Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by framebit 2571 days ago
As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition, I whole-heartedly love what few physically protected bike lanes there are in my city. They've greatly extended the range of places I feel comfortable riding my bike. I don't know if I'll ever be in good enough shape to feel comfortable claiming a lane and riding in traffic anywhere but neighborhoods and steep downhills. Yeah, it's a pain to turn left from a physically protected lane on the right, but those small delays are totally worth the added safety of the curb/whatever.
2 comments

If I have to get off the bike at most of my intersections and turns, I might as well take a bus, because I'll get there faster.

It might make seem to be reasonable to have these protected lanes for slower? cyclists in addition to allowing vehicular cycling, but there are two problems with this: a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes; b) it discourages cyclists from joining the flow when they're ready

As a cyclist, I'll gladly use separated infrastructure if it's fit for the purpose -- limited use trails that go where I want to go are great; separated bike lanes on big climbs are great.

Separated lanes that don't allow me to turn where I need to are unusable. Separated lanes that throw me into the flow of traffic from the right of parked cars with maybe 10-20 feet until the intersection where drivers are going to stop on green to turn right onto a crowded street are a death trap.

> a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes

This is something I’m struggling with right now. The city where I live has a lot of mediocre or downright dangerous lanes for cyclists which are often very narrow and next to a column of parked cars so that riders can get hit by a suddenly opened door. When I then ride on the road instead, I often have to contend with car drivers who seem seem to purposefully pass by very closely at high speeds, seemingly in an attempt to ‘teach me a lesson’ and get me to ride on the bicycle lane again. That’s my interpretation at least. Has anyone else here noticed something like this?

Yes, those are often called "punishment passes".

I've even had drivers pass me dangerously closely when I was riding 17 mph in a 15 mph zone with sharrows printed in the lane. I stop and speak with some of these drivers at the stop light, so I'm not even breaking the law and they literally save zero time. Far too many of these drivers seem surprised that the speed limit is 15 mph as they seem to think they should drive 40 mph or faster.

Oh wow, so it’s actually a thing. What kinds of responses do you get from drivers when you talk to them afterwards?

Thanks also for mentioning the term ‘punishment pass’, googling this led me to some interesting blog posts.

You also might find the acronym MGIF (must get in front) to be interesting. I think it's mostly used by British cyclists.

If my memory serves, the responses range wildly. On one end you have completely reasonable and sincere sounding apologies that they accidentally passed me dangerously. Whether or not these were accidents, I don't know. On the other end you have the typical rants against cyclists. In the middle I might help convince bad drivers to treat cyclists nicer.

One time a driver I was speaking to seemed apologetic and some random pedestrian started screaming at me about how I shouldn't be telling drivers what to do. That guy was nuts.

I didn’t know the MGIF acronym although the attitude is something I pretty much take for granted. If I’m on a narrow road with a car behind me, I mostly expect the driver will try to squeeze past me even though they won’t be significantly faster.
That's awesome you talk to them. I imagine most people yell or do something dangerous because they think they'll never have to face you afterwards.
> I was riding 17 mph in a 15 mph zone

Where in the world is there a 15mph zone where cars can drive 40 that bikes want to go? I cant think of a single 15 mph zone in any of the 6 cities ive lived

San Jacinto Blvd. at the University of Texas at Austin campus. I would intentionally ride there on my commute because the speed limit is so low.

To be fair, few drivers seem to actually go 40 mph, though 25-30 mph seems to be regularly observed, particularly on the downhill road next to it (Deloss Dodds Way). I could easily do 30 mph going downhill there. I think the speed limit is 15 in that entire area due to the heavy pedestrian traffic.

Yeah, 40 mph there would be really unusual. Most cars drive at reasonable speeds there. Source: I lived in Creekside dorm.
> When I then ride on the road instead, I often have to contend with car drivers who seem seem to purposefully pass by very closely at high speeds

If you ride at the edge of the general purpose lane, then this is very likely to happen because drivers will believe their vehicle will fit between you and traffic in the adjacent lane. If you ride in the center (or between the center and left tire track) position in the lane, then practically all faster traffic will completely change lanes to pass you.

this is a thing, happened to me today in fact on a neighborhood street.
Assuming a city grid, wouldn't you have at most 2 turns to get where you're going (assuming start and end inside the grid)?

Inside a city these dedicated bike lanes are great, especially with dedicated bike traffic lights. Obviously doesn't apply to longer/winding rides.

I'm in Seattle and we have one here (2nd Avenue) that "feels" a lot safer than cycling alongside parked cars/traffic.

I commute through Seattle from the ferry dock to south lake union. I could technically do it in two turns, but that wouldn't be great in terms of avoiding hills, avoiding streets with heavy traffic (i rode on denny during commute once, not going to happen again), and avoiding the damn trolley rails (also, not going to touch westlake where the trolley is again either).

I don't choose to ride on 2nd ave, because it's too different for the one or two blocks I could be on it, and the transitions are hard. It's a much better idea than some of the other protected lanes I see on my route though. I can't imagine it's worth it for me to go up and down Marion to use it though. (Western is a much nicer slope)

> As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition

You don't need to be in "Tour de France" condition to take the lane on city streets (discounting your use of hyperbole). I do so all the time and intersection navigation is far easier when taking the lane than it is when forced to ride all the way to the right.

Pedestrian style infrastructure is suitable for pedestrian speeds (3 to 6 mph), not bicycle speeds (10 to 30+ mph).

> Yeah, it's a pain to turn left from a physically protected lane on the right, but those small delays are totally worth the added safety of the curb/whatever.

Except that the curb does not continue through the intersection. A car approaching from your right at the intersecting road, a car approaching from behind preparing to make a right turn. Or a car approaching from the opposite direction preparing to make a left may not see you until it's too late.

The vast majority of bike crashes occur at intersections. Very few are due to cars rear-ending cyclists.

Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though? "Vehicular cycling" has been around since the 1970's, and in practice it doesn't work.

Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities, because the number one reason people cite for not cycling is not feeling safe around cars.

Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears, and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically.

> Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though?

I'm middle aged, a bit overweight and tow two kids in a Burley Bee trailer and still take the lane. It doesn't require one to be able to sustain 25 to 30 mph speeds on flat ground. I go between 8 to 15 mph most of the time.

The only requirement is that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The elderly should know that if they have driving experience. Children who are older can be taught these rules. In fact in certain states, 14 year olds are legally allowed to drive and there is an expectation that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles).

> Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities

The problem is that when they get to intersections and they presume that they have the right-of-way when they don't or there's not enough time for turning vehicles or vehicles approaching the intersection to see them, they end up getting hit.

> Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears,

The fear is not rational. There are people who are afraid of flying despite the fact that, statistically, it's far safer than driving. If they want to fly, then they need to deal with their irrational fear such that they can do so.

> and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically.

The study never made that claim. It did state that there's a correlation between overall traffic fatalities and city blocks with bicycle facilities. It didn't make the claim that bicycle fatalities specifically went down.

Yes. I was raised to be an assertive vehicular cyclist and make proper use of turn lanes by age 10.

I’m thankful for protected lanes when they are consistent and high quality (at minimum: absolutely never shared with bus travel or truck loading) but I would not ride if I had to dismount at intersections or wait 2 light cycles for left turns.

Biggest pet peeve now is pedestrians who hang out in the bike lane while waiting for the light to change.

Since the 1970s? How did people, including children, ride bikes before then?

1950s PSA about children riding their bike like driving a car (worth watching the whole thing for nostalgia): https://youtu.be/fDm6jiQz5BY?t=206