Hacker News Reader

Comment by gamache | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's appropriate to consider bicycles as "first-class vehicles" in all situations, namely in the dangerous situations you list (speed limits >~25mph, multiple automobile lanes, etc.).

Driving a motor vehicle on a road is a privilege. This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons.

Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right. If this clashes with driving habits, driving habits need to yield.

View on HN

> Riding a bicycle on a non-Interstate public road is a right.

That's a bold claim. Citation?

The actual language differs from state to state, but in general there is no attempt by the states to revoke certain individuals' right of riding a bicycle. (For example, being pulled over for drunk bicycling can get your driver's license suspended, but does not affect bicycling.)

Corollary: When states declare that bicycles on public roads are subject to the same rules and responsibilities as cars (and most/all states do), sanctions on bicycling are not available as penalties.

Not an explicitly enumerated right in the USA, but a "right" in the same way freedom to walk down the sidewalk is a "right": you're not endangering peoples' lives & it's not explicitly prohibited so you "have a right" to do it. If someone attempted to prevent you from walking down the sidewalk they would be denying you that "right."

Driving a motor vehicle does endanger peoples' lives, so we (society) decided you don't have the "right" to do it, but you can be granted the privilege to do so pretty easily provided you have the $$ for administrative fees & can pass a test demonstrating basic competency.

Your question is totally reasonable, but I think it's fair to say one has a "right" to bike on public roads (barring interstates) but not a "right" to drive on public roads as this requires a license & is subject to many strict regulations.

What exception makes "barring interstates" okay but not "barring roads with a speed limit >X"? Not saying I necessarily disagree, just trying to understand your reasoning.

There are places not accessible by roads with bike-accessible speed limits. Those are much more common than places not accessible except by interstate. (Incidentally, biking on the shoulder of the interstate is permissible in my state, with the occasional exception of some cities and bridges without shoulders.)

I'm not sure I follow the thrust of your comment.

I am interested in why sequoia asserts that it's correct (or at least permissible) to prohibit bicycles from interstates but a violation of rights to prohibit them from other roads. The fact that bicycles are not prohibited from all interstates seems somewhat orthogonal...

I think it's reasonable to designate certain very-high-speed roads as "car only" when there are reasonable alternative routes for bikes. If there's a destination you can only get to by interstate I'd say "allow bikes." I'm a biker and strongly pro bike-rights but I recognize that certain exceptions are reasonable for safety & expediency. :)

So hypothetically, you wouldn't object (on "rights" grounds) if there were a non-interstate that was labeled no-bikes when there were plenty of alternate routes to everywhere serviced by that thoroughfare. Sounds reasonable to me.

One possibility: Interstates are big roads that make it faster to get somewhere you could get on another road if you didn't mind going slower. Some (esp. rural) roads with 45+mph speed limits are the only way to get somewhere, therefor bikes need access. Anyway I'm also just waxing; I don't know the exact laws and surely there are exceptions- generally speaking "all but Interstate" seems like a reasonable thumbrule.

Minor nitpick: bicycling also endangers lives. And even though it doesn't happen often, reckless cycling habits may endanger motorists' lives too (by e.g. causing swerving through unpredictable behaviour). I say that as someone who commutes to work by bike.

you're not endangering peoples' lives

This is regrettably untrue. There are far fewer deaths from bicyclists, of course, but if you google you'll see that there's about one a year. Although I'm pro-cycling I have to say I particularly dislike that segment of cycling community which seems to have the attitude that they not only have right of way at all times against cars, but also against pedestrians; I have had far more near-misses from careless or rule-breaking cyclists than with cars.

One per year? Compared to cars, food poisoning, bathtubs, ladders, and almost anything else you can think of, that's close enough to zero to be a non-issue.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1], to which your home country is likely a signatory.

[1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/I...

your link doesnt work for me, here's a different one:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

NC General Statute 20-4.01 (49) defines a bicycle as a vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles:

"bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle"

source: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/...

I don't know anything definitively one way or another, but it might be related to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...

And yet Seth Vidal is dead, and the driver remains alive.

In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. In practice, however, riders have a lot more to lose in a collision with a car.

> In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads.

