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

151–160 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#151

Post by Symbiote »

rob74 wrote: post #104
mrweasel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> that lane has been placed by an idiot. It's on the wrong side of the car. No, it's on the right (i.e. correct) side of the car - drivers are trained to look into the side mirror before opening the door, passengers not (and even if they were, they can't use the mirror on their side).

Passengers in Denmark are trained to look before opening the door (by parents, usually), and it's the drivers responsibility if the passenger isn't capable of that.

A taxi driver will often remind you at the end of the journey, if you're obviously foreign.

(And you have forgotten passengers in the back seats.)

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#152

Post by throw_a_grenade »

ginko wrote: post #102
throw_a_grenade wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but this your "reality" is wrong. For example, three days ago in Warsaw, a cyclist ran over a child (ER took the child to hospital) on a busy promenade on the bank of the river. The cycleway is temporarily moved there because of the roadwork and the space is designated as shared between cycle and foot traffic. For several days pedestarians complained that cyclists drive like crazy and it's "when" not "if" som…

Meanwhile there's over 2000 deadly car accidents a year in Poland, 20% of which are pedestrians[1], meaning there's more than one pedestrian killed by a car every day. [1] https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/11/23/road-deaths-in-poland...

I would like to see those statistics normalised by the kilometres travelled. Unless they are, I'd argue those are misleading.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#153

Post by adrianN »

cstrahan wrote: post #79
ginko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be under the impression that bikes are like cars where you're essentially guaranteed to be dead of at least maimed when they hit you. In reality the most likely thing to happen to you is that you maybe get so nasty scratches and dirty clothing.

… unless you’re longboarding around 20 mph and just about to go through a green light when a dozen bikes come flying through at 20-25 mph 5 seconds after their light turned red. That’s what happened to me. Only reason I didn’t get trampled was because I had a funny feeling and decided to slow down as I approached the intersection (buildings obscured my view of possible traffic). They had zero sense of self preservati…

I believe that longboarding on a public road at 20mph would be illegal where I live. It certainly sounds pretty dangerous. What's the stopping distance at that speed on a longboard?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#154

Post by prmoustache »

illuminati1911 wrote: post #53
fzfaa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When driving, cyclists are dangerous for themselves and for others. When walking, cyclists have absolutely no regard for my physical safety. When I lived in a city with a lot of cyclists I ended up developing some kind of fear that made me look around all the time because of how many cyclists had almost killed me when I was peacefully walking along the pavement. Oh god how I hate cyclists.

I love cycling and bicycles, but I have to say you have a point in your second statement. Back in the days when I used to live in Helsinki, streets became much more dangerous after cycling became popular and city built dedicated cycling lanes. Suddenly all the hipsters with their 5000 USD handmake Swiss custom bikes are out there to kill the pedestrians. Outside of some developing countries I've never felt threatened…

> Outside of some developing countries I've never felt threatened by cars, but I've been just less than a second away from death or permanent disability because of bicycles in Helsinki, Berlin, Tel Aviv etc.

What less than a second away means to you?

I think there is a bias based on perception. When people see a cyclists going in their direction they assume said cyclist will ran into them on purpose while a bicycle comes into a complete stop in just a handful of meters and can avoid objects easily. I am not condoning riding fast and recklessly in path shared to pedestrian and cyclists and I tend to lower my speed at barely more than running pace but a lot of that comes from perception.

