3 ms·

The difference is that right-of-way laws for pedestrians and cyclists are actually enforced in Germany. The laws are generally similar elsewhere in the world, b

The difference is that right-of-way laws for pedestrians and cyclists are actually enforced in Germany. The laws are generally similar elsewhere in the world, but as they are unenforced the larger, heavier vehicle de facto has right-of-way because the driver can easily kill a cyclist or pedestrian without meaningful consequence.

notch656a 4y ago
AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car. The only upside in the traffic laws is ability to use the bike lane, SOMETIMES (but usually not) legal right to be on the sidewalk, and no need for a driver's license / registration / insurance.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car. The US is not a single jurisdiction for traffic laws, and whether bicycles are considered vehicles and whether and how they are treated differently than cars at intersections or for other purposes varies widely by state.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I suppose that's true. Nevertheless it's generally accurate and simply telling a foreigner to read the code of every single jurisdiction you pass through is not practical. Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America, and a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions. If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France).
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America Its actually quite common for them to have special treatment in the rules of the road, either being classed as vehicles with special privileges (beyond just use of bike lanes and sonetimes sidewalks) or not as vehicles at all; in fact, it is so common that I would argue it is by far the norm, the difficulty is that it is not at all consistent what the special treatment is. > a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions The relevant jurisdictions here are thr 50 states, the District of Columbia, and (pedantically, but good luck including them with others ona bike ride) other territories. Its possible to get several on a one-hour bike ride, but only if it is carefully planned for that purpose. > If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France). Sure, but just on Idaho stop rules alone, there are differences from the majority “just like a car” rule in 9 states covering about 10% of the US population. The exceptions aren't equivalent to “some town in French Guiana”.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- akgerber 4y ago
  When a turning vehicle is attempting to turn across any lane (including a bicycle lane), it must yield to the vehicle traveling straight in that lane, whether or not it is a bicycle (and whether or not that bicycle is classified as a 'vehicle' or as having 'all rights and all responsibilities of a vehicle'). This does not vary between jurisdictions in the US.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Truth. Although I have been knocked unconscious once and have one 10 year old elbow injury that still occasionally causes me trouble that begs otherwise, in practice. In big cities the practical rule is USUALLY the car will turn if it thinks you can reasonably stop in time, and occasionally they'll turn whether or not they think you'll stop in time. A couple times a year the car will just smash you to turn, because fuck cyclists they shouldn't have been on the road. I would never advise cyclists to consider what you've stated as the actual rules. In practice the rule you should follow is the person turning will turn if they reasonably believe you have time to stop, and prey they do not alter the deal further. De facto vs De jure.

notch656a 4y ago

AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car. The only upside in the traffic laws is ability to use the bike lane, SOMETIMES (but usually not) legal right to be on the sidewalk, and no need for a driver's license / registration / insurance.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car. The US is not a single jurisdiction for traffic laws, and whether bicycles are considered vehicles and whether and how they are treated differently than cars at intersections or for other purposes varies widely by state.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I suppose that's true. Nevertheless it's generally accurate and simply telling a foreigner to read the code of every single jurisdiction you pass through is not practical. Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America, and a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions. If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France).
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America Its actually quite common for them to have special treatment in the rules of the road, either being classed as vehicles with special privileges (beyond just use of bike lanes and sonetimes sidewalks) or not as vehicles at all; in fact, it is so common that I would argue it is by far the norm, the difficulty is that it is not at all consistent what the special treatment is. > a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions The relevant jurisdictions here are thr 50 states, the District of Columbia, and (pedantically, but good luck including them with others ona bike ride) other territories. Its possible to get several on a one-hour bike ride, but only if it is carefully planned for that purpose. > If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France). Sure, but just on Idaho stop rules alone, there are differences from the majority “just like a car” rule in 9 states covering about 10% of the US population. The exceptions aren't equivalent to “some town in French Guiana”.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
akgerber 4y ago
When a turning vehicle is attempting to turn across any lane (including a bicycle lane), it must yield to the vehicle traveling straight in that lane, whether or not it is a bicycle (and whether or not that bicycle is classified as a 'vehicle' or as having 'all rights and all responsibilities of a vehicle'). This does not vary between jurisdictions in the US.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Truth. Although I have been knocked unconscious once and have one 10 year old elbow injury that still occasionally causes me trouble that begs otherwise, in practice. In big cities the practical rule is USUALLY the car will turn if it thinks you can reasonably stop in time, and occasionally they'll turn whether or not they think you'll stop in time. A couple times a year the car will just smash you to turn, because fuck cyclists they shouldn't have been on the road. I would never advise cyclists to consider what you've stated as the actual rules. In practice the rule you should follow is the person turning will turn if they reasonably believe you have time to stop, and prey they do not alter the deal further. De facto vs De jure.