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

291–300 of 303 posts

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

#291

Post by dllthomas »

commandar wrote: post #139
Pxtl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact with because they are unprotected regardless of the circumstances of the contact. I didn't ask them to get on the road with me, but I'll sure as hell be held responsible for their decision if something happens. If there were only cyclists on the road, the worst accident would be a few broken bones…

>Try it. You might be surprised that these bike lanes have dead ends or obstacles or just astonishingly crappy terrain. So much this. We have some fantastic bike trails in my area, but one of the primary arteries just suddenly ends about two miles from the downtown core. The official, city-endorsed route the rest of the way runs on normal surface streets. Coincidentally, the closest I've come to being involved in a s…

Also fun is when the bike lane doesn't take parked cars into account, leaving it either completely obstructed or entirely in the door zone - at which point the only safe options are take the lane or walk your bike. You see that less in new construction, these days, thankfully.

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

#292

Post by elblanco »

bane wrote: post #289
elblanco wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys have carried this disagreement all over this post. I think bane's point is that even though it's perfectly legal to ride a bike wherever a car can go (which is not true in some cases like highways and visa-versa like biketrails), it may just not be a good idea. I know when I ride I purposely try to avoid roads that have poor space for bikes. I don't feel safe and I don't want a distracted driver running me o…

> I think bane's point is that even though it's perfectly legal to ride a bike wherever a car can go (which is not true in some cases like highways and visa-versa like biketrails), it may just not be a good idea. Basically. But DanBC obviously wants to push some kind of agenda to the point of absurdity.

Well you're also not being particularly pleasant in the exchange. Maybe you should go cool off or ride a bike or something to see things from his perspective.

I get where you're coming from and what you're advocating, but your presentation needs a lot of work.

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

#293

Post by elblanco »

dllthomas wrote: post #290
elblanco wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that the bicycle safety classes I mention above was not only free, they gave out free lights to boot! Oh that's awesome. I would have loved to have had something like that. Do you know if they have local police come in and give safety talks as well? Cops see everything and they have all kinds of stories and advice to give.

There weren't any cops there the time I went - that could be great or go poorly, depending on the cop... but probably something worth looking into (idk if they have).

Lots of places have a dedicated community outreach officer. It would be worth calling the local precinct and finding out if they have somebody who can talk about road safety. You guys might even have some bike cops who can share and commiserate.

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

#294

Post by elblanco »

dllthomas wrote: post #288
elblanco wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ehhh...You're probably right. I dunno about CA law. looking up the conversation, recursive and you seem kind of hung up on this wording "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" which I would interpret as meaning not just speed but actual safety. Of course it's not safe (or possible) to operate a bike at 100 kph. But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches…

"But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches away while vehicles whizz around me." Right, I have no compunction taking the lane when the shoulder gets dangerous. Safety is always the concern. Note, for instance, that one of the specific times you're told you don't have to stay right (21202a4 - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.html ) is when a car m…

hmm..so I looked it up.

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/safety/mhso/program-bicycle-safe...

> This ride-to-the-right provision does not apply when operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle to travel safely side-by-side with another vehicle within the lane.

> A bicyclist riding at the speed of traffic can operate in any lane, just as any other vehicle can..Where there is not a bike lane, a bicyclist may also use the shoulder of the roadway.

> Bicycles may not be ridden in the travel lanes of any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50 miles an hour; however, bicycles may be operated on the shoulder of these roadways.

So it seems to me that if I ever go back to MD, I can take over the entire lane if I'm keeping up with traffic (which for me means speeds Maybe that's what I was thinking of. Either way I don't like to get out in front of cars, except maybe in the local neighborhood on residential streets where they're not supposed to be exceeding 15mph anyways.

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

#295

Post by bane »

dllthomas wrote: post #272
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

"Nope. Keep searching." As an aside, I'd like to object to this rhetorical technique. "You haven't found the thing that proves me right, therefore I am right" should not be permitted in arguments. For the record, I don't think your intent was malicious, just calling attention to something I see a bit and don't like.

No you're right. It's bad form. It came across as bad form and I was really just too lazy to look it up and post it.

