70 ms·

Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... And I'd guess th

Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... And I'd guess that about 95% of drivers that I come across are respectful of the danger they present - overtaking with enough space, and not at too high a speed (my city doesn't have great bike lanes). Unfortunately, a typical journey involves passing more than 20 cars, which means experiencing at least 1 very close pass, or some kind of dangerous driving. And the frustrating thing is that the drivers who impatiently pass dangerously are putting people at risk for the sake of ~10-30 seconds (or less). Often I'll catch up with them at the queue for the traffic lights.. Average traffic speeds for cars are around 8-12mph, including stopping for lights, congestion, etc, [1] which is fairly easy to surpass on a bike.. [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/19767 https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/19767

rizach8 4y ago
The solution is to build for bikes, pedestrian and cars to coexist. Red lights are also an arbitrary solution to an non existing problem.
jimmytidey 4y ago
The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.
- tralarpa 4y ago
  > In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury Interesting question. I just googled for statistics and found some for German cities. In Berlin (2021), the majority (~50%) of accidents involving bicyclists in which the bicyclist was not at fault were caused by cars turning. But "insufficient distance" was still at 5%.
  - beowulfey 4y ago
    Both of my hits while riding a bike have been because of cars turning. For one, the driver was turning right and only looked left -- I was still in front of him, and he never looked ahead; T-boned! For the other, I pull up to a stoplight alongside a few cars, against the curb. There is only one lane for left/right/straight. No one had on turn signals. Light turns green, so myself and the first car go straight. Second car apparently wanted to turn right without signaling, and once again does not look to the right (looking left, maybe?). Cuts me off in their turn and I hit their right side door. So yeah, can definitely confirm that people do not look when they are turning.
    - microtherion 4y ago
      As a former bicyclist, I try to be extra mindful of bicyclists when driving. One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving without a light at night serve? Especially when combined with barreling through a red light into a multi-lane traffic circle? And, of course, sidewalks are meant to be driven on — wouldn't want to lose your bicyclist card for ever pushing your bike. Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out). Granted, due to the lower weight of bicycles, accidents are considerably less deadly, but there is still a considerable injury risk to me as a pedestrian, and as an automobilist, I'd rather not have an accident on my conscience, whether I'd be legally at fault or not.
      - usrusr 4y ago
        > One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. So you expect to get unlawful right of way because your vehicle is big and dangerous. Allow me to not share your view about who's a maniac.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > car squeezes past you at high speed many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event. like if the biker falls. clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both. Doesn't matter who's faster in the end, if that was the purpose, it would suffice for drivers to not respect traffic laws, like many bikers do, for the exact purpose of arriving to the destination sooner. Of course you are faster if your parking technique involves blocking the road for pedestrian, especially hadicapped people, like this https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-18_Milano_Motorini_Biciclette_Marciapidei_Incivilt%C3%A0_42-1024x768.jpg https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-0... or this https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-18_Milano_Motorini_Biciclette_Marciapidei_Incivilt%C3%A0_6-1024x768.jpg https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-0... (real pictures in Milan one of the cities where bikes are more popular in Italy and they have become a problem for everyone else) the point is also that bikers should be in charge of their own safety, if a road is very narrow they are voluntarily endangering themselves for no reason, no other road user should be responsible for your safety more than you! that also apply to motorbikes, mopeds, scooters etc which are harder to drive because they rely on the gyroscope effect and only.have two wheels, they do not stand in case of sudden stop, the user can only fall or be shoot forward with grave consequences. so they should care for their life more than a driver that is protected by the car case. I wish I could show you the suicidal moves tourists make in my city (Rome) while riding electric scooters, two people, while the regulation says only one person can ride them, in the middle of high speed roads, with no knowledge of how the traffic works in a city they do not know, like it's OK to be idiots trying to die (and possibly ruin the life of someone else who happens to cross their path on a motor vehicle) Not saying people shouldn't use alternatives means of transport, I do.not drive often anymore, I walk As a pedestrian bikes are much more disruptive than cars for me, even though I'd like to ban cars from every city center in Italy. > 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle. people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do. if they asked them why they do not exercise they would say that they have no time due to work or that the water of the pool is too cold, but the real reason is that they prefer the couch with Netflix. we should never take those polls too seriously.
- pojzon 4y ago
  - ruivil7 4y ago
    And if a pedestrian has no sidewalk?
    - yetihehe 4y ago
      Pedestrians use much less space than cyclists and move slower, they typically also move away when they hear a car and most of them on such roads go in direction opposite to traffic flow so they see when a car approaches. Bicycles go in the same direction as traffic, sometimes swerve and go in small zigzag pattern, they don't have mirrors, don't look back and bicyclists are many times already tired from bicycling, they are also in more hurry than pedestrians (hurrying pedestrians also more often have accidents). In places where there are no sidewalks typically there are almost no pedestrians.
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    The vast majority of roads do not have separate cycle lanes - this is obviously not a good-faith argument.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Almost all cyclists would cycle in bicycle lanes if they existed.
    - pojzon 4y ago
      I beg to pardon.
      - jonahrd 4y ago
        This video came out yesterday and talks about this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcAfeGCrUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcAfeGCrUc
  - 4y ago
- glandium 4y ago
  Let's be honest: given the opportunity (multiple lanes, etc.), the car would likely overtake a slow car as well, and stop at a red light right after that. I see that all the time (albeit I'm in Japan, not in the US) Edit: point being, for some reason, some drivers really like to reach red light as quickly as they can, and that's not necessarily related to bikes.
  - tommoor 4y ago
    The longer you're at the red light, the more time you have to scroll on your phone
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think safely overtaking a slow car before a red light makes sense, if you make the reasonable assumption that 3 minutes in the future they will also be traveling slower than you intend to go.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Very few of the people who do this are thinking that far ahead, though. Most of them are clearly only thinking about the gap between them and the next car – you can tell from how often they make high risk passes only to immediately brake hard for a turn or off-ramp.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Exactly. It's always better to pass slow vehicles as soon as it is safe to do so, red light or not. That they managed to catch up because of a red light is irrelevant. They're still behind me and no longer blocking my advance. I just want as much distance as possible between other drivers. Less stuff to deal with.
- sjostrom7 4y ago
  I would imagine it happens a lot more than hospital visits would let on. Being nudged into the curb - or getting spooked by a too-close car and hitting it yourself - would likely result in just scrapes and bruises, especially if you're wearing a helmet. But it's terrifying.
atoav 4y ago
This kind of driver is the same that would accelerate towards you as you (legally) cross a road only to stop at a red light 50m behind you – a red light was clearly visible from where they were when they saw you. For them driving is just about their own emotion. The moment they see someone "who deserves it" their emotion takes over and their brain switches off. People like that should have their driving license taken away, because they show that they cannot be trusted to operate a vehicle in a public setting.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Just this morning I was walking down the street on a sidewalk and as I crossed in front of a driveway - having checked first - a car pulled out of the garage right up against my leg and stopped, and when I stepped away they started moving again to get close. The stuff people do in cars when they don't have right of way is absolutely deranged sometimes.
