17 ms·

I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. In my town we really only have bike lanes on the two main roads that go

by zo7 10y ago

I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. In my town we really only have bike lanes on the two main roads that go up and down the bulk of the city, and they ride dangerously close to lines of parked cars. I was riding downhill once when someone opened their door in front of me without looking -- luckily I managed to get past, but had they opened it a few moments earlier I would've slammed into it and possibly fallen into traffic. Another time I was riding down a street without a bike lane. There was a row of parked cars on the side so I was rode roughly a door's length away from them, enough to keep me safe but taking on enough of the lane that other drivers wouldn't be able to pass without driving in the opposite lane. I hear a car suddenly rev up behind me and blare their horn as they sped past, sideswiping me and almost knocking me off my bike. I managed to confront the driver at the next intersection, "Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was" (he had two kids in the car too) Cones are a smart way of tricking people into respecting these boundaries, but I wonder how long it'll be until drivers start violating them when they realize they're not official or the city starts removing them. In the meantime I might get my own cones though...

shard972 10y ago
As a driver it's the main reason I refuse to ride a bike, I don't want to die. Even here in perth that is generally trying to help bike riders I just don't see how it's safe to ride around at 20-30km when the speed limit is 70km and there isn't enough room to overtake without going into the other lane. I just don't see how you can be safe when people are trying to overtake you in giant utes going twice your speed trying to get home/to work.
- steveax 10y ago
  How about as a driver, you don't pass cyclists when it's not safe?
  - apathy 10y ago
    Hard to blame non cyclists, they just have no fucking idea. Once you've seen it from the other side of the barrel it's hard to remember how you saw it beforehand.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      It is not hard to blame drivers here in NSW because it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. Nobody ever gets fined though, cyclists still just get killed.
      - apathy 10y ago
        Gah. I'm sorry. That sucks.
  - dpark 10y ago
    1) Why do you assume he's passing cyclists when it's not safe? 2) It doesn't help unless all drivers do this, which they don't, which is the problem and the point.
    - steveax 10y ago
      I probably could have been clearer, but my "as a driver..." Was not meant to single the poster out individually, but to apply broadly to all drivers. Many drivers seem to feel that it's their God given right to pass whenever they want to.
      - shard972 10y ago
        I grew up in NSW where cyclists were not allowed to ride on the footpath (even though nobody uses them on the central coast) and I always made sure to overtake using another lane or if the cyclist had his own clearance on the side to ride in.
  - wwalser 10y ago
    This person never said that they did pass cyclists while it's unsafe. They only perfectly described what actually does happen. As someone who commuted via cycling daily in Sydney for several years, "I just don't see how you can be safe when…" perfectly reflects my own opinion on the matter. It wasn't safe and I could not be safe and I couldn't imagine how I could be safe. I just chose to do it anyway because it was better for me physically (so no as it wasn't suddenly deadly), the environment and it was faster. One ought to be able to describe shitty reality without others supposing that they support said shitty reality.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  In NSW it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. I ride to work, and every single day people ignore that rule. I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our police/government just doesn't care, and attitudes like yours don't help. Cycling on the road is legal and until it isn't, just saying, "I don't see how it's safe" is irrelevant. I also drive, but I'm capable of not losing my mind and putting other people's lives in danger to save a few seconds on my trip. If another road user is going too slow for you, you need to suck it up and find a safe, legal place to overtake.
  - wwalser 10y ago
    I don't anymore, relocated, but I did commute for years in Sydney and I couldn't find a trace of unhelpful attitude in this person's post. They just stated facts. Didn't say that they agreed or disagreed. They didn't say that they passed people in an unsafe way or that they felt the need to or desire to. They just said that _people_ do. Which is true. We've both experienced it… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      Reading it back, I did sound overly aggressive to the poster. I didn't mean that. The attitude I was talking about is, "I don't see how it's safe because drivers can't get past". The way I see it, the only ones in the wrong in that situation are the impatient drivers who are breaking the law by trying to pass when it is not legal or safe. The main reason cycling isn't safe is because drivers are overtaking unsafely when they might be delayed by a cyclist. People seem to think that it's acceptable for drivers to break road laws just because they are being inconvenienced. This behaviour is not acceptable, and indeed is illegal (although unfortunately not enforced - thanks for protecting our safety NSWPolice!). The post I was replying to made no mention of the fact that drivers are meant to exhibit some semblance of patience from time to time, and seemed to be saying that cyclists are unsafe on the road because they can't maintain a 70kph speed, when in reality cyclists are unsafe because drivers are breaking the law.
      - 10y ago
- pacala 10y ago
