It's Never a Bicycle Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#151

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

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #140

caslon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it too punitive? They're operating a massive structure of (usually literally) flaming steel. If they can't consider the safety of people who very plausibly will be their victims without constant vigilance, they really shouldn't be driving. Doubly so for pickups, which are now so large that they offer a near-nonexistent risk on the driver's end for poor driving and nearly-certain serious-injury-and-or-death for…

>How is it too punitive? Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law a…

> “ "normal traffic flow" ...when everyone is breaking the law...”

?? I understood the OP as referring to vehicles sharing the roadway with bicyclists and apparently in a school zone.

I have no sympathy for anyone’s excuse—worker or working moms who drive on roads shared with pedestrians and bicyclists. I live in the US, and our car-centric culture is toxic to anyone not in a car.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#152

Post by gerl1ng » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 11:33 AM UTC

prower wrote: post #118

sneak wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 us…

What people like you don't get is that 90+% of the roads are open for all kinds of traffic.

Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars.

But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traffic that is the "wrong vehicle for the road".

And it would also be the very same people who would complain about a cycle path beside the road as it's a waste of tax dollars in their mind if it's not used by thousands of cyclists a day.

I don't get it. If you just hate people that power their transportation themselves say it, but don't use such excuses.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#153

Post by jgwil2 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 11:35 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #140

caslon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it too punitive? They're operating a massive structure of (usually literally) flaming steel. If they can't consider the safety of people who very plausibly will be their victims without constant vigilance, they really shouldn't be driving. Doubly so for pickups, which are now so large that they offer a near-nonexistent risk on the driver's end for poor driving and nearly-certain serious-injury-and-or-death for…

>How is it too punitive? Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law a…

OP didn't say any traffic violation should result in revocation of license, just reckless driving. At least where I live, that's a specific violation that is well beyond any violation that might come from following normal traffic flow.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#154

Post by jgwil2 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 11:40 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #117

sneak wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one said that at all. Quite the opposite actually: the suggestion was to prevent those who would endanger children from doing so, so that the children might carry on with their lives without fear.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#155

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 11:43 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?

Specifically it was a roundabout, and the driver took half of it, the kids only 1/4, so he had to wait for all of 3 seconds before he realized they were making the turn, absolutely no reason to start driving that aggressively, especially not through literally 10's of cyclists. Very dangerous maneuver and only because he was irritated.

This is the exact spot:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eemnesserweg,+Baarn/@52.21...

kids coming from Eemnesserweg turning right, car going straight, oncoming cyclist traffic on the road from the right as well. It was a pretty close call, there simply is no room there for faster driving than the speed at which the bikes move, which is fine because it takes less than a minute to cross the center of this town.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#156

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 11:43 AM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #115

Moru wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

If you can't imagine a cloud of cyclists you need to watch a video or two of what dutch cycling traffic is like. Flooring your accelerator in a spot like that is super dangerous.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#157

Post by gerl1ng » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 12:01 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #58

ehnto wrote: post #5

I always tell people I am not a cyclist, I am a bloke who rides a bike. The vilification of a group is how you make harming them palatable to people, and we have all heard the rhetoric surrounding "cyclists". I am far sooner a friend, a son, a partner and someone you know, than a cyclist. I don't even qear lycra, and I spend my whole ride trying to be courteous so at least extend me the same courtesy. Also, get off y…

and we have all heard the rhetoric surrounding "cyclists". Are you saying that not even a smidgen of truth belies such rhetoric? Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs as if they were mere suggestions and nothing more. I know how entrenched each sides are in this argument - drivers and cyclists. Neither will give an inch. The best way to get cyclists some kind of safety is to INSIST on a full bore…

As a cyclist I sometimes run red lights if it is safe. Why? Bacause I cannot get from A to B with a bicycle with the current infrastructure.

In my city of 30k people there are several traffic lights equipped with road sensors. So they only ever go green if something heavy enough or with enough metal / magnetic mass in it rolls over it. Especially for left-turn signals it's impossible to get them triggered as a cyclist here.

One will remember waiting in the middle of the road for a few minutes. So I decided I'll come to a stop if needed and see that it's safe to run the red light. I'd even do it if police is seeing it.

This topic has also been raised to the city council and local administration but I guess my tax money will not be spent on cycle friendly infrastructure.

> You cant just hop on a bicycle use infrastructure others are paying for and expect to be treated like equals without paying into the system your fair share.

There are a few studies that show that cycling saves cost while driving cars is subsidized by the government. That's taking taxes, fees into acount. Even the heavy petrol taxes in Europe.

Probably it helps to keep that in mind if one is again annoyed by cyclists (read people) using the road.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#158

Post by throwaway0a5e » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

jgwil2 wrote: post #153

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is it too punitive? Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law a…

OP didn't say any traffic violation should result in revocation of license, just reckless driving. At least where I live, that's a specific violation that is well beyond any violation that might come from following normal traffic flow.

Reckless driving as defined by statute typically includes a "more than X over the limit" clause where X is small enough to include "normal traffic speed for a clear day with light traffic on the interstate highway system and many state highways"

This is exactly my point. The laws are far too broad to have stiff penalties and draconian enforcement. Of course nobody should be driving 40+ through some downtown center signed at 25 where pedestrians are present. But people routinely make common sense exemptions to the letter of the law. They treat that stop that could have been a yield were it not for the option to turn left as a yield. They ignore a 40-20-40 speed limit drop when that drop is there for a particular problem condition that is not applicable at the time. Etc. Etc. Cyclists and pedestrians make common sense exemptions all the time too, albeit a different set of exemptions specific to their mode of transportation. The overwhelming majority of traffic participants behave reasonably, but reasonable is not consistent with the letter of the law.

Of course we don't want "reckless drivers" on the roads but "reckless" is by its very definition an ambiguous term and nobody's yet to nail it down in statutory form in a way that doesn't leave gaping loopholes or make reasonably people subjet to being screwed at the discretion of law enforcement. And we see that every time law enforcement tries to go hard on a particular type of crime it just devolves into doing the most enforcement against the most vulnerable.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#159

Post by SauciestGNU » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 12:05 PM UTC

softgrow wrote: post #125

In transport academia "crash" vs "accident" is contested. I'm a "crash" person but I'm lampooned by "accident" people for it. It's the wrong word or maybe it doesn't matter. There are even people who argue for some are "crash" and some are "accident". The "accident" example quoted is a motorcyclist who was struck in the face (not wearing a full-face helmet) by a bird then rode onto the wrong side and struck another m…

Two thoughts here. First, why do we need to choose between "crash" or "accident"? Why can't journalists be more descriptive, even in headlines, by saying something like "bird strike", "single vehicle collision", etc?

Second, there's a saying with the motorcyclists I personally know, "full face or no face", meaning in the event of a mishap, helmets that provide less coverage are far less likely to protect the rider. I don't think we should mandate what type of helmet people wear, or wearing a helmet at all, but assigning some responsibility to the rider who got hit where a full face helmet would have protected might be appropriate.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#160

Post by prower » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

gerl1ng wrote: post #152

prower wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

What people like you don't get is that 90+% of the roads are open for all kinds of traffic. Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars. But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traff…

A digger, a horse, a motorbike, a roman chariot or a cow are all preferable alternatives to cyclists on road, for the simple fact that, with all other means of transport, you get a lot more leeway if something goes awry for whatever reason (e.g. a pothole).

With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder.

Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look forward to that actually. But having bikes and cars together is a glaring design failure and, quite honestly, nothing more than pure insanity.