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

251–260 of 262 posts

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

#251

Post by anonymou2 »

tropo wrote: post #239
anonymou2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How old do you think I am? What do you mean by keeping up with traffic? when I go uphill I do not ride as fast as cars by all means, that doesn't mean I can not use the road. If a faster driver comes behind me he either: 1. slows down and waits, 2. passes if it is safe to do it. The good thing about the road system is that it allows for vehicles of all types and speeds. Can't you drive your car in a road where there are ferraries and big trucks? Learning to ride well is easy, it doesn't requiere superhuman skills. Building separate infraestructure does not help to learn to ride, quite the opposite it encourages people to think that bicycle drivers are inferior and incapable of learning, it creates the Cyclist ghetto.

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

#252

Post by anonymou2 »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #193
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/

Forester is widely discredited.

Thanks to his book I've been riding safely for 12 years, only those who did not make the effort to learn discredit him.

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

#253

Post by anonymou2 »

loeg wrote: post #217
anonymou2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 collisio…

No, what is good for a public health perspective is to avoid collisions (and falls which is the #1 accident with bikes). It is quite easy to avoid car-bike collisions, in fact car drivers are far more predictable than ignorant cyclists. Of course in order to do that you have to know what the most frequent type of car-bike collisions are, guess what? they are not cars hitting a bicycle from behind, they happen in intersections due to crossing traffic and bike segregation only increases them by making intersections more complicated.

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

#254

Post by tropo »

anonymou2 wrote: post #251
tropo wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How old do you think I am? What do you mean by keeping up with traffic? when I go uphill I do not ride as fast as cars by all means, that doesn't mean I can not use the road. If a faster driver comes behind me he either: 1. slows down and waits, 2. passes if it is safe to do it. The good thing about the road system is that it allows for vehicles of all types and speeds. Can't you drive your car in a road where there…

I assumed that you are nearly fit for the Olympics, probably around age 30, because riding slower than traffic would be extremely rude. Most of us are not so athletic, and we don't wish to be extremely rude.

It's like taking a Ford Model T down the left lane of an interstate highway with an 80 MPH speed limit, or like taking a horse-drawn carriage on a US highway, or like flying a WWI biplane into Chicago O'Hare airport. Sure, it is still legal to do so, but it is a terrible idea. People will rightly hate you if you do this.

If sidewalks aren't legal for bicycles, then most of us have no business using bicycles. Because of this, most people in the USA do not use bicycles, and the situation won't be changing for as long as the law prevents sidewalk usage.

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

#255

Post by emj »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #140
randcraw wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video in the OP says it's Arizona. Or maybe more are killed there while more are simply maimed in FL. Much of the problem isn't snowbirds. It's the low rate of prosecution for vehicular manslaughter. Southern states seems especially tolerant of driver irresponsibility, perhaps because the victim is perceived as 'an outsider' -- i.e. not someone cluelessly driving a giant SUV.

Other states might be more dangerous if you take into account incidents that don't result in loss of life, but Florida has the highest rate of fatalities per 100k people. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article224923045.html "Walking may be hazardous to your health. In Florida, the risk of fatality on foot is significantly higher than in any other state. Nine of the 20 deadliest U.S. cities for pedestrians are…

No walking is NOT hazardous to you health, even if there are 10 times as many pedestrians deaths in Florida compared to Sweden it will still be a net positive to have people walking around.

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

#256

Post by emj »

clairity wrote: post #211
zanny wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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),…

Lower speed leads to fewer deaths; at ~18 mph almost no one dies, compared to 80% of pedestrians who are hit at 30 mph die. Your reasoning comes from another angle it might be correct but you can never assume people are attentive in traffic, neither pedestrians nor drivers, that's why you need rules and infrastructure that makes it possible to share the roads.

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

#257

Post by jboles »

tom_ wrote: post #238
jboles wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I nearly got hit just this morning by someone blowing through a right turn on red. If they get that close to me that I am in range to, I will hit or kick their car ;)

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

#258

Post by loeg »

magduf wrote: post #248
loeg wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a huge country and has a broad range of pedestrian/cycle-friendly infrastructure — Florida in particular is among the worst.

I think you're really whitewashing things. A better description would be that the US is a huge country with a few, select metro areas that are pedestrian/cycle-friendly (and even then, only in certain parts), while the vast majority of the country is very unfriendly to them.

I never claimed the majority of the US was great for bicycling; just that Florida was exceptionally bad. I think maybe you read more into that statement than was actually present. (I think I understand the confusion — I intended to say there was a broad range of infrastructure friendliness.)

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

#259

Post by loeg »

anonymou2 wrote: post #253
loeg wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 collisio…

No, what is good for a public health perspective is to avoid collisions (and falls which is the #1 accident with bikes). It is quite easy to avoid car-bike collisions, in fact car drivers are far more predictable than ignorant cyclists. Of course in order to do that you have to know what the most frequent type of car-bike collisions are, guess what? they are not cars hitting a bicycle from behind, they happen in inte…

Your argument hinges upon the notion that separated grades increases incidence of car-bike collision per capita. I concede that if that that core fact is true, you're correct — separate grades would be worse from a public health standpoint.

So, do you have evidence for that central claim, or is it just speculation?

Post reply on HN