Hacker News Reader

Comment by vonmoltke | Hacker News Reader

> But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a train/metro compartment.

That's a big "might" that is conditioned on having a seat and space in which to do these things, none if which is a given.

> Bicycles ... are less likely to have accidents (except with cars)

After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.

> But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for cars.

How do you figure? Paved streets are still needed, arguably maintained to slightly higher standards than they are for cars. Signalling is still needed, unless you want a free-for-all of bike traffic (which I don't).

In general, you seem to be comparing the happy cases of bicycles and public transit to the negatives of cars. It's and unfair and disingenuous comparison.

View on HN

> That's a big "might" that is conditioned on having a seat and space in which to do these things, none if which is a given.

In the past plenty of people read newspapers while standing on trains. Nowadays we have smartphones and podcasts. It’s even easier.

> I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.

Looks like an argument for better cycling infrastructure. Cars don’t really go wild in cities because they have dedicated road which are not shared with larger, more dangerous vehicles driven by people who are actively trying to cause problems to car drivers. If we have the same level of infrastructure for bicycles then maybe cyclists will stop competing with pedestrians for space.

Cycling infrastructure can be cheaper than normal roads because bicycles are lighter than cars. It will also need less maintenance for the same reason. It also takes less space to store bikes than cars.

No, being an asshole is not solved by infrastructure, what you need is education. Cyclists typically don't believe that they are driving a vehicle (which they are). In fact dedicated infrastructure for cyclists only helps keep the myth that bicycles are not vehicles but some kind of toy and that its operators are not responsible adults but kids incapable of learning.

> In the past plenty of people read newspapers while standing on trains. Nowadays we have smartphones and podcasts. It’s even easier.

Stand/sit and read my phone is basically what I am forced to do. I don't consider that any more productive than driving, and certainly not "work".

As for podcasts (and audiobooks), I can do that in a car just as well as packed in a train.

>After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.

Perception, meet reality:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-...

Summary: From 2002-2016 there were 2355 pedestrians killed by bicycle or car in NYC. 2345 of those fatal collisions were car-pedestrian, and only 10 were bicycle-pedestrian.

Injuries would probably be a better statistic to use, as you much more likely to die being hit by a car than a bicycle. I'd also guess injuries in bicycle on pedestrian collisions are nearly impossible to measure accurately, as most of them are minor and go unreported.

That's deaths. I'm not going to argue that car collisions with pedestrians aren't more likely to kill then. The point was accidents, not fatalities, so I don't see what this statistic demonstrates.

The point is still accidents. Serious accidents. Cars are more likely to kill or seriously injure you. Would you prefer those assholes who almost hit you were driving cars?

I would prefer that no assholes almost hit me while operating anything that can kill or seriously injure me, and the original point was that bicycles are somehow much less likely to do that.

NYC has open crash data too: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD-Motor-Vehic...

From mid 2012 to mid 2019, there were 940 reports of a crash with a bike as the primary vehicle and 1+ pedestrians injured. In the same time period, there were 69776 reports of a crash without bicycle as primary vehicle injuring 1+ pedestrians.

Now that is an interesting dataset that demonstrates my experience thus far is an outlier.

I wonder if the reason for the perception that bicycles are more threatening is because of the sense that they don't respect boundaries. Cars and pedestrians have their separate areas, and I would think accidents in cities happen mostly when they cross paths. But bicycles tend to have to share the path of either cars or pedestrians all the time.

> After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.

As a pedestrian in Austin, I've been hit by one car and zero bikes. I've been almost hit by many cars; I don't recall any bikes nearly hitting me, but they're less also memorable.

As a cyclist for ~8 years in Austin, I've been hit by two cars (100% their fault) and one bike (100% my fault), and almost hit by many cars and zero bikes that I recall. I've hit zero people/cars and if I come close, it's usually the other person at fault.

Granted, there are a lot more cars to hit me than there are bikes. I'd also say cars are more likely to cause significant damage than bikes when they hit you, though in my case, the 280LB cyclist slamming into me while going downhill got me pretty good. :-)

I think a lot of what makes cycling safe or unsafe is the biking culture. Cyclists are safer when they act like traffic norms matter. I assume they're more likely to do that if the traffic rules are designed in a way that makes sense for them, and when drivers treat them like they belong. (This is, unfortunately, a bit of a catch-22. We might be treated as legitimate users of the road if we acted like it, and we'd act like it more if we were treated that way.)

As a NYC resident and a cyclist - pedestrians are no picnic either. I mean - NYC has horrible bike infrastructure, street parking(unplanned) and pedestrians that just take over the few bike lanes or wait for the signal in the middle of the damn road.

Bike infrastructure is cheaper to maintain, because bikes don't impact the asphalt as much as cars do. Manhattan's Westside bikeway hasn't been repaved for decades... While most of the roads with similar "body traffic" will deteriorate in 5 years in NYC.

"bikes don't impact the asphalt as much as cars do. Manhattan's Westside bikeway hasn't been repaved for decades... While most of the roads with similar "body traffic" will deteriorate in 5 years in NYC."

You're assuming cars have an impact. Maybe they don't; it may just be heavy trucks.

> Paved streets are needed

Not all pavement costs are equal. A study found road damage proportional to the 4th power of weight [0].

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test

I don't believe signalling is not needed for bike-only infrastructure. I don't know of any cities that have signals where bikes are separated from cars.

Bike infrastructure is cheaper in other ways. You need a much smaller surface for the same amount of traffic, and paved surfaces degrade at a much slower rate with lighter traffic.

You also don't need the sliproads, the same levels of crash barrier, and so on. It's just not a serious comparison.

> I don't believe signalling is not needed for bike-only infrastructure. I don't know of any cities that have signals where bikes are separated from cars.

Are intersections just a free-for-all then? I find congested pedestrian intersections bad enough to navigate. I would hate to see a congested, uncontrolled bicycle intersection.

> Bike infrastructure is cheaper in other ways. You need a much smaller surface for the same amount of traffic, and paved surfaces degrade at a much slower rate with lighter traffic.

I'll grant that people density is higher and wear is lighter. I don't agree with the "much", though, since bicycles not riding in a coordinated group still need a fair amount of space and, as I said, the road surface needs to be maintained to higher standards.

> You also don't need the sliproads, the same levels of crash barrier, and so on. It's just not a serious comparison.

If I am interpreting "sliproad" correctly, that's only a feature of limited-access roads. Ditto crash barriers. I don't see how that's relevant to cities.

What do you mean "higher standards"? The standards for regular roads are way more than enough for cyclists. Bike paths are not supposed to be racetracks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com