10 ms·

Why Bikes Make Smart People Say Dumb Things

68 points by nvk 12y ago

jcromartie 12y ago
Zero fatalities per 15 million miles is not a great metric. For one thing, cars boast less than 0.3 fatalities per 15 million miles, so if anybody dies between now and 45 million bike miles that will not be a great statistic. I'd wager that 1 million bike miles represent far more trips than 1 million car miles, though, since obviously bikes are (usually) used for shorter trips than cars.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Though most pedestrian fatalities would be on relatively short car trips or relatively short stretches of long car trips (before/after the highway).
JacksonGariety 12y ago
The smiling man on the bike in the last photo on the page was my high school psychology teacher. Can confirm: not a hipster.
Mithaldu 12y ago
As a european biker my theory on the aggressiveness in the debate about bikers in the USA is simply that, due to how traffic laws over there are structured, bikers are much more endangered and have to respond with much more aggressiveness. As an example: In Germany a biker legally has to keep a minimum distance from parked cars. This often means riding in the middle of the lane, something which german bikers are not only, as in this minimum distance case, forced to, but generally allowed to in every case. From what friends in the USA tell me, trying to do that is a very quick trip to a hospital.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Doesn't explain London where I have regularly witnessed cyclists blasting through red lights at 30 mph at major junctions at the height of the rush hour. I have also see them take short cuts through large groups of pedestrians at only slightly less speed.
  - Timmmmbob 12y ago
    I lived in London for 4 years and that is bullshit.
    - walshemj 12y ago
      Sorry no I recently worked in proctor street next to Holborn tube you could see 2 or 3 idiot cyclists every day in 5 min just walking across the road to the local café.
    - richliss 12y ago
      Second person challenging your bullshit statement here... I've lived in London for a total 10 years and I've seen non-boris bike cyclists in Central London regularly do this: 1. Go through red lights. 2. Go through pedestrian crossings at speed whilst pedestrians are actually crossing. 3. Cycle the wrong way on a road. 4. Cycle across crossings when the lights favour them. 5. Cycle on pavements (only young children should be allowed to do this). 6. Cycle in bus only lanes ignoring the bus behind them. 7. Weave in-between traffic. 8. Undertake. I'm a pedestrian btw... not someone who drives in London, and without a doubt cyclists make more dangerous actions that a pedestrian has to be wary of than drivers. Having to be aware of cars/trucks/buses doesn't excuse a cyclists responsibility to be aware of pedestrians first.
- hyperpape 12y ago
  My understanding in the US is that riding on the sidewalks is illegal, and that cyclists must ride in the road to follow the law (I am not a cyclist).
  - 67726e 12y ago
    I can only speak for my state (South Carolina) but that is absolutely true, but rarely enforced. I've had several accidents and near misses pulling out of my driveway and bumping into people biking down the sidewalk. They were always at fault, but at the same time the street they should have been riding on is a major thoroughfare downtown and has speeds of 25-35 MPH with no bike lane. You really cannot expect everyone to be able to bike anywhere near that fast, but then you wind up with folks going a few MPH on a bike and holding up traffic. It's just a terrible situation all around.
    - nilkn 12y ago
      > They were always at fault, but at the same time the street they should have been riding on is a major thoroughfare downtown and has speeds of 25-35 MPH with no bike lane. You really cannot expect everyone to be able to bike anywhere near that fast, but then you wind up with folks going a few MPH on a bike and holding up traffic. It's just a terrible situation all around. This is a major problem in Houston as well. I think cyclists are generally disliked here because the road system is just not at all designed to accommodate them. There are a lot of roads with 30-40 mph speeds, no bike lanes, and sidewalks that are very popular for walkers (plus it's illegal to ride a bike on them). A cyclist has the choice of either biking on the sidewalk, thereby endangering pedestrians, or biking on the road, thereby causing a small traffic jam and forcing all the cars to switch lanes.
  - dubfan 12y ago
    Riding on sidewalks is legal in Seattle.
  - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
    In my (smaller, 80k pop) city, we actually have paved bike paths separated from the road, however cyclists choose to ride in the street anyway.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  > From what friends in the USA tell me, trying to do that is a very quick trip to a hospital. It's still safer, but you might get someone who is less-informed yelling/honking at you. Then again, I don't bike in the 'burbs either.
OmarIsmail 12y ago
This was a well written article. I'm a commuter cyclist (in San Francisco) and I admit to taking actions that I'm sure piss off some pedestrians. I always feel bad about it and am working on it. The one thing is that 99% of my focus is on dealing with the 1-ton boxes of death metal traveling at 60KM/h and not on the 150lb squishy humans going 5KM/h. The new bike lans going up in the city are awesome though. I'm sure if you looked at biker<->pedestrian conflicts on a street like Folsom before and after the huge bike lane they put up, you would (hopefully!) see a marked decrease.
- alooPotato 12y ago
  The thing that really pisses off pedestrians is when bicycles don't stop when their supposed to and just go through intersections when they aren't supposed to. That type of action doesn't help with your safety against motor vehicles, its purely bicyclists not wanting to stop. That seems selfish on the part of bicyclists who do this.
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    Just walk. The cyclist most likely sees you and is waiting for you to move past. The worst thing you can do is react to the cyclist, stopping and starting.
    - aganders3 12y ago
      I agree, but peds who never ride bikes don't realize this and I don't think you can expect them to. They're used to interacting with cars, where there's not enough room for both (a car and a ped) in an intersection, so their reaction is to avoid sharing it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - aganders3 12y ago
    I'm a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver (not necessarily in that order). I totally understand this, but I also think it's a general misunderstanding. Many (most?) pedestrians have extensive experience driving or at least riding in motor vehicles, but few have the same amount of experience cycling. Thus, pedestrians trust cars (even though statistics suggest they shouldn't) to stop or avoid them at crosswalks and driveways because they know they do it, too. A cyclist may run a stop sign and ride through a crosswalk very close to a pedestrian. They do not consider this dangerous behavior, because they are in control and they know it. Pedestrians (even those with biking experience) may not have inherent trust the cyclist is in control or aware, and this instills fear. The cyclist rides away without even knowing they scared the pedestrian, while the pedestrian feels they were endangered. These interactions then reinforce stereotypes. My point is that _everyone_ is acting selfish at intersections [0], and nobody thinks they are a threat because they believe they're in control. I think things get most heated with (against) cyclists because while most cyclists are also pedestrians and drivers, the reverse is not true. [0] http://vimeo.com/24572222 http://vimeo.com/24572222
zaccus 12y ago
Cyclists and motorists need to stop demonizing each other. The problem is not with either of those groups, the problem is with indecisive, inconsistent enforcement of the law. A cyclist knows that there is most likely no consequence for running a stop sign, so even if it is technically illegal, there's no incentive for them to stop. If motorists could get away with running stop signs just as easily, they would do the same. It's unreasonable to expect people to act contrary to their incentives. We need to agree on what the law is, and enforce it accordingly. Maybe it doesn't make sense for cyclists to obey the same set of traffic signals as motorists; if that is the case then we need to explicitly say so. This business where some people obey traffic signals and other don't needs to stop. That is the responsibility of city government and law enforcement.
