3 ms·

Now if you compare the number of bikes multiply per miles you end up seeing that cars are not more dangerous than bikes. There are simply more of them, running

Now if you compare the number of bikes multiply per miles you end up seeing that cars are not more dangerous than bikes. There are simply more of them, running way more miles. UK government made a study about it https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648081/rrcgb2016-01.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... > And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents. Bikers have the tendency to think that everybody is out to kill them. But if you think about it, everybody else, even bikers when they are not on a bike, think that bikers (or _other_ bikers in case of bikers) are out to kill themselves. Why? Because they don't follow the same rules they try to enforce on others. One example among many, that is easy to spot just looking around: bikers (rightfully) campaign a lot around the concept of safe distance Here is an example https://s23705.pcdn.co/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/doc-root/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/New-bike-laws.jpg.webp https://s23705.pcdn.co/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/d... But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians https://st.focusedcollection.com/14026668/i/650/focused_181528682-stock-photo-woman-riding-bicycle-road-traffic.jpg https://st.focusedcollection.com/14026668/i/650/focused_1815... https://www.cyc-lok.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Dublin-cyclists.jpg https://www.cyc-lok.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Dublin-cyc... Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone? Am I the only one that have seen this? https://www.repstatic.it/content/localirep/img/rep-firenze/2017/08/06/103433773-0fbb8bb9-ef7c-4416-82df-fd910c7d837c.jpg https://www.repstatic.it/content/localirep/img/rep-firenze/2... https://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/image/contentid/policy:1.13704166:1540378324/image/image.jpg?f=detail_558&h=720&w=1280&$p$f$h$w=d5eb06a https://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/image/contentid/policy:1.137... https://radionbc.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bici-tre-320x400.jpg https://radionbc.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bici-tre-320x... https://radionbc.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bici-due-320x400.jpg https://radionbc.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bici-due-320x... Not that cars are better in this regard, of course! It's just a different way of being an asshole. > they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths? There have been only 8 cyclists dead in Rome in 2018 in over 27 thousands accidents. it's not even sure they died in an accident with a car, the stats don't say it. It means one dead every 3,375 accidents. And yet bikes are the most dangerous way to go around in Italy (statistically, it means that rarely you will have an accident, but if you do, there are much more chances that it will be bad). > I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable That sounds about right, but it's simply justification for misbehaviour. I too feel compelled to break rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my trip reasonable . But it is wrong and most of the times I don't do it (yes, I'm not perfect, sometimes I break rules too). When I do it, I don't try to rationalize it, I know I'm simply being a jerk. > because some roads are impossible to use when on a bike Then don't use them Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them. I'm not saying I like it or that cyclists are to blame, I'm trying to say that cyclists are human like the rest of us and they break the rules on a bike as much as they do it when they drive. But it is also true that most bikers and drivers don't, they are only trying to get trough the day, go to work or back home because they have to, not because they are on a mission to kill. They simply make mistakes, on both sides. Safety is about being proactive, not passively waiting that someone else fix things for us. I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me. Biking solves none of my mobility problems. It's too slow when I'm in a hurry. It's too heavy when I need to travel afar. It's too weather sensitive, it's almost always either too hot or too cold or too rainy or too windy. If I'm going to a meeting, I can't be there sweating like a marathoner. If I wanna do some sport, I go running on Colle Oppio, where I can see the Colosseum. Not that I despise biking, it's not an efficient mean of transport in my opinion. > But, let's put things in perspective. Cyclists pay for their mistake Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline) In Italy, for example, money collected from fines for road traffic offense in general must be used by the municipality to enhance or deploy road safety, they can't be used for anything else. If road safety programs had to be paid with the money taken from cyclists, we wouldn't be doing much.