  - grecy 4y ago
    A lot of people have no idea of the destructive power of the three ton death machine they are in command of. For that reason I think it should be mandatory to volunteer in a crash recovery ward at a hospital for 100 hours before getting a drivers license.
    - dazc 4y ago
      These people never consider the possibility they will actually hit something, their driving skills being so above average and all..
      - spaetzleesser 4y ago
        Personally I think they don't think about this. They want to feel safe and that's where the thinking ends.
      - grecy 4y ago
        Which is why we should force them to see the reality of what happens when people do. And they'll talk to those people who are severely injured, who will say "it was never going to happen to me either". I'd bet the number of licensed drivers would drop, people wouldn't want a license after seeing the harsh reality.
DoubleFree 4y ago
The problem of dangerous interactions between drivers and cyclists is much smaller here in the Netherlands, mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is the infrastructure, both visible and invisible. Separated bicycle lanes are commonplace and in the few places where they intersect with car traffic, care is taken to make crossing safe and comfortable. This visible infrastructure is complemented by the concept of "Hoofdnetten", where the default routes to some place for different modes of transportation coincide for the least amount of time/space. For example, going somewhere by bike might take you through a residential neighborhood with barely any traffic, which is also slowed by speed bumps and narrowed streets, whereas buses will use a bus lane taking a slightly longer route, and car traffic has to go all the way around. The second reason is that here, everyone is a cyclist. Going for groceries? Five minute bike ride, much easier and quicker than going by car. Kids cycle to school alone from a young age. Going out for drinks? Bike. Because everyone is a cyclist and there are cyclists everywhere, cyclists are equal participants in traffic and are treated with care and respect.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  > Going out for drinks? Bike. As long as you don't actually drink anything hah. Everyone's a designated driver with bikes.
  - acomjean 4y ago
    We had a friend who got into an minor accident (fall really) after drinking and cycling. He was wearing a helmet and he’s become a helmet evangelist.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    Tbf, the danger of drunk cycling is significantly lower to third parties vs driving in a car. And you're unlikely to succeed if you're too drunk as well, as you still need to balance - which drunk people can't. It's still illegal in most places however, so your point stands
    - usrusr 4y ago
goethes_kind 4y ago
I would agree with all of those points, except for one. I do not think it is less dangerous to pedestrians. I remember when I used to live in the Netherlands, it was uncomfortable being a pedestrian because there were so many cyclists. They are still going fast enough that if they crash into you, you can expect a concussion or even worse. And they do not respect the traffic laws in the same way that cars do. And because of the numbers of them it is hard to keep track of them.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  100% this. And Dutch cyclists are usually nicer ones. Where I live (Geneva, Switzerland), cyclists are very aggressive towards... well everybody. As a pedestrian, I had few super close calls (5cm max) where a crowd of us pedestrians were going through the road on green light and cyclist zoomed at 30-40kph through cars on red light and our crowd, not even attempting to break. At that speed, crash can be fatal/disabling for both. Its not just theoretical - when my wife worked as doctor on biggest urgence here, they had a case where 40 year old guy was hit in same way by cyclist on pedestrian crossing, green light. He went into coma and died in 2 days. Red light is just invisible to most, unlike rest of traffic. As pedestrian I consider cars and motorbikes/scooters OK, but cyclists I avoid / look out for very carefully, especially when with kids. They really act like everything belongs to them and they are above any constraints, be it red light, no-bike-parks for kids etc. You can't simply cross road because you as pedestrian have green light - you need to have green light and check that no cyclist is going through the town like its some post-apocalyptic wasteland with no humans around. They are aggressive to the car drivers too - I had cases where drink cyclists were trying to damage my car by kicking into it (I was stopped on red light so no threat to anybody, no idea why). Damage to well parked car, also by cyclists. No love there despite obvious ecological benefits.
  - pastage 4y ago
    Well you obviously made someone unhappy so there is a chance you are not as perceptive as you think. Statistics says that cyclists are like most other road users. The chance that the cyclists around you are different is a lot less likely than you cherry picking situations. With that said, people do stupid things there are always outliers.
xattt 4y ago
> Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians Can we talk about people on e-bikes with phat tires? There’s a certain profile of riders that think they are just as meek and harmless as a normal rider, but their presence and riding style is usually aggressive. Don’t forget the angsty 40- and 50-year-olds who uncapped their limiters and installed 1000 W motors for their “sleeper” builds.
- yrro 4y ago
  They aren't cyclists -- they are motorists using illegal uninsured vehicles. [In the UK, electrically assisted pedal cycles must cut out after 15.5 mph; the max motor output is 250 W; and the motor must solely be activated by the action of turning the pedals; vehicles that don't comply with these rules are illegal]
  - bsagdiyev 4y ago
    This kinda feels like a no true Scotsman, if it walks quacks and flies like a duck it doesn't matter. Edit: I say this a cyclist myself. I see other people on bikes do some dumb shit, we can't say they aren't real cyclists because they do something that makes us look bad.
    - desas 4y ago
      Legally speaking they're not cyclists though.
    - xattt 4y ago
      I am a cycling idealist and I struggle with outcasting a group. However, e-bikes can give unconditioned people “superhuman” strength and endurance. Physical training tends to give individuals intuitive limits for personal safety, but using a modified e-bike short-circuits this intuition. I am thinking that limits on stuff like diameter of frame tubing or tire width (which would not stand up to riding at speeds outside of normal “human” parameters) can help.
O__________O 4y ago
Recall seeing research that showed biking in London is actually bad for your health due to close proximity to vehicle pollution: https://www.google.com/search?q=london+cycling+health+pollution https://www.google.com/search?q=london+cycling+health+pollut...
- corney91 4y ago
  But driving could be even worse, due to the cars collecting pollution: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists-exposed-to-less-air-pollution-than-drivers-on-congested-routes-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists... In fact, the second link for me in that Google search mentions this study, as well as others suggesting the physical and mental benefits of cycling outweigh the pollution you breath in: https://www.standard.co.uk/optimist/theairwebreathe/cycling-physical-mental-health-benefits-a4503346.html https://www.standard.co.uk/optimist/theairwebreathe/cycling-...
  - cypress66 4y ago
    But unless you have your window open, cars AC have hepa filters.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      Filters are only useful if the air moves through them: > Our study also found that there are simple changes that could reduce exposure to emissions for professional drivers, such as keeping windows closed when driving, or changing routes to avoid tunnels. Having an air-tight vehicle cabin can also play an important part in reducing driver exposure. Technological fixes such as specialised in-vehicle cabin pollution filters may also be a short-term solution to reduce exposure for professional drivers. * https://airqualitynews.com/2019/10/07/drivers-are-exposed-to-the-highest-levels-of-harmful-air-pollution-and-taxi-drivers-are-most-at-risk/ https://airqualitynews.com/2019/10/07/drivers-are-exposed-to... How many vehicles are air tight?
fishbacon 4y ago
My favourite is when I get upset about someones driving and they react by honking or doing rude gestures. Ah, the joys of almost getting killed by someone who is so rude that they don't even realise they were about to kill me. I am blessed to live in a medium sized Danish city, so it only happens about weekly that I have to face the reality of death by demigod encased in steel plate.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
"Less dangerous to pedestrians"... that really depends. Here many cyclists like to cycle on pavements, making bikes more dangerous to pedestrians than cars!