  The speed differential is what make me scratch my head as well, from both safety and traffic engineering perspective. In the USA lots of mountain highways have turnouts and "Slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs [0]. On the flip side, once in a city, a single cyclist is entitled to slow down everybody else, traffic fluidity be damned. [0] http://www.aaroads.com/forum/?topic=12036.0 http://www.aaroads.com/forum/?topic=12036.0
  - jacalata 10y ago
    It's not "on the flip side" at all. On a highway, a cyclist and other slow vehicles are obligated to use the turnouts. But in the city, there are no turnouts or "slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs. So cyclists and other slow vehicles are not obligated to use non existent turnouts there. Why don't you complain about giant slow trucks not using imaginary turnouts in the city as "the flip side"?
    - Anasufovic 10y ago
      Yes, and there is quite a big difference between highways and city driving. In the city you are just racing to the next stop, even if it took a whole 10 seconds until it was safe to pass the cyclist. How long is one red light?
    - Asooka 10y ago
      Aren't cyclists and other vehicles that can't sustain a minimum speed of 40mph not allowed on highways? In Europe there's a minimum speed you need to drive at on the highway and you're not allowed otherwise.
- aoloe 10y ago
  This post shows two huge flaws in the way car traffic works: - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I don't own a car but sometimes have a ride with other people and it's scary to notice how aggressive some people are towards the other road users. And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones. But luckily, there are also very cool drivers!
  - shard972 10y ago
    > - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! Sure that's fine but when 1 lane is going 70 and another 30 for whatever reason you have an objectively more dangerous situation. You can't just expect people to sit and in the 30 lane, be happy and not try and pull out in front of others to get into the fast lane. > - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I would say that most people see elderly/drunk/wtf drivers who drive around well under the speed limit as obstacles too. Have you ever tried driving home after work at half the speed limit? I haven't but from my limit experience seeing others do it you don't exactly get a nice reaction from people. We can sit around saying how unfair, dehumanising and whatnot it is to people to see cyclists as an obstacle but I don't see how you can just stamp that out without real changes to how the system currently works, I just don't see how logically the culture can change without an complete overhaul in values. > And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones. To be honest, the aggressive drivers aren't the scariest, it's the clueless ones that are much more scarier. They sit in lanes daydreaming until the realize they need to move somewhere and just make it happen, merge now, blinker in a second then check my blind spot. Fast drivers usually have much better awareness of who is around them and because of that do stupid things which can end up bad, most accidents though are caused through negligence rather than fast drivers.
    - aoloe 10y ago
      Sorry to tell you, but you're 100% confirming my opinion. Drivers as you (I suppose you are describing the way you're driving), are in my eyes the most dangerous on the street. They probably won't be causing the most accidents directly, but they put other people under stress and push them not to respect their own limits. We have more and more elderly people who need to be active in the society and also more and more people who only drive a car a few times a year. And when you will get older (and it will happen! believe me!), you will still want to drive a car and you will have the same attitude my mother has: driving too fast, because she does not want to feel like an obstacle. But you will not be driving as well as in the good old times. Anyway, statistics don't lie: 93% of the US drivers seem to consider themselves better than average... (says Wikipedia)
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  Yet I don't think that's where the accidents happen, the biggest risk for cyclists seems to be traffic (in particular lorries) turning into and out of junctions.
apathy 10y ago
I've biked to work in New York, SF, and LA for years. The only reason I don't still do so daily is that I got lazy (I suck). Most cities have ways to make it safer if you're clever (LA in particular has bikeways along its rivers). SF is a "plaintiff friendly jurisdiction" as the phrase goes, but I've had knives and guns pulled on me there too (usually for having the nerve to ask "WTF" after being doored). I'm not happy it's this way but if everyone gives up and decides to be a puss, nothing will change. I was listening to a guy in Zimbabwe who got beaten for years trying simply to mobilize nonviolent protests against the wicked Mugabe regime. We have it so easy in the US, it's kind of shameful to give up. YMMV (yes, ha ha only serious).
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  You've had guns pulled on you for riding a push bike? Only in America. The worst I ever got when I rode my bike (I also got lazy) was a driver threatening to beat me up (while his wife and kids were in the car) after I had the nerve to turn from the turning lane at the traffic lights. On the other side, my brother pulled a screwdriver on a cyclist once (he's a real piece of work).
  - wwalser 10y ago
    Pulling a gun is one thing. Actually pulling the trigger though? Four whole months in prison… http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-days-for-shooting-cyclist-in-the-head/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-...
    - toomanybeersies 10y ago
      I feel like you are living in bizzaro-land over there, where you can get life in prison without parole for stealing a pair of socks [0], yet shoot someone in the head and get 4 months. Deal a couple of rocks and get 42 years in federal prison [1], rip off millions of dollars from thousands of people, get off scot-free. [0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-... [1] http://famm.org/atiba-parker/ http://famm.org/atiba-parker/
