33 ms·

As a bicyclist, I'm constantly told how dangerous bicycles are. Usually, I get a blank look when I explain, bicycles are very safe, it is the cars that are the

As a bicyclist, I'm constantly told how dangerous bicycles are. Usually, I get a blank look when I explain, bicycles are very safe, it is the cars that are the dangerous part of the equation. Now I'll have to add fast billing ambulances to the list of dangers.

anal_reactor 2y ago
The entire discussion about cycling can be avoided by simply taking a look at the Netherlands and designing infrastructure and laws like this. It's literally that simple.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Americans dont want to live in the Netherlands or like people in the Netherlands, It's really that simple.
itsumoiru 2y ago
I think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.
- jordanb 2y ago
  It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous. It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem. There's a big push right now to ban people from buying and registering Kei cars with the argument being that they're too dangerous on american roads. If that argument holds, firstly, then it flows logically that they can nanny state people off of their bikes and motorcycles as well using the same argument. Secondly, Kei cars are not dangerous, getting hit in a kei car by an oversized SUV or "light" truck is.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"
    - joeblubaugh 2y ago
      In this analogy, the bicycle is not the gun. The F-250 extended cab is.
      - thot_experiment 2y ago
        Yup, bikes don't kill people, people in cars kill everyone around them.
    - twiceaday 2y ago
      You having a gun is not dangerous because of other people. You having a bicycle is dangerous because of other people.
    - dasil003 2y ago
      Because whether it's people pulling the trigger or the gun itself, both are the direct source of harm. Bicycles are not the source of harm, cars are. The analogous argument one way would be quibbling over whether it's the driver or the car. The analogous argument the other would be saying it's the shooting victims fault for being in a place where they are likely to get shot (bad neighborhood, in a position to surprise or threaten an armed individual, or maybe just in America)
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Also, more pointedly, guns [EDIT: Nope!] and cars are among the top causes of accidental death in America [1]. [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demographics/deaths-by-age/data-details/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...
- rakoo 2y ago
  Cycling is not dangerous because of nature, it's dangerous because of cars. It's not the same as "skydiving is dangerous" where the nature itself goes against you. What matters is what we want to do as a society: leave the cars where they are as some kind of unmovable force of destiny, or actually manage them to not make them dangerous.
kube-system 2y ago
The blank look is probably because cars are ubiquitous, so the distinction is irrelevant to the risk profile the speaker is referring to.
- Gigachad 2y ago
  The point is that cycling doesn’t have to be dangerous, it currently is due to external factors that can be fixed.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Even with cars we have a saying: "graves are filled with people who had the right of way". Physics doesn't care about whose to blame.
    - pornel 2y ago
      It's not about blame. It's about recognizing the need for safe infrastructure: physically separated bike paths, not painted gutters. Physics does care about the difference between crossing a painted line vs hitting a bollard.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        And trying to pivot a conversation like that often gets... blank looks. No need for people to find the info unknown or confusing.
      - Xylakant 2y ago
        “If it doesn’t damage the car, it’s not safe bike infrastructure.” someone said, and they’re right.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        Dedicated bike lanes almost always share the same risks as the incident in the OP: the intersections are still shared. And sometimes driver behavior is even worse when dedicated bike lanes exist at intersections, because drivers turning right forget they are sharing the intersection with bikes proceeding straight-through from a lane on their right.
treyfitty 2y ago
Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.” Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are not accustomed to sharing the road with bicyclists and only glance at their mirrors to check for large familiar cars. Thus, to say that “cars are the ones that are dangerous,” implies you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence.
- bwestergard 2y ago
  In the U.S., roads were paved for cyclists first. There was a political fight over whether and how to regulate cars to prevent them from crowding out other road users. See "Fighting Traffic". https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128/ref=mp_s_a_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...
  - kube-system 2y ago
    And more broadly, paved roads were invented between 2600 and 2200 BC.
  - treyfitty 2y ago
    I meant to reference modern roads. Lane markings, signage, and setbacks are clearly spaced, designed, and optimized for traveling in a car. Those 45mph signs and the intentional spacing of lane markers were not designed because of bicyclists.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Bad road design. We can do better.
- rolph 2y ago
  roads predate cars.
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
"it was his fault" - not sure you want that on your tombstone.
- frankgrimesjr 2y ago
  Would you want "Enjoyed blaming the victims" in yours?
