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

261–270 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#261

Post by jtvjan »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #240
grecy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that there is less traffic in Africa, and therefore, there is less chance of a dangerous collision.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#262

Post by O__________O »

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…

Recall seeing research that showed biking in London is actually bad for your health due to close proximity to vehicle pollution:

https://www.google.com/search?q=london+cycling+health+pollut...

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#263

Post by tremon »

theK wrote: post #28
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

Re: hate for bicycles I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Bike lanes historically do not deliver as they increase traffic pattern complexity significantly for all three participants. I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Cent…

not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes

You mean on foot or by horse?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#264

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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…

>many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers

So charitable of you to assume that they are only bad at driving.

I find that people who don't "get" mixed traffic create uncertainty and danger for everyone else around them whether they are on two wheels, four wheels or two feet. And then many of them have the gall to assume it's everyone else who's doing it wrong.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#265

Post by ejb999 »

bertil wrote: post #170
turing_complete wrote: post #54

There is nothing new under the sun. Today we have "Things people blame on cars". I've read many Americans that argue that cars are somehow destructive to community live. Here in Europe, people in rural areas or small towns are entirely dependend on cars, even more, they love their cars (and rightfully so). Yet, they have healthy communities, live in large houses. Nature is near, history at hand (look, you have a nice…

Cars kill someone every three seconds.

>>Cars kill someone every three seconds.

Do you have evidence to back that up? That would imply 10.5 million people are killed by cars each year - I don't buy that.

31557600 seconds in a year, divided by 3 = 10,519,200

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#266

Post by grardb »

moffkalast wrote: post #246
DoubleFree wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of dangerous interactions between drivers and cyclists is much smaller here in the Netherlands, mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is the infrastructure, both visible and invisible. Separated bicycle lanes are commonplace and in the few places where they intersect with car traffic, care is taken to make crossing safe and comfortable. This visible infrastructure is complemented by the concept of "…

> Going out for drinks? Bike. As long as you don't actually drink anything hah. Everyone's a designated driver with bikes.

Do you get too drunk to ride a bicycle every time you go out for drinks?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#267

Post by paulgb »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #239
davisoneee wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

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

It’s not cyclists who feel the need to bring a climate-controlled metal protection bubble onto the road with them.

Fear of other road users is in part what is fueling the SUV boom.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#268

Post by rahkiin »

rocgf wrote: post #259
moffkalast wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Going out for drinks? Bike. As long as you don't actually drink anything hah. Everyone's a designated driver with bikes.

Cycling drunk is technically illegal, but often unenforced in the Netherlands. You should see the thousands of obviously 'drunk' people leaving festivals on bikes, under the eyes of the police.

Correct. Police prefer people drunk cycling than drunk in the car.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#269

Post by fishbacon »

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…

My favourite is when I get upset about someones driving and they react by honking or doing rude gestures.

Ah, the joys of almost getting killed by someone who is so rude that they don't even realise they were about to kill me.

I am blessed to live in a medium sized Danish city, so it only happens about weekly that I have to face the reality of death by demigod encased in steel plate.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#270

Post by DonHopkins »

DoubleFree wrote: post #194
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 problem of dangerous interactions between drivers and cyclists is much smaller here in the Netherlands, mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is the infrastructure, both visible and invisible. Separated bicycle lanes are commonplace and in the few places where they intersect with car traffic, care is taken to make crossing safe and comfortable. This visible infrastructure is complemented by the concept of "…

The safe and comfortable boulevard along the Slotervart canal in Amsterdam that I frequently ride along into the city is not only lined with trees, but there are also lines of trees between the bike lanes and the roads on both sides, and separate dog walking paths and park benches in the trees between the bike lane and the canal, and big roundabouts with outer bike lanes at intersections! So cars don't mix with bikes, and bikes don't mix with pedestrians and dogs (and their poop). It's a really pleasant, stress reducing, smooth, green, cool, shady ride.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3495859,4.8053688,3a,75y,74....

Post reply on HN