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

It's Never a Bicycle Accident

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#161

Post by sneak »

prower wrote: post #160
gerl1ng wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people like you don't get is that 90+% of the roads are open for all kinds of traffic. Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars. But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traff…

A digger, a horse, a motorbike, a roman chariot or a cow are all preferable alternatives to cyclists on road, for the simple fact that, with all other means of transport, you get a lot more leeway if something goes awry for whatever reason (e.g. a pothole). With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder. Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look…

> With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder.

You chose the 800 millisecond value by choosing to follow too closely.

You can make it whatever interval is most convenient for you.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#162

Post by prower »

jamil7 wrote: post #122
prower wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true when you're forced to do 10km/h for prolonged periods of time (that's hindrance to traffic and you can usually get a fine for that) because you can't safely overtake a bycicle that's going in a zig-zag way on the lane to avoid a myriad of potholes, or because it's an uphill road and it's too physically taxing for the biker, sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road. That's only stress and us…

> sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road If we use that logic we can make all kinds of arguments about a car being the wrong vehicle for the wrong roads. For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved?

> For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved?

Yes, SUVs are stupid and totally the wrong type of vehicle for a city, but for a different set of reasons.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#163

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #161
prower wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A digger, a horse, a motorbike, a roman chariot or a cow are all preferable alternatives to cyclists on road, for the simple fact that, with all other means of transport, you get a lot more leeway if something goes awry for whatever reason (e.g. a pothole). With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder. Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look…

> With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder. You chose the 800 millisecond value by choosing to follow too closely. You can make it whatever interval is most convenient for you.

[deleted]

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#164

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

My little daughter was hit by a bicycle riding on the sidewalk at high speed, leaving her with a permanent scar on her face. Is it a "bicycle accident"? There are millions of criminals on electric scooters and bicycles endangering the public in the cities.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#165

Post by fho »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #164

My little daughter was hit by a bicycle riding on the sidewalk at high speed, leaving her with a permanent scar on her face. Is it a "bicycle accident"? There are millions of criminals on electric scooters and bicycles endangering the public in the cities.

> Is it a "bicycle accident"?

Yes, but no.

All of these accidents have basically nothing to do with the mode of transportation. It's a "being reckless accident". And you'll find recklessness in basically every mode of transportation ... from roller skates, over bikes, cars and even airplanes.

And, without wanting to defend the reckless, it's kind of understandable ... tail-gaiting the car in front does not go wrong 99.9% of the time. Clipping traffic on a bike does not go wrong 99.9% of the time. Going down the hill on rollerskates does not go wrong 99.9% of the time.

I understand why people are being reckless ... there is no consequence 99.9% of the time ... until ... that last time ... somebody gets hurt.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#166

Post by gerl1ng »

prower wrote: post #160
gerl1ng wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people like you don't get is that 90+% of the roads are open for all kinds of traffic. Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars. But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traff…

A digger, a horse, a motorbike, a roman chariot or a cow are all preferable alternatives to cyclists on road, for the simple fact that, with all other means of transport, you get a lot more leeway if something goes awry for whatever reason (e.g. a pothole). With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder. Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look…

If you are going to hit a cyclist because the cyclist dodged a pothole then you are not leaving enough safety distance.

In my country you need to pass cyclists with minimum 1.5m distance to the side within city/village (usually 50 kph speed limits) or 2m outside of the city/village.

That minimum distance is there especially for such situations where the cyclist needs to dodge Potholes, Glass, ...

That minimum distance is also required if the cyclist is riding on the shoulder. Some paint on between you and the cyclist doesn't keep anyone of you safe on it's own.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#167

Post by cbHXBY1D »

I crashed my bicycle just yesterday going 25mph. It started raining in the East Bay so I took the fast route home, down a winding hill with no room for cars to pass cyclists. The SUV behind me was honking and passed me, barely side swiping me. I reacted by jumping to the decaying road shoulder where there dead branches and a large crack which engulfed my front wheel. I went flying (according to my Garmin) at 24mph and probably got 15 feet of distance. No broken bones though - just bruises, rashes, and cuts.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#168

Post by anoncake »

Laarlf wrote: post #129
adrianN wrote: post #2

Victimblaming is par for the course whenever a cyclist gets injured. It's really infuriating. I don't think that blaming the driver is good either, as the article says, most of the time it's a failure of the infrastructure that even made the situation possible. Very few drivers try to actively kill cyclists.

That is the thing that annoys me the most. You don't walk on train tracks, you don't drive on the sidewalk. Excessive speed differences like these are dangerous. Either accept that cycling on the road is dangerous and work with that mindset or choose a fitting medium to travel for the ground given. On a bike, you are weaker and slower than the cars you share the road with. Being hit by a car won't fix infrastructure.

Bicycles are vehicles. Vehicles belong on the road. Where else?

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#169

Post by anoncake »

aembleton wrote: post #146
DocTomoe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all fairness that sounds a lot like "laws do not exist for cyclists". Having to prove your innocence is incompatible with the idea of rule of law. As a car driver, I would start setting up dash cams (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR) to help me proving my innocence.

> which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR Is CCTV also illegal now?

Monitoring public spaces is.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#170

Post by clairity »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #158
jgwil2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP didn't say any traffic violation should result in revocation of license, just reckless driving. At least where I live, that's a specific violation that is well beyond any violation that might come from following normal traffic flow.

Reckless driving as defined by statute typically includes a "more than X over the limit" clause where X is small enough to include "normal traffic speed for a clear day with light traffic on the interstate highway system and many state highways" This is exactly my point. The laws are far too broad to have stiff penalties and draconian enforcement. Of course nobody should be driving 40+ through some downtown center si…

yes, i'd advocate changing speed limits (a prescriptive) to suggested speeds, and instead focus enforcement largely on distracted driving (a descriptive), which is the singular predominant cause of collisions (along with impaired driving and then reckless driving).

in addition, institute traffic calming measures like narrowing lanes, grade separations, cut outs/cut ins, and more trees in suburban/urban areas, so that it's more instinctive to drive slower, for everyone's benefit in those areas.

Post reply on HN