4 ms·

If it is a proper bike lane, ie a physically separated bike lane that shouldn't happen. If the speed at which you are allowed to drive at is high enough that co

If it is a proper bike lane, ie a physically separated bike lane that shouldn't happen. If the speed at which you are allowed to drive at is high enough that colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist will cause them serious injury or death then the road design is wrong. Simple fact is people make errors in judgement, suffer lapses in concentration, or even develop strokes when they are on the highways. A person moving around on urban roads who suffers such an event should not suffer life-changing injuries or death from it. A safe road environment which pedestrians and cyclists are allowed to use is one in which the horizontal impact of a collision shouldn't result in serious injury or death. Death should only come from an impact which involves in serious head injury, such as the head striking the sidewalk, a heavy vehicle rolling over a person, or the case of a frail elderly person. If you get back to UK law for instance, there are 19th century laws(they still on the books) which forbade "furious riding" on public highways which should tell you that riding at a gallop on a public road was illegal, and would be even more so in a built up area shared with pedestrians and other horse carriages. There were no cars or even bicycles them. It is one of the laws under which cyclists can be prosecuted. Cars doing 30mph outpace galloping horses which should tell you that even at 50kph cars are driving at speeds considered dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists around them. Yet a cyclist who has no more protection than a pedestrian is supposed to share a road with 2+tonne vehicles of reinforced steel travelling at speeds far faster than a horse rider or carriage driver riding furiously. How does that make sense? I see you are Walter Bright of Zortech C++ infamy and the D language ;)

close04 2y ago
> Cars doing 30mph outpace galloping horses > Yet a cyclist who has no more protection than a pedestrian is supposed to share a road with 2+tonne vehicles of reinforced steel travelling at speeds By speed alone, bikes are to pedestrians what cars are to bikes. A pedestrian will walk at 3-5km/h. A bike will be 5-7 times faster than that at 15-35km/h (especially since the advent of e-bikes which ignore assist requirements). Cars will be 1.5-4 times faster at 40-50km/h. Where I live I feel less safe as a pedestrian sharing the sidewalk with a bike lane than I feel on the bike sharing the street with cars (except car doors randomly opened in my path, that's what terrifies me). Not a day passes without a cyclist almost running me over when I cross on a green light, or because they try to squeeze around on the sidewalk at unsafely high speeds. When it comes to protection, the usual killer is a strong hit on the head. You don't need too much speed to cause a fall. But despite cyclists riding and implicitly hitting the ground at higher speeds, protecting the old melon with a helmet is still seen as optional (embarrassing, unfashionable, uncomfortable). Cyclists take fewer precautions than drivers while exposing themselves to higher risks than pedestrians. Can't tell you how many times I was asked why am I bothering with the helmet, "I'll get suntan stripes". In my circle of friends the only other one wearing a helmet for city riding (everyone wears it on the long roadbike rides) is one who has a lot of kids as is terrified of leaving them without a father. Everyone else rides as if the epitaph of "The other guy should have paid more attention" will give anyone consolation.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  I've been told by a cyclist that a lot of Seattle bikers have implants for front teeth.
  - microtonal 2y ago
    Which shows that there is something wrong with Seattle. In my city the vast majority of people cycle. In my 42 years, I can only remember one person who lost a tooth cycling. We were kids and there was no car nearby. I cannot even think of many people with a serious injury at all. And me and my peers started cycling when we were 4 or 5 and most still do it daily (it’s the primary means of transportation within the city). Build a bike infrastructure, make car drivers more responsible. People will be healthier because they have daily workouts.
- steve_gh 2y ago
  The classic one is the number of cyclists riding along with their helmet dangling from the handlebars.
- Illotus 2y ago
  If only the speed was the big issue, but mostly it is the mass. Even with all the reckless cyclists there are very little fatalities where cyclist runs over pedestrian. Ultimately separating all groups would be the best, but heavy consequences for the heaviest road users is ultimately the solution.
  - close04 2y ago
    > Ultimately separating all groups would be the best, but heavy consequences for the heaviest road users is ultimately the solution. I agree that physical separation would be the best, with curbs or fences not just painted lines. As a pedestrian I would very much like to not share the sidewalk with any vehicle under any circumstances. Most people riding a vehicle on the sidewalk have no real legal constraints and the least respect I've witnessed anyone having towards the rest of the people. Pedestrians come in all shapes, sizes and ages, can't walk like robots and will easily step into the bike lane, or drop something, or a child will run around, etc. Riding at 30km/h in that environment is common and stupid. As a cyclist I'd much rather have the cycling lane on the street. Cars are more dangerous but also generally more predictable than pedestrians on a narrow sidewalk. Driving also has more regulation and enforcement. From my experience cars are a danger to me as cyclist at intersections (the dreaded right turn) and a terrifying thought when it comes to doors opening in front of me. As a driver I'd rather lose a driving lane to a cycling one than to have cyclists randomly bobbing in and out of my lane, crossing my path after crossing a red light, or after ignoring the right of way.