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    The point is blame doesn't help when you are dead. Keep safe, don't throw yourself in the path of cars with drivers who text. Former cyclist, now zwifting instead.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I'll have to add fast billing ambulances to the list As another comment mentions, this is a standard vehicle-cyclist collision lawsuit with some hilarity added by automated billing.
mmooss 2y ago
You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without injury - it seems to me that human attention loses focus unless something reinforces it; as a result 1 in 1,000 risks are very hard to focus on. Cars and bikes don't mix except when cars are going bicycle speed. If your system kills people when they make a mistake, your system is very badly designed.
- milch 2y ago
  > no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them You must not be riding your bike a lot then. Most recently I had a guy follow me around and threaten to get his gun if I didn't get off the road
- yunwal 2y ago
  > it's the ground that's dangerous Sure, but there’s nothing we can do about the ground
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who's opposed to separated infrastructure for bikes and cars. Every local government project I've ever seen to build this kind of infrastructure runs into issues with drivers who don't think it's necessary or would somehow ruin their lives.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    As a former bicycle messenger I'm opposed to it. The trails are filled with baby strollers and inline skaters moving in and out of lanes. typically there is no right of way when crossing roads or entrances to parking lots. Blind corners with overgrown vegetation are par for the course. Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort. Dedicated bicycle lanes on existing roads are the worst. You are trapped in an area where turning vehicles are going to T-bone you. Pedestrians will tentatively step out on the the asphalt as they ponder crossing the street. Want to swerve around them? Good luck, there are bollards or other barriers now separating the cycling lane from the rest of the larger roadway. This is why there is a common international driving etiquette to not overtake on the outer lane. Yet, safety maxi city planners, who clearly never pursued cycling at any level, insist upon building dedicated cyclist lanes on the outside. I see many accidents posted as outrage bait on Twitter caused by cyclists attempting to overtake on the outside or being overtaken by cars attempting to turn. As a professional courier, I would have never attempted such maneuvers. Overtake on the inside, like any other vehicle. Stay behind the brake light on the inside bumper. Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows. If you are not keeping pace with traffic, yield to the outside and do not make a pest of yourself. Unless of course there is an immediate intersection, then you should defend against a turning vehicle. Dedicated cycling lanes have issues and bike trails often do not go to the destinations you need. It is a nice alternative for leisurely cycling, but not applicable utilitarian transportation. I often wonder if the planners of these things have ever used a bicycle to pick up groceries or run errands. Finally, all of the people crying about how dangerous cycling is, will most likely still complain or find other excuses to not ride their bike. That's fine. I'm not here to convert everyone into a cyclist. Personally, I have no issues sharing the road with cement trucks. "I would start riding my bike to work, if only you built me...", becomes, "It is too hot, cold or rainy to ride bikes" or, "I can't carry groceries on a bicycle, are you crazy?". It is much like the chronically overweight or those who claim they want to quit smoking. These people don't actually want to ride bikes. That's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to accommodate their excuses by wasting money building infrastructure which creates dangerous expectations for motorists and cyclists. Stated preferences are not always what users want or need.
AnotherGoodName 2y ago
Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard to suddenly cut a turn in front of me rather than waiting behind me to turn across the cycle lane. They never get angry when there is no cycle lane and I’m forced to take up a full lane for a stretch. They have cold machine patience and attitude and to get away from my own anecdote the statistics just plain say they are safer. They are expanding the areas the self driving cars can operate in year by year. As much as I hate nanny state laws and acknowledge that self drivings not there yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving. 40k deaths a year in the USA from humans driving and a fear of rightfully using the road for non driving activities due to poor human behaviour. I’m actually pretty hopeful we get there.
- jordanb 2y ago
  A waymo hit a cyclist in San Francisco a few months ago, by failing to anticipate that there may be traffic behind a turning truck and accelerating into it. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-car-strikes-bicyclist-san-francisco-injuries https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...
  - AnotherGoodName 2y ago
    The statistics are still in their favour even at this early stage when the bugs are yet to be fully figured out though. There’s good reason today to feel safer around self driving cars even with the above example. As self driving becomes more and more commonplace and even safer we’ll likely be focusing more on the 40k human caused fatalities.
  - lubujackson 2y ago
    Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than the turning truck as well. Hard to pin that one on Waymo, though I do feel like Waymo cars tend to drive a bit "city aggressive" at times, like asserting their right of way, sticking close to the car in front, etc.
jncfhnb 2y ago
So then choosing to drive near a bunch of cars is a dangerous decision
7e 2y ago
