A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles • Hacker News Board

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#191

Post by cataphract » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 1:04 AM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #168

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like that the article implies cyclists are breaking the rules, but then they list behaviors that are legal in most places and make sense: > overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. It also blames bikes for both moving too fast and too slow, and ignores that drivers'd be way more pissed if bikes took the entire lane (like they're entitled to in most places).

The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists: Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. Whether or not the cyclists are actually followin…

We usually say that the only thing that angers motorists more than cyclists breaking the rules of the road is cyclists following the rules of the road :)

The implication is that while they get angered by cyclists running reds, doing illegal turns, or lane splitting (assuming it's illegal), they also get angered if by following the rules the cyclists slow them down.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#192

Post by tastygreenapple » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

gbrown wrote: post #162

tastygreenapple wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America, Motorist == Community. It's bikers who are deviations from normal. We've built our cities for cars, now these bikers demand 'inclusion' on infrastructure they broadly don't pay for while flagrantly violating laws (ever seen a bicyclist come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Me neither).

I humbly suggest that you dig deep and examine whether your opinion has more to do with the anger and frustration you experience while driving than objective fact, or any measureable harm you receive.

I don't own a car. I just call it like I see it, I don't think cars are great but bicycles seriously randomize the road, it's beyond stupid that 4000 lb cars driven by people who don't even operate the vehicle that well 'share' the road with 10-30 lb bicycles.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#193

Post by cataphract » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #188

lacampbell wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them. If you work…

I beg to differ. The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules. [1] T…

In my jurisdiction, cyclists are not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules as drivers are (for instance, the fines are halved). This makes sense, because the consequences of cyclists disregarding the rules are not as dangerous to other road users.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#194

Post by wozniacki » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 1:11 AM UTC

fader wrote: post #143

tastygreenapple wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America, Motorist == Community. It's bikers who are deviations from normal. We've built our cities for cars, now these bikers demand 'inclusion' on infrastructure they broadly don't pay for while flagrantly violating laws (ever seen a bicyclist come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Me neither).

That's a beautiful example of the entitlement in question. Cyclists pay taxes (did you think that gas taxes are high enough to pay for roads?), cause orders of magnitude less damage and wear to the road surfaces than automobiles, and don't use anywhere near the amount of valuable land as free storage for their vehicles when not in use. (The law violation works both ways too. Ever seen a motorist obey the speed limit?…

Would you be open to

  a. having bicyclists licensed, 
  b. their bicycles registered & inspected by an 
     agency,
  c. license plates issued & 
  d. the respective parties be insured to cover
     potential damages to themselves and others 
     on the road, when accidents happen?

Does not that reasonably follow from what you're implying & if you want the same rights as any other DMV registered vehicle?

How does a cyclist not get to do any of those?

For example, did you know that impaired riding of a bicycle is just as prosecutable as "driving under the influence" of a motor vehicle?

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#195

Post by lojack » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 1:27 AM UTC

slewis wrote: post #184

vonmoltke wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the policy in a large chunk of Manhattan. It was not the policy on major (more than two-lane) or downtown roads in Dallas (and its two independent enclaves prohibited overnight street parking entirely). It's not the policy on the vast majority of streets in Miami or the surrounding cities.

Anecdotes dont override the claim of “default” here.

No, but this anecdote of one is infinitely more data points than the original claim.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#196

Post by lacampbell » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #188

lacampbell wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them. If you work…

I beg to differ. The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules. [1] T…

The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement

You betray yourself by the language you use - 'entitlement'. They are entitled to use the road, etc, just like any other user. I see many dangerous road users (all vehicles), but I never think of them as entitled - as if they shouldn't be there. Just sloppy/dangerous/ignorant.

It bothers people more because they know they could kill them with their car. The same way you might call out a smaller person acting rudely, but not a large, fit looking person.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#197

Post by wozniacki » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #196

wozniacki wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ. The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules. [1] T…

The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement You betray yourself by the language you use - 'entitlement'. They are entitled to use the road, etc, just like any other user. I see many dangerous road users (all vehicles), but I never think of them as entitled - as if they shouldn't be there. Just sloppy/dangerous/ignorant. It bothers people more because they know…

An air of entitlement not to the road, they feel entitled to flouting the rules & to not be penalized or reprimanded for doing so -- like not stopping at signals or intersections as if its beneath them.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#198

Post by jimmux » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:21 AM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #188

lacampbell wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them. If you work…

I beg to differ. The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules. [1] T…

I don't think these opinions are mutually exclusive. I have certainly observed both. Entitled cyclists are very common around the urban area I live, but when I ride to the outer suburbs there's more of a car culture where they people invest heavily into the self-image that their vehicle supports. Their need to rev engines as they pass suggests that the power play is important to them.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#199

Post by Finnucane » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

saddestcatever wrote: post #69

Finnucane wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking-space racks come out in the summer in the more bike-friendly cities near Boston, for several years now. So, yeah, it's definitely a thing here.

Really? I don't believe I've ever seen one in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville. What are the nearby bike friendly cities?

Srsly? Cambridge and Somerville usually have a few deployed around. I have actually used them. Union sq usually has one or two, but maybe not right now with all the construction.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#200

Post by frenchy » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:26 AM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #194

fader wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a beautiful example of the entitlement in question. Cyclists pay taxes (did you think that gas taxes are high enough to pay for roads?), cause orders of magnitude less damage and wear to the road surfaces than automobiles, and don't use anywhere near the amount of valuable land as free storage for their vehicles when not in use. (The law violation works both ways too. Ever seen a motorist obey the speed limit?…

Would you be open to a. having bicyclists licensed, b. their bicycles registered & inspected by an agency, c. license plates issued & d. the respective parties be insured to cover potential damages to themselves and others on the road, when accidents happen? Does not that reasonably follow from what you're implying & if you want the same rights as any other DMV registered vehicle? How does a cyclist not get to do any…

I would personally be open to all of those, but I feel like it's something that would be good 10% of the time, and pretty problematic 90% of the time.

I can see an argument made for licensing cyclist who want to ride on non-residential roads. These sort of cyclists though are unlikely to injure anyone but themselves, so there's not a lot to be ganied from it.

The idea of requiring a 5-year-old to get licensed so they can ride around in front of their appartment building/house seems a little bizzare.

Vehicle licensing depends on the kind of vehicle and how easy it is to accidentally kill or maim people with it in it's normal operation. This is very easy with the DMV registered vehicles, it's not that easy with a bike.