Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyre | Hacker News Reader

  > Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety
  > rules, others would have less regard for your safety.

Does that mean that I can treat people that ignore safety in cars the same way? Or does this 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over' attitude only extend to bikers?

View on HN

Reckless behavior endangering others are looked on dimly, regardless it's a biker or driver.

No to the extreme exaggeration 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over.' It's more like 'if you run a red light or stop sign, I might accidentally run you over.'

It's my experience that a lot of people will get more pissed off at "someone using <vehicle> did <unsafe thing>" when <vehicle> is a bike. Maybe it's just that they've become numb to people doing dangerous things in cars because it happens so much more often?

I have never ever ever heard someone say that it's ok for a car to just blow through a red light. Just now, equalarrow made the implication that it is ok for bikes to go through red lights at their personal discretion.

Do you have an example of "someone using <vehicle> did <unsafe thing>" where it wouldn't be considered way more egregious if someone did it in a car than a bike?

I think it's possible you have a flawed perception because everyone accepts that it's absolutely not ok with cars, while tons of people argue that the same things are ok for bikes, then there is significantly more people complaining about bikes because most people that run red lights don't go around talking about how they know better than the law.

Then you have your head in the sand.

Read ww520 comment, he mentions drivers taking cyclists seriously. This is a typical bias, and the implication is clear. He is a driver, he already takes drivers seriously, because he is one.

Whatever it means to 'take someone seriously', I am hoping he does not mean avoid running of the road.

I don't know what you are trying to interpret my words.

I take all participants on the road seriously, drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. I pay special attention to bikers to slow down, to get around them, or to yield to them when making turn since they are in a slower vehicle. I myself bike from time to time.

What I don't agree is the prevalent bikers mentality of ok'ing blowing redlight and stop sign, and the hypocrisy coming from the bikers to justify doing it.

Traffic laws are there so that participants of the road can share it SAFELY.

  > most people that run red lights don't go around
  > talking about how they know better than the law.

You've obviously never been pulled over for performing a 'rolling stop' at a stop sign. Most people that are pulled over for such things will complaint to high hell about them.

There is large area between running a red light at 90mph without even batting an eye, and coming to an almost (but technically not complete) stop before continuing through an intersection with a stop sign.

And there is a huge difference between rolling through a stop sign and rolling through a red light. I don't think the former is that big of a deal for both bicycles and cars, and I think the latter is a big deal for both bicycles and cars. I rarely see cars just decide to not stop for a red light, and I see bicycles do it on a weekly basis. I'm not talking about stop at a red light, look and see that no one is there, I'm talking about just go straight through a red light without slowing down.

> Do you have an example of "someone using <vehicle> did <unsafe thing>" where it wouldn't be considered way more egregious if someone did it in a car than a bike?

Speeding, for one.

Talking on the phone or texting while driving, for another.

These things are responsible for countless preventable deaths on the roadways, and yet they're completely tolerated by most drivers.

Except text messaging, perhaps. In that case, it's always the asshole on their cell phone in the _other_ car doing something stupid. Of course, you never notice the dozens of times that _you're_ the asshole, because you're trying to fire off that quick text.

The thing about speeding and texting is that they are both incredibly difficult to do on a bike. I take your point though.

Bullshit.

Simply by choosing to ride a bike, a cyclist makes the roads so much safer (comparatively) for everyone else, they could cycle backwards through the streets while blindfolded and it would _still_ likely be a net benefit to the safety of others on the road (nothing claimed about the cyclist him- or her-self).

And this is before you consider the notion that the vast majority of drivers speed (speed limits are seen as the _lower_ limit by many), and many tailgate, roll through stoplights, turn and change lanes without signaling, and send text messages while doing all of the above.

The safety numbers are so overwhelmingly in favor of cycling, talking about the "endangerment of others" in this context is, quite frankly, laughable.

It's interesting to see how far bikers would twist the truth to justify running red light and stop sign.

Or, alternatively, how oblivious drivers are to the true human cost to their mode of transportation.

