[WalterBright]

In the Seattle area, cyclists routinely wander out of the cycling lane on the RHS into the car lane, and wander back, and some are determined to ride on the 4 inch stripe separating the two. None of them ever look over their shoulder before doing this.

A couple weeks ago one swerved out of the bike lane so he could draft behind me.

Around the same time, oncoming cyclists (a cohort) not only wandered out of the bike lane, they wandered into my lane (the oncoming traffic lane). I had to brake hard.

I do not understand what is the matter with them. Brain damage? I've ridden a bike on the roads for decades, I always rode as if the cars could not see me.

The people who lay out the paths must be high, as there are multiple places where the bike lane and the car lane swap sides in an X. Don't they remember those kid slot car toys that had an X piece of track for the purpose of crashing the slot cars?

These aren't kids, they're adults.

[aden1ne]

Dutch cyclists also do all these things. As a driver in the Netherlands, you'll quickly learn that cyclists don't stick to any rules, they will cross red lights, use the wrong lane, use the sidewalk if it saves them 2 seconds, ignore yield signs etc, and in general they will come from every direction imaginable.

In a car, the onus is still on you to pay more attention. Defensive driving style is the norm - assume mistakes will be made and rules will be ignored. After all, you're driving a 1-2 ton machine whereas a cyclists will be generally be <100kg at slower speeds, bike included.

That said, road design of course matters a lot. In the Netherlands, bike lanes in 50 kph (~30 mph) zones are preferably separated by a curbstone. Meaning it is often physically impossible to cross into the car lane. Bike lanes for roads with higher speed limits are rare in urban areas, and nearly always curb-separated where they exist. Intersections will have islands for cyclists and pedestrians to pause. Most residential areas are 30 kph (~20mph) zones, where most bike lanes have dashed lines. Counterintuitively, cars are expected to drive with two wheels on the bike path in these cases. This prevents cyclists from being in the car's blind spot[0].

[0]: See example from wikimedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Fietsstr...

[WalterBright]

Is it really too much to ask cyclists to stay in the bike lane? not draft behind cars? don't wander into the oncoming traffic lane?

What good is a lawsuit going to do for a crippled cyclist?

I once took a performance driving class. One of the lessons is "be predictable". The other drivers have an excellent chance at missing your car if you're moving in a predictable fashion.

[seszett]

Cyclists rarely leave the bike lane for pleasure, it's usually either because a car is parked on the bike lane, pedestrians are walking on it, or because there's litter or a bad surface (bikes are much more sensitive to uneven road surface, but at the same time bike lanes, especially those that are separated from the road, are often built with lower standards than the streets).

Reading your comment one would think cyclists are just suicidal for the fun of it, but try to think of them as humans who have a goal to achieve and are trying to achieve it with the best efficiency/safety balance they can find, like other people. Cars are everywhere on the road, impeding and endangering cyclists, so it's often a matter of trying to find the "least dangerous" way to do something, and that might even involve getting on the wrong side of the road at times. But it's not for fun.

[WalterBright]

> Cyclists rarely leave the bike lane for pleasure, it's usually either because a car is parked on the bike lane, pedestrians are walking on it, or because there's litter or a bad surface

I see them doing it all the time, and I can clearly see there is no problem with the bike lane.

[jodleif]

Also remember cyclists actually have to work to keep their momentum. Did you stop and check for crushed bottles? Glass will puncture your tires on a bike

[snatchpiesinger]

> Cyclists rarely leave the bike lane for pleasure, it's usually either because a car is parked on the bike lane, pedestrians are walking on it, or because there's litter or a bad surface (bikes are much more sensitive to uneven road surface, but at the same time bike lanes, especially those that are separated from the road, are often built with lower standards than the streets).

Or you know, turning left (or turning right in the UK). Or entering a roundabout, where it's generally better to take your lane, if you are not leaving at the first exit.

[vfclists]

Why don't cyclists use cycle lanes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1U0BloMOx0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

Can you think of why it is a good idea for vehicles which weigh 2000kg and more to be used to transport 90kg loads all day long at needless risk to lesser road users?

Why can't the motor vehicle industry develop smaller powered vehicles sheltered from the elements for personal transport, something not much more than a 3 wheeled scooter with a canopy?

As a technically aware guy does that really make sense?

Motor vehicles as they are are primarily recreational vehicles and status symbols, not means of moving 100kg individuals and their handbags or briefcases if they are carrying any around town.

