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

261–270 of 303 posts

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

#261

Post by nknighthb »

bane wrote: post #251
nknighthb wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't get to "choose the terms". We are not your minions. You are having a public discussion with other human beings who are not obliged to cater to your whims and post-hoc rationalizations for your abusive and threatening behavior.

> You are having a public discussion with other human beings Oh okay > What you're doing is being an asshole > There's something very wrong with you. > I don't think you should be permitted in public unsupervised. Did I get all of them? Thanks for being a nice human being to exchange viewpoints on. Great examples of being an unfriendly and insulting conversation partner to other people behind the veil of on-line anon…

You've called cyclists morons and insisted cycling on roads is equivalent with deliberately attempting to injure other people. There is absolutely nothing "humorous" about that, nor your inability to understand why other people found it horrifying and not conducive to discussion.

I don't care how much you talk about dedicated cycling infrastructure. Your violent "metaphor" overshadows it, and taints it, revealing an underlying purpose of simple segregation of something that enrages you. You've also claimed negative experiences with cyclists as a pedestrian, which, given the circumstances, is simply an admission of even greater bias against cycling.

I told you you were being an asshole in hopes that you might recognize that you've gone way off the deep end. But apparently you're a lost cause.

My fault, I should have already known that -- I did some searching and realized you're the same guy who rages about cycling every time it comes up on HN.

So, yeah, sorry to have interrupted your ravings.

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

#262

Post by bane »

nknighthb wrote: post #261
bane wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are having a public discussion with other human beings Oh okay > What you're doing is being an asshole > There's something very wrong with you. > I don't think you should be permitted in public unsupervised. Did I get all of them? Thanks for being a nice human being to exchange viewpoints on. Great examples of being an unfriendly and insulting conversation partner to other people behind the veil of on-line anon…

You've called cyclists morons and insisted cycling on roads is equivalent with deliberately attempting to injure other people. There is absolutely nothing "humorous" about that, nor your inability to understand why other people found it horrifying and not conducive to discussion. I don't care how much you talk about dedicated cycling infrastructure. Your violent "metaphor" overshadows it, and taints it, revealing an…

Considering your lack of basic reading comprehension of my statements and metaphor and the repeated insults I've received in this thread and others, I feel like my opinion of cyclists is even more justified.

Please continue lecturing me and others how we should be respectful of others while calling them dangerous and demented.

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

#263

Post by elblanco »

bane wrote: post #67
soperj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those bikers who hates sharing roadways with cars. It's not that I have to share, but between taking up so much of the road, pure safety concerns for bikers(since automobile drivers win every single colition) and generally shitty entitled attitude lots of car drivers seem to have (most likely because there are more of them so they think they own the road) I get my hackles raised every time I see one on the…

Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right? Would you walk in the middle of the road? No, because that's idiotic and stupid. But sit on a few pounds of rubber and tubed aluminum, travel only slightly faster than the same moronic pedestrian and now it's a smart commuting idea? You've chosen to go out and share the roads that were built for cars and decided for every driver (who are actually entitled…

I'm with you on your main points. But this kind of talk doesn't help your argument.

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

#264

Post by elblanco »

dllthomas wrote: post #222
bane wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No I think he's right. At least around where I live (well, used to live, I'm in Korea at the moment), cyclists are not supposed to ride on roads that disrupt traffic or don't have a sufficient shoulder to pull off onto to let vehicles pass.

By contrast in Korea, they're not supposed to use roads at all and you'll find everything from bikes to scooters sharing sidewalks with people on foot. But bikes aren't real common here anyways with the small apartments and all.

edit actually I was curious and looked it up for Korea. Turns out according to Article 2(17)(a) of the 도로교통법 (road laws), bikes are classified as motor vehicles and have all the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle.

Weird because I almost never see them out in traffic, but usually up on sidewalks or on "bike-only" roads.

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

#265

Post by elblanco »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #38
shiftpgdn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cyclist is just a brief inconvenience. It's the same as a school bus or slow driver in a lane requiring you to go around. Every bike on the road is one less car causing traffic. It's crazy to want infrastructure for JUST cyclists when the road is a perfectly good way to travel.

