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

191–200 of 303 posts

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

#191

Post by msandford »

mikeash wrote: post #184
DannyBee wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From the article I originally linked to:

"In stories where the driver had been cited, the penalty’s meagerness defied belief, like the teenager in 2011 who drove into the 49-year-old cyclist John Przychodzen from behind on a road just outside Seattle, running over and killing him. The police issued only a $42 ticket for an “unsafe lane change” because the kid hadn’t been drunk and, as they saw it, had not been driving recklessly."

Kid kills cyclist, but doesn't get tried even for involuntary manslaughter. Had this kid used a gun instead of a car, you can be sure that the story would have a different ending.

I believe that's a direct, nearly EXACT example of a driver killing a cyclist in an accident and not getting charged despite quite likely being at fault. If the police issued him SOME kind of a citation it stands to reason he wasn't 100% in the right. Someone else paid with their life.

Here's another example in the article:

"...Amelie Le Moullac, 24, pedaling inside a bike lane in San Francisco’s SOMA district when a truck turned right and killed her. In these articles, I found a recurring phrase: to quote from The San Francisco Chronicle story about Ms. Le Moullac, “The truck driver stayed at the scene and was not cited.”"

How many more examples would you like to see? It takes me only a minute or two to dig these up as they're all over google. I don't have to go past the first page.

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

#192

Post by bane »

revelation wrote: post #46
bane wrote: post #13

I'm one of those drivers who hates sharing roadways with bikers. It's not that I have to share, but between slowing traffic down, pure safety concerns for the biker (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident) and the generally shitty entitled attitude lots of bike riders seem to have (probably earned from dealing with irritated drivers like me) I get my hackles raised every time I s…

Your comments in this thread strongly suggest you are unsuitable for driving cars on public roads. The law rightfully places significant burdens on those operating multi-ton vehicles in the close proximity of pedestrians and cyclists. It also recognizes bicycles as proper vehicles, giving them the right to ride on roads, at the speed and position the situation calls for. I sincerely hope you won't ever hit anyone. Th…

I've been driving for 23 years in about as many countries with not a single traffic accident (though I'll admit to a couple speeding tickets). I've driven in weather, climates and conditions as varied as polar winter conditions to mountains and desert.

I have something over a million road miles under my belt which puts me at near 20,000 hours of on the road driving experience in mixes of cities to extreme rural environments. I feel comfortable saying I'm a driving expert and that I'm a very safe driver.

I've never felt safe sharing pavement with a cyclist. Ever. Not for my own personal safety, or because of some dubious legal requirement, but for the safety of the cyclist. If you think that makes me sound like some kind of wild west psychopathic car driver hellbent on a Death Race high score spree I suggest you rethink that.

The law also puts requirements on bike riders when using public roads. It's not an unburdened responsibility. However, bicyclists would like to make it a responsibility of car drivers only (as the comments in this thread pretty clearly indicate), and have an unlimited right to use infrastructure that wasn't designed or built with them in mind. However, enforcement of those laws on bicyclists is virtually nonexistent.

The reason I feel unsafe around cyclists is that not only am I operating a complex, multi-thousand pound machine that can take me to triple digit speeds in under a minute, but because cyclists don't seem to be aware that I'm doing involved in that operation. They'll routinely swerve out into traffic, cut across busy intersections and otherwise behave like all the world revolves around them.

Not all cyclists are like this. But I'm hard pressed to find many that observe even some fraction of the laws they're supposed to follow.

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

#193

Post by mikeash »

msandford wrote: post #191
mikeash wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From the article I originally linked to: "In stories where the driver had been cited, the penalty’s meagerness defied belief, like the teenager in 2011 who drove into the 49-year-old cyclist John Przychodzen from behind on a road just outside Seattle, running over and killing him. The police issued only a $42 ticket for an “unsafe lane change” because the kid hadn’t been drunk and, as they saw it, had not been drivin…

...What?

I was replying to a comment saying that cyclists can kill people on the road by causing accidents. I responded by saying that I can't figure out that could happen without the driver being at fault, with the exception of the cyclist getting himself killed.

