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

191–200 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#191

Post by throwaway517492 »

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).

It's not just an American thing.

"6. Drivers must not drive at such a low speed that they constitute an obstruction or danger to the normal flow of traffic." [machine translated]

https://www.aci.it/i-servizi/normative/codice-della-strada/t...

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#192

Post by hackernewds »

pembrook wrote: post #178

Think folks are missing the point here. The idea of this thread isn’t that bicycles are uniquely singled out for ridicule. These article snippets all come from a time when the bicycle was just invented and usage was growing fast (eg like any new tech). In fact, I think they were taken from a defunct Twitter account called pessimists archive. The point is that mass media will always court controversy and bemoan any ne…

Precisely. See this same trend with online shopping, social media, and app-based food delivery. If they sucked, they wouldn't be so ubiquitous. But they are.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#193

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

bipson wrote: post #112
LAC-Tech wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never found bicycles to be a massive issue on roads. They're slow and narrow, so they're easy to overtake. Where I am there's often tractors on the road. A lot harder to overtake, and I still manage to refrain from getting angry at them either! People need to just chill the fuck out.

A lot of people, those around me included, seem to not grasp that for safe overtake of a bicycle you still require a second lane (at least partially) besides your own. But in traffic and the laws lane usage is binary. There is no such thing as half lanes, you cannot use the second lane "a little". You either need it, or you don't. So overtaking a bicycle, a motorbike, a pedestrian on the road or a tractor, etc. it is…

The problem is that drivers don't seem to understand that they need to leave enough room so that they don't just drive over the cyclist if they lose control due to a pothole or similar

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#194

Post by DoubleFree »

montebicyclelo wrote: post #114

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…

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 "Hoofdnetten", where the default routes to some place for different modes of transportation coincide for the least amount of time/space. For example, going somewhere by bike might take you through a residential neighborhood with barely any traffic, which is also slowed by speed bumps and narrowed streets, whereas buses will use a bus lane taking a slightly longer route, and car traffic has to go all the way around.

The second reason is that here, everyone is a cyclist. Going for groceries? Five minute bike ride, much easier and quicker than going by car. Kids cycle to school alone from a young age. Going out for drinks? Bike. Because everyone is a cyclist and there are cyclists everywhere, cyclists are equal participants in traffic and are treated with care and respect.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#195

Post by matthewmacleod »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #180
jimmytidey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

> car squeezes past you at high speed many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event. like if the biker falls. clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both. Doesn't matter who's faster in the end, if that was the purpose, it would suffice for drivers to not…

No - as someone who has cycled extensively in London, it is very obviously not the case that drivers are squeezing past cyclists out of a desire to keep them safe. It’s a pretty laughable idea.

The vast majority of drivers are actually totally fine and courteous on the road. But when a moderate cycle can take you past literally hundreds of cars, even a tiny percentage of discourteous drivers can make the whole experience of cycling extremely unpleasant.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#196

Post by pembrook »

dijit wrote: post #184
pembrook wrote: post #178

Think folks are missing the point here. The idea of this thread isn’t that bicycles are uniquely singled out for ridicule. These article snippets all come from a time when the bicycle was just invented and usage was growing fast (eg like any new tech). In fact, I think they were taken from a defunct Twitter account called pessimists archive. The point is that mass media will always court controversy and bemoan any ne…

Is that really in-line with reality though? Cycling was becoming quite common in the UK and it was actively suppressed by urban planning because the stance was that "it was for the poors" and car travel (a newer mode of transport) was much preferred because it was luxurious. Jay Foreman has a good video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gohSeOYheXg

The popularity of the bicycle predates the rise of the automobile by a few decades.

None of the article snippets in the linked thread even mention the existence of automobiles.

But don’t worry, I’m certain these same type of articles were written about automobiles as well during their rise in the early 1900s.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#197

Post by bertil »

yodelshady wrote: post #157

To be fair, bicycles probably did lead to more marriage breakups. Certainly in the UK they're considered a key part of emancipation. No longer, as a woman, is your dating pool limited entirely to the boys in your village. And if the boy you did marry turns out to be an angry drunk - well. Bicycles aren't fast, but they're faster than walking. And they're cheap . And the latter, if we're honest, is the real reason for…

I don't think the cost is the biggest driver of tension unless you listen to professional drivers. People don’t blame bus riders for not "paying the road tax" (a UK trope, that tax was abolished). It would explain why things got worst recently, but people don’t hate electric cars the same way for instance.

The most common angle of attack is territorial: "get off _my_ road". Cyclists shouldn’t belong there, because of the shape of the vehicle, and how it goes at different speeds (faster in traffic, slower on the free road). The hostility is shared with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN), car-free side roads converted into cul-de-sacs. Those remind cars that they are not welcome. “Invisible” bicycles match the repeated trope that cyclists run red lights (in practice, they cross with pedestrian lights at three-phase lights, when it’s safe): the behaviour on the road is different, and forces car drivers to get out of their automated reflexes, and do things they should, but never do: check their mirrors, look back in the blind side, check before opening their door. Forcing drivers outside of the mental comfort of habit-driving is what is causing so much pain and anguish.

It’s also why drivers in countries where cyclists are common don’t have the same issue: they are used to bikes and drive habitually with cyclists in mind.

That matches the biggest issue cyclists point at drivers: using their mobile phones. You can’t drive and use a phone unless you are in a fully reflex-based flow. If those reflexes don’t expect a bike passing you, it yanks you out of your flow, which is physically painful. That explains the explosive and murderous reactions from drivers.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#198

Post by matthewmacleod »

pojzon wrote: post #186
jimmytidey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

Quoted post unavailable.

The vast majority of roads do not have separate cycle lanes - this is obviously not a good-faith argument.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#199

Post by adrianN »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #180
jimmytidey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

> car squeezes past you at high speed many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event. like if the biker falls. clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both. Doesn't matter who's faster in the end, if that was the purpose, it would suffice for drivers to not…

If drivers overtook cyclists for the cyclists' safety you'd expect them to tailgate cyclists much less often. Literally nobody keeps the necessary distance to the car/cyclists in front of them in city traffic. That's why rear-end collisions are so frequent. Between two cars at city speeds that not really dangerous. When a cyclists falls in front of a car it's fatal.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#200

Post by tgv »

shmde wrote: post #164
meitham wrote: post #113

Bicycles are blamed for losing virginity in girls in Arab countries, no kidding!

Its common for women to break their hymen while cycling. And regressive people tend to think that a hymen is the sign of a virginity.

I don't think many people agree that that's likely to happen. It's more that it can function as an excuse for the absence of an intact hymen.
Post reply on HN