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

81–90 of 262 posts

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

#81

Post by lostlogin »

maxsilver wrote: post #59
admiral_biatch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion isolating separate transportation modes is only good if it is complete isolation but that's never feasible in a city. Too expensive and space-inefficient to make every intersection collision-free for cars, bikes and pedestrians. If you separate cars, bikes and pedestrians most of the time but their paths cross at intersections then you have a problem because drivers might not expect a sudden bike lane o…

> but that's never feasible in a city. That's kind of funny to hear, because I was going to use real-world Chicago and Seoul as practical examples of this already existing in cities today. Chicago Loop has a dual-layer approach (where faster moving cars are on the ground floor, but a "second street level" is directly above them, for pedestrians + buses). It's not an exact match (cars can drive on both levels, those l…

Paris has it pretty good in the central areas. Wide roads with (outside in) footpaths, cycle lane, road, then a central section with tram, trees and garden or parking. Having massively wide roads helps.

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

#82

Post by Wowfunhappy »

mdhen wrote: post #49
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame that NYC drivers never seem to follow this. I see even commercial vehicles like trucks regularly turn on red. Although, I suppose the situation would be even worse if it wasn't outlawed...

This isn't true. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try a right on red in Manhattan and while I'm sure it happens occasionally in the boroughs I really don't ever see it. Not sure what you're talking about

Honestly not sure what to say, I see it constantly in Manhattan, as a pedestrian.

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

#83

Post by anonymou2 »

cglace wrote: post #35
junga wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The safest infrastructure are ones that split pedestrian / bicyclist / motor traffic as much as possible, for obvious reasons. Can you provide a source for this? (especially concerning the separation of bicyclists and motor traffic)

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.

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

#84

Post by lostlogin »

anonymou2 wrote: post #75
mytherin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the safest option is to separate cycle lanes from roads altogether, as is evidenced by the significantly lower death toll per km that e.g. the NL and Denmark have compared to the US [1]. In those countries, cyclists almost never share the road with car drivers. In roads that are not designed for cycling (where cyclists have to share the road with car drivers), perhaps it is true that they fare best when they act…

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?

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

#85

Post by RandallBrown »

electricslpnsld wrote: post #33
nkrisc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think right turns on red should be illegal at more intersections for this reason. At least busier ones. It's these cases where a right turner has to carefully watch for oncoming traffic that pedestrians are exactly opposite of where they're looking. God forbid you're trying to cross from the same side of the street as the right turner.

NYC outlaws rights on red unless otherwise posted and it makes life as a pedestrian so much better.

Neither pedestrians nor drivers follow traffic laws in NYC. "Go when you can, don't hit anyone" seems to be the only "rule" anyone follows. I'm continuously surprised at how well it works.

In a year of walking around midtown, I've only seen one person hit by a car and it was very much the pedestrians fault fault. They walked out from behind a hot dog stand into the street, not at a crosswalk.

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

#86

Post by anonymou2 »

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?

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.

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

#87

Post by jessaustin »

0xCMP wrote: post #73
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…

I have a personal conviction too that anywhere in South Florida which figures out how to change focus to walking/biking safely will reap very nice appreciation in real estate and taxes. Yes, the weather is very hot, but the issue is not the heat but the fact everything is so far away and there isn't a safe way either-way of getting there without a car. I'm a fan of how I understand Japanese zoning works + some of the…

https://www.thevillages.com/

Of course that's only available to Boomers. "We've ruined most of society; let's find a place we haven't touched in which to hide from the consequences!"

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

#88

Post by lostlogin »

upofadown wrote: post #55

I have personally noticed some unintended consequences due to modern auto design. The more steeply sloped windshields for better aerodynamics mean that in most cases a pedestrian can no longer see where the driver is looking. All they see is a reflection of the bright sky. The greater tendency to have smoked windows to the sides and rear just makes things worse. The flatter angle of the front A-pillars also increases…

It’s much harder to know where the car you are driving ends too. With bonnets that slope away at an increasing gradient you can’t tell. In older cars you could see the front of the vehicle you were driving. I also find my view obstructed by the wide A pillars, particularly on winding roads.

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

#89

Post by Stephen304 »

gdubs wrote: post #30

I pretty much assume that unless I make eye contact with a driver and get some kind of acknowledgement, I don’t trust that they see me. By far the closest calls I’ve had are stop signs where someone in an SUV stops, doesn’t look right or left (or worse, doesn’t look up from their phone), and then just goes. I also hate “share the road” situations where the right thing to do is take up the whole lane; drivers are almo…

Regarding "sharrows", the alternative in my area to dealing with road rage is dealing with pedestrian rage, despite the sharrows being in a part of the city where cycling on the sidewalks is also allowed (and even preferred on certain sections of "shared road" where using the road could mean crossing traffic twice to go 30 yards).

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

#90

Post by kgwxd »

I don't understand why anyone ever though walkways, bikeways and driveways should intersect without strict rights-of-way, or run parallel without actual barriers between them. In low traffic areas, fine, practicality wins, but the 8-lane roads from a decade ago have turned into 8-lanes with motorcycle lanes between them (sometimes only imaginary, but still legally real), bike lanes (sometimes not as the outer-most lane), and mid-street pedestrian crosswalks that have very confusing, seemingly optional, signaling. People sucked at driving under far simpler conditions. They still suck just as bad and new obstacles and distractions keep being introduced. Strict separation is the only sane option.
Post reply on HN