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

231–240 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#231

Post by AlecSchueler »

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…

> the point is also that bikers should be in charge of their own safety, if a road is very narrow they are voluntarily endangering themselves for no reason

They really aren't endangering themselves, the city planners are endangering them.

In the Netherlands if there is a street or junction with too many accidents they consider it a design failure and redraw the whole thing, often to slow down cars, separate cyclists and to make cyclists more visible.

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

So why do bikes outnumber people in the Netherlands but not in London? Why don't the Dutch make up excuses for not wanting to exercise.

Maybe exercise is actually enjoyable and healthy and the little in London would actually like to do it safely?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#232

Post by _joe »

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…

Acting like what makes Rome's traffic dangerous are cyclists or moped drivers (even if those can often be quite reckless) is basically victim-blaming.

We should never take such posts too seriously.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#233

Post by prennert »

bostik wrote: post #219
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…

> 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 f…

In London it is worth trying to optimize where you live so you can get by bicycle where you need to go. Some parts are terribly connected for cyclists others much better. You can use citymapper to find and check for cycling routes (do not use Google to find cycling routes). I found that North (Islington) and East are better for cycling than South or West.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#234

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#235

Post by zimpenfish »

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 see cyclists cross red lights much too often. So it's not once it's way too many times.

Anecdatum: I can stand at the junction on the main road about 200m from here and, in peak time, see 5-10 cars (on each change) either deliberately jump the amber/red on one side or enter the junction in an unsafe manner on the other. Which means upwards of 100-200 cars per hour. For cyclists, it'll rarely be one per change; maybe 10 an hour.

That's one junction, albeit on a busy road.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#236

Post by tcfhgj »

davisoneee wrote: post #227
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…

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…

you are not up to date with the UK traffic rules:

> Cars must leave at least 1.5 metres room when passing bicycles - while revised guidance also says "it can be safer" for cyclists to ride two abreast.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#237

Post by _joe »

davisoneee wrote: post #227
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…

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…

OP lives in Rome, where the average driver mentality is somewhere between "need for speed" and "carmageddon".

Basically no one is ever willing to wait for anyone else, as OP's reasoning shows pretty adamantly.

Of course they're grossly incorrect.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#238

Post by unglaublich »

Gigachad wrote: post #35
Raed667 wrote: post #23

And somehow this translates to some drivers deciding that it is OK to kill cyclists because they will be 20 seconds late to the next red light stop.

There is something about driving that seems to trigger mass mental illness. It’s such a deeply unnatural activity that makes otherwise normal people violent. And there are plenty of studies showing car commute times directly link to mental and physical health decline.

It's the complete social and sensory isolation of a metal, sound-proof box. There is no spoken or body language (besides the occasional middle finger). There is no sensory input to the driver that conveys that they drive a 2000kg box of metal at 80km/h. The driver views the world through a windscreen that makes it all remote. Most drivers don't even realize other people on the road are living beings with feelings once they enter the sensory and social isolation of a car.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#239

Post by peoplefromibiza »

davisoneee wrote: post #227
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…

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…

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

if they do not kill you, they are not.

or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user.

just maybe

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

welcome to the reality.

I'm not driving too close to you, you are zig-zaging in the middle of the street and you wear noise canceling headphones and no rearview mirror and no stop signal when you brake.

Thanks, but no thanks, I'm passing you, I don't trust your abilities, sorry.

let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.

The good ones do not complain and they are those passing you left and right because are very confident and know what they are doing.

I'm also simply trying to not be responsible of your injuries if you injure yourself.

By the law I have to stop and check on you and stay there until.an ambulance or the police arrives. It usually takes hours.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#240

Post by throwaway0a5e »

grecy wrote: post #173
kevingadd wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just this morning I was walking down the street on a sidewalk and as I crossed in front of a driveway - having checked first - a car pulled out of the garage right up against my leg and stopped, and when I stepped away they started moving again to get close. The stuff people do in cars when they don't have right of way is absolutely deranged sometimes.

A lot of people have no idea of the destructive power of the three ton death machine they are in command of. For that reason I think it should be mandatory to volunteer in a crash recovery ward at a hospital for 100 hours before getting a drivers license.

How do you square the "three ton death machine" with the whole "recreationally gallivanting across Africa in a Jeep and blogging about it for internet points" thing? Your words say a car usage should be minimized. Your actions say another thing. It comes across a lot like taking your private jet to a climate summit. I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile this apparent conflict.
Post reply on HN