- revelation 12y ago
  Obviously, we can't have perfect enforcement. So we need to focus on the next best: enforce the rules where it makes a difference. As this article abundandtly points out, the greatest cause for injury and death (you know, what we created traffic laws for) are cars. Hence, this is where enforcement needs to happen.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  According to the article, 80% of motorists and 95% of bicyclists do not come to a complete stop at stop signs. In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. The elephant in the room is speeding. Speeding is responsible for ~30% of all road fatalities, yet is universally condoned on American roads. Drivers do not understand how hypocritical they are when they complain about bicyclists disobeying road rules while they themselves are speeding.
  - commandar 12y ago
    >In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again adds a huge amount of effort to a ride, and a cyclist has plenty of incentive to look before rolling through an intersection.
lvs 12y ago
I have no idea why this is on HN. In any case, he's absolutely right. It's not overgeneralization when everyone sees it day-in and day-out in every major American city. This article simply seems to be shocked that anyone would criticize bicyclists for doing what they do every single day. Source: I cycle myself.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- VLM 12y ago
  "I have no idea why this is on HN." I believe its a really good example of how to manipulate statistics to meet a predetermined conclusion. I'm not sure if there was one number in the entire article that wasn't manipulated into propaganda. The text prose was OK but the manipulation of statistics was masterful. Here's one example. If a skinny biker, hit pedestrian me, at a "normal" speed maybe 10 MPH, the kinetic impact would be similar (for me, anyway) to a normal size person hitting me in the hallway. Oh we'd both get knocked down, and if I was 80 like my grandma, or 8 like my kid, it might kill, and maybe 1 in 100 odds someone would break a bone, but the fatality rate per accident would hover near enough zero. In comparison, hit a pedestrian on a 45 (really more like 60) MPH country road and the only question is if they'll be enough left to fill a coffin or not, so we'll call that near 100% fatality rate per accident. So the fixation on comparing fatality rates is meaningless. There's more to a good day than merely not dying in a bike-ped accident and I have no great desire to be hit over and over and "its OK because I wasn't killed and my desire to wear spandex is more important than your desire to live". "Well sorry I killed your kid or grandma but statistically they don't count." That's not really a culture to aspire to. Another example is the fixation on counts without discussing percentages. Lets see, on my commute home about 60000 of my closest friends and I will drive on that major interstate over the course of the entire commute, while what, maybe a handful of bikers will spend hours taking the surface streets? So if bikes were rabid death machines I'd still expect the death counts to be spectacularly higher for cars than bikers because practically no one bikes. The death count from a rounding error will in fact approach zero. That doesn't mean Russian Roulette is a great game to recommend and the authors observation is meaningless. I have mixed feelings in that my opinions and biases generally match the authors, because I like to ride my bike (although I ride safely, which even I admit is unusual for bikers), but I can't decide if I should complain about the evils of propaganda or compliment the guy on doing a near legendarily good job at generating propaganda. You have to respect competence, even if its doing something evil. You can always learn something from competence. Just don't confuse successful competence with good ethics. Life isn't as simple as merely success = goodness.
timr 12y ago
Say what you will about the relative dangers of autos vs. cyclists, but my closest call to death in SF traffic (as a pedestrian) was due to a cyclist, not a car: I was about to cross an otherwise-empty intersection legally, when a bicyclist shot through against the light at high speed, missing me by centimeters. Had I been hit by the guy I'd have been severely injured, if not killed. Moreover, riders around here don't seem to pay much attention to pedestrians -- they're so focused on cars that they routinely do things to endanger the rest of us (I can't even begin to tell you the number of times I've had to dodge bikes on crowded sidewalks, even though it's illegal to ride on sidewalks here.) There's a certain type of "activist" rider here who has made flaunting the law a badge of honor. I don't own a car and I do ride a bike, but at this point, I have a lot of sympathy for the people who criticize cyclists -- the entitlement is a little out of control. (edit: thanks for the downvotes, folks. you're definitely changing my mind on this issue.)
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  > (edit: thanks for the downvotes, folks. you're definitely changing my mind on this issue.) You're getting downvotes because you managed to completely miss the point the article is trying to make: Anecdotes are not generalized evidence.
  - cema 12y ago
    But personal experience affects decisions people make. Sharing it is useful.
  - timr 12y ago
    This is from the guy whose other comment on this thread is a personal opinion/theory? [1] Let's be honest: you don't have a problem with opinions, you just don't happen to like mine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999941
    - Mithaldu 12y ago
      The difference is that i noted from the get-go that my post is a theory, which, as theories go, is implicitly understood to maybe be right or maybe be wrong. Take care to note for example how i marked which statements i made were either fact or hear-say. Now the article, which freely admitted that there are black sheep on both sides and that there are certainly situations where bikers are MORE likely to break the law than others, merely tried to make the point that the, often unreflected, demonization (not all criticism, the demonization) is undeserved and that the situation would be better for everyone if people simply thought a bit more. Your comment on that? "I had some trouble with bikers who broke the laws, so some criticism is deserved." The latter part of that was already a sentiment in the article, and the entirety of that is what the article tried to point out as thoughtlessness.
pmdulaney 12y ago
I think zaccus and OmarIsmail are on the right track. Re: zaccus - Google the "Idaho stop." The folks in Idaho got it right: cyclists should slow down at stop sign intersections and come to a full stop (with foot on ground) if a car got there first; otherwise proceed through with caution. As far as red lights in a crowded city like SF -- sorry you gotta stop like everyone else. Re: OmarIsmail - We cyclists can do a better job. It's all about showing respect to everyone, ESPECIALLY pedestrians. Get off your bike and walk if necessary to not spook them. Overall I would say that Scott Simon got a raw deal. There ARE a lot of jerks on bicycles and it is just plain honesty to say so.
eumenides1 12y ago
