7 ms·

There's a paywall, so im missing some context, but seeing what I see every day from cyclists, which can best be surmised as "I'm a car when it's convenient, I'm

There's a paywall, so im missing some context, but seeing what I see every day from cyclists, which can best be surmised as "I'm a car when it's convenient, I'm a person when it's convenient," I'm hesitant to chalk cyclist incidents up to something more than hubris.

imgabe 7y ago
A cyclist is neither a car or a pedestrian. They are a cyclist. There are more than 2 kinds of things.
journalctl 7y ago
Maybe because roads are designed without cyclists in mind, so sometimes you’re forced to be a car, and sometimes you’re forced to be a pedestrian. I bike. Not every day, but enough. I obey lights, I signal, I don’t do anything overtly stupid. At the end of the day, I weigh maybe 170 and I’m moving next to objects that weigh maybe one to two tons moving anywhere from five to 45 miles per hour. In any bad interaction, I’m the one who’s probably ending up dead. So I’m really sick and tired of this goddamn bickering back and forth. Everyone should follow laws, yes, but roads should be designed to be not deadly for cyclists, and drivers (which includes me) should understand that they’re moving a very heavy object very quickly, and the onus is on them to do it safely. If that’s not possible, maybe fewer people should be allowed to drive.
- davidw 7y ago
  Right - when's the last time you saw a cyclist t-bone a minivan and kill a family?
- MisterOctober 7y ago
  Yep. I stay on the road and act like a "vehicle" whenever I feel like it's reasonably prudent, but many streets / blocks in phoenix are straight up suicide for a solo cyclist -- no bike lane, motorists not looking, fast and heavy traffic -- so I end up on the sidewalk probably 20% of the time. [Biking with a group, it's not so bad because you're much more likely to get seen / not run off road or cut off] 'Course, in Phoenix, there are verrrry few pedestrians and so colliding with them is not very likely provided one goes at a sane speed and uses bell / voice to alert folk you're behind them, but still, it'd be nice to not be more or less compelled to encroach on pedestrian space while cycling.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  Cyclists don't belong on usual car roads, not the usual roads that aren't wide enough so car can pass the bike safely without crossing the center line. The problem is, to all other motorized traffic, bikes are not part of the traffic but an obstacle that has to be avoided, usually in very limited space with a lot of things happening all around you. Many cyclists unfortunately don't ride with that in mind (changing lanes without looking back, 2 cyclists riding next to each other etc.). It doesn't matter if you are a pedestrian walking 5kmh or biker going 30kmh, when cars drive 50/60 kmh. Not even going into topic of roads outside of cities, those fools riding in 90kmh traffic when there is 0 extra space on the side of the roads are basically asking to be killed by somebody not momentarily paying enough attention to the road. Even if 99.9% of the drivers do drive carefully, that 1 out of thousands drivers can become a real event pretty quickly on popular roads. Emergencies and morgues have visitors because of these. Now how to achieve a good situation for everybody in Dutch/Danish style is a great question, especially in congested centers of the towns that are already designed and there is often no extra room for dedicated bike lanes. I don't claim I know the proper answer that would be OK with majority of the population of average western country. Even a narrow yellow bike lane on the side of the road would be great but I don't see them as often as I should, meaning there are not enough continuous bike paths that take you to most part of the cities. At least not around the place I live.
- djohnston 7y ago
  I am all for fewer people driving. I also agree that US cycling infra needs to be drastically improved and that would save a lot of lives and frustration. I hadn't considered the poor state of infra.
francisofascii 7y ago
Angry motorists kinda do the same thing. They complain that cyclists don't follow the rules of a car, like stopping at stop signs, as if it is a major injustice. But then complain when cyclists take full width of the lane or are on the road, because they are not cars.
- Jwarder 7y ago
  > like stopping at stop signs This doesn't seem like a good example to me because it seems totally right and reasonable to actually stop at stop signs. Being predictable in traffic is vital no matter what type of vehicle you operate.
  - enoch_r 7y ago
    Pedestrians and runners don't stop at stop signs and it doesn't seem like a problem, so it seems clear to me that "everyone is required to stop at stop signs all the time" is not the only workable legal solution here. In Oregon we just passed a law that lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. I ride a bike as my main form of transportation and additional visibility and low speed of bikes makes this a no-brainer--it's quite obvious whether cars or pedestrians are approaching as you approach a stop sign.
  - francisofascii 7y ago
    I think it is more of a yield and slow down situation rather than a complete stop like a car. The broader point is that a car running a stop sign and a bike running a stop sign are NOT equal in severity. The former adds tons more danger to the system than the latter.
collyw 7y ago
Don't worry, both cars and pedestrians seem to think we don't belong on the road or the sidewalk. Anyway the great thing is that I seem to make some drivers angry just by being on a bike.
loeg 7y ago
All cyclists are people, mate.
ska 7y ago
> I'm hesitant to chalk cyclist incidents up to something more than hubris. Luckily we don't have to rely on gut-checks for things like this, there is a ton of related study. Notwithstanding the occasional bone-headed move by cyclists, the single largest factor seems to be poor infrastructure.
- TheGRS 7y ago
  There's a well painted cycle lane for me going to work, but I've gotten in an accident on it while completely obeying the laws (nearly twice in the same spot). Drivers need to cross a blind intersection with limited signage, so even with the painted lane its dangerous at certain spots. Also a lane that goes to a freeway on-ramp crosses over the bike lane as well, and that's never stopped to amaze me in its short-sightedness.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - loeg 7y ago
    Yeah. Painted lanes slapped on the edge of a road are often worse infrastructure than just a few "cyclists may use full lane" signs and "sharrow" indicators center-lane, for exactly the reasons you point out.
overthemoon 7y ago
That last sentence is a doozy. I live in Chicago, I take public transit, I see a few cyclists do insanely stupid shit almost every day, but even seeing that I know the layout of the city is not remotely conducive to cycling. And Chicago is pretty bike-friendly compared to many other cities in the US! Even with major streets getting bike lanes I've seen too many cyclists get hit through no fault of their own, because of poorly thought out infrastructure.
- code_duck 7y ago
  Even in Portland, a city which would be considered quite bike-friendly, a lot of the bike infrastructure seems insane. Signs indicate that bicycles are expected to drive in the middle of traffic Lanes half the time, as if that is somehow going to work out for everyone.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    Given the choice between a narrow shoulder and the middle of a traffic lane, cycling in the middle of the lane is much safer, as long as drivers don’t intentionally try to hit them.
    - code_duck 7y ago
      My dream would be to have dedicated bike lanes not shared with automobile traffic.
- kaybe 7y ago
  Concerning the rule thing - my observation is that if the rules are stupid people won't follow them. Riding a bike in even in Germany prepares you pretty well for driving a car in some of the more chaotic countries, since the mindset is pretty similar.
xkde 7y ago
“Hey, I have an opinion differing from what is popular.” [DOWNVOTE DOWNVOTE DOWNVOTE]
djohnston 7y ago
Ok ok, hubris wasn't the right word.

