Hacker News Reader

Comment by bebe9494i4 | Hacker News Reader

It is revealing how people with disabilities are treated, just to walk on sidewalk as a deaf person. Most cyclicts assume they have a priority on sidewalks, and will ring bell to enforce it. If you do not jump out of their way in 2 seconds, you get rammed.

Cyclists know I can not hear them (I am wearing big noise cancelling headphones). Yet they still insist on their imaginary priority on sidewalks. I was forced to remove my noise cancelling headphones, just to hear their slurs!

Cyclists on bike have no priority, they are not allowed to cycle on sidewalks! They should be using roads! I am allowed to wear my noise cancelling headphones on sidewalk! I looked it up!

View on HN

Sidewalks have to be usable by people who can't hear, people moving slowly, kids, older people etc. If a cyclist is on a sidewalk and can't safely pass without the pedestrian reacting instantly, they're the one creating the problem

We can't individual responsibility our way out of systemic problems. Cyclists on sidewalks generally signals terrible bike infrastructure.

There are people on bikes that ride like an asshole. There are people on cars that drive like an asshole. Both cause (different levels of) risk for pedestrians. There's only so much we can do about assholes, social ostracism works only so far and social change is much harder to accomplish than modifying our built environment to reduce or eliminate conflict points.

As an aside, I've noticed people get startled when I'm on my bike stopped but balancing on my bike while I wait for then to cross. I think some people intuitively model bikes on the same category as cars, so being anywhere close causes them to react as if a car hard crept close.

Thanks for stopping.

In my experience as a pedestrian, bikes are worse than cars. Less predictable, less observant of laws, and more willing to take risks that depend on others jumping out of their way.

On the plus side, they don’t weigh 3000lbs.

The statistics still point towards being more concerned about cars.

Statistics don’t lie, but my experience doesn’t lie either. 90% of the assholes I encounter on the road are on bicycles.

FWIW, I live in Seattle, a famously bike-friendly city. Stop signs, red lights, pedestrians and even one-way street signs don’t seem to exist in the visual field of many cyclists here.

Obviously there are reasonable law-abiding bicyclists out there. Certainly all the cyclists online say they obey all the laws. But apparently I’m seeing an entirely different group of people in the real world, zooming around lawlessly.

What I've noticed is that the crimes of motorists, cyclists, and even pedestrians, are crimes of opportunity and convenience. In each case it's a matter of what's possible, offset by the chance of enforcement.

Motorists exceed the speed limit, roll through stop signs, and are looking at their phones while driving.

Cyclists blow through stop signs, and take advantage of shortcuts.

Pedestrians "jaywalk." There's not much else they can do.

I don’t personally know anyone hit by a car, but my dad ended up in the hospital with a collapsed lung due to a drunk cyclist ramming him on the boardwalk.

Bicycles belong on the streets. (I bike to work most days, I take the streets)

> Cyclists on sidewalks generally signals terrible bike infrastructure.

No. It signals cyclists not giving a fuck about the law. In at least some EU countries, it is illegal to cycle on sidewalks, except with children.

Cycling on sidewalks is illegal here in Canada. Surprised it's being allowed elsewhere

In cycling threads you always have comments both telling cyclists to stay out of sidewalks and others telling cyclists that they "only* belong in sidewalks (and away from the road they drive in).

It is legal in some places, illegal in as many others, and has caveats almost everywhere (children are almost always allowed, in other places it is based on speed, etc.).

Generally it's more "overlooked" than allowed. In the UK for instance cycling on pavements (sidewalks) is unlawful but the guidance is to only enforce this if the cyclist is not giving consideration to pedestrians.

Realistically though I think it leads to the same state of play as everywhere else where pedestrians don't much fancy being hit by a faster moving and taller (if not larger) object so dodge out of the way even if they aren't necessarily obligated to.

In my part of small city east coast USA it is allowed except in the downtown business district (where it is syill mostly ignored.

