4 ms·

I think part of the problem is that the danger from cars kind of force the bikes onto the sidewalk. If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a c

I think part of the problem is that the danger from cars kind of force the bikes onto the sidewalk. If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a car or possibly hitting a pedestrian, the choice is kind of obvious. The solution is better infrastructure for bikes. Separate bike lanes from cars and pedestrians, slow the cars down, and improve visibility at conflict points.

eropple 4y ago
> If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a car or possibly hitting a pedestrian, the choice is kind of obvious. I don't think that's true, though. The alternative is not "endanger pedestrians", the alternative is "walk". A biker has a choice to not bike. And that's what I do; I walk when I'm in Boston, because I don't think urban biking is safe enough for me to make that choice. Like, yes, better bike infrastructure is a good idea and separated bike lanes is something that I absolutely support, but biking is a choice, and right now a lot of people on e-bikes (not so much regular bikes, to be honest) make me feel unsafe to walk in places that they tend to congregate.
- magicalist 4y ago
  If biking is a choice then so is driving a car, and cars are far more dangerous to pedestrians.
  - eropple 4y ago
    Cars absolutely are more dangerous when pedestrians and cars intersect. They're also not on the sidewalk, where pedestrians usually are, while bicycles (and, in my experience, especially e-bikes) tend to be. I've never gotten hit by a car. I have gotten hit by bicyclists. I'd rather not be hit by either. If we're all on board with punishing bicyclists (and, again, especially e-bikes), who get to act like vehicles when it suits them, from being on sidewalks and potentially endangering pedestrians, I think there's a great dialogue to have about that.

4 ms·

I think part of the problem is that the danger from cars kind of force the bikes onto the sidewalk. If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a c

by bandofthehawk 4y ago

eropple 4y ago
> If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a car or possibly hitting a pedestrian, the choice is kind of obvious. I don't think that's true, though. The alternative is not "endanger pedestrians", the alternative is "walk". A biker has a choice to not bike. And that's what I do; I walk when I'm in Boston, because I don't think urban biking is safe enough for me to make that choice. Like, yes, better bike infrastructure is a good idea and separated bike lanes is something that I absolutely support, but biking is a choice, and right now a lot of people on e-bikes (not so much regular bikes, to be honest) make me feel unsafe to walk in places that they tend to congregate.
- magicalist 4y ago
  If biking is a choice then so is driving a car, and cars are far more dangerous to pedestrians.
  - eropple 4y ago
    Cars absolutely are more dangerous when pedestrians and cars intersect. They're also not on the sidewalk, where pedestrians usually are, while bicycles (and, in my experience, especially e-bikes) tend to be. I've never gotten hit by a car. I have gotten hit by bicyclists. I'd rather not be hit by either. If we're all on board with punishing bicyclists (and, again, especially e-bikes), who get to act like vehicles when it suits them, from being on sidewalks and potentially endangering pedestrians, I think there's a great dialogue to have about that.