Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US DOT deleting bike lane references

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#121

Post by pandaman »

Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #120
pandaman wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry, what you wrote looked like you agree that there are few cyclists and you just added your idea why is it so. Did you actually want to say that there are many cyclists on the streets but they are, apparently, invisible? Well, you are entitled to believe this, I took the most charitable interpretation of what you said because attributing the belief in masses of invisible cyclists to someone would paint them…

You don't see the cyclists because they pass right by - they're only in a particular bike lane that you happen to be next to for a very short time, they don't usually need to stop, and yes, obviously there are fewer cyclists than drivers because cycling in the US is unsafe. People don't bike here because they can't. I don't live in a city, I live in one of the many dense suburbs (which are denser than many cities in…

Your ignorance of the road rules might be the reason you can't bike in the streets. Bikes, even in NJ, have to stop at the "STOP" signs and red lights, just like cars - if you don't then you are indeed in danger of collision with cars. You should seek the "driver's handbook" for your state and study it (you can download it or even get a free hard copy at the local DMV), follow the rules of the road described there and you won't be putting your life on the line.

PS. Your response got killed for some reason (very bizarre in an old thread and so quickly) but to answer your question - it depends on the road. There are roads I don't feel safe driving (I live in Austin, where the city decided that the traffic enforcement is racist or something so there is none, as the result there is mayhem on the roads) but I do bike on some streets with 35 mph and no bike lanes without feeling I put my life on the line.

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#122

Post by Moomoomoo309 »

pandaman wrote: post #121
Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see the cyclists because they pass right by - they're only in a particular bike lane that you happen to be next to for a very short time, they don't usually need to stop, and yes, obviously there are fewer cyclists than drivers because cycling in the US is unsafe. People don't bike here because they can't. I don't live in a city, I live in one of the many dense suburbs (which are denser than many cities in…

Your ignorance of the road rules might be the reason you can't bike in the streets. Bikes, even in NJ, have to stop at the "STOP" signs and red lights, just like cars - if you don't then you are indeed in danger of collision with cars. You should seek the "driver's handbook" for your state and study it (you can download it or even get a free hard copy at the local DMV), follow the rules of the road described there an…

[dead]

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#123

Post by Moomoomoo309 »

pandaman wrote: post #121
Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see the cyclists because they pass right by - they're only in a particular bike lane that you happen to be next to for a very short time, they don't usually need to stop, and yes, obviously there are fewer cyclists than drivers because cycling in the US is unsafe. People don't bike here because they can't. I don't live in a city, I live in one of the many dense suburbs (which are denser than many cities in…

Your ignorance of the road rules might be the reason you can't bike in the streets. Bikes, even in NJ, have to stop at the "STOP" signs and red lights, just like cars - if you don't then you are indeed in danger of collision with cars. You should seek the "driver's handbook" for your state and study it (you can download it or even get a free hard copy at the local DMV), follow the rules of the road described there an…

Oh, I see the mixup here. When I said "They don't need to stop", I was referring to straightaways where the cars are waiting in traffic (I.E: They're not stuck in traffic), not at the intersections. Obviously, they need to stop there, except when making a right turn.

I don't feel safe when I ride like that, I've been almost hit multiple times from people going into a turn lane or making a right on red because they didn't even bother looking (or just didn't care and got within like a foot of me to get into the turn lane). Most of the time, it's fine, but what would be a minor accident in a car is going to leave you pretty injured on a bike.

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#124

Post by pandaman »

Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #123
pandaman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ignorance of the road rules might be the reason you can't bike in the streets. Bikes, even in NJ, have to stop at the "STOP" signs and red lights, just like cars - if you don't then you are indeed in danger of collision with cars. You should seek the "driver's handbook" for your state and study it (you can download it or even get a free hard copy at the local DMV), follow the rules of the road described there an…

Oh, I see the mixup here. When I said "They don't need to stop", I was referring to straightaways where the cars are waiting in traffic (I.E: They're not stuck in traffic), not at the intersections. Obviously, they need to stop there, except when making a right turn. I don't feel safe when I ride like that, I've been almost hit multiple times from people going into a turn lane or making a right on red because they di…

But if there are no bike lanes then how do the cyclist become invisible in your world? Even with bike lanes, I just don't seem to understand the geometry of the issue. If cyclists are passing cars in the bike lane for whatever reason then drivers should see more cyclists than if they were moving with traffic. Or if cyclists are moving slower than cars, then drivers will also see more cyclists. How come you are saying they are unseen in the bike lanes?

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#125

Post by Moomoomoo309 »

pandaman wrote: post #124
Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see the mixup here. When I said "They don't need to stop", I was referring to straightaways where the cars are waiting in traffic (I.E: They're not stuck in traffic), not at the intersections. Obviously, they need to stop there, except when making a right turn. I don't feel safe when I ride like that, I've been almost hit multiple times from people going into a turn lane or making a right on red because they di…

But if there are no bike lanes then how do the cyclist become invisible in your world? Even with bike lanes, I just don't seem to understand the geometry of the issue. If cyclists are passing cars in the bike lane for whatever reason then drivers should see more cyclists than if they were moving with traffic. Or if cyclists are moving slower than cars, then drivers will also see more cyclists. How come you are saying…

You see them for the brief period between them being next to you to them passing you, as compared to cars, where they're in front of you for most of the time you're driving. There just aren't many cyclists in most of them, too, because most bike lanes are like islands, they connect nothing and exist for usually political purposes rather than to actually be a usable network of transport. In cities, this is not the case, mind you, there, bike lanes are usually interconnected enough that one could use them for many trips most of the way, but in the area I live in, where the bike lanes do exist, yeah, the cyclists will pass right by, so you don't even notice them unless you're at the intersection where they are. What might clear it up is that bike lanes where I live are mostly on straightaways and they give up when a major intersection comes up, the lane just ends, and it might start back up after, maybe.

