27 ms·

Blocking a bike lane is potentially causing severe injury to a bicyclist, as now your car is blocking their path and they could end up smashing into your illici

Blocking a bike lane is potentially causing severe injury to a bicyclist, as now your car is blocking their path and they could end up smashing into your illicitly parked vehicle. I've had friends end up going through the rear windshields of cars, getting doored, etc here in Seattle, so even though I don't bike, I make a point to go and harass people illegally parked in bike lanes (which is really common north of the ship canal). What if a bike can't stop in time coming down the hill? They're going to likely get horribly injured due to your illegal parking job. The bike lane is for bikes exclusively, even in the suburbs.

wkearney99 9y ago
If you can't control your vehicle (bicycle or otherwise) you have NO business being on a city street. Or are you ignoring the potential for all other manner of obstacles to be present in the roadway? Strollers, pedestrians, debris, etc. Can't stop for those either? As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Noticing brake lights in parked vehicles, or someone seated in the vehicle. Can't see? GIVE ROOM. Honestly, I'm willing to give considerable support for cyclists, but the blithe way they often completely ignore the traffic laws pulls their own rug right out from under them.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  > As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Motor vehicle drivers don't have to worry much about being doored, as they're way more visible and it isn't life-threatening for them if it does happen. The person opening the door is way more likely to be injured in such a scenario than the driver of the oncoming vehicle. Also, if we biked the same way we drove cars, that is, in the middle of a full lane, then we wouldn't be at risk of being doored either. I do that on occasion as necessary, but you would not believe how furious drivers get when they're stuck behind a cyclist going much slower than them that they cannot pass. How about this -- You can make it the cyclists' fault if and only if you can get all drivers to be OK with cyclists taking full lanes of traffic, away from all car doors. This will likely reduce the max speed of vehicle traffic to around 12 mph.
  - Steltek 9y ago
    NYC has a law requiring cyclists to stay in the bike lane if one is present. Only more civilized cities (like Boston ;) allow bikes to take the full lane. Although traffic moves so slowly there's rarely a point unless the bike lane is blocked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      You're missing the point, which is that bike lanes are frequently in door zones whereas main travel lanes are not (because they are much wider and have more buffer zone).
  - isostatic 9y ago
    "Also, if we biked the same way we drove cars, that is, in the middle of a full lane, then we wouldn't be at risk of being doored either." That's exactly how I ride, it's called the primary position and in the uk it's what the government recommend.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      Drivers lose their shit here if you do that and hold them up. I do it anyway as necessary in more unsafe segments of road.
      - isostatic 9y ago
        Drivers lose their shit everywhere. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/0... Unless they're going to murder you I suspect you're still safer.
- mulmen 9y ago
  I ride a motorcycle and I like breathing. The other day I was riding down a normal surface street in Seattle and a parked late model Camaro with black windows started its engine and pulled out from the curb in a few seconds. There was no angle that would have allowed me to see if this car was occupied. I was able to stop in time and avoid an accident but if I had not reacted I would have ended up on his roof. In your opinion was I in the wrong? You don't sound willing to give cyclists any support when you condemn the entire group for the actions of a few and disregard legitimate threats to their safety.
  - wkearney99 9y ago
    No, you practiced safely operating your motorcycle. More should be as responsible. I've always been willing to support cyclists but cannot ignore the staggering number of them that completely disregard traffic laws on a near constant basis. And then come online and winge about the risks TO THEM while ignoring the risks THEY impose on others. In the name of what, being able to maintain their momentum? Sure, I'd love to do the same, yet abiding by traffic laws is a bit more valuable that my selfish desires. Downvote all you like but understand you're downvoting someone that does cycle and has a lot of respect for the challenges presented doing so in an urban environment. You're downvoting someone that favors the activity but has taken the time to point out you're being pompous assholes QUITE a lot of the time when you're out and about on two wheels.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      How do you know I am a pompous asshole quite a lot of the time? How do you know if and why I downvoted you? You seem to be angry at an entire class of people which is unfair to individuals. Your bias strikes me as dangerous.
- mikelward 9y ago
