DC legalized Idaho stops. Nothing feels at all different. Almost all bicyclists are so much better about clearing intersections than anything else moving that nothing else makes any sense. There's effectively zero cost, except making drivers green with envy/making them lose their cool.
I do signal. It's pretty rare for bicyclists, but it's also 50/50 at best for cars, and they near universally operate with much less safety margin/more risk than any bicyclist (ironically the extra scared/slow/cautious drivers are often those that I see create the worst scares, damning all by their lack of clear confidemt cool execution).
It feels like only recently (in the US at least) are some cities & states trying to figure out what rules make sense for bicyclists. It's easy to just say, you're like a car, follow all those rules, but it doesn't really make sense. Bicyclists just don't take up enough space & are so much more nimble, so much more free, and often usage of those capabilities can speed up cities where cars, bikes, and people move around.
Here in Australia we have "stop" signs where there is a high risk, lots of or poorer visibility, and you're required to stop. We have "give way" signs in lower risk areas where you can slow down but roll through.
Seems a lot more reasonable to have risk-appropriate signage.
Leave it to nanny state Australia to think Signage is effective enforcement.
I think Germany has the best infrastructure and culture. It’s very organized and well respected. Bikes usually have a portion of the walk paths just for them and traffic lights for bicyclists that are generally well followed. Pedestrians do not walk into the bike paths or they get yelled at by other pedestrians and cyclists.
"Failure to signal" - one of my pet peeves of car drivers. IF they signal at all, it's commonly only if there are other cars around. They don't signal for cyclists or pedestrians. Then there's the problem that too many drivers don't know what the hand signals even mean.
Roads aren't meant for bikes. It is just too dangerous...I had seen more than 3 cyclist mangled and bloodied in front of me. Just like skating,m find a velodrom to do so. If it is meant for transport, get a car or Tesla. Your live is worth more than a high end bike savings vs a low end lemon car.
"Just get a car" is not a solution. A (non-exhaustive) list of people for whom that doesn't work:
- Those too poor to buy a car
- Kids/early teenagers
- The elderly, past the point at which they're unfit to drive (this will be you and me someday, if we're lucky enough to live that long)
- Those with disabilities precluding them from driving
If we design our cities such that driving a car is the only safe way of getting around, what we're doing is making all of these people dependent on others to get around. Even if they're physically capable enough to bike or ride a mobility scooter to where they need to go!
Here in Los Angeles, a friend of mine was crossing a crosswalk last week. The light had turned green. Several other people in the intersection. She makes eye contact with a car turning left.
Or so she thought she had. The driver said she never saw. No lose of limb of anything like that, but my friend was taken in an ambulance to the ER. The other driver was uninsured.
LAPD arrived on the scene. No citation issue.
Not for hitting a pedestrian. Not for driving without insurance.
While she was in the ambulance the officer came over and gave her the contact info for the other driver & said to contact her tomorrow. That was it.
Cyclists vs. carists is one of the most unexpectedly vitriolic (and repetitive - those things go together) flamewar topics that we see on HN. It's up there with cats vs. dogs. I don't think there's much to be gained by hashing this out yet again. Keep in mind that we're optimizing for one thing here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Certain topics are clearly suboptimal by that standard.
If you read the comments on any reel/post about cycling on Instagram, you really get a sense of how many people actually think about cyclists. I've seen comments like 'cyclists are subhuman' or other ones gets thousands and thousands of favorites. People really are in a hurry now and cyclists are just something to barely dodge for many of them. And even when cyclists get hit/killed, 25% of the time the driver doesn't stop. Cyclists (in many place) are basically sacrificing their lives to try to help build critical mass for what should be a more standard way of getting around.
Cycling is more pro-social, better for the environment, takes up less space on the roads and for parking, and also helps against the obesity crisis. It should not be so dangerous in so many places.
There was a post on our local NextDoor a few years back where a woman cyclist was asking if anyone had seen the car that struck her while she was cycling on one of the main drags in town. She was injured and wanted to get info for a police report and insurance info. The comments were so awful that I quit NextDoor. Most of them were blaming her because she was biking - they hadn't seen anything, they just assumed that the person biking must've been at fault. I remember one said something to the effect of "You cyclists are slowing us all down! Stay off the road!". Made me realize that I live in proximity to a bunch of shitty human beings and I guess I would have preferred to stay in the "ignorance is bliss" stage of not knowing.
I remember being told something about how the pane of glass of a windscreen/display/etc has an interesting psychological effect on humans, where sort of dissociates us from the reality of the moment.
I don’t know the extent, or how true it is in reality, but from my experience as a cyclist, dealing with drivers, I’d definitely believe it. Get someone out of the car and you can watch the patina of confidence and self-righteousness slide off in real time.
I don't know, man. My experience in the Bay Area is that most people are trying to make the best of what they're in and they're usually kind. Cars will make room for me to lane split, other drivers will get out of the merge lane to make room, and cyclists and pedestrians are usually doing the right thing.
