Hacker News Reader

Comment by derekp7 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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 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. 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com