Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City | Hacker News Reader

Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

vox.com

139 pointsdodders294 comments

I'm one of those drivers who hates sharing roadways with bikers. It's not that I have to share, but between slowing traffic down, pure safety concerns for the biker (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident) and the generally shitty entitled attitude lots of bike riders seem to have (probably earned from dealing with irritated drivers like me) I get my hackles raised every time I see one on the roads. Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars.

But you know what? I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of road engineering. Regardless of making traffic faster or not, it's just smart design. Between roads, sidewalks and bike lanes, this provides a designated travel area for everybody regardless of the mode they choose to travel with. Bikes shouldn't be sharing the road with cars, they should have their own designated travel areas.

It eliminates all three of my issues in one swoop and provides equitable space for sharing the travel conduits in a city. In fact, it would probably get me out on a bike more often.

I'm one of those bikers who hates sharing roadways with cars. It's not that I have to share, but between taking up so much of the road, pure safety concerns for bikers(since automobile drivers win every single colition) and generally shitty entitled attitude lots of car drivers seem to have (most likely because there are more of them so they think they own the road) I get my hackles raised every time I see one on the roads. Automobiles aren't bikes no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the roads with bikes.

I see more people driving break the law every day while driving then I've ever seen bikers do in my entire life. People are jerks regardless of what they use to commute with.

> I see more people driving break the law every day while driving then I've ever seen bikers do in my entire life. People are jerks regardless of what they use to commute with.

I see more people driving breaking the law every day while driving than I have ever seen bikers in the road, not counting the peloton from the local bike store. Speaking in absolute numbers in this case isn't meaningful, because in most areas of the US the number of people using cars for transportation far, far exceeds the number using bicycles.

Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right? Would you walk in the middle of the road? No, because that's idiotic and stupid. But sit on a few pounds of rubber and tubed aluminum, travel only slightly faster than the same moronic pedestrian and now it's a smart commuting idea?

You've chosen to go out and share the roads that were built for cars and decided for every driver (who are actually entitled to be on the road in their cars) on the same road as you that they're responsible for your safety. And then you've decided to inconvenience every single one of them by clumsily pedaling you and your contraption into a position where you are blocking cars from traveling at the designated speed the road was designed and built for.

In no other social interaction is any such similar selfish behavior even remotely tolerated.

I mean, imagine I decided to take up a hobby called "being a cat" and then I come to your workplace and just decided to sit on your desk, and block your keyboard, take over your chair, push you out of queues and otherwise disrupt what you need to be doing. But it's okay, I'm entitled to do this because I randomly picked my hobby and don't you dare be cross with me when I knock your monitor on the floor and prevent you from doing your work.

In fact, I have a better hobby. It's called "tack throwing". I'm going to go out to my local bike trails and take this hobby up. Where I throw handfuls of thumbtacks in front of all the bikers and fuck them because that's my hobby now and they shouldn't be riding their bikes on my tack throwing field.

"Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right?"

Unless you're referring only to freeways, that's a nice bit of revisionism. Especially in any city older than 100 years, the streets were built to carry trolleys, horses, carriages, omnibuses, and a variety of vehicles just as slow as bicycles. And cycles continue to be legal to ride on those roads. So you're managing to be both historically and legally wrong.

"I'm going to go out to my local bike trails and ... throw handfuls of thumbtacks in front of all the bikers"

I'd like to see how that works out for you.

I don't live in a city, and very little development where I live is older than 20 years old.

While cycles are legal on the roads, keeping with traffic is also a legal requirement in every state in the U.S. for any person on the road. But because bikes, they don't get ticketed and prosecuted for impeding the flow of traffic.

> keeping with traffic is also a legal requirement in every state in the U.S.

Keeping up with traffic? Do you have a source for that?

Look it up yourself. Your local state law should be online. Every single state in the U.S. requires road users to not impede the flow of traffic. That's why you can get a ticket for driving to slow.

Ok, I found it for California. You seem to be wrong.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&gr...

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Nope. Keep searching. You found the law that allows bikes to share the road with cars. Now find the laws that I'm talking about. Off the top of my head for CA, 21202, 21654, 22400, and a few others.

Bikes have responsibilities as well, not just unlimited privilege.

edit

Here's a WP page on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

"Nope. Keep searching."

As an aside, I'd like to object to this rhetorical technique. "You haven't found the thing that proves me right, therefore I am right" should not be permitted in arguments.

For the record, I don't think your intent was malicious, just calling attention to something I see a bit and don't like.

No you're right. It's bad form. It came across as bad form and I was really just too lazy to look it up and post it.

Yeah, there's been some good stuff in these threads, and some less good stuff. Tryin' to nudge everyone in the direction of the former - myself included. Thanks :)

The wikipedia page says nothing about minimum speeds.

21202 and 21654 explicitly list restrictions that must be followed when traveling at "less than the normal speed of traffic". This suggests to me that doing so is legal. By the way, 21202 is exactly what I quoted to you, so it's kind of funny that you would repeat it back to me.

22400 deals with impeding traffic, "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" of the vehicle. I don't know who determines what is necessary for safe operation, but travelling at a speed achievable by humans is certainly necessary for the operation of bicycles, and bicycles are explicitly granted permission to use roads.

I certainly don't see any clear legal requirements in general to maintain any specific minimum speed limit.

Well, if you're just going to ignore all the parts of the law that apply, then it doesn't really matter what the law says does it?

Um, you seem to be doing exactly that, while recursive seems to have read the laws you pointed at - which do not say what you claim them to say.

No I think he's right. At least around where I live (well, used to live, I'm in Korea at the moment), cyclists are not supposed to ride on roads that disrupt traffic or don't have a sufficient shoulder to pull off onto to let vehicles pass.

By contrast in Korea, they're not supposed to use roads at all and you'll find everything from bikes to scooters sharing sidewalks with people on foot. But bikes aren't real common here anyways with the small apartments and all.

edit actually I was curious and looked it up for Korea. Turns out according to Article 2(17)(a) of the 도로교통법 (road laws), bikes are classified as motor vehicles and have all the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle.

Weird because I almost never see them out in traffic, but usually up on sidewalks or on "bike-only" roads.

The subthread was specifically discussing California. It remains my understanding that he was incorrect about CA law - cited specifically, above.

ehhh...You're probably right. I dunno about CA law.

looking up the conversation, recursive and you seem kind of hung up on this wording "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" which I would interpret as meaning not just speed but actual safety. Of course it's not safe (or possible) to operate a bike at 100 kph. But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches away while vehicles whizz around me.

I try not to ride on roads with poor bike safety without having to consult the law, but it seems like that phrase basically enshrines what I already do. If it's a fast road with no shoulder, I really try hard no find a path that doesn't take me on it. Yeah, sometimes you can't avoid it. But I'm not going to get upset with somebody who would rather not be driving their car in the same lane as me. I don't want to be in the lane with them either!

"But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches away while vehicles whizz around me."

Right, I have no compunction taking the lane when the shoulder gets dangerous. Safety is always the concern. Note, for instance, that one of the specific times you're told you don't have to stay right (21202a4 - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.html) is when a car might try to make a right turn through you (a frequent way for cyclists to get hit).

If I were ignoring them, it wouldn't matter what they say. Fortunately, I'm not ignoring them.

Wow - butt-hurt much?

I pay an absolute fortune every year in property taxes to subsidize high-speed road construction for selfish, entitled, ungrateful drivers like yourself - you're welcome! In return, I'd like to be able to ride my bicycle on the edge - indeed, the very fringe - of those magnificent roads that I paid for without getting run down by some low-life eating a breakfast bagel and talking on his cell phone while driving. And yet, in his mind, I'm the one behaving selfishly for commuting on the road that I paid for.

Astonishing.

Why don't you read my comments again, all my comments in this thread, and then let me know who's selfish and entitled.

here's a summary

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8301247

> Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right?

No, they were not. They were built for horses - with and without carriages - and bicycles and motorbikes and cars and vans and trucks and buses.

> You've chosen to go out and share the roads that were built for cars

Criminal offence for cyclists to use the pavement.

I can absolutely guarantee you that not a single road within 10 miles of my home was built for a horse or carriage and maybe 3% have history back to pre-auto time periods. They were built specifically for automobiles travelling at speed.

Wait, you have special roads? Dofferet from all those other roads? But not so special that bicycles were forbidden from using them? Not like all the roads that bicycles are forbidden from using?

Read the fucking law. You are wrong. Here's California's bit of law grantin cyclists the same rigts and responsibilities as other road users:

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

> 21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division... except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

The rights of cyclists to use the road is specifically written into law.

Why don't you read the fucking law?

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm

No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/driving-too-slow-ticket...

That's right. Every state has a law on the books that says something along the lines of: "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of traffic."

But does anyone ever actually get pulled over and ticketed? Absolutely -- and the ticket counts the same as any other violation against your driver's license and car insurance.

Let me know when bikes can travel at speed with the flow of traffic and I'll retract every unkind thing I've ever said about bicyclists.

>Wait, you have special roads? Dofferet from all those other roads? But not so special that bicycles were forbidden from using them? Not like all the roads that bicycles are forbidden from using?

Oh, so you've moved the goalpost from "built for bikes" to "bikes are permitted". Okay, I can play that game if you want.

Read the law above and let me know the last time you saw a bike getting a ticket for driving too slow and blocking traffic. Because that nonsense happens around where I live pretty much every day and I'm caught in it at least once a week. Yet, I've never once seen a cop pull over a bicyclist and issue a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic.

I will happily share the road with any non-impeding mode of transport anybody chooses to use. But once you start impeding the flow of traffic and then getting belligerent because people have the indignity to complain about it, well fuck you, I have zero patience for that.

I dont know a lot about the subject, but the previous post says "except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application."

Bike speed runs on human effort, id say a human being going with a bike at car speed is unreasonable. Also there are many very "natural" considerations on bike speeds: bad terrain, just going over a hill, cramps, and all sorts of bodily flaws that make speed limits on bikes unreasonable.

I would never use a bike on a highway though, but there is an undeniable benefit in supporting bikes in any big city, for health, transit, space, economic and environmental issues.

A bicycle is legally a "vehicle" but it is not a "motor vehicle." That is an actual distinction that is important when reading those laws.

The law speaks quite specifically to how bicycles are to behave where they cannot travel at the same speed as other vehicles. It does permit them to impede traffic where doing otherwise would be unsafe.

The law in most states specifically forbids bikes from impeding the flow flow of traffic. In some states they specifically even define what "impedes" mean (e.g. n number of cars behind the cyclist, the cyclist must pull to the side to let the cars pass, etc.).

> It does permit them to impede traffic where doing otherwise would be unsafe.

True. Just like farm equipment and horses.

Yes, per 21656 (which, incidentally, you didn't cite) a bicyclist blocking 5 or more cars must pull to the side and let them pass as soon as they are safely able to do so - just like anything else on the road (and damn it, I've encountered enough drivers who seem unaware of this).

That is neither a minimum speed nor a general injunction against impeding the flow of traffic.

So there is a specific impediment law.

That's a stupid response. You're the only one who has made claims about what holds in "every state". I don't know enough about the situation in other states to say anything - it's conceivable (if unlikely) that every other state than the one I happen to know about works the way you say; but that still makes it "not every state", and means it applies to a good 12% of Americans.

Edited to add: The comment above was changed from an assertion that the CA law didn't apply everywhere. Responding to the new comment:

Yes, there is a specific impediment law. One that generally permits impediment of traffic while placing some bounds on it. The bounds are more lenient than what a bicyclist should be doing - 21656 would totally permit biking (or driving) substantially under the speed limit for hours so long as you're only inconveniencing four cars, but that would make you a jerk. If someone's waiting on you, get over when you get the chance.

At least where I grew up, bikes were not supposed to ride on roads without sufficient shoulder for them to pull out of the way of vehicles. The flip side is that there's a big lobby that tries to ensure that most roads have such a shoulder. Lots of rural roads don't have them, but I've found that it's better for me as both a driver and a cyclist to have such shoulders in the case I need to pull off or out of the way with either kind of transport mode.

Certainly it all varies location to location. I'm unaware of a regulation like you suggest in CA, and don't believe there is one - where did you grow up?

It's certainly the case that it's better and safer to ride (or drive) where you have space to stop, and that that should be preferred when picking a route or building a road, but other concerns can sometimes wind up dominating.

Maryland. The law may have changed or I might be wrong about it. They used to not require helmets either. Growing up we used to get all kinds of community safety advice from the local schools and safe biking was a big push. I don't know that a similar "safe driving around bikers" ever happened though.

> That's a stupid response.

So what's stupid about the response? Either their is or there isn't an impediment law. It sounds like there is, just that "impediment" has been specifically defined in CA.

I feel like you were asserting there wasn't an impediment law, then citing me one. Maybe I'm just irritated at everybody else and it's bleeding over into this thread.

I would not have written that in response to the post-edit comment. I realized after editing that I should have put the new comment on top, but at that point it was too late to edit further - my apologies for the confusion. I still don't agree with the current comment - as you can see from my updated response (the bottom half) - but I wouldn't have called it stupid.

Reiterating what I said there, with a slightly different spin - it is not the case that, in general, "impeding the flow of traffic with your travel" is illegal. That is not really changed by the fact that there are some limits on just how extreme some aspects of that impediment can get; there is plenty of room to bicycle in a way that impedes some traffic and does not fall afowl of the law.

Most relevant to the context here, it is not a law that a police officer could use to ticket a cyclist for the mere act of riding slowly relative to cars, even if they are impeding the flow of several cars.

That's fine. I'm not in top form either. You didn't call me stupid, just what I said...and it may or may not actually be stupid.

We can agree I suppose to disagree on legal interpretations.

So, there are 3% of roads within 10 miles of you that predate automobiles and which you can absolutely guarantee were never built for horse and carriage.

