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

781–790 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#781

Post by matheusmoreira »

ajuc wrote: post #71
eptcyka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally yes, but, especially in California, people often forget that it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic, regardless of the type of slower vehicle. EDIT: Yield here is a misnomer, what I mean to convey is that slower moving traffic by law is supposed to pass faster moving traffic if it's possible to do so safely, and this is a feat that I rarely see take place, be it with cyclists or…

> it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic WTF is wrong with you in America? When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).

No. Traffic is supposed to flow. A vehicle that's moving too slowly is an obstacle on the road. There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#782

Post by microtherion »

ectopod wrote: post #413
microtherion wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former bicyclist, I try to be extra mindful of bicyclists when driving. One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving wit…

> I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. Had you just overtaken these cyclists?

No. Due to the slope, cyclists have a fair amount of speed, and in anticipation of my right hand turn, I would not pass them anyway.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#783

Post by microtherion »

usrusr wrote: post #400
microtherion wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former bicyclist, I try to be extra mindful of bicyclists when driving. One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving wit…

> One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. So you expect to get unlawful right of way because your vehicle is big and dangerous. Allow me to not share your view about who's a maniac.

I don’t know what the law is in your country, but in Switzerland, it is unlawful to pass a moving car with its turn signals set on the right.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#784

Post by cheeze »

tenpies wrote: post #206
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.

Don't forget the blood on the political class for this. After all, they're the ones who made murdering with a car the most penalty free and easily forgiven way of murdering someone. In some cities you can be comically negligent - I'm talking murdering people over on the side walk because you dropped a bottle of water in your car - and be perfectly okay.

I'm a cyclist and hate this as much as the next person, but "murder" seems pretty harsh as a choice of words

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#785

Post by fellowniusmonk »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #695

This is why I cringe a bit at those bemoaning the horrible, awful, traumatic fate of journalism. Journalism is stupid. It always was stupid. It always will be stupid. That's not to say it has no value. But the reader has always been and always will be responsible to sift through the heaping mounds of dumb and find that value. I'm not exaggerating when I say, the New York Times, our paper of record has published some…

Some of Mark Twain's funniest stories/articles mock and lambast newsmen, more people would be aware of this if they had read literature instead of biking around like a bunch of marriage and furniture hating communists.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#786

Post by bertil »

speedgoose wrote: post #722
bertil wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

23% of the French population is more than 6km from a train station [1], which is considered close enough to bike. That's 15.6 million people. Assuming those are families of 2.2 people on average, they would need 7 million cars. That’s 18% of the current 38 million cars in France. We could have five times fewer cars, and half of the country’s carbon footprint if the 31 million car owners who don’t need them gave their…

12km of daily biking is not for every family.

That’s 30 min of light exercise, five times a week — less if you are using electric assist. It’s the minimum requirement to not be considered sedentary, which would triple your health risks.

If you think that’s too much and you don’t have a serious physical handicap, you are about likely to have one.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#787

Post by ehnto »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #523
ehnto wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wanted to keep cyclists safe, you would just stay behind them at a safe distance until a safe passing moment appears, just like you must do for cars. It sounds to me like you aren't keeping a safe distance and you are percieving the risk you are putting on others. At a safe distance, the problem you describe is not an issue. When I am near cyclist or motorbikes there is a lot of ways I can not put them in dang…

> If you wanted to keep cyclists safe, you would just stay behind them if they wanted to be safe, they wouldn't go when cars are allowed to go 90km/h, side by side. if you are suicidal, I don't wanna be part of your plan. > Cyclists are doing the best with an infrastructure built in favour of cars, that's so boring that is gives me nausea Americans don't understand that they are not the center of the world. Most of t…

I'm not American.

We might agree on one thing, ridin on high speed roads outside of the city is pretty crazy. But I would still say it's my responsibility to not kill the cyclist and not their responsibility, again it's my car, I am in control of it, it's on me to not hit stuff with it.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#788

Post by usrusr »

microtherion wrote: post #783
usrusr wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. So you expect to get unlawful right of way because your vehicle is big and dangerous. Allow me to not share your view about who's a maniac.

I don’t know what the law is in your country, but in Switzerland, it is unlawful to pass a moving car with its turn signals set on the right.

On a separate lane, no matter how early the signal is set? That would seem like an invitation to power abuse considering how much time queuing cars spend in that not-quite-standing state.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#789

Post by speedgoose »

bertil wrote: post #786
speedgoose wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12km of daily biking is not for every family.

That’s 30 min of light exercise, five times a week — less if you are using electric assist. It’s the minimum requirement to not be considered sedentary, which would triple your health risks. If you think that’s too much and you don’t have a serious physical handicap, you are about likely to have one.

I assume you don’t have small kids and you live in a flat sunny part of France with good road infrastructures for biking.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#790

Post by michiel_ »

wpietri wrote: post #568
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 "…

And my understanding is that this is a historically recent development, yes? That this bike friendliness comes from a conscious shift and a lot of hard work in the last few decades? I saw a lecture a while back by the head of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who spent some months in Amsterdam and talked about this. It was inspiring to think how much was possible here with relatively modest changes. Changes which…

> That this bike friendliness comes from a conscious shift and a lot of hard work in the last few decades?

The infrastructure and safety comes from a conscious shift and a lot of hard work, roughly starting in the 1970s. But cycling used to be the predominant mode of personal transportation until well into the 1960s; the average Dutch person simply couldn't afford a car until then. There are films of throngs of bicyclists completely blocking the road for cars, purely by overwhelming numbers. There were campaign films "educating" bicyclists about "their proper place on the road".

(A short, easy example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcQ9tSyUCs . It's a commercial, it's message is "It's no fun driving a car in Amsterdam; bring a bicycle!")

Bicycle-safe infrastructure was as much about clearing the main road for motorists, as it was about making bicyclists safer, and relatively speaking, bicycles have dwindled in importance since the country started building bike-safe infrastructure; correlation, not causation.

So I'm a bit uncomfortable when people mythologize the infrastructural revolution of the 1970s. Yes, impressive work was done. But it happened within a specific cultural and economic context that doesn't exist anymore.

Post reply on HN