In response to: " Is it okay to kill cyclists" | Hacker News Reader

In response to: " Is it okay to kill cyclists"

bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com

15 pointsfumar10 comments

This is a somewhat extreme overreaction to a level-headed opinion piece in the New York Times that has a linkbait headline, as is typical of journalism these days. I encourage you to read the full article and judge for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to...

To be fair, it's the Bike Snob. Hysterical Overreaction is his writing style and has been for years.

> When I'm in Midtown or some other place where I'm "sharing the road" (that's cute) and thousands of two-ton 350 horsepower motor vehicles are bearing down on me because they're driven by people whose only priority is getting to the Midtown Tunnel or the 59th Street bridge as quickly as possible, you can be damn well sure I'll do whatever the hell I need to do in order to get a head start on these homicidal mutherfuckers, and that includes running the light if I deem it safer to do so

I'm not a regular cyclist, so maybe I'm just confused, but under what circumstances would it be safer to run a red light? "Get a head start" implies to me that they're starting to cross the intersection while cross traffic still has the right of way, which seems far more dangerous.

Traffic lights are designed to group cars together, but if you're willing to run (all of) them you get to ride in between the packs of cars where you only have to worry about cross-traffic at intersection and the occasional pedestrian. It's so much nicer for everybody involved, I can't get up to speed like a car can at a red light so if I wait there suddenly I'll have a line of cars behind me who may make questionable passes at the first opportunity. I think anything that reduces my proximity to 2-ton hunks of metal on the street is a good thing.

In some states it's legal for cyclists to treat stop lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs because A) it's so much easier for us to stop B) we can hear our surroundings so we generally have a good idea if an intersection is safe to cross before getting visual confirmation and C) the amount of danger we expose others to is small compared to vehicles (person + 30 lbs. bike vs. person + 3,500 lbs. car)

As a pedestrian in Manhattan it's really hard for me to model in my head what a person on a bicycle going to do. What is the protocol for cyclists and red lights - are they supposed to stop like other vehicles? Do people crossing the street with a walk sign have right of way? Can they take free left turns if no cars are at the intersection?

I don't live in as big a city as Manhattan so I can't really say, I've seen videos of some insane bike riding in NYC. Can't believe how some of them ride.

I do think cyclists sometimes fail to give pedestrians the respect they deserve, we have to remember that pedestrian's relationship with us mirrors our relationship with cars. I personally try not to come within 5 feet of pedestrians, unless they're standing in a bike lane or something like that.

in the sense that we're bigger and faster, but the extent of the danger isn't even close

It, sadly, makes sense in some instances. Many drivers become filled with rage if you slow them down even a smidge - and it's no secret bikes accelerate from a dead stop more slowly than cars.

Hell, you see this in Manhattan. The streets are nearly clogged, a bike will beat a car in these situations, but still, drivers will fly into an unbelievable rage if a cyclist slows them down by a fraction of a second coming out of an intersection.

In those cases starting your acceleration before the light is green avoids a lot of wrath. You're taking advantage of that brief 2-second dead zone when there's is no significant traffic within the box. It is not a risk-free maneuver, but even the most hardened cyclist would rather not be yelled at by an asshat in a SUV.

I cant speak for the author but if im on my bicycle and at an intersection waiting and theres no traffic ill infrequently run the red.

It might be illegal but it prevents cars from driving into the back of me (SMIDSY) and allows me to get up to speed before any cars at the intersection proceed after a green.

This goes beyond cyclist / motorist behaviour. If you really prove deeply you can extract a classical attitude and behaviour seen between a semi-homogeneous majority class and its minority coutnerpart.

By that I mean, in this case we have motorists upset at cylists because they feel that cyclists in some way conflict with their beliefs / way of life (that I can drive on the road with other automobiles and not worry about cyclists or that my behaviour may harm others). I suspect though that at the heart of the matter motorists are upset because it exposes just how poor some people are when it comes to driving and how driving isnt a right nor a privlidge but a skill which requires practice and training.

I mean the same thing can be seen in other conflicts between major groups and minorities. Cars and motorcycles. Post colonial naturalised citizens vs. indigenous people. Middle class vs. Poor. Police vs. 'inner city youth'.

I mean is the issue really that cyclists might do something wrong or that cyclists expose just how bad drivers are at driving and how arrogant individuals try to blame others for their mistakes under the guise of 'being impartial'?

Im rambling now but theres a point in there somewhere.

On the flip side, it also exposes how shitty assholes a lot of cyclists are. I've been involved in enough group bike rides to know that most of the time, the cyclist started it. Asshole cyclists are probably also asshole drivers and asshole pedestrians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com