Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nadya | Hacker News Reader

>There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late.

I wish there was a more practical way than increased surveillance to prove the pedestrian/cyclist at fault.

Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights.

>“every time a cyclist stops, they lose kinetic energy and have to work harder upon starting off in order to accelerate and restore that kinetic energy"

If this is an actual justification cyclists try to use, might I suggest investing in a car?

> http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-f...

It's sad that this level of entitlement doesn't seem rare among cyclists (incl. the ones I know/have spoken too). They matter more than everyone else, so they should be allowed to break the law. Then cyclists wonder why most other pedestrians dislike them.

View on HN

(anecdotes are not evidence but) most of the cyclists I see blowing through red lights seem to have little concept of how gears work - hence stopping and starting is "too much work".

Not that it helps, mind - many's the time I've passed and re-passed the same red light jumpers despite stopping at every single one.

"work" to change velocity is proportional to the square of the change in velocity, proportional to mass, and independent of gearing.

"work" also involves the total velocity change, which means that the trip to employment results in the same amount of total work, regardless of the number of stops made, and which over the total of a day results in 0 work being completed (assuming a round trip from home to the place of employment).

Perhaps the physics definition of "work" isn't quite the right one to use?

A regenerative braking system might make cyclists happier to stop, it's true.

The physical "work" of trying to take off uphill in 7th gear is a lot more effort than taking off in 1st gear on a 7 gear bike.

I'd suggest testing that theory by moving off from a standstill in various gears and seeing how much "work" each one takes.

At least around here in Chicago gears are totally uncool - fixed gear bike with no brakes is where it's at.

> > There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m

> Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights.

While the justification does not make any sense whatsoever, the way he explains it also doesn't, since it fails to capture the difference between cars and bicycles:

Cars don't fall over when they stop.

The thing that makes intersections a little annoying when you have to stop at them is not the effort of stopping and starting, it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the right one.

Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.)

That said, there are no justifications for running a red light as a bike, only excuses made by fuckheads.

"Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.)"

Arses can leave the saddle, and - more importantly - bikes can tip (substantially shortening the distance from saddle to ground).

You're pointing out the obvious that i was implying in my post in the hope that it already was obvious.

Getting out of the saddle is both a slightly strenuous thing to do, and also moderately dangerous, since you have to balance on a vehicle that is devoid of inherent balance at low speeds. Dangerous since you run a small risk of "tipping" into the car that's half a meter left of you, sometimes less. As for the tipping comment, yes, that is valid, but also highly depends on the anatomy of the rider. At 5'4" i'm small enough that it is impossible for me to tip my bicycle down far enough to put both feet on the ground in the space afforded me at an intersection.

Many intersections have affordances like light poles, rails or just the curb that i can use, but sometimes stopping at an intersection for me means i have to entirely get off the thing.

> At 5'4" i'm small enough that it is impossible for me to tip my bicycle down far enough to put both feet on the ground in the space afforded me at an intersection.

Why would you need to put more than one foot down? Front wheel, back wheel, and one foot provides a tripod.

EDIT: To expand, even most motorcycle advice I've seen advises using one foot except when necessary because you have a particularly heavy motorcycle; I don't imagine that it should ever be a necessity for a bike (I can see why it might be a preference at some times, but the cases where it would be a preference would also be times when you wouldn't want to blow through a red light if the opportunity present itself.)

I frequently stop on two feet. I see it as a form of communication. The safest thing you can do on a bicycle is be predictable - what ever you're planning on doing, look like you're planning on doing it. It's just signalling, but expanding "wave your arms around" to whole-body language.

Stopping on one foot, with the other on the drive side ready to go, says I'm ready to go. Standing on two feet makes it clear I'm stopped, and going to remain stopped while I'm in this stance. It works out - if whoever I'm waiting for has to brake because they think I'm about to kill myself, they take longer to get out my way.

"The safest thing you can do on a bicycle is be predictable"

Generally the case for most (all?) participants in traffic!

