5 ms·

Both of this and the patent comment are spot on. I'm also a cyclist, and rarely drive anywhere; but with two kids it's often easier. I definitely started drivi

Both of this and the patent comment are spot on. I'm also a cyclist, and rarely drive anywhere; but with two kids it's often easier. I definitely started driving more carefully as I've gotten older, had kids... I used to drive way to fast on the highways, now I often find myself realizing that I'm driving to slowly. The big switch for me was getting rid of the urgency related to driving (I also became a safer cyclist for a similar reason, expect cars to do the wrong thing and they won't disappoint you). The idea that roads exist for cars is pervasive, and anyone who uses it for anything else is assumed to be in the wrong. Anything that slows down the cars, is the thing at fault. The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it? Try and enjoy the time you have to yourself, rather than trying to end it so quickly.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
>I used to drive way to fast on the highways, now I often find myself realizing that I'm driving to slowly. That's called getting old. >The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it? If it wasn't a pretty good trade-off less people would do it. Do you avoid swimming in the ocean because of sharks?
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  > That's called getting old. Perhaps, though I prefer to think it's being more aware of the risks. > Do you avoid swimming in the ocean because of sharks? I don't think that's a good analogy. I can't control a sharks behavior, and I specifically try to ignore the idea of them when I'm surfing. But, if there's a shark sighting that day or week at my favorite beach, yes, I'll not get in the water. In terms of driving, there's a lot more control you have over reducing the risk, than you do of a random shark getting you. Also, shark attacks happen three orders of magnitude less frequently then automobile deaths. 30-40/year vs 30,000-40,000/year in the US; yes this is partly due to more people driving, but I'll take surfing to driving any day of the week.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  "If it wasn't a pretty good trade-off less people would do it" As a counter-example, note the profound inability of most people to accurately gauge risk. Examples include: worrying about second-hand smoke outdoors, in parks, without caring about auto emissions; dedicating billions of dollars to fight terrorism and not more dangerous things like furniture tipping over; moving to the suburbs because they're perceived as safer for kids (less crime!), even when the longer commutes such a move requires put those same kids at more risk. Also, it's worth noting that risk is displaced from people in cars to other road users when people choose to drive. If you think about what someone means when they say it's dangerous to cycle, walk, or ride a motorcycle, the usual reason is that you'll get hit by a car (though in the case of motorcycle it's a bit more complex, since single vehicle crashes are common)
arkades 10y ago
> The idea that roads exist for cars is pervasive, and anyone who uses it for anything else is assumed to be in the wrong. I feel like I'm often in the minority on HN when I say this, but: roads (in car-heavy areas like the US) exist for cars. I don't say that to mean "and therefore what happens to anyone else is their own fault." I take that to mean: "and therefore proper safety requires building transportation infrastructure that properly separates modes of transportation that differ enormously in their speed, agility, and relative safety." Building bike highways physically segregated from car highways: yes! Painting white stripes on the side of the road that both cars and cyclists have to regularly violate: sadly, no.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I agree with you. But there aren't a ton of options in the short term. So widening roads, or taking away a shoulder, dedicating a lane to bikes, ideally adding at least plastics separators, worst case lines. But this means drivers giving up some of the speed/lanes to bicyclists etc.; there seem to be a lot of people who fight this.
  - arkades 10y ago
    I, personally, fight it. I'm a driver. In the past, I've been a cyclist. At other times, a pedestrian. I mean to say, I'm not saying this from the perspective of a guy who drives and has never cycled and can't empathize with people who live a different way. If my current living situation allowed me to resume cycling, I'd be happy to! But- As a driver, in NYC, bikes on the roads are incredibly dangerous to everyone involved (though, admittedly, mostly the bikers). You can't drive in the city for a day without seeing bikers regularly violating the rules of the road: wrong ways up one-way streets, jumping onto sidewalks, etc. Generally, just acting like cars when they want to, like bikes when they want to, like pedestrians when they want to. That's not why I'm against sharing the road with them! That's why I'm in favor of heavily enforcing existing laws on bike usage, with a merciless iron fist until people who ride bikes act like they understand that they're meatbags riding around in a pinball machine of 1-ton iron rockets. I'm not even against sharing a road with them because enough of them exemplify the above that all of them, as a result, are unpredictable, and unpredictability is the most dangerous thing on the road. I kind of imagine the enforcing, iron fist, etc. will take care of that eventually, too, if we actually do it. I'm against it because they're vulnerable little meatbags. A slight hiccough on the road between two iron rockets means someone's paying out an insurance premium and getting some fender repairs. The same accident with a bicyclist ends in a trip to the hospital, if not a funeral home. One person's dead, and the other is carrying the moral (and possibly legal) weight of a murder, because someone thought it was a good idea to play tag in a busy factory. My opinion may not hold across all locales: certainly I've been in cities that had far less busy roads, with far fewer and smaller cars (Europe), where this same statement does not ring true. But in NY it does! I'm sorry. If the cost of removing that ridiculous situation of danger is a short-term lack of bicycle commuting while we build responsible infrastructure, I'm OK with that. But for what it's worth, I'm also OK with kicking in my tax dollars to build that infrastructure. I'm not anti-bike, just anti-this ridiculously unsafe road interaction.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