I've done both biking in the city and driving. City governments need to push both parties to be better on the road. In Toronto, bikes are considered slow motor vehicles. We have these kinds of problems. I think from a biker's perspective, it's dangerous because their life is on the line. But from a car's perspective, bikers are a danger to them finacially. The problems IMO is asymetrical. Bikers put themselves on the line, but it's low cost (realatively) and no pre-requesite knowlege on how to behave on roads (no bike exam vs driver exam). A Car has low risk to themselves on the road, but it's costly (car cost + insurance + maintenance), and they have to past an exam on how to behave on the road. To a driver: Bikers pretty much break the rules of the road and there isn't much consequence execpt an accident. I've never seen a cop pull over a bike for behaving badly. Bikes also have this thing where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them. To a cyclist: Drivers need to be punished for dangerous actions against cyclists. Like not checking your mirrors before opening doors, or changing lanes. There needs to be civic campagins from the government urging drivers in the cities to be aware of cyclists and to remind drivers how to co-exists with cyclists. I've thought of both sides of the arguement, I've changed the way I drive and cycle. Driving rules are pretty clear, but when I cycle, I just pretty much act likes a car with my hazzard lights on and hand signal like my blinkers are broken. I take up a lane and people can pass me when they can do so safely. Does it imped traffic? Yes, but I don't see anyone complaining about heavy trucks on the road.
- jev 12y ago
  > .... where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them. Biked in Europe for 20+ years, and now live in North America. The problem is exactly your attitude: that there is only one "road", that there is one right way to behave on it, and both drivers and cyclists should follow it. It's like North Americans can't wrap their head around the fact that driving is just one mode, cycling is another, walking is yet another, trains are yet another, etc. and what you call "the road" is the disproportionate part of the pavement that you dedicate uniquely to drivers.
ap22213 12y ago
Before I moved to the DC-area, I was quite familiar with automobile assholes. They're everywhere. But, before I moved here, I had a pretty good impression of bikers - I always thought that they were a mellow bunch. But, DC introduced me to the biker asshole, a species that seems to flourish here, like mosquitoes. While it's bad to generalize, like the journalist in the article did, I can see how he could become irritated after a while.
- sampo 12y ago
  What about DC pedestrians? Are there assholes among them, too? Is everyone in DC an asshole?
  - ap22213 12y ago
    The pedestrians aren't bad, except maybe the ones near the Mall and the other tourist attractions. DC has some nice bike/hike trails that extend way out (50-100 miles or more). I happened to have lived on one of these trails, called the 'W&OD', at three different locations. These trails are somewhat overcrowded, especially during commuting hours. But, it's not unusual for a biker, traveling at high speed, to swerve extremely close to a walker. A lot of times it's out of spite. I've gotten physically hit several times - and, I try to do a good job at staying on the margin.
lsh123 12y ago
A few thoughts... 1) Current US roads infrastructure is not designed for bicycles. If we are serious about getting people to use bikes, then we have to re-think how we design roads and re-build the ones we currently have. Same goes to the traffic laws. 2) Personally I feel that not stopping on a red light or a stop sign is far more dangerous than going over speed limit in the flow of traffic on 280. I do understand why bicyclists don't want to stop. We should re-think the roads and traffic laws to fix this instead of accepting the fact. 3) While this is true that the number of deaths from bike is not even close to the number of deaths from cars, this comparison is not fare. We should look at the total number of accidents with death or a hospital stay and factor in the number of bikes/cars on the road. Not sure if this kind of research exists. 4) Lastly, the bikers on public roads need to be regulated. Right now there is an implicit assumption that all bikers are also car drivers and they know the rules. However, it is not really the case anymore. Moreover, bike rules ARE different.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Bikes can go 20-30MPH = 10X what pedestrians can do. In comparison cards go 35-45 in city traffic - may 2X what cycles can do. Bicycles and pedestrians do not belong on the same path. I know we WISH they could, or that they could just get along somehow, but the math says it isn't going to happen.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I'm not sure what you're responding to, but I agree that bikes do not generally belong on sidewalks.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    ...Or in crosswalks when pedestrians are there. So bikes must respect stop signs and signals, period.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      I don't think the author of this piece disagrees with you, there. In fact: "I tense up when I see a cyclist approaching a stop sign without slowing all the way down, but I tense up a lot more when a car does the same. And I fantasize about a cop showing up and ticketing them both, so I can make it safely to work today." I mostly agree, although if there is sufficient visibility and no one around I might relax "period" slightly.
- Glench 12y ago
  Another perspective, of course not statistical, but interesting: https://vimeo.com/77084110 https://vimeo.com/77084110
brianstorms 12y ago
The core problem is nobody gives a shit. The traffic designers, the urban planners, the cyclists, the drivers, the pedestrians, the cops, the government. Everyone cheats, everyone makes excuses, it's someone else's fault, yadda yadda. It makes perfect sense for cyclists to obey the effing law but they don't. They'll rattle off an infinite number of excuses, ranging from it doesn't make sense, to everybody does it why should I be the good rider, to laws of physics: it is hard to stop a bike and then restart at an intersection so I will just race right through, yadda yadda yadda. It's lazy, cheater thinking. Everyone out for themselves. No empathy anywhere in sight.
kazinator 12y ago
Running a stop on a bicycle is perfectly safe when there is nobody around. You can be sure that nobody is around because, first of all you're not in a cabin, and nothing blocks your vision: you have a 360 view of the situation, and you can hear well also. A driver's vision is blocked by window posts, the rear-view mirror, and additional things like object hanging from the mirror and passenger's heads. These objects can occlude an entire pedestrian or three. Secondly, on a bicycle, you will rarely go faster than 30 km/h. If you sustain 30 km/h on flat pavement in the absence of wind, you're pretty fit and going at it quite hard. The higher speeds are achieved when going down hill or in a tailwind. 30 km/h is in the ballpark of what cars slow down to when running stops. Drivers don't even consider that running because they believe they really slowed down and looked very well; it's called "rolling" through a stop, or making a "taxi stop". If you still runs stops at full speed on your bicycle when going downhill at 50-60 or more, or barging into intersections where visibility is poor, then you're crazy. Obeying traffic rules to the letter is not a substitute for knowing the limitations of the machine, accounting for weather conditions, being "radar aware" of everything that is going on as far as your eye can see, and predicting the possible thing that drivers are going to do several moves into the future. Oh, and being properly clothed and lit for visibility at night! If you're doing all that, then reward yourself by rolling through a few stop signs. Being vigilant for drivers swinging their doors open into traffic will pay off a lot more than coming to a full stop at stop signs. Cyclists are often killed in "dooring" accidents.
bbarn 12y ago
Those in cars getting angry at cyclists are most often doing it because they believe the cyclist to be slowing them down. There are plenty of valid reasons as well, but by and large, this is the reason when you boil it down. We have an unrealistic expectation of speed on city streets because our highway speed limits are so disproportionately high compared to urban ones, that travelling at the true speed limit is frustrating if one doesn't constantly do it. Yield to those at greater risk than you, and never assume your travel time is more important than anothers safety, and all other laws/rules enforcement arguments go out the window, in my book. If there was one thing that would greatly improve cyclist-pedestrian incidents, in my mind, it would be heavily enforcing the stop sign parking distance laws. Too often I see cars (especially delivery vehicles) parked in such a way that a cyclist doesn't even see a pedestrian about to cross or vice versa until the last minute, because the pedestrian side of the crosswalk is obstructed from view by an illegally parked vehicle upon approach. This stops the "Idaho Stop" philosophy from working well here in Chicago.
