[HN Gopher] You're a cyclist who was just struck by a car driver...
___________________________________________________________________
You're a cyclist who was just struck by a car driver. Why it was
your fault
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 48 points
Date : 2023-08-15 22:15 UTC (45 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mcsweeneys.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mcsweeneys.net)
| tester756 wrote:
| I love cycling, but I really struggle to understand why do people
| cycle on main roads when there are bike roads here.
|
| Ok, maybe it is not always fancy asphalt but paving for some
| parts of the whole route, but still - it is way, way safer.
|
| I really rarely touch main roads. Like out of 1.5h trip I'm on
| main road maybe for 2mins at best.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| It will strongly depend on the area you live in. It a lot of
| places there might not be better options. But if there are, I
| would definitely agree with you and prefer the bike road
| tester756 wrote:
| I'm talking about area where bike roads are available and go
| thru meadows, hundreds of meters away from main roads.
| timeon wrote:
| Meadows are nice for weekend ride. When you commute you
| need road that goes straight - which is usually main road.
| kpennell wrote:
| Great question! Cyclists ride on the main roads because in many
| places, we have the right to. Literally the law states in many
| places that 'cyclists may use full lane'. We also do so because
| you're more likely to get hit by cars turning or pulling out or
| opening their door when you ride on the sidewalk. You're far
| more visible and predictable when you take the lane.
|
| I'm not sure where you're from so this answer comes from more
| of a USA perspective. In places like Copenhagen/Amsterdam, it's
| almost always easier/safer to just ride in the bike lane
| because they are so amazingly well made. But in most other
| places, you sometimes need to take the lane. Car drivers should
| be more grateful. We're taking cars off the road and reducing
| auto traffic.
| tester756 wrote:
| >we have the right to.
|
| Well, people have rights to do many things, it itself doesn't
| make it safe and I've been just talking about safety.
|
| >We also do so because you're more likely to get hit by cars
| turning or pulling out or opening their door when you ride on
| the sidewalk.
|
| I meant something like bike roads that go thru meadows far
| from any cars.
| dijit wrote:
| unrelated to your point but its worth noting that some of the
| first cycle lanes to be introduced in London were done so with
| the intention of eventually banning bikes from the roads
| entirely and then letting the lanes rot or get repurposed.
| pastage wrote:
| I only bike on paths as well, but that does make it
| considerably slower to get to places. Sharing with cars is
| usually safer/faster, given that you handle intersections and
| HGV ok.
| Guvante wrote:
| I live in SoCal and it is either 5.2 mi to my destination on
| roads or 3.6 mi on roads and 2.4 mi on bike paths...
|
| Going almost a mile out of the way to have less than half the
| trip on a bike path isn't a great combination.
| hackan wrote:
| Excellent! Nowadays, cities are more and more built exclusively
| for cars. Not even sidewalks! Insane... How someone would dare to
| challenge the neverloving rule of the almighty Car!
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| Well, in US cities it's possibly for acting like they are cars on
| the road. Several states grant some right for cyclists to travel
| in lanes with cars, but in practice that's absurd. It slows down
| traffic (to which they defend by saying there is no minimum speed
| limit), and causes other problems. When you have a frail bicycle
| riding amongst numerous cars trying to keep up, or inciting rage
| and causing problems by not being able to, of course there will
| be accidents.
|
| Things won't get better until cities invest in infrastructure
| like EU cities have, firm bike lanes and bike infrastructure that
| is not shared with cars.
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| I am of the believe that it is only a matter of time before any
| bike rider gets hit. Drivers are mostly in the look out for other
| cars not bikes or for that matter pedestrians. It's hard for our
| brains to constantly be on the look out for bikes and cars at the
| same time. What ever happens maybe the car driver's fault, even
| 100% of the time, but ultimately cars are much more powerful than
| bikes so the bike riders will always lose by getting hurt.
|
| The best advice I can give is to only ride bikes on dedicated
| areas for bikes riding. Riding any where else is just asking for
| trouble.
| kpennell wrote:
| If you read the comments on any reel/post about cycling on
| Instagram, you really get a sense of how many people actually
| think about cyclists. I've seen comments like 'cyclists are
| subhuman' or other ones gets thousands and thousands of
| favorites. People really are in a hurry now and cyclists are just
| something to barely dodge for many of them. And even when
| cyclists get hit/killed, 25% of the time the driver doesn't stop.
| Cyclists (in many place) are basically sacrificing their lives to
| try to help build critical mass for what should be a more
| standard way of getting around.
|
| Cycling is more pro-social, better for the environment, takes up
| less space on the roads and for parking, and also helps against
| the obesity crisis. It should not be so dangerous in so many
| places.
| twoodfin wrote:
| This is not up to the humor standards I expect from the website
| _mcsweeneys.net_.
| jasonjamerson wrote:
| Not as clever as the usual fare there, but the issue is valid.
|
| Unfortunately drivers are so checked out, starting even before
| cell phones, that safe biking probably means a future with good
| self driving cars.
| nimbleplum40 wrote:
| Replacing all cars with self driving cars is a lot more
| expensive than just adding proper bike infrastructure.
| fooker wrote:
| A space program is a lot more expensive than either.
|
| Why do we have one?
| zht wrote:
| unless if a space program came out of city budgets I am
| unsure why this is relevant
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The NASA budget is $25B. It'd cost a _lot_ more than $25B
| to put in proper bike infrastructure in every city.
| brailsafe wrote:
| That's why there are multiple levels of government with
| their own funding sources
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| Or you know... Public transportation. Electric trains,
| electric buses using overhead cables, etc. We could probably
| take over 1 lane on every interstate and replace it with a
| train going that direction. The amount of utility that could
| provide is vastly superior to some mystical self driving open
| world car system. It's something we can do right now with the
| money and will power and modern technology
| sacrosancty wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| It's not even just driver inattention/distraction in general
| (which is also a problem), it's also that the attention they
| are paying to the road is overwhelmingly focused on recognizing
| and predicting the movement of other motor vehicles. So much so
| that in some cases, they will functionally "not see" a cyclist
| or pedestrian directly in their line of sight [1].
|
| [1] https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20043758/drivers-dont-see-
| cy...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-15 23:00 UTC)