[WalterBright]

> As a technically aware guy does that really make sense?

I've ridden my bike for decades. I:

1. do not veer into traffic without looking

2. do not rely on the cars seeing me

3. stay right as far as I can

4. do not draft

5. do not pass them at speed on the right when they could open a door or turn right into a driveway or other road

6. look at their eyes to see if they see me

7. do not overspeed my ability to brake

8. do not imagine that blaming the car will restore my shattered body

It's just common sense.

[vfclists]

Do you ride as a commuter, or as a recreational cyclist or as Strava beater?

The point I'm making here is that a commuter cyclist is not supposed to be hyperaware or extra vigilant of the dangers they are surrounded by if they are not riding on a dedicated motor highway.

In fact riding on what in the UK we call the hard shoulder on the motorway (which is illegal anyway) is way way more safer than riding in the city, even though there may be cars whizzing by at 70mph.

Drivers going around town don't drive in a hyper-aware state for fear that they may be crushed by an 80 ton battle tank traveling at over 70mph for a minor lapse in judgement, or even carelessness. They even divert their attention to fiddle about on their mobile phones and their Tesla touch screens without coming to any harm.

Why should a cyclist making the 15 minute 3 mile journey in to work in an urban environment be in a hyper-vigilant mental state unlike the driver?

I'm not saying it is okay for cyclists to ride around in alackadaisical manner which too many of them do, but the consequences for such lapses should not be death or serious injury, especially if they are just riding around town.

When a cyclist says that they find their 4 mile commute to work more stressful than the weekend rides out of town where they may do a 100 miles in day, you know there is a problem, and this is an experienced cyclist.

Take a look at this clip and tell me where the young woman erred? In fact she didn't. If the driver had been ahead of her in the outer lane, checked for her presence before swinging out and waited for her to pass there would have been no danger. He just swung out from the inner lane assuming that she had noticed him, when she hadn't and had no cause to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnd1lCwI9Yc

There is nothing to even suggest that the side of the cab had turn indicators that she would have noticed when he begin signalling only after getting alongside her - in the other lane -.

The comments should tell you the kind of dangers cyclists face, and it is usually drivers most of the time.

Please remember that not all cyclists by nature are as aware as you are, but they should still be able to ride their bikes just like drivers who may be even less than vigilant cyclists.

[WalterBright]

It isn't necessary to be hyperaware to simply look over your shoulder before wandering into a car lane.

> the consequences for such lapses should not be death or serious injury

Well, that's indeed what the consequences are.

> He just swung out from the inner lane assuming that she had noticed him

All my posts here are about the cyclist assuming that cars see them.

> they should still be able to ride their bikes just like drivers

Drivers are required to signal and look before changing lanes.

[lenlorijn]

You say this as if cars adhere to the rules given at all times. The difference is that bikes do it at their own peril and cars do it at the peril of others. Give cyclists good infrastructure separate from cars and they'll use it.

[WalterBright]

I rarely see cars leave their lane.

The bike lanes around here are wide, clear, and dry. There is no excuse.

They don't even glance back over their shoulder before veering into the car lane. That's pretty perilous.

[lenlorijn]

I'm sorry but anecdotal evidence is barely any evidence at all. I could list a very large number of news reports of cars ramming in to houses an businesses, which I can promise you are not built in a lane. Bike lanes and car lanes should be physically separated, sure for bikes to not veer out of lane, but more importantly to keep cars in theirs. In any of these situations cars are still the ones bringing a 1.5k bundle of glass and steel to the fight. Just take a quick look at https://x.com/WorldBollard for numerous examples of cars going all over the place and making a mess of it.

[consteval]

> Is it really too much to ask cyclists to stay in the bike lane?

Yes, this is like asking cars to stay in their lane. How often do you see a car outside of their lane? For me, every day.

Even if everyone had perfect intentions, mistakes would still be made. What then? Everyone has been operating on the assumption mistakes would not be made. So then, your assumption was incorrect. If you instead assume mistakes will be made, i.e. defensive driving, then you're better off.

[nottorp]

Frankly the one time I visited NL I was afraid of cyclists as a pedestrian.

Not to mention that when getting out of my hotel there was a road and a bicycle path but no pedestrian sidewalk for the first half a kilometer...

[aden1ne]

That sounds like an odd setup. Any chance this was near the airport?