Many cyclists bike like raving a*holes, and it is dangerous, both for them and for cars which cannot predict how they will behave. I could imagine cases where the the car might swerve and hit something else besides the cyclist. So yes, bicycles can be dangerous to cars in a roundabout way.
- occz 2y ago
  Feel free to operate your car at a non-lethal speed if your driving skills do not permit you to damage other road users. In the neighborhood of 20 km/h should probably allow you to never commit fatal mistakes.
- Mawr 2y ago
  I find drivers are often utterly shocked by the presence of a pedestrian at a pedestrian crossing as well as a cyclist at a cyclist crossing. Unpredictable!
sieabahlpark 2y ago
Bicyclists are more unsafe than my hand rolled memory allocator.
ggreer 2y ago
According to the NTSB, cyclists have 79 deaths per billion miles traveled. For comparison, cars were 11 per billion miles. Around 2/3rds of bicycle fatalities involved a motor vehicle. So even if we solved car-bicycle collisions, the fatality rate per mile would still be much higher than driving. Bicycles are great, but compared to cars they are dangerous. 1. See page 39 of https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901....
- sottol 2y ago
  I don't think you can 1:1 compare those stats. Most people just wouldn't have the time to travel as far by bike as they do by car, even if they wanted to. They'd take some other form of transit for long drives. Car drivers do 13500 miles/year on average, even at a very sporty 20mi/h per (average!) a cyclist would have to ride full 29 days/year non-stop to match that. Thus, a better measure would be accidents/hour of operation. I bet most avid cyclists do < 1000 miles/year and few do more than 3000 and that would mostly close the gap in death/hour of use.
  - ggreer 2y ago
    That logic also applies to flying versus driving, but few make the same objection when someone points out that flying is safer than driving. And at the margins, cycling does substitute for driving, just as driving sometimes substitutes for flying. The different modes of transportation do have various advantages and disadvantages, but the fact remains that cycling is significantly more dangerous.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - sottol 2y ago
      Yes, on the margins cycling is more dangerous in the USA. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the physical exercise would reduce mortality enough to still be a net positive on the margins - biking to the bakery vs driving - but haven't verified that. Interesting tidbit from the report is that almost 50% of fatalities are in towns <100k population, 16% outside towns and 34% in pop centers > 100k. I would have guessed metro areas are more dangerous.
ldoughty 2y ago
The only 2 bicyclists I know that were injured both (effectively) said they expected the car to yield or see them. One of them was in 2 accidents 5 years apart. Certainly, legally, the cars were in the wrong every time... But the cyclists' mentality shocked me... They _expected_ the cars to respect they were there (and in one case they had their head down in a bike lane and didn't see the car pull out in the intersection to make a right turn) and were completely shocked when they get into an (avoidable) accident. I certainly have nearly been in LOTS of accidents on my motorcycle around the DC beltway and interstates, but I dodged every one by understanding that other drivers are selfish and inattentive, keeping my bike in a lower gear & revved in heavy traffic, and watching out for myself. In my chats with the 2 bicyclists, their mentality seemed entirely different. I really don't get it, and I hope that's not common.
alsetmusic 2y ago
I mean, think of the damage you and your bicycle could do to an ambulance. Absolute menace. /s Our downtown is renovating the roads and replacing car lanes with physically separated bicycle lanes (from four lanes to two). Smart move with reduced traffic Due to recent wfh culture. Even as a driver, I appreciate this. I don’t wanna hit anyone any more than they wanna be hit. Unless I can make about $2000 in the process, that is…
xeornet 2y ago
You are riding on roads made for cars - you are an afterthought. Whether it’s the cars fault or not - cycling on the road is dangerous.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  We probably should fix the roads. Blame the engineers who made it this way.
  - occz 2y ago
    A good first step would be to impose liability for engineers designing roads which predictably leads to the deaths of its users. I imagine a road-building engineer would think twice before approving a road with an unsafe design speed if it could lead to them being stripped of their license, fined or even jailed.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Why blame anyone? A general rule: If you want someone to blame, look in the mirror.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Because if you want to solve a problem you first have to identify it. That's step 1, before anything else. There's no virtue in being ignorant, especially not purposefully so.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Identifying a problem and blame are different things. The first facilitates problem solving, the second interferes with it. Look up blame-free post-mortems of problems in the IT world, for example. Blaming is similar to a victim perspective, IMHO: 'I'm innocent (most important) and injured; the other person is guilty; therefore I can take out my frustration, etc. on them - I can do to them whatever I want.' It often is more about satisfying anger, protection from shame and other consequences, and is a distraction from problem solving. And those blamed, as here on HN, are often the people who are most socially acceptable to blame - whoever is unpopular and vulnerable in the current crowd. In this case, people driving cars and riding bicycles are in a system that yields problematic results. How can we improve that system? Talking about blame

