this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
227 points (98.3% liked)

News

31229 readers
2870 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tal@lemmy.today 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

"If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You're done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons, which means you have to take a day off of work, go to court, probably you should hire a lawyer. And if you are an immigrant, then that can put you at risk of deportation," Berlanga said.

I'm in California, not in New York City, but I have to say that while I have seen cars run red lights, it is exceedingly rare, whereas I see bicyclists doing it all the time. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if New York City has a similar situation. Whether-or-not the current situation is a good one, I do think that there's a lack of deterrence as things stand.

EDIT: And while that's the most egregious issue, I also see:

  • People riding their bikes on the street at night without a light, which they are required to have here. This one boggles me, because I've almost been hit on a number of occasions while bicycling with a light at night, and now use both a regular headlight and a flashing headlight and a flashing taillight to increase visibility. People who bicycle in black clothes with no lights at night are crazy, even issues of illegality aside, and I see those every night.

  • Not nearly as common, but bicyclists cycling the wrong way down roads. Automobiles don't do this.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 17 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (4 children)

Alright, I hear you, but I think the point is that a cyclist running a red light mostly endangers themselves, while a car running a red light endangers others. Here in Colorado, we changed the laws such that a red light is a stop sign for bicycles, and a stop sign a yield, in recognition of the differences in risk. (Edit: cars -> bicycles)

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

a red light is a stop sign for cars

I assume you mean “…for cyclists”?

[–] manxu@piefed.social 2 points 23 hours ago

Yes, that is correct. Thanks for pointing out, I'll edit to avoid confusion.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world -2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I would argue a stop sign is car infrastructure.

Did we have stop signs before cars started to fill up our city streets?

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

I would agree but the parent is talking about how the rules for driving apply to bicycles differently from cars.

[–] JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That's assuming that an oncoming car wouldn't swerve at all if a cyclist entered their path. Dangerous or unpredictable behavior by anyone on a road puts everyone in the area at risk.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 6 points 20 hours ago

Yes, and nobody disputes that some bicyclists put everyone at risk. The point of the article, though, is that drivers are handed a fine, while bicyclists are handed criminal charges. Pointing out that bicyclists are given harsher treatment for a less dangerous offense is, I think, fair in this case.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 hours ago

Cool except for the person who hits the cyclist and surfers emotional damage.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago

In my experience cyclists are more likely to run red-lights in pedestrian crossings than in junctions and intersections, so they're not endangering themselves, they're endangering pedestrians.

[–] modestmeme@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago

Right on. But I gotta say those strobe lights on bikes blind the sh*t out of all who see them. You can’t see anything else but that light. And I’m speaking as someone walking on the sidewalk.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I've commuted by bicycle regularly for almost 2 decades in 3 different countries and whenever I bought a new bicycle (well, I usually got them used), I would always make sure to have a forward and a back facing light as well as a bell.

The lights are almost self-explanatory, as you pointed out, but the bell is for the kind of pedestrians who don't properly look to both sides before crossing a road (they rely on hearing and peripheral vision, both of which don't work with bicycles which are silent and have a far narrower profile than a car), as well as drivers who will do the same in intersections (these are people who literally don't turn their heads fully to look at possible incoming traffic but instead only turn it just enough to have the intersecting road on the corner of their eye) - they're to warn then when I notice they're not looking suspect they might be about to just cross in front of me.

My ass has been saved multiple times by keeping a weary eye on people on sidewalks that looked like they were about to turn and cross the street and warning them of my presence with the bell.

Also works well in places were the cycle path and the footpath are shared (like often in Berlin) to notify pedestrians that you're coming to avoid situations were they do sudden moves to the side without looking.

Even in places with proper infrastructure (like The Netherlands), it pays to be defensive in your cycling, but that's even more the case in places like Berlin (were the infrastructures is mainly decent and people are used to cyclists, but sometimes it's kinda crap) and more so in places with almost no cycling infrastructure like London.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

Imagine being ticketed for walking the wrong way down a sidewalk or crossing the street. At intersections pedestrians generally have the right of way unless it's signalized (or a car is already inside the intersection).

Cyclist are pedestrians.

These kind of stories almost read as "car is king" and all other modes of travel (walking, running, cycling) are required to conform around the car. Next thing you know grandma will get a ticket for riding her mobility scooter the wrong way down a sidewalk.

The main issue is improper Infrastructure. Streets are destinations and Roads are throughways. Street are multi-use and should be designed as such.

