7 ms·

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

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.

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.