>I used to drive way to fast on the highways, now I often find myself realizing that I'm driving to slowly. That's called getting old. >The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it? If it wasn't a pretty good trade-off less people would do it. Do you avoid swimming in the ocean because of sharks?

bluejekyll 10y ago
> That's called getting old. Perhaps, though I prefer to think it's being more aware of the risks. > Do you avoid swimming in the ocean because of sharks? I don't think that's a good analogy. I can't control a sharks behavior, and I specifically try to ignore the idea of them when I'm surfing. But, if there's a shark sighting that day or week at my favorite beach, yes, I'll not get in the water. In terms of driving, there's a lot more control you have over reducing the risk, than you do of a random shark getting you. Also, shark attacks happen three orders of magnitude less frequently then automobile deaths. 30-40/year vs 30,000-40,000/year in the US; yes this is partly due to more people driving, but I'll take surfing to driving any day of the week.
CalRobert 10y ago
"If it wasn't a pretty good trade-off less people would do it" As a counter-example, note the profound inability of most people to accurately gauge risk. Examples include: worrying about second-hand smoke outdoors, in parks, without caring about auto emissions; dedicating billions of dollars to fight terrorism and not more dangerous things like furniture tipping over; moving to the suburbs because they're perceived as safer for kids (less crime!), even when the longer commutes such a move requires put those same kids at more risk. Also, it's worth noting that risk is displaced from people in cars to other road users when people choose to drive. If you think about what someone means when they say it's dangerous to cycle, walk, or ride a motorcycle, the usual reason is that you'll get hit by a car (though in the case of motorcycle it's a bit more complex, since single vehicle crashes are common)

arkades 10y ago

> The idea that roads exist for cars is pervasive, and anyone who uses it for anything else is assumed to be in the wrong. I feel like I'm often in the minority on HN when I say this, but: roads (in car-heavy areas like the US) exist for cars. I don't say that to mean "and therefore what happens to anyone else is their own fault." I take that to mean: "and therefore proper safety requires building transportation infrastructure that properly separates modes of transportation that differ enormously in their speed, agility, and relative safety." Building bike highways physically segregated from car highways: yes! Painting white stripes on the side of the road that both cars and cyclists have to regularly violate: sadly, no.

bluejekyll 10y ago
I agree with you. But there aren't a ton of options in the short term. So widening roads, or taking away a shoulder, dedicating a lane to bikes, ideally adding at least plastics separators, worst case lines. But this means drivers giving up some of the speed/lanes to bicyclists etc.; there seem to be a lot of people who fight this.
- arkades 10y ago
  I, personally, fight it. I'm a driver. In the past, I've been a cyclist. At other times, a pedestrian. I mean to say, I'm not saying this from the perspective of a guy who drives and has never cycled and can't empathize with people who live a different way. If my current living situation allowed me to resume cycling, I'd be happy to! But- As a driver, in NYC, bikes on the roads are incredibly dangerous to everyone involved (though, admittedly, mostly the bikers). You can't drive in the city for a day without seeing bikers regularly violating the rules of the road: wrong ways up one-way streets, jumping onto sidewalks, etc. Generally, just acting like cars when they want to, like bikes when they want to, like pedestrians when they want to. That's not why I'm against sharing the road with them! That's why I'm in favor of heavily enforcing existing laws on bike usage, with a merciless iron fist until people who ride bikes act like they understand that they're meatbags riding around in a pinball machine of 1-ton iron rockets. I'm not even against sharing a road with them because enough of them exemplify the above that all of them, as a result, are unpredictable, and unpredictability is the most dangerous thing on the road. I kind of imagine the enforcing, iron fist, etc. will take care of that eventually, too, if we actually do it. I'm against it because they're vulnerable little meatbags. A slight hiccough on the road between two iron rockets means someone's paying out an insurance premium and getting some fender repairs. The same accident with a bicyclist ends in a trip to the hospital, if not a funeral home. One person's dead, and the other is carrying the moral (and possibly legal) weight of a murder, because someone thought it was a good idea to play tag in a busy factory. My opinion may not hold across all locales: certainly I've been in cities that had far less busy roads, with far fewer and smaller cars (Europe), where this same statement does not ring true. But in NY it does! I'm sorry. If the cost of removing that ridiculous situation of danger is a short-term lack of bicycle commuting while we build responsible infrastructure, I'm OK with that. But for what it's worth, I'm also OK with kicking in my tax dollars to build that infrastructure. I'm not anti-bike, just anti-this ridiculously unsafe road interaction.