This is a street. It's a destination where local pedestrians have the right of way.

collapsed inline media1000029691

This is a "strode" its a neither a street or a road. Car rule and use these as throughways.

collapsed inline media1000029690

This is a road. It's a proper throughway with no street parking or driveways. Reduced conflict zones such as no intersections or left turn.

collapsed inline media1000029692

Also obligatory:

Emotos, ie. "Self powered" high speed electric motorcycles should be treated similar to regular motorcycles or cars.

Ebikes ie. "Pedal assist" or "human-powered" bicycles are low speed and similar in nature to regular bicycles or in some cases "mobility devices" like grandmas mobility scooter.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 28 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Cyclist are pedestrians.

Unless you mean this in some very unconventional way — absolutely not. Bicycles are vehicles.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Which is why some of those 6k citations are for riding on the sidewalk

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

I would agree any item that is used to transport goods or people in any way is considered a vehicle, but i would add the term "vehicle" is somewhat loose in meaning or interpretation.

There are two distinct classes of vehicles though. Self-powered and Human-powered.

Self-powered vehicles. Example, an aircraft, car, tank, truck, motorcycle, scooter.

Human-powered vehicles. Example, a bicycle, unicycle, balance bicycles, scooter, dandy horse, handcar, draisine, shoping cart, and maybe even shoes?

Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a "shift" in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.

The city "strode" is a unsafe place for a pedestrian or people in general to be (as it's currently designed). Classifying a cyclist as a pedestrian would highlight the need that the equivalent of "sidewalk infrastructure" is required for the well-being of people on a bicycle.

Now imagine yourself walking (in your shoes) on a city "strode" in the middle of a lane, it feels "wrong". So why do we force all ages of people on a bicycle to do this?

[–] LilB0kChoy@piefed.social 3 points 19 hours ago

I saw this same story from another source in a different post (https://archive.is/sZYDO).

There’s one specific paragraph in that article that is not covered in this one:

New York City has begun a crackdown on e-bikes and scooters riders. It follows actions by city officials from Paris to Honolulu to Hoboken, N.J., who are responding to residents angry about zippy vehicles with silent electric motors zooming down sidewalks and streets, often startling people, and occasionally hitting pedestrians.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a "shift" in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.

Nah, classifying bicycles as pedestrians would be the worst of all worlds and result in the elimination of all considerations for bicycles just like we’ve been working on for pedestrians over the past hundred years.

[–] ksigley@lemmy.world -4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

When was the last time you road a bicycle on a busy roadway ? Bikes are not vehicles.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Uh… yesterday?

Bikes absolutely are vehicles.

Cars are dangerous weapons

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Bikes are very much vehicles legally.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

I suppose most of us seem to agree on the following:

Bikes are vehicles, and Cars are vehicles.

But we seem to be divided on, are bikes cars.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I think the question has become, are bikes cars?

From the definition of a vehicle it's something that is used to transport people or goods, and a vehicle can be "self power" or "human powered".

By definition rollerblades are vehicles.

Now I think the question becomes (for people that see bikes as cars)

Are people on bikes allowed to use the full lane of a roadway, just as any vehicle that is classified as a car would?

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

Are people on bikes allowed to use the full lane of a roadway, just as any vehicle that is classified as a car would?

Basically every place in the US, the answer is emphatically “yes”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycles_May_Use_Full_Lane

[–] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour ago

Down voted for this:

Cyclist are pedestrians.

But want to say thanks for the explanations. Regardless of whether I agree with your opinions.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

not even close, people are pedestrians, ive encountered more often than not that bicycles ignore pedestratians when they are crossing the streets, or if they are behind a person, sorry but they act like they are in cars themselves.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

What about a person on rollerblades?

By definition they are a vehicle, but are they a car?

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I've regularly commuted by bicycle for almost 2 decade in 3 different countries.

I'm sorry but if you're cycling (or using an e-bike) on the sidewalk you deserved to get punished for it. Same if you cross a red-light when pedestrians are crossing. (I'm so so about crossing a red-light when there are no traffic or pedestrians crossing: I won't do it myself but if you're not endangering others it's no big deal in my book if other cyclists do it).

Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.

100% but then cars and trucks parked on the cycling lanes, road work without a new bike lane, etc (impossible to have an exhaustive list but I bet you've seen countless video of cyclists everywhere unable to have a single ride on the actual cycling lane) ALSO must get punished because they are the ones prompting dangerous cycling too. There is no justification for putting others in danger but then it has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago)

There is no justification for putting others in danger ~~but then~~. It has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.

