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

731–740 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#731

Post by danenania »

cogman10 wrote: post #584
wpietri wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think the police just don't take it very seriously. Certainly that's the case here in SF. I've reported a number of stolen bikes over the years and my impression was of massive indifference. After bike number 7 was stolen, I just gave up. A few years later I'm thinking about buying a bike again, and risk of theft is my number one concern.

Well, not to defend the police, but after a bike is stolen I don't know what you could expect them to do. Even if they had a dedicated bike recovery task force, the most they could do is visit local pawn shops and browse community marketplaces for a bike matching the description (assuming it wasn't broken down for parts). Now, before a bike is stolen, I'd expect police to actually patrol places where bikes are being…

It also seems like a good candidate for sting operations. Put expensive bikes out with flimsy locks in places with high rates of theft and have undercover officers watch them. When they're stolen, either arrest the thieves immediately or follow them for awhile to figure out who they're working for.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#732

Post by Phrodo_00 »

II2II wrote: post #697
ricardobeat wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling already has the lowest percentage of road traffic fatalities compared to other modes. The highest is pedestrians - should pedestrians wear helmets? A helmet requirement is wholly incompatible with the role of cycling in NL. You hop on a bike anywhere, regardless of what you're wearing. It's a casual transportation mode, just like walking, not a sport activity. This proposal can only make sense for people who…

> In addition, as mentioned by another commenter, when the dutch traffic rules were written decades ago, it was found that helmet usage correlated to increased accident rates - people take more risks when they feel safer, and that in turn makes pedestrians less safe. I'm probably a bit of an oddball in this respect, but I do not regard helmets as a means of preventing injury. Reducing the severity of an injury, sure,…

Yeah, a helmet could literally save your life, but it won't stop you from scrapping or broken bones.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#733

Post by mmcnl »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #701
spaetzleesser wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." that's how I felt in Munich. Bikes were everywhere and d…

As somebody living in Munich and visiting Amsterdam from time to time: Munich and Netherlands are very different. From an American perspective Munich certainly is good, but Amsterdam is still a different league. If you got the chance go there for a while.

Amsterdam is not representative of Dutch bicycle culture. Amsterdam is crowded with narrow bicycle lanes that are often shared with cars.

The great thing about the Dutch bicycle structure is that it spans the entire country. It's not just the big cities. Every city, town and village has high quality bicycle lanes. You can easily bike around the country on dedicated bicycle routes in The Netherlands.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#734

Post by crooked-v »

Agentlien wrote: post #353
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…

I live in a small town about 30km from Gothenburg, Sweden. I typically have no problem with cyclists except that there's quite a lot of them where I live staying in the middle of the road next to the broad bicycle lane and randomly darting from one side to another with no warning. I don't want to pass because they might randomly turn without looking and get run over. They're typically going at 15km/h where it's 50-60…

If they're not using the bike lane, that's almost certainly because it's unsafe in some way that you're totally overlooking. No cyclist wants to be on the same road as cars.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#735

Post by inerte »

DoubleFree wrote: post #194
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 "…

I remember I learned this on a "Not Just Bikes" YouTube video, but I can't find it now, but it blew my mind how simple intentional things make a huge difference. It was about the car lane, curb, and where people bike/walk in the Netherlands.

In most countries, the car lane is lower than the sidewalk, and when they have to turn, the lane doesn't change - no bumps, or elevation. A pedestrian / cyclist going from their space into the car lane has to usually face a down slope, so it's very clear the person is entering another area.

In at least this Netherlands city or video I watched, Not Just Bikes talked about how over there the car goes into ascent, as in, the car is entering the bicycle space. So it's not as smooth, or convenient, or the same mental model as the other way.

edit: found the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OfBpQgLXUc

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#736

Post by brewdad »

sirmarksalot wrote: post #674
celtain wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A helmet requirement is wholly incompatible with the role of cycling in NL. You hop on a bike anywhere, regardless of what you're wearing. I don't really understand this. I keep my helmet clipped to my handlebars, so if I have my bike, I have my helmet. Is it really so much of an inconvenience? I'm sympathetic to the overall anti-helmet-requirement position, even seemingly trivial concerns like "it messes up my hair…

Living in a city, the idea of leaving anything of value on your bike, and expecting it to still be there when you get back is completely foreign to me. When I visited Amsterdam, I even had the seat stolen off my rental bike. Biking in the states means carrying a helmet inside with you everywhere you go, and it absolutely sucks.

When I visited Copenhagen a few years ago, most of the bikes I saw were either unlocked or locked to themselves to prevent riding off but not carrying away. It was rather shocking.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#737

Post by Jsharm »

My bike was stolen on Monday and I'm honestly still grieving the loss. A bike is more than just transport, it's freedom, exercise and a million times better at clearing your head than any other mode of commute.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#738

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

Indeed, many people now don't know that the rise of the bicycle predated rise of the car by a couple decades so people complaining about bicycles were also complaining about changes in the pace of life.

And generally new tech and new ways of living have gone together and so people who don't like a new order naturally use the tech as a short-hand and indeed simplify the situation imagine it the cause. And, of course, various new orders have always had desirable and undesirable qualities (from most points of view) and reducing the changes to the tech isn't correct, the tech is often necessary.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#739

Post by naltun »

Silverback_VII wrote: post #720
antihero wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never used to wear a helmet, and I don’t think anyone should be forced to, but countless anecdotes about people being in comas and becoming permanently brain damaged due to no-fault accidents, combined with peer pressure from everyone I know, and finding one I don’t actively despise the look of, means that now I do. If I’m going grocery shopping I simply don’t take it off in the shop. I’ve incorporated it into my o…

>I’ve incorporated it into my own punk self-image maximum conformity punk? Helmets signal the choice for security over freedom which is simply not sexy. Moreover it signals your own inability to ride a bike and to recognise/avoid dangers rapidly. Just compare images of cyclists with and without helmet. Helmets are for children only.

Do you actually believe everything you just said? I can't tell if /s or not.
Post reply on HN