paulcole 10y ago
>I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. That's why everyone should try it! To understand that it's not that scary and to better understand their responsibilities as an automobile driver.
bigiain 10y ago
"Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was" And people wonder why revenge fantasy is so appealing: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mjh/spike.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mjh/spike.html (I would have at least turned to the kids and said "Hey did you hear that? Your Dad's an asshole!")
- elygre 10y ago
  It's copyright 1989, but has "House Speaker Trump" as one of the villains!
- prawn 10y ago
  I wouldn't antagonise someone who'd just tried to kill me. Not sure of phrasing that would get the guy to change his attitude, but I don't think involving his kids would get the best response.
  - bigiain 10y ago
    When he's a big brave "motorists activist" while wrapped in and (barely) in control of a ton of metal cage doing 30mph, sure. But when he's stopped at a light and you're beside him in a position his weapon cannot be easily aimed? They're _mostly_ pretty soft and pathetic and mouthy. I often quite enjoy antagonising them into a frothing rage. (Note: this is a point of view from a country where they're spectacularly unlikely to be carrying a firearm or even a knife, ymmv…)
    - zo7 10y ago
      Yeah, after that I told him (as calmly as I could coming off the adrenaline from almost getting hit) something to the effect of "You have your kids with you, I'm just trying to get home like you and I'm required to ride on the road". He actually shut up and apologized pretty quickly.
santaclaus 10y ago
> I managed to confront the driver at the next intersection, "Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was" (he had two kids in the car too) Even in the fairly bike friendly city of Portland, OR I've had drivers harass me. I had a dude nearly clip me, pull a u-turn at the next intersection, come back around, turn around again, and tailgate me while blaring his horn. He rolls down his window, yells at me for riding on the road (I was in a bike lane), all the while his family is in the car...
- zo7 10y ago
  Damn... I can't imagine the mindset people need to get that angry at people passively going their own way.
cmurf 10y ago
I've had bad experiences with maybe 1:1000 drivers. But when it's bad, it's really bad. I've had the same exact, "Do you know you're going to get someone killed driving like that?" Followed by, "Good. I hope you all die." WITH A KID IN THE CAR!
pif 10y ago
> I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. The only times I saw cyclists in a risky position, they were not respecting neither driving code nor common sense (ex: overtaking on the wrong side, in a narrow space between moving cars and pavement, at an unreasonable speed; or the more classical: ignoring red lights, priorities or forbidden directions).
- collyw 10y ago
  There is evidence to suggest that running red lights is safer for cyclists. I certainly feel safer when I get a head start and get ahead of the traffic in town. http://www.rudi.net/node/16395 http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
  - pif 10y ago
    I'll add an advice to the final list: don't overtake a motorized vehicle at a shorter lateral distance than what you'd accept where the vehicle overtaking you.
  - pif 10y ago
    I'm sincerely sorry for the people who died in those accidents, but the only evidence I found in the article is that queuing behind a lorry would have prevented all of them.
    - usrusr 10y ago
      Would you also suggest queuing behind a lorry while on a bike lane? That's where "our" (where I live) numerous turning-lorry victims get killed. Nearly without exception slow, defensive cyclists (as far for from the lycra crowd as possible, you can get a pretty good idea what type of cyclist they were from pictures of the maimed remains of the bike) who would not have enough velocity to serve laterally faster than the truck. More aggressive cyclists survive by carefully modulating speed so that they never next to a potentially turning vehicle at the critical point. (Which btw means that they will go through the same "dark amber" lights as the car next to them, because that is where all attention goes in the final approach). The main problem with trucks are not their huge blind spots, but that the rules of physics require them to start their turn very late in the intersection. If you ignore the turn signal (or the driver did not set it) they will look like going straight for a very long time. It's just a very, very good trap (except when the driver yields, as law would require). This trap is also a good illustration of the general "attractivity" of red lights for cyclists: crossing traffic (that would kill you if ignored) is a lot more predictable than turning traffic (that can kill you without warning). Personally, I tend to consider red lights a welcome opportunity to catch my breath while noone is trying to kill me. If on pole position in the bike lane, I will prepare to sprint ahead of turners (cars are whales, as correctly observed somewhere else I'm this discussion), or stare at the bumper ahead of me just like everybody else (I could look farther ahead, but the latency between "starting soon" and "starting now" would drive me mad)
pif 10y ago
> Cones are a smart way ... Cones will keep you near the parked cars, too.
luca_ing 10y ago
> I was riding downhill once when someone opened their door in front of me without looking -- luckily I managed to get past, but had they opened it a few moments earlier I would've slammed into it and possibly fallen into traffic. A friend's ex-wife killed a cyclist by carelessly opening the door and hitting them. Not even another vehicle involved, they just collided with the door or the ground in a very unfortunate way.
Asooka 10y ago
If you had recorded that exchange, can't you sue him for attempted homicide and endangering the lives of minors?

