5 ms·

> dangerous grime (such as needles in bike lanes) Is where you moved to safer to cycle in overall?

by nsgi 6y ago

vecinu 6y ago
Great question, I have yet to discover the safety of the bike lanes spread around here but local cyclists I've talked to feel comfortable cycling on the semi-protected bike lanes on main roads here because they're so wide. I admit, the fully protected bike lanes that have recently come up on Embarcadero with concrete barriers had me excited for my safety, until I had to deal with the grime and odd person jumping in the bike lane randomly (Generally mentally ill folks). As far as biking infrastructure, if you ignore the other problems, SF has really stepped up its game, mostly due to the effort by the SF Cycling coalitions, I believe (And a number of cycling related deaths).
throwaway201103 6y ago
Cycling is inherently more dangerous than either walking or driving, no matter what.
- paulgb 6y ago
  Cycling is more dangerous in America because of bad cycling infrastructure. Put another way, cycling is only more dangerous than driving if you consider an SUV running over a bike to be an example of cycling being the more dangerous form of transport.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    No, riding around on two wheels with no protection besides a foam helmet is just obviously more risky (to the rider) than riding in a steel frame, 4-wheeled vehicle with crumple zones, air bags, and safety restraints. Even given an isolated bike infrastructure with no interaction between bikes and cars, if you hit a rock or a pedestrian or another cyclist and fall, you are going to sustain some type of injury. It takes a pretty major collision to sustain an injury in a modern automobile. There don't appear to be great statistics on bicycle deaths per mile and by cause but what I found is in line with my contention. "Cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile." And that's only fatalities, not injuries. And over 80% of cycling crashes are falls, running into fixed objects, or running into another cyclist. Collision with a moving motor vehicle is only about 11%. https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/ https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > There don't appear to be great statistics on bicycle deaths per mile and by cause but what I found is in line with my contention. "Cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile." And that's only fatalities, not injuries. That's in the US, notorious for bicycling infrastructure that varies between not-great and abysmal. If you compare cycling fatalities per mile in Denmark or Norway with MV fatalities per mile in the US, things are approximately a wash.
    - ballenf 6y ago
      Don't disagree with anything you said, but do take issue with the stat equating 1 mile of bike distance with 1 mile of automobile distance. Surely the stat should be normalized on a "per commute" basis. At the very least throw out long-haul car trips. At least for the purposes of comparing relative safety of commuting by bike vs. car.
    - paulgb 6y ago
      > (to the rider) But this is my (maybe protracted, admittedly) point about an SUV hitting the bike: if you account for injuries to others outside the vehicle, driving becomes a more dangerous form of transportation. If you only value the lives of those in the vehicle, you're right that it's probably safer per mile.
- outworlder 6y ago
  > Cycling is inherently more dangerous than either walking or driving, no matter what. Not necessarily more dangerous than driving. More than walking, sure, you are usually faster. But the problem tends to be more about infrastructure. However, if you adjust for "lifestyle" diseases, cycling becomes more attractive.
  - hackeraccount 6y ago
    When I'm driving I'm way more worried about hurting someone else then actually getting hurt myself. When I'm on a bike it's the exact opposite. Now maybe my perception is wrong and perhaps my perception of the absolute risk is incorrect but it sure doesn't feel that way.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
I live near the Southwest Corridor bike trail in Boston. I've never seen used needles on the bike path. Homeless people camping out near the bike path? Totally. The occasional broken glass on the pavement? Unfortunately. But nothing like what is, supposedly, so typical in San Francisco.
- autokad 6y ago
  i routinely see drug needles on the ground or junkies shooting up in Seattle too.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    I've wondered if this is something the entire west coast from Vancouver to San Diego is experiencing.
- mepiethree 6y ago
  For what its worth, I ride my bike to work 8 miles each way every day in SF (sunset to exploratorium) and haven't seen a needle since I stopped riding on Division St (literally under the overpass) a couple years ago. Anecdotes go both ways I guess

> dangerous grime (such as needles in bike lanes) Is where you moved to safer to cycle in overall?

by nsgi 6y ago

> dangerous grime (such as needles in bike lanes) Is where you moved to safer to cycle in overall?