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

#296

Post by dllthomas »

bane wrote: post #287
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…

> That's a stupid response. So what's stupid about the response? Either their is or there isn't an impediment law. It sounds like there is, just that "impediment" has been specifically defined in CA. I feel like you were asserting there wasn't an impediment law, then citing me one. Maybe I'm just irritated at everybody else and it's bleeding over into this thread.

I would not have written that in response to the post-edit comment. I realized after editing that I should have put the new comment on top, but at that point it was too late to edit further - my apologies for the confusion. I still don't agree with the current comment - as you can see from my updated response (the bottom half) - but I wouldn't have called it stupid.

Reiterating what I said there, with a slightly different spin - it is not the case that, in general, "impeding the flow of traffic with your travel" is illegal. That is not really changed by the fact that there are some limits on just how extreme some aspects of that impediment can get; there is plenty of room to bicycle in a way that impedes some traffic and does not fall afowl of the law.

Most relevant to the context here, it is not a law that a police officer could use to ticket a cyclist for the mere act of riding slowly relative to cars, even if they are impeding the flow of several cars.

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

#297

Post by dllthomas »

bane wrote: post #295
dllthomas wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nope. Keep searching." As an aside, I'd like to object to this rhetorical technique. "You haven't found the thing that proves me right, therefore I am right" should not be permitted in arguments. For the record, I don't think your intent was malicious, just calling attention to something I see a bit and don't like.

No you're right. It's bad form. It came across as bad form and I was really just too lazy to look it up and post it.

Yeah, there's been some good stuff in these threads, and some less good stuff. Tryin' to nudge everyone in the direction of the former - myself included. Thanks :)

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

#298

Post by dllthomas »

elblanco wrote: post #294
dllthomas wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches away while vehicles whizz around me." Right, I have no compunction taking the lane when the shoulder gets dangerous. Safety is always the concern. Note, for instance, that one of the specific times you're told you don't have to stay right (21202a4 - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.html ) is when a car m…

hmm..so I looked it up. http://www.mva.maryland.gov/safety/mhso/program-bicycle-safe... > This ride-to-the-right provision does not apply when operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle to travel safely side-by-side with another vehicle within the lane. > A bicyclist riding at the speed of traffic can operate in any lane, just as any other vehicle can..Where there is not a bike lane, a bicyclist may also us…

I'm not familiar with MD law, and of course IANAL, but your summary seems a fair synthesis of the bits you quoted.

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

#299

Post by derekp7 »

endzone wrote: post #275
derekp7 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, every time a car passes a bicycle on a busy road, especially one that isn't designed to accommodate bicycles and cars safely (i.e., one with 0 inches paved shoulder to the right of the white line) it is inherently dangerous. And if the bicycle causes the same car to pass multiple times, the agitation of the driver goes up. The safe thing to do, is for the bicycle to go ahead and pass on the right, stop…

struggling to think of a more unsafe and misguided approach to cycling in traffic than continually exiting and reentering the road. bizarre

If I'm on a 2-lane road, and gravel next to the white line... a car is passing me and having to cross the center line. Meanwhile, a big gravel truck is approaching over the hill in the oncoming lane. The 4000 lb car to the left of me can either wrestle with the 25000 lb gravel truck, or the 200 lb me. Now guess why I'm willing to hit the gravel and let the car back over.

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

#300

Post by bane »

dllthomas wrote: post #296
bane wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a stupid response. So what's stupid about the response? Either their is or there isn't an impediment law. It sounds like there is, just that "impediment" has been specifically defined in CA. I feel like you were asserting there wasn't an impediment law, then citing me one. Maybe I'm just irritated at everybody else and it's bleeding over into this thread.

I would not have written that in response to the post-edit comment. I realized after editing that I should have put the new comment on top, but at that point it was too late to edit further - my apologies for the confusion. I still don't agree with the current comment - as you can see from my updated response (the bottom half) - but I wouldn't have called it stupid. Reiterating what I said there, with a slightly diff…

That's fine. I'm not in top form either. You didn't call me stupid, just what I said...and it may or may not actually be stupid.

We can agree I suppose to disagree on legal interpretations.

Post reply on HN