- VLM 12y ago
  "parked in such a way that a cyclist doesn't even see a pedestrian about to cross or vice versa until the last minute" As an (old?) driver Ive had some pretty terrifying moments with school kids in the same situation. Bikers and drivers should be working together to fix that not turn it into a biker only or driver only (or pedestrian only?) issue.
  - bbarn 12y ago
    I agree - cars (and running children) are just as much affected by it. Thing is, most cities have laws on the books about it (many of chicago's list it as tow zone with an arrow pointing towards the stop sign). It's just rarely if ever enforced, especially in daylight hours when it's the biggest problem. Overnight though I've seen them towed.
- nilkn 12y ago
  I think it depends heavily on the city and the way the roads have been planned. There are places where cyclists most definitely do slow down traffic, and that can be pretty unsafe for the cars. Houston, where I live, is an example. I don't dislike cyclists at all, but when a long string of cars encounters a single cyclist going at half the speed, at most, it really does cause problems. There are no bike lanes here and it's illegal to bike on sidewalks, so cyclists have no choice but to ride in the middle of the lane. What happens is, if there's enough traffic, a single cyclist can cause a mini traffic jam, because every car will try to switch lanes so they can pass, but there are too many cars for everybody to safely switch lanes. So one lane basically comes to a stop behind the cyclist and the other doesn't go much faster because of people trying to merge into it (which isn't safe due to the volume of cars). This is far from the worst situation that can happen on the road, but this is what happens with probably 90% of the cyclists I encounter in Houston while driving. In a city like Houston where everything is spread out, it is truly not practical to reduce all car speeds down to bike speeds.
r0m4n0 12y ago
I have to contribute to this because I have this deep pent up rage against most bicyclists in Sacramento... >The few studies that look at specific violations have found that people on bikes do roll through stop signs about 15% more than drivers do (at least in Oregon), but also that drivers roll through them almost 80% of the time This is the source of all my aggression. First off, this is an incredibly high percentage, basically confirming almost all bicyclists don't stop at stop signs. Looks like I have reason to generalize. This statistic is deceptive in that it doesn't compare speed through a stop sign. Most drivers roll through stop signs (no source but based on personal experience), they don't blow through them at full speed. Downtown/midtown Sacramento has hundreds of stop signs and I almost hit bicyclists on a weekly basis. There were lots of statistical goofs in this article but this one made my eyes turn red. rant over
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
The problem has already been solved a long time ago, but Americans just don't like the answer. Driving a car means driving a vehicle that can easily murder an entire family in a split second. Drivers should have a greater amount of responsibility for traffic safety and that responsibility should be enshrined in the laws. It's so hypocritical that Americans do apply that logic to guns and use it to justify responsible gun ownership, but any 16 year old can wield a car like it's toy and get away with it. Amsterdam cyclist all act like anti-social a-holes, but over here that is not considered an excuse to just fucking run them over with your car. Period. It's a pointless argument. Unprotected cyclists and pedestrians should not be held to the same standards as drivers because the consequences are wildly different. It's like saying because people are hitting me with fluffy cotton balls it's okay for me to fire live rounds at them if nobody stops them. Insane.
- VLM 12y ago
  "Amsterdam cyclist all act like anti-social a-holes, but over here that is not considered an excuse to just fucking run them over with your car." Why? Anything other than "just because"? I'll give you a personal example where I was not directly involved but I was sort of present. So I'm at my place of employment, there's streetlights with a dangerous blind corner less than a block away from the front door, trucks parked on the street and stuff. Teen on his bike tries to run a red light at this blind corner, ends up dead underneath a bus in an instant. I ran the math based on some trig and the speeds involved and at this blind corner both the biker and bus driver thought the intersection was clear until, at most, the last 1/20th of a second of the kids life. The passenger side wheels went right over the kids head, likely he never knew what hit him. Wasn't much left of that kid. Most drivers I work with were infuriated because everyone's got experience with bikers not following the law and its bound to happen sooner or later. And frankly its going to happen again, and maybe I'll be the one hitting a red-light-running biker. And I don't really feel bad about it and I refuse to accept responsibility for the kids actions. There's nothing the bus driver could have done about it and nothing I can do about it in the inevitable situation I hit a biker. So there seems little point in not allowing it as an excuse. Note that I've got nothing against suicide prevention, I'd be the first guy to suggest maybe education, or rebuild that intersection, or ... something? But the kid willfully and intentionally played russian roulette and lost. I don't wanna have to wash his innards off my car, but I'm probably going to have to do something like this, sooner or later. Who pays for the damage to my car, thats whats important to me. The bikers might not care about their own lives so I feel no obligation to do the caring for them, but I do care about my car.
aidenn0 12y ago
One (slightly off-topic comment): I live in Santa Barbara, and the bikes going 30+MPH down Alameda Padre Serra at night with no lights on is a significant source of injury. That is a stretch where bicyclists are regularly hit by cars backing out of driveways. Even a bike with the average headlamp is far less visible than a car with its lights on to a car backing up, and this is a very windy road. It is just not true that cars going 30 on this road at night are more dangerous (to the operator of the vehicle) than bicycles, as serious bicycle accidents are more regular there than serious car accidents. Of course, a car doing something unsafe is far more of a danger to others, but that's a universal truth. I can't speak for the author's mother, but nearly everyone I know would agree that 40mph is far too fast for cars on that stretch of road (30mph speed limit, and most cars tend to go 25-35mph on it). I've even seen a resident there standing next to the road raising up rude signs to cars they feel are going too fast. On another note, bicycling here is very frustrating as the roads are not safe for cycling (even where there are bike lanes, cars are often parked overlapping them), there are few dedicated bike paths, and bicycling on sidewalks has its own issue. It's particularly frustrating since the weather is amenable to year-round cycling. For those interested, here's a streetview of the downhill stretch likely talked about: https://www.google.com/maps/place/181+Alameda+Padre+Serra/@34.428906,-119.674207,3a,75y,252.79h,76.97t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srkOzRxDxp5xOilKwwHNTkg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x80e9139f418bd513:0xf1b6ebb9f422c33e https://www.google.com/maps/place/181+Alameda+Padre+Serra/@3...
kazinator 12y ago
I bought a cool rear-view mirror today: it clips onto the temple of your glasses rather than your helmet. Off the bike, it doubles as a cubicle rear-view mirror. If I turn my head about 45 degrees to the left, I see the "third quadrant" behind me, and if I turn a little bit more, I see directly backwards, all with a decently wide angle.