What were they for exactly?

Sorry, those 3% that predate the automobile were meant for horses, carriages and pedestrians.

0% of the vehicle purposed roads in my area are meant for bikes.

However, I don't know how many miles of bike trails there are in my region, but the county next to mine has ~500miles of bike trail, with some non-negligible percentage being ultra high quality purpose built bike trails (paved, marked and lighted in many places.) I think my county has less, but the bits I'm aware of are all ultra high quality with most built within the last 20 years.

Is it world class? No. But I'd prefer if it was and I'd be happy to pay higher taxes to support it.

I've cycled for fun a little bit, but I have cycled to get to work a lot, both in cities and rural areas. I don't really think of my bike in terms of going to visit trails, it is purely a means of getting around that I also can take on a train. This is in the UK, a lot of it in London, which is an exciting place to cycle and you do generally have to work on the assumption that everybody is trying to kill you, though per mile, walking is more dangerous.

Also, as far as cycling in London traffic goes, most of the time it is the cars holding me up, as a bike is quicker than the average speed of traffic. If I am holding up a line of cars, I will cut in behind a parked car and let them pass, is far more dangerous for me to have a load of stressed drivers queuing up.

One thing, roads are dangerous places. I know this and have had it drilled into me since I was a kid, but given this is the UK the advice is not to stay out of the road, but how to be in the road safely, whether you are a pedestrian, car or cyclist. Stuff like always walking on the side facing into traffic when on country roads and what to do around horses.

You might think this attitude is woefully dangerous, but I prefer it to a society where I could be get arrested for jaywalking.

I hear you on all fronts and agree (don't be surprised). In London, walking is frequently faster than driving. I've jumped off a bus more than once to just walk the rest of the way since it was faster.

I posted this elsewhere as an example of the kind of nonsense I'm frequently dealing with where I live.

http://imgur.com/q1xM217

This is not my area and I didn't take the picture, but it's near enough looking to quite a few roads near my area that it may as well be. Even if it was just one of these guys, I guarantee you he'd be in the middle of the road impeding traffic. I see it weekly and it's unbelievably irritating and dangerous.

I get it is annoying, but traffic is annoying.

And what is in that picture is a lot less dangerous than a slow agricultural vehicle, which you should also expect on the road from time to time, and is also obviously a cycling race team going somewhere with a follow vehicle.

You shouldn't drive faster than you can see in front on a road like that anyway.

You know for a fact that there are historic roads all over the U.S. that date back to before the car. Even old farm roads have been turned into highways, but that doesn't mean they weren't originally purposed for things on foot.

The first paved roads in the United States were built as a result of years of lobbying by the League of American Wheelmen, a national bicycle club: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement

The idea that roads were not for pedestrian use was a public relations campaign by automobile industry lobbyists: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/...

> Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right?

Yes, but they were also built for bicycles.

> for every driver (who are actually entitled to be on the road in their cars)

Yes, they are so entitled, but so are bicyclists. Motorists are also responsible for other motorists safety.

> And then you've decided to inconvenience every single one of them

When you drive a car, you do this also. I'm assuming you've heard people complaining about traffic. When you're driving, you are traffic.

> I randomly picked my hobby

Why do you consider driving "what they need to be doing" and bicycling a hobby? Both activities are done both as a hobby and of practical necessity.

> In fact, I have a better hobby. It's called "tack throwing".

You've deliberately designed this hobby to be a jerk. Some bicyclists that are jerks also, but mostly they seem to be as jerky as the population at large.

> You've deliberately designed this hobby to be a jerk. Some bicyclists that are jerks also, but mostly they seem to be as jerky as the population at large.

Don't make fun of my hobby! Tack fields were made for tack throwing, bikes should get off the trail if they don't want flat tires.

So long as I'm left in piece to throw my tacks on the tack field I won't be a jerk. It's all these bike riders running over my tacks and ruining my hobby that makes me so irritable.

edit go ahead and downvote, I have karma to burn. It hurts to see an equivalent situation tossed back at you doesn't it. Go ahead, take out your feelings with the downvote button.

I cannot fathom the thought process that leads you to conclude that being inconvenienced by someone having equal rights to yourself is the same as committing an act of violence.

I don't think you should be permitted in public unsupervised, much less permitted to drive a car.

That's a bit hyperbolic, rude and unfair. It's a stupid example, but it's not advocating violence. Maybe a little property destruction. But nothing that would harm a person.

I get his point though. There are expectations you have in using all kinds of things. And it's really not fair for somebody else to usurp that use and then complain when it's not perfectly suited for their unintended use-case.

It's like complaining that bikes don't make good airplanes even though I've jumped my bike thousands of times. When I ride, I'm aware that I'm also not a particularly good automobile and try to plan my route to not end up in circumstances where I might get hurt from a careless driver. It would be the same if I was on a moped or small dirt bike or something.

I used to have this amazingly beat up old van when I was a teenager, and I don't think it could even make 100kph (about 60mph) downhill with a tailwind. So I knew I also shouldn't be bringing it on fast roads because I'd be a menace to everybody else on the road. It just seems like common sense to me.

Why am I committing an act of violence? I'm just engaging in my hobby. If people don't want tacks in their tires they shouldn't ride on my tack field. I'm not forcing them to get on my field with me. They need to learn to share.

What you're doing is being an asshole, and I'm not talking about the purported hobby. You need to get yourself sorted out before this instability affects your relationship with more than just the pixels on your screen that you obviously can't conceive of as fellow human beings.

Oh I see, you can't handle it when an analogous situation interferes with your hobby. Then my point is made by your example.

It's not analogous, and it's not "my hobby". I haven't been on a bicycle in probably 15 years. There's something very wrong with you.

False equivalence aside, why do you think the way people commute to work or go grocery shopping is a hobby? People are just getting around.

One of the worst I have ever seen, actually. Well done.

> It hurts to see an equivalent situation tossed back at you doesn't it.

No, what's hurting my brain is how someone could think that's an equivalent situation.

You mean me declaring a hobby and co-opting somebody else's purpose built area for it and then blaming them when my hobby inevitably interferes with their rightful usage of their purpose built travelway?

You're the first person in this thread to even use the word "hobby". Nobody else is talking about a hobby. They're talking about a means of transportation.

I'm the first person in the thread. I think that lets me choose the terms of the thread? Or is that no loner part of netiquette?

No, you don't get to "choose the terms". We are not your minions. You are having a public discussion with other human beings who are not obliged to cater to your whims and post-hoc rationalizations for your abusive and threatening behavior.

> You are having a public discussion with other human beings

Oh okay

> What you're doing is being an asshole

> There's something very wrong with you.

> I don't think you should be permitted in public unsupervised.

Did I get all of them? Thanks for being a nice human being to exchange viewpoints on. Great examples of being an unfriendly and insulting conversation partner to other people behind the veil of on-line anonymity. You haven't even put contact information in your profile.

All I've said so far in the entire thread, if you bother to read it, is that I don't feel safe for cyclists sharing the same road space as cars in many cases and that I strongly support (at personal cost and convenience) designing, building and funding millions of road miles of dedicated bikeways for people who choose to cycle based on the kind of template given in the OP. I gave examples of how sharing space with cars is dangerous for cyclists despite laws permitting it. I gave examples of where legal circumstances don't always spell out what's smart.

I also pointed out that cyclists often respond to people like me, who are honestly trying to make the roads safer for all involved, with hostility and self-entitled venom (see examples above and throughout the thread). My singular humorous metaphor for what it's like as a driver, dealing with cyclist's bad attitudes over road sharing, was met with me essentially being called a violent and disturbed person who shouldn't be "permitted to drive a car" and that there is "something wrong with [me]" despite not advocating any violent action on or towards any person or property.

So thanks. Thanks for calling me a bad and violent person. Thanks for shitting all over my concern for other people and insinuating I'm some kind of psychopath. Thanks for considering that even though I have consistent and considerable bad experience with cyclists (some minor examples are now recorded all over this thread both in my testimony and in cyclists response to me and in this conversation), I still am trying to find a good solution so they can enjoy their transport decisions and I can drive safely.

Here's my quotes from this thread for the record and thanks again for saying I'm horrible human being without basic empathy:

> It's not that I have to share, but between slowing traffic down, pure safety concerns for the biker (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident)...

> I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of road engineering. Regardless of making traffic faster or not, it's just smart design. Between roads, sidewalks and bike lanes, this provides a designated travel area for everybody regardless of the mode they choose to travel with. Bikes shouldn't be sharing the road with cars, they should have their own designated travel areas.

> ...they're a valid form of transport. But clearly distinct from both other modes. So I fully support bikes having distinct travelways. I'm even delighted that my tax dollars might help pay for it.

> Well, up top, I specifically endorsed the protected bike lanes as a good idea. I'm not sure if that counts as "separate" or not, but I'm on board with the idea.

> I had a full on collision last year that sprained my elbow so bad I may have to get surgery. I'm waiting to see if it heals up. The bicyclist gave me an earful about blocking the shared-use trail with my walking until I called pulled out my phone to call the cops and then he high tailed it out there. It was literally a vehicular hit and run. And if I need surgery will cost me thousands of dollars and months of physical therapy on top of the medical and physical therapy bills I've already paid.

> I support cycling, I think it's great. I wish it was easier and more practical to do in the U.S.

> As somebody who doesn't live in a city, this trend is not good for me because it makes it hard to get in and out of the city. But I recognize it as a better way for more people than just me and my car and I can get myself over my minor inconvenience and just drive to the local mass transit link and walk a bit instead of fighting for parking downtown.

> I recognize that not all cyclists are like this, but damn if the ones around my area aren't some kind of special crop of bastards (and there's enough of a population that bikes to support a very nice local bike shop I can walk to). I'm actually hoping that with better bike infrastructure more people get on bikes and drown these kinds of assholes out. The more people biking, the greater the political lobby to continue building out good balanced infrastructure for everybody and the more unacceptable it will be for bad cyclists to get onto automobile roads.

> To be clear, I don't really have a problem with this https://imgur.com/E8CGnmt other than I hope the guy on the left doesn't fall over or veer into highway traffic. But they're both off the road, not bothering anybody and doing their thing. You know what I'd love to see in that second picture? A barrier between me and them and that shoulder turned into a dedicated, clearly marked bike trail. At intersections, I'd love to see tunnels and overpasses purpose built for them. I'd love love love that.

> So the problem I have is that bikes are allowed on roads, but I don't think they should be. The cry then is "well where will they go?" and I strongly propose that purpose built bike lines be built to accommodate cyclists. I recognize that it won't happen overnight, but it is happening.

> ...I think the right way to deal with it is not to ban bikes, but to give them a better place to go and start enforcing cyclist's responsibilities.

> I support this kind of road having dedicated bike-only zones off the shoulders.

> My conclusion though is not that bikes should be off of roads, but that they should have dedicated infrastructure so this guy has a way to enjoy a perfectly reasonable bike ride without causing trouble.

> the same road as you that they're responsible for your safety.

> If somebody wants to ride a bike and wants to lobby for better bike riding infrastructure, I will be right there with them, even if it raises my taxes.

> The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact with because they are unprotected regardless of the circumstances of the contact. I didn't ask them to get on the road with me, but I'll sure as hell be held responsible for their decision if something happens.

> I tend to operate under the assumption that killing a cyclist or pedestrian will probably make me feel pretty miserable and try to make sure I'm not in situations where that could happen.

> Yeah, because heaven forbid a cyclist hits a rock or something and ends up as a bumper decoration on my car through absolutely no fault of my own. I don't want to deal with the risk or guilt of something like that happening...

> No, nobody bike commutes around here. I drive the main arteries out of my area every day and never see a cyclist. Not once in 8 years. It's no surprise because the bike infrastructure stinks on those roads (which I'd be more than happy to support with my tax dollars to fix, and even give up a travel lane to make it happen).

> I don't know if that's a lot or not. It's not a mirror of the road system in terms of size (which I'd personally like to change)...

> I agree with everything you say here which is why I support any initiative which increases the dedicated bike trail system in my area and makes it more useful.

> No, I think cyclists should also have a dedicate right of way and transport infrastructure. At least as comprehensive as the automobile road network. Even if it costs me more in the form of higher tax dollars and yes, even if if I lose a travel lane because of it.

> Because by and large the road system is already there (and being used for cyclists). Extended the shoulder out a bit and putting a stick figure on a bike every quarter mile to show it's a place where bikes are supposed to go is at a minimum what I'm calling for.

> From design to paving, the vast vast majority of roads are designed purely for the automobile. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it is what it is.

> I've never felt safe sharing pavement with a cyclist. Ever. Not for my own personal safety, or because of some dubious legal requirement, but for the safety of the cyclist.

> > Make all traffic lanes in city cores bikes only, and make public transit free for everyone. I was against you until this part. And now I'm totally with you. In the states it's tough though, the public transport system is woefully inadequate to support this idea.

> While it may be legally untrue, it's not ethically or emotionally untrue. If you were to take out a cyclist and be legally not at fault, don't you think you'd carry around some sense of responsibility?

> If they want to lobby for better bike trails and safer areas to bike. I'll be right out there holding the sign at the rally. I'll even give up extra income in the form of tax dollars to make it a reality. Because it's good for everybody.

You've called cyclists morons and insisted cycling on roads is equivalent with deliberately attempting to injure other people. There is absolutely nothing "humorous" about that, nor your inability to understand why other people found it horrifying and not conducive to discussion.

I don't care how much you talk about dedicated cycling infrastructure. Your violent "metaphor" overshadows it, and taints it, revealing an underlying purpose of simple segregation of something that enrages you. You've also claimed negative experiences with cyclists as a pedestrian, which, given the circumstances, is simply an admission of even greater bias against cycling.