Overall, I'd say I like my fellow road users. They're kind to me generally and I try to do my best to them.
My own experience with Critical Mass in several cities in Europe has left me with mixed feelings. It’s one thing for a few cyclists in the stream to stand at an intersection and block traffic until the whole stream of hundreds of bikes has passed. But I have repeatedly seen cyclists not only block a car from passing the intersection, but begin thumping on its hood and shouting insults – and not because the car is trying to proceed, but because the cyclists are high on some sense of tribal unity. This does not boost public sympathy for cyclists, which is supposedly why we are all riding together in the first place.
The problem is perhaps that Critical Mass is a free-for-all where participants don’t have to participate in any initial orientation and be told “Please don’t be a jerk”. Any time human beings come together in big groups, that is a necessity, and cyclists are no exception.
yep :) love critical mass and the various bike parties (offshoot of CM). Related: https://www.harvard.com/book/two_wheels_good/ This book is such an amazing read for anyone into cycling.
Ironic how you replied to a comment about a group of people being subhuman with pointing out that the opposing group is in fact the subhuman group. Very mature.
When you say “cyclist friendly” do you mean “fully physically protected bike lanes”? Lots of cities paint on bike lanes (often in the door zone of parked cars…) then people are confused when cyclists often don’t use them. But if they aren’t safe or are always obstructed by parked cars, it’s really not that helpful…
A lane of road was taken away in order to move things around and put in fully physically protected bike lanes. Then the cyclists proceeded to use only the single remaining lane.
The arrogance of cyclists is truly awe inspiring. Convince a city to spend multiple hundreds of millions on rebuilding infrastructure only to not only not use it, but actively and arrogantly NOT use it just to be the arrogant pricks that they have the image of.
I use to defend cyclists until that particular failure of a project. They worked overtime to ensure that the stereotype was no longer just a stereotype.
Very badly, it was actually a double failure. Due to traffic being restricted to fewer lanes, sitting there in idle increased drastically, actually making the bike lane infrastructure actively worse for the environment. This giving climate change denialists ammo for their handicapped idiotic propaganda.
Cyclists had a fully-protect lane free of cars and decided to ride in the middle of a lane filled with idling cars? I'm not sure where you live, but that's just not the behavior I've seen anywhere else...
I'm not denying what you've seen, but it just doesn't match what I've seen at all.
> Several cities have opted to remove their protected bike lanes for exactly the same reasons.
Sure, but many cities are rapidly _expanding_ their network of protected bike lanes because of how widely they're used.
I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that many more miles of protected bike lanes are being added each year than removed. For example, NYC [1]. For another, here's a compilation of many cities. [2]
I've literally never seen it on any street that has a proper bike lane, and I've driven in many places with proper bike lanes. Cyclists pretty much universally prefer safe proper infrastructure to sharing lanes with cars and painted bike gutters, for entirely obvious reasons. You're literally the first ever person I've encountered claiming otherwise, so I'm sure you'll understand why you're getting incredulous pushback here.
> my city spent hundreds of millions rebuilding downtown infrastructure to be cyclist friendly
Not that you probably care, but in most places, investment and growth of cycling results in a net gain for the community and government, both directly and indirectly.
Cycling infrastructure is cheap to put in, cheap to maintain, and has social + health benefits too. The state + city I live in love putting in cycling infra (even if it’s a bit flawed and wonky) because it literally gains money. Road maintenance costs go down, short and long-term health spending decreases because people are healthier.
I’m really sorry to tell you this, but cycling infrastructure actually doesn’t improve health, because statistics on bicycle usage doesn’t show any notable increases with or without biking infrastructure.
First reason, at least in the north, is cause it’s below zero for half the year.
Second reason is cause, at least in the south, cause it’s fucking hot
Third reason is cause most of us are incredibly lazy.
Do you have sources that measure your other purported benefits? By source, I mean actual measured sources in a study. Not “it’s true because this article also states it, but does so with bad anecdotes”
I’m not against reducing cars on the road. I am against doing it wrong though.
With the skimming of abstracts, that took < 5 minutes from opening google to typing this. Three will suffice, I trust? I don't have hours to read abstracts for the other fifty.
>at least in the north, is cause it’s below zero for half the year.
Oh, okay, in the north. If you're American, I'm currently north of you unless you happen to be in Alaska, and I bike 9-10 months a year, basically until it gets below zero. Someone forgot to tell Canadians it's below zero here for half the year :)
I've encountered a few stories about cities ripping up bike lanes, but in all of them the story was completely different from the picture you're painting. That's why I asked for the city, so I can find a different source and compare to your narrative. Otherwise, not much can be concluded from one-sided lores like yours.
I’ve been clipped by more cyclists coming from behind (2 this year) than I have by cars (0 ever). Yeah, the weight classes are different and being hit by a car is far more dangerous, but also far more likely to be reported.
Don’t even get me started on these completely unregulated motorized bikes zipping down the sidewalks at 30 mph. Those things need to be shitcanned till regulation is in place.
