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

231–240 of 262 posts

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

#231

Post by amanaplanacanal »

maxxxxx wrote: post #170
towaway1138 wrote: post #156

I recently moved to a city with "excellent" bicycle infrastructure. Contrary to what I might have imagined, this seems to make things more dangerous for all. The extra lanes, markings, lights, and signs increase distraction, making it harder to concentrate on what actually matters--people. In addition, almost no bicyclists actually drive lawfully here. It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowin…

"It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks." That bothers me too. I ride a bike myself but a lot of bikers ride like complete idiots. My favorite is riding at night without lights and reflective equipment.

I see this too, but I will say that by far the great majority are doing it right. The ones doing it wrong are definitely more memorable, though.

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

#232

Post by rhinoceraptor »

cletus wrote: post #221
joshe wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love jaywalking in SF just for this reason. I'm usually crossing in the middle of a block. I can see all the cars and I know where they are going. Plus I wait for lights much less often.

Yep, same. I believe there's been studies on these kinds of things, like the insanity of jaywalking laws as pedestrians tend to be safest when they cross streets when they don't have right of way as they're far more likely to be aware of their surroundings and cautious, particularly when the stakes for the pedestrian are much higher than the driver (ie an accident will tend to end worse for the pedestrian than the ca…

Also, the term jaywalking itself was invented by car companies to absolve drivers of the deaths they cause.

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

#233

Post by rhinoceraptor »

ahoy wrote: post #69
anonymou2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles: http://www.johnforester.com/

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.

Segregated bike paths, at some point, have to intersect with roads and driveways. So you can never eliminate the risk of accidents.

I can’t find any hard data on this, but from what I can see online (and my own experience riding in the road), the most common types of accidents are when cars are turning, and fail to yield to a cyclist. Being rear ended or sideswiped seems to be much more rare than accidents where the car is turning and doesn’t see the cyclist.

For example, a cyclist is riding in a bike lane, and a car is turning left into a driveway. The car is looking for oncoming traffic in the road, so the cyclist is most visible in the road or bike lane, where the driver is expecting fast moving traffic to be. If we build a segregated bike path, cyclists will be much less visible, and it’s more likely that a driver will fail to see them when turning.

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

#234

Post by magduf »

upofadown wrote: post #168
magduf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if you're right when you're dead.

But it does matter who is right when determining who is wrong...

That only helps in punishing the wrongdoer. If you can avoid being a victim in the first place, yes, the wrongdoer will get away with doing something wrong (though much less wrong than if you succeeded in becoming a victim; e.g., he's guilty of running a red light rather than running a red light and causing a crash that resulted in someone's death), but the price you pay for making the wrongdoer guilty of a greater crime (homicide) is your life. Is that really worth it?

The whole right vs. wrong thing is only useful in assigning blame when something really bad happens, and society wants to punish someone to achieve "justice". But having justice isn't really useful if you're dead, and not really worth it IMO if you're maimed for life. It's better to avoid the whole incident in the first place. "Justice" is nothing more than a concept society created to prevent people from seeking personal vengeance.

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

#235

Post by magduf »

selestify wrote: post #187
tapland wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not talk to others in public. You do not meet new people at the gym, at bars, at anywhere. If you are lucky you work in a small startup-office where employees go drink after work on fridays and where you can get to know them. American tourists can be heard over all other sound in the metro- and trainstations in Stockholm because the natural level of noise-making is so different.

How do people meet other people to date then?

I don't actually know, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's the same as in the US: dating apps. How else could you possibly meet people to date? This isn't a joke question, because I honestly have no idea.

The standard ways of meeting partners, according to surveys, have been: school, work, church, friends, family, bars, online. School isn't possible if you're not a student any more (i.e., most everyone over 25), work is generally frowned upon and pretty limited unless your workplace has a lot of turnover (which is bad for other reasons!), church isn't useful if you're not religious (as is the case for Sweden I'm sure), friends and family have limited social circles of singles, and bars are a great place to meet alcoholics. The surveys I've read for dating in America have shown that all these methods (except maybe school) have been declining for a long time, while online has become the #1 method.

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

#236

Post by jboles »

tom_ wrote: post #169
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…

It's the opposite way round - I think it's the Coriolis effect - but you can turn left on red in at least some parts of Australia.

It's not comparable. A right turn on red is allowed at traffic lights in the US, unless signposted otherwise. A left turn on red is disallowed at traffic lights in Australia, unless signposted otherwise.

I think the latter (default disallowed) is safer, because the sign permitting turn on red states that the turn is only permitted after stopping. On the other hand, drivers in the US blow through their right turns on red, usually not stopping, and with impunity.

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

#237

Post by towaway1138 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #231
maxxxxx wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks." That bothers me too. I ride a bike myself but a lot of bikers ride like complete idiots. My favorite is riding at night without lights and reflective equipment.

I see this too, but I will say that by far the great majority are doing it right. The ones doing it wrong are definitely more memorable, though.

It's so rare here that I actually call it out to my wife when I see a properly lit bicyclist at night.

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

#238

Post by tom_ »

jboles wrote: post #236
tom_ wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite way round - I think it's the Coriolis effect - but you can turn left on red in at least some parts of Australia.

It's not comparable. A right turn on red is allowed at traffic lights in the US, unless signposted otherwise. A left turn on red is dis allowed at traffic lights in Australia, unless signposted otherwise. I think the latter (default disallowed) is safer, because the sign permitting turn on red states that the turn is only permitted after stopping. On the other hand, drivers in the US blow through their right turns on…

Thanks - that's a useful clarification. It was a while ago that I visited, and while I do drive, and regularly, I didn't drive while there.

Obviously I failed to miss this "subtlety" ;) - good evidence, as if any were needed, which of course it isn't, that drivers can't be trusted.

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

#239

Post by tropo »

anonymou2 wrote: post #86
lostlogin wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I do, I have been driving my bicycle to work for 12 years now. Not only I prefer regular roads, which are much better, whenever there is a segregated lane I avoid it. It is very obvious what segregation is for when you get hostile behavior on the part of motorists when you ignore the cycle lane and they complain that you don't use it.

Someday you will be old, unable to accelerate like a car and keep up with traffic, and you will instead wish that you could ride on the sidewalk. Part of the reason why bicycle use is unusual is that very few people can ride well enough to be out in the road.

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

#240

Post by hnick »

randcraw wrote: post #136
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…

I'm guessing the driver faced almost no penalty for running you down. That's the main reason this problem persists, IMHO, no serious consequences for the cretins. Go to jail or lose your license for a year plus impound your car -- only that kind of response will save pedestrian lives.

Normal people would feel bad for doing this though and try to avoid hurting people, wouldn't they? Or am I the strange one here...?
Post reply on HN