- bluecalm 4y ago
  And yet when you look at statistics it's almost solely drivers killing pedestrians even though the car infrastructure is 100x better and cars aren't forced to go on sidewalks. No one likes cycling on a sidewalk. People do it because either a bike path ended in a random place and they ended up on a sidewalk or they feel it's very dangerous to be on the road.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    You're citing a stat that has nothing to do with my comment. You've picked deadly outcomes, which obviously favours bikes. As a pedesrian, the risk of being hit by a bike riding on the pavement is higher than by a car driving on the road. As a pedestrian I can tell you that I have been hit by bikes several times but luckily never by a car. That makes bikes more dangerous to me than cars are. Cyclists are not forced on pavements, by the way. They make a conscious decision (even if that breaks the law). Sometimes they are allowed to ride on the pavement but unfortunately many are not considerate of pedestrians. Ideally pedestrians and cyclists should be physically separated. When not possible cyclists should be very careful and considerate. Just common sense, really.
    - bluecalm 4y ago
      Statistics about injuries are even worse for cars. It's a fact that cars, despite the infrastructure being designed for them, endanger pedestrians more than cyclists. We all agree about common sense. It's just your perception of what represents danger doesn't align with reality. It's important to understand where the danger comes from (for both cyclists and pedestrians) so you can support measures that actually makes everyone safer instead of just some people feeling better.
mlang79 4y ago
As a blind pedastian, I disagree violently. I typically hurt myself once a week because a careless cyclist put their bicycle in an inappropriate place. In front of a shop, because they are just going in for a minute, for example. Cyclists do the most harm to blind individuals in a city. Cars cant even come close.
- kuschku 4y ago
  How many bike parking spaces does your city have? In cities with well-maintained bike infrastructure, I’ve never seen this become an issue.
  - mlang79 4y ago
    - kuschku 4y ago
      As cyclist myself, of course I’m in danger of hurting myself. Two weeks ago I had a bike accident where I hurt my dominant hand, and I’ve been unable to even hold a glass of water since, because someone parked their bicycle in the middle of the cycle lane in a situation with bad visibility. I know the issue exists, and I can empathize with your situation. But I’ve also lived in cities with better bike infrastructure and more bike parking spaces, and in those places there were no issues with bikes parked in random places.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > But I’ve also lived in cities with better bike infrastructure and more bike parking spaces, and in those places there were no issues with bikes parked in random places. This may be true, but it can't be a case of letting shit roll downhill i.e. I'll think about the blind when I park my bike only after sufficient bicycle parking is designated in every part of every city in the world.
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
simplebutimpact 4y ago
The law should enforce passing distance on both cars and bikes. E.g. no more should a bike be allowed to pass a car unless there is one meter of clearance then a car should be allowed to pass a bike without one meter of clearance. Enforcing such a law would remove the vast majority of dangerous interactions between cars and bikes.
- II2II 4y ago
  The reason why I am opposed to such laws, as a cyclist, is the intent is to harass cyclists. My area has a law that forbids vehicles from passing within one meter of cyclists. The police won't do anything if a motorist actually strikes a cyclist unless there is injury. Yet motorists want the same standard actually applied to cyclist. Notice the asymmetry? (Incidentally, I do ensure there is clearance when I pass and I avoid passing on the right. But that has more to do with being predictable and valuing my life than the law.)
- epse 4y ago
  Where I'm at, cars are only allowed to pass a bike if they can leave 1,5m of clearance. There is no minimum for the reverse situation Of course, even the police gets angry at the cyclists for not getting out of the way instead
- killion 4y ago
  In California that is the law. Cars cannot pass a bike if they will be less than 3 feet from the bike.
Agentlien 4y ago
I live in a small town about 30km from Gothenburg, Sweden. I typically have no problem with cyclists except that there's quite a lot of them where I live staying in the middle of the road next to the broad bicycle lane and randomly darting from one side to another with no warning. I don't want to pass because they might randomly turn without looking and get run over. They're typically going at 15km/h where it's 50-60km/h. And it's not ~10-30 seconds, they stay there, in parallel with the bike lane, for several kilometres. The main problem seems to be that people (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, ...) all think they own the road and show very little respect to those around them. Especially those travelling by another type of vehicle. It makes for frustrating and dangerous situations.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  If they're not using the bike lane, that's almost certainly because it's unsafe in some way that you're totally overlooking. No cyclist wants to be on the same road as cars.
  - Agentlien 4y ago
    I have used it myself and it's fine. Better than most roads I used to bike along when I lived in Belgium. Most people do use the bike lane. There is just this one subset, usually in full racing gear, who ride slowly in the middle of the road.
- matsemann 4y ago
  What you call a bike lane I can almost guarantee is made for pedestrians, full of holes, curbs, corners, and also often make you yield to crossing roads which you avoid on the main road. Few voluntarily bike with cars, especially not those only doing 15 km/h.
  - Agentlien 4y ago
    See, that I would have understood, but no. It's separate from the one for pedestrians, in very good state, and most cyclists do use it. But there's this strange subset of cyclists who use racing bikes, dress up in full bodysuit, and then ride at a crawl in the middle of the road with other bikes whooshing past on the bike lane.
tim333 4y ago
In the UK they are now clamping down on that a bit after the recent law change. See for example "Audi driver £4,500 out of pocket for passing cyclist too closely says he was 4ft away" https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/15/bridgend-driver-passed-cyclist-too-closely-and-was-given-1887-fine-16832695/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/15/bridgend-driver-passed-cyclis...
josefresco 4y ago
> And the frustrating thing is that the drivers who impatiently pass dangerously are putting people at risk for the sake of ~10-30 seconds (or less). As a bicyclist and driver I do think it can be difficult to pass a bicyclist that's travelling at a considerable pace. At 10 MPH I can easily and safely get by a bicyclist but if they're travelling 15-20 MPH it can be more difficult (assuming a speed limit of 30 MPH) and almost require a higher rate of speed than is comfortable for both parties. The solution is better roads and bike pathways and less mixture of automobiles and bicycles.
- acdha 4y ago
  I used to feel that way too, but then I started paying closer attention to travel times, which were the same no matter whether that happened. Unless you’re on a rural road with no traffic or signals, a cyclist going 15mph is probably not costing you a second of door to door travel time rather than decreasing the time you spend stopping for signals or waiting for the car ahead of you to start moving.
  - josefresco 4y ago
    I understand that I'm not gaining a huge amount of time as a motorist, but if I follow behind I end up "stalking" the bicyclist which can make them uncomfortable.
    - richiebful1 4y ago
      As a cyclist, I'm not bothered by someone following me at a safe distance. And if you follow me for 1km or so, I'll pull over and let you pass if it is safe.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Yeah, I usually just settle back to allow room and pretend they’re a city bus - probably faster, way better smelling
alt227 4y ago
>Unfortunately, a typical journey involves passing more than 20 cars, which means experiencing at least 1 very close pass Unfortunately I see it the other way. Asa rule I give cyclists plenty of space when overtaking, even happily sitting behind a slow cyclist on a 60Mph road for 30 seconds to a minute in order to find a safe passing spot. However the same courtesy is not paid the other way. When in multi lane traffic jams (or even slow traffic on a single lane road) cyclists will fly down the tiny gaps between the cars, often only just wide enough for their handlebars to fit through. If vehicles at speed need to give such room for an overtake, why doesnt it work the other way around? There are plenty of videos on youtube of bikes going very fast between stationary cars, only to hit a wing mirror and crash.
- _will_ 4y ago