On the one hand, not everyone wants to be required to have their 4yo ride on the road with no bike lane, but on the other hand, I hate having preteens on extra.heavy looking bikes below out of the way at me why they drive at nearly car speeds on the sidewalk.

Of course we wouldn't really have to ban bikes on sidewalks to deal with those preteens as preteens aren't allowed on electric bikes or electric scooters anyway in this state. And electric scooters aren't allowed on the sidewalk or road here.

Living in the USA, I always thought cycling on sidewalks was illegal, too, but looking it up, it seems that the laws vary from street to street, city to city, and state to state, which is ridiculous IMO.

In my part of Canada it's illegal and allowed.

This went from "deaf people should be allowd to function in society", which is absolutely fair, to "I don't want to take any responsibility for being aware of my surroundings", which is what wearing noise-cancelling headphones in public is. You can do that but you then share some of the blame when things go wrong. Saying "well, deaf people have to deal with this so it's not my fault" isn't the defence I think you think it is. Do I close my eyes and walk blindly in public there are blind people? No.

Accomodations are for people who need them not a shield for hyper-selfishness.

I cycle and I either don't wear any headphones or I use the open ones where I can still hear my surroundings. I assume every driver is eitehr an oblivious idiot or is out to kill me. I assume it's every pedestrian's first day on Earth because that's how it seems. The level of entitlement I see on a daily basis is insane. Runners who refuse to get out of dedicated bike lanes, people who park in dedicated bike lanes, people who get annoyed that I go onto the road when I'm allowed to, people that get annoyed that I go onto the sidewalk or road because I have to (often because the bike path is blocked), people who walk 5 abreast on a shared pedestrian bike path, etc etc etc.

But what really gets me is people who have elevated their own hyper-selfishness into some kind of virtue. "I'm going to block out all noise in a public space because that's what deaf people have to deal with" is a new one for me.

Oh and as an aside, people who are deaf often aren't completely deaf. Deafness (and blindness) is a spectrum.

Not sure where you got the "I don't want to take any responsibility for being aware of my surroundings".

GP simply pointed out cyclists are apparently super unfriendly to deaf people, inferred from the experience where GP made himself temporarily deaf.

It doesn't matter whether GP takes responsibility or not. The issue is the social phenomenon where cyclists create danger for themselves and deaf pedestrians.

> I cycle

I know it's bad to stereotype people but you're not helping it.

TBH, the whole thing reads like a pretty off-topic rant, its a leap from 'accesibility to blind users' to 'treatment of people with disabilities' to 'cyclists being aggressive towards the poster, who is neither but wears noise-cancelling headphones'. I'm not sure if there's a productive discussion to be had around it.

"Accomodations are for people who need them not a shield for hyper-selfishness", namely people riding bicycles on sidewalks that are seen acting with an insane level entitlement while riding on dedicated walking lanes.

People act as people do regardless of their method of conveyance. A polite way of encountering a group walking where they should (and another should not ride) is to dismount the bicycle, say "excuse me" and walk through, then to remount and continue on the bike. In the case you mentioned, calling out in advance "excuse me, coming through" should just do it. If not, step up to bell ringing.

You should see what cyclists from Austin do on the Texas backroads, with their stopping in the middle of the lane at the top of a hill, doing the same on a tight curve, riding abreast... But again, people are people; they don't seem to realize road signs have a setback for a very good reason.

Making sure you are fully aware of your surroundings is prudent, in case someone is acting recklessly or maliciously, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

You're not to blame at all when a cyclist runs you down on the pavement (that they shouldn't be on). Yes, you might have heard the bell without the headphones, but they're the one acting recklessly, and they're the one responsible for ensuring that they don't harm people acting normally.

There are all sorts of situations that it's possible to anticipate, but there's no moral fault ascribed for not acting defensively against every possible form of attack.

this sounds like a mess :') i am happy here in NL most people know the rules. occasionally you hear someone huffing and puffing about an oblivious tourist but thats about it. ofc there are anti social ppl still but the average is to know well the rules and follow them. it makes it so its pretty risk free in any mode of transport.