close04 2y ago

> Cars doing 30mph outpace galloping horses > Yet a cyclist who has no more protection than a pedestrian is supposed to share a road with 2+tonne vehicles of reinforced steel travelling at speeds By speed alone, bikes are to pedestrians what cars are to bikes. A pedestrian will walk at 3-5km/h. A bike will be 5-7 times faster than that at 15-35km/h (especially since the advent of e-bikes which ignore assist requirements). Cars will be 1.5-4 times faster at 40-50km/h. Where I live I feel less safe as a pedestrian sharing the sidewalk with a bike lane than I feel on the bike sharing the street with cars (except car doors randomly opened in my path, that's what terrifies me). Not a day passes without a cyclist almost running me over when I cross on a green light, or because they try to squeeze around on the sidewalk at unsafely high speeds. When it comes to protection, the usual killer is a strong hit on the head. You don't need too much speed to cause a fall. But despite cyclists riding and implicitly hitting the ground at higher speeds, protecting the old melon with a helmet is still seen as optional (embarrassing, unfashionable, uncomfortable). Cyclists take fewer precautions than drivers while exposing themselves to higher risks than pedestrians. Can't tell you how many times I was asked why am I bothering with the helmet, "I'll get suntan stripes". In my circle of friends the only other one wearing a helmet for city riding (everyone wears it on the long roadbike rides) is one who has a lot of kids as is terrified of leaving them without a father. Everyone else rides as if the epitaph of "The other guy should have paid more attention" will give anyone consolation.

WalterBright 2y ago
I've been told by a cyclist that a lot of Seattle bikers have implants for front teeth.
- microtonal 2y ago
  Which shows that there is something wrong with Seattle. In my city the vast majority of people cycle. In my 42 years, I can only remember one person who lost a tooth cycling. We were kids and there was no car nearby. I cannot even think of many people with a serious injury at all. And me and my peers started cycling when we were 4 or 5 and most still do it daily (it’s the primary means of transportation within the city). Build a bike infrastructure, make car drivers more responsible. People will be healthier because they have daily workouts.
steve_gh 2y ago
The classic one is the number of cyclists riding along with their helmet dangling from the handlebars.
Illotus 2y ago
If only the speed was the big issue, but mostly it is the mass. Even with all the reckless cyclists there are very little fatalities where cyclist runs over pedestrian. Ultimately separating all groups would be the best, but heavy consequences for the heaviest road users is ultimately the solution.
- close04 2y ago
  > Ultimately separating all groups would be the best, but heavy consequences for the heaviest road users is ultimately the solution. I agree that physical separation would be the best, with curbs or fences not just painted lines. As a pedestrian I would very much like to not share the sidewalk with any vehicle under any circumstances. Most people riding a vehicle on the sidewalk have no real legal constraints and the least respect I've witnessed anyone having towards the rest of the people. Pedestrians come in all shapes, sizes and ages, can't walk like robots and will easily step into the bike lane, or drop something, or a child will run around, etc. Riding at 30km/h in that environment is common and stupid. As a cyclist I'd much rather have the cycling lane on the street. Cars are more dangerous but also generally more predictable than pedestrians on a narrow sidewalk. Driving also has more regulation and enforcement. From my experience cars are a danger to me as cyclist at intersections (the dreaded right turn) and a terrifying thought when it comes to doors opening in front of me. As a driver I'd rather lose a driving lane to a cycling one than to have cyclists randomly bobbing in and out of my lane, crossing my path after crossing a red light, or after ignoring the right of way.