It's Never a Bicycle Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#111

Post by markvdb » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:07 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #50

jacquesm wrote: post #26

Just the other day here a guy in an SUV passed through a cloud of cyclists pedal to the metal during the morning rush hour when a lot of local kids cycle to school either with their parents or alone. I confronted him a little bit further on (when he had to slow down again, which is one reason why such hurrying makes no sense, it's just too busy). His motivation: none of the kids put out their hand. So that carries a…

> “...I would love it if reckless drivers would lose their license at the first offense.” that’s too punitive, but i’d be quite happy with a quickly escalating, income-/wealth-adjusted fine. so like 0.01% of yearly income on first offense, 0.1% on second offense, 1% on third offense, or something like that, on a rolling 12-month basis, where you can voluntarily give up you license for 3 months to reset the scale of y…

Impounding the driving license and/or car for a limited period of time could be a more egalitarian, privacy friendly and easier to implement alternative.

Your idea of some form of progressive rate punishment sounds really good. Time is probably the easiest to implement parameter:

- impound_car(time)

- impound_license(time)

- impound_license_and_car(time)

- impound_license_and_all_cars_owned(time)

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#112

Post by sneak » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

prower wrote: post #110

sneak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone pointed out downthread, there are no "cyclists", just other people who, at that time, are on bikes. Hating someone and unnecessarily acting in ways that might cause their death because they are moving slowly due to being on a bike is, to put it mildly, psychotic.

Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not questioning that for a second. That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that y…

> That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained.

Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer.

You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#113

Post by codeflow2202 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #11

Absolutely untrue. I am not a cyclist but i have about once in 3 months or so, a near accident where i just barely avoid crushing or rolling over some crazy cyclist that falls on his damn bike right under my car or drives from round the corner at full speed without damn looking anywhere. However careful i am trying to be it's just a matter of luck that i didn't kill anyone (and i once scratched my car and the other g…

Hey you don't own the streets so if someone slower is in front of you, you might just slow down for a while and don't give a damn about slowing traffic. Better safe than sorry.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#114

Post by adrianN » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

numlock86 wrote: post #89

A lot of comments point out situations with car drivers not being considerate of cyclists. Not to defend car drivers, but you could interchange car drivers with cyclists and cyclists with pedestrians and you would end up with people giving the same anecdotes. You see cyclists speeding through "walk only" areas just as you see cars ignoring bike lanes or giving space to cyclists in general. You'll see just as much peo…

Most cyclist activists that I know advocate for separate infrastructure for bicycles precisely because being on the pavement is unsafe for pedestrians (and annoying for cyclists) and being on the road is unsafe for cyclists (and annoying for cars).

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#115

Post by DocTomoe » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

Moru wrote: post #94

DocTomoe wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, hyperbole helps no-one. Mistakes may sometimes lead to extreme consequences. A cyclist not indicating and thus experiencing an accident is not much different from someone ignoring safety rules around power tools and getting (badly) hurt by it. The damage is accidental, not punitive. "Death sentence" in such cases is overly emotional and meant to derail a discussion. It's meant to divide, not unite. Instead of…

This is the drivers point of view, nowhere do we get the information of what actually happened. Just that the driver said the kids didn't put out the hand when he came in his big car in high speed. Were the kids actually turning or just going straight? Were they crossing the street?

In all fairness, OP's description of the incident is not very clear. As both a driver and a cyclist, the only situation I can imagine a car driving through a "cloud of cyclists" under any circumstance is an intersection with a second lane for turning left (or right, in left-hand traffic countries).

In such a situation, a cyclist may want to switch lanes to the turning lane, and - of course - would have to indicate the lane change. If no such indication is given, as a car driver, I would expect the cyclist to continue onwards, especially if there are lights that are green. I would not expect the cyclist to swerve out without indication - and as a cyclist, I agree that this is a very dangerous situation for the cyclist, since not only you are swerving out into the direct path of a car, but you also get slower relative to it.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#116

Post by adrianN » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

Dzugaru wrote: post #80

brnt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dutch law has a nice solution: liability correlates with weight. The more weight you put on the street, the more explaining you have to do, because you chose to potentially cause more damage. In a collision, the weightiest vehicle therefore is by default liable, unless they can prove otherwise. This means that in bicycle-car accidents, drivers almost always pay, and in bicycles pedestrian accident the cyclist.

> you chose to potentially cause more damage Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked. And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false. Any human has limits to reaction time,…

What fraction of your trips are driving your mom to the hospital?

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#117

Post by clairity » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:24 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #106

clairity wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “...I would love it if reckless drivers would lose their license at the first offense.” that’s too punitive, but i’d be quite happy with a quickly escalating, income-/wealth-adjusted fine. so like 0.01% of yearly income on first offense, 0.1% on second offense, 1% on third offense, or something like that, on a rolling 12-month basis, where you can voluntarily give up you license for 3 months to reset the scale of y…

Would revoking someone's right to own firearms the first time they acted recklessly in a crowd of children with one also seem "too punitive" to you, or should they retain their weapons to act recklessly with them in crowds a second time? The victims will be just as dead. Cars are lethal.

oh yes, let’s think of the children! bubble-wrap them, lock them at home for doubleplus good, and tote around a robotic, screen-mediated facsimile so there’s no chance of pain or injury. that should fix that problem right up.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#118

Post by prower » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #112

prower wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not questioning that for a second. That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that y…

> That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer. You're confusing inconvenience…

That's not true when you're forced to do 10km/h for prolonged periods of time (that's hindrance to traffic and you can usually get a fine for that) because you can't safely overtake a bycicle that's going in a zig-zag way on the lane to avoid a myriad of potholes, or because it's an uphill road and it's too physically taxing for the biker, sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road.

That's only stress and useless danger for everyone involved.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#119

Post by matsemann » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:28 AM UTC

numlock86 wrote: post #109

matsemann wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is your point? Your whole post is meaningless, it's just useless centrism with fluffy words about "both sides" in order to exonerate drivers.

The point is that comments (in regard to the article) are littered with anecdotes about cyclists getting in danger because of cars. It's a one-sided view. There's problems on both sides equally. Conflicts of this kind are waved off as "the driver was an asshole", which might be correct in single cases, but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely.

> There's problems on both sides equally.

No, it's not. A driver is driving something lethal that kills thousands each year. Don't try to pretend a cyclist being remotely close to a driver when it comes to severity of the actions. It's not a "one-sided view", it's the truth that drivers are far more dangerous than cyclists. If 99 scientists says something and one quack says something else, the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, you know.

> but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely

True, that cyclists need better infrastructure and similar stuff. What also misses the point is to start devil's advocating that "cyclists are just as bad".

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#120

Post by jamil7 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:29 AM UTC

prower wrote: post #110

sneak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone pointed out downthread, there are no "cyclists", just other people who, at that time, are on bikes. Hating someone and unnecessarily acting in ways that might cause their death because they are moving slowly due to being on a bike is, to put it mildly, psychotic.

Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not questioning that for a second. That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that y…

None of those groups of people "hate cyclists", this is a flat out lie and generalisation.