The problem is all the rapha weekend warriors blocking roads. I’m a cyclist and a car enthusiast and so I straddle the line between both groups. Obviously cyclists are the underdog here but they aren’t all angels.
So the thousands of uber eats drivers blocking the roads to transport a sandwich are a non issue, but a tiny number of people using the roads to go somewhere on the weekend are?
When you choose to ride in a 55+mph two-lane highway in the country side when you've got logging and gravel trucks continually passing you, I don't know. Can we consider that a death wish, no matter what the law says on paper?
These aren't commuters as it is ~40 minutes by car to the mothership and they're most often found on the nice days during the weekend wearing spandex, sometimes even with numbers on their back.
There are lots of problems. But if you think that one of them is groups of people engaging in athletics and enjoying the outdoors, then I would suggest that one of the problems may be in the mirror…
I ride in the road. I occupy a full lane. I use my u-lock to dent body panels when needed. There’s still a way to coexist with cars and a way to be an obnoxious rider.
Occupying the full lane is the suggested way to ride for your safety. Drivers will attempt to kill you if you ride on the side by running you in to the gutter to perform an unsafe overtake.
Yeah honestly the bikers that I hear people rage about are the folks who ride in the middle of roads, especially uphill, and who don't even try to let folks pass. They get mad at people driving slowly like that too.
Independent of who's "right", when I bike, I don't do that, and can't say I've ever had anyone in a car angry at me.
They aren't being antagonistic, they are protecting themselves. Allowing a motorists to pass you without leaving their lane is a really good way to end up dead and is also illegal on the motorists part. They are moving over to force the motorist to pass them in a legal and safe manner.
I felt like you just ignored the point of the person replying to you. Cyclists are in more danger from passing cars when they aren't in the middle of the lane, as they tend to get run off the road. When they are in the middle of the lane, the other car needs to perform the same passing technique they would normally do (exiting the lane and getting into the oncoming traffic lane).
The chances of you getting into a wreck for pulling over getting hit in a Tow Truck is in no way equivalent to a cyclist doing the same thing. You have visibility and weight.
As a non-cyclist, ya it can be a pain in the ass, but the cyclist has the legal right to the whole lane.
Which was ignoring my point above: "I've see people move into the middle of the lane for an approaching car so it won't pass, and when there would've been room to pass safely."
At least in California the law is:
"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".
I get the safely part, but I'm talking wide separated lanes here, well over 14ft with weekend warrior-types trying to swerve in front of cars after having them behind them for a mile or two (no honking or tailgating). It's ridiculous and needlessly aggressive.
I'm sure there are tons of cyclist who misue these rules and are truly unsafe. Also, the Cali law isnt as cut and dry as you stated.
"A new bicycle lane change law was approved in 2022 and took effect on January 1, 2023, across all of California. Motorists approaching or overtaking a cyclist on the road must now switch lanes if another lane is available."
"In certain circumstances, cyclists may “take the lane” and use an entire lane, just as a car would. Riders may claim a full lane if they are passing, readying for a left turn, steering clear of an obstacle, or if they feel the lane is too narrow to share with a car"
Once a law leaves latitude for how someone was "feeling", it effectively legalizes the practice in almost every scenario.
>If I'm driving well under limit due to towing, looking for address, etc - I pull over and let people pass. It's not so hard for a bike to do same.
Thats cool! It's also not hard for motorists to wait literal seconds to safely pass a cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't need to pull over all the time to accommodate motorists need to speed down the road. You aren't entitled to go 10 mph over the speed limit. It's a limit, not a minimum.
>I've also seen bikers upset when a kid is going slowly in a bike lane? So I think many of the spandex-clad dudes have some control issues.
Wow! You did? Crazy! It's almost like a group of people with a shared hobby aren't a monolith and will display different opinions and behaviors!
I feel more comfortable cycling in downtown Chicago than I do on suburban or country back roads. Nowadays, cyclists must worry about people using their phones while driving. Based on my observations of city driving, drivers are more aware of their surroundings due to the increased traffic and overall hustle and bustle. Drivers in the country often let their guard down due to the serene and idyllic environment.
2nd - Chicago is regularly voted one of the worst cities to bike in - and I'm not sure how.
It's flat and - at least north of the Blue line - there's good infrastructure. Combine that with dense population, and the lake and tons of parks nearby, and it's the best biking city I've ever lived in.
Snow isn’t a problem, it’s the ice that does you in.
I’m sure it would feel like a lot to you, but Chicago doesn’t really get a lot of snow or ice. Prevailing winds in the winter are out of the northwest. The majority of the moisture picked up from Lake Superior gets dumped on the Upper Peninsula and Wisconsin before reaching that far south (Lake Michigan moisture is dumped in western Michigan and northern Indiana).
