4 ms·

> What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickh

> What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.

Nextgrid 4y ago
Cars are a mortal danger to non-car users (pedestrians, (motor?)cyclists), but at city speeds, they wouldn't be a mortal danger for other car users.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  These people killed by a dickhead driver would probably disagree https://slate.com/business/2023/03/dc-car-crash-tickets-rock-creek-parkway-speeding.html https://slate.com/business/2023/03/dc-car-crash-tickets-rock...
- Avshalom 4y ago
  https://jalopnik.com/charges-dropped-against-driver-who-opened-fire-on-i-95-1850237128 https://jalopnik.com/charges-dropped-against-driver-who-open...
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? Yes. Completely. Even before you get into discussions of selfishness/malice there are people who are just shitty at understanding how traffic works and how the different classes of traffic interact with each other. These people create problems wherever they go whether they go their on foot, two wheels or four. In online discussions they're usually the ones screeching loudly about "rules" that get ignored contextually because they don't understand the context(s).
ajmurmann 4y ago
I'd love to see fewer cars and more bicycles. That said, at least in the US and in SF in particular, I've encountered way more blatant violations off traffic laws by bicyclists. There were so many times I had to jump back from an intersection where I had a green light as a pedestrian because a bicyclist decided to race through at full speed. They probably thought it was safe, but I certainly felled endangered. In the defense of bicyclists, I think a lot of this happens because the laws and roads aren't properly taking bicyclists into account. Stuff like bicycle lanes at the end of the block also becoming turn lanes for cars should just be unacceptable and provokes conflict between drivers and bicyclists.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  We're all primed to see conflicts more frequently when we use a mode more frequently. A lot of folks who don't bike only really encounter cyclists when they're pedestrians walking around, and so feel this fear then. In the US cyclists break rules at roughly a similar [1] rate to drivers according to an FDOT study. FWIW cyclists interact with drivers much more frequently which is why so many cyclists feel animosity toward drivers. [1]: https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/63717/FDOT-BDV25-977-13-rpt.pdf https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/...
pclmulqdq 4y ago
People who dick around like that in a car find themselves in jail really quickly. People who do it on a bike wave self-righteously at the police while flagrantly violating the law, and get away with it.
- scott_w 4y ago
  I watched a car drive straight into someone yesterday. The police refused to come out. I don’t see how that squares with your statement at all.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    That's because an accident and a traffic violation are different. Minor accidents are usually handled without police intervention, and this is by design.
    - scott_w 4y ago
      See my other comment: he pulled out without looking because he was in the middle of cutting up other road users (me in this case). That’s driving without due care and attention which is a traffic violation in the U.K. The police don’t care. What mechanism will put him in jail?
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        "Driving without due care and attention" sounds like a statute that has a much more specific interpretation than you think, and the police probably aren't the ones who misinterpreted that here. "Careless driving" and "reckless driving" are against the law in many states in the US, but both actually have very specific interpretations that are not entirely contained in the text of the statute. This is the joy of living in a common law country. Things like running red lights, not stopping at stop signs, and speeding are much easier for laypeople to judge, and it sounds like none of that was happening here.
        4y ago
bartread 4y ago
> Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? In theory I agree with you, but in practice the behavioural differences are noticeable, at least in Cambridge. One example (admittedly anecdata from somebody who spends a lot of time on the road using different modes of transport, including foot): lots of cyclists blow through red lights, (relatively speaking) very few car drivers do so. Of course, the stakes of a car driver blowing through a red light are arguably higher, so it's still not great. What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety. That's not what I see because of cultural issues (behaviour) surrouding cycling in this area. Possibly the accidents would be less severe, but there would still be plenty of accidents if everybody was cycling. OTOH, and again it's small numbers/anecdata so take with a pinch of salt, but over 20 years in Cambridge I know more people who've been injured in cycling accidents that haven't involved motor vehicles, as those who've been injured in cycling accidents where motor vehicles have been involved. A couple of those people have blacked out even though wearing helmets because, e.g., their head hit the pavement. Causes of accidents are a bit of a mixed bag: road conditions aren't great around here (potholes, gravel on road, etc.)[0], one clipped by another cyclist on a cycle path (other cyclist didn't stop), etc. I'm very pro-cycling but, as I say, from an empirical standpoint I'm not convinced it's necessarily that much safer. I'm sure there's data that, in some area or other, would prove me "wrong". But so much of it is down to cultural and behavioural issues, as well as cycling infrastructure and road quality, that I don't think it's valid to just forklift figures from one area and say, well, if everybody in Cambridge cycled we'd see X% fewer injuries from collisions on our roads. Unless other factors are taken into account it's very faulty reasoning. [0] On the road conditions point, you're much more vulnerable on a bike than you would be in a car. If you're a driver and you hit a big pothole, you might damage your car, but you'll probably be OK. If you do the same on a bike you are much more likely to fall off and injure yourself.
- planede 4y ago
  I'm also in Cambridge. Many car drivers are also dickheads, at least they think that using the indicator is optional when leaving a roundabout. This mostly annoys me when I'm on foot and try to cross the street near a roundabout. I found traffic in Cambridge to be very hostile to pedestrians.

