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

How to Not Get Hit by Cars

bicyclesafe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 262 posts

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#221

Post by wizofaus »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #94
Bostonian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, the cars greatly outnumber bikes. Cyclists that go in the main traffic lane will slow things down substantially, and I think that is inconsiderate.

You can always pull into another lane to overtake like you would with a slower-moving car. The only situation I can see a cyclist making a difference like this is on an uninterrupted country road where it's dangerous to overtake. In any urban area the time lost to waiting behind a cyclist will be negligible compared to the minutes lost stuck behind cars at every red light.

In many urban areas traveling by bicycle is objectively and measurably quicker than by car, even without allowing for additional time for parking/walking to/from wherever you can park.

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#222

Post by Retric »

Cockbrand wrote: post #159
Retric wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just understand if you take up a traffic lane when a bike lane is right next to you, some cars will pass you then slow down to walking speed in front of you. Hostility results in hostility, and you’re not surrounded by steel.

Using a traffic* lane when there is a bike lane is not necessarily hostility. I'd even argue that it's rarely hostility. It might be that the bike lane is full of potholes, or dirty/icy/full of foliage or debris, so it's uncomfortable or unsafe. Or there could be a lot of parking with potentially opening car doors right next to the bike lane. * traffic doesn't only consist of cars. Bikes, pedestrians, wheelchairs are…

To be clear I mean people will perceive it as hostile seeing bikers in a traffic lane when next to a bike lane, and then respond with hostile actions like heavy acceleration right next to a biker etc.

Honking is far more common, but escalation happens and simply assuming it’s safer because someone sees you don’t always work if their annoyed.

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#223

Post by wizofaus »

thomasahle wrote: post #117
Retric wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just understand if you take up a traffic lane when a bike lane is right next to you, some cars will pass you then slow down to walking speed in front of you. Hostility results in hostility, and you’re not surrounded by steel.

> some cars will pass you then slow down to walking speed in front of you. I have never heard of this happening to anybody.

I'd describe it as a near-daily occurrence! To be clear they're slowing down because of traffic congestion or the need to navigate an intersection etc., but it still amazes me that a driver's first instinct is "get past the bicycle no matter what" even if it's clear they'll need to slow right down shortly after.

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#224

Post by akvadrako »

candu wrote: post #50

Step N+1: advocate for better cycling infrastructure in your area / town / city. Places that are bike-friendly don't rely on driver or cyclist behaviour to prevent collisions; they build separated lanes, provide bike boxes in front of stopped cars, reduce speed limits, install automated speed enforcement, connect cycling paths through parks, and so on.

For most cities, you shouldn't hope to innovate; just partially emulating the Netherlands is the best you can hope for.

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#225

Post by scoofy »

candu wrote: post #50

Step N+1: advocate for better cycling infrastructure in your area / town / city. Places that are bike-friendly don't rely on driver or cyclist behaviour to prevent collisions; they build separated lanes, provide bike boxes in front of stopped cars, reduce speed limits, install automated speed enforcement, connect cycling paths through parks, and so on.

"Better cycling infrastructure" should mean an effectively car-free network of streets. Yes this can be achieved while still allowing cars to access residences on these streets.

This is what has been frustrating for me as a life long advocate for decades. People think bike lanes are a solution. They are not, bike lanes are for cars, not for bikes. Bikes and public transit should each get about 5%-10% of car-free surface streets to create a safe, fast, reliable network for alternatives. Ironically, this would reduce traffic, as the main reason why traffic is so terrible is because automobiles have monopoly power over the infrastructure, so nobody can actually choose alternatives if they want to.

I'm a mod of /r/bicycling, and wrote a free ebook on how to get into biking years ago. Here is the chapter on safety:

http://howtobike.info/thebook?section=chapter3

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#226

Post by misslibby »

adrianN wrote: post #211
misslibby wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, those old people's motor rollers? I am not convinced.

There are bicycles with three wheels. There are also electric bicycles with three wheels. They require neither effort nor balance to ride, make a rather large part of the city accessible if proper infrastructure exists, and they have storage capacity, e.g. for groceries.

I don't see any elderly people using them. Nice thought, but I am not convinced.

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#227

Post by trowawee »

ygra wrote: post #127
kqr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds nice. We have the opposite rule in one of your northern neighbours. "Bicyclists are inherently unpredictable so it's never your fault if you drive a car, even if it was a little." (Obviously nobody involved would put it like this, but this is the general theme of the police investigations and the court response the rare times it goes to court.)