68 points by nvk 12y ago

Zero fatalities per 15 million miles is not a great metric. For one thing, cars boast less than 0.3 fatalities per 15 million miles, so if anybody dies between now and 45 million bike miles that will not be a great statistic. I'd wager that 1 million bike miles represent far more trips than 1 million car miles, though, since obviously bikes are (usually) used for shorter trips than cars.

dllthomas 12y ago
Though most pedestrian fatalities would be on relatively short car trips or relatively short stretches of long car trips (before/after the highway).

JacksonGariety 12y ago

The smiling man on the bike in the last photo on the page was my high school psychology teacher. Can confirm: not a hipster.

Mithaldu 12y ago

As a european biker my theory on the aggressiveness in the debate about bikers in the USA is simply that, due to how traffic laws over there are structured, bikers are much more endangered and have to respond with much more aggressiveness. As an example: In Germany a biker legally has to keep a minimum distance from parked cars. This often means riding in the middle of the lane, something which german bikers are not only, as in this minimum distance case, forced to, but generally allowed to in every case. From what friends in the USA tell me, trying to do that is a very quick trip to a hospital.

walshemj 12y ago
Doesn't explain London where I have regularly witnessed cyclists blasting through red lights at 30 mph at major junctions at the height of the rush hour. I have also see them take short cuts through large groups of pedestrians at only slightly less speed.
- Timmmmbob 12y ago
  I lived in London for 4 years and that is bullshit.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    Sorry no I recently worked in proctor street next to Holborn tube you could see 2 or 3 idiot cyclists every day in 5 min just walking across the road to the local café.
  - richliss 12y ago
    Second person challenging your bullshit statement here... I've lived in London for a total 10 years and I've seen non-boris bike cyclists in Central London regularly do this: 1. Go through red lights. 2. Go through pedestrian crossings at speed whilst pedestrians are actually crossing. 3. Cycle the wrong way on a road. 4. Cycle across crossings when the lights favour them. 5. Cycle on pavements (only young children should be allowed to do this). 6. Cycle in bus only lanes ignoring the bus behind them. 7. Weave in-between traffic. 8. Undertake. I'm a pedestrian btw... not someone who drives in London, and without a doubt cyclists make more dangerous actions that a pedestrian has to be wary of than drivers. Having to be aware of cars/trucks/buses doesn't excuse a cyclists responsibility to be aware of pedestrians first.
hyperpape 12y ago
My understanding in the US is that riding on the sidewalks is illegal, and that cyclists must ride in the road to follow the law (I am not a cyclist).
- 67726e 12y ago
  I can only speak for my state (South Carolina) but that is absolutely true, but rarely enforced. I've had several accidents and near misses pulling out of my driveway and bumping into people biking down the sidewalk. They were always at fault, but at the same time the street they should have been riding on is a major thoroughfare downtown and has speeds of 25-35 MPH with no bike lane. You really cannot expect everyone to be able to bike anywhere near that fast, but then you wind up with folks going a few MPH on a bike and holding up traffic. It's just a terrible situation all around.
  - nilkn 12y ago
    > They were always at fault, but at the same time the street they should have been riding on is a major thoroughfare downtown and has speeds of 25-35 MPH with no bike lane. You really cannot expect everyone to be able to bike anywhere near that fast, but then you wind up with folks going a few MPH on a bike and holding up traffic. It's just a terrible situation all around. This is a major problem in Houston as well. I think cyclists are generally disliked here because the road system is just not at all designed to accommodate them. There are a lot of roads with 30-40 mph speeds, no bike lanes, and sidewalks that are very popular for walkers (plus it's illegal to ride a bike on them). A cyclist has the choice of either biking on the sidewalk, thereby endangering pedestrians, or biking on the road, thereby causing a small traffic jam and forcing all the cars to switch lanes.
- dubfan 12y ago
  Riding on sidewalks is legal in Seattle.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  In my (smaller, 80k pop) city, we actually have paved bike paths separated from the road, however cyclists choose to ride in the street anyway.
kaonashi 12y ago
> From what friends in the USA tell me, trying to do that is a very quick trip to a hospital. It's still safer, but you might get someone who is less-informed yelling/honking at you. Then again, I don't bike in the 'burbs either.

OmarIsmail 12y ago

This was a well written article. I'm a commuter cyclist (in San Francisco) and I admit to taking actions that I'm sure piss off some pedestrians. I always feel bad about it and am working on it. The one thing is that 99% of my focus is on dealing with the 1-ton boxes of death metal traveling at 60KM/h and not on the 150lb squishy humans going 5KM/h. The new bike lans going up in the city are awesome though. I'm sure if you looked at biker<->pedestrian conflicts on a street like Folsom before and after the huge bike lane they put up, you would (hopefully!) see a marked decrease.

alooPotato 12y ago
The thing that really pisses off pedestrians is when bicycles don't stop when their supposed to and just go through intersections when they aren't supposed to. That type of action doesn't help with your safety against motor vehicles, its purely bicyclists not wanting to stop. That seems selfish on the part of bicyclists who do this.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  Just walk. The cyclist most likely sees you and is waiting for you to move past. The worst thing you can do is react to the cyclist, stopping and starting.
  - aganders3 12y ago
    I agree, but peds who never ride bikes don't realize this and I don't think you can expect them to. They're used to interacting with cars, where there's not enough room for both (a car and a ped) in an intersection, so their reaction is to avoid sharing it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- aganders3 12y ago
  I'm a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver (not necessarily in that order). I totally understand this, but I also think it's a general misunderstanding. Many (most?) pedestrians have extensive experience driving or at least riding in motor vehicles, but few have the same amount of experience cycling. Thus, pedestrians trust cars (even though statistics suggest they shouldn't) to stop or avoid them at crosswalks and driveways because they know they do it, too. A cyclist may run a stop sign and ride through a crosswalk very close to a pedestrian. They do not consider this dangerous behavior, because they are in control and they know it. Pedestrians (even those with biking experience) may not have inherent trust the cyclist is in control or aware, and this instills fear. The cyclist rides away without even knowing they scared the pedestrian, while the pedestrian feels they were endangered. These interactions then reinforce stereotypes. My point is that _everyone_ is acting selfish at intersections [0], and nobody thinks they are a threat because they believe they're in control. I think things get most heated with (against) cyclists because while most cyclists are also pedestrians and drivers, the reverse is not true. [0] http://vimeo.com/24572222 http://vimeo.com/24572222

zaccus 12y ago

Cyclists and motorists need to stop demonizing each other. The problem is not with either of those groups, the problem is with indecisive, inconsistent enforcement of the law. A cyclist knows that there is most likely no consequence for running a stop sign, so even if it is technically illegal, there's no incentive for them to stop. If motorists could get away with running stop signs just as easily, they would do the same. It's unreasonable to expect people to act contrary to their incentives. We need to agree on what the law is, and enforce it accordingly. Maybe it doesn't make sense for cyclists to obey the same set of traffic signals as motorists; if that is the case then we need to explicitly say so. This business where some people obey traffic signals and other don't needs to stop. That is the responsibility of city government and law enforcement.