Let's take New York, since it wasn't too hard to find relevant data. Data can be found at:

  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010NYSAccSummary.pdf
  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010BicycleAccSummary.pdf
  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010PedestrianAccSummary.pdf
  http://gruskinfoundation.org/pdfs/Pedestrian-Cyclist-Accidents_3-1.pdf

In 2010, there were: 311 pedestrians and 36 cyclists killed by motor vehicle drivers. On top of this, there were 16,090 pedestrians and 6,058 cyclists injured by collisions with motor vehicles. 4,898 of the injuries (of pedestrians alone) were considered moderate or serious.

On the flip side, we have the comprehensive statistics on pedestrian/cyclist injuries compiled at Hunter University. In 2010, 927 pedestrians were treated for injuries involving cyclists. Of those, 84 received inpatient treatment, indicating a moderate or severe injury. Note that they count zero deaths.

Let's compile what we've got:

  Cars : 347 deaths, 4898 moderate or severe injuries, 17,250 minor injuries
  Bikes:   0 deaths,   84 moderate or severe injuries,    843 minor injuries

Now let's involve the WHO. Long story short, cars cause over twice as many deaths due to emissions as they do from accidents. No joke. We'll make it an even 2x, just to be generous. And we won't even attempt to estimate the "injuries" in the form of asthma and bronchitis they cause.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/369169.stm

  Cars : 1,041 deaths, 4898 moderate or severe injuries, 17,250 minor injuries
  Bikes:     0 deaths,   84 moderate or severe injuries,    843 minor injuries

Draw conclusions as you will. Unfortunately, it's somewhat impossible to reconcile the numbers at this point. Cars drive many more miles annually than bikes do, but cyclists also tend to live closer to their destinations, greatly reducing the number of miles they require traveling. Most estimates peg cycling traffic at around 2% of automobile traffic, give or take.

At that rate of comparison, cyclists would be expected to have caused 20.8 deaths, 97 moderate or severe injuries, and 345 minor injuries. If it were up to me, I'd opt for the higher number of minor injuries and greatly reduced number of deaths any day.

Please also take note that in this comparison, I was very generous to cars. We didn't add data on injuries and fatalities caused by car-on-car crashes versus bicycle-on-bicycle crashes, which I'm sure we can both agree would have come out far in favor of the cyclists. We also didn't consider non-fatal health effects of car emissions, and we rounded down fatal health effects. We also haven't even begun to talk about the year-over-year decrease in cyclist-related pedestrian fatalities in New York even though cycling participation has been increasing by double digits (as high as 26%) yearly.

And the cars _still_ came out looking bad.

What do all these have to do with bikers blowing through red light and stop sign?

On the flip side, these causalities reinforce the requirement of ALL road participants to follow the traffic laws. If the bikers stop at red and stop sign, don't you think the biker injures would go down?

Funny you should mention that. In the UK, at least, women are at greater risk of death while cycling precisely because they follow this exact traffic law.

  http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46427-women-cyclists-more-at-risk-of-death

And the numbers emphasize exactly the point I made earlier. Cycling is less dangerous than driving. So much so that nitpicking stupid crap like cyclists running lights with no oncoming traffic is idiotic. Even with behavior like this, they're _still_ safer than cars.

Daily, we put up with drivers who speed, talk on their cell phones, drive while drunk, tailgate, dart between lanes without signaling, roll through stop signs, pollute the air we breathe, burn through our limited reserves of fossil fuels, injure forty million people per year, and kill one and a half million people per year, and you're hung up on the, what, _tens_ of deaths caused by cyclists per year due to running red lights? If that?

While you're at it, why not join the crusade against the grave threat we face from children running with scissors?

Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

Funny you picked that story. The study was for woman cyclists having higher fatal collision with trucks than men. The study doesn't say cyclists stopped at traffic light having a higher chance of fatal collision with trucks. The news report picked two collisions and twisted the study's conclusion. Looks to me pretty bad reporting.

> Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

Nice way to live up to the angry biker image. Calm down.

  > Nice way to live up to the angry biker image. Calm down.

That's the fun thing about stereotypes. If a biker gets angry, he/she is 'living up to the angry biker image.' If a car driver gets angry, that's just 'normal.'

I'd argue running red lights is stepping several feet over the line.

Yeah, it's more like miles over the line.

While breezing through a stop without even looking or slowing down may be 'miles over the line,' coming to a rolling stop, situation dependent, is in more of a grey area.

You might want to qualify that statement before someone asks you about an empty, well-lit intersection with sweet sight lines at 2 am on a Tuesday night.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com