4 ms·

Well because it's usually accidental. This idea that every death, including accidents or understandable mistake need to be met with criminal sanctions is just d

Well because it's usually accidental. This idea that every death, including accidents or understandable mistake need to be met with criminal sanctions is just dumb. It's a good way to unnecessarily ruin more people's lives. Bikers should realize they are driving a more dangerous vehicle. Bikes have no protective covering, no crash cage. Your body is exposed directly to the road... If you want a safer bike, build a human powered car. And yes I bike or walk most of my life so don't tell me I'm some evil driver. I'm just realistic and not vindictive.

xmprt 5y ago
It's weird how your solution is to replace bikes with safer, human powered cars when there are so many simpler solutions. We could stop building suburbs, stop building massive parking lots around big box stores, add more public transportation such as light rails, make some highway lanes dedicated to bus transportation (thereby reducing induced demand for cars which would actually reduce traffic), etc.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  Is there any indication that the parent comment is opposed to all of these systemic solutions, especially given that he identifies himself as primarily a biker/pedestrian vs a driver? Some people are able to consider an issue on both the systemic and the local, agent-centered level.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Thank you. I agree with the systemic critiques, I just don't see how they move us closer to a workable solution. This is just more of the division that we do to make ourselves feel morally superior. It's the "I don't shop at Walmart like the poor's" mentality that seeks to elevate the status of the critic while ignoring the very real issues that make people want to shop at a giant big box Walmart store rather than their local downtown.
    - xmprt 5y ago
      I can almost assure you that poor people would love to shop at their local downtown if they could but right now with the lack of accessible public transportation and cheap housing near downtowns, shopping at big box stores is the best they can get. Cars are a requirement for living in modern cities if you're poor (with more money you can afford to live closer to work and public transportation). That fact alone is extremely hostile to poor people because it add 100s of dollars to their monthly bills in car payments, maintenance, and insurance.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        That doesn't fit in with the empirical data that has shown us that -- country wide right now -- people have fled the cities for the burbs. You can make up an anecdotal poor, but that doesn't mean it matches reality. By and large, those with means have left the city, and it shows
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        > I can almost assure you that poor people would love to shop at their local downtown if they could but right now with the lack of accessible public transportation and cheap housing near downtowns, shopping at big box stores is the best they can get. You don't think people get any value out of a single store, with every product you may want, and much lower prices? This runs contrary to every piece of anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence I've seen about the way consumers behave en masse. Hell, there's even an upper-income analogue in Amazon's explosive success over the last decade.
  - xmprt 5y ago
    I personally think that most of the effort put into making these minor improvements don't come close to addressing the massive systemic problems with urban planning today. It's a bit frustrating seeing people make the argument that the systemic solutions are too difficult so we shouldn't try them.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      I'm not someone who'd ever engage in 'cycling advocacy', so you haven't lost anyone, believe me.
- iammisc 5y ago
  None of those things are simple. They require immense top down effort whereas starting a company providing a safer bike is able to be done right now by a small group of individuals without any political approval or lobbying or legislation. Like I said in an above comments we can sit around and think about what we should have done, or we can make suggestions based on what we have. One is more constructive than the other.
tolbish 5y ago
> Bikers should realize they are driving a more dangerous vehicle. Bikes have no protective covering, no crash cage. Your body is exposed directly to the road... These are only a problem if you build your society such that bikes are traveling physically next to fast cars. But that does not mean biking is unsafe—it just means our current setup forces all traffic into a single unprotected road next to fast cars.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Okay and we can sit here and pontificate on how the way things should have been done or we can think about things we can do today based on what we have. I accept that you want to look back and lament what we didn't do. I find that depressing, so I'd rather think about what we can do right now based on the infrastructure we have to encourage people to adopt people centric modes of transit. Having a safer bicycle would get us there. It would keep people closer to homes, encourage the creation of smaller business centers instead of massive strip malls, and revitalize downtown streets as more people decide to opt for the convenience and enjoyment of the human powered methods.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > I accept that you want to look back and lament what we didn't do. I find that depressing, so I'd rather think about what we can do right now based on the infrastructure we have to encourage people to adopt people centric modes of transit. This isn't revanchist thinking. This is simply the advocacy strategy used in the Netherlands to pivot from a car heavy society to a bicycle heavy one. It's used as a model of advocacy for many pro-mode-share groups throughout the Western world. https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-nl-roads/ https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-n...
thefr0g 5y ago
> Bikers should realize they are driving a more dangerous vehicle. So you think bikers should care more about making themselves save isntead of car owners about making everyone save?
- iammisc 5y ago
  In general I think most people would be best served by focusing on their own behavior rather than complaining endlessly about the behavior of others while making no changes to themselves. This philosophy extends to all areas of life, whether transport, finances, happiness, etc.
hootbootscoot 5y ago
deference to a high speed armored vehicle always? I will contend that "pedestrian" is the base state of a human who may also be a "driver" when seated in a vehicle. Cities are designed for whom? We err in allowing cars and pedestrians or cyclists to intersect at all. Cars belong in tunnels or highway-like contained danger zones where high-velocity armored vehicles are the only objects moving there.

