5 ms·

> Currently the 15mph / 20mph disjunction means that some idiots still try to squeeze their cars past relatively fast-moving e-bikes (which then often catch up

> Currently the 15mph / 20mph disjunction means that some idiots still try to squeeze their cars past relatively fast-moving e-bikes (which then often catch up with the car at the next set of lights...) To be fair, this behaviour isn't one-sided. Often bicycles, e-bikes and motorcycles squeeze through small gaps between cars moving slow'ish in packed traffic. Now, of course car drivers should remain vigilant and continually check their mirrors, but nobody is infallible, and I'm sure there are plenty of drivers that do not take proper care.

frereubu 5y ago
With respect, this feels like whataboutery. "To be fair" makes it sound like cars speeding past cyclists is a response to cyclists whipping between lines of cars, but they're entirely separate issues and can both be wrong at the same time without needing to be compared to each other.
- GordonS 5y ago
  "Whataboutery" gets banded around waaaay too much - I see nothing wrong with pointing out apparent hypocrisy and/or discussing comparable situations. Also, it was not my intention (and I honestly don't see it in my words as hard as I look) to suggest there was any kind of "tit for tat".
laputan_machine 5y ago
> To be fair, this behaviour isn't one-sided. Often bicycles, e-bikes and motorcycles squeeze through small gaps between cars moving slow'ish in packed traffic. The speed is the issue. A collision at low speeds is much less likely to be fatal [0]. Being closely overtaken by a car when you're going at 20-25mph on a bicycle is 1) a scary experience and 2) unnecessarily dangerous for the cyclist (and not at all for the driver). [0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Instead of digging through that PDF, the charts on this post show how a higher speed can drastically increase the odds of fatalities: * https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain-why-20-mph-should-be-the-limit-on-city-streets/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain... Remember from physics class that kinetic energy is generated proportional to the square of velocity. Doubling speed quadruples energy.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Not only does speed increase the damage inflicted by a given collision, it also makes them more likely: there is less time available to see and respond to hazards, and the space required to stop also is proportional to (speed^2). So for a given road, the risk level (frequency * consequences) is probably even steeper than squared: perhaps more like (speed^3).
    - clairity 5y ago
      no, this is an all-too-common misconception, because you’re missing the other half of the distribution where accidents were avoided because the car speeded past an accident that would have happened at a lower speed. speed increases the severity of an accident (e.g., more fatalities vs. injuries), but doesn’t generally cause the accident. distractedness and impairment are overwhelmingly the primary causes of auto accidents. it’s important for policy decisions that we keep this very clear, and why we have ineffective, revenue-oriented programs like speed enforcement rather than attention-oriented policies.
acdha 5y ago
> To be fair, this behaviour isn't one-sided. Often bicycles, e-bikes and motorcycles squeeze through small gaps between cars moving slow'ish in packed traffic. This is conflating two different activities: when a bicyclist or motorcyclist is moving in space between cars, they're using space which is already open and it doesn't impose a risk to the driver of the vehicle or require the cars to move. That's distinct from people trying to illegally pass, which creates new demands for space and frequently endangers other road users and often obstruct oncoming traffic. The underlying issue here is that cars are the least efficient use of space by a significant margin. That means that drivers see other people taking advantage of space which they are unable to use and feel like they're losing in some way, which often leads to attempts to prevent it. When I lived in California, even though lane-splitting was legal I used to regularly see drivers move their vehicles to the edge of a lane or a few times even open their car door(!) to block motorcyclists. This was clearly because they perceived it as unfair that someone else wasn't jammed the same way they were, but misattributed the problem to the motorcylist rather than the drawbacks of their personal vehicle choices.
- mitchdoogle 5y ago
  By that logic, even people in cars should be driving up on the shoulder, driving in unused bike lanes, squeezing in wherever they want, utilizing the unused space. I don't think it would work that well if everyone operated like that. Thankfully they don't. But you're on a bike, so you deserve special treatment. An award for sacrificing comfort and safety in the name of efficiency! You demand deference when drivers see you, for them to slow down and fall behind as you sit up proudly on your bicycle in defiance of modern technology. You shout to the heavens, "I don't need infrastructure! I have yours already! I'll ride wherever I want!" The thought makes you chuckle at the plebs still riding in comfort and safety in their automobiles, capable of carrying a drunken friend, an elderly parent, or a new piece of furniture. What a bunch of fools. Don't they see how efficient they could be?
  - TessHM 5y ago
    I don't understand how it could be at all controversial that different vehicles require different regulations. 18 wheelers are not allowed to go everywhere cars can go and cars should not be allowed to go everywhere cyclists and pedestrians can go. Cars are an order of magnitude heavier and faster than a bicycle and significantly restrict the visibility of their operator - they are far more dangerous and the law should reflect that.

frereubu 5y ago

With respect, this feels like whataboutery. "To be fair" makes it sound like cars speeding past cyclists is a response to cyclists whipping between lines of cars, but they're entirely separate issues and can both be wrong at the same time without needing to be compared to each other.