Biking infrastructure in Chicago is good in wealthier areas and pretty bad in poorer parts. There is definitely an element of unequal funding, but you have to understand that Chicago’s municipal system of government puts a lot of power at the hands of the alderman - they are like little mayors of their wards. If the people in a ward want bike infrastructure, the alderman will find the money for it. If the people in a ward don’t want to give up car lanes for bike lanes, it’s not going to happen. And that’s how they feel in the poorer areas. There have even been instances of bike lanes being removed in some neighborhoods!
Biking in the winter in chicago really isn't so bad. Stay off for a day or two after a snowfall to avoid ice, but the actual snow is plowed very quickly.
I used to use a moped to commute up Milwaukee Ave to Niles- I was surprised at how civil people were. I was about as slow as a bicycle and only remember getting blown by once in two years.
I'd still be terrified of using a bicycle in Chicago. I never realized how many people almost never look at the road while driving until I had such a good view into their cars (yes, cyclists and moped riders are watching you). The only thing that alerted people to my presence was the rattly 30-year-old two-stroke engine under my ass.
TLDR is the simpler you make a road, the faster and less attentive drivers are. While a complex cobblestone alleyway might be very tricky to navigate, basically no one will be killed there because you wouldn't attempt to speed while looking at your phone on it.
I'd like to thank the ttrpg Cyberpunk 2020 for this one, which has had a huge influence on my life: it's all about the Cool stat.
Cool is a multi-factor idea. Part of it is a D&D charisma stat: how literally cool you are, how hip. But it's also a check under pressure, your ability to be unphased & calm & in control of at least yourself, even/especially when things are going bad. In this ways, it's what D&D would use either Constitution for if physical, or Wisdom for if more mental.
To me, almost all of this problem comes down to cool. Very few drivers are actually impacted by bikers. They don't get to go as fast as they'd like, but the actual time impact is usually miniscule. The examples are so many, where yes as a driver you aren't as privileged, where it feels bad, but the impact is almost always so tiny. A biker doing an Idaho stop ruffles feathers because they are doing something you can't, but I'd say the curve is usually weighted much closer to 0s than to 3s cost.
Bikers can clear the scene so quickly & efficiently, in so many situations, in ways that would be inconceivable for slow maneuvering slow accelerating bigger cars. Opportunity as a bicyclist is so high, and as a car it is so low.
That imbalance is a true test of Cool. Most people let themselves get upset. Most people don't really consider the true cost of actions & situations; they feel wronged by the situation & don't consider how inconsequential the situation is. People lose their cool.
This inner strength of personality is one of the things I most admire, and one of the things I think that best helps this world along. Cool needs a better PR campaign for it. We need people with the strength of self to not be aggreived, who can brush dumb shit off. This is high high high on my list of societal projects, lessons of the world we should encode & share, and I just have so little idea how to promote being cool.
Excellent! Nowadays, cities are more and more built exclusively for cars. Not even sidewalks!
Insane... How someone would dare to challenge the neverloving rule of the almighty Car!
After biking around the Twin Cities bike freeways I'm in the mindset that sidewalks and bike lanes need to be done away with for dedicated multi use paths. people can walk, roller blade, scooter, bike, skate board on paths away from lifted metal bricks on wheels and feel safe
Years ago when I was cycling home from work in NYC, a driver cut from the middle of 1st avenue and across the bright green bike lane to make a left turn. I and four other bike commuters slammed into the back corner of her car as she cut across the lane. The driver stopped, walked to the back of the car and lectured us on the dangers of cycling. Before we could compose ourselves, being in a jumble on the ground, she got back into her car and drove off.
I was equal parts shocked and impressed by her. But she was definitely the sort of a-hole who makes cycling a more dangerous endeavor.
Well, in US cities it's possibly for acting like they are cars on the road. Several states grant some right for cyclists to travel in lanes with cars, but in practice that's absurd. It slows down traffic (to which they defend by saying there is no minimum speed limit), and causes other problems. When you have a frail bicycle riding amongst numerous cars trying to keep up, or inciting rage and causing problems by not being able to, of course there will be accidents.
Things won't get better until cities invest in infrastructure like EU cities have, firm bike lanes and bike infrastructure that is not shared with cars.
I avoided taking the lane while I started, but after being forced into the gutter and nearly side-swiped multiple times, I started regularly taking the lane for my own safety.
That’s what really disappointed me about motorists as a cyclist - you give them an inch and they try to kill you.
There is something about driving that sends otherwise normal people in to a psychopathic rage. If you were walking and someone steps in your way, you wouldn't immediately jump to punching their head in. But same thing in a car and people will just run you over for slowing them down.
> Several states grant some right for cyclists to travel in lanes with cars
Believe it or not, in some places it's actually required to ride in the road along with cars (my current city, for example).
> in practice that's absurd
Honestly, agreed.
> When you have a frail bicycle riding amongst numerous cars trying to keep up, or inciting rage and causing problems by not being able to, of course there will be accidents.
Big yikes, though. Given the likely dire outcomes of collisions between cyclists and cars, and the overarching systems that tend to force cyclists to share the road with drivers in the first place, it feels wrong to me to blame cyclists for "inciting rage".
