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

211–220 of 262 posts

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

#211

Post by clairity »

zanny wrote: post #108
xefer wrote: post #12

I noticed they mentioned the speed reduction "Boston, for example, has reduced the city speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 mph." Cambridge across the river followed suit soon afterward, but having lived there for decades I can't say I've noticed one iota of difference in the speed cars travel. 25 mph is still ridiculously fast in most of the tight neighborhood streets. Really the speed limit should be reduced e…

I live in a town here the main street has a posted speed limit of 25 that absolutely nobody obeys and the average speed of traffic is always around 40. If you take a road with a "natural" speed and try to artificially restrict with a speed limit, unless you are prepared to have officers posted on that road at all times ticketing people will ignore the limit entirely and go the "natural" speed of the road. I see it al…

i wish this were more common knowledge. narrowing lanes is among the best ways to slow cars down, if that's the goal.

but in many cases, that goal is missapplied to reduce accidents. accidents are typically not caused by speed, but rather distraction or anger. it hard to enforce attention and mindfulness, so we regulate speed as a (poor) proxy (partially for harm reduction, as speed increases severity of accidents), which directly leads people to wrongly associate speed as the cause of accidents.

it makes sense, for example, to reduce vehicle speeds around schools to reduce harm in case of accidents with small people. but rather than an artificial speed limit that depends on police enforcement, narrow the lanes to 8 feet and people will naturally drive 15-20 mph in those school zones without the added enforcement burden (and use the remaining road space for bike lanes).

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

#213

Post by rhinoceraptor »

francisofascii wrote: post #42
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…

Planners often cite the lack of cyclists as an excuse not to create bicycle infrastructure, and fail the acknowledge the reason is due to the danger, rather than the desire to bike.

Also, a lot of the existing bike infrastructure is just awful. They put bike lanes next to parked cars, paint sharrows instead of building real bike lanes, and pedestrian islands on roads with no bike lane, that make passing cyclists safely impossible.

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

#214

Post by b1r6 »

cletus wrote: post #139

Weird. This article doesn't mention what (IMHO) is one of the biggest factors impacting pedestrian and cyclist safety: the ability in almost all of the US to turn right at red lights. I live in NYC where this is illegal in the five boroughs. Weirdly I've met more than a few people who live here who didn't know this. You will come across drivers who don't know this too occasionally who'll give you attitude if you walk…

The reason we "ended up with this turning right at a red light rule" is simply that it is more efficient, and transportation is by definition architected for efficiency. It's the same reason we have more flashing yellow turn lights these days, because you shouldn't be stuck sitting at a red light in a turn lane when it's extremely visually obvious that there are no obstructions preventing you from proceeding.

In the world of marine navigation, baked into many rules and courtesies, is the idea that larger vessels are to be offered right of way over small vessels. Because small vessels are both more able to perceive the current situation, and more able to avoid mishaps.

Paradoxically, pedestrians often have the right of way always, despite the car being far less maneuverable, less perceptive of it's surroundings, and far more dangerous to collide with.

This negation of the common-sense logic found in marine navigation is why our streets are always reported as "becoming more dangerous".

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

#215

Post by loeg »

anonymou2 wrote: post #83
cglace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you completely separate two things they can not collide.

There will still be bike-bike collisions, also exclusive roads for bicycles are usually of low quality not up to engineering standards for roads, they will be full of dirt, unmaintained, with potholes. Most bicycle accidents are not even collisions with cars. The truth is, it is more convenient for motorists to remove cyclists from the road so they have them all exclusively for them, that is just not fair nor safer.

> There will still be bike-bike collisions

These are both more rare than car-bicycle collisions and less likely to be injurious.

> also exclusive roads for bicycles are usually of low quality not up to engineering standards for roads, they will be full of dirt, unmaintained, with potholes

Citation needed? The main problem I've experienced on bike paths is tree roots. Roads for bikes don't wear out particularly quickly, because bikes don't make anything like the kind of wear and tear on roads that cars or especially larger vehicles (buses and trucks) do. Road wear is proportional to weight squared.

> Most bicycle accidents are not even collisions with cars

What are they collisions with? Do you think bike-bike, bike-ped, and bike-fixed object collisions combined are more frequent than bike-car collisions? I don't have numbers on this one way or another. To provide some color, motor vehicle-fixed object collisions are about a third of all motor vehicle crashes[0].

Additionally, 95% of cyclist collision deaths are definitely car-bike collisions[1]. So even if they are not the majority of collisions, they must be disproportionately deadly and worth consideration anyway.

[0]: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... p. 18 (table 5(b)).

[1]: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... p. 5-6.