GordonS 5y ago
"Whataboutery" gets banded around waaaay too much - I see nothing wrong with pointing out apparent hypocrisy and/or discussing comparable situations. Also, it was not my intention (and I honestly don't see it in my words as hard as I look) to suggest there was any kind of "tit for tat".

laputan_machine 5y ago

> To be fair, this behaviour isn't one-sided. Often bicycles, e-bikes and motorcycles squeeze through small gaps between cars moving slow'ish in packed traffic. The speed is the issue. A collision at low speeds is much less likely to be fatal [0]. Being closely overtaken by a car when you're going at 20-25mph on a bicycle is 1) a scary experience and 2) unnecessarily dangerous for the cyclist (and not at all for the driver). [0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...

throw0101a 5y ago
Instead of digging through that PDF, the charts on this post show how a higher speed can drastically increase the odds of fatalities: * https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain-why-20-mph-should-be-the-limit-on-city-streets/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain... Remember from physics class that kinetic energy is generated proportional to the square of velocity. Doubling speed quadruples energy.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Not only does speed increase the damage inflicted by a given collision, it also makes them more likely: there is less time available to see and respond to hazards, and the space required to stop also is proportional to (speed^2). So for a given road, the risk level (frequency * consequences) is probably even steeper than squared: perhaps more like (speed^3).
  - clairity 5y ago
    no, this is an all-too-common misconception, because you’re missing the other half of the distribution where accidents were avoided because the car speeded past an accident that would have happened at a lower speed. speed increases the severity of an accident (e.g., more fatalities vs. injuries), but doesn’t generally cause the accident. distractedness and impairment are overwhelmingly the primary causes of auto accidents. it’s important for policy decisions that we keep this very clear, and why we have ineffective, revenue-oriented programs like speed enforcement rather than attention-oriented policies.

acdha 5y ago

> To be fair, this behaviour isn't one-sided. Often bicycles, e-bikes and motorcycles squeeze through small gaps between cars moving slow'ish in packed traffic. This is conflating two different activities: when a bicyclist or motorcyclist is moving in space between cars, they're using space which is already open and it doesn't impose a risk to the driver of the vehicle or require the cars to move. That's distinct from people trying to illegally pass, which creates new demands for space and frequently endangers other road users and often obstruct oncoming traffic. The underlying issue here is that cars are the least efficient use of space by a significant margin. That means that drivers see other people taking advantage of space which they are unable to use and feel like they're losing in some way, which often leads to attempts to prevent it. When I lived in California, even though lane-splitting was legal I used to regularly see drivers move their vehicles to the edge of a lane or a few times even open their car door(!) to block motorcyclists. This was clearly because they perceived it as unfair that someone else wasn't jammed the same way they were, but misattributed the problem to the motorcylist rather than the drawbacks of their personal vehicle choices.

mitchdoogle 5y ago
By that logic, even people in cars should be driving up on the shoulder, driving in unused bike lanes, squeezing in wherever they want, utilizing the unused space. I don't think it would work that well if everyone operated like that. Thankfully they don't. But you're on a bike, so you deserve special treatment. An award for sacrificing comfort and safety in the name of efficiency! You demand deference when drivers see you, for them to slow down and fall behind as you sit up proudly on your bicycle in defiance of modern technology. You shout to the heavens, "I don't need infrastructure! I have yours already! I'll ride wherever I want!" The thought makes you chuckle at the plebs still riding in comfort and safety in their automobiles, capable of carrying a drunken friend, an elderly parent, or a new piece of furniture. What a bunch of fools. Don't they see how efficient they could be?
- TessHM 5y ago
  I don't understand how it could be at all controversial that different vehicles require different regulations. 18 wheelers are not allowed to go everywhere cars can go and cars should not be allowed to go everywhere cyclists and pedestrians can go. Cars are an order of magnitude heavier and faster than a bicycle and significantly restrict the visibility of their operator - they are far more dangerous and the law should reflect that.