Things people blamed on bicycles • Hacker News Board

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#221

Post by chalst » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:50 AM UTC

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…

> clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both.

No. Speed kills, especially in the form of massive objects like a car. The car should slow and stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to overtake with adequate margin.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#222

Post by batiudrami » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:50 AM UTC

hulitu wrote: post #211

sschueller wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The risk of severe injury to a third party by my choosing to cycle drunk is much lower though. Maybe I hit a pedestrian and they are knocked over - it's possible but very unlikely that they receive life changing injuries. If you hit a pedestrian while driving a car they probably die.

Sure it's risky for me to ride drunk - but the risk is mostly on me. I've also had far more near misses sober in peak hour than drunk at 2am. The biggest risk at 2am is a drunk driver wilfully or accidentally runs a red light and t-bones me.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#223

Post by goethes_kind » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:50 AM UTC

piokoch wrote: post #99

mnd999 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a lot more hate for bicycles since I stopped driving and started walking as it turns out.

That's my impression to. Bikers apparently think that those funny white stripes on the roads and bike roads are some kind of decoration, not passage for pedestrian. Many bikers think that they have priority there...

Here is the issue. As you can see from my previous comment I agree with you, that cyclists are a danger from a pedestrians perspective. The problem from a cyclist's point of view is that having to stop every block to let pedestrians cross, would really really really suck on a bicycle; just losing all momentum and having to start from a stop. It would also probably be bad for the knees after a while.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#224

Post by _dain_ » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:51 AM UTC

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

Do the traffic lights actually detect bikes? Sometimes the sensors can only detect heavy objects like cars, so on a bike you can just be stuck waiting there an arbitrary amount of time if you want to obey the law.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#225

Post by glandium » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:52 AM UTC

jimmytidey wrote: post #142

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…

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.

Let's be honest: given the opportunity (multiple lanes, etc.), the car would likely overtake a slow car as well, and stop at a red light right after that. I see that all the time (albeit I'm in Japan, not in the US)

Edit: point being, for some reason, some drivers really like to reach red light as quickly as they can, and that's not necessarily related to bikes.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#226

Post by newaccount74 » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:52 AM UTC

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.

Have you ever tried riding a bicycle in the city?

Bicycle lanes in many cities are close to unusable.

For example:

- they are right next to parked cars and you can't ride on them without constant fear of getting doored

- they abruptly stop and there is no obvious place where to continue riding

- cars park on the bicycle lanes

- bicycle lanes go right next to crowded bus stops and there are so many people that it's impossible to ride

- crossings are designed in such a way that you need to wait for three (!) traffic lights to cross a single road, leading to a waiting time of at least 3 minutes

There are only a handful of roads with usable bicycle lanes in my city. And guess what: In places where bicycle lanes are usable, people use them. Nobody rides a bicycle on the road if there is a usable alternative.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#227

Post by davisoneee » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:53 AM UTC

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…

if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver.

if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad driver.

You should drive within safe limits. If you cannot brake in the distance between you and the car in front, you are _too close_. If you squeeze to overtake, you are too close. Potholes exist. Wind exists. In the UK, the (edit) guidance is that you should pass a cyclist with as much a gap as you would pass a car (1m). The suggestion is 1.5m at 30mph (~50kmh). In other words, you should basically be in the other lane, as you would be if overtaking a car.

YES, driving slowly can cause accidents as drivers are impatient, but in most roads, waiting 10s for a clear passing spot isnt going to drastically change your journey time

...and if more people cycle, that means less people are in vehicles, so you have _more_ space on the road and less congestion. cars are very space-inefficient

(edit: formatting)

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#228

Post by peoplefromibiza » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:55 AM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #195

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No - as someone who has cycled extensively in London, it is very obviously not the case that drivers are squeezing past cyclists out of a desire to keep them safe. It’s a pretty laughable idea. The vast majority of drivers are actually totally fine and courteous on the road. But when a moderate cycle can take you past literally hundreds of cars, even a tiny percentage of discourteous drivers can make the whole experi…

they are not tying to save you, they are trying to save themselves from hitting you because the cars behind don't see the bike and assume you are going slowly just because and road rage is the most dangerous thing while driving.