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

#216

Post by loeg »

lostlogin wrote: post #84
anonymou2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really can't compare the US and Denmark, you should pick a location and compare before and after segregation. Did it improve safety? There were plenty of bicycle trips in Denmark before cyclists were kicked off the roads for the convenience of motorists.

If it’s convenient for motorists that I get a segregated cycle lane, I’d be very happy to go along with it. Are there cyclists who don’t like cycle lanes and prefer to share with cars?

As a recreational cyclist, I wouldn't like dedicated cycle lanes that had a too-low (and enforced) speed limit, for example.

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

#217

Post by loeg »

anonymou2 wrote: post #71
ahoy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is plainly wrong. The biggest threat to a biker is being hit by an automobile. If that biker is in a lane completely away from automobile traffic, that threat vanishes.

Being hit how? What type of accidents are more likely to happen? A bike path with no interaction at all with cars will of course prevent any bike-car collision, there will still be bike-bike collisions and other types of accidents (the majority of bike accidents are not car-bike collisions anyway). That kind of exclusive bicycle path is delusional anyway, specially in a urban settings, where you always have to intera…

> Being hit how? What type of accidents are more likely to happen?

95% of bicycle deaths are a result of motor-vehicle bike collision, and the vast majority of collisions are between the front of the motor vehicle and a bicycle.[0]

> there will still be bike-bike collisions and other types of accidents

Sure, but these collisions are far less deadly and injurious. Exchanging car-bike collisions for bike-bike collisions is a good tradeoff from a public health perspective.

[0]: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

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

#219

Post by nybble41 »

ams6110 wrote: post #144
ovi256 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>grade crossings Grade crossings are everywhere in the Netherlands, but bikes have the right of way, and drivers and pedestrians don't, and that's also how the justice system judges things. In most US states afaik, the legal incentives are definitely not there to care about bikers.

Cars turning right across another lane of traffic (the bike lane) is the problem. It's just a very accident-prone way to arrange the lanes. The reality is in America drivers are not accustomed to bikes passing them on the right when they are turning right. It certainly wasn't part of anything I learned in driver's training (though that was quite a while ago). I honestly could not tell you who has the right of way in…

> Cars turning right across another lane of traffic (the bike lane) is the problem.

It may vary by state, but at least here in Iowa cars are supposed to merge into the bike lane (as far as possible) before turning right, not turn across it. This is the same as any other situation where you have two lanes of traffic going the same direction—you start your right turn from the rightmost lane. Bikes are expected to pass turning cars on the left in the regular traffic lane, not on the right.

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

#220

Post by cletus »

b1r6 wrote: post #214
cletus wrote: post #139

Weird. This article doesn't mention what (IMHO) is one of the biggest factors impacting pedestrian and cyclist safety: the ability in almost all of the US to turn right at red lights. I live in NYC where this is illegal in the five boroughs. Weirdly I've met more than a few people who live here who didn't know this. You will come across drivers who don't know this too occasionally who'll give you attitude if you walk…

The reason we "ended up with this turning right at a red light rule" is simply that it is more efficient , and transportation is by definition architected for efficiency . It's the same reason we have more flashing yellow turn lights these days, because you shouldn't be stuck sitting at a red light in a turn lane when it's extremely visually obvious that there are no obstructions preventing you from proceeding. In th…

> The reason we "ended up with this turning right at a red light rule" is simply that it is more efficient

For whom? Drivers? Is any consideration for those who cannot or do not drive to be sacrificed at the Altar of the Automobile because cars?

> This negation of the common-sense logic found in marine navigation is why our streets are always reported as "becoming more dangerous".

The major difference I find between those who pilot boats (and aircraft) vs those who drive is how serious the former take their responsibility.

I met a UPS pilot once who we got to talking to and he said that he doesn't drink anything alcoholic within 12 hours of flying. That's clearly more precautious than he needs to be but this anecdote highlights the point of how serious this guy took his responsibility.

Compare this to drivers who routinely:

- Speed dangerously

- Drive while intoxicated

- Text or otherwise get distracted by their phones while driving

- Drive in spite of medical advice to the contrary [1]

- Run red lights

- Speed up when lights turn orange (knowing they'll be red when they pass through the intersection) as some lie to themselves that they couldn't stop (as a pedestrian I can nearly always tell lights are changing because I hear cars accelerate).

- Don't maintain their vehicles

All while being at the helm of two tonnes of metal hurtling down a highway at 85mph (with a speed limit of 55mph), all while tens of thousands of people die on the roads every year in the US.

A defense of some of these is "what choice do they have (but to drive)?" Well, that's the result of a society that is so totally geared towards car ownership.

So excuse me if "efficiency" for drivers isn't my primary concern.

[1] https://www.etonline.com/driver-charged-in-death-of-ruthie-a...

Post reply on HN