Also did you visit the Netherlands, or only Amsterdam? Because honestly, Amsterdam is in a league of its own with the hordes of tourists who have no clue what they are doing on a bike.

[nottorp]

> That sounds like an odd setup. Any chance this was near the airport?

No, but near the edge of the town.

> Also did you visit the Netherlands, or only Amsterdam?

Never been to Amsterdam, just two small towns on the other end, towards Germany. My hotel was at the edge of Enschede.

[zezcat]

I cannot agree more, the cyclists and all the high speed scooters are crazy in Amsterdam. Horrible experience. Everytime trying to cross a roads it felt like I am risking my life.

[guappa]

Ah yes, cyclists love to complain about the evil car drivers. They never mention all the times they are a danger to pedestrians somehow.

In DK plenty of bus stops the bus opens directly onto a bike lane, and they won't stop to let people out of course.

[Panzer04]

Can't speak to your specific circumstances, but often bike lanes are just terrible. They allow cars to park in them, or they are too narrow, or they are blocked by construction, etc.

In general far less consideration is given to the blocking of a bicycle lane than a car lane, so cyclists are often disinclined to use them. They also often just... end, at places like intersections (so it's a good idea for the cyclist to occupy a regular lane or somesuch ahead of time).

I guess the point is that you often don't know all of the reasons someone might be riding in a specific way, and it's worth giving the benefit of the doubt.

[WalterBright]

> I guess the point is that you often don't know all of the reasons someone might be riding in a specific way, and it's worth giving the benefit of the doubt.

What would you think of a car wandering randomly into other lanes?

[Filligree]

If there were frequent boulders and rapidly moving aggressive bears in their intended lane, then I would give them a pass for dodging.

Want cyclists to stick to the cycle lane? Make it safe for us to do so. Anyhow, it’s perfectly legal to cycle in the car lanes.

[WalterBright]

The bike lanes around here are wide and clear. Nothing unsafe. They still regularly veer into the car lane.

> it’s perfectly legal to cycle in the car lanes

Reminds me of a phrase: "don't be right, dead right".

[Filligree]

Cars have no trouble seeing bicycles that are in front of them.

Which is why I don't like to be in the bicycle lane at a crossing. Inevitably someone will turn left without seeing me there.

[downut]

Here in GA it happens all the time. LoC with the driver staring at a screen or off into space deep in a conversation. It is mandatory for me to drive within the lane because if for instance there is a 2' shoulder with a rumble strip I'll get a full size semi driving 55 mph right on that right white line within an inch or two of me. Ordinarily nice people get very aggressive in their gigantic killing cages.

[bondarchuk]

That would clearly be much worse because a car is much more deadly.

[gwervc]

Living in European cities with multimodal transportations, what I fear the most are cyclists. Cars drive on very clearly delimited space, respect the driving code quite properly and are visible and audible from far away.

Bicycles on the other hands drive fast, both on road and pedestrian ways with a sense of entitlement that they somehow have priority over pedestrians. They are also harder to spot. My worst fear when walking in the city are those Uber Eats guys riding huge electrical bike and going as fast as possible. An impact with that is a sure way to hospital if not worse.

[WalterBright]

As a pedestrian, I had several near collisions with cyclists in London.

[foldr]

I find cyclists in London annoying too, but the vast majority of serious injuries to pedestrians are caused by cars.

As proof, I cite this amusingly stupid 2024 Daily Mail article which notes that "more than 30 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists over the past decade".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13396307/The-rise-d...

[guappa]

How many are permanently disabled?

[foldr]

In comparison to the number of people permanently disabled by being hit by cars? Very few.

[guappa]

Let's not forget that bikes also usually have an electric engine, and sometimes even snow tires. So they are neither slow nor light.

[vfclists]

If it is a proper bike lane, ie a physically separated bike lane that shouldn't happen. If the speed at which you are allowed to drive at is high enough that colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist will cause them serious injury or death then the road design is wrong.

Simple fact is people make errors in judgement, suffer lapses in concentration, or even develop strokes when they are on the highways. A person moving around on urban roads who suffers such an event should not suffer life-changing injuries or death from it.

A safe road environment which pedestrians and cyclists are allowed to use is one in which the horizontal impact of a collision shouldn't result in serious injury or death. Death should only come from an impact which involves in serious head injury, such as the head striking the sidewalk, a heavy vehicle rolling over a person, or the case of a frail elderly person.

