3 ms·

Wrong takeaway

by mslate 4y ago

Wrong 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 ago
  Sure, 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 ago
  Interestingly, parents also drive with their children in the car and sometimes get into accidents. What a bizarre world we live in!
  - sidfthec 4y ago
    Interestingly, 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 ago
      They 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    I 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.
- trgn 4y ago
  I disagree with you, but I wouldn't downvote your thoughts for sure. It really is a catch22. Biking is often not safe on existing roads. But what is the alternative? Not bike at all and wait until we have bikelane utopia? It's just not going to happen. What about people who don't have an option, aka no money? What about people who do not need a car because they live close enough to their destination? What about the cosmological stupidity of only having one viable option for personal mobility in face of climate change, rising fossil fuel prices, local and global pollution due to cars, ...? Something needs to happen, shaming people for trying to get around on bike, such a small thing, yet, so odious to so many, it isn't helping.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    The OP didn't shame anyone. Why are you making this wild accusation? Read what was written. No shaming is there. You seem to be reacting to something you ascribe to the OP, but there is simply no logical path from statements in the OP's post that leads one to assume anyone is being shamed or blamed.
dylan604 4y ago
What's the right takeaway in your whatever state of humble opinion?
- lom 4y ago
  That we need to make cycling safer for everyone. Build infrastructure so that this can never happen again
  - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
    But, 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 ago
      And what? Perpetuate the arms race of larger and heavier cars?
      - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
        I'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

Wrong takeaway

by mslate 4y ago

Wrong takeaway

"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 ago
Sure, 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 ago
Interestingly, parents also drive with their children in the car and sometimes get into accidents. What a bizarre world we live in!
- sidfthec 4y ago
  Interestingly, 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 ago
    They 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 ago
You 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 ago
  I 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.
trgn 4y ago
I disagree with you, but I wouldn't downvote your thoughts for sure. It really is a catch22. Biking is often not safe on existing roads. But what is the alternative? Not bike at all and wait until we have bikelane utopia? It's just not going to happen. What about people who don't have an option, aka no money? What about people who do not need a car because they live close enough to their destination? What about the cosmological stupidity of only having one viable option for personal mobility in face of climate change, rising fossil fuel prices, local and global pollution due to cars, ...? Something needs to happen, shaming people for trying to get around on bike, such a small thing, yet, so odious to so many, it isn't helping.
- twblalock 4y ago
  The OP didn't shame anyone. Why are you making this wild accusation? Read what was written. No shaming is there. You seem to be reacting to something you ascribe to the OP, but there is simply no logical path from statements in the OP's post that leads one to assume anyone is being shamed or blamed.

dylan604 4y ago

What's the right takeaway in your whatever state of humble opinion?

lom 4y ago
That we need to make cycling safer for everyone. Build infrastructure so that this can never happen again
- khochesh_kushat 4y ago
  But, 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 ago
    And what? Perpetuate the arms race of larger and heavier cars?
    - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
      I'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