anal_reactor 2y ago

The entire discussion about cycling can be avoided by simply taking a look at the Netherlands and designing infrastructure and laws like this. It's literally that simple.

HDThoreaun 2y ago
Americans dont want to live in the Netherlands or like people in the Netherlands, It's really that simple.

itsumoiru 2y ago

I think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.

jordanb 2y ago
It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous. It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem. There's a big push right now to ban people from buying and registering Kei cars with the argument being that they're too dangerous on american roads. If that argument holds, firstly, then it flows logically that they can nanny state people off of their bikes and motorcycles as well using the same argument. Secondly, Kei cars are not dangerous, getting hit in a kei car by an oversized SUV or "light" truck is.
- gruez 2y ago
  >It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"
  - joeblubaugh 2y ago
    In this analogy, the bicycle is not the gun. The F-250 extended cab is.
    - thot_experiment 2y ago
      Yup, bikes don't kill people, people in cars kill everyone around them.
  - twiceaday 2y ago
    You having a gun is not dangerous because of other people. You having a bicycle is dangerous because of other people.
  - dasil003 2y ago
    Because whether it's people pulling the trigger or the gun itself, both are the direct source of harm. Bicycles are not the source of harm, cars are. The analogous argument one way would be quibbling over whether it's the driver or the car. The analogous argument the other would be saying it's the shooting victims fault for being in a place where they are likely to get shot (bad neighborhood, in a position to surprise or threaten an armed individual, or maybe just in America)
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Also, more pointedly, guns [EDIT: Nope!] and cars are among the top causes of accidental death in America [1]. [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demographics/deaths-by-age/data-details/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...
rakoo 2y ago
Cycling is not dangerous because of nature, it's dangerous because of cars. It's not the same as "skydiving is dangerous" where the nature itself goes against you. What matters is what we want to do as a society: leave the cars where they are as some kind of unmovable force of destiny, or actually manage them to not make them dangerous.

kube-system 2y ago

The blank look is probably because cars are ubiquitous, so the distinction is irrelevant to the risk profile the speaker is referring to.

Gigachad 2y ago
The point is that cycling doesn’t have to be dangerous, it currently is due to external factors that can be fixed.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Even with cars we have a saying: "graves are filled with people who had the right of way". Physics doesn't care about whose to blame.
  - pornel 2y ago
    It's not about blame. It's about recognizing the need for safe infrastructure: physically separated bike paths, not painted gutters. Physics does care about the difference between crossing a painted line vs hitting a bollard.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      And trying to pivot a conversation like that often gets... blank looks. No need for people to find the info unknown or confusing.
    - Xylakant 2y ago
      “If it doesn’t damage the car, it’s not safe bike infrastructure.” someone said, and they’re right.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      Dedicated bike lanes almost always share the same risks as the incident in the OP: the intersections are still shared. And sometimes driver behavior is even worse when dedicated bike lanes exist at intersections, because drivers turning right forget they are sharing the intersection with bikes proceeding straight-through from a lane on their right.

treyfitty 2y ago

Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.” Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are not accustomed to sharing the road with bicyclists and only glance at their mirrors to check for large familiar cars. Thus, to say that “cars are the ones that are dangerous,” implies you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence.

bwestergard 2y ago
In the U.S., roads were paved for cyclists first. There was a political fight over whether and how to regulate cars to prevent them from crowding out other road users. See "Fighting Traffic". https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128/ref=mp_s_a_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...
- kube-system 2y ago
  And more broadly, paved roads were invented between 2600 and 2200 BC.
- treyfitty 2y ago
  I meant to reference modern roads. Lane markings, signage, and setbacks are clearly spaced, designed, and optimized for traveling in a car. Those 45mph signs and the intentional spacing of lane markers were not designed because of bicyclists.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Bad road design. We can do better.
rolph 2y ago
roads predate cars.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

"it was his fault" - not sure you want that on your tombstone.

frankgrimesjr 2y ago
Would you want "Enjoyed blaming the victims" in yours?
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  The point is blame doesn't help when you are dead. Keep safe, don't throw yourself in the path of cars with drivers who text. Former cyclist, now zwifting instead.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> I'll have to add fast billing ambulances to the list As another comment mentions, this is a standard vehicle-cyclist collision lawsuit with some hilarity added by automated billing.

