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

791–800 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#791

Post by nedsma »

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

Nowadays you can buy a great bike for $1000 and be totally satisfied with it, ride it for years, or you can shell out $15000 for the top of the line model. And I'm talking about regular bikes, not e-bikes.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#793

Post by epigramx »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #695

This is why I cringe a bit at those bemoaning the horrible, awful, traumatic fate of journalism. Journalism is stupid. It always was stupid. It always will be stupid. That's not to say it has no value. But the reader has always been and always will be responsible to sift through the heaping mounds of dumb and find that value. I'm not exaggerating when I say, the New York Times, our paper of record has published some…

Let alone they are not even written by THEMSELVES half of the time. A lot of articles are literally paid ads disguised as news. Other "news" are forced by the management because it comes from their further higher ups.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#794

Post by midasz »

ta8645 wrote: post #570
bluGill wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find it interesting that no one in The Netherlands wears a helmet when cycling and yet serious cycling injuries don’t seem to be a common thing Neurosurgeons in the Netherlands disagree with this, and are begging locals to wear helmets. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/10/neurologists-launch-ca... I don't know how rates of injuries compare between countries, but that is irrelevant.

> Neurosurgeons in the Netherlands disagree with this Neurosurgeons have a very skewed view of the statistical likelihood of head injury. They see such injuries every day, and it can most definitely make them believe that the risks involved are much greater than they actually are.

Reading the article they focus on children and e-bike users. Can kinda understand it from that point, e-bikes can go abnormally fast and children are vulnerable. Would've expected the advice to also count for elderly people. I'm a 30 year old reasonably in-shape guy using a regular bike, chance that something happens to me on a bike is small and it's even smaller that I'd get really hurt by it.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#795

Post by rizach8 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #704
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 hate cycling (bicycling). Hate every aspect of it. There are ways for me to get healthy but I always prefer driving over cycling. The benefits are tremendous and not even close: - Faster for most of America, unless you're in places such as Manhattan. - Can use normal clothes, no need to specially dress up for it - Can enjoy beverages, music and audiobooks, you can do that on a bicycle but not as safe - Better quali…

"Better for knees" I am not sure that is correct? Running I understand, but on a bike, your knees are in less of a stress than even standing still.

"Not going to get robbed" In Europe this is not an issue to be honest.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#796

Post by Silverback_VII »

shard wrote: post #760
Silverback_VII wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Is that what being punk means nowadays? Being sexy, and avoiding helmets / seat belts / health insurance / vaccinations because it's security over freedom?

follow no rules except maybe your own.

The reduction of freedom has a cost as well. Not in the very visible form of shattered skulls but more hidden in the form of lives not lived and pills of various colors.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#797

Post by bluecalm »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #763
bluecalm wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're repeating the old trope that tough punishment doesn't work. Look at the theft statistics though: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/ Neither USA nor UK have tough punishment for theft. Theft is different than violent crime as that is most often caused by emotions/rage/etc. While theft is more calculated. It makes sense there is little consideration to punishment when committing the former but more…

> Aggressive policing and punishment wasn't tried yet in Western countries when it comes to theft. What is the basis for your certainty? We've done research on the subject, we know that certainty of punishment is a lot more effective than severity. Noone thinks 'ow yeah, I am gonna do a year in jail', everyone thinks they will get away. I am not against setting decoy bikes that are actually traps, but thievs will lea…

I talked to police when I and my girlfriend were victims of a robbery. I have a few friends among lawyers (judges, attorneys and prosecutors). All of them say that the reason the police don't go after theft is that even if they catch them the courts are going to release them back or slap them on the wrist. Repeated thieves only go to jail if you collect series of cases and then they are back into it after half a year or whatever sentence they get.

The paper you linked doesn't mention aggressive, proactive policing. It wasn't tried anywhere in the Western world. It mentioned punishment comparison in UK, Sweden and US and is about general crime. All those countries have similar punishment and attitude to theft. Meanwhile countries where they cut hands or has done so in recent past has very little theft.

I tend to agree it's more important to catch thieves than punish them harshly but the point is we are not doing either so I vote for people who at least acknowledge it's a problem.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#798

Post by kuschku »

nedsma wrote: post #791
dijit wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nowadays you can buy a great bike for $1000 and be totally satisfied with it, ride it for years, or you can shell out $15000 for the top of the line model. And I'm talking about regular bikes, not e-bikes.

I paid 400€ for mine and it was the most expensive bike I've ever bought. And I honestly still consider that too much.

There's people who cycle as method of transportation, and those who cycle as a sport. It's only the ones cycling as sport who need this expensive stuff.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#799

Post by reshie »

colinsane wrote: post #726
samstave wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary thing about your knowledge, is that you don't know what you don't know.

as long as you don’t know that you don’t know what you don’t know, there’s no reason to be scared. it’s only scary once you know.

true but..

it is fear of uncertainty. not knowing how to deal with something or even assess because you don't know the problem.

there is big business in people with answers as well con men.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#800

Post by kuschku »

josephcsible wrote: post #762
kennend3 wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how we can tell you are not a cyclist. It is very difficult to use the brakes and indicate a change in direction at the same time. While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle does make it hard under some conditions. Here's a question for you. If i am stopped at a red light on my bike in what is clearly a left turn lane, why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow? Cant be bothered waiti…

Would we tolerate a car on our roads with turn signals and brakes that couldn't be used at the same time?

Why should cyclists, who got the roads built in the first place, be driven from the roads by motorists?

Bicycles aren't the problem, the singular focus on cars in our societies is the real problem. Roads used to be shared between horses, carriages, bicycles, vendors, and pedestrians.

The car is a monotheistic religion, there can only be one god, the car, and you have to devote your whole life and society to it.

Post reply on HN