> Believe it or not, in some places it's actually required to ride in the road along with cars (my current city, for example).
That seems ridiculous! So you have bikes in between cars? How often?
> Given the likely dire outcomes of collisions between cyclists and cars, and the overarching systems that tend to force cyclists to share the road with drivers in the first place, it feels wrong to me to blame cyclists for "inciting rage".
I mean, the rage would be better directed at the city, but emotion isn't rational. If you have someone riding a bike in a lane, 'taking the lane', and can't be overtaken, and they can only do half the speed limit, of course people are going to get mad at them.
Your translation is off. It's not absurd for bikes to use roads, it's absurd to get in the way of and mix with car traffic as though they were a car.
> So, how do I get to where I need to go?
Take bike paths, sidewalks, backroads etc. Or lobby your city for better bike infrastructure. Or accept the risk of the increased likelihood that you will end up a statistic.
If one drives a car politely and generally obeying laws, one will typically not draw the ire of a road rager down upon oneself. Maybe sometimes, but it's generally infighting among assholes.
If you ride a bicycle or some other alternative transportation, the act of existing and using the road will draw road ragers from all sides. I've had several problems.
Once I was riding a bicycle down a busy college road and I happened to not be wearing my glasses. So, my fault, right? There was heavy auto traffic and it was all stopped, so I carefully turned left in front of a car, and I got absolutely boned by this amazingly horrible University-owned golf cart doing 25 in the oncoming bicycle lane. I had to basically hold him hostage until the police came to take a report on us.
Another time, same bicycle, same college town, I decided to take the left lane, a block ahead, in anticipation of turning left. This was a 35mph 4-lane road. So of course, autos immediately piled up behind me, screeching and honking and vrooming and all kinds of pissed, just because, I guess, they had to make a lane change to go around me, or they could stay there and stay enraged. I escaped with my person and bicycle intact.
Very recently, I was trying out the new e-Scooter shares. It is explicitly prohibited to ride them on the sidewalk. So I tootled around the back roads, all 25mph residential, and I was having a lot of fun ringing the little bell. So this chad swoops in front of me on a moped or rice rocket or something. And he slows down and swivels his head and in a kindly condescending tone he said, "you know you're not supposed to ride those in the street?" and so I just rang my bell and smiled. And he turned into the Incredible Hulk. He harried me and spat on my face and screamed at me and honked and stopped short and cut me off and raged for blocks, and I thought I'd never get out alive; it was very upsetting and it is not easy to continue riding when you are so triggered like that. I stayed calm, I didn't do anything against the guy, I sailed to the sidewalk and put the thing down and just walked away. But that put the fear of God into me.
The golf cart thing sounds like negligence, and I'm glad you were able to file a report.
> So of course, autos immediately piled up behind me, screeching and honking and vrooming and all kinds of pissed, just because, I guess, they had to make a lane change to go around me, or they could stay there and stay enraged.
To what extent were you impeding the normal flow of traffic?
> And he slows down and swivels his head and in a kindly condescending tone he said, "you know you're not supposed to ride those in the street?" and so I just rang my bell and smiled.
In no way was the guys reaction justified, but that does sounds like an antagonizing response.
> To what extent were you impeding the normal flow of traffic?
Well, as I said, I was in the left lane for about a block; it was a 4-lane 35mph road, so everyone had a clear right-hand lane to pass me. Traffic was, I suppose, medium. The lanes were completely clear as I moved over to the left; it's not like I weaved through a clump of vehicles to get there. The road feeds a freeway, so it was a common thoroughfare for college students and townies alike to GTFO.
> In no way was the guys reaction justified, but that does sounds like an antagonizing response.
Shrug. I was in a happy-go-lucky mood and I was already smiling and ringing the bell. What else could I do? Scowl and lean on my horn instead? Pull over and illegally ride on the sidewalk like he wanted? Argue with him, Facebook-comment-style, about who knows the law better? It didn't occur to me that there are people who may be antagonized by a bike bell.
> Shrug. I was in a happy-go-lucky mood and I was already smiling and ringing the bell. What else could I do? Scowl and lean on my horn instead? Pull over and illegally ride on the sidewalk like he wanted? Argue with him, Facebook-comment-style, about who knows the law better? It didn't occur to me that there are people who may be antagonized by a bike bell.
I'm frequently disappointed by broken bells on those scooters, because I love to use it. It's essential to safety. Those things are silent but deadly: they go up to 17mph, and I am confident that 95% of the people on the road are thankful that they can hear me coming because of that bell.
Let me tell you, as a pedestrian, I am eternally thankful to every cyclist who announces his presence behind me with something like "passing on your left", although a bell is much easier to use :-)
> Things won't get better until cities invest in infrastructure like EU cities have, firm bike lanes and bike infrastructure that is not shared with cars.
This is of course the gold standard on larger and faster streets, but remember that even the Netherlands doesn't put separate bike infrastructure on every street. On the smaller neighborhood streets, they... slow down traffic. And it seems to work pretty well.