One other example, I have been riding MTB for years in swiss Alps, in trails shared by hikers and mountain bike. If I am in a descent I tend to go quite fast when visibility is good and I can see what is at the exit of a corner. When there is no visibility I will reduce my speed dramatically to be able to stop for any hiker, cattle or whatever that could be in the way. The thing is braking hard on a mountain bike with aggressive tires on dirt/rocks is quite a noisy affair and involve a bit of sliding, which is fair and nice. Hikers on the other side of the corner would often end up being afraid by the sound and shouting insults at me like I was a criminal while I had preventively braked to a safe speed in order for anyone to be safe. Perception bias. In later years I started braking much earlier and in a longer distance has to do less noise, removing fun just so that people are less afraid. It didn't change a thing regarding their safety. Sad.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#156

Post by ajuc »

eptcyka wrote: post #129
ajuc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. Do you drive? Cause if so - you're a threat to other people... When a pedestrian crosses a street - cars and bikes have to stop for example. When a bike and a car meet on an intersection of equal roads with no lights or signs - whoever is on the left has to yield, no matter what their speed is. When signs or lights show who has to yield - it also doesn't matter if you drive a car/bike or walk. I can't…

Pedestrians are not vehichles. I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them - in this case it's the responsibility of the slower vehicle to let the faster traffic pass in a safe manner. Seems like I've worded myself poorly here given that people are clearly misunderstanding me. Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I wil…

> Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly.

There's no if, and you're not in a position to "let" them do anything. Doesn't matter how fast they go. If they have the right of way - they do. If they don't - they don't. Speed doesn't matter and it's not your decision.

> I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them

There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike.

There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed.

> soccer mom

No idea what that is and how it matters.

> cycling enthusiasts

Do you call people "walking enthusiasts" and car drivers "car enthusiast"? This whole approach to cyclists as if they were somehow "less serious" road users than car drivers is toxic.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#157

Post by yodelshady »

To be fair, bicycles probably did lead to more marriage breakups. Certainly in the UK they're considered a key part of emancipation. No longer, as a woman, is your dating pool limited entirely to the boys in your village. And if the boy you did marry turns out to be an angry drunk - well. Bicycles aren't fast, but they're faster than walking. And they're cheap.

And the latter, if we're honest, is the real reason for bicycle hate. The banker or tech bro on a carbon frame is both conspicuously consuming more than you and actually spending less than you. Much less. And, in a city, going faster. Hell, the homeless guy with three steel tubes lashed together might be too. That should be a right wing dream - a private investment, low regulation, small business friendly, with rewards going to the individuals who work harder.

But sometimes, we're just not nice people, and we don't like having our egos punctured.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#158

Post by usrusr »

mattashii wrote: post #96
usrusr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cyclist has all the reason to be there as a driver would, none at all. Go driving on the sidewalk, at a speed presumably appropriate for "guests" (15 km/h? would that really be appropriate?) and look how welcome you are.

The existence of a sidewalk implies the existance of a road that is used for all traffic except foot traffic, such as bikes. Why are you forcing the situation onto the sidewalk? I was talking about a pedestrian road, considering the 'historical' setting of the GP post.

I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate how wrong it is to expect cyclists to retreat to the sidewalk, sorry if that wasn't clear. Actually I have trouble tolerating cyclists retreating to the sidewalk (mostly because they give drivers the illusion that this could be the norm), outside of certain exceptions (small children and those accompanying them). Limited access roads tend to not have sidewalks anyways.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#159

Post by robryk »

schoen wrote: post #111
mrweasel wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm genuinely grateful to learn that, and I'll try to avoid making vehicular left turns in intersections in Europe in the future!

The GP is plainly wrong. ~Everyone in Switzerland does normal vehicular left turns, and the bicycle exam for schoolchildren includes making vehicular left turns correctly (i.e. signaling, waiting for cars that are in process of overtaking you, moving to the middle of the road, possibly stopping, turning when the way's free of vehicles that have right of way).

E: Source: https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/pd/de/index/stadtpolizei_zueric...

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#160

Post by CalRobert »

My family and I just spent a week in Amsterdam and a day in Utrecht. The author of this article was very kind and spent a whole day showing us around her town (Houten, a 9 minute train ride from Utrecht).

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/16/welcome-cycle...

The number of kids getting around on their own was fantastic. There's a way of life where you don't have to be a taxi. I'm browsing funda.nl now.

Post reply on HN