Hacker News Reader

You've answered your own question.

Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.

Because the bike paths are unsafe. Frankly cyclists usually annoy me, but he's following the law, and probably better than most of the self entitled idiots in cars who get by with the VERY minimum of safety awareness on the road.

FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for getting in my way.

And it will be called an accident.

I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.

That'll teach me a lesson! Seriously though, he said that he was getting run over, he said he was being passed by in a dangerously close way. Have you ever tried to pass a cyclist on a two-lane road without a shoulder? You'll find it's extremely difficult.

Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. What could you possibly be doing that is more important than endangering someone's life? Do you understand that the cyclist has a legal right to be there, and that the reason for that legal right is safety?

What could the cyclist be doing that is more important than getting off of the road and letting traffic go around them instead of holding it up?

> Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass.

I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once.

There has to be some sort of accommodation, at least in that limited case where passing is difficult, and cyclists moving slower than the flow of traffic. Although clearly that doesn't legitimize risking someone's life.

Edit: Added second paragraph.

The accommodation is called the lane to your left. Switch over and pass me, just as you would a slower motorcycle or lorry.

That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.

I don't drive fwiw, and I'm very much in favour of cycling, but there are roads near me which are fundamentally ill-suited to mixing cars and cyclists. In those circumstances, cyclists should adjust just as motorists should.

The problem with 'the lane to the left' is that there are frequently two lane roads where doing so is illegal because of the double yellow line. I used to see that frequently on some country roads that people would bicycle on, and going into the other lane is really not an option (saw several accidents where two cars hit each other because there was a cyclist). In those cases the cyclist is also blatantly disregarding others and their own safety, which is why every single one of those accidents the cyclist was getting a ticket because it was also illegal to cycle on the roads (they had a speed limit >35mph).

Things are definitely far more difficult to balance, simply because there are also many places where the road conditions don't allow a cyclist to exist safely (no shoulder, high speed limit, and less than 300ft visibility).

Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass.

Intentionally slowing down and blocking traffic is an offense. If you are impeding the free flow of traffic, you may need to pull over. Where this is not possible, then its a different situation (ie, no shoulder or other hazard). But as a general rule, these are also places you should avoid ex-ante if you know will you will be obstructing traffic with reasonable foresight.

That might be a devil's advocate stance, but its not without merit. It amazes me how much arrogance and lack of street smarts many cyclists have (at least on the internet). I bike in urban areas and in rural ones. But people who are jerks <cause> accidents at a disproportionate rate. And its not just the drivers.

On the flip side, cars and suvs are driving faster and more dangerous (as they are larger) than years ago. That's a real problem. But a different issue. IMHO.

The cyclist should pull over and wait until the road is clear or ride in roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. The cyclist is the one impending traffic and therefore should be the one to be inconvenienced. Also the cyclist is the one who endangered their own life by deciding to ride in the street with cars. Even though cyclists have the right to be on the road they are still expected to fallow the traffic laws including signaling turns, stopping at stop signs and lights, and not impeding traffic flow. If they fallowed the laws they wouldn't be in danger. The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle accidents happen at intersections where surprise surprise cyclists very rarely fallow the law.

Are we now in magic land? Whats up with you and the other commentators in the immediate vicinity making up laws like "impeding traffic flow"?

If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces.

Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.

Impeding traffic flow is a law in most states and counties and is frequently referenced in accident trials definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/

You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense

I cycle around the city in Barcelona, where the drivers are often arseholes.

In a dense city like Barcelona, the traffic doesn't go so fast, and I can usually keep up with most cars, except when accelerating from lights. That doesn't matter. If a car is behind, me they seem to think they have a right to drive too close and honk their horn at me to tell me to get out of the road, even though they will be stuck behind the car that is 20 meters ahead of me.

I understand what your saying. I live in Chicago and things are pretty similar. I'm not saying that all drivers are correct in the way that they act. Many drivers are jerks about it but at the same time many bikers are jerks about the way they ride in traffic. A major reason drivers simply want to get around a cyclist is to avoid having to deal with the chance of hitting them if the swerve suddenly. Is the way they go about It right? Probably not but if you are going to put drivers in a situation where they have to worry about hitting you then its their right to be rude.

You have to realize that if a driver hits another car going 20 mph in city traffic chances are no one will be seriously hurt. Someone will likely get a ticket between $50 and $200 and their insurance goes up. Now when you throw a bike in that accident the rider is likely going to be seriously injured if not killed. No one wants to be in a situation where they have to worry about seriously hurting or killing someone. Most drivers simply want to get around the biker and avoid it but bikers don't make that easy and many of them act like they own the road. You just have to remember as a cyclists that you are the one who chose to put your safety at risk by riding in traffic.

> Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane?

Perhaps people could recognize that the existence of a cycle lane does not necessarily mean that it's safe or even physically possible to cycle within its boundaries.

Given how many cops and taxis park in bike lanes and how many cars use bike lanes as turning lanes, yes, emphatically this.

+1. +1,000,000 if I could.

In NYC, where the legal speed limit is 30mph and traffic is usually slower a bike taking up the whole lane does nothing to slow the overall traffic flow. If a bike can keep up the minimum speed for traffic they deserve the same piece of the road a car has, just like a motorcycle or scooter. I agree it is almost always safer to be in the normal flow of traffic than on the fringe of the bike lane (in NYC at least).

You're playing with fire here.

You might be right, but being right and dead is cold comfort.

The ownership and operation of motor vehicles is a form of psychosis. We are collectively delusional as a culture with regard to automobiles in North America.

I'll think about this the next time a biker almost hits me because they are riding on the sidewalk.

Maybe bikers should be required to pass tests and be licensed to ride.

People can't stop trains from crashing. What makes you think cars can avoid bikers 100% of the time?

> It's just completely surreal driving a bicycle in car traffic.

As true as that is, I almost wouldn't have it any other way. Biking in city traffic is exciting and almost like meditation to me. It's way less dangerous than biking in the country where I live now and biking here is pretty damned boring anyway.

I'm getting fat!

I've been cycling for commute for the last 4 years in India, Chennai to be precise. And this is a problem with most car drivers, especially the posh ones.

And the pain... Cornering me into the extreme sides of the road, Honking as if I suddenly have to disappear from the road, Huge lines of cars causing traffic and most of them driving single, Splashing water, etc. I sometimes know some of them, but its as if they're a different person when they get into a car, somewhat inhuman.