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

211–220 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#211

Post by hulitu »

sschueller wrote: post #109
ChrisRR wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK as a cyclist I still get so much hate on the road. I'm just trying to get to work like everyone else, but people still drive their cars up right behind me, squeeze past when there's not enough space, beep their horns and shout out the window. And then the justification is always "well I saw a cyclist run a red light once, therefore all cyclists are shit"

Well cyclist running red lights is extremely common here in Zürich Switzerland especially during morning rush hour. I have seen some crazy altercations between not cars and cyclist but public transport like trams and cyclist. Once a cyclist managed to pull up to the front of a double bendy trollybus[1] I was in just to cut across the front of the bus forcing the driver to hard break. In another incident recently whic…

The worse are the one who ride drunk. There are a lot of people who consider that if you are drunk, driving a car is not ok (it is not), but riding a bike is ok (it is not).

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#212

Post by _dain_ »

shaoonb wrote: post #139
mnd999 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, from the UK, jaywalking is a strange law, we’ve never had it and I don’t really know why it exists elsewhere. It makes streets more pedestrian friendly and encourages drivers to look out for them.

Moved from Auckland (with fairly weak, unenforced jaywalking laws) to London and I've found that jaywalking is essentially required here due to how slow most pedestrian lights tend to be. Perhaps in places with stronger jaywalking laws, lights are timed in such a way that you don't have to wait too long to cross legally?

There is no such thing as illegally crossing a road in the UK. Green light, red light, no light; it doesn't matter, they're just advisory. You have the perfect right to cross whenever and wherever you feel like it. If it causes an accident I believe you can be liable, but ultimately it's just common sense and your own self-preservation instinct that governs your behaviour, not the law. I believe the only exception is on a motorway.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#213

Post by tralarpa »

pojzon wrote: post #186
jimmytidey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's controversial because it is often more dangerous to drive on a bicycle lane, at least outside the Netherlands with its well designed bicycle lanes. There is a higher risk that car drivers will not see you when turning right at a crossing etc. In addition, you are exposed to car drivers or passengers who open the door without looking. On the road, with a safe distance to the right, you are annoying to cars but far more visible. For this reason, many bicycle enthusiasts have recommended people to ride on the road if there is no mandatory and well maintained bicycle lane.

At least that was the situation a few years ago when bicycle lanes were just narrow lanes directly next to the road or the sidewalk. As I wrote, it can work if done correctly (see the Netherlands). Perhaps the road planners and drivers have learned "their" lesson in the meantime. I say that as a car driver.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#214

Post by lukaslalinsky »

mrweasel wrote: post #90
schoen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is really not correct. I'd say in the most of Europe, you signal left, you take the entire lane and make your turn on the intersection. In many places there are even dedicated zones in front of left lanes (taking the entire width), so that it's obvious cyclists have the right to do so.

And the same thing on roundabouts, if you want to safely ride a roundabout you absolutely have to take the entire lane and not allow cars to overtake you. Otherwise cars exiting the roundabout will run over you.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#215

Post by Jochim »

pacomerh wrote: post #161
ChrisRR wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK as a cyclist I still get so much hate on the road. I'm just trying to get to work like everyone else, but people still drive their cars up right behind me, squeeze past when there's not enough space, beep their horns and shout out the window. And then the justification is always "well I saw a cyclist run a red light once, therefore all cyclists are shit"

Not a justification but here in CA I see cyclists cross red lights much too often. So it's not once it's way too many times. They probably think they're special somehow

I think the prevalence of this behaviour can be explained by the fact that in car centric infrastructure only people willing to take a fairly significant risk will be cycling in the first place. As a result you've selected for people willing to engage in risky behaviour towards themselves resulting in a fair few of them running red lights recklessly.

Couple this with the fact that the infrastructure was clearly not built with their safety in mind and it's no real surprise that many cyclists choose not to use it in the same way as cars.