revelation 12y ago
Obviously, we can't have perfect enforcement. So we need to focus on the next best: enforce the rules where it makes a difference. As this article abundandtly points out, the greatest cause for injury and death (you know, what we created traffic laws for) are cars. Hence, this is where enforcement needs to happen.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
According to the article, 80% of motorists and 95% of bicyclists do not come to a complete stop at stop signs. In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. The elephant in the room is speeding. Speeding is responsible for ~30% of all road fatalities, yet is universally condoned on American roads. Drivers do not understand how hypocritical they are when they complain about bicyclists disobeying road rules while they themselves are speeding.
- commandar 12y ago
  >In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again adds a huge amount of effort to a ride, and a cyclist has plenty of incentive to look before rolling through an intersection.

lvs 12y ago

I have no idea why this is on HN. In any case, he's absolutely right. It's not overgeneralization when everyone sees it day-in and day-out in every major American city. This article simply seems to be shocked that anyone would criticize bicyclists for doing what they do every single day. Source: I cycle myself.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
VLM 12y ago
"I have no idea why this is on HN." I believe its a really good example of how to manipulate statistics to meet a predetermined conclusion. I'm not sure if there was one number in the entire article that wasn't manipulated into propaganda. The text prose was OK but the manipulation of statistics was masterful. Here's one example. If a skinny biker, hit pedestrian me, at a "normal" speed maybe 10 MPH, the kinetic impact would be similar (for me, anyway) to a normal size person hitting me in the hallway. Oh we'd both get knocked down, and if I was 80 like my grandma, or 8 like my kid, it might kill, and maybe 1 in 100 odds someone would break a bone, but the fatality rate per accident would hover near enough zero. In comparison, hit a pedestrian on a 45 (really more like 60) MPH country road and the only question is if they'll be enough left to fill a coffin or not, so we'll call that near 100% fatality rate per accident. So the fixation on comparing fatality rates is meaningless. There's more to a good day than merely not dying in a bike-ped accident and I have no great desire to be hit over and over and "its OK because I wasn't killed and my desire to wear spandex is more important than your desire to live". "Well sorry I killed your kid or grandma but statistically they don't count." That's not really a culture to aspire to. Another example is the fixation on counts without discussing percentages. Lets see, on my commute home about 60000 of my closest friends and I will drive on that major interstate over the course of the entire commute, while what, maybe a handful of bikers will spend hours taking the surface streets? So if bikes were rabid death machines I'd still expect the death counts to be spectacularly higher for cars than bikers because practically no one bikes. The death count from a rounding error will in fact approach zero. That doesn't mean Russian Roulette is a great game to recommend and the authors observation is meaningless. I have mixed feelings in that my opinions and biases generally match the authors, because I like to ride my bike (although I ride safely, which even I admit is unusual for bikers), but I can't decide if I should complain about the evils of propaganda or compliment the guy on doing a near legendarily good job at generating propaganda. You have to respect competence, even if its doing something evil. You can always learn something from competence. Just don't confuse successful competence with good ethics. Life isn't as simple as merely success = goodness.

timr 12y ago

Say what you will about the relative dangers of autos vs. cyclists, but my closest call to death in SF traffic (as a pedestrian) was due to a cyclist, not a car: I was about to cross an otherwise-empty intersection legally, when a bicyclist shot through against the light at high speed, missing me by centimeters. Had I been hit by the guy I'd have been severely injured, if not killed. Moreover, riders around here don't seem to pay much attention to pedestrians -- they're so focused on cars that they routinely do things to endanger the rest of us (I can't even begin to tell you the number of times I've had to dodge bikes on crowded sidewalks, even though it's illegal to ride on sidewalks here.) There's a certain type of "activist" rider here who has made flaunting the law a badge of honor. I don't own a car and I do ride a bike, but at this point, I have a lot of sympathy for the people who criticize cyclists -- the entitlement is a little out of control. (edit: thanks for the downvotes, folks. you're definitely changing my mind on this issue.)

Mithaldu 12y ago
> (edit: thanks for the downvotes, folks. you're definitely changing my mind on this issue.) You're getting downvotes because you managed to completely miss the point the article is trying to make: Anecdotes are not generalized evidence.
- cema 12y ago
  But personal experience affects decisions people make. Sharing it is useful.
- timr 12y ago
  This is from the guy whose other comment on this thread is a personal opinion/theory? [1] Let's be honest: you don't have a problem with opinions, you just don't happen to like mine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999941
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    The difference is that i noted from the get-go that my post is a theory, which, as theories go, is implicitly understood to maybe be right or maybe be wrong. Take care to note for example how i marked which statements i made were either fact or hear-say. Now the article, which freely admitted that there are black sheep on both sides and that there are certainly situations where bikers are MORE likely to break the law than others, merely tried to make the point that the, often unreflected, demonization (not all criticism, the demonization) is undeserved and that the situation would be better for everyone if people simply thought a bit more. Your comment on that? "I had some trouble with bikers who broke the laws, so some criticism is deserved." The latter part of that was already a sentiment in the article, and the entirety of that is what the article tried to point out as thoughtlessness.

pmdulaney 12y ago

I think zaccus and OmarIsmail are on the right track. Re: zaccus - Google the "Idaho stop." The folks in Idaho got it right: cyclists should slow down at stop sign intersections and come to a full stop (with foot on ground) if a car got there first; otherwise proceed through with caution. As far as red lights in a crowded city like SF -- sorry you gotta stop like everyone else. Re: OmarIsmail - We cyclists can do a better job. It's all about showing respect to everyone, ESPECIALLY pedestrians. Get off your bike and walk if necessary to not spook them. Overall I would say that Scott Simon got a raw deal. There ARE a lot of jerks on bicycles and it is just plain honesty to say so.