mmooss 2y ago

You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without injury - it seems to me that human attention loses focus unless something reinforces it; as a result 1 in 1,000 risks are very hard to focus on. Cars and bikes don't mix except when cars are going bicycle speed. If your system kills people when they make a mistake, your system is very badly designed.

milch 2y ago
> no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them You must not be riding your bike a lot then. Most recently I had a guy follow me around and threaten to get his gun if I didn't get off the road
yunwal 2y ago
> it's the ground that's dangerous Sure, but there’s nothing we can do about the ground
AlotOfReading 2y ago
I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who's opposed to separated infrastructure for bikes and cars. Every local government project I've ever seen to build this kind of infrastructure runs into issues with drivers who don't think it's necessary or would somehow ruin their lives.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  As a former bicycle messenger I'm opposed to it. The trails are filled with baby strollers and inline skaters moving in and out of lanes. typically there is no right of way when crossing roads or entrances to parking lots. Blind corners with overgrown vegetation are par for the course. Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort. Dedicated bicycle lanes on existing roads are the worst. You are trapped in an area where turning vehicles are going to T-bone you. Pedestrians will tentatively step out on the the asphalt as they ponder crossing the street. Want to swerve around them? Good luck, there are bollards or other barriers now separating the cycling lane from the rest of the larger roadway. This is why there is a common international driving etiquette to not overtake on the outer lane. Yet, safety maxi city planners, who clearly never pursued cycling at any level, insist upon building dedicated cyclist lanes on the outside. I see many accidents posted as outrage bait on Twitter caused by cyclists attempting to overtake on the outside or being overtaken by cars attempting to turn. As a professional courier, I would have never attempted such maneuvers. Overtake on the inside, like any other vehicle. Stay behind the brake light on the inside bumper. Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows. If you are not keeping pace with traffic, yield to the outside and do not make a pest of yourself. Unless of course there is an immediate intersection, then you should defend against a turning vehicle. Dedicated cycling lanes have issues and bike trails often do not go to the destinations you need. It is a nice alternative for leisurely cycling, but not applicable utilitarian transportation. I often wonder if the planners of these things have ever used a bicycle to pick up groceries or run errands. Finally, all of the people crying about how dangerous cycling is, will most likely still complain or find other excuses to not ride their bike. That's fine. I'm not here to convert everyone into a cyclist. Personally, I have no issues sharing the road with cement trucks. "I would start riding my bike to work, if only you built me...", becomes, "It is too hot, cold or rainy to ride bikes" or, "I can't carry groceries on a bicycle, are you crazy?". It is much like the chronically overweight or those who claim they want to quit smoking. These people don't actually want to ride bikes. That's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to accommodate their excuses by wasting money building infrastructure which creates dangerous expectations for motorists and cyclists. Stated preferences are not always what users want or need.

AnotherGoodName 2y ago

Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard to suddenly cut a turn in front of me rather than waiting behind me to turn across the cycle lane. They never get angry when there is no cycle lane and I’m forced to take up a full lane for a stretch. They have cold machine patience and attitude and to get away from my own anecdote the statistics just plain say they are safer. They are expanding the areas the self driving cars can operate in year by year. As much as I hate nanny state laws and acknowledge that self drivings not there yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving. 40k deaths a year in the USA from humans driving and a fear of rightfully using the road for non driving activities due to poor human behaviour. I’m actually pretty hopeful we get there.

jordanb 2y ago
A waymo hit a cyclist in San Francisco a few months ago, by failing to anticipate that there may be traffic behind a turning truck and accelerating into it. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-car-strikes-bicyclist-san-francisco-injuries https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago
  The statistics are still in their favour even at this early stage when the bugs are yet to be fully figured out though. There’s good reason today to feel safer around self driving cars even with the above example. As self driving becomes more and more commonplace and even safer we’ll likely be focusing more on the 40k human caused fatalities.
- lubujackson 2y ago
  Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than the turning truck as well. Hard to pin that one on Waymo, though I do feel like Waymo cars tend to drive a bit "city aggressive" at times, like asserting their right of way, sticking close to the car in front, etc.

jncfhnb 2y ago

So then choosing to drive near a bunch of cars is a dangerous decision

7e 2y ago

Many cyclists bike like raving a*holes, and it is dangerous, both for them and for cars which cannot predict how they will behave. I could imagine cases where the the car might swerve and hit something else besides the cyclist. So yes, bicycles can be dangerous to cars in a roundabout way.

