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

221–230 of 303 posts

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

#221

Post by bane »

recursive wrote: post #213
bane wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The wikipedia page says nothing about minimum speeds. 21202 and 21654 explicitly list restrictions that must be followed when traveling at "less than the normal speed of traffic". This suggests to me that doing so is legal. By the way, 21202 is exactly what I quoted to you, so it's kind of funny that you would repeat it back to me. 22400 deals with impeding traffic, "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" of t…

Well, if you're just going to ignore all the parts of the law that apply, then it doesn't really matter what the law says does it?

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

#222

Post by dllthomas »

bane wrote: post #221
recursive wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wikipedia page says nothing about minimum speeds. 21202 and 21654 explicitly list restrictions that must be followed when traveling at "less than the normal speed of traffic". This suggests to me that doing so is legal. By the way, 21202 is exactly what I quoted to you, so it's kind of funny that you would repeat it back to me. 22400 deals with impeding traffic, "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" of t…

Well, if you're just going to ignore all the parts of the law that apply, then it doesn't really matter what the law says does it?

Um, you seem to be doing exactly that, while recursive seems to have read the laws you pointed at - which do not say what you claim them to say.

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

#223

Post by bane »

apendleton wrote: post #44
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…

So you think your particular mode of transport should have exclusive use of a public right of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and maintain, but it's cyclists that have the shitty entitled attitude?

No, I think cyclists should also have a dedicate right of way and transport infrastructure. At least as comprehensive as the automobile road network. Even if it costs me more in the form of higher tax dollars and yes, even if if I lose a travel lane because of it.

Why is that controversial or problematic? I don't understand the shitty entitled attitude of bikers honestly. I'm not only advocating for something that's safer, more pleasant and more convenient for them, but I'm willing to put my wallet to work and inconvenience myself to support it.

All I'm getting is flak over it and the responses to it are doing little to dissuade me of my already negative opinion of cyclists as a population.

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

#224

Post by dllthomas »

msandford wrote: post #29
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…

> 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…

"They exist in a no-mans-land between pedestrians and vehicles."

CA law calls them "devices", though operators are still "drivers". Not that that actually means anything, just trivia.

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

#225

Post by lotsofmangos »

bane wrote: post #210
lotsofmangos wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I hear you on all fronts and agree (don't be surprised). In London, walking is frequently faster than driving. I've jumped off a bus more than once to just walk the rest of the way since it was faster. I posted this elsewhere as an example of the kind of nonsense I'm frequently dealing with where I live. http://imgur.com/q1xM217 This is not my area and I didn't take the picture, but it's near enough looking to quite…

I get it is annoying, but traffic is annoying.

And what is in that picture is a lot less dangerous than a slow agricultural vehicle, which you should also expect on the road from time to time, and is also obviously a cycling race team going somewhere with a follow vehicle.

You shouldn't drive faster than you can see in front on a road like that anyway.

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

#226

Post by bane »

msandford wrote: post #220
bane wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I support cycling, I think it's great. I wish it was easier and more practical to do in the U.S. What I don't support is this weird viewpoint that lots of American cyclists seem to have that the world revolves around their hobby and/or transportation choice. America was built around the car, it sucks, but that's the way it is. I don't like it, I wish it wasn't that way and I'm absolutely in love with the curr…

> They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they block traffic and cause safety issues. The part I take issue with is "were not intended" because the laws are very clear on what rights and responsibilities cyclists have when using the roads. The law gives them a right to be there. The majority of states laws…

So two things. By "intended" I specifically mean the semantics of the travelway. Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. Everything from angle to speed surveys are done specifically for the automobile. Is that a great injustice to other forms of transportation? Perhaps, but that's the way it is. It's changing, and roads are more commonly being designed and engineered to support other transport options, but there's still a long way to go with that.

Second, there's a very big difference between things being legally allowed and them being wise to do. It is perfectly legal for me to walk in the road along a road with no available sidewalk. Is it wise? Probably not.

So the problem I have is that bikes are allowed on roads, but I don't think they should be. The cry then is "well where will they go?" and I strongly propose that purpose built bike lines be built to accommodate cyclists. I recognize that it won't happen overnight, but it is happening.

> It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right.

The law in most states also specifically forbids impeding traffic (hence the 5 car law you pointed out in some jurisdictions). In others "impeding" is left open to interpretation by an officer of the law. But 20 in a 50 is impeding and I'd argue that it's not only not safe for everybody on the road, but faster vehicles (mopeds and scooters) are not even allowed on such roads (at least in my jurisdiction), which I think it a clear oversight in the law.

But bikes get an unbelievable amount of leeway. In situations where other vehicles are prohibited, or pedestrians aren't allowed, bikes get a free pass. I've never even heard of a cyclist in my area getting a ticket for anything. But I can sit out on my front porch and watch cyclists run the stop sign in front of my house all day.

