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

Things people blamed on bicycles

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#81

Post by rocqua »

eptcyka wrote: post #47
mrweasel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but when I see how bikes are "integrated" into for example American traffic, I don't blame the drivers at all. WTF is a bike doing in the middle of the road? If there's no bike lanes, then the bikes go all the way to the right, there are almost no exceptions. I've watches a few videos of people biking, on bike lanes, in New York, and those lanes are placed by a mad man. Sometimes they are even on the…

How am I supposed to make a left turn at an intersection? Other than that, yes, being on the far right on the road is where I'd feel safest.

The way this works in the Netherlands is that there is a traffic light just for cyclists. Usually you just line up on the right of the road, and wait for the cyclists light (Usually all directions) turns green.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#82

Post by wodenokoto »

eptcyka wrote: post #47
mrweasel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but when I see how bikes are "integrated" into for example American traffic, I don't blame the drivers at all. WTF is a bike doing in the middle of the road? If there's no bike lanes, then the bikes go all the way to the right, there are almost no exceptions. I've watches a few videos of people biking, on bike lanes, in New York, and those lanes are placed by a mad man. Sometimes they are even on the…

How am I supposed to make a left turn at an intersection? Other than that, yes, being on the far right on the road is where I'd feel safest.

You are not supposed to take a left turn at an intersection on a bicycle! That’s insane. Do you expect pedestrians to do the same?

You go straight and stop at the end of the intersection. Wait for lights to change and cross again.

I would honk if someone took a left turn in front of my car on their bicycle in Copenhagen.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#83

Post by mattashii »

nopehnnope wrote: post #46
mattashii wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Uh, what? Reaching 15km/h is not unheard of for running either, so why would that be waaaaay too fast on a bike in mainly pedestrian areas? Sure, the bike should slow down to lower speeds than their norm to ensure safety for all people involved in traffic, but isn't that no different from how cars shouldn't go 100km/h+ in city centers?

Do you really need it explained to you how a bike is more dangerous to pedestrians than a runner? A bike has way more inertia, is harder to stop than someone running, and is a tangle of metal that can seriously injure someone, and more difficult to safely maneuver around short of standing the side and stopping to let them pass. Takes half a second of thought to realize all this but you chose to play incredulous inste…

> Do you really need it explained to you how a bike is more dangerous to pedestrians than a runner?

No, I do understand that there is (some) more danger to a bike. But a bike also provides an elevated viewpoint to the cyclist, allowing for a better overview of the traffic situation, allowing the cyclist to better participate in traffic.

> more difficult to safely maneuver around short of standing the side and stopping to let them pass.

Most of the time roads are wider than the turning radius of a bike, especially at low speeds (approx 1.5m). Why would you need to stand aside to let someone pass if you have such wide roads?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#84

Post by belorn »

nopehnnope wrote: post #46
mattashii wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Uh, what? Reaching 15km/h is not unheard of for running either, so why would that be waaaaay too fast on a bike in mainly pedestrian areas? Sure, the bike should slow down to lower speeds than their norm to ensure safety for all people involved in traffic, but isn't that no different from how cars shouldn't go 100km/h+ in city centers?

Do you really need it explained to you how a bike is more dangerous to pedestrians than a runner? A bike has way more inertia, is harder to stop than someone running, and is a tangle of metal that can seriously injure someone, and more difficult to safely maneuver around short of standing the side and stopping to let them pass. Takes half a second of thought to realize all this but you chose to play incredulous inste…

This is how people rationalize, but there is one problem with it. When it no longer convenient to see bikes as dangerous then people instantly stop doing it, as accident data actually show extremely few cases of bikes causing injury to pedestrians outside of intersections.

This is shown directly by city planners. When construction closes down bike lines or walkways, which ever remains get temporarily converted to be both bike and walkway. Since that doesn't carry any increase in risk, it is safe to do so.

Similar, parents with strollers often use bike lanes. During winter when the road conditions is at its worst you often see strollers on bike lines. No one acts as if this puts the baby at mortal danger. Statistics also support this since bikes crashing into a stroller is unheard of.

However lanes that share bikes and pedestrians make people feel unease. The low speed and short breaking distance of bikes allow them to avoid causing accidents, but it doesn't remove the fear completely. Thus Swedish city planners don't generally combine pedestrians and bikes unless there is a good reason, like construction.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#85

Post by mrweasel »

schoen wrote: post #63
mrweasel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but when I see how bikes are "integrated" into for example American traffic, I don't blame the drivers at all. WTF is a bike doing in the middle of the road? If there's no bike lanes, then the bikes go all the way to the right, there are almost no exceptions. I've watches a few videos of people biking, on bike lanes, in New York, and those lanes are placed by a mad man. Sometimes they are even on the…

> WTF is a bike doing in the middle of the road? If there's no bike lanes, then the bikes go all the way to the right, there are almost no exceptions. Mainly door zones of parked cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring That's the main reason I was taught to take a full lane with my bike, and the main reason I do. (Apart from things I perceive as safety issues -- mainly dooring! -- I always try to make sure motori…

Look at the picture in the Wikipedia article, like NYC bikes lanes, that lane has been placed by an idiot. It's on the wrong side of the car.