alanfranz 6y ago
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... This link is interesting and I'll review it thoroughly. Thanks. But I don't see what part of it you're using for your "cars are not more dangerous than bikes". Is there any section about who's at fault for an accident? Cars are less dangerous for those who drive them. We're talking about being less dangerous for others, especially for vulnerable user groups. > Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents. ... like what? And how often? "Indirectly" you mean 2nd order effects. But I need to run directly at full speed into somebody in order to try and kill it with a bike; the weight is low (almost like the person alone) and the speed is low as well. > But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians The first photo, it's probably something taken with slow or stopped traffic. It's not illegal to overtake stopped cars. In the 2nd the cyclist is in a bike lane, did you realize that? > Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone? I don't understand whether you're joking. Do you realize how many f*ing parking spots exist for cars and motorbikes, and how few parking spots exist for bikes? You can park 6-20 cars (depending on whether facilities are available, like racks) where a SINGLE CAR parks. Now the problem is that "bikes take up valuable pedestrian space". Don't you see cars and vans parked everywhere, including sidewalks, in Rome? Something like, daily? Cars in Rome don't park in "doppia fila"? > Then don't use them. Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them. I cannot use those roads because car drivers are jerks, they park (illegally) in terrible places and they don't yield to bikes. > I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me. That's the root of the problem, man. You don't like bikes, and you don't need bikes. So you hate them. You're far more empathic to car drivers, because "everybody drives when in need". It's your problem, though, and I couldn't care less. > Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline) Only if you don't take into account the negative externalities caused by pollution. IIRC paying for carbon offsets for around 10.000 miles per year would amount to roughly 10.000 USD in carbon offsets. Also, roads for cars require far more maintenance than those where bikes can go. I live in the outskirts of Trieste and I love my commute until the very last 500m to get to my office, when I'm deep in the city. For the first 18kms I always follow all road rules; but when I get into the city center... anything can happen. If I want to get to my office in full health, I need to do any kind of strange things, INCLUDING doing a very small cut through a sidewalk. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it if there were another safe way. But I don't pollute and add real traffic to a city that is already very complex and has many problems. One last thought: the idea that cyclists are the bullies is just too absurd to me. They're extra vulnerable. They risk their lives. A car ignoring a red light is not the same as a bike ignoring a red light, because the potential outcome is very different. They can "cause an accident" because somebody else breaks. I cannot find the link now, but I remember a study from Netherlands where it was clear that, once bike usage goes up and crosses a certain thresholds, the GLOBAL RATE of accidents (yes, even car accidents, because more people use bikes) and road casualties decrease.

alanfranz 6y ago

> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... This link is interesting and I'll review it thoroughly. Thanks. But I don't see what part of it you're using for your "cars are not more dangerous than bikes". Is there any section about who's at fault for an accident? Cars are less dangerous for those who drive them. We're talking about being less dangerous for others, especially for vulnerable user groups. > Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents. ... like what? And how often? "Indirectly" you mean 2nd order effects. But I need to run directly at full speed into somebody in order to try and kill it with a bike; the weight is low (almost like the person alone) and the speed is low as well. > But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians The first photo, it's probably something taken with slow or stopped traffic. It's not illegal to overtake stopped cars. In the 2nd the cyclist is in a bike lane, did you realize that? > Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone? I don't understand whether you're joking. Do you realize how many f*ing parking spots exist for cars and motorbikes, and how few parking spots exist for bikes? You can park 6-20 cars (depending on whether facilities are available, like racks) where a SINGLE CAR parks. Now the problem is that "bikes take up valuable pedestrian space". Don't you see cars and vans parked everywhere, including sidewalks, in Rome? Something like, daily? Cars in Rome don't park in "doppia fila"? > Then don't use them. Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them. I cannot use those roads because car drivers are jerks, they park (illegally) in terrible places and they don't yield to bikes. > I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me. That's the root of the problem, man. You don't like bikes, and you don't need bikes. So you hate them. You're far more empathic to car drivers, because "everybody drives when in need". It's your problem, though, and I couldn't care less. > Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline) Only if you don't take into account the negative externalities caused by pollution. IIRC paying for carbon offsets for around 10.000 miles per year would amount to roughly 10.000 USD in carbon offsets. Also, roads for cars require far more maintenance than those where bikes can go. I live in the outskirts of Trieste and I love my commute until the very last 500m to get to my office, when I'm deep in the city. For the first 18kms I always follow all road rules; but when I get into the city center... anything can happen. If I want to get to my office in full health, I need to do any kind of strange things, INCLUDING doing a very small cut through a sidewalk. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it if there were another safe way. But I don't pollute and add real traffic to a city that is already very complex and has many problems. One last thought: the idea that cyclists are the bullies is just too absurd to me. They're extra vulnerable. They risk their lives. A car ignoring a red light is not the same as a bike ignoring a red light, because the potential outcome is very different. They can "cause an accident" because somebody else breaks. I cannot find the link now, but I remember a study from Netherlands where it was clear that, once bike usage goes up and crosses a certain thresholds, the GLOBAL RATE of accidents (yes, even car accidents, because more people use bikes) and road casualties decrease.