  The bike lane is entirely within a door-length. Cars are already on both sides (parked on one side, driving on the other), so cyclists often have nowhere to go. Drivers and passengers being unaware of cyclists is not the cyclists' fault! A public awareness campaign of the Dutch Reach could help a lot. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-workaround-keep-cyclists-getting-doored/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-wo... As could penalties for endangering fellow road users.
ryanwaggoner 9y ago
now your car is blocking their path and they could end up smashing into your illicitly parked vehicle. I've had friends end up going through the rear windshields of cars I agree with the arguments about moving cars pulling into the bike lane, doors opening, etc, BUT if you can't avoid smashing your bike into a parked car with enough force to go through the rear window, then you definitely aren't skilled or responsible enough to be riding in the city.
- metilda 9y ago
  You should see the driving and biking conditions in Seattle. Expecting a bike to stop on a dime when coming down a hill just after it rains is wholly unrealistic.
  - rapind 9y ago
    s/bike/car and good luck in court. "But I couldn't stop! The road was wet!"
  - sfifs 9y ago
    Maybe you shouldn't be cycling in Seattle then?
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    First, I don't understand why you need to "stop on a dime" to avoid a stationary object ahead? Second, a huge part of safely operating any vehicle in an environment (especially a chaotic one you share with cars, bikes, and pedestrians) is awareness of your surroundings and the ability to avoid collisions. This is seriously driving / biking 101. If you are zooming around on your bike and just thinking "hope no objects / people / cars are sitting stationary in my way because there's no way I can stop and I'll definitely hit them", then you're a dangerous menace.
- CalRobert 9y ago
  Would you feel the same about a driver hitting a car parked on the freeway?
briandear 9y ago
Failure to control speed is a moving violation and should be ticketed appropriately. What if a person is crossing the street and, according to you, a bike would be potentially unable to stop? Any vehicle on the road has a legal obligation to operate their vehicle safely and lawfully — that means a bike ought never be unable to stop in time. Some person could get horribly injured due to a bicyclist failing to control speed.
- metilda 9y ago
  Coming down a hill at 20Mph in a bike lane that should be at least partially clear on a wet day (very common in Seattle) is perfectly legal. Running into a large unexpected object in the path is hardly the cyclists fault.
  - foobarian 9y ago
    I tried telling that to the insurance agency when I rear-ended a car that suddenly stopped in front of me. It didn't work.
    - ytoi 9y ago
      Someone suddenly stopping shouldn't be unexpected, nor is it necessarily against the rules of the road. Hacker News is fun and all but consistently gets beaten by 15 seconds of googling e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/nyregion/double-parking-is-exception-on-liability-in-rear-end-crashes-judge-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/nyregion/double-parking-i...
      - daveFNbuck 9y ago
        If you can't see whether there's a large object in your path within time to stop, you're going too fast. There could be a fallen or slow bicyclist in the lane.
        interfixus 9y ago
iamnotlarry 9y ago
I think you are making the wrong argument here. A bicyclist should have control of their bike. If there is injury involved, that is on the cyclist. (Dooring is another issue.) But I think the problem becomes very clear if you allow another car to pull up next to the one in the bike lane and stop in the middle of the lane to berate the first car. Just for 30 seconds or so. If somebody rear-ended that car, the person in the moving vehicle should get a ticket. But what should be the consequence to the person stopped in the middle of the lane? Would the mayor be so casual to "30 second" stops if car lanes were blocked by parked cars 40% of the time?
- petre 9y ago
  I once had to go around a car stopped in a bike lane, slid and fell badly while trying to re-enter the somewhat elevated bike lane (about two inches from the road - it's like a red painted sidewalk, two feet wide, with a bevel on the edge). The driver was inside the car having a phone conversation, so he was probably stopped there for just 30 seconds - enough to cause a bicycle accident.
  - iamnotlarry 9y ago
    No. Sorry. They did not cause an accident. It is important that your understand this. Note that I am not sympathetic to the driver of the car. They probably deserve criticism, but not blame for your slide. I know that you want to blame somebody that is not yourself. That's human. But when any pedestrian, bike, car, airplane, drone, skateboard, etc. runs into a stationary pedestrian, bike, car, airplane, drone, skateboard, house, fence, animal, etc. it is almost certainly the fault of the moving object's operator. In your case, you failed to change lanes safely. It sounds like you really blame the lane design for having a bevel between lanes. It's interesting to me that the bevel probably has almost zero effect on cars/trucks but a significant effect on bikes. That seems like a bike-hostile design. The fact that it is only two feet wide seems questionable to me. A slow-moving bike would also encourage you to change lanes, navigating the bevel twice.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