Actually, you're right. My train of thought was off-track. My height/bike combination makes it difficult to properly tilt even with one foot on the ground. On flat ground i can't even keep my right foot on the pedal while standing on my left and the mental image i had in mind was standing over the middle bar with both feet on the ground without hanging off it off my groin, and the tilt required even for that is way too much. Narrow spaces excacerbate this.

And before you ask: Yes, i tried the next-smaller bike type, they're considerably slower for me in transit.

> And before you ask: Yes, i tried the next-smaller bike type, they're considerably slower for me in transit.

I wouldn't look so much at a smaller bike as a flat-foot design, but, yeah, there is still probably a performance tradeoff.

I didn't know that was a thing. Thanks for mentioning it, i'll have to try and find one of those! :D

If you begin braking at the proper time there's very little to consider. If biking takes such a toll on your mental processes, I suggest to quit biking. If a car is able to safely stop - so can a bike. Unless you're travelling at an unsafe speed downhill.

For proper safety, practice tipping in the opposite direction of car traffic. Losing balance or misjudging your tip results with you falling onto a curb rather than in front of a car. I also question how often an experienced cyclist loses their balance when coming to a stop...

As a skateboarder, a single pebble that's impossible to see while in movement can get caught in my wheel and send me flying into traffic. Cyclists take for granted that a small pebble they can't see won't send them tumbling onto their faces and into traffic. Learning how to fall is extremely important and doesn't seem to be something practiced by cyclists.

Worse - a skateboarder doesn't have any practical way of stopping when going downhill or at high speeds. You can grind your heel onto the ground or jump off the board. This means you have to control your speed and make sure you're not going too fast, you don't always have the space needed to carve when you get speed wobbles. This is something many cyclists don't consider while they haul full-speed downhill: they're travelling at an unsafe speed and refuse to slow down until it's too late.

> If biking takes such a toll on your mental processes, I suggest to quit biking.

That is an amazingly dickish comment and shows me you're not even attempting to see my side. Then again, as a skateboarder you're likely operating at a completely different level of physical control in comparison to the average citizen that you couldn't see my side even if you tried.

Do note that the important point is not the question of "how to stop in time?" but of "ugh, the procedure of stopping here is quite annoying, i'd rather go on".

Edit: Actually, i have a question:

> Learning how to fall is extremely important and doesn't seem to be something practiced by cyclists.

How exactly do you propose a cyclist train falling?

>How exactly do you propose a cyclist train falling?

The same way most people learn to ride without training wheels. Slow, wobbly, tilting, and falling often. Except this time, it's on purpose. I suggest using safety pads.

>That is an amazingly dickish comment and shows me you're not even attempting to see my side.

I'm sorry, but I don't think maintaining balance on a bike, even at slow speeds, is a problem for the majority of the population. It's a problem that usually only presents itself in children and those learning how to bike. If you suffer from an innate lack of balance (ie. most people would consider you a 'clutz') I would suggest walking over biking for you own, and other people's, safety.

>Do note that the important point is not the question of "how to stop in time?" but of "ugh, the procedure of stopping here is quite annoying, i'd rather go on".

Rotating the pedals backwards or squeezing in the right handle isn't what I'd call a "procedure" anymore than moving your foot from the gas to the brake in a car is. Does it suck to have to stop at intersections? Sure. That's not an excuse to blow right through it (not that it seems you think it's an excuse either).

Driving a stick-shift car is far more of a hassle to brake. Especially when going up hill. Yet cars are still expected (and often do) come to a stop.

You:

> a problem

Me, earlier:

>> a little annoying

See the difference? You're arguing against something i never said, and you're being a dick while doing so, instead of stepping back and considering whether you misunderstood the seemingly unreasonable thing someone else said.

> The same way most people learn to ride without training wheels. Slow, wobbly, tilting, and falling often. Except this time, it's on purpose. I suggest using safety pads.

Not usefully feasible. Primarily because even a simple sideways fall would likely damage the bike, even if only a little. Training would definitely compound damage. And if you used something soft enough to protect the bike, the training would so far removed from reality to be useless. Plus, generally with a bike you don't fall all the way unless you've already completely lost control in such a way that you're already ouside the bounds of any training.