Great question, I have yet to discover the safety of the bike lanes spread around here but local cyclists I've talked to feel comfortable cycling on the semi-protected bike lanes on main roads here because they're so wide. I admit, the fully protected bike lanes that have recently come up on Embarcadero with concrete barriers had me excited for my safety, until I had to deal with the grime and odd person jumping in the bike lane randomly (Generally mentally ill folks). As far as biking infrastructure, if you ignore the other problems, SF has really stepped up its game, mostly due to the effort by the SF Cycling coalitions, I believe (And a number of cycling related deaths).

throwaway201103 6y ago

Cycling is inherently more dangerous than either walking or driving, no matter what.

paulgb 6y ago
Cycling is more dangerous in America because of bad cycling infrastructure. Put another way, cycling is only more dangerous than driving if you consider an SUV running over a bike to be an example of cycling being the more dangerous form of transport.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  No, riding around on two wheels with no protection besides a foam helmet is just obviously more risky (to the rider) than riding in a steel frame, 4-wheeled vehicle with crumple zones, air bags, and safety restraints. Even given an isolated bike infrastructure with no interaction between bikes and cars, if you hit a rock or a pedestrian or another cyclist and fall, you are going to sustain some type of injury. It takes a pretty major collision to sustain an injury in a modern automobile. There don't appear to be great statistics on bicycle deaths per mile and by cause but what I found is in line with my contention. "Cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile." And that's only fatalities, not injuries. And over 80% of cycling crashes are falls, running into fixed objects, or running into another cyclist. Collision with a moving motor vehicle is only about 11%. https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/ https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > There don't appear to be great statistics on bicycle deaths per mile and by cause but what I found is in line with my contention. "Cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile." And that's only fatalities, not injuries. That's in the US, notorious for bicycling infrastructure that varies between not-great and abysmal. If you compare cycling fatalities per mile in Denmark or Norway with MV fatalities per mile in the US, things are approximately a wash.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    Don't disagree with anything you said, but do take issue with the stat equating 1 mile of bike distance with 1 mile of automobile distance. Surely the stat should be normalized on a "per commute" basis. At the very least throw out long-haul car trips. At least for the purposes of comparing relative safety of commuting by bike vs. car.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    > (to the rider) But this is my (maybe protracted, admittedly) point about an SUV hitting the bike: if you account for injuries to others outside the vehicle, driving becomes a more dangerous form of transportation. If you only value the lives of those in the vehicle, you're right that it's probably safer per mile.
outworlder 6y ago
> Cycling is inherently more dangerous than either walking or driving, no matter what. Not necessarily more dangerous than driving. More than walking, sure, you are usually faster. But the problem tends to be more about infrastructure. However, if you adjust for "lifestyle" diseases, cycling becomes more attractive.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  When I'm driving I'm way more worried about hurting someone else then actually getting hurt myself. When I'm on a bike it's the exact opposite. Now maybe my perception is wrong and perhaps my perception of the absolute risk is incorrect but it sure doesn't feel that way.

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

I live near the Southwest Corridor bike trail in Boston. I've never seen used needles on the bike path. Homeless people camping out near the bike path? Totally. The occasional broken glass on the pavement? Unfortunately. But nothing like what is, supposedly, so typical in San Francisco.

autokad 6y ago
i routinely see drug needles on the ground or junkies shooting up in Seattle too.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  I've wondered if this is something the entire west coast from Vancouver to San Diego is experiencing.
mepiethree 6y ago
For what its worth, I ride my bike to work 8 miles each way every day in SF (sunset to exploratorium) and haven't seen a needle since I stopped riding on Division St (literally under the overpass) a couple years ago. Anecdotes go both ways I guess