I told you you were being an asshole in hopes that you might recognize that you've gone way off the deep end. But apparently you're a lost cause.

My fault, I should have already known that -- I did some searching and realized you're the same guy who rages about cycling every time it comes up on HN.

So, yeah, sorry to have interrupted your ravings.

Considering your lack of basic reading comprehension of my statements and metaphor and the repeated insults I've received in this thread and others, I feel like my opinion of cyclists is even more justified.

Please continue lecturing me and others how we should be respectful of others while calling them dangerous and demented.

There is a great blog post by People for Bikes which debunks most of these common myths surrounding biking. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/bike-myths-debunked

I checked on some of the claims in this post. For example, the Federal Highway Administration being an outgrowth of the Good Roads Movement. Turns out that's not correct. The GRM was responsible for the idea of well maintained trails connecting cities. But the actual road system was purely an automotive endeavor (credited with starting with the Lincoln Highway) and partially financed by the early auto industry. Earlier major roads were also envisioned by various early auto clubs (like the AAA)

Some early GRM trails were converted into automobile roads as time went on, while others were purpose built for the car. A combination of military usage, agricultural concerns and the automobile lobby helped bring about the FHA.

One of the earliest national highway proposals (from the 1900 Good Roads Convention) actually specifically advocated for separate divisions of the road surface for cars, bikes, pedestrians and decorative elements.

Most roads in the world were not originally built for cars:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/...

Good thing I don't live in those places then. But I do live in a place where the roads were built for cars. And separate travel passages were built for bikes. Yet bikes are all over the roads. Can I take my car on the bike trails?

Where do you live? I am genuinely curious. This is a local issue, and you are speaking in global platitudes. If no one near you wants to bike, fine. Make everything an interstate. But if there are bikes all around... it appears someone near you does want to bike.

I doubt the bike trails near you are even a minimally spanning tree of every place a person needs to go.

In the U.S. It's true for most of the landmass outside of a few specific cities.

Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right?

I suspect the Romans would be very surprised if you could go back and tell them.

Well their roads weren't built for bikes either if you want to get technical about it.

There are people who do this kind of inane shit. There have been a number of cases where people tie thin metal wires across bike trails and on roads that are designated biker first.

You are aware that it is legal to ride your bike on the road right? As much as you want roads to be for cars only, they aren't.

I'm with you on your main points. But this kind of talk doesn't help your argument.

It is not just your awful attitude, but the fact that you are completely wrong in your assertions that is a problem.

And most drivers agree with you.

Except I pay for the roads.. you know.. registration, taxes on gas, taxes on purchase of the car, etc etc...

But hey, you're welcome to pay a little for the roads too ;)

I wish I thought you were kidding, but many people seem to actually believe that these things are enough to pay for the construction and maintenance of roads. Not so. Much of the cost comes out of general taxes, which everyone pays. When you consider that cyclists contribute basically zero wear and tear to the roads, it starts to look like they're subsidizing your lifestyle.

That's ignoring externalities like reduced traffic and pollution, and reduced demand for oil.

Around here car taxes, road taxes, "environmental taxes" on fuel etc adds up to a whole lot more than the combined price of road maintenance and so on. Also none of it is earmarked for environmental purposes.

Point is: While I'm mostly happy with the tax levels a little honesty would be appreciated.

Edit: Why the downvotes? (BTW: I live in Norway ATM, go read up on Norwegian taxes if you don't trust me.)

> Around here car taxes, road taxes, "environmental taxes" on fuel etc adds up to a whole lot more than the combined price of road maintenance and so on.

That's really different from the situation in the States and the UK which is where I've seen the actual numbers.

I'm not a heavy user of fuel, so may be a bit biased on this, but it seems really sensible to me to use taxes to compensate for externalities. For instance, I'd guess based on my general impressions of Scandanavia and other civilized places that Norway has publicly-funded universal healthcare. Good on you for that. Now, doesn't it make sense for some of the taxes on owning and using an automobile to go toward public health? In my country, collisions involving cars are a leading source of injury and death. Elsewhere in this thread are estimates of the health impacts of auto emissions -- they are significant.

> For instance, I'd guess based on my general impressions of Scandanavia and other civilized places that Norway has publicly-funded universal healthcare. Good on you for that.

Thanks! The first time I really understood the North American model where people have to pay to send their kids to college or go to the doctor, that was an eye opener for me. I now happily pay my taxes.

> Now, doesn't it make sense for some of the taxes on owning and using an automobile to go toward public health?

Absolutely. I think I mentioned it in the post. The part I don't like is where they call it road tax or environmental tax only to go ahead and use it for something completely different.

> The part I don't like is where they call it road tax or environmental tax only to go ahead and use it for something completely different.

Well, even a little honesty may be too much to expect from politicians anywhere.

I'm guessing you were downvoted above by people who had trouble imagining the existence of a place where automobile ownership and use is taxed to the levels you describe.

> I'm guessing you were downvoted above by people who had trouble imagining

That's what I thought too.

(I had a feeling a few days ago that someone who recently got their downvote privilege has been a little extra triggerhappy but I'm not sure. This is the first time I got hit.)

I honestly don't understand where most tax dollars go in the U.S. I'm in Korea at the moment and the tax burden is overall very light when compared to the States, but the level of service you receive is absolutely tremendous for the most part.

Example, if you make over around $85,000 USD, you fall into the maximum tax bracket, which is 35%. Most people pay around 25%. As a foreigner, I can also pay an alternative 17.5% instead.

There's also a 10% surtax at all income levels. So I can really get by with about 18.5% income tax (and there's all kinds of easy deductions).

> Example, if you make over around $85,000 USD, you fall into the maximum tax bracket, which is 35%.

In the US, the maximum income bracket has a 39.6% marginal rate and is reached at $400,001 in AGI for a single filer; the (weirdly narrow) 35% bracket starts at $398,351.

So if Korea has a 35% top bracket, witha 10% surtax, that starts around $85,000 USD, I'm not seeing how that's "overall very light when compared to the States".

Hmmm...maybe you're right. For some reason I feel like I pay less here. I definitely get more service at least.

Plus the fact that most bikers own cars too, they just don't happen to be driving it when you see them.

Cars also inflict many externalities onto others that other forms of transportation do not (pollution, increased travel distance, injuries and deaths, etc.), and yet drivers seem less keen on paying extra to compensate for those costs.

The biggest externality cost in the United States by far is parking. Many cities have mandatory parking space requirements for businesses that impact not just new developments but re-purposing of existing properties (ex: restaurants must provide so-and-so many free parking spaces per thousand square feet; you have to do this even if you're converting an existing property into a restaurant). This is a huge pain for a lot of people trying to open small businesses.

This is more of a zoning issue though (I think mandatory parking ordinances should be repealed and all parking should be privatized).

And wear and tear on the road is approximately proportional to weight and speed so bikes make almost no contribution to road wear, which is the primary cost of our road system.

About 29,000 people die from air pollution in the UK and about 1 in 4 of those may have been from traffic pollution. But death is cheap and people living longer with worse quality of life with COPD or similar costs money.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-en...

I pay taxes on wars, but would be happy to not have the war if I didn't have to pay those taxes.

Sadly, that's not how taxes work. Each tax isn't "for" something, they all go to into the budget and are used to buy stuff.

Toll roads might be a fair example. Those are mostly closed to bicycles.

Often gas taxes/vehicle property tax is tagged by the state to be dedicated solely towards road development and upkeep. If there's ever a shortfall, they stop maintaining lesser used roads because the rest of the budget has already been decided.

This is despite the fact that it takes more than gas + property tax to fund the highway system.

Thinking about that... I get your point, non-drivers are funding the roadway system as much as drivers are.

I think its the way that gas taxes for instance are leveraged in the decision making process that makes people think that it makes the lion share of the contribution. When the proceeeds from gas tax falls, lawmakers think less people are driving thus less maintenance is needed.

Not to mention bikers inflict 0 wear & tear on the road.

Not quite zero, there are some speed bumps that I notice in NYC where the bouncing motion of the bikes has worn additional bumps in the speed bump.

Of course, you don't really need the speed bumps in the bike lane. I assume it's there because people will drive around it if it doesn't cover the entire road surface. (Protected bike lanes would fix that, but I'm not really a protected bike lane proponent, so we'll pretend I didn't mention that.)

Most bicyclists pay all those things as well. Additionally, in many states, roads are mostly paid for by other sources.

> I see more people driving break the law every day while driving then I've ever seen bikers do in my entire life. People are jerks regardless of what they use to commute with.

I don't think he (or many) would claim otherwise. The issue isn't the people who ride bikes, but rather the mode they choose to travel with and the impact it has on your drive. Bikers cause all sorts of added danger to both themselves, and you as a driver.

If you have a moment of human error in car-v-car, you're very likely to have both parties walk away from the incident. You call your insurance(s), your rates go up a bit, and your life moves on. Accidents are very, very common.

Repeat this same scenario in car-v-biker, and the odds quickly swing towards it being a life endangering accident. It's just a step away from hitting a pedestrian.

I don't dislike bikers because they slow me down or anything like that. I dislike them because of the likely increase in severity for almost all car-v-biker accidents.

edit: Interesting, seems i am getting downvotes for my opinion. Care to explain your thoughts? I can't imagine you (downvoters) feel that car-v-biker is an equal risk compared to car-v-car, do you?

Then you should be in favor of increasing biking infrastructure so that you're much less likely to make a mistake involving a bicyclist. But all the things you've said are equally true about pedestrians, which is a more dangerous, per-mile-travelled, mode of transportation than biking. And bike lanes in NY make pedestrians safer, too.

As a driver, it is your responsibility to manage a two-thousand-pound weapon responsibly. As you have the most power to cause harm, you also have the most responsibility to prevent it. The biggest problem with vehicles in the US is that you're "entitled" to drive without learning how dangerous you are to everyone around you, and how to navigate that danger safely. And when a motorists causes a fatal "accident" (due to texting, medical conditions, etc.), they are almost never at fault, and their driving privilege is rarely revoked. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to...

> Then you should be in favor of increasing biking infrastructure so that you're much less likely to make a mistake involving a bicyclist.

Of course i am. Not sure what made anyone think i'm not in favor of it.

Guess opinions are bad-form around this place :P

> As a driver, it is your responsibility to manage a two-thousand-pound weapon responsibly. As you have the most power to cause harm, you also have the most responsibility to prevent it. The biggest problem with vehicles in the US is that you're "entitled" to drive without learning how dangerous you are to everyone around you, and how to navigate that danger safely.

You seem to think my post was entitled, it's not. It's my opinion that i don't like them. I also do not like pedestrians jaywalking, but that doesn't mean i'm entitled. I would prefer to reduce risk by means that this article lays out.

I don't like things that increase risk. Bikers in my lane, infront of my "two-thousand-pound weapon" simply increase risk. It's like gun safety. I don't put my finger on the trigger until i'm ready to fire.

You (and i assume the downvoters?) seem to think that just because i express my opinion, that i would attempt to ban bikers from the roads completely. Far from it.

America is the only place in the world where jaywalking is a crime. The notion there is a correct route between two points is rather bizarre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

That article contradicts you, i.e.

> Poland

> Jay-walking is an offense. One may cross only at recognized crossing points if there is one within 100m. If caught by the police, the typical punishment is a > fine.[citation needed] The same applies to crossing at a red light.

> Kosovo

> It is illegal to cross the road where there are no proper pedestrian signals or signs, resulting in fines of up to 20 Euros.

Furthermore, just because jaywalking itself is not illegal does not imply that pedestrians receive right of way to cross anywhere.

So you're saying he forgot Poland?

Various car related taxes and levies dont even begin to finanace the cost of road building and maintainance. Most of that comes from VAT and income tax.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you replying to the wrong topic?

I wasn't speaking anything about taxes, just personal opinion on the danger of car-v-biker/pedestrian accidents.

Right. I don't get it. Bikers put themselves out in purposely dangerous environments and then are mystified and upset when they get hurt and angry at the environment they chose to ride in. I have absolutely zero patience for that kind of idiotic selfishness.

If somebody wants to ride a bike and wants to lobby for better bike riding infrastructure, I will be right there with them, even if it raises my taxes.

Its much more fun than driving. You can go as fast as you want and you don't have to wait in traffic jams.

My list of pet peeves

As a cyclist: motorists

As a motorist: cyclists

And MSBuild.

But yeah, studies have found that when it comes to cyclists, there are three categories: Die-hard fearless ninjas that would bike through an active firefight, bike-haters that would never bike in a million years, and casual cyclists who would bike if they felt it were safe.

Protected bike lanes are they key to getting #3 on the road.

> Die-hard fearless ninjas that would bike through an active firefight, bike-haters that would never bike in a million years, and casual cyclists who would bike if they felt it were safe.

And casual cyclists who are fearless/clueless. I'm talking the about the flip-flop wearing soccer moms pedaling their beach cruisers without helmet or lights down the PCH at night. Truly nuts.

They should get lights. You should slow down according to the conditions.

The speed limit is the absolute maximum which you must never exceed. It isn't an SLA.

As a cyclist: motorists, pedestrians, motorcycle riders(You are motorized you don't go in the bike lane)

As a motorist: cyclists, motorcycle riders (If your mode of transport requires my windows to shake for safety stop using it)

As a computer user: Stupid ui decisions

A cyclist is just a brief inconvenience. It's the same as a school bus or slow driver in a lane requiring you to go around.

Every bike on the road is one less car causing traffic. It's crazy to want infrastructure for JUST cyclists when the road is a perfectly good way to travel.

Sorry, but John Forester was wrong - not about the mechanics of vehicular cycling, but the psychology. I'm a year-round, go-anywhere cyclist who rides in mixed traffic on side streets and major arterials alike, and I understand that this puts me in an extreme minority: more than 99% of people simply will not ride a bike unless they have a safe-looking, physically protected space in which to do it.