I'm well aware of drivers killing cyclists and getting away with it. That's not what I was talking about.

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

#194

Post by msandford »

mindslight wrote: post #40
msandford wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars. While I understand the sentiment you need to understand that cyclists are put in a pretty awkward legal situation themselves. They exist in a no-mans-land between pedestrians and vehicles. Sidewalks are often too narrow, too close to blind corners, etc for safety. They're often VERY bumpy. At 2mph a sidewal…

> The police tend to look at cyclists the way you do, and many times don't find fault with drivers even if cyclists are KILLED much less injured or have their bikes destroyed. I mostly drive these days, but I'm no friend of cars in general or police for that matter. However it's important to keep in mind that injustices occur both ways, and forming blanket statements is a great way to end up just talking past one ano…

I think the consequences of the injustices are highly asymmetric and that skews people's sense of what is right and wrong.

Cyclists tend to pay with their bodies or their lives when something goes wrong in the street. Drivers -- at least when cyclists are involved -- do not. And often they do not get prosecuted at all. Please read the article linked, it has several examples. I can find plenty more if you like.

If a driver suffers a 30 second delay when a cyclist does something stupid but a cyclist suffers death when a driver does something stupid it's not entirely unreasonable to discount the injustice that drivers suffer at the hands of cyclists.

Furthermore you allude to "sidewalks" as something that cyclists can do wrong. I disagree. Few states have laws prohibiting sidewalk riding though some cities have passed laws against it.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/08/legal-to-ride-...

I couldn't agree more that the best protection a driver has is a dashcam. Just the threat to the other party (driver, cyclist, pedestrian) that such a thing exists might well convince them to not pursue a frivolous claim.

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

#195

Post by msandford »

mikeash wrote: post #193
msandford wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article I originally linked to: "In stories where the driver had been cited, the penalty’s meagerness defied belief, like the teenager in 2011 who drove into the 49-year-old cyclist John Przychodzen from behind on a road just outside Seattle, running over and killing him. The police issued only a $42 ticket for an “unsafe lane change” because the kid hadn’t been drunk and, as they saw it, had not been drivin…

...What? I was replying to a comment saying that cyclists can kill people on the road by causing accidents. I responded by saying that I can't figure out that could happen without the driver being at fault, with the exception of the cyclist getting himself killed. I'm well aware of drivers killing cyclists and getting away with it. That's not what I was talking about.

Whoops, you're right! I think I missed part of that exchange the first time.

If I take your statement out of context my reply sort-of makes sense but now I see that it doesn't really.

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

#196

Post by lotsofmangos »

bane wrote: post #185
lotsofmangos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've cycled for fun a little bit, but I have cycled to get to work a lot, both in cities and rural areas. I don't really think of my bike in terms of going to visit trails, it is purely a means of getting around that I also can take on a train. This is in the UK, a lot of it in London, which is an exciting place to cycle and you do generally have to work on the assumption that everybody is trying to kill you, though per mile, walking is more dangerous.

Also, as far as cycling in London traffic goes, most of the time it is the cars holding me up, as a bike is quicker than the average speed of traffic. If I am holding up a line of cars, I will cut in behind a parked car and let them pass, is far more dangerous for me to have a load of stressed drivers queuing up.

One thing, roads are dangerous places. I know this and have had it drilled into me since I was a kid, but given this is the UK the advice is not to stay out of the road, but how to be in the road safely, whether you are a pedestrian, car or cyclist. Stuff like always walking on the side facing into traffic when on country roads and what to do around horses.

You might think this attitude is woefully dangerous, but I prefer it to a society where I could be get arrested for jaywalking.

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

#197

Post by mikeash »

msandford wrote: post #195
mikeash wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...What? I was replying to a comment saying that cyclists can kill people on the road by causing accidents. I responded by saying that I can't figure out that could happen without the driver being at fault, with the exception of the cyclist getting himself killed. I'm well aware of drivers killing cyclists and getting away with it. That's not what I was talking about.