wkearney99 9y ago

If you can't control your vehicle (bicycle or otherwise) you have NO business being on a city street. Or are you ignoring the potential for all other manner of obstacles to be present in the roadway? Strollers, pedestrians, debris, etc. Can't stop for those either? As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Noticing brake lights in parked vehicles, or someone seated in the vehicle. Can't see? GIVE ROOM. Honestly, I'm willing to give considerable support for cyclists, but the blithe way they often completely ignore the traffic laws pulls their own rug right out from under them.

CydeWeys 9y ago
> As for getting doored, well, how are motor vehicles avoiding this? Oh, right, by WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON. Motor vehicle drivers don't have to worry much about being doored, as they're way more visible and it isn't life-threatening for them if it does happen. The person opening the door is way more likely to be injured in such a scenario than the driver of the oncoming vehicle. Also, if we biked the same way we drove cars, that is, in the middle of a full lane, then we wouldn't be at risk of being doored either. I do that on occasion as necessary, but you would not believe how furious drivers get when they're stuck behind a cyclist going much slower than them that they cannot pass. How about this -- You can make it the cyclists' fault if and only if you can get all drivers to be OK with cyclists taking full lanes of traffic, away from all car doors. This will likely reduce the max speed of vehicle traffic to around 12 mph.
- Steltek 9y ago
  NYC has a law requiring cyclists to stay in the bike lane if one is present. Only more civilized cities (like Boston ;) allow bikes to take the full lane. Although traffic moves so slowly there's rarely a point unless the bike lane is blocked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    You're missing the point, which is that bike lanes are frequently in door zones whereas main travel lanes are not (because they are much wider and have more buffer zone).
- isostatic 9y ago
  "Also, if we biked the same way we drove cars, that is, in the middle of a full lane, then we wouldn't be at risk of being doored either." That's exactly how I ride, it's called the primary position and in the uk it's what the government recommend.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Drivers lose their shit here if you do that and hold them up. I do it anyway as necessary in more unsafe segments of road.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      Drivers lose their shit everywhere. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/0... Unless they're going to murder you I suspect you're still safer.
mulmen 9y ago
I ride a motorcycle and I like breathing. The other day I was riding down a normal surface street in Seattle and a parked late model Camaro with black windows started its engine and pulled out from the curb in a few seconds. There was no angle that would have allowed me to see if this car was occupied. I was able to stop in time and avoid an accident but if I had not reacted I would have ended up on his roof. In your opinion was I in the wrong? You don't sound willing to give cyclists any support when you condemn the entire group for the actions of a few and disregard legitimate threats to their safety.
- wkearney99 9y ago
  No, you practiced safely operating your motorcycle. More should be as responsible. I've always been willing to support cyclists but cannot ignore the staggering number of them that completely disregard traffic laws on a near constant basis. And then come online and winge about the risks TO THEM while ignoring the risks THEY impose on others. In the name of what, being able to maintain their momentum? Sure, I'd love to do the same, yet abiding by traffic laws is a bit more valuable that my selfish desires. Downvote all you like but understand you're downvoting someone that does cycle and has a lot of respect for the challenges presented doing so in an urban environment. You're downvoting someone that favors the activity but has taken the time to point out you're being pompous assholes QUITE a lot of the time when you're out and about on two wheels.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    How do you know I am a pompous asshole quite a lot of the time? How do you know if and why I downvoted you? You seem to be angry at an entire class of people which is unfair to individuals. Your bias strikes me as dangerous.
mikelward 9y ago
The bike lane is entirely within a door-length. Cars are already on both sides (parked on one side, driving on the other), so cyclists often have nowhere to go. Drivers and passengers being unaware of cyclists is not the cyclists' fault! A public awareness campaign of the Dutch Reach could help a lot. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-workaround-keep-cyclists-getting-doored/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-wo... As could penalties for endangering fellow road users.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

now your car is blocking their path and they could end up smashing into your illicitly parked vehicle. I've had friends end up going through the rear windshields of cars I agree with the arguments about moving cars pulling into the bike lane, doors opening, etc, BUT if you can't avoid smashing your bike into a parked car with enough force to go through the rear window, then you definitely aren't skilled or responsible enough to be riding in the city.