Sorry, but John Forester was wrong - not about the mechanics of vehicular cycling, but the psychology. I'm a year-round, go-anywhere cyclist who rides in mixed traffic on side streets and major arterials alike, and I understand that this puts me in an extreme minority: more than 99% of people simply will not ride a bike unless they have a safe-looking, physically protected space in which to do it. North America spent…

It seems to me that it's obvious the Euro-way is the better one. Get cyclists off the roads and safe. I agree with the OP, sharing space with unprotected humans wearing nothing but a few grams of styrofoam on their head for protection is not a great place to be when operating any kind of motor vehicle.

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

#266

Post by elblanco »

bane wrote: post #85
DanBC wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, you are aware that the roads were built for cars right? No, they were not. They were built for horses - with and without carriages - and bicycles and motorbikes and cars and vans and trucks and buses. > You've chosen to go out and share the roads that were built for cars Criminal offence for cyclists to use the pavement.

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.

You know for a fact that there are historic roads all over the U.S. that date back to before the car. Even old farm roads have been turned into highways, but that doesn't mean they weren't originally purposed for things on foot.

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

#267

Post by elblanco »

seanflyon wrote: post #127
turar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edmonton, Alberta. I live in a central/downtown location, where most streets are quiet 2-lanes. And like I said, I have never seen a cyclist actually stop at a stop sign. Most don't even slow down -- just a quick check to make sure they're not going to get killed, and blow right past.

In many cities it is perfectly legal for bicycles to treat stop signs as yield signs. I have no idea if this is the case in Edmonton, Alberta.

Correct, where I grew up, we were taught in school to get out of intersections as quickly as possible, or dismount and walk across the crosswalk if it was available.

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

#268

Post by elblanco »

dllthomas wrote: post #260
bane wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there is a specific impediment law.

That's a stupid response. You're the only one who has made claims about what holds in "every state". I don't know enough about the situation in other states to say anything - it's conceivable (if unlikely) that every other state than the one I happen to know about works the way you say; but that still makes it "not every state", and means it applies to a good 12% of Americans. Edited to add: The comment above was cha…

At least where I grew up, bikes were not supposed to ride on roads without sufficient shoulder for them to pull out of the way of vehicles. The flip side is that there's a big lobby that tries to ensure that most roads have such a shoulder. Lots of rural roads don't have them, but I've found that it's better for me as both a driver and a cyclist to have such shoulders in the case I need to pull off or out of the way with either kind of transport mode.

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

#269

Post by elblanco »

nknighthb wrote: post #144
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…

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.

That's a bit hyperbolic, rude and unfair. It's a stupid example, but it's not advocating violence. Maybe a little property destruction. But nothing that would harm a person.

I get his point though. There are expectations you have in using all kinds of things. And it's really not fair for somebody else to usurp that use and then complain when it's not perfectly suited for their unintended use-case.

It's like complaining that bikes don't make good airplanes even though I've jumped my bike thousands of times. When I ride, I'm aware that I'm also not a particularly good automobile and try to plan my route to not end up in circumstances where I might get hurt from a careless driver. It would be the same if I was on a moped or small dirt bike or something.

I used to have this amazingly beat up old van when I was a teenager, and I don't think it could even make 100kph (about 60mph) downhill with a tailwind. So I knew I also shouldn't be bringing it on fast roads because I'd be a menace to everybody else on the road. It just seems like common sense to me.

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

#270

Post by dllthomas »

elblanco wrote: post #268
dllthomas wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a stupid response. You're the only one who has made claims about what holds in "every state". I don't know enough about the situation in other states to say anything - it's conceivable (if unlikely) that every other state than the one I happen to know about works the way you say; but that still makes it "not every state", and means it applies to a good 12% of Americans. Edited to add: The comment above was cha…

At least where I grew up, bikes were not supposed to ride on roads without sufficient shoulder for them to pull out of the way of vehicles. The flip side is that there's a big lobby that tries to ensure that most roads have such a shoulder. Lots of rural roads don't have them, but I've found that it's better for me as both a driver and a cyclist to have such shoulders in the case I need to pull off or out of the way…

Certainly it all varies location to location. I'm unaware of a regulation like you suggest in CA, and don't believe there is one - where did you grow up?

It's certainly the case that it's better and safer to ride (or drive) where you have space to stop, and that that should be preferred when picking a route or building a road, but other concerns can sometimes wind up dominating.

Post reply on HN