North America spent the past four decades telling people it's safe to ride a bike in car traffic. Several European cities spent that time building continuous networks of dedicated, physically protected cycle tracks. All you need to do is compare how the modal splits have changed over that time to know which approach was more successful.

It seems to me that it's obvious the Euro-way is the better one. Get cyclists off the roads and safe. I agree with the OP, sharing space with unprotected humans wearing nothing but a few grams of styrofoam on their head for protection is not a great place to be when operating any kind of motor vehicle.

I am amazed how some people think that with more facilities everyone will start cycling. It is fun but also quite impractical and sometimes very uncomfortable. It is only really feasible for most people if they live close to their work. Cars make people live much further.

Not everyone. Around here however more and more people bike.

Me I drive the car some days and the bike other days. I wish for bike lanes equally much when I'm in the car and when I'm on my bike. (I'm a biker so I'm allowed to say this: Yes you are allowed to ride you bike in the main street around here but it shows a real lack of understanding when you have a row of cars queing up behind you, and a choice between a sidewalk, another route and several less crowded streets to choose from and still choose to use the main road.)

I think it'll definitely make biking more approachable for people who are interested but scared to ride next to vehicles and their inattentive drivers. One side benefit of lots of bike lanes is that they're also good spaces for people on foot, sidewalks kind of aren't necessary so long as you follow basic ideas about slower traffic to the right and faster traffic to the left.

Actually we all hope that with more facilities living much closer to your work becomes more viable.

> I am amazed how some people think that with more facilities everyone will start cycling.

I didn't say everyone will start cycling, I said more people will start cycling. Please stop attacking a straw man.

Perhaps the solution is to live closer to where you work.

The road is not a perfectly good place for bikes to travel. It's like saying the conveyor belt in an automated slaughter house is a good place to dance because it's flat and doesn't move too fast or that pedestrians should just walk down the middle of the road because it's not a bad walking surface.

The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact with because they are unprotected regardless of the circumstances of the contact. I didn't ask them to get on the road with me, but I'll sure as hell be held responsible for their decision if something happens.

More importantly, as a tax payer, I've helped fund literally dozens of miles of really nice dedicated paved and marked bike only trails, complete with parking and overpasses, tunnels and signals at busy intersections. There is literally no excuse for them to play "Tour de France" on the same road I'm trying to get to work on.

If there were only cyclists on the road, the worst accident would be a few broken bones. You chose to bring a potentially lethal device onto the roads, of course it's your responsibility. If I juggle chainsaws in a crowded plaza, I don't get to blame the guy who bumped into me for flinging chainsaws into people.

> More importantly, as a tax payer, I've helped fund literally dozens of miles of really nice dedicated paved and marked bike only trails, complete with parking and overpasses, tunnels and signals at busy intersections. There is literally no excuse for them to play "Tour de France" on the same road I'm trying to get to work on.

Try it. You might be surprised that these bike lanes have dead ends or obstacles or just astonishingly crappy terrain.

And don't give me the "taxpayer" line, an astronomical amount of cash is spent on roadways and expressways over and above any gas taxes or fees. Complaining about the small amount spent on bikes just makes you seem extremely petty.

> If I juggle chainsaws in a crowded plaza

That's a terrible analogy. The correct one is if I choose to juggle chainsaws in the chainsaw juggling room. And some people think it would be a good idea to come in there with me and start doing cartwheels. Then when one of them gets hit with a saw complains about all the chain saw jugglers.

All the chainsaw jugglers have accepted the risk of their activities and are even doing it in a purpose built room just for them. While the cart wheelers just want to coopt and use somebody else's space without accepting the dangers of it and despite it being purpose built for somebody else.

You keep making the same mistake - you keep saying that roads are only for motorised vehicles.

You repeat this mistake despite being shown an example US law that explicitly states that roads are not just for motorised vehicles.

No, you keep making the same two mistakes.

1) You don't actually know what the law is. You've cherry picked laws that allow bikes to share roads without having even a breath's familiarity with the responsibilities that also come with road usage and the laws that lay out those responsibilities.

2) You equate "being legal" with "being wise". It's perfectly legal for me to go on a diet of all broken glass. But it's a stupid idea. It's perfectly legal, and even specifically enshrined in law for me to go grocery shopping with a loaded shotgun and a backpack full of dynamite, but it's also idiotic.

I think to save cyclists from themselves they should have protected, dedicated bikeways that are not meant for pedestrians or cars but bikes and transportation devices of similar speed and weight (roller skates to Segways). I think that this is a fantastic idea and should be the norm everywhere. I'm not retarded, a psychopath, or ignorant of what the law says. But I do have to share the road with cyclists who are and to save them from themselves I wholly support the above engineering and planning ideas and would even be willing to sacrifice my own income to make this a reality in the form of higher, purpose designated taxes.

If you have a problem with my attitude fine, but you're doing absolutely nothing to dissuade me from my preconceived notions that the community of cyclists I deal with every week is made up mostly of entitled assholes with a death wish.

Anybody who looks at a 40+ mph undivided two lane road with poor visibility and double yellow no passing lane markings and says "I'm going ride my bike there" is perfectly legal to do so. But they're also idiotic morons.

And when they complain that that journey wasn't safe, not because there isn't a good bike lane, but because of all the cars on that purpose built automotive surface driving exactly as they were supposed to, they can go fuck themselves. Because I'm not responsible for their stupidity.

Find any law that probibits bicycles from general use roads - there are none. But Cyclists are probibited from a small number of roads. The obvious conclusion is that some roads are too dangerous for cyclists and the rest are not. At least, not until self stupid cunts who are just bad drivers and who think they own the fucking road get behind the wheel.

Your entire point seems to be "I am a selfish and bad driver, so fuck everyone else".

You guys have carried this disagreement all over this post. I think bane's point is that even though it's perfectly legal to ride a bike wherever a car can go (which is not true in some cases like highways and visa-versa like biketrails), it may just not be a good idea.

I know when I ride I purposely try to avoid roads that have poor space for bikes. I don't feel safe and I don't want a distracted driver running me off the road. It took a couple near misses for me to learn that lesson, but I follow it and my rides are much more pleasant as a result.

> I think bane's point is that even though it's perfectly legal to ride a bike wherever a car can go (which is not true in some cases like highways and visa-versa like biketrails), it may just not be a good idea.

Basically. But DanBC obviously wants to push some kind of agenda to the point of absurdity.

Well you're also not being particularly pleasant in the exchange. Maybe you should go cool off or ride a bike or something to see things from his perspective.

I get where you're coming from and what you're advocating, but your presentation needs a lot of work.

That's mistake 2 again. It's like you're on auto reply.

>Try it. You might be surprised that these bike lanes have dead ends or obstacles or just astonishingly crappy terrain.

So much this. We have some fantastic bike trails in my area, but one of the primary arteries just suddenly ends about two miles from the downtown core. The official, city-endorsed route the rest of the way runs on normal surface streets.

Coincidentally, the closest I've come to being involved in a serious accident on my bike was through that section when some jackass behind me decided I shouldn't be on the road and tried to force me into a gutter. The kicker being I had just pushed off from a red light and was actually moving faster than the car in the left lane beside me at that point.

Sometimes bikes don't have any choice but to be on the road, and sometimes they're even told to by the local government.

Also fun is when the bike lane doesn't take parked cars into account, leaving it either completely obstructed or entirely in the door zone - at which point the only safe options are take the lane or walk your bike. You see that less in new construction, these days, thankfully.

Yeah, the section of road this happened on is marked with sharrows.... which are quite possibly the most useless thing in existence to a cyclist.

Cyclists also pay taxes, including for roads. Not only that, but they consume goods that were shipped, in part, by truck; thereby they put dollars into the road-based economy like everyone else.

Dedicated bike lanes tend not to exist everywhere. The initiatives for such things tend to be concentrated in city downtown areas where there are many riders. Once you are out in the boonies, there tends to be nothing. Often a piece of highway is the only realistic way to get somewhere, whether by car or bike. It's either that, or cut through a bush, corn field, or swim a body of water.

As we get away from the downtown areas, we still find bike trails, but more oriented toward recreation. They are localized into small areas and veer off useless places such as parks on the assumption that you aren't going to work, but on a picnic (if you were going to work, you would obviously drive). The trails do not form a complete system to get from A to B; even if you use them as much as possible, you have to use regular roads to get from one trail network to another. Some bike trails are also simply not built for speed; you cannot just get on these trails and pedal all out at 30 mp/h.

I agree with everything you say here which is why I support any initiative which increases the dedicated bike trail system in my area and makes it more useful.

This is bullshit. If you hit and kill a pedestrian, you're not always at fault, even though they always have the right of way. Likewise, often drivers who kill cyclists get off scott free:

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

and here's an example of it happening again, from five days ago:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/beach-633885-city-attorne...

Drivers like you are the reason cyclists have started wearing GoPros. If cyclists were so belligerent, you should mount a dash cam to start documenting their offenses.

I tend to operate under the assumption that killing a cyclist or pedestrian will probably make me feel pretty miserable and try to make sure I'm not in situations where that could happen. It's called defensive driving. No matter who ends up at legal fault in the end, having some guy killed by my car, is not something I'm interested in dealing with. And no cyclist has the right to put me in that kind of situation where that's a possibility.

I gave you an upvote for the first graf, but you're absolutely incorrect in your second 2.

> I didn't ask them to get on the road with me, but I'll sure as hell be held responsible for their decision if something happens.

Even granting "sure as hell" as hyperbole, you're not even close to correct. Cyclists are held to the same traffic rules as drivers, and they are often found at fault. I do think the unprotected factor is extremely relevant, pushing me to support relaxed traffic rules for cyclists. They are, in fact, not piloting a lethal weapon (as a general rule). But the status quo is overwhelmingly in favor of treating drivers and cyclists equally, if not fairly.

Again, I'll grant you the hyperbole of "literally no excuse", where all I would need is a single counterexample. You've obviously never attempted to commute as a cyclist if you think you can get from your house to your work on bike-only paths. The number of counterexamples is orders of magnitude larger than the number of qualifying examples. For you to even come close to believing your statements tells me you live in an idyllic outlier of a community. Sign me up.

Bikes are the main form of transport for a lot of people. They aren't interlopers playing Tour de France on your road, they are fellow travellers who are going somewhere.

No, nobody bike commutes around here. I drive the main arteries out of my area every day and never see a cyclist. Not once in 8 years.

It's no surprise because the bike infrastructure stinks on those roads (which I'd be more than happy to support with my tax dollars to fix, and even give up a travel lane to make it happen).

It really is almost all sports bikers. It's all in the local area (I live in a very big development with almost zero office space anywhere nearby). It's hard to explain, but it really is just people tooling around in the suburbs and between developments training for bike races or triathlons.

It's a source of constant consternation and local messageboard discussion for the residents here who do have to get out of the suburb and to their jobs because all the cyclists really do impeded traffic to and from the arterial roads. What's specifically infuriating is that there's dozens of miles (maybe hundreds) of very well built and designed bike trails all over the same area, one of which even provides connectivity all the way into the major city some 30 miles away and intersects cleanly into several neighboring major employment centers (that almost all have branching connecting trail systems) along the way. I know the county next door has something like 500 miles of connected paved bike trails. But despite that, these guys will still get out on all the roads around here, endanger themselves and block traffic up for miles. I'm not sure how many there are, but it's enough to support a nice local bike store within walking distance from my house. But it's probably in the low hundreds.

Honestly, it only takes a dozen or so to fuck all the roads up every week.

The cyclists, not surprising don't give two shits and get on the local boards to make sure to let everybody know that and that their hobby is more important than everybody else.

Car infrastructure is WAYYYYYY more expensive than bike infrastructure, dude. Even though as a percentage of their funding, more of car infra is paid for by the users, the absolute costs are so enormous that it doesn't matter.

Drivers don't subsidize cyclists, it's the other way around.

Respectfully, you seem a bit unhinged over this.

How, exactly, are you harmed by having to share the road safely with non-motor vehicles? Your stated concern over protection applies equally to motorcyclists, yet you seem to have no problem with them.

Your real concern seems to a presumption that you would get to work faster if it weren't for bicyclists. This is very unlikely in reality, and certainly no more than a couple minutes in the worst case. A belief that your right to get to work 2 minutes faster trumps other citizens' entitlement to use and enjoy public rights of way safely is somewhat sociopathic.

I can relate, though. This is what car commuting does to a lot of people. It's dog-eat-dog and me-first out there, with few norms of or need for civility. I've been there. It eats away at you progressively and makes life objectively worse. Explore your options for transit or ride-sharing or find a job you can walk, bike or take transit to. It really makes a huge difference in quality of life.

Yeah, because heaven forbid a cyclist hits a rock or something and ends up as a bumper decoration on my car through absolutely no fault of my own. I don't want to deal with the risk or guilt of something like that happening and it's not the cyclist's right to make that kind of decision for me.

Cars are extremely dangerous to be around when in motion. Motorcyclists are also at risk, true, but they can move at car speeds and don't become a road obstacle to be avoided. I don't have any personal history of motorcyclists droning on and on about how unsafe the roads are when they're driving at some fraction of the speed limit and swerving in and out in front of speeding cars. But as the comments in just this thread indicate, cyclists seem to think the entire road system was purpose built for them and anybody not on two human powered wheels should adjust everything else they're doing just for them. No matter how you approach the topic, cyclists have convinced themselves this is true and it's every other person in the world's fault that they entered into an unsafe practice.

When my grandmother was learning to drive quite late in life (in her 50s). There were roads that she was literally unsafe driving on. Somebody recommended that maybe she should't drive on those roads. And you know what? She thought it was a good idea and didn't. She didn't blame all the people who drive above 60 mph, or the road engineers, or anybody else. She recognized that she was taking part in an unsafe practice and chose not to do it. She spent time finding alternate routes and ways to get where she wanted without dealing with those roads and as a result never had a road accident.