metilda 9y ago
You should see the driving and biking conditions in Seattle. Expecting a bike to stop on a dime when coming down a hill just after it rains is wholly unrealistic.
- rapind 9y ago
  s/bike/car and good luck in court. "But I couldn't stop! The road was wet!"
- sfifs 9y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't be cycling in Seattle then?
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  First, I don't understand why you need to "stop on a dime" to avoid a stationary object ahead? Second, a huge part of safely operating any vehicle in an environment (especially a chaotic one you share with cars, bikes, and pedestrians) is awareness of your surroundings and the ability to avoid collisions. This is seriously driving / biking 101. If you are zooming around on your bike and just thinking "hope no objects / people / cars are sitting stationary in my way because there's no way I can stop and I'll definitely hit them", then you're a dangerous menace.
CalRobert 9y ago
Would you feel the same about a driver hitting a car parked on the freeway?

briandear 9y ago

Failure to control speed is a moving violation and should be ticketed appropriately. What if a person is crossing the street and, according to you, a bike would be potentially unable to stop? Any vehicle on the road has a legal obligation to operate their vehicle safely and lawfully — that means a bike ought never be unable to stop in time. Some person could get horribly injured due to a bicyclist failing to control speed.

metilda 9y ago
Coming down a hill at 20Mph in a bike lane that should be at least partially clear on a wet day (very common in Seattle) is perfectly legal. Running into a large unexpected object in the path is hardly the cyclists fault.
- foobarian 9y ago
  I tried telling that to the insurance agency when I rear-ended a car that suddenly stopped in front of me. It didn't work.
  - ytoi 9y ago
    Someone suddenly stopping shouldn't be unexpected, nor is it necessarily against the rules of the road. Hacker News is fun and all but consistently gets beaten by 15 seconds of googling e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/nyregion/double-parking-is-exception-on-liability-in-rear-end-crashes-judge-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/nyregion/double-parking-i...
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      If you can't see whether there's a large object in your path within time to stop, you're going too fast. There could be a fallen or slow bicyclist in the lane.
      - interfixus 9y ago

iamnotlarry 9y ago

I think you are making the wrong argument here. A bicyclist should have control of their bike. If there is injury involved, that is on the cyclist. (Dooring is another issue.) But I think the problem becomes very clear if you allow another car to pull up next to the one in the bike lane and stop in the middle of the lane to berate the first car. Just for 30 seconds or so. If somebody rear-ended that car, the person in the moving vehicle should get a ticket. But what should be the consequence to the person stopped in the middle of the lane? Would the mayor be so casual to "30 second" stops if car lanes were blocked by parked cars 40% of the time?

petre 9y ago
I once had to go around a car stopped in a bike lane, slid and fell badly while trying to re-enter the somewhat elevated bike lane (about two inches from the road - it's like a red painted sidewalk, two feet wide, with a bevel on the edge). The driver was inside the car having a phone conversation, so he was probably stopped there for just 30 seconds - enough to cause a bicycle accident.
- iamnotlarry 9y ago
  No. Sorry. They did not cause an accident. It is important that your understand this. Note that I am not sympathetic to the driver of the car. They probably deserve criticism, but not blame for your slide. I know that you want to blame somebody that is not yourself. That's human. But when any pedestrian, bike, car, airplane, drone, skateboard, etc. runs into a stationary pedestrian, bike, car, airplane, drone, skateboard, house, fence, animal, etc. it is almost certainly the fault of the moving object's operator. In your case, you failed to change lanes safely. It sounds like you really blame the lane design for having a bevel between lanes. It's interesting to me that the bevel probably has almost zero effect on cars/trucks but a significant effect on bikes. That seems like a bike-hostile design. The fact that it is only two feet wide seems questionable to me. A slow-moving bike would also encourage you to change lanes, navigating the bevel twice.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]