21–30 of 186 posts
As a cyclist, I am more than happy to see tech that makes me more visible! Why are people up in arms!!? So stupid.
I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insan…
Do cyclists in Netherlands skip traffic lights and act like they have a chip on their shoulder? Well American ones do. If cyclists are going to share the road, they would see fit have their bicycles registered, pay yearly fees and purchase insurance - both for themselves and the ones they cause harm to [1] - just like motorists do. Anything else is just favoritism. Won't stand in a court of law, here. The next time a…
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience. If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns. As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes…
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. I live in Tempe, AZ near ASU - one of the "most bike friendly" cities in the US, and I can't tell you how many times I've been nearly killed by a bike at full speed weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk - where it's actually illegal for them to ride. Bikes do not belong on the sidewalk unless they're moving as slow as…
I also think that cyclists shouldn't ride at speed on the sidewalk, but even if, cyclists causing pedestrian fatalities is extremely rare. It has happened, but it's statistically insignificant when compared to cars killing pedestrians.
There is a big difference between getting hit by 90kg at 30km/h vs 1900kg at 45km/h.
As a cyclist, I am more than happy to see tech that makes me more visible! Why are people up in arms!!? So stupid.
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The b…
> Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either Maybe you could explain what you're thinking of when you say this? My experience says that pedestrians and bikes are fully compatible; they commonly share sidewalks.
And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing.
How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem.
As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience. If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns. As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes…
A gradual move to 20mph on all roads is being introduced: http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/parking-roads/street_im...
Some boroughs have already completed the move (i.e. the link above) and others are following.
Traffic in London rarely gets above 20mph anyway, so it barely impacts. As a driver it makes driving more relaxing and hasn't impacted travel times. As a cyclist, it's a joy to not have vehicles racing to overtake in appropriate places.
I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do cyclists in Netherlands skip traffic lights and act like they have a chip on their shoulder? Well American ones do. If cyclists are going to share the road, they would see fit have their bicycles registered, pay yearly fees and purchase insurance - both for themselves and the ones they cause harm to [1] - just like motorists do. Anything else is just favoritism. Won't stand in a court of law, here. The next time a…
Registration and Insurance isn't a bad idea actually...
It's called the cycle hire scheme.
In this time, not a single cyclist has been tried for anything, and yet several of them have been killed by HGVs.
Registrations aren't stopping cyclist fatalities.