Only motorbikes is tough because people dont like them going past them in traffic jams :/ the last bastion of decency in our traffic xD... (lets forget about people who own racing bikes they dont count)

People have zero obligation to be able to hear their surroundings.

Listening to music on a walk is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. It’s very slightly less safe for them, but they aren’t risking other people so that’s fine.

That's simply not true and bad advice. This comes up in distracted driving cases. If you play music so loud that you can't hear your surroundings, you can become partially (or wholly) at fault for an accident [1]. I guarantee you there are situations where your intentional sensory deprivation will lead to legal liability so you have to be extra careful if you choose to do that.

You have an affirmative responsibility to act in a reasonable fashion to mitigate risks for yourself and others.

[1]: https://naqvilaw.com/las-vegas-impaired-driving-attorney/lou...

In distracted driving cases, you're behind the wheel of a vehicle that is capable of harming others; that's why it leads to legal liability. In situations where you are not likely to cause harm, "act[ing] in a reasonable fashion to mitigate risks for yourself and others" does not require anything from you.

All of this is really making my point. Being a pedestrian does not absolve you of all responsibility to mitigate harm. If you cycled at all you’d quickly learn just how entitled and oblivious so many pedestrians act.

Cyclists do stupid and dangerous things too. Believe me I am aware. I have to anticipate those too.

But, in my experience, nobody acts with more carelessness and selfishness than pedestrians. And I say that as one of them too.

A pedestrian walking in a place where pedestrians are expected is not endangering cyclists. We're not talking about cycle lanes or crosswalks: we're talking about places where cyclists aren't supposed to be.

There is no requirement to mitigate all potential harms caused to unexpected hostile sources by the direct actions of unexpected hostile sources.

> you’d quickly learn just how entitled and oblivious so many pedestrians act.

Well yes, they are indeed entitled to what they are doing. It is you who is acting entitled here - cyclists are not entitled to having pedestrians dodge them.

Your earlier vehicle example is wholly misplaced. Divers have a legal responsibility to maintain awareness of their surroundings at all times. Pedestrians do not have that. Notice that many disabilities can legally disqualify you from driving.

With greater powers come greater responsibilities.

ride defensively, don't travel at high speed when you can see that there are pedestrians ahead who might very well turn and take a step into your lane. slowing down is not going to kill you, speed up when the way is clear.

You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between what someone driving a car is responsible for vs. a pedestrian.

is this a netherlands post? because normal countries dont assume human on bike IS the default

Cyclists doing whatever they feel like is status quo everywhere. Now I'm most important sidewalk user! Now I'm a car! Now the traffic rules don't apply to me!

(Not all cyclists do this. But the rude ones are common enough that "cyclists" have gotten this reputation.)

No. In the Netherlands is not common to cycle on side walks. We have cycling lanes for that! Pedestrians and cyclists only meet at crossings. (The behaviour of cyclists in the big cities might be different though.)

What exactly does this have to do with the article?

I'm a cyclist, and I sympathize with you. Also, my mom is stone deaf, and I've observed her experiences on paths that are shared with cyclists.

My town is one of the few places where cyclists are allowed on the sidewalks, but I don't do it except for very good reasons such as along dangerous roads. Those places also tend to have no pedestrians. And I give wide berth to people on foot, typically slowing down to walking pace or even getting off my bike and walking.

Also, the bell is for "announcing" not "enforcing." It's gentler than startling someone as you pass them, or making their dog freak out. And it doesn't preclude slowing down.

A pedestrian has priority on the road, that doesn't mean you should walk into the road with your eyes closed wearing noise cancelling headphones.

Video any such interaction. They go viral easily and the culprit learns their lesson.

and then you ride in the street and drivers yell "get on the sidewalk" and try to hit you.

That isn’t the fault of the sidewalk users, don’t make it their problem.

WTF? Bicycles on sidewalks? At least where I am, that's illegal, and I'm not moving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com