Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work and nobody wants

Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an... by jessaustin on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:47PM (#25410644)

... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.

Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches". IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist while leaving at least eight feet.

If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an... by pmiller2 on Sunday December 13, 2020 @05:15PM (#25410906)

Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading "within a few feet" as "six inches."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an... by jessaustin on Sunday December 13, 2020 @09:21PM (#25412822)

I'm biased by experience. Why did you write "within"? Three feet is an acceptable distance to allow if you're traveling less than 40mph. Less than three feet is not.

This seems beside the point? Above you seemed to imply it is inherently challenging to pass a cyclist. That is only the case if one attempts to pass in inappropriate situations. Cyclists have at least as much right to the road as motorists have.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an... by taeric on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:54PM (#25410718)

Cyclist get pushed by the air more than cars. Give a bit of extra room.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an... by adrianN on Monday December 14, 2020 @05:19AM (#25415364)

Cyclists are also much more likely to swerve because a bee hit their eye or their chain slipped.

[ Parent | on HN ]