Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

fastcoexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 274 posts

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#231

Post by throwanem »

pif wrote: post #205
throwanem wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baltimore is surprisingly much the same, with the delightful twist of cyclists who cheerfully (and ubiquitously) ride on the sidewalks, and who then try to act like you're the asshole when you explain politely to them that they need to get off the God damn sidewalk and into the God damn road. Don't even get me started on cyclists who use the light rail. They're worse than football fans, which is saying a lot; footbal…

Sir, your comment is a piece of art. The third paragraph, in particular, a masterwork.

You are far too kind, sir. But I thank you very kindly all the same.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#232

Post by pif »

collyw wrote: post #227
pif wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. The only times I saw cyclists in a risky position, they were not respecting neither driving code nor common sense (ex: overtaking on the wrong side, in a narrow space between moving cars and pavement, at an unreasonable speed; or the more classical: ignoring red lights, priorities or forbidden directions).

There is evidence to suggest that running red lights is safer for cyclists. I certainly feel safer when I get a head start and get ahead of the traffic in town. http://www.rudi.net/node/16395

I'll add an advice to the final list: don't overtake a motorized vehicle at a shorter lateral distance than what you'd accept where the vehicle overtaking you.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#233

Post by pif »

collyw wrote: post #227
pif wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. The only times I saw cyclists in a risky position, they were not respecting neither driving code nor common sense (ex: overtaking on the wrong side, in a narrow space between moving cars and pavement, at an unreasonable speed; or the more classical: ignoring red lights, priorities or forbidden directions).

There is evidence to suggest that running red lights is safer for cyclists. I certainly feel safer when I get a head start and get ahead of the traffic in town. http://www.rudi.net/node/16395

I'm sincerely sorry for the people who died in those accidents, but the only evidence I found in the article is that queuing behind a lorry would have prevented all of them.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#234

Post by m0nty »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #155
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…

Isn't there evidence that drivers give you more room if you don't wear a helmet.

This oft-quoted study at the University of Bath in England:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906...

I'd like to see a more extensive study, although my own experience of using a helmet and hi-viz clothing seems to confirm, some motorists see the gear and think "experienced cyclist, I can pass closer".

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#235

Post by huherto »

Someone wrote: post #108
sampo wrote: post #39

I googled for some statistics: USA 1% of all trips is by cycle [1] 743 cyclist fatalities per year (2013) [2] population 320 million. Denmark 17% of all trips is by cycle [3] 33 cyclist fatalities per year (2013) [3] population 5.6 million. Cyclist fatalities per 1 million people: USA: 2.3 Denmark: 5.9 ...per cycling frequency: USA: 232 Denmark: 35 I guess I was expecting worse. American cyclists die only 7x more tha…

"American cyclists die only 7x more than Danish cyclists." reason that this is so 'low' is a difference in the population that cycles. I don't know for Denmark, but in the Netherlands, about 60% of cyclists dying in traffic are over 65 years old (106 out of 185 in 2014).

> I don't know for Denmark, but in the Netherlands, about 60% of cyclists dying in traffic are over 65 years old (106 out of 185 in 2014).

I am curious why is that. Reflexes, heart attacks, hip injuries ?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#236

Post by 7Z7 »

igf wrote: post #125
ubernostrum wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want some fun? Try being someone who commutes in the Bay area via a combination of walking and public transit. Cars give me very little trouble. Bicycles, though.. at least a couple times a week I nearly get killed by one. At crosswalks, typically I'm in a crowd of people and drivers know better than to try to make a turn through the crowd. Cyclists, though, will blow through, even just flat running a red light, and…

Bicycles are a tool for turning ordinary people into selfish jerks, jealously guarding their precious forward momentum. A pedestrian doesn't mind if they have to stop for a moment, it's no big deal. A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either, it's easy to get back up to speed again. But for a cyclist, having to stop is a minor disaster requiring a massive effort to get back up to speed, so they start behaving…

I think you are being way too charitable to cars. Maybe it's where you are from, but I can't say that is my experience.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#237

Post by teh_klev »

philbarr wrote: post #139
jrockway wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing we need in the United States are traffic tickets. A lot of people get tickets on freeways (where there is a dedicated highway patrol that exists only to write speeding tickets), but nobody gets ticketed on surface streets, no matter how badly they drive. I see garbage trucks barrelling through red lights at 45mph. I see taxis driving the wrong way down one-way streets. I see black cars driving 60mph down na…

If you're blocking an emergency vehicle in the UK by bad parking they have the right to smash your vehicle to get past - and it's your fault.

I'd like a citation for that, I don't think that's true. I imagine they can legally tow your vehicle away, but I reckon damaging the bodywork of your ambulance or fire appliance to move another vehicle out of the way is not standard operating procedure.

There is however an act called the The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 [0] which makes it an offence to obstruct emergency vehicles.

[0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-emergency-wor...

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#238

Post by [deleted] »

7Z7 wrote: post #236
igf wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bicycles are a tool for turning ordinary people into selfish jerks, jealously guarding their precious forward momentum. A pedestrian doesn't mind if they have to stop for a moment, it's no big deal. A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either, it's easy to get back up to speed again. But for a cyclist, having to stop is a minor disaster requiring a massive effort to get back up to speed, so they start behaving…

I think you are being way too charitable to cars. Maybe it's where you are from, but I can't say that is my experience.

[deleted]

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#240

Post by kazinator »

ubernostrum wrote: post #156
Thlom wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a pretty relaxed cyclist. I ride more or less upright, but the forward momentum is precious. It's no problem to stop while walking, it takes no more energy to start walking than to continue walking. Same goes for driving a car. On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum. That said, some "avid cyclists" are total jerks.

On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum. To which I have to say: that's on you. The only way to have multiple modes of transportation -- motorized, pedal, and foot -- coexist is for everybody to give a little. Which means there are times when you will have to stop and yield and wait for someone else, even if it costs you "momentum". (and this is the polite versio…

Take out "motorized" and the traffic code pretty much goes away. Intersections with semaphore lights, all of it. It's all for the sake of motor vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists can stay out of each other's way without anyone having to stop.
Post reply on HN