8 ms·
And yet, I see parents riding bikes on the roads of SF with their small children on board. Makes absolutely no sense to me, and I get scolded every time I bring
by sidfthec 4y ago
And yet, I see parents riding bikes on the roads of SF with their small children on board. Makes absolutely no sense to me, and I get scolded every time I bring it up.
- wesleywt 4y agoInsane American car culture. I prefer European cities by a long way.
- cscurmudgeon 4y agohttps://n1info.hr/english/news/eu-sees-increase-in-road-deaths-in-2021-with-19800-people-killed-in-accidents/ https://n1info.hr/english/news/eu-sees-increase-in-road-deat...
- trgn 4y agoI mean for sure. But let's be real here, the difference really is night&day. There's a spectrum etc etc, but there's genuinely a categorical break somewhere. And america is on the other side.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago> There's a spectrum etc etc, but there's genuinely a categorical break somewhere Care to specify that? And how that breakdown is objective?
- mslate 4y agoWrong takeaway
- sidfthec 4y ago"We should be building more protected bike lanes" is one obvious takeaway that I 100% support and vote for. My comment is another takeaway that isn't discussed enough.
- Retric 4y agoSure, as long as you take that same view at every single deadly car accident. A cyclist died, let’s ban cars is an equally valid view as a cyclist died, let’s ban bicycles. Yet, most people defend cars subconsciously.
- 90-00-09 4y agoInterestingly, parents also drive with their children in the car and sometimes get into accidents. What a bizarre world we live in!
- sidfthec 4y agoInterestingly, they drive vehicles with a massive amount of technology like crumple zones, and buckle them into specially designed seats so that if they get into an accident they have a good chance of surviving. Bikes are extremely exposed in comparison. One small tap could be devastating.
- mslate 4y agoThey drive vehicles that cost $10,000USD per year to own. And maybe they need two, if they have 2 or more children(!). Cars are a great technology, but a city cannot scale with everyone owning their own car, and families cannot build wealth paying $20,000+/year for their 2-car transit lifestyle.
- mslate 4y agoYou are implying that the parent you saw biking with their child is at fault for endangering their child. No, the drunken driver and traffic engineering is at fault. Some parents cannot afford a car or two, especially living in a city like San Francisco. You assume that they can. This is what's not discussed enough.
- notch898a 4y agoI think you and I agree, but it's an interesting question. Neglect laws in the US are incredibly vague. Driving a vehicle for some unnecessary reason like to take a child to a water park for fun could be construed as abuse/neglect, as it unnecessarily exposes the child to danger. Our neglect, and child reporting laws, badly need overhauled because common sense it totally removed. People have been arrested for as little as letting the kid walk or be at the park independently. Things need reworded to make it clear it isn't neglectful unless the child is facing certain and imminent serious injury or death, or something along those lines.
- dylan604 4y agoWhat's the right takeaway in your whatever state of humble opinion?
- lom 4y agoThat we need to make cycling safer for everyone. Build infrastructure so that this can never happen again
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoBut, until that happens, isn't it at least a bit odd for parents to put their children in such a dangerous situation? I live in the Netherlands and we have good, safe cycling infrastructure. I would never ride in the US given current infrastructure there (much less with my kids). Hopefully some day it is properly invested in.
- et-al 4y agoAnd what? Perpetuate the arms race of larger and heavier cars?
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoI'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that in the US unless people put themselves in dangerous situations in the first place, nobody will ever vote to improve the safety of the infrastructure? If so, what is the connection? If not can you clarify what you mean? Here in the Netherlands we didn't get to good bicycle infrastructure by trying to maximize the number of people in dangerous situations as a stepping stone, so maybe I'm missing something unique about the US. Edit: asked an American friend and apparently in the US cyclists have to assert their presence since there aren't dedicated lanes, up to things like keeping a stick on your bike to hit cars that impinge on your rights. So that's certainly different. I still wouldn't put young children in that situation but it's certainly something quite different from here.
- 3y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notch898a 4y agoDo you offer them a ride? Everyone is out to criticize parents at all time, usually while doing fuck all to help.
- jjulius 4y agoAm parent, can confirm. Trust that we are making the best decisions we can make for our children. People quick to criticize parents are often lacking key context and important details specific to that familial situation. Judge not lest ye, and such.
- snozolli 4y agoYes, how dare people try to enjoy life with their family in the city. Don't they know that cities are the exclusive domain of cars and their drivers?
- sidfthec 4y agoI vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes. That's not the current reality, though. The current reality is that biking in SF is extremely dangerous.
- snozolli 4y agoI vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes. "I vote for one thing, but that won't stop me from victim-blaming and maintaining the status quo." You know what's way cheaper than building bike lanes and the public transit necessary for private car restrictions? Better testing of drivers, regular re-testing and ongoing education, and severely punishing drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians through negligence or malice. As it stands, you're virtually guaranteed to get away with murder so long as you do it in a car. There's an epidemic of idiots who barely know how to control their multi-ton vehicle on a good day. But hey, thoughts and prayers, and malice in your comments, right?
- sidfthec 4y ago[flagged]
- snozolli 4y agoPeople here seem to be taking the stance that we need to sacrifice a bunch of people (including children) in order to get attention to the issue. Wow. Just wow. You're a bit abhorrent.