eumenides1 12y ago

I've done both biking in the city and driving. City governments need to push both parties to be better on the road. In Toronto, bikes are considered slow motor vehicles. We have these kinds of problems. I think from a biker's perspective, it's dangerous because their life is on the line. But from a car's perspective, bikers are a danger to them finacially. The problems IMO is asymetrical. Bikers put themselves on the line, but it's low cost (realatively) and no pre-requesite knowlege on how to behave on roads (no bike exam vs driver exam). A Car has low risk to themselves on the road, but it's costly (car cost + insurance + maintenance), and they have to past an exam on how to behave on the road. To a driver: Bikers pretty much break the rules of the road and there isn't much consequence execpt an accident. I've never seen a cop pull over a bike for behaving badly. Bikes also have this thing where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them. To a cyclist: Drivers need to be punished for dangerous actions against cyclists. Like not checking your mirrors before opening doors, or changing lanes. There needs to be civic campagins from the government urging drivers in the cities to be aware of cyclists and to remind drivers how to co-exists with cyclists. I've thought of both sides of the arguement, I've changed the way I drive and cycle. Driving rules are pretty clear, but when I cycle, I just pretty much act likes a car with my hazzard lights on and hand signal like my blinkers are broken. I take up a lane and people can pass me when they can do so safely. Does it imped traffic? Yes, but I don't see anyone complaining about heavy trucks on the road.

jev 12y ago
> .... where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them. Biked in Europe for 20+ years, and now live in North America. The problem is exactly your attitude: that there is only one "road", that there is one right way to behave on it, and both drivers and cyclists should follow it. It's like North Americans can't wrap their head around the fact that driving is just one mode, cycling is another, walking is yet another, trains are yet another, etc. and what you call "the road" is the disproportionate part of the pavement that you dedicate uniquely to drivers.

ap22213 12y ago

Before I moved to the DC-area, I was quite familiar with automobile assholes. They're everywhere. But, before I moved here, I had a pretty good impression of bikers - I always thought that they were a mellow bunch. But, DC introduced me to the biker asshole, a species that seems to flourish here, like mosquitoes. While it's bad to generalize, like the journalist in the article did, I can see how he could become irritated after a while.

sampo 12y ago
What about DC pedestrians? Are there assholes among them, too? Is everyone in DC an asshole?
- ap22213 12y ago
  The pedestrians aren't bad, except maybe the ones near the Mall and the other tourist attractions. DC has some nice bike/hike trails that extend way out (50-100 miles or more). I happened to have lived on one of these trails, called the 'W&OD', at three different locations. These trails are somewhat overcrowded, especially during commuting hours. But, it's not unusual for a biker, traveling at high speed, to swerve extremely close to a walker. A lot of times it's out of spite. I've gotten physically hit several times - and, I try to do a good job at staying on the margin.

lsh123 12y ago

A few thoughts... 1) Current US roads infrastructure is not designed for bicycles. If we are serious about getting people to use bikes, then we have to re-think how we design roads and re-build the ones we currently have. Same goes to the traffic laws. 2) Personally I feel that not stopping on a red light or a stop sign is far more dangerous than going over speed limit in the flow of traffic on 280. I do understand why bicyclists don't want to stop. We should re-think the roads and traffic laws to fix this instead of accepting the fact. 3) While this is true that the number of deaths from bike is not even close to the number of deaths from cars, this comparison is not fare. We should look at the total number of accidents with death or a hospital stay and factor in the number of bikes/cars on the road. Not sure if this kind of research exists. 4) Lastly, the bikers on public roads need to be regulated. Right now there is an implicit assumption that all bikers are also car drivers and they know the rules. However, it is not really the case anymore. Moreover, bike rules ARE different.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Bikes can go 20-30MPH = 10X what pedestrians can do. In comparison cards go 35-45 in city traffic - may 2X what cycles can do. Bicycles and pedestrians do not belong on the same path. I know we WISH they could, or that they could just get along somehow, but the math says it isn't going to happen.

dllthomas 12y ago
I'm not sure what you're responding to, but I agree that bikes do not generally belong on sidewalks.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  ...Or in crosswalks when pedestrians are there. So bikes must respect stop signs and signals, period.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    I don't think the author of this piece disagrees with you, there. In fact: "I tense up when I see a cyclist approaching a stop sign without slowing all the way down, but I tense up a lot more when a car does the same. And I fantasize about a cop showing up and ticketing them both, so I can make it safely to work today." I mostly agree, although if there is sufficient visibility and no one around I might relax "period" slightly.
Glench 12y ago
Another perspective, of course not statistical, but interesting: https://vimeo.com/77084110 https://vimeo.com/77084110

brianstorms 12y ago

The core problem is nobody gives a shit. The traffic designers, the urban planners, the cyclists, the drivers, the pedestrians, the cops, the government. Everyone cheats, everyone makes excuses, it's someone else's fault, yadda yadda. It makes perfect sense for cyclists to obey the effing law but they don't. They'll rattle off an infinite number of excuses, ranging from it doesn't make sense, to everybody does it why should I be the good rider, to laws of physics: it is hard to stop a bike and then restart at an intersection so I will just race right through, yadda yadda yadda. It's lazy, cheater thinking. Everyone out for themselves. No empathy anywhere in sight.

kazinator 12y ago

Running a stop on a bicycle is perfectly safe when there is nobody around. You can be sure that nobody is around because, first of all you're not in a cabin, and nothing blocks your vision: you have a 360 view of the situation, and you can hear well also. A driver's vision is blocked by window posts, the rear-view mirror, and additional things like object hanging from the mirror and passenger's heads. These objects can occlude an entire pedestrian or three. Secondly, on a bicycle, you will rarely go faster than 30 km/h. If you sustain 30 km/h on flat pavement in the absence of wind, you're pretty fit and going at it quite hard. The higher speeds are achieved when going down hill or in a tailwind. 30 km/h is in the ballpark of what cars slow down to when running stops. Drivers don't even consider that running because they believe they really slowed down and looked very well; it's called "rolling" through a stop, or making a "taxi stop". If you still runs stops at full speed on your bicycle when going downhill at 50-60 or more, or barging into intersections where visibility is poor, then you're crazy. Obeying traffic rules to the letter is not a substitute for knowing the limitations of the machine, accounting for weather conditions, being "radar aware" of everything that is going on as far as your eye can see, and predicting the possible thing that drivers are going to do several moves into the future. Oh, and being properly clothed and lit for visibility at night! If you're doing all that, then reward yourself by rolling through a few stop signs. Being vigilant for drivers swinging their doors open into traffic will pay off a lot more than coming to a full stop at stop signs. Cyclists are often killed in "dooring" accidents.

bbarn 12y ago

Those in cars getting angry at cyclists are most often doing it because they believe the cyclist to be slowing them down. There are plenty of valid reasons as well, but by and large, this is the reason when you boil it down. We have an unrealistic expectation of speed on city streets because our highway speed limits are so disproportionately high compared to urban ones, that travelling at the true speed limit is frustrating if one doesn't constantly do it. Yield to those at greater risk than you, and never assume your travel time is more important than anothers safety, and all other laws/rules enforcement arguments go out the window, in my book. If there was one thing that would greatly improve cyclist-pedestrian incidents, in my mind, it would be heavily enforcing the stop sign parking distance laws. Too often I see cars (especially delivery vehicles) parked in such a way that a cyclist doesn't even see a pedestrian about to cross or vice versa until the last minute, because the pedestrian side of the crosswalk is obstructed from view by an illegally parked vehicle upon approach. This stops the "Idaho Stop" philosophy from working well here in Chicago.