Honestly, i don't even know what movements you'd recommend bikers learn in "fall training".

Note also the lack of such videos on youtube. The only one i found to that effect even said "advice can be only very general, as every fall on a bike is different".

> The same way most people learn to ride without training wheels.

Also on that one: In all cases of this i've seen someone was holding the bike and making sure the learner won't just crash uncontrollably. I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike.

> Rotating the pedals backwards or squeezing in the right handle isn't what I'd call a "procedure"

You don't actually seem to have a mental model of what stopping on a bike at an intersection entails.

> Driving a stick-shift car is far more of a hassle to brake.

One last comment on this: Yes, it may be a hassle, but it never changes. The procedure is always the same. For a biker every intersection requires different steps, especially in cities with a wide variety of intersection types.

>it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the right one.

My argument against this is that it takes very little physical effort and almost no mental effort to come to a stop when biking for the majority of the population beyond the training stages of riding a bike, in which it takes a lot more mental effort to maintain balance and come to a safe and complete stop.

I wasn't focusing on your "a little annoying" statement but on this mountain of a mole hill you created after saying it was only "a little annoying" by making it sound like a long and arduous problem that was mentally straining and physically difficult where every possible option (what option besides "apply brakes" is there?) has to be considered while maintaining balance on the bike (something not difficult for the general population) and properly selecting from these many options (1?), selecting the proper course of action (of the only course of action?) and after all of that mental effort (that had to be done in mere moments!) to actually physically act upon it without screwing it up!

Now, I would like to repeat myself, I don't think many people find deciding whether to brake or not or the act of braking on a bicycle to be that mentally or physically taxing beyond the training stages. In fact, I would say it's more reflexive and "muscle memory" ingrained within them that their subconscious is able to take care of a majority of the process without much conscious thought of the cyclist.

>In all cases of this i've seen someone was holding the bike and making sure the learner won't just crash uncontrollably. I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike.

I was presented a bike on my 5th birthday. My father removed the training wheels on the 2nd day against my mother's wishes and offered no supervision beyond watching me fall. By the end of the day I was riding around, although rather scraped up. I still ride my 21 speed around the canyon I live in because skateboarding on these canyon roads is suicidal - too many rocks and there isn't even an official "bike lane" to ride in. You share the same lane as the cars. Really impatient cars who are going 80mph in a 55mph. I'd rather not risk hitting a rock.

>You don't actually seem to have a mental model of what stopping on a bike at an intersection entails

Slow down while approaching the intersection. Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod.

Braking a bike isn't rocket science.

You continue to insist that your opinion of "one only has to brake and there's nothing else to consider" is a fact, going so far as to ask the right question in parens, but then immediately barging on to indicate you don't even care to hear or consider what else there might be. Unless you show signs of actually caring to learn, i won't go in great detail, but do yourself a favor and consider these bullet points: Pedestrians, other bikers, visibility when stopped, space available for tilt, viability of tilt aids (curb, poles, rails, trees), car parking gaps, street vs bike path.

It's not a giant problem, but it's also not nothing either.

> canyon roads

So, nothing like this? https://goo.gl/maps/gYhhk https://goo.gl/maps/NxGza https://goo.gl/maps/YcGHN

> Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod.

You're making the mistake of assuming that that kind of condition is universally present. See above for a non-exhaustive list that may change your situation wildly.

My "continued usage of my 21 speed in the canyons" does not mean I've never cycled anywhere else in my life or in more "difficult" (I struggle to use the word difficult here) scenarios. I don't define "difficult" as "showing absolutely no regard for your own and other's safety by maintaining a speed not suitable for the area".

What that translates to is I go faster on the open canyon road and I go slower in areas with more pedestrians. It isn't more physically or mentally taxing, but simply requires me to maintain a safer speed. Similar to how the speed limit on a freeway is 100-120km/h but on a residential street is 40km/h.

To me, your argument sums up to "I want to go 120km in the residential". Which indeed would make safety more difficult.