xmprt 5y ago

It's weird how your solution is to replace bikes with safer, human powered cars when there are so many simpler solutions. We could stop building suburbs, stop building massive parking lots around big box stores, add more public transportation such as light rails, make some highway lanes dedicated to bus transportation (thereby reducing induced demand for cars which would actually reduce traffic), etc.

wutbrodo 5y ago
Is there any indication that the parent comment is opposed to all of these systemic solutions, especially given that he identifies himself as primarily a biker/pedestrian vs a driver? Some people are able to consider an issue on both the systemic and the local, agent-centered level.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Thank you. I agree with the systemic critiques, I just don't see how they move us closer to a workable solution. This is just more of the division that we do to make ourselves feel morally superior. It's the "I don't shop at Walmart like the poor's" mentality that seeks to elevate the status of the critic while ignoring the very real issues that make people want to shop at a giant big box Walmart store rather than their local downtown.
  - xmprt 5y ago
    I can almost assure you that poor people would love to shop at their local downtown if they could but right now with the lack of accessible public transportation and cheap housing near downtowns, shopping at big box stores is the best they can get. Cars are a requirement for living in modern cities if you're poor (with more money you can afford to live closer to work and public transportation). That fact alone is extremely hostile to poor people because it add 100s of dollars to their monthly bills in car payments, maintenance, and insurance.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      That doesn't fit in with the empirical data that has shown us that -- country wide right now -- people have fled the cities for the burbs. You can make up an anecdotal poor, but that doesn't mean it matches reality. By and large, those with means have left the city, and it shows
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > I can almost assure you that poor people would love to shop at their local downtown if they could but right now with the lack of accessible public transportation and cheap housing near downtowns, shopping at big box stores is the best they can get. You don't think people get any value out of a single store, with every product you may want, and much lower prices? This runs contrary to every piece of anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence I've seen about the way consumers behave en masse. Hell, there's even an upper-income analogue in Amazon's explosive success over the last decade.
- xmprt 5y ago
  I personally think that most of the effort put into making these minor improvements don't come close to addressing the massive systemic problems with urban planning today. It's a bit frustrating seeing people make the argument that the systemic solutions are too difficult so we shouldn't try them.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    I'm not someone who'd ever engage in 'cycling advocacy', so you haven't lost anyone, believe me.
iammisc 5y ago
None of those things are simple. They require immense top down effort whereas starting a company providing a safer bike is able to be done right now by a small group of individuals without any political approval or lobbying or legislation. Like I said in an above comments we can sit around and think about what we should have done, or we can make suggestions based on what we have. One is more constructive than the other.

tolbish 5y ago

> Bikers should realize they are driving a more dangerous vehicle. Bikes have no protective covering, no crash cage. Your body is exposed directly to the road... These are only a problem if you build your society such that bikes are traveling physically next to fast cars. But that does not mean biking is unsafe—it just means our current setup forces all traffic into a single unprotected road next to fast cars.

iammisc 5y ago
Okay and we can sit here and pontificate on how the way things should have been done or we can think about things we can do today based on what we have. I accept that you want to look back and lament what we didn't do. I find that depressing, so I'd rather think about what we can do right now based on the infrastructure we have to encourage people to adopt people centric modes of transit. Having a safer bicycle would get us there. It would keep people closer to homes, encourage the creation of smaller business centers instead of massive strip malls, and revitalize downtown streets as more people decide to opt for the convenience and enjoyment of the human powered methods.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  > I accept that you want to look back and lament what we didn't do. I find that depressing, so I'd rather think about what we can do right now based on the infrastructure we have to encourage people to adopt people centric modes of transit. This isn't revanchist thinking. This is simply the advocacy strategy used in the Netherlands to pivot from a car heavy society to a bicycle heavy one. It's used as a model of advocacy for many pro-mode-share groups throughout the Western world. https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-nl-roads/ https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-n...

thefr0g 5y ago

> Bikers should realize they are driving a more dangerous vehicle. So you think bikers should care more about making themselves save isntead of car owners about making everyone save?

iammisc 5y ago
In general I think most people would be best served by focusing on their own behavior rather than complaining endlessly about the behavior of others while making no changes to themselves. This philosophy extends to all areas of life, whether transport, finances, happiness, etc.

hootbootscoot 5y ago

deference to a high speed armored vehicle always? I will contend that "pedestrian" is the base state of a human who may also be a "driver" when seated in a vehicle. Cities are designed for whom? We err in allowing cars and pedestrians or cyclists to intersect at all. Cars belong in tunnels or highway-like contained danger zones where high-velocity armored vehicles are the only objects moving there.