Fixed it for ya.

There is no justification to put others in danger, period. That applies as much to drivers as to cyclists.

The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.

I've cycled in places like London, back when few people did it and the cycling infrastructure was basically non-existent and what little there was, were mostly tiny lanes painted blue on the side of the road with no actual safety from the cars and which tended to have cars parked on top.

People still didn't cycle on the sidewalk there back then, even in places without cycling lanes.

The sidewalk is not a place for cyclists: it's filled with people who don't expect cyclists and fragile and highly unpredictable pedestrians like children and dogs.

[–] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

Keep riding your ebikes. Please slow down and make noise when you ride past me on the sidewalk. I swear somebody almost hits every day In out walking around. A simple "Honk honk, coming through", please.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

here in the west, they lobbied/bullied enough to the governments now they act like douches all the time. its a double edeged sword. most of them have no respect for pedestrians.

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

"If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You're done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons..." A 60lb bicycle with a 120-190lb adult meat crayon riding it. That's 250lbs of meat and metal getting slammed by a 4000lb SUV that had the green.

"You stop and double park while you're doing DoorDash or Uber, and you get a ticket for double parking, and there is no consideration for a working man who's trying to do his living,"

Peak NYC... "Yeah, uh, I broke a well known and established law, but I'm working here! Gimme a break!"

"It's because the design and the infrastructure is not there to protect the people who are the most vulnerable..."

Pedestrian and traffic laws exist as a deterrent to keep people from doing stupid and dangerous things. Bike lanes and greenways exist. That's the infrastructure! You're a pedestrian breaking a law that's been implemented because it makes something unsafe for everyone. Maybe don't do the thing that makes things unsafe!?

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

I bike a lot in San Diego, which has a decent amount of bike lanes. Not a ride goes by without me having to leave the bike lane to go around someone parked in the bike lane. A law is only effective if it is enforced.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago

Parking in a designated bike lane should be treated like the equivalent of mounting the curb and parking on a sidewalk.

All ages of people use bike-lanes just like all ages of people use sidewalks.

Forcing people onto a full lane of potential deadly traffic should not be taken so lightly.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 8 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Being keyed every time they park in a bike lane might change their habbits.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

wont that make things worst, since it will cause increased resentment and road rage against bikers.

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

You're not wrong, but I wonder how many people are stopping to actually take a pic and notify the police so they can enforce the law. I've never seen it done in my area. I'm sure it happens, but any time I see a cyclist pull into traffic from a bike lane because some idiot's parked illegally, they just go around and ride on. That's part of the problem of enforcement too...

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that we have a established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles, however it's not used for bicyclists. There are pros and cons and ambiguity to overcome. Is biking considered a privilege like cars? Is it really "pedestrian" with electric bikes now?

Tickets for bikes isn't something that can be tacked on to the existing DMV infrastructure easily so of course they have to be processed differently for now.

Now if bikes/riders were licensed too, that may be easier to ticket just like vehicles, but good luck trying to push that law through.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

This comment seems to be suggesting that because enforcing traffic laws against people riding bikes is more difficult than it is against people driving cars, people should be punished more harshly when they violate traffic laws on bikes.

What that argument ignores is the vast difference in risk to others. The car is a couple orders of magnitude more dangerous, which is a major reason the law requires a license and registration to operate one on public roads. The idea of balancing the difficulty of enforcing traffic laws against people on bikes with harsher penalties only makes sense ignoring the difference in danger to others between bikes and cars.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Their first sentence explains their premise.

What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that we have an established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don't use.

They’re saying the infrastructure around vehicles has established process which doesn’t exist for cyclists. They’re positing, from my reading, that this is contributing to the disparity in how infractions are handled; that if bicycles had license plates, registration etc. similar to vehicles the current system could be equally applied.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago

In the USA, traffic tickets are usually issued by a police officer stopping the violator and physically handing them a citation. This is the same process for a misdemeanor summons, but the latter requires the person to come to court rather than pay a fine online or by mail, and can involve harsher penalties.

There's no difference in that process when there's a license plate and driver's license involved; the license plate just makes it easier to track down someone who flees.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Wow, swing and a miss, bud. That is so, so not what I said at all.

In no way did I imply "people should be punished more harshly". Nor did I address anything about weight.

Jeez, stop making stuff up.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

The comment appears to be a defense or justification of the current practice. Apologies for the confusion if that's not what you meant.