by zo7 10y ago

shard972 10y ago

As a driver it's the main reason I refuse to ride a bike, I don't want to die. Even here in perth that is generally trying to help bike riders I just don't see how it's safe to ride around at 20-30km when the speed limit is 70km and there isn't enough room to overtake without going into the other lane. I just don't see how you can be safe when people are trying to overtake you in giant utes going twice your speed trying to get home/to work.

steveax 10y ago
How about as a driver, you don't pass cyclists when it's not safe?
- apathy 10y ago
  Hard to blame non cyclists, they just have no fucking idea. Once you've seen it from the other side of the barrel it's hard to remember how you saw it beforehand.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    It is not hard to blame drivers here in NSW because it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. Nobody ever gets fined though, cyclists still just get killed.
    - apathy 10y ago
      Gah. I'm sorry. That sucks.
- dpark 10y ago
  1) Why do you assume he's passing cyclists when it's not safe? 2) It doesn't help unless all drivers do this, which they don't, which is the problem and the point.
  - steveax 10y ago
    I probably could have been clearer, but my "as a driver..." Was not meant to single the poster out individually, but to apply broadly to all drivers. Many drivers seem to feel that it's their God given right to pass whenever they want to.
    - shard972 10y ago
      I grew up in NSW where cyclists were not allowed to ride on the footpath (even though nobody uses them on the central coast) and I always made sure to overtake using another lane or if the cyclist had his own clearance on the side to ride in.
- wwalser 10y ago
  This person never said that they did pass cyclists while it's unsafe. They only perfectly described what actually does happen. As someone who commuted via cycling daily in Sydney for several years, "I just don't see how you can be safe when…" perfectly reflects my own opinion on the matter. It wasn't safe and I could not be safe and I couldn't imagine how I could be safe. I just chose to do it anyway because it was better for me physically (so no as it wasn't suddenly deadly), the environment and it was faster. One ought to be able to describe shitty reality without others supposing that they support said shitty reality.
brokenmachine 10y ago
In NSW it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. I ride to work, and every single day people ignore that rule. I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our police/government just doesn't care, and attitudes like yours don't help. Cycling on the road is legal and until it isn't, just saying, "I don't see how it's safe" is irrelevant. I also drive, but I'm capable of not losing my mind and putting other people's lives in danger to save a few seconds on my trip. If another road user is going too slow for you, you need to suck it up and find a safe, legal place to overtake.
- wwalser 10y ago
  I don't anymore, relocated, but I did commute for years in Sydney and I couldn't find a trace of unhelpful attitude in this person's post. They just stated facts. Didn't say that they agreed or disagreed. They didn't say that they passed people in an unsafe way or that they felt the need to or desire to. They just said that _people_ do. Which is true. We've both experienced it… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    Reading it back, I did sound overly aggressive to the poster. I didn't mean that. The attitude I was talking about is, "I don't see how it's safe because drivers can't get past". The way I see it, the only ones in the wrong in that situation are the impatient drivers who are breaking the law by trying to pass when it is not legal or safe. The main reason cycling isn't safe is because drivers are overtaking unsafely when they might be delayed by a cyclist. People seem to think that it's acceptable for drivers to break road laws just because they are being inconvenienced. This behaviour is not acceptable, and indeed is illegal (although unfortunately not enforced - thanks for protecting our safety NSWPolice!). The post I was replying to made no mention of the fact that drivers are meant to exhibit some semblance of patience from time to time, and seemed to be saying that cyclists are unsafe on the road because they can't maintain a 70kph speed, when in reality cyclists are unsafe because drivers are breaking the law.
