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

Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 303 posts

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#181

Post by mindslight »

bane wrote: post #179
mindslight wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point does not refute what I said. It shows that no drivers have been criminally blamed, ruling out one kind of injustice against drivers. Other injustices, such as undeserved wrongful death/bodily injury compensation may have occurred. Regardless, OP isn't normally this obtuse. He's clearly reacting to a perceived injustice, even if it does not exist. Please read my above comment again and try to understand why…

Actually if you want to take that article literally it means that in almost every case a cyclist is killed it's their fault. Demonstrating once again that cyclists presume everybody else's area, even to the point of danger to themselves.

That's incorrect. At the most, you could only infer that it wasn't legally the driver's fault. There's a huge middle ground where fault won't be pinned on either side.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#182

Post by nknighthb »

bane wrote: post #174
nknighthb wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#183

Post by iak8god »

reitanqild wrote: post #180
iak8god wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 instan…

> 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 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.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#184

Post by mikeash »

DannyBee wrote: post #131
mikeash wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that drivers are killing cyclists without consequences, while cyclists aren't killing drivers, because it's not physically possible.

So, cyclists can't physically cause road accidents that kill drivers? Interesting (and false :P)

I can't think of any scenario where a driver could kill somebody in an accident where the driver isn't at fault for it, except for cases where the cyclist at fault gets themselves killed. How does it work?

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#185

Post by bane »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #175
bane wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#186

Post by recursive »

bane wrote: post #172
recursive wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#187

Post by bane »

recursive wrote: post #186
bane wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pass…

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

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#188

Post by bane »

nknighthb wrote: post #182
bane wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#189

Post by bane »

recursive wrote: post #166
bane wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#190

Post by elktea »

bane wrote: post #174
nknighthb wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN