3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut personal experience affects decisions people make. Sharing it is useful.
- timr 12y agoThis 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 agoThe 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.
- revelation 12y agoYou are getting downvotes because people presume you've read the article, yet you end up with "the entitlement is a little out of control". If we apply the same logic to car drivers, we would have marines deployed in the city by now to fight these menaces.
- timr 12y agoIt's not a relative statement. Bicyclists can be entitled even if drivers are worse. Both groups can be obnoxious...and in my opinion, frequently are.
- peatmoss 12y agoCriminally dangerous motorist behavior is never brought up as a reason not to spend money on facilities for cars. It is for bicyclists.