Since you mentioned "an ideal world," I'm going to completely disagree. I think that bicycles and automobiles sharing roads is, at best, a manageable but extremely dangerous situation. Like it or not, bicycles and automobiles behave very differently, and require their surrounding vehicles to behave very differently. In an ideal world, there would be separate thoroughfares for automobiles and bicycles, and neither would be allowed on the other (like we already mostly have for pedestrians)

Excepting of course, the millions of intersections and driveways. You know, besides those.

Well, pedestrians already have separate thoroughfares and are not allowed on roads, right? What's the difference?

(like we already mostly have for pedestrians)

If you're talking about sidewalks, it's barely separate, as in a city there are conflicting paths between the road and the sidewalk every dozen feet (every driveway or intersection).

Crossing a street is a lot different than traveling with the flow of traffic in a lane.

Well, in an ideal world it would be both perfectly manageable and not dangerous, but I think we're both saying the same thing. Cars and bicycles are very different and bad things tend to happen when they share the same roadway.

That is an interesting analysis, a right to do x trumps the privilege to do y. Is this the way the law treats circumstances like this?

I am not disagreeing, genuinely curious about the argument

ADDED: I did a little research and found other examples of privilege vs. right[1].

[1] http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

Do you think it's reasonable that bicyclists are free to travel on most roads without any education or licensing? Why is it that pedestrians are banned from traveling on roads, bicyclists are free to do so with no licensing whatsoever, and automobile drivers require a license?

Pedestrians are not banned from travelling on roads lacking sidewalks.

> This privilege is represented by a motor vehicle operator's license, which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons.

If that was a sound argument, then one could say that the right to own a firearm is really just a privilege because most states require a license to own a firearm which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. Or similarly that the right to vote is just a privilege because you must register and there are a variety of reasons for the state to revoke it.

Just because a right is regulated does not make it a privilege.

Driving is legally defined as a privilege, just check your state's MVC guide.

Well, talk about moving the goal-posts, but you aren't the original poster so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The right to freedom of movement is not really a right if it does not include by all available means.

For example, to say you have the right to walk from the east coast to the west coast but not the right to drive a car (or ride a train/bus/plane - all arguments that have been made post 9/11) means that you de facto do not have the right to travel from the east coast to the west coast because it is impractical for the vast majority of the population to walk it.

I'm sure there are motor vehicle codes that have adopted the language of privilege rather than right if for no other reason than it makes it easier for them to claim that moral authority later on, but that doesn't make it true in the sense of natural law. Government does not grant people privileges because everything the government does comes from the people to begin with.

Driving depends on a huge amount of infrastructure which is provided or controlled by the government, everything from roads to refined fuel. As far as I know you actually can drive a car without a license, if you do that in your private property (e.g. suppose you own a farm or other big property with internal driveways), but not in any public roads. Yeah we pay for the roads, and oil infrastructure and other things with our taxes... it doesn't matter. Google [is driving a privilege], you'll find citations of court decisions, some people have tried to assert their "right to drive" without success.

Now your moving the goal posts back to the original poster's claim that licensing is the granting of a privilege rather than regulation of a right.

Owning a firearm is an individual privilege. A well armed militia is a community right.

I don't think it's accurate to say that most states require a license just to own a firearm. There are age, mental health, and criminal background restrictions, but that's not quite the same thing. Some states do have gun ownership licenses, but most only require licenses to carry a firearm, and in many of those states, that is technically only required for concealed carry.

Amend "most" with many. A quick scan of wikipedia suggests there are about 20 states that require a permit to purchase or registration of ownership. Federal law also restricts ownership by convicted felons in all 50 states which is essentially the same thing - regulation by any other name.

There's a middle ground. In Boulder at least, a bicyclist can be ticketed for running a red light, going the wrong way on one-way etc.

This is definitely true. Bicyclists on public roads have (most of) the same responsibilities as drivers, which means penalties for breaking the rules.

There needs to be more of this. As a relatively new biker in NYC (since the bike sharing program launched) I've been amazed at the suicidal tendencies of my (non-bike share) brethren. At a red light? Just pedal out into the middle of the road to see if you can cross anyway. Going the wrong way? Sure!

You should see the nutters on fix wheeled bikes in London I have seen so many that blast through major junctions dodging between pedestrians.

Try watching the junctions around Holbourn tube station and you will see several in a few minuets.

Is that not common? In Denmark where we have a lot of bikes, we have rules specifically written for bicyclists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com