  First, let me just state up front: I agree with you that some people on bikes should show more care when passing cars closely. Dangerously close is dangerously close no matter who initiates it. Second, while room should be given by both parties, the consequences for failure are far different between the two scenarios. In the scenario where the car driver is passing dangerously close, you have a multi-thousand pound vehicle potentially hitting an unprotected body. Even if the initial impact doesn't cause great harm to the person, there's a lot of potential for knocking the bike and person over and then causing them to get run over by the initial vehicle's wheels or into the path of a second vehicle nearby. Who loses most in this situation? The person riding the bike. In the scenario where the person on the bike passes too closely and hits the stationary car, there's just a lot less energy and moving mass involved. The potential for serious injury is greatly reduced. And perhaps most importantly, the party suffering the greatest potential for serious injury is the one that caused the situation. I don't mean to dismiss the potential for damage to the car (mirrors knocked off, scratches, etc) as that's a real thing which should be avoided. But there's also a VERY big difference between property damage and bodily damage.
- matsemann 4y ago
  If I have my hand on a table, and you slam a hammer down next to it, that poses a danger to me. If a hammer lies on the table, and I slam my hand next to it, that poses no danger to anyone.
_chu1 4y ago
I live in the American suburban/rural spillover, riding a bike is a fever dream, I wish I could but then again it's a tradeoff of not living in any big city of my state (I live in Alabama so I obviously don't have good choices)
- stopyellingatme 4y ago
  I live in Birmingham, AL and biking is an impossibility here. Mountainbrook has nice sidewalks though. Just have to pay 1m+ for a house over there.
  - _chu1 4y ago
    Birmingham is getting rough, I moved away near the St Clair county area. Safer areas, less things to do overall though.
- richiebful1 4y ago
  Oddly enough, my main concern riding in rural Kentucky is loose dogs. The roads are not very suitable to driving at highway speeds and most of my route to the nearest grocery store is sparsely traveled.
JackFr 4y ago
> Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... As a pedestrian in Manhattan I am in much more danger from cyclists that from cars, trucks and buses. Literally every single day I will see a dozen cyclists run red lights, go the wrong way down one way streets and ride on crowded sidewalks. While bicycles are much lighter and don't move as fast as cars, they pose a greater danger to me than cars because a very large number of cyclists in Manhattan simply do not subscribe to any rules of the road.
- kiwih 4y ago
  In terms of "much more danger from cyclists", the statistics would thoroughly disagree with you [0]. [0] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestria...
- DontGiveTwoFlux 4y ago
  Drivers killed about 200 times as many people as bicyclists over a 15 year period. You are misplacing your fears. https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestria...
  - JackFr 4y ago
    Well, yes and no. - I care about injuries other than just fatalities - Non-fatal injuries due to being hit by cyclists are underreported - Those statistics are for all of NYC - the pedestrian experience in much of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, and all of Staten Island is similar to the pedestrian experience in suburbs - and I'd agree there my danger is greater from cars. - Those statistics pre-date the dramatic rise of e-bikes on the streets of Manhattan
    - pastage 4y ago
      There are research on how many accidents are reported and at least in Sweden most accidents that require hospital visits are reported correctly. (and they mimick what is said in other countries). Streets with bicycle paths are a safer for pedestrians, I think there is research from NYC/Brooklyn comparing streets before and after bike paths.
chaostheory 4y ago
The trend shown by the tweets happened before automobiles became affordable. I feel that you’re missing the point. These tweets are to demonstrate that the masses in general will demonize anything new and unfamiliar. It’s not really about bikes.
dpb1 4y ago
I'd say your number is about right. Not just for bikes, but cars too. 5% of drivers follow me way too close, speed between lanes for no apparent benefit or emergency, pass far to close, don't signal, don't give time for people to adjust. 5% seems very low, but when there are hundreds or thousands of cars you see in a day, it's a lot of bad drivers. And, I usually have a lot of steel and airbags around me to protect me. It's the #1 reason I don't ride bikes on the road in the US. If I lived elsewhere I might change that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bdangubic 4y ago
I am in my 40's and am yet to encounter ONE cyclist that drives on the road and obeys traffic laws like cars. - Red light, move to the other side and cross on the side-walk and back on the road - Stop sign - funny... - Yield sign - funny... - Get a ticket from officer - funny... I bike a lot and when I bike I always yell at drivers etc but I also ride the bike like a cowboy as well, most rules do not apply. I think if cyclists generally obeyed traffic laws when they are riding on the roads things be different in terms of how drivers are treating them... How much different is another story but I think significantly!
- amrocha 4y ago
  You have definitely seen cyclists following the rules, you just don't notice them. The "rules of the road" were made for cars, not bikes. Bikes are inherently different and should have different rules. Cars and bikes should not be riding side by side in cities.
- ar_turnbull 4y ago
  Friendly heads up but you may want to check your bias here -- it's been studied and cyclists don't break the law anymore than cars do [1]. In fact, motorists break the law more frequently and they do it's to save time whereas cyclists most frequently do it for personal safety or the type of thing that's unlikely to cause harm to others. [2] Perhaps you don't see it anymore because it's so common but cars break rules all the time -- rolling stop, speeding, illegal u-turns, running reds, etc. [1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/18/motorists-break-law-to-save-time-cyclists-break-law-to-save-lives-finds-study/?sh=59ed2b573c54 https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/18/motorist...
- trgn 4y ago
  There's a big difference in responsibility. A driver will kill somebody else when they're distracted, a cyclist will get killed themselves. That's why I find it so spiritually ugly when drivers blame pedestrians or cyclists for getting killed or injured after getting run over, it's kicking down. The bigger the car, the bigger the responsibility. We need to act and judge accordingly.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I hate cycling (bicycling). Hate every aspect of it. There are ways for me to get healthy but I always prefer driving over cycling. The benefits are tremendous and not even close: - Faster for most of America, unless you're in places such as Manhattan. - Can use normal clothes, no need to specially dress up for it - Can enjoy beverages, music and audiobooks, you can do that on a bicycle but not as safe - Better quality of air to breathe - Not going to get stolen - Not going to get robbed - Much much safer, modern automobiles are riduculously safe - Better for the knees - No need to worry about weather. Flip of a switch and it is awesome, instant heat or cold - Luxury vehicles are incredibly comfortable - Cost of cars + insurance + fuel is not a problem for me - I really don't care about energy consumption, I am not going to give up modern QoL for some ostensible collectivist goal like cycling or eating bugs. We have unlimited source of energy (Sun), we're going to be fine in the future - Much more fun (subjective). I love driving, especially manual transmision cars and performance cars with great suspension
- mmcnl 4y ago
  You totally ignore the car tax on society. Just look at how much space car lanes and parking spaces take. The simple ability to take a walk around the city does so much for actually living in the city, instead of everyone transporting themselves in cars that are bigger than WW2 tanks.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Sure, Manhattan and extreme dense city centers where Parking is limited and most people don't drive to it. Most of USA would be impossible to get to without cars. Don't call that car tax on "society". Society is much more than urban centers which have bigger problems than cars, i.e. Crime that discourage walking. I've lived in a third world nation full of weavering motorcyles and two wheelers. It was a hell hole.
- rizach8 4y ago
  "Better for knees" I am not sure that is correct? Running I understand, but on a bike, your knees are in less of a stress than even standing still. "Not going to get robbed" In Europe this is not an issue to be honest.
nashashmi 4y ago
> less dangerous to pedestrians try braking suddenly on a bike when a pedestrian walks in your way. and either you will get thrown forward or you will not break in time. I would argue that bikes make it more hazardous to the user to suddenly brake. I have gotten hit before!
1-6 4y ago
“Which is fairly easy to surpass on a bike…” you stop at traffic lights and stop signs to, right?

rizach8 4y ago

The solution is to build for bikes, pedestrian and cars to coexist. Red lights are also an arbitrary solution to an non existing problem.

jimmytidey 4y ago

The pattern: -- A car squeezes past you at high speed -- Less than 30 seconds later I pull in front of it as we both stop at a red light. In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury. It certainly makes cycling unpleasant though. 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

tralarpa 4y ago
> In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury Interesting question. I just googled for statistics and found some for German cities. In Berlin (2021), the majority (~50%) of accidents involving bicyclists in which the bicyclist was not at fault were caused by cars turning. But "insufficient distance" was still at 5%.
- beowulfey 4y ago
  Both of my hits while riding a bike have been because of cars turning. For one, the driver was turning right and only looked left -- I was still in front of him, and he never looked ahead; T-boned! For the other, I pull up to a stoplight alongside a few cars, against the curb. There is only one lane for left/right/straight. No one had on turn signals. Light turns green, so myself and the first car go straight. Second car apparently wanted to turn right without signaling, and once again does not look to the right (looking left, maybe?). Cuts me off in their turn and I hit their right side door. So yeah, can definitely confirm that people do not look when they are turning.
  - microtherion 4y ago
    As a former bicyclist, I try to be extra mindful of bicyclists when driving. One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving without a light at night serve? Especially when combined with barreling through a red light into a multi-lane traffic circle? And, of course, sidewalks are meant to be driven on — wouldn't want to lose your bicyclist card for ever pushing your bike. Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out). Granted, due to the lower weight of bicycles, accidents are considerably less deadly, but there is still a considerable injury risk to me as a pedestrian, and as an automobilist, I'd rather not have an accident on my conscience, whether I'd be legally at fault or not.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      > One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds. So you expect to get unlawful right of way because your vehicle is big and dangerous. Allow me to not share your view about who's a maniac.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> car squeezes past you at high speed many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event. like if the biker falls. clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both. Doesn't matter who's faster in the end, if that was the purpose, it would suffice for drivers to not respect traffic laws, like many bikers do, for the exact purpose of arriving to the destination sooner. Of course you are faster if your parking technique involves blocking the road for pedestrian, especially hadicapped people, like this https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-18_Milano_Motorini_Biciclette_Marciapidei_Incivilt%C3%A0_42-1024x768.jpg https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-0... or this https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-18_Milano_Motorini_Biciclette_Marciapidei_Incivilt%C3%A0_6-1024x768.jpg https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-0... (real pictures in Milan one of the cities where bikes are more popular in Italy and they have become a problem for everyone else) the point is also that bikers should be in charge of their own safety, if a road is very narrow they are voluntarily endangering themselves for no reason, no other road user should be responsible for your safety more than you! that also apply to motorbikes, mopeds, scooters etc which are harder to drive because they rely on the gyroscope effect and only.have two wheels, they do not stand in case of sudden stop, the user can only fall or be shoot forward with grave consequences. so they should care for their life more than a driver that is protected by the car case. I wish I could show you the suicidal moves tourists make in my city (Rome) while riding electric scooters, two people, while the regulation says only one person can ride them, in the middle of high speed roads, with no knowledge of how the traffic works in a city they do not know, like it's OK to be idiots trying to die (and possibly ruin the life of someone else who happens to cross their path on a motor vehicle) Not saying people shouldn't use alternatives means of transport, I do.not drive often anymore, I walk As a pedestrian bikes are much more disruptive than cars for me, even though I'd like to ban cars from every city center in Italy. > 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle. people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do. if they asked them why they do not exercise they would say that they have no time due to work or that the water of the pool is too cold, but the real reason is that they prefer the couch with Netflix. we should never take those polls too seriously.
pojzon 4y ago
- ruivil7 4y ago
  And if a pedestrian has no sidewalk?
  - yetihehe 4y ago
    Pedestrians use much less space than cyclists and move slower, they typically also move away when they hear a car and most of them on such roads go in direction opposite to traffic flow so they see when a car approaches. Bicycles go in the same direction as traffic, sometimes swerve and go in small zigzag pattern, they don't have mirrors, don't look back and bicyclists are many times already tired from bicycling, they are also in more hurry than pedestrians (hurrying pedestrians also more often have accidents). In places where there are no sidewalks typically there are almost no pedestrians.
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  The vast majority of roads do not have separate cycle lanes - this is obviously not a good-faith argument.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Almost all cyclists would cycle in bicycle lanes if they existed.
  - pojzon 4y ago
    I beg to pardon.
    - jonahrd 4y ago
      This video came out yesterday and talks about this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcAfeGCrUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcAfeGCrUc
- 4y ago
glandium 4y ago
Let's be honest: given the opportunity (multiple lanes, etc.), the car would likely overtake a slow car as well, and stop at a red light right after that. I see that all the time (albeit I'm in Japan, not in the US) Edit: point being, for some reason, some drivers really like to reach red light as quickly as they can, and that's not necessarily related to bikes.
- tommoor 4y ago
  The longer you're at the red light, the more time you have to scroll on your phone
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I think safely overtaking a slow car before a red light makes sense, if you make the reasonable assumption that 3 minutes in the future they will also be traveling slower than you intend to go.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Very few of the people who do this are thinking that far ahead, though. Most of them are clearly only thinking about the gap between them and the next car – you can tell from how often they make high risk passes only to immediately brake hard for a turn or off-ramp.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Exactly. It's always better to pass slow vehicles as soon as it is safe to do so, red light or not. That they managed to catch up because of a red light is irrelevant. They're still behind me and no longer blocking my advance. I just want as much distance as possible between other drivers. Less stuff to deal with.
sjostrom7 4y ago
I would imagine it happens a lot more than hospital visits would let on. Being nudged into the curb - or getting spooked by a too-close car and hitting it yourself - would likely result in just scrapes and bruises, especially if you're wearing a helmet. But it's terrifying.

atoav 4y ago

This kind of driver is the same that would accelerate towards you as you (legally) cross a road only to stop at a red light 50m behind you – a red light was clearly visible from where they were when they saw you. For them driving is just about their own emotion. The moment they see someone "who deserves it" their emotion takes over and their brain switches off. People like that should have their driving license taken away, because they show that they cannot be trusted to operate a vehicle in a public setting.

kevingadd 4y ago
Just this morning I was walking down the street on a sidewalk and as I crossed in front of a driveway - having checked first - a car pulled out of the garage right up against my leg and stopped, and when I stepped away they started moving again to get close. The stuff people do in cars when they don't have right of way is absolutely deranged sometimes.
- grecy 4y ago
  A lot of people have no idea of the destructive power of the three ton death machine they are in command of. For that reason I think it should be mandatory to volunteer in a crash recovery ward at a hospital for 100 hours before getting a drivers license.
  - dazc 4y ago
    These people never consider the possibility they will actually hit something, their driving skills being so above average and all..
    - spaetzleesser 4y ago
      Personally I think they don't think about this. They want to feel safe and that's where the thinking ends.
    - grecy 4y ago
      Which is why we should force them to see the reality of what happens when people do. And they'll talk to those people who are severely injured, who will say "it was never going to happen to me either". I'd bet the number of licensed drivers would drop, people wouldn't want a license after seeing the harsh reality.

DoubleFree 4y ago

The problem of dangerous interactions between drivers and cyclists is much smaller here in the Netherlands, mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is the infrastructure, both visible and invisible. Separated bicycle lanes are commonplace and in the few places where they intersect with car traffic, care is taken to make crossing safe and comfortable. This visible infrastructure is complemented by the concept of "Hoofdnetten", where the default routes to some place for different modes of transportation coincide for the least amount of time/space. For example, going somewhere by bike might take you through a residential neighborhood with barely any traffic, which is also slowed by speed bumps and narrowed streets, whereas buses will use a bus lane taking a slightly longer route, and car traffic has to go all the way around. The second reason is that here, everyone is a cyclist. Going for groceries? Five minute bike ride, much easier and quicker than going by car. Kids cycle to school alone from a young age. Going out for drinks? Bike. Because everyone is a cyclist and there are cyclists everywhere, cyclists are equal participants in traffic and are treated with care and respect.

moffkalast 4y ago
> Going out for drinks? Bike. As long as you don't actually drink anything hah. Everyone's a designated driver with bikes.
- acomjean 4y ago
  We had a friend who got into an minor accident (fall really) after drinking and cycling. He was wearing a helmet and he’s become a helmet evangelist.
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  Tbf, the danger of drunk cycling is significantly lower to third parties vs driving in a car. And you're unlikely to succeed if you're too drunk as well, as you still need to balance - which drunk people can't. It's still illegal in most places however, so your point stands
  - usrusr 4y ago

goethes_kind 4y ago

I would agree with all of those points, except for one. I do not think it is less dangerous to pedestrians. I remember when I used to live in the Netherlands, it was uncomfortable being a pedestrian because there were so many cyclists. They are still going fast enough that if they crash into you, you can expect a concussion or even worse. And they do not respect the traffic laws in the same way that cars do. And because of the numbers of them it is hard to keep track of them.

saiya-jin 4y ago
100% this. And Dutch cyclists are usually nicer ones. Where I live (Geneva, Switzerland), cyclists are very aggressive towards... well everybody. As a pedestrian, I had few super close calls (5cm max) where a crowd of us pedestrians were going through the road on green light and cyclist zoomed at 30-40kph through cars on red light and our crowd, not even attempting to break. At that speed, crash can be fatal/disabling for both. Its not just theoretical - when my wife worked as doctor on biggest urgence here, they had a case where 40 year old guy was hit in same way by cyclist on pedestrian crossing, green light. He went into coma and died in 2 days. Red light is just invisible to most, unlike rest of traffic. As pedestrian I consider cars and motorbikes/scooters OK, but cyclists I avoid / look out for very carefully, especially when with kids. They really act like everything belongs to them and they are above any constraints, be it red light, no-bike-parks for kids etc. You can't simply cross road because you as pedestrian have green light - you need to have green light and check that no cyclist is going through the town like its some post-apocalyptic wasteland with no humans around. They are aggressive to the car drivers too - I had cases where drink cyclists were trying to damage my car by kicking into it (I was stopped on red light so no threat to anybody, no idea why). Damage to well parked car, also by cyclists. No love there despite obvious ecological benefits.
- pastage 4y ago
  Well you obviously made someone unhappy so there is a chance you are not as perceptive as you think. Statistics says that cyclists are like most other road users. The chance that the cyclists around you are different is a lot less likely than you cherry picking situations. With that said, people do stupid things there are always outliers.

xattt 4y ago

> Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians Can we talk about people on e-bikes with phat tires? There’s a certain profile of riders that think they are just as meek and harmless as a normal rider, but their presence and riding style is usually aggressive. Don’t forget the angsty 40- and 50-year-olds who uncapped their limiters and installed 1000 W motors for their “sleeper” builds.

yrro 4y ago
They aren't cyclists -- they are motorists using illegal uninsured vehicles. [In the UK, electrically assisted pedal cycles must cut out after 15.5 mph; the max motor output is 250 W; and the motor must solely be activated by the action of turning the pedals; vehicles that don't comply with these rules are illegal]
- bsagdiyev 4y ago
  This kinda feels like a no true Scotsman, if it walks quacks and flies like a duck it doesn't matter. Edit: I say this a cyclist myself. I see other people on bikes do some dumb shit, we can't say they aren't real cyclists because they do something that makes us look bad.
  - desas 4y ago
    Legally speaking they're not cyclists though.
  - xattt 4y ago
    I am a cycling idealist and I struggle with outcasting a group. However, e-bikes can give unconditioned people “superhuman” strength and endurance. Physical training tends to give individuals intuitive limits for personal safety, but using a modified e-bike short-circuits this intuition. I am thinking that limits on stuff like diameter of frame tubing or tire width (which would not stand up to riding at speeds outside of normal “human” parameters) can help.

O__________O 4y ago

Recall seeing research that showed biking in London is actually bad for your health due to close proximity to vehicle pollution: https://www.google.com/search?q=london+cycling+health+pollution https://www.google.com/search?q=london+cycling+health+pollut...

corney91 4y ago
But driving could be even worse, due to the cars collecting pollution: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists-exposed-to-less-air-pollution-than-drivers-on-congested-routes-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists... In fact, the second link for me in that Google search mentions this study, as well as others suggesting the physical and mental benefits of cycling outweigh the pollution you breath in: https://www.standard.co.uk/optimist/theairwebreathe/cycling-physical-mental-health-benefits-a4503346.html https://www.standard.co.uk/optimist/theairwebreathe/cycling-...
- cypress66 4y ago
  But unless you have your window open, cars AC have hepa filters.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    Filters are only useful if the air moves through them: > Our study also found that there are simple changes that could reduce exposure to emissions for professional drivers, such as keeping windows closed when driving, or changing routes to avoid tunnels. Having an air-tight vehicle cabin can also play an important part in reducing driver exposure. Technological fixes such as specialised in-vehicle cabin pollution filters may also be a short-term solution to reduce exposure for professional drivers. * https://airqualitynews.com/2019/10/07/drivers-are-exposed-to-the-highest-levels-of-harmful-air-pollution-and-taxi-drivers-are-most-at-risk/ https://airqualitynews.com/2019/10/07/drivers-are-exposed-to... How many vehicles are air tight?

fishbacon 4y ago

My favourite is when I get upset about someones driving and they react by honking or doing rude gestures. Ah, the joys of almost getting killed by someone who is so rude that they don't even realise they were about to kill me. I am blessed to live in a medium sized Danish city, so it only happens about weekly that I have to face the reality of death by demigod encased in steel plate.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

"Less dangerous to pedestrians"... that really depends. Here many cyclists like to cycle on pavements, making bikes more dangerous to pedestrians than cars!