please understand than bikers don't make a good judge, because they are biased to think everyone is trying to kill them because everyone hates how free and both environmentally and physically better they are than everyone else.

this thread started with someone claiming that bikes are "healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians"

which are only claims, not facts.

the fact that I sometimes drive for 30kms with a car and walk the rest of the times, doesn't make me less healthy or more polluting,it's just propaganda fueled by self righteousness which doesn't help the matter at hands: why bikers love to take on cars, while, like it or not, cars are still the main users of roads because the astonishing amount of taxes road users have to pay, pay for those roads and their maintenance.

I hate cars in walkable cities, but I understand that walking is better for me, I don't blame people driving, I just avoid them.

I would like to avoid bikes too, but they use the pavement I'm walking on 'because roads aren't safe', like their right to defend their safety overrides my right to not be bothered where only pedestrian should walk.

I don't feel safe walking in the middle of the street, even though no law here prohibits it, I simply don't do it.

If a road is too dangerous to walk, I change directions.

There'll be a day when all of this won't b necessary, in the meantime, while some scientist invents the "no danger machine" everyone risk their life by simply living.

House accidents cause more death than accidents between bikes and cars in my Country, heck, they cause 4x more deaths than car accidents!, so bikes are still much safer than staying home anyway, enjoy the biking and stop complaining.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#229

Post by donkeyd » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:56 AM UTC

catonmylap wrote: post #210

CalRobert wrote: post #160

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.

Yes, when you once lived in a city in The Netherlands you never want to go back into any other country, where are cars are used as main transportation inside cities. Everybody cycles here and it feels very safe to do it, however the infrastructure is the most important part. Cars are second class citizens most of the time and people driving them know this.

> Cars are second class citizens most of the time and people driving them know this.

As someone who's never been able to afford living in a Dutch city, but has worked there, this is very true. Driving through Amsterdam is like driving through a mine field. Cyclists seemingly pop up out of nowhere and always take the right of way. This has become such a custom in the Netherlands that (at least in Amsterdam) cyclists even have the right of way even when running a red light. Courts have decided in favor of cyclists who were hit by cars while running red lights, because when driving in Amsterdam, you need to expect this to happen as a driver.

I'm not opposed to this at all, since cyclists are much more vulnerable than drivers. However, I've noticed that this is becoming much more dangerous with electric bicycles taking over. You used to be able to estimate quite well whether you can cross in front of a cyclists by the type of bike and the person on it... But not anymore. A 72 year old who used to cycle maybe 15 km/h is now casually doing 25 km/h and not slowing down for crossings. This is also visible in the statistics, with the number of cyclists involved in fatal accidents rising.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#230

Post by raisin_churn » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:56 AM UTC

bertil wrote: post #202

raisin_churn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still the bicycle. In my city in just the last year, I've seen bicycling accused of causing gentrification (along with Little Free Libraries), traffic, juvenile delinquency, gun violence, falling tax revenues, poor road maintenance, property tax increases, and undoubtedly some more that I've forgotten.

All of those require a thorough WTF, but "gun violence" is special. What could possibly be the connection?

I found it equally bewildering when I heard the claim, but perhaps because gun violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by young men, and in the neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence, young men are also the overwhelming majority of bicyclists. No idea what causal mechanism the claimant was inferring from this correlation. Indeed, it's a highly localized correlation anyways: in less economically depressed parts of the city, the demographics of bicyclists are much more varied along gender, age, and racial lines.

I think there was also an incident in the last couple years in which a young guy was shot and killed by police after they got a "guy with a gun" call because he was very obviously carrying a handgun while riding a bike around his neighborhood. That was on the other side of town from me, and I don't think a whole lot came of it afterwards, so I might be a little fuzzy on the details.