Hacker News Reader

Comment by soperj | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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 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.

"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

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).

hmm..so I looked it up.

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/safety/mhso/program-bicycle-safe...

> This ride-to-the-right provision does not apply when operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle to travel safely side-by-side with another vehicle within the lane.

> A bicyclist riding at the speed of traffic can operate in any lane, just as any other vehicle can..Where there is not a bike lane, a bicyclist may also use the shoulder of the roadway.

> Bicycles may not be ridden in the travel lanes of any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50 miles an hour; however, bicycles may be operated on the shoulder of these roadways.

So it seems to me that if I ever go back to MD, I can take over the entire lane if I'm keeping up with traffic (which for me means speeds < 20mph at full blast). Between about 20mph and 50 I can also take it over if there's no safe shoulder or other place for me to ride. Above 50 I can only ride on an available shoulder, if there's no shoulder I can't go on the road at all.

Maybe that's what I was thinking of. Either way I don't like to get out in front of cars, except maybe in the local neighborhood on residential streets where they're not supposed to be exceeding 15mph anyways.

I'm not familiar with MD law, and of course IANAL, but your summary seems a fair synthesis of the bits you quoted.

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

"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 :)

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

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/...

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.

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

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 ;)

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

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.

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...

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).

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.)

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.

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

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.

> 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?

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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com