761–770 of 852 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I visited Copenhagen a few years ago, most of the bikes I saw were either unlocked or locked to themselves to prevent riding off but not carrying away. It was rather shocking.
You see that on any area where there is low crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a highly idealistic myth. Most drivers are not "cyclists a few hours earlier/later", and many definitely aren't empathetic. The split between bike lanes and car lanes, as well as the law favoring cyclists, should make that obvious. Cyclists even get away not showing their direction despite this being taught from early age.
This is how we can tell you are not a cyclist. It is very difficult to use the brakes and indicate a change in direction at the same time. While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle does make it hard under some conditions. Here's a question for you. If i am stopped at a red light on my bike in what is clearly a left turn lane, why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow? Cant be bothered waiti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bike theft is a very harmful crime. Yes it is, but I disagree that turning bike theft into a 20-year sentence is going to help. > Idk, it seems theft is low in countries where they cut hands for it. Russia has 99% conviction rate, long sentences and torture in prisons, yet crime rate is sky high. US has more prisoner and tougher sentenses than UK, but UK has less crime Half the people here are engineers, think like…
You're repeating the old trope that tough punishment doesn't work. Look at the theft statistics though: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/ Neither USA nor UK have tough punishment for theft. Theft is different than violent crime as that is most often caused by emotions/rage/etc. While theft is more calculated. It makes sense there is little consideration to punishment when committing the former but more…
What is the basis for your certainty? We've done research on the subject, we know that certainty of punishment is a lot more effective than severity.
Noone thinks 'ow yeah, I am gonna do a year in jail', everyone thinks they will get away. I am not against setting decoy bikes that are actually traps, but thievs will learn to tell them apart. US police uses sting operations against hookers and drug dealers all the time, and there is no shortage of either.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/deterrence-in...
> ignoring long term cost and damage to social structure
You could try that, but you cant just have a special calculation for one crime. Then we must equally apply it to corporate misbehaviour, like illegally selling customer data or manipulating the market.
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 "…
> Kids cycle to school alone from a young age Unfortunately our kids weren't allowed to cycle to school unaccompanied by an adult until they reached year 4 and had passed their cycling proficiency test (mid-way through that school year). I've been cycling with my daughter to kindergarten for at least a year, she's fine with the cycling bit, it's the looking-out-for-other-vehicles bit that's not quite there yet :/ Thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how we can tell you are not a cyclist. It is very difficult to use the brakes and indicate a change in direction at the same time. While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle does make it hard under some conditions. Here's a question for you. If i am stopped at a red light on my bike in what is clearly a left turn lane, why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow? Cant be bothered waiti…
Would we tolerate a car on our roads with turn signals and brakes that couldn't be used at the same time?
I would argue that they are not the same thing. I find it easy to tell which direction a cyclist will go even when they don’t/can’t signal. I see it in their head movement, the orientation of the bike, etc. Especially when driving behind a cyclist.
When cars don’t signal, I find it harder to guess where they are going.
Anyway, even in our little bicycle paradise there's a new danger: electrical bicycles. Currently, about 1 in 3 is electrical, and it seems most new ones sold are electrical. They are most of all popular with people 50+ y/o.
Recently I saw an accident happen from the outside security cam of a friend, the incident explaining the danger very well.
A woman in a car is trying to cross a road that intersects with a bicycle lane, so she checks for oncoming cyclists. One does seem to be oncoming in the distance. She then concludes there's plenty of time to cross, makes the move, and finds the cyclists on the hood of her car.
The way she probably read that situation: pretty far away, old guy, slow leg movement. All adding up to a low speed estimate and a high time estimate. That's how all of us have been subconsciously trained for decades.
Until electrical bicycles. The "cyclist" came on about twice as fast as expected. The obvious solution is to watch longer, to monitor speed over time. Yet to effectively get through traffic and not spend forever parked at a crossing, you do need speedy judgement. Also, these e-bikes can accelerate in ways a normal bicycle can't.
Another common dangerous e-bike situation: One passing you unexpectedly when cycling yourself, on a bicycle lane. Normally, just about 2 bicycles fit next to each other, but only barely. You'd normally anticipate such a passing because you can hear one coming behind. Now they seem to come out of nowhere, passing you by an inch at high speed.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the UK thieves just use portable angle grinders that go through any lock like butter. I have a hefty Abus “sold secure” (requirement of insurance) D lock that I lock through the frame, but I’ve watched enough lock picking lawyer to know this won’t stop thieves with angle grinders (most thieves now) or ones handy with a disc detainer pick.
What kind of society allows someone to use an incredibly noisy and obvious tool like an angle grinder in public, then ride off on a bike? Does everyone just walk by because they're afraid to get involved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hate for bicycles hasn’t changed. It would help if most of the present-day bicycle owners wouldn't be solid middle-class people who, when asking for a banning of cars, don't really know, or don't want to know, how crucial owning a car is for a person who isn't that well-off.
You’ve got it backwards: Most people who ride bikes do not fit this description. Working class riders represent the large majority of riders globally. They ride for transportation, not pleasure, and on whatever bike they can, in whatever state they can get it. Because you’re right: a car is actually not an achievable purchase for those in precarious financial situations. This is the case for most forms of alternative…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Less dangerous to pedestrians"... that really depends. Here many cyclists like to cycle on pavements, making bikes more dangerous to pedestrians than cars!
No cyclist likes to cycle on pavements. This is a symptom of the absence of proper bicycle infrastructure.
Whether they like it or not, shouldn't they ride safely and be considerate of pedestrians?
Anyway responsible cyclist ought to answer an emphatic 'yes', so I don't understand why stating it is a problem...
PS: and of course depending on the jurisdiction, including the UK where I am, cycling on the pavement is illegal unless there is an explicit notice to the contrary, in which case I would expect cyclists on pavements to really, really try to be invisible.