From what I can tell (having admittedly only read books/watched urban planning videos/watched ride videos about it and not been there myself yet), neighborhood streets tend not to get used as through-routes. Sometimes because it's naturally slowed by the street design (so why take the slower streets instead of the faster one nearby?), and sometimes because they use barriers to redirect traffic and prevent it. You're only likely to drive on the slower streets if you live there.
In the US, drivers have the expectation that they should be able to take any street they want without delay. In the Netherlands that's not true; if you're driving on a fietsstraat for example, you are allowed there but it's explicitly not designed for you. There are other streets you're meant to take.
But also:
> Pretty often I guess with the amount of bike riders. And no one cares?
Probably because just about every driver there also rides a bike, and knows what it feels like from both perspectives. I'm in the US but starting to ride a bike around myself has certainly made me a more careful driver and more understanding of how to react around bikes.
> From what I can tell (having admittedly only read books/watched urban planning videos/watched ride videos about it and not been there myself yet), neighborhood streets tend not to get used as through-routes. Sometimes because it's naturally slowed by the street design (so why take the slower streets instead of the faster one nearby?), and sometimes because they use barriers to redirect traffic and prevent it. You're only likely to drive on the slower streets if you live there.
call me crazy (and a non-driving, non-biking pedestrian) but I suspect the range of nice to asshole behaviour within the bike and car-driving populations shows more variation than that between the two groups.
Most (80%) urban bicyclists ride like assholes. Blowing through stop signs, red lights, cutting across traffic, not yielding to pedestrians.
Drivers can be bad too, but for every terrible driver I see 10 obnoxious cyclists. Maybe drivers made them this way. For the most part, though, they are just trying to minimize exercise/get somewhere as quickly as possible.
You're just noseblind because you also probably are a terrible driver. Maybe I'm wrong and you are the 1% of drivers who don't play on their phone, speed, and you come to an actual stop at stop signs, but I'm guessing you aren't.
You see motorists speeding, which kills tens of thousands of Americans every year and it doesn't register as bad. You see a cyslists roll a stop sign, which kills very few Americans a year, and it goes in the cyclist-hate bucket part of your brain. It's just plain ol bias.
Not an accusation, just something to keep in mind: Could there be some bias in that perception? As in, when you see someone riding their bike in a way that's correct and doesn't bother you, you don't really notice or even remember that. But when someone drives shittily, probably in a way that you have to react to, you do very much notice, get annoyed and remember that more.
And it's not a big problem. Assholes should ride a bike. I'd rather see more assholes in cars change to cycling than I'd like to see asshole on bikes switching to cars. Because an asshole on a bike or walking or using public transport is much less of an issue for others if an accident happens.
I don’t think it breaks down like this. It’s the biking which makes them assholes. And these assholes can actually cause accidents. So it’s not consequence free. What is it about biking which causes this transformation of personality? Is it persecution by cars, or is someone doing a lot of physical exertion just not as nice of a person?
I fail to see the humor. What good is the feeling of righteousness when you’re dead? I have a different outlook than my bicycle peers. I’m more vulnerable and when I’m surrounded by traffic where a car can just get out of a lane and into mine, I slow down in that situation and don’t get pissy when it happens because I don’t care about being right I care about arriving at my destination safe and alive. Even if it means 1 minute late since I had to slow down to a jerk driver.
Washington DC has some of the worst bicycle culture I’ve ever seen. Blowing red lights, asserting right of way over pedestrians and cars whenever it suites them, doing 50kmh on mount Vernon trail with pedestrians and small children everywhere. And a piss poor attitude to top it off when someone dares slow them down.
>Washington DC has some of the worst bicycle culture I’ve ever seen. Blowing red lights, asserting right of way over pedestrians and cars whenever it suites them, doing 50kmh on mount Vernon trail with pedestrians and small children everywhere. And a piss poor attitude to top it off when someone dares slow them down.
A kid in my neighborhood growing up got hit by a car pretty bad. It was a pickup truck with wide mirrors on the side. The mirror somehow hooked onto the kid and dragged him for some distance. Apparently, the driver didn't even see him, as he kept on driving after the kid got loose of the bike. The kid was riding on the side of the road, to the right of the white line (in the US). He absolutely had the "right of way". But what did that get him? Three weeks in the hospital and his skin is probably still jacked up 30 years later.
My point is that "right of way" is dumb. Cars and bicycles just don't mix.
Witnessed first-hand in SF. A cyclist was standing on a zebra crossing waiting to make a left turn (waiting for cars coming from the right to cross over). A car comes from right, makes a left turn (into the same street that the cyclist is at), and hits the cyclist.
Police arrives. Asks for video evidence, which no one has. Tells the cyclist, "You should follow the same rules as the car". The cyclist never moved.
Not saying this is for everyone and it definitely isn't the way it SHOULD be, but I personally subscribe to the Sangamon Taylor/Neal Stephenson philosophy of cycling:
“If you've put yourself in a position where someone has to see you in order for you to be safe - to see you, and to give a f&%@ - you've already blown it.”
