5 ms·

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 g

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.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    It's not my perception of danger. I don't understand why some cyclists are so defensive as soon as someone says anything perceived as against then. Cycling is good but comes with responsibilities. Cyclists on pavements are a danger to pedestrians and too many cyclists do not behave in a safe and considerate way to pedestrians, not least when they ride on pavements illegally (all statements of fact here). Cars are on the road.
    - pastage 4y ago
      You are supposed to cycle on the pavement in many cities. I do not know if there are more accidents there, but they certainly are not bicycle friendly cities. Most cyclists do not use pavements but at least I understand why. There are many people cycling on the pavements outside my house, yet no accidents reported in the officual database. For the most part it is safe to cycle on pavements for everyone.
- Fricken 4y ago
  These threads are loaded with comments from people talking about all the times they almost got hit by a cyclist. Almost doesn't count, you just have poor judgement is all.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Victim blaming is not a very effective strategy to advance a cause... Edit: as said I was actually hit twice. I don't keep track of the near misses...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Fricken 4y ago
      Almost victims

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.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  It's not my perception of danger. I don't understand why some cyclists are so defensive as soon as someone says anything perceived as against then. Cycling is good but comes with responsibilities. Cyclists on pavements are a danger to pedestrians and too many cyclists do not behave in a safe and considerate way to pedestrians, not least when they ride on pavements illegally (all statements of fact here). Cars are on the road.
  - pastage 4y ago
    You are supposed to cycle on the pavement in many cities. I do not know if there are more accidents there, but they certainly are not bicycle friendly cities. Most cyclists do not use pavements but at least I understand why. There are many people cycling on the pavements outside my house, yet no accidents reported in the officual database. For the most part it is safe to cycle on pavements for everyone.
Fricken 4y ago
These threads are loaded with comments from people talking about all the times they almost got hit by a cyclist. Almost doesn't count, you just have poor judgement is all.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Victim blaming is not a very effective strategy to advance a cause... Edit: as said I was actually hit twice. I don't keep track of the near misses...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fricken 4y ago
    Almost victims