Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#141

Post by Anasufovic » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:24 AM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #61

pacala wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speed differential is what make me scratch my head as well, from both safety and traffic engineering perspective. In the USA lots of mountain highways have turnouts and "Slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs [0]. On the flip side, once in a city, a single cyclist is entitled to slow down everybody else, traffic fluidity be damned. [0] http://www.aaroads.com/forum/?topic=12036.0

It's not "on the flip side" at all. On a highway, a cyclist and other slow vehicles are obligated to use the turnouts. But in the city, there are no turnouts or "slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs. So cyclists and other slow vehicles are not obligated to use non existent turnouts there. Why don't you complain about giant slow trucks not using imaginary turnouts in the city as "the flip side"?

Yes, and there is quite a big difference between highways and city driving. In the city you are just racing to the next stop, even if it took a whole 10 seconds until it was safe to pass the cyclist. How long is one red light?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#142

Post by bigiain » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:29 AM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #135

snovv_crash wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.

A bicycle helmet changes the probabilities significantly towards survival, in all crash types. In majority of bicycle deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, and the "dinky" helmet is what makes a difference. A large majority of bicycle deaths are low speed accidents. (Over here (Finland) a majority of them actually does not even involve a motor vehicle; here we have a pretty good segregated bike/pedestria…

"Significantly" "in all crash types"? That's not what the evidence I've seen suggests. Nor does it align with my personal anec-data. In all the crashes I can remember having in the last decade on a bicycle (nearly all failing to unclip when stopping or failing to negotiate an obstacle at low speed) I've never even touched my bicycle helmet (or head, if nt wearing one) to the ground.

There's quite a few studies recently that've revealed quite glaring errors in the claims that bicycle helmets reduce injuries in any significant fashion for typical cyclists. Sure you'd be foolish doind a mountain stage of the Tour de France without a helmet - but for a typical non-heavily-trafficed-commute or a weekend ride-in-the-park - there's very few accidents where a helmet makes any statistcal difference.

I also recall recently reading a study that calculated the overall benefit of bicycle helmet laws were negative when the reduction in cyclists was taken into account, and it's resultant lower level of public health. Have stringent helmet laws, and fewer people ride bicycles; fewer people riding bicycles results in more overweight/unfit people. Nett cost to health system goes up, not down.

I will never question your choice to wear a helmet - either always or occasionally. I do question your motives for supporting the establishment to _require_ (with threats of punitive fines) me to wear one, without conclusive and in-controversial evidence that it is of statistically significant benefit _to the sort of riding I do_...

If you want to "lowest common denominator" the argument - explain to me why you don't wear a helmet with driving/riding in a car? Have a guess as to what the most serious injuries in cases of automotive deaths are…

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#143

Post by bigiain » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:35 AM UTC

pmyjavec wrote: post #120

brokenmachine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have no problem with those fines but they should be enforcing the 1m rule as well. Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger. When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safet…

I used to live in Sydney and commute daily by bike. Now live in Amsterdam and I've never have worn a helmet, along with what seems like 99% of the locals. I now realise the helmet thing is mainly about cars and just the way one needs to ride in Sydney to survive. Lanes end abruptly, major pot holes in roads etc. It's anecdotal but you get the feeling progress and freedom is not really Australia's strong point these d…

That is true - but _only_ for some types of bicycle rides.

I can get from my place to the local shopping centre, a bunch of cafes or pubs, and the Cook's River bike path - all without needing to ride in "traffic" or on major (or even busy) roads. The chance of a helmet providing _any_ safety benefit for me riding to do my grocery shopping, is about as high as the benefit of me wearing a helmet while _driving_ a car to the shopping centre.

(And don't think I'm completely anti-helmet - I also ride motorcycles and wear a helmet 100% of the time on that, only _mostly_ because it's the law.)

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#144

Post by bigiain » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:40 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #73

bigiain wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was" And people wonder why revenge fantasy is so appealing: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mjh/spike.html (I would have at least turned to the kids and said "Hey did you hear that? Your Dad's an asshole!")

I wouldn't antagonise someone who'd just tried to kill me. Not sure of phrasing that would get the guy to change his attitude, but I don't think involving his kids would get the best response.

When he's a big brave "motorists activist" while wrapped in and (barely) in control of a ton of metal cage doing 30mph, sure. But when he's stopped at a light and you're beside him in a position his weapon cannot be easily aimed? They're _mostly_ pretty soft and pathetic and mouthy. I often quite enjoy antagonising them into a frothing rage.

(Note: this is a point of view from a country where they're spectacularly unlikely to be carrying a firearm or even a knife, ymmv…)

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#145

Post by bigiain » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:43 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #66

bigiain wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the last few weeks they've been heavily enforcing their new-ish $375 penalty for not wearing a helmet... Who would've guessed that NSWPolice would selectively apply the new laws and penalties???

I actually have no problem with those fines but they should be enforcing the 1m rule as well. Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger. When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safet…

Because I'm a grown up who can evaluate the risks/benefits for myself, and I'm sick to death of nanny-state victim-blaming resulting in erosion of rights and freedom?