imgabe 7y ago

A cyclist is neither a car or a pedestrian. They are a cyclist. There are more than 2 kinds of things.

journalctl 7y ago

Maybe because roads are designed without cyclists in mind, so sometimes you’re forced to be a car, and sometimes you’re forced to be a pedestrian. I bike. Not every day, but enough. I obey lights, I signal, I don’t do anything overtly stupid. At the end of the day, I weigh maybe 170 and I’m moving next to objects that weigh maybe one to two tons moving anywhere from five to 45 miles per hour. In any bad interaction, I’m the one who’s probably ending up dead. So I’m really sick and tired of this goddamn bickering back and forth. Everyone should follow laws, yes, but roads should be designed to be not deadly for cyclists, and drivers (which includes me) should understand that they’re moving a very heavy object very quickly, and the onus is on them to do it safely. If that’s not possible, maybe fewer people should be allowed to drive.

davidw 7y ago
Right - when's the last time you saw a cyclist t-bone a minivan and kill a family?
MisterOctober 7y ago
Yep. I stay on the road and act like a "vehicle" whenever I feel like it's reasonably prudent, but many streets / blocks in phoenix are straight up suicide for a solo cyclist -- no bike lane, motorists not looking, fast and heavy traffic -- so I end up on the sidewalk probably 20% of the time. [Biking with a group, it's not so bad because you're much more likely to get seen / not run off road or cut off] 'Course, in Phoenix, there are verrrry few pedestrians and so colliding with them is not very likely provided one goes at a sane speed and uses bell / voice to alert folk you're behind them, but still, it'd be nice to not be more or less compelled to encroach on pedestrian space while cycling.
saiya-jin 7y ago
Cyclists don't belong on usual car roads, not the usual roads that aren't wide enough so car can pass the bike safely without crossing the center line. The problem is, to all other motorized traffic, bikes are not part of the traffic but an obstacle that has to be avoided, usually in very limited space with a lot of things happening all around you. Many cyclists unfortunately don't ride with that in mind (changing lanes without looking back, 2 cyclists riding next to each other etc.). It doesn't matter if you are a pedestrian walking 5kmh or biker going 30kmh, when cars drive 50/60 kmh. Not even going into topic of roads outside of cities, those fools riding in 90kmh traffic when there is 0 extra space on the side of the roads are basically asking to be killed by somebody not momentarily paying enough attention to the road. Even if 99.9% of the drivers do drive carefully, that 1 out of thousands drivers can become a real event pretty quickly on popular roads. Emergencies and morgues have visitors because of these. Now how to achieve a good situation for everybody in Dutch/Danish style is a great question, especially in congested centers of the towns that are already designed and there is often no extra room for dedicated bike lanes. I don't claim I know the proper answer that would be OK with majority of the population of average western country. Even a narrow yellow bike lane on the side of the road would be great but I don't see them as often as I should, meaning there are not enough continuous bike paths that take you to most part of the cities. At least not around the place I live.
djohnston 7y ago
I am all for fewer people driving. I also agree that US cycling infra needs to be drastically improved and that would save a lot of lives and frustration. I hadn't considered the poor state of infra.