To paint the picture, imagine it's rush hour, and there's cars backed up everywhere because that's just how it always is at rush hour. You're, let's say, 7 cars from the intersection, and a cyclist passes. You see them for a grand total of maybe 5 seconds before they're too far ahead of you to see, then they turn right at the intersection, and they're gone.

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#126

Post by pandaman »

Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #125
pandaman wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if there are no bike lanes then how do the cyclist become invisible in your world? Even with bike lanes, I just don't seem to understand the geometry of the issue. If cyclists are passing cars in the bike lane for whatever reason then drivers should see more cyclists than if they were moving with traffic. Or if cyclists are moving slower than cars, then drivers will also see more cyclists. How come you are saying…

You see them for the brief period between them being next to you to them passing you, as compared to cars, where they're in front of you for most of the time you're driving. There just aren't many cyclists in most of them, too, because most bike lanes are like islands, they connect nothing and exist for usually political purposes rather than to actually be a usable network of transport. In cities, this is not the cas…

Well, we come to the original statement that you had apparently a problem with - drivers don't see many cyclists but have to deal with the bike lane all the time. Even not connected bike lanes still impede traffic. Also, I don't know if you drive, but you should pay more attention to the road even on a bike, I do notice all vehicles around me, if I had not, I'd been colliding with them all the time.

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#127

Post by Moomoomoo309 »

pandaman wrote: post #126
Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see them for the brief period between them being next to you to them passing you, as compared to cars, where they're in front of you for most of the time you're driving. There just aren't many cyclists in most of them, too, because most bike lanes are like islands, they connect nothing and exist for usually political purposes rather than to actually be a usable network of transport. In cities, this is not the cas…

Well, we come to the original statement that you had apparently a problem with - drivers don't see many cyclists but have to deal with the bike lane all the time. Even not connected bike lanes still impede traffic. Also, I don't know if you drive, but you should pay more attention to the road even on a bike, I do notice all vehicles around me, if I had not, I'd been colliding with them all the time.

Obviously, I drive, how else would I get around in the suburbs? And yes, obviously I'm aware of the cars around me when I bike. Please, stop assuming I'm being negligent. When a car suddenly switches lanes because they're about to miss their turn and they almost hit you, it's not because you didn't see them, it's because they're being erratic due to almost missing a turn. When a car behind you almost clips you, again, to make a turn, it's not because you're being negligent. The person operating the two-ton vehicle easily capable of maiming you is. Cyclists have to be constantly vigilant, drivers should be. The consequences for them are more financial and legal, the consequences for cyclists are more physical.

Here's[1] a study from Rutgers about this, it seems to conclude that bike lanes do impede traffic, but the reason is that when a bike lane is present, drivers don't speed and actually come to a stop when making a right on red, and in general, the drivers in these areas don't speed when there's a cyclist there. Speeding does alleviate traffic, but I don't really think the safety benefits are worth it.

[1] https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/rutgers-bike-lanes-reduce-traf...

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#128

Post by pandaman »

Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #127
pandaman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we come to the original statement that you had apparently a problem with - drivers don't see many cyclists but have to deal with the bike lane all the time. Even not connected bike lanes still impede traffic. Also, I don't know if you drive, but you should pay more attention to the road even on a bike, I do notice all vehicles around me, if I had not, I'd been colliding with them all the time.

Obviously, I drive, how else would I get around in the suburbs? And yes, obviously I'm aware of the cars around me when I bike. Please, stop assuming I'm being negligent. When a car suddenly switches lanes because they're about to miss their turn and they almost hit you, it's not because you didn't see them, it's because they're being erratic due to almost missing a turn. When a car behind you almost clips you, again…

I am not assuming anything, this "I live in, where the bike lanes do exist, yeah, the cyclists will pass right by, so you don't even notice them unless you're at the intersection where they are." indicates that you don't notice cyclists passing by (they are vehicles too).

Re: US DOT deleting bike lane references

#129

Post by Moomoomoo309 »

pandaman wrote: post #128
Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, I drive, how else would I get around in the suburbs? And yes, obviously I'm aware of the cars around me when I bike. Please, stop assuming I'm being negligent. When a car suddenly switches lanes because they're about to miss their turn and they almost hit you, it's not because you didn't see them, it's because they're being erratic due to almost missing a turn. When a car behind you almost clips you, again…

I am not assuming anything, this "I live in, where the bike lanes do exist, yeah, the cyclists will pass right by, so you don't even notice them unless you're at the intersection where they are." indicates that you don't notice cyclists passing by (they are vehicles too).

I think I'm going to stop replying, since you continue to reply in bad faith, and assume negligence on my part, and proceeded to ignore everything else I said so you could do so again.
Post reply on HN