Interesting. The same unpredictability would hold for children as well, wouldn't it? And I hope at least there the conclusion isn't the same.

At least here in the US, it absolutely is. Kids get hit by cars and die on a semi-regular basis and basically no one is ever held accountable for it. From Chicago, just a few weeks ago: "Driver issued no citations after fatally striking 2-year-old riding mini-scooter in Lincoln Square"[0].

[0]: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/6/3/23153664/lincoln-...

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#228

Post by gjm11 »

paulnpace wrote: post #182
gjm11 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I understand. Apparently it's unreasonable for one set of road users to say to another "When we're around, you have to go much more slowly on this road than you would like to". But it's not unreasonable for one set of road users to say to another: "You must not use this road at all". Actually, I'm not being entirely sincere. I think I understand very well: you think that car drivers are proper road user…

Yes, the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is hostile and should receive lashes for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world. I think the problem here is there is scarce resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to. All people shall trave…

I did not say (and don't believe) that "the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed". You just made that up. Most of the time, when a car meets a bicycle, the car overtakes. The only question is what happens in places where that isn't safe. The answer you suggested is that bicycles shouldn't ever be on those roads. I don't think that's a good answer.

I did not say anything about you (or others who might disagree with me) being "hostile". You just made that up. (You are being pretty hostile, as it happens, but I wasn't complaining about that.)

And of course I didn't say anything about punishing people for being "angry haters"; again, you just made that up out of nothing.

I agree that the basic problem is scarce resources. I have no idea why you think I "cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as [I] expect them to". I didn't say anything remotely like that, and I didn't mean anything remotely like that.

I did not say (and don't believe) that everyone should travel at bicycle speeds. Cars should be able to travel at car speeds when it's safe. Bicycles should be able to travel at bicycle speeds when it's safe. The only difficult question is what to do in the unusual situations where both of them can't safely do their thing. Again, your solution was to say that cyclists shouldn't be on those roads at all, and I don't think that's a good solution.

> how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass

I agree: they should totally do that, if there are a bunch of cars behind them and there isn't going to be a safe place for ordinary overtaking soon, and if they're actually safer to drive past when stationary than when cycling. (It's what I do if I'm on a bicycle in that situation.) I'm not sure what makes you think I don't think they should do that.

If you'd said "If you're cycling on a road where cars can't get past you, stop and let them past every now and then" I'd have nodded my head and thought "yup, good advice". But you didn't. You said "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic." and the only thing you said about overtaking was to complain about how cyclists encourage drivers to overtake.

(I don't know the specific roads you have in mind, but from what you said the situation I was imagining was one where the road is so narrow that you can't safely pass them even if they're standing beside their bicycle rather than riding it.)

If your actual complaint was that some cyclists could give you a safe overtaking opportunity and don't do it, maybe you should have said that, rather than complaining about the fact that they're on the road at all?

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#229

Post by hammock »

Fatnino wrote: post #202
sydd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live its the legal right of bicyclists to use the road in the same manner as cars do. Just because your vehicle is less agile than yours, they are not inconsiderate, e.g. you would not honk on trucks just because they accelerate slower. Or on school buses because they need to stop often.

If you are driving a camper up a mountain road and you are going slower than traffic you are supposed to pull over when you get too many cars backed up behind you. I've heard the number is six cars backed up till you have to let them pass. I see no reason a similar rule doesn't apply to bikes or anyone else legally using the road but traveling slower than the flow.

(OP here) I agree and if you can safely let cars pass you, you should. But not to the detriment of your safety.

Re: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

#230

Post by scoofy »

gotstad wrote: post #30
acd wrote: post #4

Lets get cars out of cities. No car in the city centre no car hitting bicycles and pedestrians. Clean air less noise.

That's neither feasible nor required. Copenhagen still has cars in city centre - personally I drive my bike 95% of the time, but sometimes I need to use my car. However, I much prefer my bike because it's faster, less troublesome, infrastructure is great and the exercise helps. Create incentives for biking, but don't outlaw cars.

The best way to do this is create quadrants in cities that have one-way in and out for automobiles, but public transit, bikes and pedestrians can move freely between.

In this way, cars can use the streets if they are indeed going to that area, but cannot move through the areas as a means to avoid roads meant to carry vehicles across town.

The city that exemplifies this is Groningen, Netherlands, and the superblock concept in Barcelona.

Post reply on HN