could be, though.

As a cyclist in Boston you might not be aware of the overwhelming popularity of electric bikes in New York. Between Citi Bike and the delivery guys they are by far the dominant variety of bike. At this point it's wrong to think that electric bikes are stepping on the turf of the analog bicyclist.

I was confusing it with the "Dutch reach".

E-bikes are becoming dominant in Boston/Cambridge also. The Citi Bikes are fine, they're small and slow (and frankly the problem with them is new riders who are seemingly completely unaware of anything). It's the huge delivery bikes, the bros on pseudo-mopeds, and the humongous (and usually empty) baby-cart bikes (e.g. Tern) that are dangerous in bike lanes and mixed-use paths.

(Again -- I love that these are displacing cars. I just wish they physically displaced the cars also, and not pedal bicyclists and pedestrians.)

Our (Cambridge) bike infrastructure has really just come into its own after decades of advocacy by pedal bicyclists. So seeing it suddenly flooded with what are effectively mopeds and Vespas really hits a nerve, like it's 1990 all over again.

I think you'd probably better just get over your aesthetic reflex. Getting the family bike moms into your coalition is important to the future of American cycle advocacy.

In Berkeley the local safe streets advocacy org is now easily 80% ebike moms. I could bore them with my story of how back in my day (ten entire years ago) I took my kids to school on a manual-pedal longtail, but I don't.

I don't accept that bicyclists are safe when they run red lights, cute name for the practice or not. Red light means stop until green.

The red-light-running bicyclist blows past the stopped traffic that just had to safely navigate getting around the bicyclist occupying a vehicular travel lane, only to be forced to do it all over again.

The Idaho stop is explicitly not running red lights. You stop at the red light, and proceed when it's clear. No "blowing past".

And we're talking about areas with dedicated and often physically separated bike lanes. We don't interact with you except at intersections.

This is running a red light. If a car stops first then proceeds through on red it would be a red light violation. That's why it's a light not a stop sign. I don't care what special lanes are present. You're running the intersection and increasing the complexity for everyone else who is obeying their green light.

The only vehicles that get to blow red lights are emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. Everyone else should be waiting their turns, including pedestrians and bicycles. And, maybe, rights on red (but not in NYC you'll note).

Have you ever been a pedestrian or bicyclist?

That safest thing for a pedestrian to do is often avoid lighted intersections all-together and cross in the middle of the road when its clear. Crossing at an intersection is a great way to get a car doing a right turn or worse, a left turn right into you.

>That's why it's a light not a stop sign. I don't care what special lanes are present. You're running the intersection and increasing the complexity for everyone else who is obeying their green light.

The Idaho stop has you treat red-light as a stop-sign, you are not increasing complexity for the green-light drivers, because if there are ANY green-light drivers, you shouldn't be in the intersection. And if there were drivers with the green light, and you go thru, you are not doing the Idaho stop.

>Blow red light

Please, "blowing a red light" might not be a well defined term, but most accept it as going thru a red light, without stopping, at some speed. That is not the Idaho stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

> The red-light-running bicyclist blows past the stopped traffic that just had to safely navigate getting around the bicyclist occupying a vehicular travel lane, only to be forced to do it all over again.

The entitlement of calling it a vehicular travel lane probably means you have a strong bias against cyclists, but I'll try anyway: Doesn't this just prove that it's moot to overtake cyclists in the city? Whenever a car pushes past me (quite often dangerously) I'll overtake them next time they hit a red light anyways. And there I'll filter to the front of the queue (not cycling on red), and be on my way while the car might have to wait a cycle or two more to get through.

So why do it? Just relax and drive slow, you'll get there in the same time eventually, without risking someone's life.

Blowing through lights on a bike, when everyone else obeys them, then claiming it's destiny that you're back in front is brazen illicit entitlement.

I just want the lights to apply to everyone in travel lanes equally. I don't care if you are in a clown car, a bus, on rollerblades, dragging a surfboard, etc. Just obey the frigging light.

Did you skip the part where I said I'll be ahead of you even though I don't "blow through" a red light? Yes, you might be faster at a short stretch of road. But through the city a bike will almost always win. So just relax, no need to push past me when there is no room, or honk because I'm in the "vehicular lane".

I'd also like the lights to apply to everyone: by removing them. Lets all yield to pedestrians, and then bike through intersections otherwise without waiting. Then cars can sort their own mess out. The lights are for them, an implicit prioritization of cars over humans. I'd like to remove that.

Yeah, in a city a bike and a car are about the same speed -- until you have to find parking, and then the bike is faster.

Do you feel so strongly about pedestrians crossing when it is safe regardless of whether they have the walk signal? The risk profile is similar, in that the risk is mostly to the pedestrian or cyclist themselves.

From the other side:

I live in Ireland, and own a class 3 e-bike. (That is, with motor assist up to 45kmph)

That’s legal here, though in practice power limits mean I don’t get above 35-38 kmph unless the wind is on my back. However, the law states that I cannot use the bike lane; I must take the car lane at all times.

I do that, of course, except when someone tries to run me off the road. I’ve been stopped twice by the police, though they weren’t sure what to do about me; one asked me to keep up with the traffic please. Right…

In practice I cause traffic jams every time I cycle to work, but on the bright side nobody is going to miss my existence.

Thank you for your perspective.

I've pondered but haven't been able to figure out the right solution to this in general, as I'd love e-bikes to displace cars as the dominant means of transport. Maybe a 3rd differentiated lane?

The closest similar vehicle I can think of is the motorized scooter (e.g. Vespa). They can't (and shouldn't) be allowed in bike lanes. But they're too slow for all but dense cities. In my region, I know famously they're the source of lots of contention on the island of Martha's Vineyard (which has few if any bike lanes).

But, in the States, most places that have dedicated bike lanes are dense cities. Vehicles can't legally or practically drive much faster than 30 MPH (~45 kph) anyway. Even as a pedal cyclist I can usually keep up with traffic. So it's largely not a problem here yet for the larger e-bikes to stay in the car lanes.

Light mopeds (L1-a) like possibly the Vespa (I’m not familiar) are actually allowed and sometimes required to use the bike lane here. My bike is classed as a heavy moped due to the increased speed limit, although it's lighter than any actual moped.

So that’s fun.

We have the same issue (Netherlands) though it is sort of condoned if you behave like an ebike (max 25, pedal only). Strange thing is the pedelecs are under the heavy moped category which must use the roads but in general is about the speed of the lighter category which can and mostly must use the cycling paths. I guess it has to do with the standardization of EU rules with the A(M) categories of driver license.

Even weirder thing is the disabled peoples mini cars must use the cycling path and park on the curb. (NOT the bigger 45kph things which look like fiat pandas in size, those are never allowed on any cycling path despite people doing so). Though I guess since you have to be disabled to get one that sort of makes sense for safety reasons.

> I've spoken with Cambridge MA bicycle police about this (who've been issuing warnings to cyclists doing this) and they were willfully obstinate and disingenuous to the point I wondered if they'd ever ridden a bicycle before.

So what is a bicycle police if not one that rides a bike?

Police that enforce bicycle laws.

So there's so many cops in your area that they have some dedicated to just policing bicycle laws? Or is your area one of those where "with all other crime being solved..." that they are now policing bicycle laws?

In my area, bicycle cops are the officers on bicycles, so of course they've ridden bikes before. In my area, officers that enforce bicycle laws are just, you know, officers.

I really don't understand your point. Are you nitpicking the wording of my figure of speech?

The officer I spoke to didn't understand what a right hook was, despite standing next to a bicycle.