― Neal Stephenson, Zodiac
Cyclist in Czech and Slovak republic are much more often assholes than the drivers. There is a very large group thought not a majority of cyclist who blatantly disobey traffic laws and are completely arogant (they are saving the planet of course! they don't have time to even slow down before pedestrain crossings, use sidewalks when they feel like even thought is strictly forbidden and never ever use bike lines even in situations where law absolutely requires them to and even when it is wide and of a same quality as a road nearby, often use pedestraian crossing themselfs even thought it is strictly forbidden for a mounted/riding cyclist just to kinda have a right of way when they would otherwise have to yield on normal road before turning (pedestrains DO have a right of way before cars on zebra crossings without lights)) and some of them out outright agressive and physically dangerous (maybe because they are pumped with hormones and adrenaline?). There was a quite recent case where a male cyclist (before his own kids and wife!) brutally broke a pedestrian's jaw because the pedestrain notified him that they are illegaly cycling on a sidewalk and they the cycling family disappeared. Police's detective work lead to his apprehension months later.
Or you know... Public transportation. Electric trains, electric buses using overhead cables, etc. We could probably take over 1 lane on every interstate and replace it with a train going that direction. The amount of utility that could provide is vastly superior to some mystical self driving open world car system. It's something we can do right now with the money and will power and modern technology
I was just visiting Bergen and snapped a photo showing light rail, a dedicated 2-lane bike path, and a dedicated pedestrian path all in parallel. Certainly unheard of in my US town.
One of those things is far more useful than the other - specifically the one that lets you travel at 50mph+ from point A to point B and has air conditioning.
That's a false dichotomy. You can still travel at 50mph with air conditioning (in a car) either way.
In fact, building proper bike lanes doesn't mean you can't have self driving cars too. It just means the people who didn't spend tons of money for a self driving car are less likely to hit the cyclists.
Depends on your purpose. Bikes are great in cities, are better for the environment, are much quieter (better for others outside), are safer for pedestrian, and are great exercise.
But anywhere you could be safely traveling 50mph+ is probably not the type of road I’m advocating building bike lanes on…
It's not even just driver inattention/distraction in general (which is also a problem), it's also that the attention they are paying to the road is overwhelmingly focused on recognizing and predicting the movement of other motor vehicles. So much so that in some cases, they will functionally "not see" a cyclist or pedestrian directly in their line of sight [1].
Great question! Cyclists ride on the main roads because in many places, we have the right to. Literally the law states in many places that 'cyclists may use full lane'. We also do so because you're more likely to get hit by cars turning or pulling out or opening their door when you ride on the sidewalk. You're far more visible and predictable when you take the lane.
I'm not sure where you're from so this answer comes from more of a USA perspective. In places like Copenhagen/Amsterdam, it's almost always easier/safer to just ride in the bike lane because they are so amazingly well made. But in most other places, you sometimes need to take the lane. Car drivers should be more grateful. We're taking cars off the road and reducing auto traffic.
In the US you do not have the right to walk or bicycle on an interstate freeway. Not even in the shoulder or outside of the lane. Even if you drive a motor vehicle you are not allowed to use the freeway if you are unable to meet and maintain the speed limit; I have a 50cc scooter with a 30mph top speed and it is for sure not okay to get on that going down a 60mph road.
At closed circuit tracks you may find they segment drivers or vehicles based on average and top speeds. But why would that matter when even the slow guys are going >100mph down the straight, and everyone there has opted into driving in such an environment? Because speed variance is the real danger.
A car driving down a country road with a 50mph speed limit is going 2-5x faster than a cyclist depending on the slope. And there's no shoulder or bike lane in the countryside so they have to block the lane. Coming over a blind hill even below the speed limit may not leave the driver enough time and distance to come to a full stop. If the oncoming lane has traffic in it there's not even an escape path.
I grew up biking and I love it, but I also grew up and recognize the dangers and how being a cyclist on a fast road is imposing your risk onto others. It's sociopathic to believe a driver who hit a cyclist feels no remorse, but some people seem to prefer martyrdom over adjusting their preferences a little, like picking up mountain biking or going to the velodrome. I liked riding around on 2 wheels so much and I didn't want to compromise on where I could go so I pulled my pants up and learned how to ride motorcycles. Now I can go anywhere I want on something that keeps me outside of the cage and gives me more power and agility than any car.
edit: perspective of a bike fanatic (I have 7 bicycles/scooters/motorcycles in my garage) living in the self-proclaimed "Bicycling Capital of the Northwest," where there's an astonishing 2 paved bike paths that are so swarmed with pedestrians as to be unrideable
The places people go are on the main roads, that is why they are the main roads. That is literally it. Additionally they are often far faster than so called paths that often have speed limits that are pedestrian compared to how fast bikes can commute. It's really sad, but the "safe" way is often just there for recreation
* the bike lanes, while nice in though, are poorly planned out:
* they’re only on one side of the road
* they start and stop in weird locations and either foist you back into the main road, or onto a busy footpath. Getting from “where you are” to “where the bike lane is” is a multi-minute exercise in walking and crossing lights for 100m of lane.