Nextgrid 4y ago

Cars are a mortal danger to non-car users (pedestrians, (motor?)cyclists), but at city speeds, they wouldn't be a mortal danger for other car users.

Xylakant 4y ago
These people killed by a dickhead driver would probably disagree https://slate.com/business/2023/03/dc-car-crash-tickets-rock-creek-parkway-speeding.html https://slate.com/business/2023/03/dc-car-crash-tickets-rock...
Avshalom 4y ago
https://jalopnik.com/charges-dropped-against-driver-who-opened-fire-on-i-95-1850237128 https://jalopnik.com/charges-dropped-against-driver-who-open...

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? Yes. Completely. Even before you get into discussions of selfishness/malice there are people who are just shitty at understanding how traffic works and how the different classes of traffic interact with each other. These people create problems wherever they go whether they go their on foot, two wheels or four. In online discussions they're usually the ones screeching loudly about "rules" that get ignored contextually because they don't understand the context(s).

ajmurmann 4y ago

I'd love to see fewer cars and more bicycles. That said, at least in the US and in SF in particular, I've encountered way more blatant violations off traffic laws by bicyclists. There were so many times I had to jump back from an intersection where I had a green light as a pedestrian because a bicyclist decided to race through at full speed. They probably thought it was safe, but I certainly felled endangered. In the defense of bicyclists, I think a lot of this happens because the laws and roads aren't properly taking bicyclists into account. Stuff like bicycle lanes at the end of the block also becoming turn lanes for cars should just be unacceptable and provokes conflict between drivers and bicyclists.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
We're all primed to see conflicts more frequently when we use a mode more frequently. A lot of folks who don't bike only really encounter cyclists when they're pedestrians walking around, and so feel this fear then. In the US cyclists break rules at roughly a similar [1] rate to drivers according to an FDOT study. FWIW cyclists interact with drivers much more frequently which is why so many cyclists feel animosity toward drivers. [1]: https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/63717/FDOT-BDV25-977-13-rpt.pdf https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/...

pclmulqdq 4y ago

People who dick around like that in a car find themselves in jail really quickly. People who do it on a bike wave self-righteously at the police while flagrantly violating the law, and get away with it.

scott_w 4y ago
I watched a car drive straight into someone yesterday. The police refused to come out. I don’t see how that squares with your statement at all.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  That's because an accident and a traffic violation are different. Minor accidents are usually handled without police intervention, and this is by design.
  - scott_w 4y ago
    See my other comment: he pulled out without looking because he was in the middle of cutting up other road users (me in this case). That’s driving without due care and attention which is a traffic violation in the U.K. The police don’t care. What mechanism will put him in jail?
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      "Driving without due care and attention" sounds like a statute that has a much more specific interpretation than you think, and the police probably aren't the ones who misinterpreted that here. "Careless driving" and "reckless driving" are against the law in many states in the US, but both actually have very specific interpretations that are not entirely contained in the text of the statute. This is the joy of living in a common law country. Things like running red lights, not stopping at stop signs, and speeding are much easier for laypeople to judge, and it sounds like none of that was happening here.
      - 4y ago

bartread 4y ago

> Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? In theory I agree with you, but in practice the behavioural differences are noticeable, at least in Cambridge. One example (admittedly anecdata from somebody who spends a lot of time on the road using different modes of transport, including foot): lots of cyclists blow through red lights, (relatively speaking) very few car drivers do so. Of course, the stakes of a car driver blowing through a red light are arguably higher, so it's still not great. What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety. That's not what I see because of cultural issues (behaviour) surrouding cycling in this area. Possibly the accidents would be less severe, but there would still be plenty of accidents if everybody was cycling. OTOH, and again it's small numbers/anecdata so take with a pinch of salt, but over 20 years in Cambridge I know more people who've been injured in cycling accidents that haven't involved motor vehicles, as those who've been injured in cycling accidents where motor vehicles have been involved. A couple of those people have blacked out even though wearing helmets because, e.g., their head hit the pavement. Causes of accidents are a bit of a mixed bag: road conditions aren't great around here (potholes, gravel on road, etc.)[0], one clipped by another cyclist on a cycle path (other cyclist didn't stop), etc. I'm very pro-cycling but, as I say, from an empirical standpoint I'm not convinced it's necessarily that much safer. I'm sure there's data that, in some area or other, would prove me "wrong". But so much of it is down to cultural and behavioural issues, as well as cycling infrastructure and road quality, that I don't think it's valid to just forklift figures from one area and say, well, if everybody in Cambridge cycled we'd see X% fewer injuries from collisions on our roads. Unless other factors are taken into account it's very faulty reasoning. [0] On the road conditions point, you're much more vulnerable on a bike than you would be in a car. If you're a driver and you hit a big pothole, you might damage your car, but you'll probably be OK. If you do the same on a bike you are much more likely to fall off and injure yourself.

planede 4y ago
I'm also in Cambridge. Many car drivers are also dickheads, at least they think that using the indicator is optional when leaving a roundabout. This mostly annoys me when I'm on foot and try to cross the street near a roundabout. I found traffic in Cambridge to be very hostile to pedestrians.