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

It's Never a Bicycle Accident

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#181

Post by murphyslab »

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…

There's a similar idea that I've heard since about 2010 about subtly-influencing differences in how a human language appears to impact cognition.

> Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could. Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped: "The vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase." [0]

Here's a figure from the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20210319233610/https://www.econo...

The difference between "crash" (there's likely a human agent) and "accident" (there is no human agent) seems to be the same.

On the other hand, in my experience from editing the professional writing of colleagues, there's often subtle implications from the chose of words. We tend to have so many different options in English, but two words never really mean the same thing because each carries different connotations either from history or from usage. Yet many readers aren't quite aware of those implications. I'm not sure if the implication does not exist for them, or if they are simply not aware of how it might colour their perception.

[0] "Lost in translation?", The Economist, 2010-07-29, https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/07/29/lost-in-transla...

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#182

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

m_mueller wrote: post #3

I wish journalism was concerned less with words and more with pointing out how to solve problems. This one in particular seems to be mostly a failure at city planning and lack of drivers education. It seems to me that car companies should be way less powerful in the US than they were 50 years ago (in terms of % of GDP), thus there should be a way out of this. Compare good and bad cities, shame the bad ones. Get insur…

Just because a solution isn’t provided doesn’t make criticism any less valid. That’s just a way to silence people.

Only plumbers may complain about broken toilets

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#183

Post by anoncake »

Laarlf wrote: post #180
anoncake wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, yes. I pollute less and I'm drastically less likely to kill someone. I don't drive people mad with noise. My lifestyle is superior. Deal with it. > Cars and bikes do not belong on the same road without seperation That is not true. Even inside towns, cars can be driven safely at reasonable speeds of 10-20 km/h.

Well why are you still around cars when your lifestyle is so superior? There must be billions of people choosing the "superior" life. How great that you are so superior yet you want cars to take 2-10 times as much fuel to let them drive at speeds they are not made for while creating more traffic jams. The next time i overtake a cyclist i will keep that in mind and use the first gear and full throttle. People like you…

> Well why are you still around cars when your lifestyle is so superior?

Tragedy of the commons.

> Justifying being annoying is a great way to make you popular i've heard.

Seems to work for you.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#184

Post by Laarlf »

anoncake wrote: post #183
Laarlf wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well why are you still around cars when your lifestyle is so superior? There must be billions of people choosing the "superior" life. How great that you are so superior yet you want cars to take 2-10 times as much fuel to let them drive at speeds they are not made for while creating more traffic jams. The next time i overtake a cyclist i will keep that in mind and use the first gear and full throttle. People like you…

> Well why are you still around cars when your lifestyle is so superior? Tragedy of the commons. > Justifying being annoying is a great way to make you popular i've heard. Seems to work for you.

> Tragedy of the commons.

Ah so you’re saying the lifestyle isn’t superior because it throws self interest out of the discussion.

And yes, it works out quite well for me. My hatred for cyclists who don’t use the bike lanes built literally for them is growing daily and so is my skill to hold the horn for minutes and holding low speeds in first gear. They want coexistence and they get coexistence.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#185

Post by nec4b »

anoncake wrote: post #175
Laarlf wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the bike lane. There is none? Either well behaved and aware of the circumstances on the road or under the car.

Every cyclist is inherently more well-behaved than anyone driving a dangerous, noisy and polluting machine driving through a populated area.

Especially those zigzagging with reckless speed between pedestrians on the pavement and not respecting traffic signals.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#186

Post by anoncake »

nec4b wrote: post #185
anoncake wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every cyclist is inherently more well-behaved than anyone driving a dangerous, noisy and polluting machine driving through a populated area.

Especially those zigzagging with reckless speed between pedestrians on the pavement and not respecting traffic signals.

Even those. Disturbing pedestrians is not okay, of course. But why do people ride on the pavement in the first place? Because car drivers are making the road too dangerous.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#187

Post by nec4b »

anoncake wrote: post #186
nec4b wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially those zigzagging with reckless speed between pedestrians on the pavement and not respecting traffic signals.

Even those. Disturbing pedestrians is not okay, of course. But why do people ride on the pavement in the first place? Because car drivers are making the road too dangerous.

Cyclist are a menace for well behaved pedestrians. They are very aggressive and endangering the well being of other people in the city centers, which are closed to general traffic or on walking paths outside of cities. Recklessly speeding between pedestrians and doing risky maneuvers thinking they are on the Tour the France.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#188

Post by anoncake »

nec4b wrote: post #187
anoncake wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even those. Disturbing pedestrians is not okay, of course. But why do people ride on the pavement in the first place? Because car drivers are making the road too dangerous.

Cyclist are a menace for well behaved pedestrians. They are very aggressive and endangering the well being of other people in the city centers, which are closed to general traffic or on walking paths outside of cities. Recklessly speeding between pedestrians and doing risky maneuvers thinking they are on the Tour the France.

Are we? I must be doing cycling wrong.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#189

Post by nec4b »

anoncake wrote: post #188
nec4b wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclist are a menace for well behaved pedestrians. They are very aggressive and endangering the well being of other people in the city centers, which are closed to general traffic or on walking paths outside of cities. Recklessly speeding between pedestrians and doing risky maneuvers thinking they are on the Tour the France.

Are we? I must be doing cycling wrong.

Yes you probably are. You should try talking to a pedestrian sometime, to hear how irresponsible and dangerous cyclist are.
Post reply on HN