Still, in places with no bike lanes, I sort of see your point, but who in their right mind opens a door straight into traffic. If it's a bike it's going to unpleasant for the rider, if it's a car, your car door comes off. I think it's less of a problem here in Denmark, partly do to placement of the bike lanes, but also because you don't park your car on the side of major roads and because drivers a more expecting of bikes perhaps. I mean dooring happens, but very rarely.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#86

Post by rocqua »

schoen wrote: post #78
mrweasel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't. Sorry, bikes DO NOT make left turns in intersections. You go straight across, then cross from there. I've biked to school and work for 25 years, and in intersections, I never make a left turn. It takes 2 minutes extra at the most, small price to pay for not being under a truck. Smaller roads, sure, if there's no traffic, you just look over your left shoulder and make the turn if it's all clear.

I took a bike safety class that was supposedly taught by professionals and supposedly based on local vehicle legislation (in California) and they taught us to make vehicular left turns, by positioning ourselves in the rightmost traffic lane which is allowed to turn left, and indicating our intentions to make a left turn with our hands. I've subsequently done this several hundred times in various kinds of traffic. Did…

I don't think California drivers see enough cyclists do the same thing to have any kind of consistent expectation of what cyclists will do, or what they should do.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#87

Post by ddevault »

paganel wrote: post #67
vocram wrote: post #15

Hate for bicycles hasn’t changed. People think a bike travel is recreational, and thus less important than a car travel. Someone goes out of their way to affirm that, by having to overtake bikes or not let them overtake their cars. A couple of times I met cars busting their brakes trying to keep up with me with a disc road bike on long technical descents

> Hate for bicycles hasn’t changed. It would help if most of the present-day bicycle owners wouldn't be solid middle-class people who, when asking for a banning of cars, don't really know, or don't want to know, how crucial owning a car is for a person who isn't that well-off.

This view omits a lot of nuance. Few people are calling for an immediate, unconditional ban on cars, unaccompanied by other reforms. What's clear -- and well backed by research -- is that cars are the worst form of travel compared to the alternatives. The key, then, is to make those alternatives more realistic by accompanying a ban on cars with a serious increase in investment in better public transit and urban design.

This approach is far better for those who aren't "well-off". Cars are very expensive! If we can free people from that economic burden and reduce the environmental impact and improve the availability of alternate means of transit, then the call to eliminate cars is extremely well justified. An argument which, again, is backed up by a wealth of robust scientific research covering all aspects of the problem, including economic.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#88

Post by femiagbabiaka »

paganel wrote: post #67
vocram wrote: post #15

Hate for bicycles hasn’t changed. People think a bike travel is recreational, and thus less important than a car travel. Someone goes out of their way to affirm that, by having to overtake bikes or not let them overtake their cars. A couple of times I met cars busting their brakes trying to keep up with me with a disc road bike on long technical descents

> Hate for bicycles hasn’t changed. It would help if most of the present-day bicycle owners wouldn't be solid middle-class people who, when asking for a banning of cars, don't really know, or don't want to know, how crucial owning a car is for a person who isn't that well-off.

You’ve got it backwards: Most people who ride bikes do not fit this description. Working class riders represent the large majority of riders globally. They ride for transportation, not pleasure, and on whatever bike they can, in whatever state they can get it. Because you’re right: a car is actually not an achievable purchase for those in precarious financial situations. This is the case for most forms of alternative transportation. So funding support for those forms is really important, even if for some reason you want to not do that to spite… moderately well off people.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#89

Post by walrus »

mrweasel wrote: post #38
vocram wrote: post #15

Hate for bicycles hasn’t changed. People think a bike travel is recreational, and thus less important than a car travel. Someone goes out of their way to affirm that, by having to overtake bikes or not let them overtake their cars. A couple of times I met cars busting their brakes trying to keep up with me with a disc road bike on long technical descents

Hate to say it, but when I see how bikes are "integrated" into for example American traffic, I don't blame the drivers at all. WTF is a bike doing in the middle of the road? If there's no bike lanes, then the bikes go all the way to the right, there are almost no exceptions. I've watches a few videos of people biking, on bike lanes, in New York, and those lanes are placed by a mad man. Sometimes they are even on the…

> WTF is a bike doing in the middle of the road?

I used to ride as far to the right as possible on roads without bike lanes, but then I got hit by a driver trying to squeeze past me without changing lanes.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#90

Post by mrweasel »

schoen wrote: post #78
mrweasel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't. Sorry, bikes DO NOT make left turns in intersections. You go straight across, then cross from there. I've biked to school and work for 25 years, and in intersections, I never make a left turn. It takes 2 minutes extra at the most, small price to pay for not being under a truck. Smaller roads, sure, if there's no traffic, you just look over your left shoulder and make the turn if it's all clear.

I took a bike safety class that was supposedly taught by professionals and supposedly based on local vehicle legislation (in California) and they taught us to make vehicular left turns, by positioning ourselves in the rightmost traffic lane which is allowed to turn left, and indicating our intentions to make a left turn with our hands. I've subsequently done this several hundred times in various kinds of traffic. Did…

> Did they make a mistake?

For California, I don't know. For western European: Oh my god YES! By all mean signal which way you're going to turn, but in intersection, especially those with multiple lanes, you never make a left turn. Drivers will not expect you in the middle of the intersection.

Post reply on HN