Personally I think there's a good argument to be made for why, in many cases, it would be ok for a cyclist to carefully make their way through a junction at a red light. Although the real answer would be to build infrastructure that removes the incentive to behave that way.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#216

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

mrweasel wrote: post #90
schoen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For Eastern European: bikers can turn left at intersections, they must signal with their arm, position themselves to the left of the lane just as cars do, and drivers have to expect them. It’s being taught in driving schools, for heaven’s sake.

But just as you don’t signal and start your left turn in your car at the last moment, so you don’t with a bike. Unfortunately, we have bikers who go to a left turn from the rightmost position, don’t signal or signal when it’s useless. The rule for drivers is to expect and anticipate stupid people and not kill them.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#217

Post by mrob »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #93
ChrisRR wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK as a cyclist I still get so much hate on the road. I'm just trying to get to work like everyone else, but people still drive their cars up right behind me, squeeze past when there's not enough space, beep their horns and shout out the window. And then the justification is always "well I saw a cyclist run a red light once, therefore all cyclists are shit"

Motorists often forget that a lot of motorists jump red lights too, and then there's the habitual speeding that seems expected of drivers, rather than being recognised as dangerous behaviour. With red light jumping, there's also a very different pattern of behaviour as motorists will speed up to get through a light that's just turned red, whereas cyclists tend to either slow down or continue at the same pace when RLJ…

In the UK, it's illegal for a motorist to cross a solid white center line on their side of the road to overtake a cyclist unless the cyclist is traveling 10mph or slower. I estimate less than 1% of motorists obey this law.

Rule 129:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-t...

Some rules in the Highway Code are guidance only, but those marked with uppercase "MUST" or "MUST NOT" have legal force.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#218

Post by goethes_kind »

montebicyclelo wrote: post #114

Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... And I'd guess that about 95% of drivers that I come across are respectful of the danger they present - overtaking with enough space, and not at too high a speed (my city doesn't have great bike lanes). Unfortunately, a typical journey involves passing more than 20 cars, which…

I would agree with all of those points, except for one. I do not think it is less dangerous to pedestrians. I remember when I used to live in the Netherlands, it was uncomfortable being a pedestrian because there were so many cyclists. They are still going fast enough that if they crash into you, you can expect a concussion or even worse. And they do not respect the traffic laws in the same way that cars do. And because of the numbers of them it is hard to keep track of them.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#219

Post by bostik »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #180
jimmytidey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

> car squeezes past you at high speed many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event. like if the biker falls. clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both. Doesn't matter who's faster in the end, if that was the purpose, it would suffice for drivers to not…

> people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do

I am a cyclist who would want to do it a LOT more. And the main reason is two-fold.

One: cycling in London is scary, dangerous and extremely stressful. The cycling lanes, where they exist, are poorly maintained, tend to hop between the sides of the road at a rapid pace, and far too often cross with bus stops. On a bike you are forced to mix with car traffic more than if you simply _walked_ on the side of the road!

Two: I live at the bottom of a valley. Going anywhere starts by cycling a minimum of 2.5km uphill. Going anywhere interesting requires to take on a 5-7km uphill drive. Combined with the dangerous environment, being exhausted all the time adds to the risk. (FYI: on flat terrain I can do 25km on one go with little effort.)

Back in Finland I used to cycle ~170km a week during summers. In London, not a chance.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#220

Post by yetihehe »

ruivil7 wrote: post #188
pojzon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

And if a pedestrian has no sidewalk?

Pedestrians use much less space than cyclists and move slower, they typically also move away when they hear a car and most of them on such roads go in direction opposite to traffic flow so they see when a car approaches. Bicycles go in the same direction as traffic, sometimes swerve and go in small zigzag pattern, they don't have mirrors, don't look back and bicyclists are many times already tired from bicycling, they are also in more hurry than pedestrians (hurrying pedestrians also more often have accidents). In places where there are no sidewalks typically there are almost no pedestrians.
Post reply on HN