occz 2y ago
Feel free to operate your car at a non-lethal speed if your driving skills do not permit you to damage other road users. In the neighborhood of 20 km/h should probably allow you to never commit fatal mistakes.
Mawr 2y ago
I find drivers are often utterly shocked by the presence of a pedestrian at a pedestrian crossing as well as a cyclist at a cyclist crossing. Unpredictable!

sieabahlpark 2y ago

Bicyclists are more unsafe than my hand rolled memory allocator.

ggreer 2y ago

According to the NTSB, cyclists have 79 deaths per billion miles traveled. For comparison, cars were 11 per billion miles. Around 2/3rds of bicycle fatalities involved a motor vehicle. So even if we solved car-bicycle collisions, the fatality rate per mile would still be much higher than driving. Bicycles are great, but compared to cars they are dangerous. 1. See page 39 of https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901....

sottol 2y ago
I don't think you can 1:1 compare those stats. Most people just wouldn't have the time to travel as far by bike as they do by car, even if they wanted to. They'd take some other form of transit for long drives. Car drivers do 13500 miles/year on average, even at a very sporty 20mi/h per (average!) a cyclist would have to ride full 29 days/year non-stop to match that. Thus, a better measure would be accidents/hour of operation. I bet most avid cyclists do < 1000 miles/year and few do more than 3000 and that would mostly close the gap in death/hour of use.
- ggreer 2y ago
  That logic also applies to flying versus driving, but few make the same objection when someone points out that flying is safer than driving. And at the margins, cycling does substitute for driving, just as driving sometimes substitutes for flying. The different modes of transportation do have various advantages and disadvantages, but the fact remains that cycling is significantly more dangerous.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sottol 2y ago
    Yes, on the margins cycling is more dangerous in the USA. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the physical exercise would reduce mortality enough to still be a net positive on the margins - biking to the bakery vs driving - but haven't verified that. Interesting tidbit from the report is that almost 50% of fatalities are in towns <100k population, 16% outside towns and 34% in pop centers > 100k. I would have guessed metro areas are more dangerous.

ldoughty 2y ago

The only 2 bicyclists I know that were injured both (effectively) said they expected the car to yield or see them. One of them was in 2 accidents 5 years apart. Certainly, legally, the cars were in the wrong every time... But the cyclists' mentality shocked me... They _expected_ the cars to respect they were there (and in one case they had their head down in a bike lane and didn't see the car pull out in the intersection to make a right turn) and were completely shocked when they get into an (avoidable) accident. I certainly have nearly been in LOTS of accidents on my motorcycle around the DC beltway and interstates, but I dodged every one by understanding that other drivers are selfish and inattentive, keeping my bike in a lower gear & revved in heavy traffic, and watching out for myself. In my chats with the 2 bicyclists, their mentality seemed entirely different. I really don't get it, and I hope that's not common.

alsetmusic 2y ago

I mean, think of the damage you and your bicycle could do to an ambulance. Absolute menace. /s Our downtown is renovating the roads and replacing car lanes with physically separated bicycle lanes (from four lanes to two). Smart move with reduced traffic Due to recent wfh culture. Even as a driver, I appreciate this. I don’t wanna hit anyone any more than they wanna be hit. Unless I can make about $2000 in the process, that is…

xeornet 2y ago

You are riding on roads made for cars - you are an afterthought. Whether it’s the cars fault or not - cycling on the road is dangerous.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
We probably should fix the roads. Blame the engineers who made it this way.
- occz 2y ago
  A good first step would be to impose liability for engineers designing roads which predictably leads to the deaths of its users. I imagine a road-building engineer would think twice before approving a road with an unsafe design speed if it could lead to them being stripped of their license, fined or even jailed.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Why blame anyone? A general rule: If you want someone to blame, look in the mirror.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Because if you want to solve a problem you first have to identify it. That's step 1, before anything else. There's no virtue in being ignorant, especially not purposefully so.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Identifying a problem and blame are different things. The first facilitates problem solving, the second interferes with it. Look up blame-free post-mortems of problems in the IT world, for example. Blaming is similar to a victim perspective, IMHO: 'I'm innocent (most important) and injured; the other person is guilty; therefore I can take out my frustration, etc. on them - I can do to them whatever I want.' It often is more about satisfying anger, protection from shame and other consequences, and is a distraction from problem solving. And those blamed, as here on HN, are often the people who are most socially acceptable to blame - whoever is unpopular and vulnerable in the current crowd. In this case, people driving cars and riding bicycles are in a system that yields problematic results. How can we improve that system? Talking about blame