bluecalm 4y ago
And yet when you look at statistics it's almost solely drivers killing pedestrians even though the car infrastructure is 100x better and cars aren't forced to go on sidewalks. No one likes cycling on a sidewalk. People do it because either a bike path ended in a random place and they ended up on a sidewalk or they feel it's very dangerous to be on the road.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  You're citing a stat that has nothing to do with my comment. You've picked deadly outcomes, which obviously favours bikes. As a pedesrian, the risk of being hit by a bike riding on the pavement is higher than by a car driving on the road. As a pedestrian I can tell you that I have been hit by bikes several times but luckily never by a car. That makes bikes more dangerous to me than cars are. Cyclists are not forced on pavements, by the way. They make a conscious decision (even if that breaks the law). Sometimes they are allowed to ride on the pavement but unfortunately many are not considerate of pedestrians. Ideally pedestrians and cyclists should be physically separated. When not possible cyclists should be very careful and considerate. Just common sense, really.
  - bluecalm 4y ago
    Statistics about injuries are even worse for cars. It's a fact that cars, despite the infrastructure being designed for them, endanger pedestrians more than cyclists. We all agree about common sense. It's just your perception of what represents danger doesn't align with reality. It's important to understand where the danger comes from (for both cyclists and pedestrians) so you can support measures that actually makes everyone safer instead of just some people feeling better.

mlang79 4y ago

As a blind pedastian, I disagree violently. I typically hurt myself once a week because a careless cyclist put their bicycle in an inappropriate place. In front of a shop, because they are just going in for a minute, for example. Cyclists do the most harm to blind individuals in a city. Cars cant even come close.

kuschku 4y ago
How many bike parking spaces does your city have? In cities with well-maintained bike infrastructure, I’ve never seen this become an issue.
- mlang79 4y ago
  - kuschku 4y ago
    As cyclist myself, of course I’m in danger of hurting myself. Two weeks ago I had a bike accident where I hurt my dominant hand, and I’ve been unable to even hold a glass of water since, because someone parked their bicycle in the middle of the cycle lane in a situation with bad visibility. I know the issue exists, and I can empathize with your situation. But I’ve also lived in cities with better bike infrastructure and more bike parking spaces, and in those places there were no issues with bikes parked in random places.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > But I’ve also lived in cities with better bike infrastructure and more bike parking spaces, and in those places there were no issues with bikes parked in random places. This may be true, but it can't be a case of letting shit roll downhill i.e. I'll think about the blind when I park my bike only after sufficient bicycle parking is designated in every part of every city in the world.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago

simplebutimpact 4y ago

The law should enforce passing distance on both cars and bikes. E.g. no more should a bike be allowed to pass a car unless there is one meter of clearance then a car should be allowed to pass a bike without one meter of clearance. Enforcing such a law would remove the vast majority of dangerous interactions between cars and bikes.

II2II 4y ago
The reason why I am opposed to such laws, as a cyclist, is the intent is to harass cyclists. My area has a law that forbids vehicles from passing within one meter of cyclists. The police won't do anything if a motorist actually strikes a cyclist unless there is injury. Yet motorists want the same standard actually applied to cyclist. Notice the asymmetry? (Incidentally, I do ensure there is clearance when I pass and I avoid passing on the right. But that has more to do with being predictable and valuing my life than the law.)
epse 4y ago
Where I'm at, cars are only allowed to pass a bike if they can leave 1,5m of clearance. There is no minimum for the reverse situation Of course, even the police gets angry at the cyclists for not getting out of the way instead
killion 4y ago
In California that is the law. Cars cannot pass a bike if they will be less than 3 feet from the bike.

Agentlien 4y ago

I live in a small town about 30km from Gothenburg, Sweden. I typically have no problem with cyclists except that there's quite a lot of them where I live staying in the middle of the road next to the broad bicycle lane and randomly darting from one side to another with no warning. I don't want to pass because they might randomly turn without looking and get run over. They're typically going at 15km/h where it's 50-60km/h. And it's not ~10-30 seconds, they stay there, in parallel with the bike lane, for several kilometres. The main problem seems to be that people (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, ...) all think they own the road and show very little respect to those around them. Especially those travelling by another type of vehicle. It makes for frustrating and dangerous situations.

crooked-v 4y ago
If they're not using the bike lane, that's almost certainly because it's unsafe in some way that you're totally overlooking. No cyclist wants to be on the same road as cars.
- Agentlien 4y ago
  I have used it myself and it's fine. Better than most roads I used to bike along when I lived in Belgium. Most people do use the bike lane. There is just this one subset, usually in full racing gear, who ride slowly in the middle of the road.
matsemann 4y ago
What you call a bike lane I can almost guarantee is made for pedestrians, full of holes, curbs, corners, and also often make you yield to crossing roads which you avoid on the main road. Few voluntarily bike with cars, especially not those only doing 15 km/h.
- Agentlien 4y ago
  See, that I would have understood, but no. It's separate from the one for pedestrians, in very good state, and most cyclists do use it. But there's this strange subset of cyclists who use racing bikes, dress up in full bodysuit, and then ride at a crawl in the middle of the road with other bikes whooshing past on the bike lane.

tim333 4y ago

In the UK they are now clamping down on that a bit after the recent law change. See for example "Audi driver £4,500 out of pocket for passing cyclist too closely says he was 4ft away" https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/15/bridgend-driver-passed-cyclist-too-closely-and-was-given-1887-fine-16832695/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/15/bridgend-driver-passed-cyclis...

josefresco 4y ago

> And the frustrating thing is that the drivers who impatiently pass dangerously are putting people at risk for the sake of ~10-30 seconds (or less). As a bicyclist and driver I do think it can be difficult to pass a bicyclist that's travelling at a considerable pace. At 10 MPH I can easily and safely get by a bicyclist but if they're travelling 15-20 MPH it can be more difficult (assuming a speed limit of 30 MPH) and almost require a higher rate of speed than is comfortable for both parties. The solution is better roads and bike pathways and less mixture of automobiles and bicycles.

acdha 4y ago
I used to feel that way too, but then I started paying closer attention to travel times, which were the same no matter whether that happened. Unless you’re on a rural road with no traffic or signals, a cyclist going 15mph is probably not costing you a second of door to door travel time rather than decreasing the time you spend stopping for signals or waiting for the car ahead of you to start moving.
- josefresco 4y ago
  I understand that I'm not gaining a huge amount of time as a motorist, but if I follow behind I end up "stalking" the bicyclist which can make them uncomfortable.
  - richiebful1 4y ago
    As a cyclist, I'm not bothered by someone following me at a safe distance. And if you follow me for 1km or so, I'll pull over and let you pass if it is safe.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yeah, I usually just settle back to allow room and pretend they’re a city bus - probably faster, way better smelling

alt227 4y ago

>Unfortunately, a typical journey involves passing more than 20 cars, which means experiencing at least 1 very close pass Unfortunately I see it the other way. Asa rule I give cyclists plenty of space when overtaking, even happily sitting behind a slow cyclist on a 60Mph road for 30 seconds to a minute in order to find a safe passing spot. However the same courtesy is not paid the other way. When in multi lane traffic jams (or even slow traffic on a single lane road) cyclists will fly down the tiny gaps between the cars, often only just wide enough for their handlebars to fit through. If vehicles at speed need to give such room for an overtake, why doesnt it work the other way around? There are plenty of videos on youtube of bikes going very fast between stationary cars, only to hit a wing mirror and crash.