Runners, skateboarders, rollerskaters, motorcyclists, segway riders....in general don't act like bicyclists and don't have this specifically shitty attitude. A cyclist wants to meander along the middle of a high speed road and nearly get killed several times over, well that's the cars' fault. Cyclist runs a stopsign and nearly gets flattened? Cars' fault. Cyclist grabs my window well for a push off and damages the weatherstripping, well fuck me because he's on a bike and I should just know better than to expect a drive where my personal property doesn't get molested and damaged by cyclists.

Even suggesting that "maybe you shouldn't have been riding on that road" or "maybe you should be observing traffic signals" or "maybe you shouldn't put your hands on other people's property" is met with an almost militant rebut.

For fun find a cyclist discussion somewhere where they complain about something like this and post a mildly worded suggestion and see what kind of response you get. I absolutely guarantee it won't be "yeah, you know what, maybe we should be observing traffic laws like we're supposed to"

'For fun find a cyclist discussion somewhere where they complain about something like this and post a mildly worded suggestion and see what kind of response you get. I absolutely guarantee it won't be "yeah, you know what, maybe we should be observing traffic laws like we're supposed to"'

The East Bay Bicycle Coalition, at least, explicitly tells bikers to abide by the laws, and offers classes in (amongst other things) what those laws are. I fully agree that there are bicyclists that don't know what they're doing and ride unsafely, and I condemn that - as do a lot of other people I know who bike more regularly than I.

Part of the problem is that people get bikes as kids, then as they got older just start using them on the road without any real understanding of the laws and regulations on bikes. They don't realize that it's a vehicle, there's no required driver training, or licensing or anything to ride a bike on the road like with a car.

As kids you can kind of ride your bike wherever you want, as adults riders just sort of expand where they can ride to include roads and don't really give much thought to it. Police don't really seem to enforce the laws either, so you're kind of on your own to educate yourself or develop some method of ridership that works.

I agree that this is a root cause of some of the problems we see. I do think those problems are less prevalent than some assert, but I'd love for them to be less prevalent still. I approve of increased enforcement of the laws that apply to bicycles, provided the enforcement was sane and prioritized safety.

Note that the bicycle safety classes I mention above was not only free, they gave out free lights to boot!

> Note that the bicycle safety classes I mention above was not only free, they gave out free lights to boot!

Oh that's awesome. I would have loved to have had something like that. Do you know if they have local police come in and give safety talks as well? Cops see everything and they have all kinds of stories and advice to give.

There weren't any cops there the time I went - that could be great or go poorly, depending on the cop... but probably something worth looking into (idk if they have).

Lots of places have a dedicated community outreach officer. It would be worth calling the local precinct and finding out if they have somebody who can talk about road safety. You guys might even have some bike cops who can share and commiserate.

I'm not terribly involved, but I'll bring it up next time I get the chance!

Heh, "literally dozens of miles", that's hilarious.

How many thousands of miles of streets do you have locally?

How many hundreds of millions of cars driving how many billions of road miles are driven by cars vs. bikes?

Is the decision to build roads for cars and not bikes still confusing for you?

What do you mean, "still" confusing?

I'm not confused. I just think it's hilarious to present "dozens of miles" as if it were a lot. I make no comment on the correctness of the quantity built.

Well, I know in my development specifically we built about 40 miles of paved bike trail. The neighboring developments all have connecting trails of similar size.

It all connects into the regional bike trail system which includes a 50 mile paved and marked trail that gets you literally from farmland into the major city and crosses through almost every other sizable city and employment center along the way, each with connecting bike systems of their own. I don't know for my county specifically but the neighboring county has something like 500 miles of paved bike trail. I'm pretty sure my county isn't quite that extensive or well integrated but it's almost all fairly new, within the last 20 years.

It doesn't bring every town to within a friendly bike ride, but if you live and work near the 50 mile main trail, it's reasonable to bike commute to work every day.

The whole system across 3 counties and about 3 million people is something like 20 times the size of Copenhagen's to put it into perspective. It's just that my taxes mostly cover my local area and we're probably at under 100 miles of trail all told or about half what all of NYC has.

I don't know if that's a lot or not. It's not a mirror of the road system in terms of size (which I'd personally like to change), but it's no slouch either.

At this point in time, the road is the only good place for a bike to travel.

Maybe you can slow the fuck down and stop acting so entitled, then you won't have near as many troubles.

I'm OK with the occasional cyclist. It is when there is a group of 30 from a club riding in a pack, going 15 MPH, on a 45 MPH highway with not a lot of passing areas that get irritating. The other thing that I don't like is having to pass the same cyclist several times in traffic. They pass you on the right when traffic is stoped, but don't move over so you can pass them on the left when traffic starts to move again.

Im sure its annoying, but its that way for a reason. You are belted into a multi-thousand-pound steel-reinforced vehicle. They are riding on some pipes with a Styrofoam block strapped to their head.

I most states its legal for cycles (motor and non) to pass cars and pull to the head of the line at a light. Not sure why; but that's the way it is. Stopped cars + agile cyclist = no problem.

When traffic is moving after the light, the car sure as heck better leave some room for the cycle, because any error there means an ambulance.

The thing is, every time a car passes a bicycle on a busy road, especially one that isn't designed to accommodate bicycles and cars safely (i.e., one with 0 inches paved shoulder to the right of the white line) it is inherently dangerous. And if the bicycle causes the same car to pass multiple times, the agitation of the driver goes up. The safe thing to do, is for the bicycle to go ahead and pass on the right, stop at the light, then wait for the cars that already passed once to clear through the intersection before proceeding. At least that's what I try to do when I cycle to work (i.e., not treat the cars as enemies, but to be empathetic). And if I happen to be on a road with a lot of traffic, I'll periodically hit the gravel for a bit for cars to get around me if there is oncoming traffic.

struggling to think of a more unsafe and misguided approach to cycling in traffic than continually exiting and reentering the road. bizarre

If I'm on a 2-lane road, and gravel next to the white line... a car is passing me and having to cross the center line. Meanwhile, a big gravel truck is approaching over the hill in the oncoming lane. The 4000 lb car to the left of me can either wrestle with the 25000 lb gravel truck, or the 200 lb me. Now guess why I'm willing to hit the gravel and let the car back over.

> I most states its legal for cycles (motor and non) to pass cars and pull to the head of the line at a light. Not sure why; but that's the way it is.

Try staying for a minute or two behind a vehicle that has its engine running and burning fuel. In a line at a light inhaling exhaust is enough to make you dizzy—at least that's what happened to me when I tried it once. Always pulling right to the light afterwards.

> I most states its legal for cycles (motor and non) to pass cars and pull to the head of the line at a light. Not sure why; but that's the way it is. Stopped cars + agile cyclist = no problem.

A lot of lights in London have a space marked out at the front reserved for cyclists and motorcyclists so that they don't get cut up by vehicles making a turn.

> I most states its legal for cycles (motor and non) to pass cars and pull to the head of the line at a light.

It's legal in exactly one state: California. I think it's a wink and a nod for bicycles (or maybe it is legal for pedal bikes, I just don't care enough to look), but it is most definitely illegal outside of CA for motorcycles. One lane == one vehicle. I can even dig out the relevant section of the Revised Code of Washington, 'cause it sure would be sweet to lane split in WA but the RCW says "no".

The car passing and pulling to the head of the line makes more sense for motorcycles. They have faster starts then cars and are relatively more vulnerable. If they go first they do not slow starting cars down while lowering the chance of collision.

This is not true. There are other transportation means such as buses and subways.

If you're lucky and live in an area that has a good public transportation infrastructure. But even in NYC, I can usually get to where I'm going on my bike in half the time it would take via public transit.

> Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars.

While I understand the sentiment you need to understand that cyclists are put in a pretty awkward legal situation themselves. They exist in a no-mans-land between pedestrians and vehicles.

Sidewalks are often too narrow, too close to blind corners, etc for safety. They're often VERY bumpy. At 2mph a sidewalk is fine, but at 15mph it tries to shake your bicycle apart. Pedestrians don't expect cyclists on the sidewalk and that can make for horrific collisions.

In the street cyclists get no respect. Cars cut cyclists off making right turns regularly. "Dooring" is a very real phenomena that can put people in the hospital. Cyclists regularly get killed by cars and the drivers suffer no real consequences.

Here's a NYT article on precisely this subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to...

> pure safety concerns for the biker (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident)

As you can see from the NYT article that's often not true at all. The police tend to look at cyclists the way you do, and many times don't find fault with drivers even if cyclists are KILLED much less injured or have their bikes destroyed.

> generally shitty entitled attitude lots of bike riders seem to have (probably earned from dealing with irritated drivers like me)

A lot of the shitty attitude has to do with a constant fear of death. Further cyclists are definitely treated as second class citizens on the road, despite being required to obey all traffic laws however ill-suited they are for pedal powered vehicles.

But if the law applies evenly to cars and bikes then cyclists have every right their three feet of roadway and possibly the WHOLE lane (depending on how wide the shoulder is and the lanes are) without fearing for their lives. But often that's not the case. It makes "sharing the road" a very adversarial experience and worse is that cyclists can't see who's about to run them over, honk at them, swerve far closer than legal, throw something, etc because the cars are usually going faster than the cyclist.

The idea that bike riders have shitty attitudes and drivers do not is a non-starter. The problem -- as you've stated -- is best solved by making dedicated room for cyclists rather than expecting everyone to just magically get along in situation which rewards neither for doing so.

>despite being required to obey all traffic laws however ill-suited they are for pedal powered vehicles.

I absolutely agree with this general sentiment. Bikes aren't vehicles and can't perform like a motorized vehicle along virtually any parameter. They shouldn't be regulated like a vehicle and they shouldn't be sharing space with vehicles.

They also clearly aren't pedestrians since sharing space between bikes and pedestrians is usually a bad experience for everybody (I've been hit by numerous bike riders while out jogging or walking on local trails. They usually yell at me for blocking their path if the collision causes them to have to stop or fall). However, because they move at much higher speeds than pedestrians, they're dangerous in mixed spaces.

But they're a valid form of transport. But clearly distinct from both other modes. So I fully support bikes having distinct travelways. I'm even delighted that my tax dollars might help pay for it.

I don't understand this perspective that much. Have you seen how road traffic works internationally, specifically Europe? There are many examples where significant bike traffic can safely share the road with cars. The Netherlands is one of the best examples here.

The issue is that: 1) Road design - many/most cities do not have adequate road engineering to deal with bikes 2) Driver training - Road drivers in the US aren't trained to deal with non-car traffic 3) Weak Bike traffic law enforcement - I don't think that bike negligence is a key cause of accidents but I do agree that police enforcement of traffic laws on cyclists is lax.

So I disagree with the notion that bike traffic needs to have a separate roadway from urban traffic. I think there are plenty of good examples where a sharing system works.

Well, up top, I specifically endorsed the protected bike lanes as a good idea. I'm not sure if that counts as "separate" or not, but I'm on board with the idea.

I've spent months all over Europe, and in general, in cities cars are a liability, bikes work much better. In the countryside, the motorways I've been on are basically deathtraps for bikes and I've never seen one on them (likely due to it being illegal or some such but I wouldn't know).

You've been hit by numerous bike riders while out jogging or walking on local trails?

This is mind-blowing. As a former distance runner, I've put in 10,000+ miles of running on trails, on sidewalks and on small roads and done so in several countries. In over a decade of that, I was never hit by any cyclist. Even in terms of close calls I can only remember a couple. What kind of trails do you frequent and what the heck are you doing to get hit not once but numerous times? Are you using some kind of headphone that blocks out surrounding sounds?

I had a full on collision last year that sprained my elbow so bad I may have to get surgery. I'm waiting to see if it heals up. The bicyclist gave me an earful about blocking the shared-use trail with my walking until I called pulled out my phone to call the cops and then he high tailed it out there. It was literally a vehicular hit and run. And if I need surgery will cost me thousands of dollars and months of physical therapy on top of the medical and physical therapy bills I've already paid.

About a month ago I was clipped by a guy in full kit who then kept on pedaling without checking on me (another hit and run).

My wife was pushed off a trail by another guy in full tour de France kit while out for a walk earlier this summer.

I've probably been hit or clipped or pushed a half dozen times since I moved into my neighborhood. I could go on.

Bike riders around here are really serious about their hobby and are generally assholes to anybody who gets in their way.

That's pretty awful and I can see how it might affect your views on cyclists. I would want to punch those guys myself.

I had the good fortune to start cycling seriously with a university club where the coach was really strict about safe riding being a pre-requisite to participation and as such I don't do the kinds of things you're talking about. In fact most of the cyclists I know don't do that stuff either.

But just because I'm not exposed to a bunch of jackasses doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think your support of separate spaces for separate uses is admirable given the bad experiences you've had.

Thanks. I support cycling, I think it's great. I wish it was easier and more practical to do in the U.S.

What I don't support is this weird viewpoint that lots of American cyclists seem to have that the world revolves around their hobby and/or transportation choice. America was built around the car, it sucks, but that's the way it is. I don't like it, I wish it wasn't that way and I'm absolutely in love with the current trend in urban planning to de-emphasize the car and reemphasize more efficient transport modes: bikes, trams, subways, etc.

As somebody who doesn't live in a city, this trend is not good for me because it makes it hard to get in and out of the city. But I recognize it as a better way for more people than just me and my car and I can get myself over my minor inconvenience and just drive to the local mass transit link and walk a bit instead of fighting for parking downtown.

There's a balance somewhere, but cyclists don't seem to want to recognize it. They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they block traffic and cause safety issues.