I think that's wrong and I think the right way to deal with it is not to ban bikes, but to give them a better place to go and start enforcing cyclist's responsibilities.

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

#227

Post by bane »

mindslight wrote: post #30
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…

Have you ever tried walking between a residential area and a commercial one in a suburban area? Most places don't keep up or even fully create the second system of sidewalks - what makes you think they would actually do so for a third system? By far, most roads we travel on have no expectation of minimum speed, passability, etc. The exceptions that do are called controlled access highways and indeed bikes, pedestrian…

Because by and large the road system is already there (and being used for cyclists). Extended the shoulder out a bit and putting a stick figure on a bike every quarter mile to show it's a place where bikes are supposed to go is at a minimum what I'm calling for.

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

#228

Post by bane »

mikeash wrote: post #70
bane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The road is not a perfectly good place for bikes to travel. It's like saying the conveyor belt in an automated slaughter house is a good place to dance because it's flat and doesn't move too fast or that pedestrians should just walk down the middle of the road because it's not a bad walking surface. The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact…

Heh, "literally dozens of miles", that's hilarious. How many thousands of miles of streets do you have locally?

How many hundreds of millions of cars driving how many billions of road miles are driven by cars vs. bikes?

Is the decision to build roads for cars and not bikes still confusing for you?

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

#229

Post by msandford »

bane wrote: post #208
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?

Here's an easy one that's almost happened to me a few times. Picture this. http://wabikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Snohomish_bicy... Guy on bike hits a rock or crack in the road or whatever and loses control, veers or falls in front of the car in his lane. Speed limit on the road is 40. No time to brake the driver is forced to cut across the double yellows into the oncoming lane where he hits another car head o…

Based on the width of that road it's entirely likely that the motorist is breaking the law by trying to pass when the road is too narrow to do so.

I agree with you that having dedicated bike-only lanes are a far superior solution to the bike/car traffic interaction problem.

Unfortunately in the scenarios described the driver is generally going to be at fault for doing something unsafe. I sympathize because doing the safe thing and waiting is not only inconvenient but also somewhere between frustrating and infuriating. But given the picture you linked to, the driver is at fault.

Now in the situation where there's a 3ft shoulder and the cyclist is riding in it and goes down and falls into the road forcing a driver to make a horrible choice between a bunch of bad options then yes I'm very sympathetic to the points you make.

But in that case the cyclist has 3ft to maneuver and probably doesn't hit the rock or the crack or veer or whatever. Furthermore a cyclist moving along at a decent clip is going to have a very hard time changing directions fast enough to get out into the road and under a car without giving the driver time to react. Bikes don't turn on a dime at 20mph. If you fall at 20mph you basically keep going in whatever direction you were headed, possibly with limbs flailing. Your center of mass can't just instantly move 3-5 feet perpendicular to the direction of travel.

If the cyclist loses control due to some other circumstance then whatever happens is on him for not maintaining control of his vehicle. Perhaps he could be prosecuted for manslaughter or get sued for wrongful death. I don't have a problem with that; real life has consequences.

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

#230

Post by bane »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #54
bane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The road is not a perfectly good place for bikes to travel. It's like saying the conveyor belt in an automated slaughter house is a good place to dance because it's flat and doesn't move too fast or that pedestrians should just walk down the middle of the road because it's not a bad walking surface. The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact…

Bikes are the main form of transport for a lot of people. They aren't interlopers playing Tour de France on your road, they are fellow travellers who are going somewhere.

No, nobody bike commutes around here. I drive the main arteries out of my area every day and never see a cyclist. Not once in 8 years.

It's no surprise because the bike infrastructure stinks on those roads (which I'd be more than happy to support with my tax dollars to fix, and even give up a travel lane to make it happen).

It really is almost all sports bikers. It's all in the local area (I live in a very big development with almost zero office space anywhere nearby). It's hard to explain, but it really is just people tooling around in the suburbs and between developments training for bike races or triathlons.

It's a source of constant consternation and local messageboard discussion for the residents here who do have to get out of the suburb and to their jobs because all the cyclists really do impeded traffic to and from the arterial roads. What's specifically infuriating is that there's dozens of miles (maybe hundreds) of very well built and designed bike trails all over the same area, one of which even provides connectivity all the way into the major city some 30 miles away and intersects cleanly into several neighboring major employment centers (that almost all have branching connecting trail systems) along the way. I know the county next door has something like 500 miles of connected paved bike trails. But despite that, these guys will still get out on all the roads around here, endanger themselves and block traffic up for miles. I'm not sure how many there are, but it's enough to support a nice local bike store within walking distance from my house. But it's probably in the low hundreds.

Honestly, it only takes a dozen or so to fuck all the roads up every week.

The cyclists, not surprising don't give two shits and get on the local boards to make sure to let everybody know that and that their hobby is more important than everybody else.

Post reply on HN