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

271–280 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#271

Post by oldgradstudent »

pembrook wrote: post #178

Think folks are missing the point here. The idea of this thread isn’t that bicycles are uniquely singled out for ridicule. These article snippets all come from a time when the bicycle was just invented and usage was growing fast (eg like any new tech). In fact, I think they were taken from a defunct Twitter account called pessimists archive. The point is that mass media will always court controversy and bemoan any ne…

It just shows that people were confusing correlation and causation for far longer than we could have imagined.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#272

Post by klabb3 »

tcfhgj wrote: post #106
LAC-Tech wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never found bicycles to be a massive issue on roads. They're slow and narrow, so they're easy to overtake. Where I am there's often tractors on the road. A lot harder to overtake, and I still manage to refrain from getting angry at them either! People need to just chill the fuck out.

They're only narrow when they drive in the dooring zone and minimum distance isn't kept during overtaking (Germany: 1.5m in town, else 2m)

> the dooring zone

Which is the most dangerous place to be of all. Cyclists must avoid this zone except for near-zero speeds.

I usually tell new cyclists to assume that you are never seen unless you are right in front of a car. Assume all cars have no mirrors, side windows and all doors can be opened at any time. In a car, the mentality is usually "if I have the right of way I'll do it", on a bike it's a death wish.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#273

Post by rocgf »

goethes_kind wrote: post #218
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 beca…

That is only true in a small amount of areas, like the city center of Amsterdam. Bike lanes are separated from pedestrians, so the only issue would be crossing the street.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#274

Post by vishnugupta »

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 "…

Third reason, law. In an incident between cycle and car, the car is deemed to be at fault by default. Unless the cyclist does something outrageously stupid bordering on committing suicide.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#275

Post by cinntaile »

atoav wrote: post #137
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…

This kind of driver is the same that would accelerate towards you as you (legally) cross a road only to stop at a red light 50m behind you – a red light was clearly visible from where they were when they saw you. For them driving is just about their own emotion. The moment they see someone "who deserves it" their emotion takes over and their brain switches off. People like that should have their driving license taken…

I don't think I have ever seen this behaviour? This must be a cultural thing?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#276

Post by [deleted] »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #228
matthewmacleod wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#277

Post by unglaublich »

bertil wrote: post #197
yodelshady wrote: post #157

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…

I don't think the cost is the biggest driver of tension unless you listen to professional drivers. People don’t blame bus riders for not "paying the road tax" (a UK trope, that tax was abolished). It would explain why things got worst recently, but people don’t hate electric cars the same way for instance. The most common angle of attack is territorial: "get off _my_ road". Cyclists shouldn’t belong there, because of…

In fact, in the Netherlands, they just gave up on motorists and created a complete parallel infrastructure for cyclists (in addition to that for pedestrians).

That's seemingly the only way to keep people safe from injury.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#278

Post by yrro »

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 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.

In this scenario the driver is not leaving sufficient space ahead of them, given road conditions. There should always be enough space for the driver to react & bring their vehicle to a stop safely--if not then the driver is not driving safely.

There is nothing wrong with overtaking at a sensible speed and at a sensible distance. "car squeezes past you at high speed" means that the driver is failing on both accounts.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#280

Post by stinos »

goethes_kind wrote: post #218
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 beca…

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.

Actual statistics about encounters clearly do show it is less dangerous, and expecting a concussion to be a false interpretion of actual risks. I do get your problem though: you're not used to it. You need eyes everywhere which essentially takes training.

Post reply on HN