6 ms·

People don't like bicyclists because they are observably more dangerous. I think cyclists should have their own paths where possible. But honestly, I think the

by rank0 6y ago

People don't like bicyclists because they are observably more dangerous. I think cyclists should have their own paths where possible. But honestly, I think the cyclists are the ones being selfish by disrupting traffic, endangering themselves and others so they can feel "green" or workout or whatever.

mattbk1 6y ago
They aren't disrupting traffic, they are traffic.
- rank0 6y ago
  Sure. Just like how a reckless driver is traffic too. Doesn't mean cyclists or the reckless drivers are automatically justified.
  - mattbk1 6y ago
    I'm not even sure how to respond to this type of lumping. > Good drivers and reckless drivers are both traffic. Doesn't mean they are both automatically justified.
    - rank0 6y ago
      Your original point seems to be: "bicyclists are not disrupting traffic because they are part of traffic" My counter point is that "being part of traffic does not preclude you from disrupting traffic. See reckless driver example." Did I misunderstand your original comment?
      - mattbk1 6y ago
        It seems like you got it. I'm trying to parse how you choose to blame people on bicycles for disrupting traffic but not people in cars.
renewiltord 6y ago
Honestly, for third parties reading, this is just utter nonsense. Just go pull SWITRS data from CA and look at it yourself. The last time I looked at it, it was easy to get, and the schema was trivial to analyse in a REPL. Car-bike collisions are overwhelmingly car-driver-at-fault (60-40), and bike-only collisions are rare. Car-only people identify so strongly with their cars, it's weird. And for some reason they are over-represented on the Internet and argue all this "they are dangerous" nonsense about everyone else. In real life, people commonly accept small inefficiencies in order to perform small acts of kindness for each other. I drive an SUV, ride my motorcycle, and also bicycle so I've had the fortune of seeing how people interact with me on all these modes of transportation. In San Francisco, most people are kind¹. Here are some anecdotes from the last couple of months: * Riding in the Richmond to Hawk Hill on my bicycle. At most stop signs, drivers prioritized not forcing cyclists to stop. They do this by approaching a stop sign slower so that they force themselves to not have right-of-way and wave. This is what I do, and I notice it in a lot of others. * On my motorcycle on a steep hill, I stalled right as the light turned green (engine wasn't anywhere near warm enough for me to have taken the choke off, old bike). No one honked. They were fairly patient. * Took an exit off the freeway into the city late at night and there was a car wedged on the median. Got off to go help the driver and the three of us got it off. Most people let me in when I signal. It's so much the default that I get mildly offended when someone doesn't. I always let people in. ¹ or at least if they're angry they hide it behind the interface with others, which is enough
- rank0 6y ago
  > Honestly, for third parties reading, this is just utter nonsense. Just go pull SWITRS data from CA and look at it yourself. I'm glad you brought this up because according to SWITRS cyclists are involved in ~8 percent of injuries while only making up ~1 percent of commuters. Almost everything I can find online claims that cycling is more dangerous per mile, per hour, and per trip. Additionally, I am willing to bet that most cycling accidents are not reported to the police. > Here are some anecdotes from the last couple of months: While were using anecdotes, here mine - I know many more people who have been hurt cycling than driving. This doesn't even adjust for the much greater miles/hours spend driving vs cycling. Even besides the statistics, you should be able to use common sense to understand that bicycling is more dangerous than multi-ton steel cages equipped with seat belts and airbags.

by rank0 6y ago

mattbk1 6y ago

They aren't disrupting traffic, they are traffic.

rank0 6y ago
Sure. Just like how a reckless driver is traffic too. Doesn't mean cyclists or the reckless drivers are automatically justified.
- mattbk1 6y ago
  I'm not even sure how to respond to this type of lumping. > Good drivers and reckless drivers are both traffic. Doesn't mean they are both automatically justified.
  - rank0 6y ago
    Your original point seems to be: "bicyclists are not disrupting traffic because they are part of traffic" My counter point is that "being part of traffic does not preclude you from disrupting traffic. See reckless driver example." Did I misunderstand your original comment?
    - mattbk1 6y ago
      It seems like you got it. I'm trying to parse how you choose to blame people on bicycles for disrupting traffic but not people in cars.

renewiltord 6y ago

Honestly, for third parties reading, this is just utter nonsense. Just go pull SWITRS data from CA and look at it yourself. The last time I looked at it, it was easy to get, and the schema was trivial to analyse in a REPL. Car-bike collisions are overwhelmingly car-driver-at-fault (60-40), and bike-only collisions are rare. Car-only people identify so strongly with their cars, it's weird. And for some reason they are over-represented on the Internet and argue all this "they are dangerous" nonsense about everyone else. In real life, people commonly accept small inefficiencies in order to perform small acts of kindness for each other. I drive an SUV, ride my motorcycle, and also bicycle so I've had the fortune of seeing how people interact with me on all these modes of transportation. In San Francisco, most people are kind¹. Here are some anecdotes from the last couple of months: * Riding in the Richmond to Hawk Hill on my bicycle. At most stop signs, drivers prioritized not forcing cyclists to stop. They do this by approaching a stop sign slower so that they force themselves to not have right-of-way and wave. This is what I do, and I notice it in a lot of others. * On my motorcycle on a steep hill, I stalled right as the light turned green (engine wasn't anywhere near warm enough for me to have taken the choke off, old bike). No one honked. They were fairly patient. * Took an exit off the freeway into the city late at night and there was a car wedged on the median. Got off to go help the driver and the three of us got it off. Most people let me in when I signal. It's so much the default that I get mildly offended when someone doesn't. I always let people in. ¹ or at least if they're angry they hide it behind the interface with others, which is enough

rank0 6y ago
> Honestly, for third parties reading, this is just utter nonsense. Just go pull SWITRS data from CA and look at it yourself. I'm glad you brought this up because according to SWITRS cyclists are involved in ~8 percent of injuries while only making up ~1 percent of commuters. Almost everything I can find online claims that cycling is more dangerous per mile, per hour, and per trip. Additionally, I am willing to bet that most cycling accidents are not reported to the police. > Here are some anecdotes from the last couple of months: While were using anecdotes, here mine - I know many more people who have been hurt cycling than driving. This doesn't even adjust for the much greater miles/hours spend driving vs cycling. Even besides the statistics, you should be able to use common sense to understand that bicycling is more dangerous than multi-ton steel cages equipped with seat belts and airbags.