3 ms·
I’m confused. Typically when using a bike lane you go with the flow of traffic. So was this cyclist going against the flow of traffic? I know when walk you’re
by vuln 4y ago
I’m confused. Typically when using a bike lane you go with the flow of traffic. So was this cyclist going against the flow of traffic?
I know when walk you’re supposed to go against the flow to lessen your chances of being abducted (you can see cars as they get close to you) never heard of riding against the flow of traffic on a bike. Seems dangerous.
- sethhochberg 4y agoThe driver crossed the center line into the opposite direction of travel.
- davey48016 4y agoThe Reddit link that latchkey posted says "A speeding car heading North careened into the opposite lane and hit a cyclist."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- snozolli 4y agoSo was this cyclist going against the flow of traffic? It's really weird that your mind immediately imagined a situation where you can blame the cyclist.
- japhib 4y agoIt's not weird. Either the driver is at fault, or the cyclist is at fault.
- trgn 4y agoNo! This line of thinking must be severely confronted. There's a third option. It is _your_ fault, meaning your commonwealth, your polis, your politicians, your city council, ... The fact that so many cyclists and pedestrians get casually killed, is because roads are dangerous. They are only dangerous because of fast driving heavy cars. Slow down the cars, safely separate cars from cyclists with bollards, and this stuff ceases to happen so frequently. In other words, our built environment needs to create virtuous conditions, rather than vicious ones. We demand a virtuous environment from our factory floors, our theme parks, children playgrounds, ... but somehow, unfathomably, our public realm must be a Thunderdome, where death and injury is fully a personal responsibility.
- snozolli 4y agoA elite cyclist was struck head on while riding in a bike lane. It's weird to automatically assume the cyclist was riding in the bike lane on the wrong side of the road. Additionally, it was explained what happened in the very next paragraph, so maybe RTFA before commenting?
- vuln 4y agoI can’t RTFA it’s pay walled. My reply that you ignored says that. It’s also against HN guidelines to comment about reading articles.
- snozolli 4y agoMy reply that you ignored says that. You aren't famous. I don't keep track of what you say elsewhere in a thread. Regardless, it's absurd to not read an article and then make weird, victim-blaming assumptions.
- vuln 4y agoWell I can’t read the fucking article that could contain key details so fuck me and my assumption right? I should go to the hell hole that is Reddit to find more facts? Edit: I started my post off with _I’m confused._ My brain was attempting to put two and two together without any additional context. The person that submitted this pay walled article then posted a link to Reddit with additional details one minute before my comment.
- jonas21 4y agoWell, yes. It seems that without having any context, you assumed that it was the cyclist going the wrong way, and not the driver going the wrong way, which was the case here. That's all snozolli is pointing out.
- dekhn 4y agoThe driver of the car was DUI (drunk) and crossed over to other side of the road. It's rare to see bikes going against the flow (I see novices doing this occasionally in SF but an experienced cyclist is unlikely to be riding against the flow).
- readthenotes1 4y agoI think it's really weird to have bikes go with the flow of traffic in a bike lane. They'll never see what's coming at them.