    - 10y ago
pacala 10y ago
The speed differential is what make me scratch my head as well, from both safety and traffic engineering perspective. In the USA lots of mountain highways have turnouts and "Slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs [0]. On the flip side, once in a city, a single cyclist is entitled to slow down everybody else, traffic fluidity be damned. [0] http://www.aaroads.com/forum/?topic=12036.0 http://www.aaroads.com/forum/?topic=12036.0
- jacalata 10y ago
  It's not "on the flip side" at all. On a highway, a cyclist and other slow vehicles are obligated to use the turnouts. But in the city, there are no turnouts or "slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs. So cyclists and other slow vehicles are not obligated to use non existent turnouts there. Why don't you complain about giant slow trucks not using imaginary turnouts in the city as "the flip side"?
  - Anasufovic 10y ago
    Yes, and there is quite a big difference between highways and city driving. In the city you are just racing to the next stop, even if it took a whole 10 seconds until it was safe to pass the cyclist. How long is one red light?
  - Asooka 10y ago
    Aren't cyclists and other vehicles that can't sustain a minimum speed of 40mph not allowed on highways? In Europe there's a minimum speed you need to drive at on the highway and you're not allowed otherwise.
aoloe 10y ago
This post shows two huge flaws in the way car traffic works: - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I don't own a car but sometimes have a ride with other people and it's scary to notice how aggressive some people are towards the other road users. And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones. But luckily, there are also very cool drivers!
- shard972 10y ago
  > - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! Sure that's fine but when 1 lane is going 70 and another 30 for whatever reason you have an objectively more dangerous situation. You can't just expect people to sit and in the 30 lane, be happy and not try and pull out in front of others to get into the fast lane. > - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I would say that most people see elderly/drunk/wtf drivers who drive around well under the speed limit as obstacles too. Have you ever tried driving home after work at half the speed limit? I haven't but from my limit experience seeing others do it you don't exactly get a nice reaction from people. We can sit around saying how unfair, dehumanising and whatnot it is to people to see cyclists as an obstacle but I don't see how you can just stamp that out without real changes to how the system currently works, I just don't see how logically the culture can change without an complete overhaul in values. > And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones. To be honest, the aggressive drivers aren't the scariest, it's the clueless ones that are much more scarier. They sit in lanes daydreaming until the realize they need to move somewhere and just make it happen, merge now, blinker in a second then check my blind spot. Fast drivers usually have much better awareness of who is around them and because of that do stupid things which can end up bad, most accidents though are caused through negligence rather than fast drivers.
  - aoloe 10y ago
    Sorry to tell you, but you're 100% confirming my opinion. Drivers as you (I suppose you are describing the way you're driving), are in my eyes the most dangerous on the street. They probably won't be causing the most accidents directly, but they put other people under stress and push them not to respect their own limits. We have more and more elderly people who need to be active in the society and also more and more people who only drive a car a few times a year. And when you will get older (and it will happen! believe me!), you will still want to drive a car and you will have the same attitude my mother has: driving too fast, because she does not want to feel like an obstacle. But you will not be driving as well as in the good old times. Anyway, statistics don't lie: 93% of the US drivers seem to consider themselves better than average... (says Wikipedia)
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
Yet I don't think that's where the accidents happen, the biggest risk for cyclists seems to be traffic (in particular lorries) turning into and out of junctions.