I recognize that not all cyclists are like this, but damn if the ones around my area aren't some kind of special crop of bastards (and there's enough of a population that bikes to support a very nice local bike shop I can walk to). I'm actually hoping that with better bike infrastructure more people get on bikes and drown these kinds of assholes out. The more people biking, the greater the political lobby to continue building out good balanced infrastructure for everybody and the more unacceptable it will be for bad cyclists to get onto automobile roads.

If you want an idea of the kind of nonsense I deal with almost weekly, here's a picture I found (not my area but looks close enough) https://imgur.com/q1xM217

To be clear, I don't really have a problem with this https://imgur.com/E8CGnmt other than I hope the guy on the left doesn't fall over or veer into highway traffic. But they're both off the road, not bothering anybody and doing their thing.

You know what I'd love to see in that second picture? A barrier between me and them and that shoulder turned into a dedicated, clearly marked bike trail. At intersections, I'd love to see tunnels and overpasses purpose built for them. I'd love love love that.

> They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they block traffic and cause safety issues.

The part I take issue with is "were not intended" because the laws are very clear on what rights and responsibilities cyclists have when using the roads. The law gives them a right to be there.

The majority of states laws on the matter say that you have to ride as close as is practicable to the edge of the road and that cars are required to give you a three foot space when passing or overtaking or whatever you'd like to call it. And then many go on to state that when the lane is narrow enough that cars can't give you the three feet and still pass safely, you get the whole lane. In Texas and Florida if the lane is less than 14 feet wide there is no adjacent, designated bicycle lane (not the shoulder, but a designated lane) then the cyclist has the right to the whole lane.

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

In many states you're legally allowed to ride two abreast provided that it doesn't impede traffic so in cases with wide enough bike lanes this is OK and it's also allowed on roads where the lane is less than 14 feet wide and there is no bike lane.

http://www.biketexas.org/en/infrastructure/texas-bicycle-law...

A lot of states also have laws that specify that cyclists must pull over and let cars pass if more than say 5 of them are piled up behind a cyclist, unable to pass. That's definitely a legitimate grievance for cars as they have the right to demand the cyclist let them pass but few know about the law much less follow it.

In the first picture you linked the lane looks to be of questionable width (probably less than 14 feet) in which case what the riders are doing is not only legal but also for their own safety. Once more than 5 cars are behind them though, they all need to pull off and let everyone pass. I suspect that most of the cyclists you encounter conveniently "forget" about that part of the law, aggravating drivers.

The "take the lane" laws are on the books so that cyclists can prevent cars from passing on roads that aren't wide enough to safely permit passing. It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right.

I can understand the frustration you feel when cyclists follow the law and take up a whole lane, and further when they break the law and don't allow passing. But that's what the law says so I have to respectfully disagree about the use of the word "intended"

So two things. By "intended" I specifically mean the semantics of the travelway. Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. Everything from angle to speed surveys are done specifically for the automobile. Is that a great injustice to other forms of transportation? Perhaps, but that's the way it is. It's changing, and roads are more commonly being designed and engineered to support other transport options, but there's still a long way to go with that.

Second, there's a very big difference between things being legally allowed and them being wise to do. It is perfectly legal for me to walk in the road along a road with no available sidewalk. Is it wise? Probably not.

So the problem I have is that bikes are allowed on roads, but I don't think they should be. The cry then is "well where will they go?" and I strongly propose that purpose built bike lines be built to accommodate cyclists. I recognize that it won't happen overnight, but it is happening.

> It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right.

The law in most states also specifically forbids impeding traffic (hence the 5 car law you pointed out in some jurisdictions). In others "impeding" is left open to interpretation by an officer of the law. But 20 in a 50 is impeding and I'd argue that it's not only not safe for everybody on the road, but faster vehicles (mopeds and scooters) are not even allowed on such roads (at least in my jurisdiction), which I think it a clear oversight in the law.

But bikes get an unbelievable amount of leeway. In situations where other vehicles are prohibited, or pedestrians aren't allowed, bikes get a free pass. I've never even heard of a cyclist in my area getting a ticket for anything. But I can sit out on my front porch and watch cyclists run the stop sign in front of my house all day.

I think that's wrong and I think the right way to deal with it is not to ban bikes, but to give them a better place to go and start enforcing cyclist's responsibilities.

> Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop.

I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Perhaps where you live they are, but there are many places where they are not.

I agree that getting cyclists off the car traffic lanes and into designated cycling lanes is the best solution to these issues.

Does the fact that some cyclists get away with running stop signs (which many cars also run, or merely slow down rather than "full and complete stop" at) somehow offset the fact that when cyclists die at the hands of a driver little to nothing happens to said driver?

Personally I think that cyclist deaths and the lack of consequence for drivers is a problem. And I'm all for ticketing cyclists who blatantly run stop signs; less so of ticketing cyclists who slowly roll through stop signs the same way many drivers do.

What's fair is fair and if cars can get away with it then cyclists should too. If cars can't, cyclists shouldn't either.

There's a little over 4 million roads in the U.S. (streets to highways) about 3 million of those are non-urban paved. So even if the remaining million miles of road are all designed specifically for bikes, I can guarantee the other 3 million were not.

> What's fair is fair and if cars can get away with it then cyclists should too. If cars can't, cyclists shouldn't either.

I absolutely agree.

> The police tend to look at cyclists the way you do, and many times don't find fault with drivers even if cyclists are KILLED much less injured or have their bikes destroyed.

I mostly drive these days, but I'm no friend of cars in general or police for that matter. However it's important to keep in mind that injustices occur both ways, and forming blanket statements is a great way to end up just talking past one another.

Many drivers do stupid things (eg right turns, doors), many bikers do stupid things (eg ride on wrong side of road, sidewalks). That doesn't indict either group.

If 'bane is worried about being wrongfully found at fault for an accident with an irresponsible biker, I would say the best approach would be to get a dash cam (or five).

I think the consequences of the injustices are highly asymmetric and that skews people's sense of what is right and wrong.

Cyclists tend to pay with their bodies or their lives when something goes wrong in the street. Drivers -- at least when cyclists are involved -- do not. And often they do not get prosecuted at all. Please read the article linked, it has several examples. I can find plenty more if you like.

If a driver suffers a 30 second delay when a cyclist does something stupid but a cyclist suffers death when a driver does something stupid it's not entirely unreasonable to discount the injustice that drivers suffer at the hands of cyclists.

Furthermore you allude to "sidewalks" as something that cyclists can do wrong. I disagree. Few states have laws prohibiting sidewalk riding though some cities have passed laws against it.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/08/legal-to-ride-...

I couldn't agree more that the best protection a driver has is a dashcam. Just the threat to the other party (driver, cyclist, pedestrian) that such a thing exists might well convince them to not pursue a frivolous claim.

I'm well aware of cases like the recent CA Sheriff's Deputy, and think it would be appropriate to charge him with manslaughter.

I agreed with the rest of your comment, just thought that specific passage was starting to preach past.

My original point is that a police bias against bikers doesn't refute that in a different situation, a driver may be incorrectly civilly blamed for an accident. Let's say a biker comes around a corner on the wrong side of the road, the oncoming car manages to stop, yet the biker then hits the hood and unluckily dies. The biker is clearly responsible for this, yet if the driver's insurance pays out a $100k wrongful settlement, nobody is going to feel bad for them.

Also it's quite possible that "responsible for" was meant in the moral sense of controlling a ton of steel - that's what we want people to do, right?

I was referencing "sidewalks" still in the context of cars - a biker coming into an intersection from the sidewalk at speed is an unsafe menace.

Honestly reflecting on this thread, I bet this would be a ripe topic for researching degenerate us-vs-them politics.

>> However it's important to keep in mind that injustices occur both ways, and forming blanket statements is a great way to end up just talking past one another.

That's not true. Did you look at the New York Times article? The prosecution rate of motorists who kill cyclists in non-hit-and-run crashes is close to 0. In several major cities, it is actually 0. So no, the injustices do not go both ways.

Your point does not refute what I said. It shows that no drivers have been criminally blamed, ruling out one kind of injustice against drivers. Other injustices, such as undeserved wrongful death/bodily injury compensation may have occurred.

Regardless, OP isn't normally this obtuse. He's clearly reacting to a perceived injustice, even if it does not exist. Please read my above comment again and try to understand why I wrote it.

Actually if you want to take that article literally it means that in almost every case a cyclist is killed it's their fault. Demonstrating once again that cyclists presume everybody else's area, even to the point of danger to themselves.

> Actually if you want to take that article literally it means that in almost every case a cyclist is killed it's their fault.

Right, because all police officers and DAs and everyone is 100% unbiased in all circumstances no matter what?

Also from the article:

"Take Sgt. Richard Ernst of the San Francisco Police Department, who confronted people holding a memorial at the scene of Ms. Le Moullac’s death. Parking his squad car in the bike lane, forcing other cyclists into the very traffic that killed Ms. Le Moullac, Sergeant Ernst berated those gathered, according to witnesses, and insisted that Ms. Le Moullac had been at fault. Days earlier, the department had told cycling activists that it had been unable to find surveillance footage of the crash.

Provoked by Sergeant Ernst, people at the memorial decided to look for themselves. It took them all of 10 minutes to find an auto shop nearby with a camera that had footage of the incident. The police eventually admitted that the truck driver was at fault, but they still have not pressed charges."

Truck runs over and kills woman. Cops don't cite or charge truck driver, nor do they investigate. Friends do investigate, turns out the driver was at fault. Still no charges by the DA. Clearly there is some bias.

No, you're right. I was irritated when I wrote the above.

That's incorrect. At the most, you could only infer that it wasn't legally the driver's fault. There's a huge middle ground where fault won't be pinned on either side.

The difference is that drivers are killing cyclists without consequences, while cyclists aren't killing drivers, because it's not physically possible.

So, cyclists can't physically cause road accidents that kill drivers? Interesting (and false :P)

I can't think of any scenario where a driver could kill somebody in an accident where the driver isn't at fault for it, except for cases where the cyclist at fault gets themselves killed. How does it work?

Here's an easy one that's almost happened to me a few times.

Picture this.

http://wabikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Snohomish_bicy...

Guy on bike hits a rock or crack in the road or whatever and loses control, veers or falls in front of the car in his lane. Speed limit on the road is 40. No time to brake the driver is forced to cut across the double yellows into the oncoming lane where he hits another car head on (driving above the speed limit doing 50). Drivers in both cars are killed instantly.

Second scenario: seeing the oncoming car, the driver veers to the right, goes offroad and down an unseen gully, hits a tree head on and is taken to a hospital by an ambulance but dies from head injuries along the way.

Of course there's the third scenario where the cyclist is killed: Driver can't do anything, tries to brake, but runs over the cyclist killing him in the process.

All three scenarios are why I support this kind of road having dedicated bike-only zones off the shoulders.

Based on the width of that road it's entirely likely that the motorist is breaking the law by trying to pass when the road is too narrow to do so.

I agree with you that having dedicated bike-only lanes are a far superior solution to the bike/car traffic interaction problem.

Unfortunately in the scenarios described the driver is generally going to be at fault for doing something unsafe. I sympathize because doing the safe thing and waiting is not only inconvenient but also somewhere between frustrating and infuriating. But given the picture you linked to, the driver is at fault.

Now in the situation where there's a 3ft shoulder and the cyclist is riding in it and goes down and falls into the road forcing a driver to make a horrible choice between a bunch of bad options then yes I'm very sympathetic to the points you make.

But in that case the cyclist has 3ft to maneuver and probably doesn't hit the rock or the crack or veer or whatever. Furthermore a cyclist moving along at a decent clip is going to have a very hard time changing directions fast enough to get out into the road and under a car without giving the driver time to react. Bikes don't turn on a dime at 20mph. If you fall at 20mph you basically keep going in whatever direction you were headed, possibly with limbs flailing. Your center of mass can't just instantly move 3-5 feet perpendicular to the direction of travel.

If the cyclist loses control due to some other circumstance then whatever happens is on him for not maintaining control of his vehicle. Perhaps he could be prosecuted for manslaughter or get sued for wrongful death. I don't have a problem with that; real life has consequences.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. My stand is that cyclists shouldn't be on that road to begin with. Even legally, at some point that cyclist is going to impede traffic and should then pull to the side. But there is nowhere for him to safely pull off to! Ergo, he shouldn't be riding there because it's unsafe for bikes.

Practically (not legally because let's be honest, most people drive safely a bit over legal limits) any car driver in that situation is going to pass that guy. But to do so they have to perform an illegal pass. Again the situation was created by the cyclist, not the driver and I argue he shouldn't be there in the first place.

My conclusion though is not that bikes should be off of roads, but that they should have dedicated infrastructure so this guy has a way to enjoy a perfectly reasonable bike ride without causing trouble.

From the article I originally linked to:

"In stories where the driver had been cited, the penalty’s meagerness defied belief, like the teenager in 2011 who drove into the 49-year-old cyclist John Przychodzen from behind on a road just outside Seattle, running over and killing him. The police issued only a $42 ticket for an “unsafe lane change” because the kid hadn’t been drunk and, as they saw it, had not been driving recklessly."

Kid kills cyclist, but doesn't get tried even for involuntary manslaughter. Had this kid used a gun instead of a car, you can be sure that the story would have a different ending.

I believe that's a direct, nearly EXACT example of a driver killing a cyclist in an accident and not getting charged despite quite likely being at fault. If the police issued him SOME kind of a citation it stands to reason he wasn't 100% in the right. Someone else paid with their life.

Here's another example in the article:

"...Amelie Le Moullac, 24, pedaling inside a bike lane in San Francisco’s SOMA district when a truck turned right and killed her. In these articles, I found a recurring phrase: to quote from The San Francisco Chronicle story about Ms. Le Moullac, “The truck driver stayed at the scene and was not cited.”"

