4 ms·

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.
- kube-system 2y ago
  > factors that can be fixed In the US? Not a chance. The political momentum in the US overwhelmingly does not want to fix this to the degree where cars and bikes wouldn't cross paths. Nor have I seen any proposals to do so. Even the most progressive bike infrastructure in the US still often intersects with vehicle traffic at grade. There's only one place in the US where you can reasonably ride a bicycle for transportation and (usually) not share the road with cars, and it's a tiny island with population ~500 that banned cars in the late 19th century. And even there, emergency vehicles, like the one in the OP, still share the road with bikes.

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.
kube-system 2y ago
> factors that can be fixed In the US? Not a chance. The political momentum in the US overwhelmingly does not want to fix this to the degree where cars and bikes wouldn't cross paths. Nor have I seen any proposals to do so. Even the most progressive bike infrastructure in the US still often intersects with vehicle traffic at grade. There's only one place in the US where you can reasonably ride a bicycle for transportation and (usually) not share the road with cars, and it's a tiny island with population ~500 that banned cars in the late 19th century. And even there, emergency vehicles, like the one in the OP, still share the road with bikes.