You should treat your bike like a car. Sure it doesn't weigh 1,500 kilos and won't necessarily kill someone if you strike them; you're still a potential hazard for walking pedestrians and should respect that by maintaining a safe speed. Not the one you desire to go simply because you aren't in a car. (That's the entitlement I was mentioning earlier.)

https://goo.gl/maps/8OpD7 https://goo.gl/maps/c82C3

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. It reads like non-sequitur to me.

Are you saying you've biked on that intersection in Akiba and didn't find it difficult? Are you saying you were in that place in Nara and were still enable your "tilt right" protocol?

How would you deal with the intersections in my links?

Edit on your edit:

> To me, your argument sums up to "I want to go 120km in the residential".

Holy shit, how did you even get that. I bike on average between 15 and 21 kmh. I'm saying that on some intersections the situational complexity can be so high that simply going on is actually tempting.

"Tilt opposite of traffic" protocol. Yes, it has held true regardless of which country or where I biked, regardless of complexity of the intersection or how crowded the area was with other cyclists and pedestrians. Your immediate side needs to be vacant and you need to have a general awareness of your surroundings (which is irrelevant to your speed, you should have a general awareness of your surrounding whether you are going 5km or 20km).

You brought up pedestrians and "more complex intersections than canyon roads". I brought up examples of streets I've cycled on that weren't a canyon road and were packed with pedestrians.

You mentioned that (1) I had never learned how to bike and (2) That town/city intersections greatly differ from canyon roads.

I demonstrated (1) to be false and asserted that I continue to bike to this day. My mental model of what it is like to stop is still fresh, not 10 years outdated. My argument is that (2) is false, the only difference between the two is the acceptable safe speed of travel; hence the speed limit reference.

Braking (and the "difficulty of doing so" being even a "slight problem") is bullshit. That's my assertion after nearly two decades of biking. It's a slight inconvenience that the cyclist should respect laws that are in place to prevent them from being hit by a car or prevent them plowing into a pedestrian/other cyclist. But because of laziness or entitlement they choose to ignore these laws and don't brake where and when they should.

There is a reason why cyclists are perceived as "entitled pricks". It's because, as a whole, they generally act like entitled pricks and then try to explain away why they act so entitled.

I've approached intersections where a pedestrian can walk in front of me from behind a bush. I exercise caution and slow my speed as I approach; such that in the event a pedestrians walks in front of me at the last moment I can brake in time to avoid hitting them. I've had to bike on a single-width bi-directional street where I have to avoid cars turning in blind T-intersections and avoid getting in the way of other pedestrians and cyclists. Intersections where my only knowledge of upcoming potential hazards comes from an intersection mirror [0] 15 meters ahead.

None of these scenarios change the difficult of coming to a safe and complete stop when exercising one's best judgement to maintain a reasonable and safe speed. If one isn't going "120 in the 40" there is no reason why they cannot come to a safe and complete stop.

[0] http://www.thejapanfaq.com/mirror.jpg

Cyclists blow through red lights because it takes energy to get going again if you stop. That's it. Call it laziness, but if you're commuting it can save a lot of energy for whatever you're doing when you get there.

Cars could save a lot of time blowing through red lights too. They'd burn a lot less gas if they didn't stop & go, which would save energy and world resources. Assuming they don't crash of course; but since we're assuming the cyclist isn't being hit and killed on their way to work - I think we can assume the car is making it through okay too.

It is laziness - and a sense of entitlement. "I'm on a bike so everyone else must wait on me and find a way to break the laws of physics (pun intended) to prevent their car from hitting me".

It saves a lot of time and energy until you get struck by a car. Which could result in the loss of all of your time and energy.

Not a worthy trade off.

Wouldn't the world be better off if more people biked? Maybe we should come up with a better solution than recommending that people get cars?

If someone is too lazy to bike, my suggestion is to embrace the laziness and get a car.

I guess I could suggest they walk or jog - but being reasonable - biking is a lot more practical than walking or jogging when you have a 6 mile commute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com