How many more examples would you like to see? It takes me only a minute or two to dig these up as they're all over google. I don't have to go past the first page.

...What?

I was replying to a comment saying that cyclists can kill people on the road by causing accidents. I responded by saying that I can't figure out that could happen without the driver being at fault, with the exception of the cyclist getting himself killed.

I'm well aware of drivers killing cyclists and getting away with it. That's not what I was talking about.

Whoops, you're right! I think I missed part of that exchange the first time.

If I take your statement out of context my reply sort-of makes sense but now I see that it doesn't really.

Oh well, at least your comment is interesting even if out of place.

The argument made that i responded to was "while cyclists aren't killing drivers, because it's not physically possible"

This seems really simple: Cyclist decides to swerve across lanes without signaling, causing a car to need to break and swerve into a concrete barrier (or get hit by a truck, or whatever), and die.

Cyclist is at fault for not signaling (among other things). He caused driver to die.

I don't see why the cyclist would die in this scenario, assuming the car was successful in avoiding them prior to driver's death.

That asymmetry will always exist. The only way to eliminate it is to prevent any accident between bikes and cars by having completely separate networks.

"They exist in a no-mans-land between pedestrians and vehicles."

CA law calls them "devices", though operators are still "drivers". Not that that actually means anything, just trivia.

>Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it

The road isn't just for cars. Its more dangerous for us to ride on the sidewalk and put pedestrians in danger. The road isn't for just bikes or cars, its for us to share. Its just how it is. For every entitled bicyclist you see on the road, we've seen plenty of awful drivers. I live in one of the most bike friendly cities in the country and still get yelled at by passing trucks or have people swerve at me because they think its funny.

There are horrible people out there on all different types of modes of transit. Even if you are irritated be kind to us. There are a lot of us out there who obey traffic laws and use signal when we ride. In the words of the great philosophers, "Be excellent to each other."

The parent comment seems to be endorsing provision of dedicated space to bikers. The fact that "biker on road" is safer for everyone than "biker on sidewalk" isn't any sort of an argument against that.

Have you ever tried walking between a residential area and a commercial one in a suburban area? Most places don't keep up or even fully create the second system of sidewalks - what makes you think they would actually do so for a third system?

By far, most roads we travel on have no expectation of minimum speed, passability, etc. The exceptions that do are called controlled access highways and indeed bikes, pedestrians, horses, tractors (etc) are not allowed.

Because by and large the road system is already there (and being used for cyclists). Extended the shoulder out a bit and putting a stick figure on a bike every quarter mile to show it's a place where bikes are supposed to go is at a minimum what I'm calling for.

So you think your particular mode of transport should have exclusive use of a public right of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and maintain, but it's cyclists that have the shitty entitled attitude?

Wait...you don't think particular modes of transport should have exclusive access to particular public rights of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and maintain?

So does that mean you think motorcycles should have access to the sidewalks, and pedestrians should be able to walk in the street?

Lack of exclusivity might mean sharing the same lanes for multiple modes (what you're suggesting), or it might mean giving up some real estate to build dedicated infrastructure for other modes of transport (e.g. bike lanes, etc.). Which is appropriate will depend on context. But I don't think drivers have a right to object to both having to share lanes with cyclists and to giving up car lanes to build bike lanes. Cyclists are taxpayers, too, and should be entitled to something, but to hear some drivers talk about it, any infrastructural decision that doesn't lead to cars moving as quickly as possible ought to be verboten. That's what I find objectionable.

But to more bluntly answer your question: actually, yes, at least sometimes. Though I would instead phrase it as erasing the distinction between sidewalks and streets: http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ This kind of streetscape is common in Europe and Asia, but much less so in the States.

No, I think cyclists should also have a dedicate right of way and transport infrastructure. At least as comprehensive as the automobile road network. Even if it costs me more in the form of higher tax dollars and yes, even if if I lose a travel lane because of it.

Why is that controversial or problematic? I don't understand the shitty entitled attitude of bikers honestly. I'm not only advocating for something that's safer, more pleasant and more convenient for them, but I'm willing to put my wallet to work and inconvenience myself to support it.

All I'm getting is flak over it and the responses to it are doing little to dissuade me of my already negative opinion of cyclists as a population.

I totally agree - bikes should not be sharing the road with angry entitled nasty car drivers. Solution - get rid of the cars. Seriously. Make all traffic lanes in city cores bikes only, and make public transit free for everyone. Have dedicated hours at night when delivery vehicles can use the roads. BTW, I drive and bike and would be willing to give up a lot of the convenience of using my vehicle if these measures could be implemented.

> Make all traffic lanes in city cores bikes only, and make public transit free for everyone.

I was against you until this part. And now I'm totally with you. In the states it's tough though, the public transport system is woefully inadequate to support this idea.

In civilised countries (eg. Germany, Netherlands) cars are not allowed in the city centre. because of congestion, pollution, danger of death.

Ah yes, civilization is based solely on mode of transportation. You should become an anthropologist with such great insight.

As a motorist who sees cyclists daily, I have yet to see a cyclist obey a stop sign. I see blatant disregard for stop signs every single day. Same thing for red lights -- I see cyclists routinely disregard red lights, unless crossing a busy road, where disregarding a red light will certainly get them killed.

Studies show similar rates of law-breaking for cyclists and drivers. This is obviously more problematic for drivers, since they're the ones operating multi-ton vehicles at high speeds. After all, a cyclist breaking the laws in the way you describe is probably putting only himself at risk.

I see the same thing you see re. red lights. I don't see it as much with stop signs. The typical car I see has a higher minimum speed when going through a stop sign than the typical bicycle I see.

U.S. law already varies what you can do at a red light based on the maneuverability of the vehicle (buses can't do right-on-red). Maybe at some point we'll see variations specifically for bicycles.

Stop-as-yield for cyclists is a safe riding technique and is a law in Idaho: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

As a cyclist who sees motorists daily, I have yet to see a motorist obey a stop sign.

When I'm stopped, I have to wave cars through when it's their turn to go because they don't understand how stop signs work. (Or assume I'm not really stopped, more likely. Stop signs are a disaster.)

By that do you mean they don't stop, or that they stop for too long to let you through, thinking that you're not going stop at all? (Assuming it's a 4-way stop). If latter, then I could be that motorist as well -- I will naturally assume that cyclists will NOT stop at stop signs (since I have never seen them do so), so I would let them through preventively.

Stop being that person please! Just follow the rules of the road.

Where are you located? In Oakland, I certainly see some bicyclists break the rules, but I probably see more abiding by them. (And I see cars and pedestrians break rules, as well...)

Edmonton, Alberta. I live in a central/downtown location, where most streets are quiet 2-lanes. And like I said, I have never seen a cyclist actually stop at a stop sign. Most don't even slow down -- just a quick check to make sure they're not going to get killed, and blow right past.

In many cities it is perfectly legal for bicycles to treat stop signs as yield signs. I have no idea if this is the case in Edmonton, Alberta.

Correct, where I grew up, we were taught in school to get out of intersections as quickly as possible, or dismount and walk across the crosswalk if it was available.

it's one of the benefits of cycling. you could do the same if you weren't stuck in a big metal box. deal with it

Thanks for providing the textbook example of the self entitled cyclist.

As a motorist who drives with other motorists daily, I'm appalled at the driving habits of motorists.

I rarely see them obeying simple traffic rules.

Motorists seem incapable of obeying posted speed limits, and seem not to understand the meaning of the amber light. Motorists also have a problem with roll-stops.

I have yet to see a motorist using turn signals properly.

In consequence, I've started advocating that motorists should drive their cars on the sidewalk until they can demonstrate proper respect for the rules of the road.

Sorry, these seem like exaggerations, based on my own experience. There are certainly a percentage of motorists who ignore traffic rules, but it's nowhere near the percentage of cyclists who do so. Again, this is based on my experience only.

Come on, speed limits? Almost no drivers consistently obey posted speed limits.

My comment, which was partly satirical, was trying to point out that you're choosing to notice some infractions (running stop signs) and ignore others (speeding).

> Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars.

I think you're confusing roads with highways. A highway is a place that cars goes and bikes can't go. A bike path is a place that bikes go and cars can't go. Roads are for cars and bikes and for people to live on and near and cross on foot regularly. Imagine a cyclist saying "Cars don't operate at human-scale speeds no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with bikes and people." See how car-centric the debate is, that such a statement will be immediately dismissed.

> Bikes shouldn't be sharing the road with cars, they should have their own designated travel areas.

Everyone agrees that bikes should have their own designated areas, and cyclists especially would like nothing more than to see designated bike lanes and paths everywhere. Where those are absent, which is nearly everywhere even in urban centers in the US, traffic laws and infrastructure should be designed to accommodate all different types of road users, and preferably without killing as many of them as are currently killed each year.

> See how car-centric the debate is, that such a statement will be immediately dismissed.

It's car centric because roads are car centric. From design to paving, the vast vast majority of roads are designed purely for the automobile. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it is what it is.

I'm definitely not talking about highways. I'm talking about the average kind of road that you see for millions upon millions of miles all over the U.S.

This http://enews.ntta.org/images/2014-01/Open%20Road.jpg is not a road meant for bikes or pedestrians. But it's a typical road that you'll find almost anywhere.

This one at least has some designated space for people on bikes http://velotraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bike-lane.... but it's definitely not pedestrian friendly. However it clearly has a "cars go here" and "bikes go here" aspect to the marking design.

I would personally love to see every road everywhere at least have that. But I'd love it if the average road segregated bikes and cars even further. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960...

I'm picking these non-urban pictures on purpose, because cyclists seem to think they only exist in cities and that any problems people have about cyclists comes from angry car drivers in cities or I'm some asshole with issues with highways or something. But there are more than 4 million miles of roads (8.61 million lane miles) and almost 3 million of those are in non-urban environments. I'm personally interested in the 75% of all roads that aren't in cities because that's mostly what I and about half the U.S. population drives on. Of all these roads, less than 300,000 can be called highways. Which includes roads that look like this

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8810165,-77.3978133,3a,75y,1...

for which I think there should also be good cycling infrastructure.

>> (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident)

This is factually untrue, as much as I'd like to be so.

While it may be legally untrue, it's not ethically or emotionally untrue. If you were to take out a cyclist and be legally not at fault, don't you think you'd carry around some sense of responsibility?

"I get my hackles raised every time I see one on the roads. Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars."

Horses must really piss you off then.

I don't know if you're joking, but horses aren't much fun to share a road with either. They're slower than the traffic and literally defecate anywhere. It's positively impressive how much urine can be left behind at a stop light.

Road users come in many types. At one point cities were full of horse shit and now they are full of smog from vehicle fumes. No matter your preferred choice of ride, other people's choices may interfere with your day, but it is your choice if you let that get you angry.

Personally, I think people who become dangerously enraged from having to deal with other forms of transport, should probably not be operating a motorised vehicle on the public roads in the first place.

To be sure, driving emotionally is a terribly dangerous thing to do. Personally I thought it was cool to see the horses, but the plant engineer in me fears animals on the road (no matter how big). And the motorcyclist in me fears the giant heap of poo to slip on.

My attitude is whatever has the most momentum gets right of way; but again, I think forklifts will do that to a person. I doubt I could ever have the nerve to ride a bicycle in a city.

Well, today the entire traffic in a (supposedly) main thoroughfare in Montevideo in which I was driving was slowed to a crawl due to a horse-drawn carriage.

Not to mention they're a huge source of accidents (including mortal ones), when the horse freaks out.

Yes, they're a huge problem.

http://www.bluechannel24.com/?p=23885

http://www.pulsamerica.co.uk/2012/07/02/uruguay-crusade-to-f...

People around where I live are smart enough to keep their horses off of the roads and onto horse trails (or in a trailer when they're transporting them). And despite having hundreds of miles of dedicated bike trails I still get stuck behind some guy in full bike kit going 15 mph in the middle an undivided 2 lane 45 with double yellow at least once a week.

Being a 15-20 minutes late because he couldn't be bothered to drive his bike to one of the bike trails to play 'Tour De France' is beyond irritating.

Being in a full bike kit doesn't mean someone is playing Tour de France. For people (like me) whose quotidian bike commute is 10+ miles each, it is incredibly uncomfortable to wear street clothes, and it's very inconvenient to ride several 5+ miles out of the way to take an isolated path. Besides which, the impossibly small portion of infrastructure that doesn't allow car traffic often requires cyclists and pedestrians to mix on narrow paths that are poorly maintained.

Hang on, you want the people who are currently cycling, to drive cars containing bicycles to where the dedicated lanes are, park these cars, then cycle on, because you think this will stop you being delayed in traffic as much?

Are you this irrational in general, or is it just on this topic?

I don't give a bag of squirrels how they get there, so long as they aren't putting themselves and me in danger or inconvenience.

I'm not responsible for their decision to bike, how they get to the trails is not my concern. They've decided to take up this hobby not me. I shouldn't be penalized or made liable for their decision.

It's not their right to impose upon me their safekeeping because they decided to take an unsafe and alternate form of transportation on road surfaces that are clearly not engineered or planned for bike usage.

If they want to lobby for better bike trails and safer areas to bike. I'll be right out there holding the sign at the rally. I'll even give up extra income in the form of tax dollars to make it a reality. Because it's good for everybody. But biking on high speed roads that are unsafe for bikes isn't good for anybody.

It's not a hobby, it's a commute. And it's one with far fewer negative externalities and government subsidies than yours.

You can commute with a car or some other non endangering transport mode. But you chose to bike. If your bike infrastructure is poor and you still chose to bike then that's not my problem in the least.

