Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 262 posts

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#111

Post by dsfyu404ed »

justinph wrote: post #11

This article fails to mention one of the biggest factors, which is the increased prevalence of SUVs and Trucks. These oversized vehicles have higher grilles and increased mass. The higher grille means injuries that on a car would have been a leg injury where the pedestrian ends up on the hood are abdominal injuries where the pedestrian can be pushed under the vehicle. The increased mass also means longer stopping dis…

It's not the bumpers. Bumpers haven't moved much since the 90s. If anything they've moved up a little on cars and stayed static on everything smaller than a 3/4 ton truck. It's the hood/grill styling that's changed. Every SUV these days has a tall grill and hood. Even cars have become taller. It's because of the safety and fuel economy arms race. The front bodywork is one of the few things the manufacturers can sculpt however they want. The cabin needs to be deep for the crash test rating (reducing visibility in general) and the hood/windshield transition needs to be shallow for fuel economy (which has a side effect of increasing the A pillar blind spot). This is why we get vehicles with massive bulbous front bodywork. That then becomes a styling trend all in itself. Look at how the 4Runner has progressed over the years if you want a particularly ugly example.

I'd rather get hit by a 90s F-series or Miata (with the "pedestrian unsafe" folding headlights) than the modern equivalents (though the modern Miata would still be pretty tolerable).

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#112

Post by admiral_biatch »

anonymou2 wrote: post #104
admiral_biatch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion isolating separate transportation modes is only good if it is complete isolation but that's never feasible in a city. Too expensive and space-inefficient to make every intersection collision-free for cars, bikes and pedestrians. If you separate cars, bikes and pedestrians most of the time but their paths cross at intersections then you have a problem because drivers might not expect a sudden bike lane o…

The current traffic system is the best known way to share the roadways among different types of vehicles, all subject to the same rules. Trying to construct a set of grids for different types of vehicles which interact at certain points is silly, consider what happens when new types of vehicles come into being, like electric scooters, are you going to construct yet another "independent" grid for them?

I agree with you. I'm not in favor of separation precisely because it's unrealistic in the city.

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#113

Post by dsfyu404ed »

jnty wrote: post #72
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city wide speed limit was irrelevant in both cities to begin with because in 99.99% of places you couldn't get up to that speed or if you could it would be uncomfortable (narrow streets, poor visibility, etc). Conditions where one can even go 25+ for more than a couple hundred yards are rare and basically limited to main roads in low traffic conditions (i.e. late at night). These roads already had good bike lanes…

In the UK, people against 20mph limits often oppose them while claiming that they're never able to get above that speed anyway. Why are they opposing it then? The answer is simple - it's not true and on many streets you're able to drive at 30 or over (if you disregard other people's safety). I would sincerely doubt this was any less the case in the US where traffic lanes even on 'tight' streets seem to be stupidly wi…

You can't just slap a 25 sign on a stretch of road where 90% of people feel like 30 is reasonable 90% of the time and expect people to go 25. Without Orwellian enforcement that does not work, not enough people will comply with the new limit. You need to make people actually feel like 25 is the right speed to go. Allowing on street parking on one side (less space for lanes) planting trees on the sidewalk (visually narrower), tuning traffic lights to create congestion , narrower lane markings and all sorts of other things can do that. You can try Orwellian enforcement but that will not fly in any American city (though it may take longer to crash and burn in some cities than others).

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#114

Post by cr1895 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #96
jetrink wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another anecdote about Florida: I bike almost every day during good weather in Chicago and though I know it isn't the safest activity, I've never had a serious incident. I traveled to Florida last Fall and was struck by a car on my very first bike ride there. I was on a dedicated bike path that was separated from the road by a grass strip and was hit by a car turning into a driveway. It was 11am on a sunny day, but t…

You were on a glorified sidewalk. This is why separated facilities with grade crossings are dangerous because you exist outside the cone of attention of cagers who aren't expecting a 20MPH+ vehicle on the sidewalk.

>separated facilities with grade crossings are dangerous

On the whole they are much safer.

https://library.swov.nl/action/front/fulltext?id=340421

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#115

Post by everdev »

ainiriand wrote: post #77
everdev wrote: post #54

In the Bay Area it's popular for cyclists to bike on narrow, winding, steep roads with no shoulder like Sand Hill Rd. or Highway 9 in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Regardless of how you feel about bikes the conditions are inherently unsafe for bikes and cars and there are multiple annual fatalities. I can't think of another form of exercise where a participant puts themselves and non-participants in legal danger.

While I totally understand your point, I think that the cyclists are not the ones putting themselves in danger. They have every right to use the road safely. The danger is caused by the divers. There are many reasons for this but the most common is not taking sufficient separation from the cyclist when passing them. Here in Spain is 1.5m but you don't usually see many cars so close.

Biking on a windy road with no shoulder is like swimming in a harbor. If you turn a blind corner and there's an oncoming car and a bike in your lane you need exceptional reflexes to avoid and accident.

Most roads were designed for cars not bikes. I'm all for bike Lanes, but there should be a minimum speed limit on roads too. It's similarly not safe to be going 5mph on a 35mph road.