francisofascii 7y ago

Angry motorists kinda do the same thing. They complain that cyclists don't follow the rules of a car, like stopping at stop signs, as if it is a major injustice. But then complain when cyclists take full width of the lane or are on the road, because they are not cars.

Jwarder 7y ago
> like stopping at stop signs This doesn't seem like a good example to me because it seems totally right and reasonable to actually stop at stop signs. Being predictable in traffic is vital no matter what type of vehicle you operate.
- enoch_r 7y ago
  Pedestrians and runners don't stop at stop signs and it doesn't seem like a problem, so it seems clear to me that "everyone is required to stop at stop signs all the time" is not the only workable legal solution here. In Oregon we just passed a law that lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. I ride a bike as my main form of transportation and additional visibility and low speed of bikes makes this a no-brainer--it's quite obvious whether cars or pedestrians are approaching as you approach a stop sign.
- francisofascii 7y ago
  I think it is more of a yield and slow down situation rather than a complete stop like a car. The broader point is that a car running a stop sign and a bike running a stop sign are NOT equal in severity. The former adds tons more danger to the system than the latter.

collyw 7y ago

Don't worry, both cars and pedestrians seem to think we don't belong on the road or the sidewalk. Anyway the great thing is that I seem to make some drivers angry just by being on a bike.

loeg 7y ago

All cyclists are people, mate.

ska 7y ago

> I'm hesitant to chalk cyclist incidents up to something more than hubris. Luckily we don't have to rely on gut-checks for things like this, there is a ton of related study. Notwithstanding the occasional bone-headed move by cyclists, the single largest factor seems to be poor infrastructure.

TheGRS 7y ago
There's a well painted cycle lane for me going to work, but I've gotten in an accident on it while completely obeying the laws (nearly twice in the same spot). Drivers need to cross a blind intersection with limited signage, so even with the painted lane its dangerous at certain spots. Also a lane that goes to a freeway on-ramp crosses over the bike lane as well, and that's never stopped to amaze me in its short-sightedness.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- loeg 7y ago
  Yeah. Painted lanes slapped on the edge of a road are often worse infrastructure than just a few "cyclists may use full lane" signs and "sharrow" indicators center-lane, for exactly the reasons you point out.

overthemoon 7y ago

That last sentence is a doozy. I live in Chicago, I take public transit, I see a few cyclists do insanely stupid shit almost every day, but even seeing that I know the layout of the city is not remotely conducive to cycling. And Chicago is pretty bike-friendly compared to many other cities in the US! Even with major streets getting bike lanes I've seen too many cyclists get hit through no fault of their own, because of poorly thought out infrastructure.

code_duck 7y ago
Even in Portland, a city which would be considered quite bike-friendly, a lot of the bike infrastructure seems insane. Signs indicate that bicycles are expected to drive in the middle of traffic Lanes half the time, as if that is somehow going to work out for everyone.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  Given the choice between a narrow shoulder and the middle of a traffic lane, cycling in the middle of the lane is much safer, as long as drivers don’t intentionally try to hit them.
  - code_duck 7y ago
    My dream would be to have dedicated bike lanes not shared with automobile traffic.
kaybe 7y ago
Concerning the rule thing - my observation is that if the rules are stupid people won't follow them. Riding a bike in even in Germany prepares you pretty well for driving a car in some of the more chaotic countries, since the mindset is pretty similar.

xkde 7y ago

“Hey, I have an opinion differing from what is popular.” [DOWNVOTE DOWNVOTE DOWNVOTE]

djohnston 7y ago

Ok ok, hubris wasn't the right word.