apathy 10y ago

I've biked to work in New York, SF, and LA for years. The only reason I don't still do so daily is that I got lazy (I suck). Most cities have ways to make it safer if you're clever (LA in particular has bikeways along its rivers). SF is a "plaintiff friendly jurisdiction" as the phrase goes, but I've had knives and guns pulled on me there too (usually for having the nerve to ask "WTF" after being doored). I'm not happy it's this way but if everyone gives up and decides to be a puss, nothing will change. I was listening to a guy in Zimbabwe who got beaten for years trying simply to mobilize nonviolent protests against the wicked Mugabe regime. We have it so easy in the US, it's kind of shameful to give up. YMMV (yes, ha ha only serious).

toomanybeersies 10y ago
You've had guns pulled on you for riding a push bike? Only in America. The worst I ever got when I rode my bike (I also got lazy) was a driver threatening to beat me up (while his wife and kids were in the car) after I had the nerve to turn from the turning lane at the traffic lights. On the other side, my brother pulled a screwdriver on a cyclist once (he's a real piece of work).
- wwalser 10y ago
  Pulling a gun is one thing. Actually pulling the trigger though? Four whole months in prison… http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-days-for-shooting-cyclist-in-the-head/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-...
  - toomanybeersies 10y ago
    I feel like you are living in bizzaro-land over there, where you can get life in prison without parole for stealing a pair of socks [0], yet shoot someone in the head and get 4 months. Deal a couple of rocks and get 42 years in federal prison [1], rip off millions of dollars from thousands of people, get off scot-free. [0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-... [1] http://famm.org/atiba-parker/ http://famm.org/atiba-parker/

paulcole 10y ago

>I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. That's why everyone should try it! To understand that it's not that scary and to better understand their responsibilities as an automobile driver.

bigiain 10y ago

"Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was" And people wonder why revenge fantasy is so appealing: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mjh/spike.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mjh/spike.html (I would have at least turned to the kids and said "Hey did you hear that? Your Dad's an asshole!")

elygre 10y ago
It's copyright 1989, but has "House Speaker Trump" as one of the villains!
prawn 10y ago
I wouldn't antagonise someone who'd just tried to kill me. Not sure of phrasing that would get the guy to change his attitude, but I don't think involving his kids would get the best response.
- bigiain 10y ago
  When he's a big brave "motorists activist" while wrapped in and (barely) in control of a ton of metal cage doing 30mph, sure. But when he's stopped at a light and you're beside him in a position his weapon cannot be easily aimed? They're _mostly_ pretty soft and pathetic and mouthy. I often quite enjoy antagonising them into a frothing rage. (Note: this is a point of view from a country where they're spectacularly unlikely to be carrying a firearm or even a knife, ymmv…)
  - zo7 10y ago
    Yeah, after that I told him (as calmly as I could coming off the adrenaline from almost getting hit) something to the effect of "You have your kids with you, I'm just trying to get home like you and I'm required to ride on the road". He actually shut up and apologized pretty quickly.

