3 ms·

> > Fundamentally the US has an extremely strong punitive blame culture. > Unless its about people in cars murdering people. Sadly I disagree. Blame is almos

by gumby 3y ago

> > Fundamentally the US has an extremely strong punitive blame culture. > Unless its about people in cars murdering people. Sadly I disagree. Blame is almost inevitably assigned...to the victim. In NYC if you drive a truck you can flatten cyclists with impunity because the consensus is always that it was the cyclist's own fault. >> what happened so we can address it, not punish > I agree that addressing issue is first most important. But we should also hold people accountable too. What we need is for motor vehicles to stop crushing the innocent. That's what I mean when I talk about punishment as a distraction.

WalterBright 3y ago
A cycle is far, far easier to maneuver to avoid an accident than a truck. Some years back in Seattle, a truck driver was charged with murder because he hit a cyclist that crossed in front of him. It was established in the trial that the cyclist had darted out from between two cars, and it was impossible for the driver to have noticed, reacted, and stopped in time. He was acquitted. Around here, they painted stripes for a bike lane. Good. Then the cyclists like to ride on the stripe, and randomly weave back and forth across it. As a driver, I have to spend all my attention trying not to hit those suicidal cyclists, who never look back to see if it is clear when they drift into the car lane. It's madness. I don't understand them at all.
- gumby 3y ago
  Well in California law cyclists have the same right to the road* as a motorists (sadly the same does not apply to the laws of physics). And if you ride in the bike lanes, as I do, you discover they are often populated with debris (unsurprising due to road camber and automotive bow wave and wake) and untrimmed branches from live bushes, which one must move leftwards in order to avoid. Many motorists act as if roads were built for cars and all others get to use them on sufferance, if at all. * Excepting controlled-access roads, i.e. freeways.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The cases I've seen were not the result of debris avoidance. The bike lanes were clear. > Many motorists act as if roads were built for cars and all others get to use them on sufferance, if at all. Wandering over the line into traffic without looking is just stupid. No amount of lawsuit money is going to fix getting crippled.
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    All the debates about cars vs bikes are so stupid. Bicycles are vehicles according to law basically everywhere on earth. It's all very simple - you over take vehicles safely, vehicles signal where they are going and drive predictably, you don't overtake vehicles when stopped at an intersection, etc etc. It's just a smaller slower vehicle, that's it.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Honestly if the bike lane is full of debris, or has a line of parked cars too close such that their doors swing open into it, just ride fully in the next lane over. A bike lane is a lane that can be used by bikes, not a lane that must be used by bikes. And in general the vast majority of the complaints about cyclists swerving too much can and should be addressed by riding further out aka taking the lane.
- steelframe 3y ago
  > A cycle is far, far easier to maneuver to avoid an accident than a truck. No, it isn't. Most all four-wheeled vehicles traveling at 25mph can stop much, much more quickly than a bicycle traveling at 25mph simply because they have a large total contact patch and antilock braking technology. A maneuver you might pull with a 4-wheeled motor vehicle behind you because they can probably slam on their brakes in time to keep from running into you will usually result in the cyclist smashing into the back of you and being seriously injured. They can turn more sharply at speed, and they can accelerate much more quickly too. > Around here, they painted stripes for a bike lane. Good. As someone who tries to use them here and there, I generally don't view painted stripes being passed off as "cycling infrastructure" as a good thing. > Then the cyclists like to ride on the stripe, and randomly weave back and forth across it. Some cyclists are better than others at signaling before switching lanes. I used to be better about it before a motorist ignored my outstretched hand and broke it in two places once because they were trying really, really hard to stay in their lane rather than thinking about giving me the space I needed. That taught me that it's safer to just plop my butt directly in front of them when I need them to slow down or give me more space to pass. > As a driver, I have to spend all my attention trying not to hit those suicidal cyclists, who never look back to see if it is clear when they drift into the car lane. It's madness. I don't understand them at all. It can be perfectly rational and safer. The most dangerous situation for me is when a motorist disregards me. As in, they snap-judge that I'm somehow negligible, and they