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#116

Post by mercutio2 »

nmc wrote: post #62
chasd00 wrote: post #21

heh a couple summer's ago in Dallas i got hit by a police officer while crossing the street. Ironically, while he was on his cell phone. I had to do the whole ninja-roll thing over the hood and on to the pavement. Came out of it with only a sore wrist and a funny story for the conference call i was late to. a buddy of mine grabbed a guy and pulled him out of the way of a city bus. The guy had the light to cross and t…

Wow! OK so Today I Learned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red Turning right on a red light is prohibited in many countries, unless indicated by a separate, arrow-shaped (green or orange) light. Surprised to learn that it is however allowed in most of the USA.

Even less common knowledge, it’s not just right on red, it’s turning any time you wouldn’t cross a lane going an unrelated direction.

To wit, left turns from one one-way street onto another one-way street are also allowed on red (if you’re not in NYC).

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#117

Post by nikk1 »

0xCMP wrote: post #73
jbarberu wrote: post #20

Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how biker/pedestrian hostile it is here. I naively thought I'd be able to live a more active lifestyle because of the nicer weather, but instead I'm driving a car everywhere as I wouldn't feel safe on a bike. It seems to be a pretty vicious cycle of the infrastructure being hostile to biking so nobody does it, nobody is biking so the roads are optimized f…

I have a personal conviction too that anywhere in South Florida which figures out how to change focus to walking/biking safely will reap very nice appreciation in real estate and taxes. Yes, the weather is very hot, but the issue is not the heat but the fact everything is so far away and there isn't a safe way either-way of getting there without a car. I'm a fan of how I understand Japanese zoning works + some of the…

St Pete is bike/pedestrian friendly relative to other parts of Florida, and I think it's getting better. I actually think that is one reason why the area has been growing so much over the past decade. There is actually a bike trail [1], which was made by paving over an old railway track. I used to take that trail to bike to downtown, and it was extremely safe.

In contrast, I now live in a newer FL city on the Space Coast that is currently booming. Seeing all of the car-friendly development makes me cringe. Nothing is in walking distance. Traffic is terrible. A man backed into me at a stoplight. I have to take a shuttle from my company's parking lot to my building because we have to accommodate so many vehicles, despite the fact that many employees live within an acceptable biking distance.

[1] http://www.pinellascounty.org/trailgd/

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#118

Post by admiral_biatch »

jnty wrote: post #79
admiral_biatch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion isolating separate transportation modes is only good if it is complete isolation but that's never feasible in a city. Too expensive and space-inefficient to make every intersection collision-free for cars, bikes and pedestrians. If you separate cars, bikes and pedestrians most of the time but their paths cross at intersections then you have a problem because drivers might not expect a sudden bike lane o…

Of course drivers in cities do expect 'bikes coming out of nowhere' because, unless you literally separate bikes with a 6ft wall, you can in fact still see them despite there being kerb-separation in place. At car/bike junctions with poor visibility the same interventions are available as for car junctions with poor visibility. If you've ever seen a mangled barrier by the side of a road, you'll understand why encoura…

Where I live (Poland) it's not uncommon for a bike lane to be effectively a part of the sidewalk with trees and parked cars between the sidewalk and the road so it's not that obvious if you're visible to drivers or not.

I agree that putting unprotected humans on the road should happen only after other traffic calming measures have been put in place.

Regarding your last remark. There are basically two styles of bike infrastructure. You described the dutch way quite well. But there is also a Copenhagen style of bike infrastructure where it's directly by the road. Sometimes separated by the curb but still on the road. https://goo.gl/maps/QWTfALXSbsj

I won't judge which style is better. It probably depends on the city.

More about differences between Amsterdam and Copenhagen styles https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/amsterdam-vs-...

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#119

Post by geodel »

magduf wrote: post #102
jbarberu wrote: post #20

Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how biker/pedestrian hostile it is here. I naively thought I'd be able to live a more active lifestyle because of the nicer weather, but instead I'm driving a car everywhere as I wouldn't feel safe on a bike. It seems to be a pretty vicious cycle of the infrastructure being hostile to biking so nobody does it, nobody is biking so the roads are optimized f…

>Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how biker/pedestrian hostile it is here. Sorry if this sounds rude, but this was a surprise to you? I thought everyone in Europe realized how bicycle/pedestrial-hostile US cities are. Did you not come here first to check things out before committing to a cross-Atlantic move? And seriously, Sweden is one of the top countries on the quality-of-life indices…

I think people keep 2 compartments in brain and never let them interact. E.g. when it comes to salaries it goes like why the hell European/ canadian companies do not pay like US companies. And when it comes to personal life or health they go like why is US so hostile for health care, vacations.

Re: US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians

#120

Post by btrettel »

justinph wrote: post #11

This article fails to mention one of the biggest factors, which is the increased prevalence of SUVs and Trucks. These oversized vehicles have higher grilles and increased mass. The higher grille means injuries that on a car would have been a leg injury where the pedestrian ends up on the hood are abdominal injuries where the pedestrian can be pushed under the vehicle. The increased mass also means longer stopping dis…

When I moved to Texas I did not anticipate this. As a cyclist, I will definitely keep the types of vehicles in mind when choosing a place to live from here on. Texans do worse, as "grille guards" are particularly common: http://www.frontier-gear.com/products/grille-guards/

When I first saw one of these I thought it was something out of Mad Max. The vast majority of these people don't need these grille guards as they don't work on a farm or anything similar. My guess is that they are bought to make their truck or SUV look tougher.

In contrast, I grew up in a rural area where grille guards might be useful and I never saw them. Big trucks don't seem to be as common as here either.

Post reply on HN