santaclaus 10y ago

> I managed to confront the driver at the next intersection, "Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was" (he had two kids in the car too) Even in the fairly bike friendly city of Portland, OR I've had drivers harass me. I had a dude nearly clip me, pull a u-turn at the next intersection, come back around, turn around again, and tailgate me while blaring his horn. He rolls down his window, yells at me for riding on the road (I was in a bike lane), all the while his family is in the car...

zo7 10y ago
Damn... I can't imagine the mindset people need to get that angry at people passively going their own way.

cmurf 10y ago

I've had bad experiences with maybe 1:1000 drivers. But when it's bad, it's really bad. I've had the same exact, "Do you know you're going to get someone killed driving like that?" Followed by, "Good. I hope you all die." WITH A KID IN THE CAR!

pif 10y ago

> I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. The only times I saw cyclists in a risky position, they were not respecting neither driving code nor common sense (ex: overtaking on the wrong side, in a narrow space between moving cars and pavement, at an unreasonable speed; or the more classical: ignoring red lights, priorities or forbidden directions).

collyw 10y ago
There is evidence to suggest that running red lights is safer for cyclists. I certainly feel safer when I get a head start and get ahead of the traffic in town. http://www.rudi.net/node/16395 http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
- pif 10y ago
  I'll add an advice to the final list: don't overtake a motorized vehicle at a shorter lateral distance than what you'd accept where the vehicle overtaking you.
- pif 10y ago
  I'm sincerely sorry for the people who died in those accidents, but the only evidence I found in the article is that queuing behind a lorry would have prevented all of them.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    Would you also suggest queuing behind a lorry while on a bike lane? That's where "our" (where I live) numerous turning-lorry victims get killed. Nearly without exception slow, defensive cyclists (as far for from the lycra crowd as possible, you can get a pretty good idea what type of cyclist they were from pictures of the maimed remains of the bike) who would not have enough velocity to serve laterally faster than the truck. More aggressive cyclists survive by carefully modulating speed so that they never next to a potentially turning vehicle at the critical point. (Which btw means that they will go through the same "dark amber" lights as the car next to them, because that is where all attention goes in the final approach). The main problem with trucks are not their huge blind spots, but that the rules of physics require them to start their turn very late in the intersection. If you ignore the turn signal (or the driver did not set it) they will look like going straight for a very long time. It's just a very, very good trap (except when the driver yields, as law would require). This trap is also a good illustration of the general "attractivity" of red lights for cyclists: crossing traffic (that would kill you if ignored) is a lot more predictable than turning traffic (that can kill you without warning). Personally, I tend to consider red lights a welcome opportunity to catch my breath while noone is trying to kill me. If on pole position in the bike lane, I will prepare to sprint ahead of turners (cars are whales, as correctly observed somewhere else I'm this discussion), or stare at the bumper ahead of me just like everybody else (I could look farther ahead, but the latency between "starting soon" and "starting now" would drive me mad)

pif 10y ago

> Cones are a smart way ... Cones will keep you near the parked cars, too.

luca_ing 10y ago

> I was riding downhill once when someone opened their door in front of me without looking -- luckily I managed to get past, but had they opened it a few moments earlier I would've slammed into it and possibly fallen into traffic. A friend's ex-wife killed a cyclist by carelessly opening the door and hitting them. Not even another vehicle involved, they just collided with the door or the ground in a very unfortunate way.

Asooka 10y ago

If you had recorded that exchange, can't you sue him for attempted homicide and endangering the lives of minors?