If you get back to UK law for instance, there are 19th century laws(they still on the books) which forbade "furious riding" on public highways which should tell you that riding at a gallop on a public road was illegal, and would be even more so in a built up area shared with pedestrians and other horse carriages. There were no cars or even bicycles them. It is one of the laws under which cyclists can be prosecuted.

Cars doing 30mph outpace galloping horses which should tell you that even at 50kph cars are driving at speeds considered dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists around them.

Yet a cyclist who has no more protection than a pedestrian is supposed to share a road with 2+tonne vehicles of reinforced steel travelling at speeds far faster than a horse rider or carriage driver riding furiously.

How does that make sense?

I see you are Walter Bright of Zortech C++ infamy and the D language ;)

[close04]

> Cars doing 30mph outpace galloping horses

> Yet a cyclist who has no more protection than a pedestrian is supposed to share a road with 2+tonne vehicles of reinforced steel travelling at speeds

By speed alone, bikes are to pedestrians what cars are to bikes. A pedestrian will walk at 3-5km/h. A bike will be 5-7 times faster than that at 15-35km/h (especially since the advent of e-bikes which ignore assist requirements). Cars will be 1.5-4 times faster at 40-50km/h. Where I live I feel less safe as a pedestrian sharing the sidewalk with a bike lane than I feel on the bike sharing the street with cars (except car doors randomly opened in my path, that's what terrifies me). Not a day passes without a cyclist almost running me over when I cross on a green light, or because they try to squeeze around on the sidewalk at unsafely high speeds.

When it comes to protection, the usual killer is a strong hit on the head. You don't need too much speed to cause a fall. But despite cyclists riding and implicitly hitting the ground at higher speeds, protecting the old melon with a helmet is still seen as optional (embarrassing, unfashionable, uncomfortable). Cyclists take fewer precautions than drivers while exposing themselves to higher risks than pedestrians.

Can't tell you how many times I was asked why am I bothering with the helmet, "I'll get suntan stripes". In my circle of friends the only other one wearing a helmet for city riding (everyone wears it on the long roadbike rides) is one who has a lot of kids as is terrified of leaving them without a father. Everyone else rides as if the epitaph of "The other guy should have paid more attention" will give anyone consolation.

[Illotus]

If only the speed was the big issue, but mostly it is the mass. Even with all the reckless cyclists there are very little fatalities where cyclist runs over pedestrian. Ultimately separating all groups would be the best, but heavy consequences for the heaviest road users is ultimately the solution.

[close04]

> Ultimately separating all groups would be the best, but heavy consequences for the heaviest road users is ultimately the solution.

I agree that physical separation would be the best, with curbs or fences not just painted lines.

As a pedestrian I would very much like to not share the sidewalk with any vehicle under any circumstances. Most people riding a vehicle on the sidewalk have no real legal constraints and the least respect I've witnessed anyone having towards the rest of the people. Pedestrians come in all shapes, sizes and ages, can't walk like robots and will easily step into the bike lane, or drop something, or a child will run around, etc. Riding at 30km/h in that environment is common and stupid.

As a cyclist I'd much rather have the cycling lane on the street. Cars are more dangerous but also generally more predictable than pedestrians on a narrow sidewalk. Driving also has more regulation and enforcement. From my experience cars are a danger to me as cyclist at intersections (the dreaded right turn) and a terrifying thought when it comes to doors opening in front of me.

As a driver I'd rather lose a driving lane to a cycling one than to have cyclists randomly bobbing in and out of my lane, crossing my path after crossing a red light, or after ignoring the right of way.

[steve_gh]

The classic one is the number of cyclists riding along with their helmet dangling from the handlebars.

[WalterBright]

I've been told by a cyclist that a lot of Seattle bikers have implants for front teeth.

[microtonal]

Which shows that there is something wrong with Seattle. In my city the vast majority of people cycle. In my 42 years, I can only remember one person who lost a tooth cycling. We were kids and there was no car nearby.

I cannot even think of many people with a serious injury at all. And me and my peers started cycling when we were 4 or 5 and most still do it daily (it’s the primary means of transportation within the city).

Build a bike infrastructure, make car drivers more responsible. People will be healthier because they have daily workouts.

[vfclists]

> By speed alone, bikes are to pedestrians what cars are to bikes. A pedestrian will walk at 3-5km/h. A bike will be 5-7 times faster than that at 15-35km/h (especially since the advent of e-bikes which ignore assist requirements). Cars will be 1.5-4 times faster at 40-50km/h.