* People - including cops, park in them frequently
* the city makes no attempt at cleaning them, so they’re filled with the detritus from the road and the footpath: gravel, wet leaves, broken glass, sand, tire-shreddings, these are a hazard to ride through.
* because they pack both directions onto one area, each lane is super narrow, and you end up stuck behind casual commuters (I love to see people riding, don’t get me wrong) and there are few chances to cleanly overtake
* in the city speed limits are pretty low, and between traffic lights at intersections and slow moving traffic (due to volume) it’s shockingly easy to outpace cars. Combine that with lane slipping, and you can often clear whole blocks at pace.
It will strongly depend on the area you live in. It a lot of places there might not be better options. But if there are, I would definitely agree with you and prefer the bike road
I use bike infrastructure if there is good one. But if there is just stretch of bike path on the other side of the road I ignore it because it is dangerous to use it - you need to cross the traffic.
This is why I hate bike routing apps they will always pick bike road or smaller street even if it is on the other side of the road or if it just like 100 meters long.
Those short bike paths. Unfinished fragments acting like real deal. If you use them you lose your initiative because when it ends you need to return to the road giving a way to the traffic on that road.
Often even continuous bike paths creates conflict points at crossroads and junctions even if it goes along main road.
Also if we are talking just about main road vs side streets. If prefer main road. It is safer because there are less crossroads and you have right of way. Cars that are going your direction are backing you in this right.
Off road bike paths are usually extremely poorly signed. I was riding along a main road because that's what google maps and the on street signs said to do. But one day while riding around randomly on the weekend I found there was an entire off road bike path that goes to the city. With basically no signage. It's extremely difficult to see on Google maps since paths without car access basically aren't drawn and the automatic routing will never pick it since its slightly longer.
unrelated to your point but its worth noting that some of the first cycle lanes to be introduced in London were done so with the intention of eventually banning bikes from the roads entirely and then letting the lanes rot or get repurposed.
I only bike on paths as well, but that does make it considerably slower to get to places. Sharing with cars is usually safer/faster, given that you handle intersections and HGV ok.
I am of the believe that it is only a matter of time before any bike rider gets hit. Drivers are mostly on the look out for other cars not bikes or for that matter pedestrians. It's hard for our brains to constantly be on the look out for bikes and cars at the same time. What ever happens maybe the car driver's fault, even 100% of the time, but ultimately cars are much more powerful than bikes so the bike riders will always lose by getting hurt.
The best advice I can give is to only ride bikes on dedicated areas for bikes riding. Riding any where else is just asking for trouble.
If you're too overwhelmed on the road to pay attention on the road enough to look out for bikes or pedestrians, maybe take the bus when you go to work. That's not normal.
It happens regularly. Cars will cut off bike riders and force them to stop or ,worst yet. drive into them as they switch lanes. Again, it does not matter who's at fault. Ultimately, the bike rider loses. I see plenty of "ghost bikes" on the sidewalks next to a road to tell me that bike riding can be fatal. I've yet to see a "ghost car." Car driving is dangerous too but I will bet on the car every time.
It happens with motorcycles too. There are plenty of situations where a driver turns right in front of a moving motorcycle that's just crossing an intersection.
It's not all car drivers but given the magnitude of cars on the road it only takes a very small fraction to cause all the trouble.
Especially with "the Denver stop" which has now been made legal in Colorado.
My son got clipped on his (human powered) scooter by a truck at an intersection the other day. He had a walk signal so the driver should have yielded. Instead, the driver plodded through his left turn, unaware that his neglect put him inches away from prison.
So, yeah; cyclists can roll through an intersection all they want but, I'm not doing it.
My experience in many cities that have adopted the Idaho stop (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs), is that most cyclists are hilariously reckless and roll through at full speed. Watching streams of cyclists hold up confused drivers at 4-way stops is endlessly entertaining.
what you're describing is why cyclists jump lights. I've commuted in a west coast metro for the last ten years by bike. When the opposite light changes yellow I'm on the pedals to establish myself if the lane before the cars behind me get a green. In your son's case (best to him) he'd be clearing the intersection before truck moron goes ramming speed through a crosswalk
I watch the traffic like a hawk whenever I’m considering doing it.
If there’s no stopped cars in the lanes already (I live in a city, so this is super common for me), I’m way more guaranteed to do it, because trucks/buses/taxis/inattentive drivers barreling through “late yellows” is something I’ve seen waaay to many times.
> Sixty-six percent of drivers routinely commit moving violations, compared with 5 percent of cyclists when they have somewhere safe to ride.
I don't think I've ever riden a bike without committing a moving violation.
- Failure to signal with your hand is a moving violation.
- Idaho stops (yielding instead of stopping at a stop sign is a violation in most state)