It's a hobby no different than a guy who commutes with his sports car collection.

who knew programmers were such a busy lot that desperately need to get to their next location that 15 seconds faster. cyclists have a legal right to be on the road, so you need to learn to deal with it. as it stands, it doesn't sound like you should be allowed behind the wheel at all.

also, maybe you should try cycling just to see what the buzz is, though one suspects you might find that difficult for a number of reasons

Wow, that must be a frustrating 15 seconds.

Your comments in this thread strongly suggest you are unsuitable for driving cars on public roads. The law rightfully places significant burdens on those operating multi-ton vehicles in the close proximity of pedestrians and cyclists. It also recognizes bicycles as proper vehicles, giving them the right to ride on roads, at the speed and position the situation calls for.

I sincerely hope you won't ever hit anyone. This kind of attitude will do you no favors.

I've been driving for 23 years in about as many countries with not a single traffic accident (though I'll admit to a couple speeding tickets). I've driven in weather, climates and conditions as varied as polar winter conditions to mountains and desert.

I have something over a million road miles under my belt which puts me at near 20,000 hours of on the road driving experience in mixes of cities to extreme rural environments. I feel comfortable saying I'm a driving expert and that I'm a very safe driver.

I've never felt safe sharing pavement with a cyclist. Ever. Not for my own personal safety, or because of some dubious legal requirement, but for the safety of the cyclist. If you think that makes me sound like some kind of wild west psychopathic car driver hellbent on a Death Race high score spree I suggest you rethink that.

The law also puts requirements on bike riders when using public roads. It's not an unburdened responsibility. However, bicyclists would like to make it a responsibility of car drivers only (as the comments in this thread pretty clearly indicate), and have an unlimited right to use infrastructure that wasn't designed or built with them in mind. However, enforcement of those laws on bicyclists is virtually nonexistent.

The reason I feel unsafe around cyclists is that not only am I operating a complex, multi-thousand pound machine that can take me to triple digit speeds in under a minute, but because cyclists don't seem to be aware that I'm doing involved in that operation. They'll routinely swerve out into traffic, cut across busy intersections and otherwise behave like all the world revolves around them.

Not all cyclists are like this. But I'm hard pressed to find many that observe even some fraction of the laws they're supposed to follow.

there is zero chance you're a good driver. you seem pretty deluded

I bike, drive and walk in Manhattan frequently and find that I am delayed in each case by all of the modes fairly often, and cars certainly get in the way the most, especially to pedestrians. Whichever delay it is, it's just traffic. Sometimes I'll be upset about it, sometimes not. The attitude of some drivers that certain traffic is better than others is bizarrely entitled.

Most of the world is far less car centric than the US. People go outside on foot or bikes instead of traveling everywhere in cars. Cycle paths are a way to make room for cars in busy cities that would be much more pleasant without them. It should be possible for anyone to go outside without fearing for their lives or waiting for ages to cross the road. That is just good design.

Between roads, sidewalks and bike lanes, this provides a designated travel area for everybody regardless of the mode they choose to travel with.

I still have a pair of inline skates somewhere, that I used for transportation around campus when I was at university. That's about half-way between foot speed and bike speed.

Agree with this completely.

What I still don't understand is everyone is ok with someone going 15 mph or less, only wearing a helmet, with no license or understanding of traffic. Cyclists should pass a road license just like motorbikes to be on the roads IMO. Bike lanes, fine, no license. Get on the road with cars, you better understand the risks. Especially when you go 6 cyclists wide and absolutely refuse to move over or go single profile. That's just ignorance.

However, governments are blocking electric cars entirely that pass safety ratings and require valid drivers licenses from entering the market. Go figure that one out. Instead of putting more people on bikes why aren't electric cars allowed on the roads in cities?

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

One reason cyclists stay in the middle of the lane is to prevent selfish dangerous drivers from overtaking dangerously.

I haven't seen people cycling 6 abreast - I agree that's probably unacceptable and definitely infuriating.

Sharing is caring. Learn to love, not hate.

The "before and after" picture at the bottom of the page shows that both "before" and "after" have bike lanes. The bike lane has grown from 5' to 6" and is separated by a buffer, but it was there before.

What has sped up traffic is the creation of left turn pockets in the parking lane. But these could have been created in the "before" situation, by carving them out of the 8" curb-side parking lane.

So, the claim that "bike lanes have sped up traffic" is poorly supported.

I have noticed a pattern in Vox articles where the content does not support the headline.

The only claim pertaining to bikes that still stands is that the changes have improved bike safety markedly.

I agree with you that the traffic speed improvements being due to the bike lanes is poorly supported.

But still, this shows that there is room for intersection/street design improvements that do not slow down cars while making it safer for bikes.

I didn't consider this thought until reading your comment, but this is a potential example of Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen."[1] By re-engineering the roads with bikers in mind, they have created slightly faster roads for cars apparently by accident. But all of engineering is about tradeoffs, so presumably there would have been some way to make traffic even better if they didn't have to consider the fate of bicyclists at all. The authors seem to be portraying this as if it's something of a free lunch (although obviously reengineering the road has some monetary cost), but it's not. If they had spent that same money on an engineering effort directed solely at automobile traffic, they could have done better by drivers (again, presumably).

Of course, if they had actually drawn a lot of people to use bikes instead of cars thus reducing traffic, then it could be argued that engineering for bicyclists advantages drivers directly, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

1: The Seen is the result of the engineering effort that they undertook. The Unseen is the result of an alternative engineering effort with different goals.

This article is horrible. The author also states that

> One is that, for the most part, driving lanes weren't actually eliminated when they bike lanes were built — they were simply narrowed.

But there is nothing to support the claim that narrower lanes speed up traffic. Also this phrase is copy pasted verbatim further down the article.

> But there is nothing to support the claim that narrower lanes speed up traffic

My impression is that the opposite is actually true: narrower lanes tend to make drivers feel more nervous/wary, and they slow down as a result.

Lane-narrowing (and "perceptual" narrowing, adding features that make it seem narrower to drivers without actually changing the amount of space) seems to be a fairly common traffic-calming technique.

This comes from simple fluid dynamics. When a fluid is forced into a narrower pipe, it goes faster. (Venturi also tells us there is a drop in pressure, but it's not clear how this advanced aspect is applicable here.)

Someone already commented on this but it must be re-emphasized in blunter terms: the OP's title is sensationalized bullshit, period.

What has caused the improvement in speed is the building of dedicated left lanes. The fact that the city also added bike lanes at the same time does not mean that the bike lanes caused the speeding-up of car traffic (correlation != causation, and all that)...

Read from the source article that the OP references (and then glosses over):

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2014/09/when-adding-bike-la...

> So what happened here to overcome the traditional idea that bike lanes lead to car delay? No doubt many factors were involved, but a DOT spokesperson tells CityLab that the steady traffic flow was largely the result of adding left-turn pockets. In the old street configurations, cars turned left from a general traffic lane; in the new one, they merged into a left-turn slot beside the protected bike lane (below, an example from 8th and 23rd). This design has two key advantages: first, traffic doesn't have to slow down until the left turn is complete, and second, drivers have an easier time seeing bike riders coming up beside them.

Protected Bike lanes are great and hopefully we start getting Protected Intersections to go with them.

This site has a great video which describes the protected intersection. Having traversed them quite a bit as a cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian, they are delight to use.

http://www.protectedintersection.com/

This site is brilliant, and thank you for that link. I followed some of the citations. The video on the site makes it seem like it's an experimental idea, but to be clear, here is this dutch video showing that exact design in use - today - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

I can only dream of living in a place where I could bike with such safety. I regularly get honked at/shouted at in Philadelphia --- for biking in bike lanes, because, apparently, drivers in Philly believe that it is their sovereign right to drive in green painted bike lanes when they wish to turn right. Maybe I should revise my "move to Canada" life plan, and make it "move to Amsterdam".

This design radically reorients your attention to that which is in front of you thereby significantly reducing the chance that you will miss something or "not see" that ped/cyclist, etc.

In many intersections a big part of this includes clearly marking whom has the right of the way through an intersection negating the need for signals which leads to far less intersection congestion.

* As a pedestrian the ease of crossing at intersection is unmatched, no more walking halfway into the intersection to see around parked cars.

* As a cyclist it fundamentally transforms the experience. Every ride can be taken at ease and in comfort. No more fighting for your life.

* As a motorist you worry much less about hitting a cyclist or pedestrian because they are always in front of you where you can see them. NO more straining to check every blind spot 3 times before a turn.

I'm a fan of biking to work, but my inner skeptic is wondering about correlation vs. causation. You'd also have to compare the total automobile traffic levels to get a clear picture. It's possible that drivers are avoiding the streets because they assume they're worse with the bike lanes in place.

Edit: Oops, somehow I missed this part:

"You might imagine that these bike lanes decreased congestion by cutting down on the number of cars on the road. But if that played a role, it was very slight: on Columbus Ave., the DOT counted cars, and saw only a very slight drop in overall volume during morning rush hour, when travel times declined by 35 percent. Instead, it seems that a pair of design decisions are responsible."

Having 2 of my coworkers killed this year on their bike( both by drunk drivers), I wont venture out on a bike until all my path is a completely protected from cars.

Sorry to hear! As a fellow Chicago cyclist, I recommend using bike lanes as much as possible. I will go out of my way to stay on designated bike lanes. Also, the Lake path is useful during the work week. But, throughout the years, I have noticed drunk driving does rise on the weekend nights. I do my best to stay off the streets then.

On bike lanes security weighs on the bikers, since pedestrian will cross or even walk on them, you're always worried about some hidden kid running wild.

I almost got hit by a drunk driver in Chicago too. Incidentally, this happened right in front of a cop and I don't think that guy is driving anymore.

There seem to be a lot more drunk drivers in Chicago than in New York. Weird.

My perception is that Chicago is generally more car-oriented than NYC, and that although Chicago has a pretty good public transit system, NYC's is much better.

[According to wikipedia, Chicago has a car mode-share of about 60% vs. 30% in NYC. However, that's probably dominated by commuting, and my guess would be that non-commuting uses (such as going to bars) would show an even more dramatic difference...]

Wow, that's terrible. I am so sorry to hear that. Where do you live?

Chicago.

chiraq

The results here are impressive, but the particular example they show in the last picture seems pretty dangerous, unless I'm misunderstanding. It seems like it places left-turning car traffic to the right of cyclist through-traffic, creating an opportunity for "left-hooks." Many jurisdictions use mixing zones instead: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dc_mix...

(Unless there's a separate signal phase for the cyclist through-traffic, which is possible, but not that common in the US.)

Separate signals for bikers in about 80% of these intersections, the rest have signage telling drivers to yield to cyclists before turning.

They need to put up the concrete barriers on every lane. Biking on an ave A + ave B is still not safe.

An unfortunate side-effect of the protected-lane type bike lanes is that pedestrians feel much safer there too. They are right next to the sidewalks, and as sidewalks become overcrowded and overflow (very common in NYC) the bike lane turns into a sidewalk extension. The result is a very dangerous mix of walkers, joggers, luggage carriers, hotdog cart pushers, strollers, and everything else crowding the bike lane, and creating a very dangerous situation.

Still, much less dangerous than pedestrians overflowing onto car lanes. I've hit a pedestrian who stepped in front of me (I was 2 feet behind him when he stepped out), but I'm not going to kill someone when it happens. We might get hurt, there could even be blood, but unless the person is very fragile, there's next to no chance of a fatality.

Also, as bicyclists fill the bike lanes, pedestrians (at least, non-tourists. Avoid Times Square!) learn not to blindly step into the bike lane. It's a learning process, but I have noticed even throughout the last year, with CitiBikes adding to the bike traffic, that walkers seem a bit more wary of jumping through the bike lane.

I live around Ave A and in a couple block radius I've seen a woman almost get run over (her fault for running a light) and another get side-swiped by a taxi's door (looked like the taxi's fault). There's less traffic around Ave B and further east but also less room.

I lived in Shanghai for a brief period a few years ago, and there were protected lanes everywhere. It was utilized by both bikers as well as scooters. When it comes to managing loads of people, I'd imagine the Chinese have quite a bit of insight.

Compulsory Chinese traffic cartoon - http://soimgoingtochina.blogspot.com.au/2007/06/beijing-traf...

Try to drive in Chinatown. It is a nightmare with the bike lanes, let alone the traffic from along Delancey. It is nice to see the city encourage biking (well, at least for the Bloomberg administration), but the extra bike lane is hurting the safety of drivers in Chinatown, which, brings safety concern to bikers too.

Who drives in New York?

Literally millions of people.

Might not be literally, if you're only counting Manhattan (and depending on the time frame). I would venture to guess it might be in the hundreds of thousands per day in Manhattan. Only 332,000 commuters (I assume this is per day) commute to Manhattan by car: http://wagner.nyu.edu/files/rudincenter/ManhattanCommuting.p..., and I would venture to guess an even smaller number commute within Manhattan by car.

But counting all five boroughs, I am sure it is literally millions per day. Car ownership/use/commuting rates are much higher outside of Manhattan.

That's an interesting statistic. Where did you find it?

I ask because the available statistics I've seen on NYC car ownership and daily usage would make me wonder if there are even 1 million cars operated on NYC streets per day.

I didn't say that there were millions of cars each day. I said that there were millions of people who drive in NYC. 43.5% of households in NYC own a car[1]. That's approximately 1.3 million households[2]. When you take into account people driving in from the surrounding areas and households with multiple drivers, there are almost certainly at least 2 million people who sometimes drive in NYC.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/21/vital-signs-more-h...

[2] http://newyork.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm

http://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars

Those are the statistics I'm aware of, yes. Not listed is the supposed statistic I'm seeking.

The statistics are murky. According to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_Cit...

less than 30% use cars daily, but even then that's something over 2 million cars from city residents alone. I would't drive if I lived in Manhattan or along the subway in another borough, but there's some places it makes sense.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295712 is related.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com