- dang 4y agoCrossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. I'm not going to ban you because we haven't warned you before this thread, and because you've posted good comments—but I've also noticed other cases where you broke the site guidelines in previous threads. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- et-al 4y agoAnd yet, I see women walking down the streets in skirts. Makes absolutely no sense to me, and I get scolded every time I bring it up.
- jjulius 4y agoAlternate headline: >NASCAR champion dies after being t-boned by car in San Francisco's Presidio Response with your same sentiment: >And yet, I see parents driving cars on the roads of SF with their small children on board. Makes absolutely no sense to me, and I get scolded every time I bring it up. Before you say it, I am fully aware of the risks of riding bicycles with children attached on busy streets. I don't do that myself, but I digress. My point is that there are many other things equally as risky for parents to be doing with their children. It is not your place to correct them.
- sidfthec 4y ago> I am fully aware of the risks of riding bicycles with children attached on busy streets. > It is not your place to correct them. So you seem to agree with me, but don't think I should be the one to say it. Who should be the one to say it?
- jjulius 4y agoSee this[0] comment. I'd wager that it's not the point you're making that you're being scolded for, it's the fact that you're trying to tell a parent what to do, which, depending on your approach, may imply that they haven't already weighed the risks. Curious - are you a parent? [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35484996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35484996
- singleshot_ 4y agoThe parents, but because they have made the choice not to, no one.
- jacquesm 4y ago> I get scolded every time I bring it up. Then stop bringing it up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35239672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35239672 You get scolded because you are victim blaming. Regardless of whether or not you support better bike infrastructure or limiting cars or whatever measures: it should be safe to bike around town, and if it isn't blaming the cyclists isn't going to help, it will just cause the cyclists to remove themselves from traffic after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it.
- twblalock 4y agoThis is not victim blaming. Nobody blamed cyclists here. It is a true and obvious statement from an observer that cycling is dangerous in San Francisco.
- jacquesm 4y agoCycling is dangerous everywhere there are cars. SF is not unique in this.
- twblalock 4y agoDanger is a matter of degree. There are plenty of places where the risk of getting hit by a car is lower than in SF.
- jacquesm 4y agoOf course, there are also places where the risk is higher. SF is just an example used because someone prominent died in SF whilst on a bicycle. The easiest thing the USA could do to make cycling safer without investing a cent in infrastructure is to adopt the rule that by default if a car hits a cyclist the car is at fault. The effect of that would be instantaneous, every bike would have an invisible force field of liability around it. Sure, some might abuse it, but nobody in their right mind is going to play chicken with a car.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lm28469 4y agoVictim blaming 101
- twblalock 4y agoIt's sad to see this comment being dogpiled by trolls, including the standard and annoying responses like "wrong takeaway" or "bad take" or the sarcastic "how dare people do X", or the standard European city defense, or the most annoying type of response: rephrasing the original post to make a maliciously bad argument. We don't live in should-land. We live in reality. Parents who live in reality need to protect their children from the dangers that exist in reality. Parents who live in reality in the city of San Francisco know that it is a dangerous place to ride bikes. It is not ok to tell people to ignore those dangers because they should not exist, or to scold people for making those dangers known. It's also not ok to tell people that they are responsible for solving problems they did not create, and it is really not ok to equate warning people about danger with victim blaming. sidfthec, you are right and you should not be getting this kind of response.
- mslate 4y agoIt is literally victim-blaming. You are choosing to frame a reality where transiting by car is the only acceptable way to live. Many don’t bike by choice, they bike because of economic reality—especially as parents. San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities on earth, and you must cover rent for cars in addition to yourself. If you want to discourage family formation then go ahead, make it prohibitively expensive to exist as a family in our cities.
- twblalock 4y agoI don't run the world and neither does the OP. I don't even live in San Francisco. It's not our fault that things are this way, and it's really dumb to blame us for pointing out facts. Is it now also victim-blaming to tell people to wear seat belts, or to look both ways before crossing the street? Telling people about danger is not a form of blaming. People seem to be reacting to something the OP didn't actually write. Stop ascribing beliefs and motivations to people you don't know based on a few sentences of written text.
- mslate 4y agoThank you for admitting that you don’t live in San Francisco. The fact is you don’t know who this parent is. You have made the assumption that they are taking unacceptable risks. I don’t know your motivation, but your criticisms aren’t constructive.
- oh_sigh 4y agoKids in cars die all the time. Do you have any reference for the mortality rate per mile, or some other measure, between cars and bikes? It's also worth noting that people may design their lives around the fact that they can bike their kids instead of drive them. For example, they might put them in a more local school that they/their kids can bike to, instead of a school much further away that they would need to drive to.
- dang 4y agoParenting and bicycling (the latter perhaps a little surprisingly) are two of the hottest and most divisive flamewar topics that exist. If you combine them in this way without any insulation, we get flamewar squared. That's probably why you're getting surprising responses from people—you're probably triggering them way more than you intend to. Edit: you've been perpetuating this flamewar quite badly downthread. Could you please stop? I've banned one account that replied, but your account is also making things worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.