When you drive - do you wear a helmet? Why not?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#146

Post by pedalpete » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:49 AM UTC

igf wrote: post #127

andrewem wrote: post #40

I don't have time now to write a comment laying out a comprehensive rebuttal of all the foolishness that some people have suggested here (bicyclists need to be licensed! bicyclists should have to follow exactly the same rules as drivers! we shouldn't have bicyclists on many roads because cars go too fast!). Instead, I'll say that just as people walking need physically protected infrastructure on essentially all roadw…

> Instead, I'll say that just as people walking need physically protected infrastructure on essentially all roadways - these are called sidewalks - so too people on bicycles need physically protected infrastructure on essentially all roadways Where do we stop? Should we have skateboard lanes as well? Unicycle lanes? Lanes for people who wish to taxi down the road in a Learjet? We can't accommodate every form of trans…

No you can't accommodate every form of transportation, but you can have Motor Vehicle, Person Powered Vehicle, Person.

Comparing Unicycles and skateboards is like saying we have to have a different lane for each type of truck, car, SUV, motorcycle, etc etc.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#147

Post by oska » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:55 AM UTC

bsimpson wrote: post #34

toomanybeersies wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're just starting to get separated bike lines in New Zealand, where the bike lane is on the other side of the parked cars, so the parked cars essentially make a barrier. It's not perfect, you can still get doored by the parked cars, but at least you aren't going to get run over at the same time.

We have those in the Park here. Passengers seem to be less trained to watch for bicycles than drivers, so I wonder if it's actually safer overall. But that's not the problem I'm pointing out above. So long as cars park in garages under houses and need to cross the sidewalk and cycletrack to get to the street, it will need to be physically possible for a car to cross the cycletrack. So long as that's true (without fre…

How about a bollard in the cycle path just past every driveway? Expensive, but would prevent access to the cycletrack by vehicles.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#148

Post by bigiain » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:56 AM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #97

snovv_crash wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.

I believe this is directly contradicted by the statistical evidence. I'll see if I can find a reference... Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50km/h) bike helmets become less effective when hit by a car. However, many car/bike accidents occur at speeds below 50km/h, in which case helmets can and do save lives. [1] One could make a similar statement to yours regarding any safety device. A seatbelt probabl…

I'm not exactly Lance Armstrong, so I can barely make it to 25km/h on my bicycle (without a good tailwind or a downhill run) and I certainly can't maintain it for long.

What's the bottom end of that effectiveness curve look like?

It's 100% clear that helmets have zero effectiveness at 0km/h[1] - I bet the "effectiveness" of helmets is statistically the same a zero at 1km/h and 3km/h as well - where's the data that shows the shape of that curve? How does that compare with various categories of cycling?

I note that what the linked study/article "proves" is that if you have a crash in which you might die, a helmet will improve your outcome in some of those cases. To me that has (at least) two obvious responses: 1) wear a helmet, or 2) don't have those sorts of crashes. Me pedalling to the shops or the cafe at 10-15km/h on cycle paths or quiet backstreets is enormously safer than me riding at 25km/h on a busy or main road, or on a downhill mountain bike course - with or without a helmet. Why to "the helmet guys" get to choose which risk minimisation strategy I'm required to employ?

[1] to be more accurate, the benefits of having a helmet on while stationary on a bicycle are no different from the benefits of having a helmet on while standing still - something the safety-crats haven't (yet) suggested is necessary...)

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#149

Post by pedalpete » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:59 AM UTC

snovv_crash wrote: post #82

brokenmachine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have no problem with those fines but they should be enforcing the 1m rule as well. Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger. When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safet…

>Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.

A bicycle helmet is not designed to protect your head from the impact of a car. It may try, but your helmet would have to be huge.

A bike helmet is made to slide across the pavement in the event of a crash. This allows you to decelerate at a slower pace and minimize damage.

Think of a bike helmet more like a ski helmet. It protects you from the ground, and will do very little if you ski into a tower. http://www.bhsi.org/mips.htm

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#150

Post by aoloe » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:01 AM UTC

shard972 wrote: post #115

aoloe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post shows two huge flaws in the way car traffic works: - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I don't own a car but sometimes have a ride with other people and it's scary to notice how aggressive some people are towards the other road users. And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just…

> - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! Sure that's fine but when 1 lane is going 70 and another 30 for whatever reason you have an objectively more dangerous situation. You can't just expect people to sit and in the 30 lane, be happy and not try and pull out in front of others to get into the fast lane. > - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I would say that most peop…

Sorry to tell you, but you're 100% confirming my opinion.

Drivers as you (I suppose you are describing the way you're driving), are in my eyes the most dangerous on the street.

They probably won't be causing the most accidents directly, but they put other people under stress and push them not to respect their own limits.

We have more and more elderly people who need to be active in the society and also more and more people who only drive a car a few times a year.

And when you will get older (and it will happen! believe me!), you will still want to drive a car and you will have the same attitude my mother has: driving too fast, because she does not want to feel like an obstacle. But you will not be driving as well as in the good old times.

Anyway, statistics don't lie: 93% of the US drivers seem to consider themselves better than average... (says Wikipedia)