When it comes to collision you should remember the formula "half m v squared". A cyclist with his bike is usually less than 100kg which yields on impact. A collision with a pedestrian can be as bad for the cyclist as it is for pedestrian.

A car will be at least 20 times heavier and twice as fast as the cyclist and will not yield on impact. The bonnet and windscreen maybe, but not the chassis after the bumper yields.

> Where I live I feel less safe as a pedestrian sharing the sidewalk with a bike lane than I feel on the bike sharing the street with cars (except car doors randomly opened in my path, that's what terrifies me). Not a day passes without a cyclist almost running me over when I cross on a green light, or because they try to squeeze around on the sidewalk at unsafely high speeds.

Statistically you are in far more danger of getting killed by a motor vehicle on the sidewalk or an intersection than you are by a cyclist riding the sidewalk or jumping a red light. A cyclist will usually inflict a painful bruise on collision. Even needing to be hospitalized is unlikely.

Despite the blatant and often overlooked red light jumping by cyclists on busy city streets, how many fatalities occur from that behaviour, compared with those from motor vehicles?

Another thing to be said. The danger from the cyclist stems primarily from the cyclists riding manners, and has more to do with the social and cultural attitudes. The danger of the motor vehicle comes from the nature of the motor vehicle itself, its mass, steel reinforcement and speed which is compounded by the attitudes of drivers.

The average speed of a cyclist on urban streets is roughly that of a top level marathon runner if not less, and how scared are you by the danger a marathon runner with a metal bar held in front of them poses in a collision?

> Can't tell you how many times I was asked why am I bothering with the helmet,

On the matter of cyclists wearing helmets, how different is a cyclist riding on a narrow road without a sidewalk differ from pedestrian walking the same road? Does the absence of a safe sidewalk to use mean the pedestrian should wear a helmet in case they collide with a car?

Helmets worn by cyclists are no different from those worn by horse-riders or in other high impact sports. They serve to protect the helmets from impacts incurred on their own account, not from collisions with motor vehicles, although they do help in the latter.

[close04]

> When it comes to collision you should remember the formula "half m v squared"

Of course a car is faster, heavier, and more dangerous but spherical cow and all that. I've never seen a "frontal" collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist. And 99% of incidents I've witnessed between cars and cyclists were side swipes (the car slides into the cyclist's path and the contact is on the side) or the car flat on cutting off the cyclist who subsequently hit the side of the car like a wall. Neither are influenced much by speed.

> how different is a cyclist riding on a narrow road without a sidewalk differ from pedestrian walking the same road?

About 25km/h of difference. Meaning anything the cyclist does happens 7 times faster than with the pedestrian. Hit a pothole? You fly over the handle bars for some meters at 25-30km/h instead of 1.5m under pure gravity.

> They serve to protect the helmets from impacts incurred on their own account

Helmets are there to protect your head from an impact. They don't bother to assess blame.

You're really taking this as "but that's worse so nothing else matters". And this makes you forget one obvious thing: everyone is a pedestrian, not everyone is a cyclist or a driver. Whether you're 8 or 80 years old you're a pedestrian so there's no excuse to endanger them because "it could be worse". And another big difference is street traffic is regulated, sidewalk traffic is not. A cyclist among pedestrians is a more immediate and unpredictable danger to pedestrians (sure, not deadly, a broken wrist is just really unpleasant).

The bottom line is that from my personal experience looking around as mainly a pedestrian and a cyclist, this conversation withstanding, cyclists are the group of people who always expect the favorable treatment even though the cyclist who respects the law is more of a mythical creature. On the street the cars are bigger and faster so should pay more attention. On the sidewalk the same logic no longer applies, the bike is "not that fast or heavy", the injuries aren't "that serious" so the pedestrians should pay attention instead.

[bluGill]

Almost all roads are designed in the US by a professional engineer who is legally liable for the design. we need hold them responsible for not designing good infrastructure. If politicians don't allow for something safe than their job is to say it cannot be done.

[guappa]

Because professional engineers never once in history made a mistake.

[bluGill]

If you are ignorant of things well known in the literature that is not a mistake. Even if everyone else is, that is not an excuse, their job is to design things safe.

[guappa]

I wonder about your life, if you can be so certain that people do not make mistakes. I really am curious how it would be to live in such a world.