_will_ 4y ago
First, let me just state up front: I agree with you that some people on bikes should show more care when passing cars closely. Dangerously close is dangerously close no matter who initiates it. Second, while room should be given by both parties, the consequences for failure are far different between the two scenarios. In the scenario where the car driver is passing dangerously close, you have a multi-thousand pound vehicle potentially hitting an unprotected body. Even if the initial impact doesn't cause great harm to the person, there's a lot of potential for knocking the bike and person over and then causing them to get run over by the initial vehicle's wheels or into the path of a second vehicle nearby. Who loses most in this situation? The person riding the bike. In the scenario where the person on the bike passes too closely and hits the stationary car, there's just a lot less energy and moving mass involved. The potential for serious injury is greatly reduced. And perhaps most importantly, the party suffering the greatest potential for serious injury is the one that caused the situation. I don't mean to dismiss the potential for damage to the car (mirrors knocked off, scratches, etc) as that's a real thing which should be avoided. But there's also a VERY big difference between property damage and bodily damage.
matsemann 4y ago
If I have my hand on a table, and you slam a hammer down next to it, that poses a danger to me. If a hammer lies on the table, and I slam my hand next to it, that poses no danger to anyone.

_chu1 4y ago

I live in the American suburban/rural spillover, riding a bike is a fever dream, I wish I could but then again it's a tradeoff of not living in any big city of my state (I live in Alabama so I obviously don't have good choices)

stopyellingatme 4y ago
I live in Birmingham, AL and biking is an impossibility here. Mountainbrook has nice sidewalks though. Just have to pay 1m+ for a house over there.
- _chu1 4y ago
  Birmingham is getting rough, I moved away near the St Clair county area. Safer areas, less things to do overall though.
richiebful1 4y ago
Oddly enough, my main concern riding in rural Kentucky is loose dogs. The roads are not very suitable to driving at highway speeds and most of my route to the nearest grocery store is sparsely traveled.

JackFr 4y ago

> Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... As a pedestrian in Manhattan I am in much more danger from cyclists that from cars, trucks and buses. Literally every single day I will see a dozen cyclists run red lights, go the wrong way down one way streets and ride on crowded sidewalks. While bicycles are much lighter and don't move as fast as cars, they pose a greater danger to me than cars because a very large number of cyclists in Manhattan simply do not subscribe to any rules of the road.

kiwih 4y ago
In terms of "much more danger from cyclists", the statistics would thoroughly disagree with you [0]. [0] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestria...
DontGiveTwoFlux 4y ago
Drivers killed about 200 times as many people as bicyclists over a 15 year period. You are misplacing your fears. https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestria...
- JackFr 4y ago
  Well, yes and no. - I care about injuries other than just fatalities - Non-fatal injuries due to being hit by cyclists are underreported - Those statistics are for all of NYC - the pedestrian experience in much of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, and all of Staten Island is similar to the pedestrian experience in suburbs - and I'd agree there my danger is greater from cars. - Those statistics pre-date the dramatic rise of e-bikes on the streets of Manhattan
  - pastage 4y ago
    There are research on how many accidents are reported and at least in Sweden most accidents that require hospital visits are reported correctly. (and they mimick what is said in other countries). Streets with bicycle paths are a safer for pedestrians, I think there is research from NYC/Brooklyn comparing streets before and after bike paths.

chaostheory 4y ago

The trend shown by the tweets happened before automobiles became affordable. I feel that you’re missing the point. These tweets are to demonstrate that the masses in general will demonize anything new and unfamiliar. It’s not really about bikes.

dpb1 4y ago

I'd say your number is about right. Not just for bikes, but cars too. 5% of drivers follow me way too close, speed between lanes for no apparent benefit or emergency, pass far to close, don't signal, don't give time for people to adjust. 5% seems very low, but when there are hundreds or thousands of cars you see in a day, it's a lot of bad drivers. And, I usually have a lot of steel and airbags around me to protect me. It's the #1 reason I don't ride bikes on the road in the US. If I lived elsewhere I might change that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bdangubic 4y ago

I am in my 40's and am yet to encounter ONE cyclist that drives on the road and obeys traffic laws like cars. - Red light, move to the other side and cross on the side-walk and back on the road - Stop sign - funny... - Yield sign - funny... - Get a ticket from officer - funny... I bike a lot and when I bike I always yell at drivers etc but I also ride the bike like a cowboy as well, most rules do not apply. I think if cyclists generally obeyed traffic laws when they are riding on the roads things be different in terms of how drivers are treating them... How much different is another story but I think significantly!

amrocha 4y ago
You have definitely seen cyclists following the rules, you just don't notice them. The "rules of the road" were made for cars, not bikes. Bikes are inherently different and should have different rules. Cars and bikes should not be riding side by side in cities.
ar_turnbull 4y ago
Friendly heads up but you may want to check your bias here -- it's been studied and cyclists don't break the law anymore than cars do [1]. In fact, motorists break the law more frequently and they do it's to save time whereas cyclists most frequently do it for personal safety or the type of thing that's unlikely to cause harm to others. [2] Perhaps you don't see it anymore because it's so common but cars break rules all the time -- rolling stop, speeding, illegal u-turns, running reds, etc. [1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/18/motorists-break-law-to-save-time-cyclists-break-law-to-save-lives-finds-study/?sh=59ed2b573c54 https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/18/motorist...
trgn 4y ago
There's a big difference in responsibility. A driver will kill somebody else when they're distracted, a cyclist will get killed themselves. That's why I find it so spiritually ugly when drivers blame pedestrians or cyclists for getting killed or injured after getting run over, it's kicking down. The bigger the car, the bigger the responsibility. We need to act and judge accordingly.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I hate cycling (bicycling). Hate every aspect of it. There are ways for me to get healthy but I always prefer driving over cycling. The benefits are tremendous and not even close: - Faster for most of America, unless you're in places such as Manhattan. - Can use normal clothes, no need to specially dress up for it - Can enjoy beverages, music and audiobooks, you can do that on a bicycle but not as safe - Better quality of air to breathe - Not going to get stolen - Not going to get robbed - Much much safer, modern automobiles are riduculously safe - Better for the knees - No need to worry about weather. Flip of a switch and it is awesome, instant heat or cold - Luxury vehicles are incredibly comfortable - Cost of cars + insurance + fuel is not a problem for me - I really don't care about energy consumption, I am not going to give up modern QoL for some ostensible collectivist goal like cycling or eating bugs. We have unlimited source of energy (Sun), we're going to be fine in the future - Much more fun (subjective). I love driving, especially manual transmision cars and performance cars with great suspension

mmcnl 4y ago
You totally ignore the car tax on society. Just look at how much space car lanes and parking spaces take. The simple ability to take a walk around the city does so much for actually living in the city, instead of everyone transporting themselves in cars that are bigger than WW2 tanks.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Sure, Manhattan and extreme dense city centers where Parking is limited and most people don't drive to it. Most of USA would be impossible to get to without cars. Don't call that car tax on "society". Society is much more than urban centers which have bigger problems than cars, i.e. Crime that discourage walking. I've lived in a third world nation full of weavering motorcyles and two wheelers. It was a hell hole.
rizach8 4y ago
"Better for knees" I am not sure that is correct? Running I understand, but on a bike, your knees are in less of a stress than even standing still. "Not going to get robbed" In Europe this is not an issue to be honest.

nashashmi 4y ago

> less dangerous to pedestrians try braking suddenly on a bike when a pedestrian walks in your way. and either you will get thrown forward or you will not break in time. I would argue that bikes make it more hazardous to the user to suddenly brake. I have gotten hit before!

1-6 4y ago

“Which is fairly easy to surpass on a bike…” you stop at traffic lights and stop signs to, right?