can continue in their zoned-out state of mind as they maneuver a multi-ton chunk of steel at a high speed around me. Cyclists are often run off the road or clipped by motorists whose brains don't register that they're something they need to pay attention to. When I'm cycling on the road, I do everything I can to "throw an exception" in the minds of motorists around me. Override System 1, and get their System 2 to take over -- for those familiar with the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. This almost always means riding much further to the left than one might instinctively ride. Now getting to "bike lanes" -- a term that I don't really like that much because it implies that it's the only lane I should be using at any point in time. And because "bike lanes" are actually car infrastructure, if you think about it. But that aside, "bike lanes" are often better described as "door zones." They're often painted right next to parked motor vehicles, and virtually nobody checks to make sure there isn't an oncoming cyclist before they suddenly fling their doors open. Many cyclists have been killed or seriously injured as they've been flung into faster-moving traffic in the adjacent lane when that happens. When I'm approaching a parked motor vehicle, My objective is not to stay within the paint on the road at all, because it's just paint. Instead I'm judging how wide the door of the parked vehicle would be when it's suddenly flung open, and move to the left by that distance plus maybe an extra foot as a safety measure. Often that means I'm crossing out of the "bike lane." If I'm doing that I will signal and merge into the lane next to me as safely as I can, but there's often a large differential between my speed and that of motorists in the lane next to me, as "bike lanes" encourage. That means the approaching motorist will need to be prepared to slow down, assess when it is safe to pass, and then move over far enough to pass so that there's at least 3 feet of space between me and their vehicle. System 1 tells motorists to "stay in their lane" and "keep going at speed." Motorists doing that end up "buzzing" me, risking hitting me with their side mirrors, or worse. So for my own safety in that situation I have to arrest that in as clear terms as I can. That usually means moving all the way into the center of the lane, directly in front of them. Once I've taken the option to "buzz" me while staying in their lane away from them, they either slow down and wait until road conditions are safe for me to move back to the right lane, or they allow the switch in their brain for "I must leave my lane to pass" to activate, which generally results in them giving me more space as they pass. Yes, snapping our of your System 1 is uncomfortable. I'd rather your System 1 just assumed that a cyclist would be traveling in the regular wider lane at any time, rather assume that the cyclist will always be neatly and conveniently tucked away in the nearly-invisible "bike lane." It seems unsafe. But the alternatives, riding in the door zone or encouraging motorists to try to squeeze by at speed, really result in a less-safe situation.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  I was a cycle commuter for a long time. I never seemed to have all the issues other cyclists have with auto traffic, and my area was pretty "middle of the road" for car-centrism (ie not suburban america, but not amsterdam either). The reason i would sometimes ride at the outer edge of the bike line was because the middle of the bike lane was right in 'car door' range. Assuming that people are not only going to look before they open the door, but that they are going to look for a narrow, quiet vehicle, that requires them to look in the very corner of their mirror is naive. So if I couldn't see through the back windshield and confirm a parked car was empty, I just wouldn't ride there. Saved me a couple of times. In another post below you mention "the road was free of debris". It's very unlikely you can tell, from a fast moving car, through a windshield, that the road is clear of debris that would effect the narrower, thinner tires of a bicycle. What might not even register for an automobile might be a repair job for a cyclist. All the above having been said - I absolutely saw some very stupid behaviour from cyclists. But also realise people usually aren't doing things just to annoy you personally. And I'm a larger than average man, nothing remarkable, but I could bowl over old ladies walking slowly in-front of me at the supermarket if I wanted to. After all they are smaller, slower and in my way. Yet I never seem to fantasise about it like many automobile drivers do. Worth thinking about.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    I've cycled to work for years. I know what debris looks like. There wasn't any in the cases I mentioned - the roads were dry and clear. I'm not talking about cars at a standstill opening doors, either, I'm talking about traffic moving at 35 mph. No, I don't fantasize about mowing them down. I want nothing to do with that. Help me help you to avoid hurting you.