Whoops, you're right! I think I missed part of that exchange the first time. If I take your statement out of context my reply sort-of makes sense but now I see that it doesn't really.

Oh well, at least your comment is interesting even if out of place.

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

#198

Post by msandford »

bane wrote: post #169
xiaoma wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been hit by numerous bike riders while out jogging or walking on local trails? This is mind-blowing. As a former distance runner, I've put in 10,000+ miles of running on trails, on sidewalks and on small roads and done so in several countries. In over a decade of that, I was never hit by any cyclist. Even in terms of close calls I can only remember a couple. What kind of trails do you frequent and what the hec…

I had a full on collision last year that sprained my elbow so bad I may have to get surgery. I'm waiting to see if it heals up. The bicyclist gave me an earful about blocking the shared-use trail with my walking until I called pulled out my phone to call the cops and then he high tailed it out there. It was literally a vehicular hit and run. And if I need surgery will cost me thousands of dollars and months of physic…

That's pretty awful and I can see how it might affect your views on cyclists. I would want to punch those guys myself.

I had the good fortune to start cycling seriously with a university club where the coach was really strict about safe riding being a pre-requisite to participation and as such I don't do the kinds of things you're talking about. In fact most of the cyclists I know don't do that stuff either.

But just because I'm not exposed to a bunch of jackasses doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think your support of separate spaces for separate uses is admirable given the bad experiences you've had.

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

#199

Post by bane »

DanBC wrote: post #178
bane wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I juggle chainsaws in a crowded plaza That's a terrible analogy. The correct one is if I choose to juggle chainsaws in the chainsaw juggling room. And some people think it would be a good idea to come in there with me and start doing cartwheels. Then when one of them gets hit with a saw complains about all the chain saw jugglers. All the chainsaw jugglers have accepted the risk of their activities and are even d…

You keep making the same mistake - you keep saying that roads are only for motorised vehicles. You repeat this mistake despite being shown an example US law that explicitly states that roads are not just for motorised vehicles.

No, you keep making the same two mistakes.

1) You don't actually know what the law is. You've cherry picked laws that allow bikes to share roads without having even a breath's familiarity with the responsibilities that also come with road usage and the laws that lay out those responsibilities.

2) You equate "being legal" with "being wise". It's perfectly legal for me to go on a diet of all broken glass. But it's a stupid idea. It's perfectly legal, and even specifically enshrined in law for me to go grocery shopping with a loaded shotgun and a backpack full of dynamite, but it's also idiotic.

I think to save cyclists from themselves they should have protected, dedicated bikeways that are not meant for pedestrians or cars but bikes and transportation devices of similar speed and weight (roller skates to Segways). I think that this is a fantastic idea and should be the norm everywhere. I'm not retarded, a psychopath, or ignorant of what the law says. But I do have to share the road with cyclists who are and to save them from themselves I wholly support the above engineering and planning ideas and would even be willing to sacrifice my own income to make this a reality in the form of higher, purpose designated taxes.

If you have a problem with my attitude fine, but you're doing absolutely nothing to dissuade me from my preconceived notions that the community of cyclists I deal with every week is made up mostly of entitled assholes with a death wish.

Anybody who looks at a 40+ mph undivided two lane road with poor visibility and double yellow no passing lane markings and says "I'm going ride my bike there" is perfectly legal to do so. But they're also idiotic morons.

And when they complain that that journey wasn't safe, not because there isn't a good bike lane, but because of all the cars on that purpose built automotive surface driving exactly as they were supposed to, they can go fuck themselves. Because I'm not responsible for their stupidity.

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

#200

Post by nknighthb »

bane wrote: post #188
nknighthb wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're doing is being an asshole, and I'm not talking about the purported hobby. You need to get yourself sorted out before this instability affects your relationship with more than just the pixels on your screen that you obviously can't conceive of as fellow human beings.

Oh I see, you can't handle it when an analogous situation interferes with your hobby. Then my point is made by your example.

It's not analogous, and it's not "my hobby". I haven't been on a bicycle in probably 15 years. There's something very wrong with you.
Post reply on HN