VLM 12y ago
"parked in such a way that a cyclist doesn't even see a pedestrian about to cross or vice versa until the last minute" As an (old?) driver Ive had some pretty terrifying moments with school kids in the same situation. Bikers and drivers should be working together to fix that not turn it into a biker only or driver only (or pedestrian only?) issue.
- bbarn 12y ago
  I agree - cars (and running children) are just as much affected by it. Thing is, most cities have laws on the books about it (many of chicago's list it as tow zone with an arrow pointing towards the stop sign). It's just rarely if ever enforced, especially in daylight hours when it's the biggest problem. Overnight though I've seen them towed.
nilkn 12y ago
I think it depends heavily on the city and the way the roads have been planned. There are places where cyclists most definitely do slow down traffic, and that can be pretty unsafe for the cars. Houston, where I live, is an example. I don't dislike cyclists at all, but when a long string of cars encounters a single cyclist going at half the speed, at most, it really does cause problems. There are no bike lanes here and it's illegal to bike on sidewalks, so cyclists have no choice but to ride in the middle of the lane. What happens is, if there's enough traffic, a single cyclist can cause a mini traffic jam, because every car will try to switch lanes so they can pass, but there are too many cars for everybody to safely switch lanes. So one lane basically comes to a stop behind the cyclist and the other doesn't go much faster because of people trying to merge into it (which isn't safe due to the volume of cars). This is far from the worst situation that can happen on the road, but this is what happens with probably 90% of the cyclists I encounter in Houston while driving. In a city like Houston where everything is spread out, it is truly not practical to reduce all car speeds down to bike speeds.

r0m4n0 12y ago

I have to contribute to this because I have this deep pent up rage against most bicyclists in Sacramento... >The few studies that look at specific violations have found that people on bikes do roll through stop signs about 15% more than drivers do (at least in Oregon), but also that drivers roll through them almost 80% of the time This is the source of all my aggression. First off, this is an incredibly high percentage, basically confirming almost all bicyclists don't stop at stop signs. Looks like I have reason to generalize. This statistic is deceptive in that it doesn't compare speed through a stop sign. Most drivers roll through stop signs (no source but based on personal experience), they don't blow through them at full speed. Downtown/midtown Sacramento has hundreds of stop signs and I almost hit bicyclists on a weekly basis. There were lots of statistical goofs in this article but this one made my eyes turn red. rant over

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

The problem has already been solved a long time ago, but Americans just don't like the answer. Driving a car means driving a vehicle that can easily murder an entire family in a split second. Drivers should have a greater amount of responsibility for traffic safety and that responsibility should be enshrined in the laws. It's so hypocritical that Americans do apply that logic to guns and use it to justify responsible gun ownership, but any 16 year old can wield a car like it's toy and get away with it. Amsterdam cyclist all act like anti-social a-holes, but over here that is not considered an excuse to just fucking run them over with your car. Period. It's a pointless argument. Unprotected cyclists and pedestrians should not be held to the same standards as drivers because the consequences are wildly different. It's like saying because people are hitting me with fluffy cotton balls it's okay for me to fire live rounds at them if nobody stops them. Insane.

VLM 12y ago
"Amsterdam cyclist all act like anti-social a-holes, but over here that is not considered an excuse to just fucking run them over with your car." Why? Anything other than "just because"? I'll give you a personal example where I was not directly involved but I was sort of present. So I'm at my place of employment, there's streetlights with a dangerous blind corner less than a block away from the front door, trucks parked on the street and stuff. Teen on his bike tries to run a red light at this blind corner, ends up dead underneath a bus in an instant. I ran the math based on some trig and the speeds involved and at this blind corner both the biker and bus driver thought the intersection was clear until, at most, the last 1/20th of a second of the kids life. The passenger side wheels went right over the kids head, likely he never knew what hit him. Wasn't much left of that kid. Most drivers I work with were infuriated because everyone's got experience with bikers not following the law and its bound to happen sooner or later. And frankly its going to happen again, and maybe I'll be the one hitting a red-light-running biker. And I don't really feel bad about it and I refuse to accept responsibility for the kids actions. There's nothing the bus driver could have done about it and nothing I can do about it in the inevitable situation I hit a biker. So there seems little point in not allowing it as an excuse. Note that I've got nothing against suicide prevention, I'd be the first guy to suggest maybe education, or rebuild that intersection, or ... something? But the kid willfully and intentionally played russian roulette and lost. I don't wanna have to wash his innards off my car, but I'm probably going to have to do something like this, sooner or later. Who pays for the damage to my car, thats whats important to me. The bikers might not care about their own lives so I feel no obligation to do the caring for them, but I do care about my car.

aidenn0 12y ago

One (slightly off-topic comment): I live in Santa Barbara, and the bikes going 30+MPH down Alameda Padre Serra at night with no lights on is a significant source of injury. That is a stretch where bicyclists are regularly hit by cars backing out of driveways. Even a bike with the average headlamp is far less visible than a car with its lights on to a car backing up, and this is a very windy road. It is just not true that cars going 30 on this road at night are more dangerous (to the operator of the vehicle) than bicycles, as serious bicycle accidents are more regular there than serious car accidents. Of course, a car doing something unsafe is far more of a danger to others, but that's a universal truth. I can't speak for the author's mother, but nearly everyone I know would agree that 40mph is far too fast for cars on that stretch of road (30mph speed limit, and most cars tend to go 25-35mph on it). I've even seen a resident there standing next to the road raising up rude signs to cars they feel are going too fast. On another note, bicycling here is very frustrating as the roads are not safe for cycling (even where there are bike lanes, cars are often parked overlapping them), there are few dedicated bike paths, and bicycling on sidewalks has its own issue. It's particularly frustrating since the weather is amenable to year-round cycling. For those interested, here's a streetview of the downhill stretch likely talked about: https://www.google.com/maps/place/181+Alameda+Padre+Serra/@34.428906,-119.674207,3a,75y,252.79h,76.97t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srkOzRxDxp5xOilKwwHNTkg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x80e9139f418bd513:0xf1b6ebb9f422c33e https://www.google.com/maps/place/181+Alameda+Padre+Serra/@3...

kazinator 12y ago

I bought a cool rear-view mirror today: it clips onto the temple of your glasses rather than your helmet. Off the bike, it doubles as a cubicle rear-view mirror. If I turn my head about 45 degrees to the left, I see the "third quadrant" behind me, and if I turn a little bit more, I see directly backwards, all with a decently wide angle.