by gumby 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago

A cycle is far, far easier to maneuver to avoid an accident than a truck. Some years back in Seattle, a truck driver was charged with murder because he hit a cyclist that crossed in front of him. It was established in the trial that the cyclist had darted out from between two cars, and it was impossible for the driver to have noticed, reacted, and stopped in time. He was acquitted. Around here, they painted stripes for a bike lane. Good. Then the cyclists like to ride on the stripe, and randomly weave back and forth across it. As a driver, I have to spend all my attention trying not to hit those suicidal cyclists, who never look back to see if it is clear when they drift into the car lane. It's madness. I don't understand them at all.

gumby 3y ago
Well in California law cyclists have the same right to the road* as a motorists (sadly the same does not apply to the laws of physics). And if you ride in the bike lanes, as I do, you discover they are often populated with debris (unsurprising due to road camber and automotive bow wave and wake) and untrimmed branches from live bushes, which one must move leftwards in order to avoid. Many motorists act as if roads were built for cars and all others get to use them on sufferance, if at all. * Excepting controlled-access roads, i.e. freeways.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The cases I've seen were not the result of debris avoidance. The bike lanes were clear. > Many motorists act as if roads were built for cars and all others get to use them on sufferance, if at all. Wandering over the line into traffic without looking is just stupid. No amount of lawsuit money is going to fix getting crippled.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  All the debates about cars vs bikes are so stupid. Bicycles are vehicles according to law basically everywhere on earth. It's all very simple - you over take vehicles safely, vehicles signal where they are going and drive predictably, you don't overtake vehicles when stopped at an intersection, etc etc. It's just a smaller slower vehicle, that's it.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Honestly if the bike lane is full of debris, or has a line of parked cars too close such that their doors swing open into it, just ride fully in the next lane over. A bike lane is a lane that can be used by bikes, not a lane that must be used by bikes. And in general the vast majority of the complaints about cyclists swerving too much can and should be addressed by riding further out aka taking the lane.
steelframe 3y ago
> A cycle is far, far easier to maneuver to avoid an accident than a truck. No, it isn't. Most all four-wheeled vehicles traveling at 25mph can stop much, much more quickly than a bicycle traveling at 25mph simply because they have a large total contact patch and antilock braking technology. A maneuver you might pull with a 4-wheeled motor vehicle behind you because they can probably slam on their brakes in time to keep from running into you will usually result in the cyclist smashing into the back of you and being seriously injured. They can turn more sharply at speed, and they can accelerate much more quickly too. > Around here, they painted stripes for a bike lane. Good. As someone who tries to use them here and there, I generally don't view painted stripes being passed off as "cycling infrastructure" as a good thing. > Then the cyclists like to ride on the stripe, and randomly weave back and forth across it. Some cyclists are better than others at signaling before switching lanes. I used to be better about it before a motorist ignored my outstretched hand and broke it in two places once because they were trying really, really hard to stay in their lane rather than thinking about giving me the space I needed. That taught me that it's safer to just plop my butt directly in front of them when I need them to slow down or give me more space to pass. > As a driver, I have to spend all my attention trying not to hit those suicidal cyclists, who never look back to see if it is clear when they drift into the car lane. It's madness. I don't understand them at all. It can be perfectly rational and safer. The most dangerous situation for me is when a motorist disregards me. As in, they snap-judge that I'm somehow negligible, and they can continue in their zoned-out state of mind as they maneuver a multi-ton chunk of steel at a high speed around me. Cyclists are often run off the road or clipped by motorists whose brains don't register that they're something they need to pay attention to. When I'm cycling on the road, I do everything I can to "throw an exception" in the minds of motorists around me. Override System 1, and get their System 2 to take over -- for those familiar with the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. This almost always means riding much further to the left than one might instinctively ride. Now getting to "bike lanes" -- a term that I don't really like that much because it implies that it's the only lane I should be using at any point in time. And because "bike lanes" are actually car infrastructure, if you think about it. But that aside, "bike lanes" are often better described as "door zones." They're often painted right next to parked motor vehicles, and virtually nobody checks to make sure there isn't an oncoming cyclist before they suddenly fling their doors open. Many cyclists have been killed or seriously injured as they've been flung into faster-moving traffic in the adjacent lane when that happens. When I'm approaching a parked motor vehicle, My objective is not to stay within the paint on the road at all, because it's just paint. Instead I'm judging how wide the door of the parked vehicle would be when it's suddenly flung open, and move to the left by that distance plus maybe an extra foot as a safety measure. Often that means I'm crossing out of the "bike lane." If I'm doing that I will signal and merge into the lane next to me as safely as I can, but there's often a large differential between my speed and that of motorists in the lane next to me, as "bike lanes" encourage. That means the approaching motorist will need to be prepared to slow down, assess when it is safe to pass, and then move over far enough to pass so that there's at least 3 feet of space between me and their vehicle. System 1 tells motorists to "stay in their lane" and "keep going at speed." Motorists doing that end up "buzzing" me, risking hitting me with their side mirrors, or worse. So for my own safety in that situation I have to arrest that in as clear terms as I can. That usually means moving all the way into the center of the lane, directly in front of them. Once I've taken the option to "buzz" me while staying in their lane away from them, they either slow down and wait until road conditions are safe for me to move back to the right lane, or they allow the switch in their brain for "I must leave my lane to pass" to activate, which generally results in them giving me more space as they pass. Yes, snapping our of your System 1 is uncomfortable. I'd rather your System 1 just assumed that a cyclist would be traveling in the regular wider lane at any time, rather assume that the cyclist will always be neatly and conveniently tucked away in the nearly-invisible "bike lane." It seems unsafe. But the alternatives, riding in the door zone or encouraging motorists to try to squeeze by at speed, really result in a less-safe situation.
LAC-Tech 3y ago
I was a cycle commuter for a long time. I never seemed to have all the issues other cyclists have with auto traffic, and my area was pretty "middle of the road" for car-centrism (ie not suburban america, but not amsterdam either). The reason i would sometimes ride at the outer edge of the bike line was because the middle of the bike lane was right in 'car door' range. Assuming that people are not only going to look before they open the door, but that they are going to look for a narrow, quiet vehicle, that requires them to look in the very corner of their mirror is naive. So if I couldn't see through the back windshield and confirm a parked car was empty, I just wouldn't ride there. Saved me a couple of times. In another post below you mention "the road was free of debris". It's very unlikely you can tell, from a fast moving car, through a windshield, that the road is clear of debris that would effect the narrower, thinner tires of a bicycle. What might not even register for an automobile might be a repair job for a cyclist. All the above having been said - I absolutely saw some very stupid behaviour from cyclists. But also realise people usually aren't doing things just to annoy you personally. And I'm a larger than average man, nothing remarkable, but I could bowl over old ladies walking slowly in-front of me at the supermarket if I wanted to. After all they are smaller, slower and in my way. Yet I never seem to fantasise about it like many automobile drivers do. Worth thinking about.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  I've cycled to work for years. I know what debris looks like. There wasn't any in the cases I mentioned - the roads were dry and clear. I'm not talking about cars at a standstill opening doors, either, I'm talking about traffic moving at 35 mph. No, I don't fantasize about mowing them down. I want nothing to do with that. Help me help you to avoid hurting you.