Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodpanel | Hacker News Reader

Having driven throughout Europe and as a non-Scandinavian I have to say that this impressive result has a lot to do with the ways scandinavians behave in traffic. As car-drivers as well as cyclists.

If urban politicians in cities "just short of the border" to Scandinavia like Berlin or Hamburg propose such measures, residents with traffic experience in both places will often chuckle, because car drivers but even more so cyclists are much more aggressive in Germany than in Scandinavia.

It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.

View on HN

I think the cause and effect may be reversed from what you imply here. Having been a cyclist in both Berlin and in Oslo, I was much more aggressive in Berlin, out of necessity. When there is not appropriate infrastructure and traffic does not respect you, it creates a sort of Max Max mentality where you do what you have to do.

There's plenty of infrastructure for cyclists in the Netherlands and they're still famously aggressive.

So, no.

I haven't heard of aggressive cyclists is the Netherlands. The image that comes to my mind is a slow bicycle with an upright position and a basket at the front. No helmet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypDTdd4qr0

The video says less than 5% of cyclists actually impeded other road users: https://youtu.be/XypDTdd4qr0?t=129 Doesn't sound so aggressive to me.

I spent a few days in Amsterdam, albeit in peak tourist season, and witnessed a fair few near misses and angry Dutch screaming! The cyclists are scary, but stick to their bike lanes. It works as long as pedestrians aren't being dumb, which probably happens all too often in peak seasons.

The truth about cycling in Netherlands is that these complaints usually come from tourists (you won’t see them from the Dutch for the simple reason that most Dutch pedestrians are cyclists themselves).

Tourists who are simply not used to a system where cyclists get equal importance as cars.

Of course, since cyclists are humans, I’m sure there are some assholes, and there are probably cases where non assholes also make mistakes.

The difference, as the numbers clearly show, is that in cities where the biggest fear is mad max cyclists, the number of deaths are hundreds fewer than where car driving is the norm.

Yeah, and I think there's some selection bias here too. Cities where cyclists have a reputation for being aggressive tend to be cities where the non-aggressive are afraid to cycle.

I disagree: What has 'lack of infrastructure' to do with aggressiveness against vulnerable pedestrians? How should a pedestrian "respect" you, the "mad max" cyclist?

Mad max cyclists exist in the US because for decades the US has promoted vehicular cycling, and built infrastructure accordingly. It was basically the concept that cycles should be treated on par with cars, share the same roads, commute at similar speeds, etc. As a result, the majority of American cyclists are people who are more risk taking, want to bike fast on super lightweight racing bicycles, and have built an aggressive cycling culture thanks to the fact that they’ve been trained to bike with cars.

Most European cities advocated a different approach, where bikes had their own infrastructure built out that meant European cyclists ride slow “Euro” style bikes with baskets, usually don’t go very fast, etc.

Further, good infrastructure means that bicyclists never have to interact with pedestrians other than in well controlled areas with proper signals etc that make clear when the cyclists should be moving and when the pedestrians.

I completely agree. Traffic culture really seems driven by traffic infrastructure, rules and enforcement than the other way around.

I traveled to Mumbai, India twice in the last year a few months apart. Certain intersections that I traveled through on a daily basis used to have vehicles inching into the intersection well before their lights turned green, which usually caused problems, in the first trip. In the second trip, only a few months later, this had almost completely disappeared. The reason was the installation of I believe cameras, that ticketed cars if they entered the intersection on red, and this created enough of a change that two people visiting a few months apart would have diametrically opposite views of the driving culture of that region of the city.

Cyclists are certainly a menace (IMO) in London - example case from a couple of years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist...

There are a lot of well behaved cyclists, but there is also a hard-core of aggressive cyclists who seem to take it as their right to never have to slow down for anyone or anything, and woe betide you if you get in their way (e.g. the guy in that article above who was jailed after killing a pedestrian had the excuse that he shouted at her to get out of his way, so it was her fault for getting hit). They will go through red lights, turn the wrong way, go down the wrong way of one-way streets, barrel through pedestrian crossings while people are crossing, ride along pedestrian paths etc etc etc.

They are much more dangerous than cars purely because of their unpredictability (compared to cars which 99.9999% of the time do what you expect - like follow the rules, don't drive along the pedestrian paths etc) and sense of being untouchable I guess. Not everything ends in a death like this poor lady, but there are countless near-misses and people having to jump out of the way from cyclists who refuse to slow down or go through red light etc etc every day - it is happening all the time in London and you see it multiple times each day.

There was talk after the events in the linked article about forced registration plates for cyclist to try and bring some sort of accountability, but I think that was shelved "because environment" or something.

I’m a cyclist in London and I do agree this with this. A lot of cyclists forget that the rules of the road apply to them.

However what I fear the most isn’t cars or other cyclists but mopeds and motorcycles, especially ones with high acceleration. I’ve seen mopeds sneak up on cycle lanes, block up the cycle bay at the front of intersections (which is scary when you are on a bicycle in those bays because the mopeds don’t necessarily accelerate in a straight line) and worst of all, accelerate fast when the light turns from red to orange. The last is an issue because unlike cars the acceleration is much quicker - I’ve witnessed last-minute pedestrians crossing an intersection get startled or almost hit by mopeds accelerating too early.

> It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.

As they should! Cyclists are often closer by and silent.

Add to the fact that many cyclists are using the bike for exercise and seem to want to keep pace at any cost.

But mostly - a car is made for running in to humans at relatively low speed, causing as little damage as possible.

Bikes not so much.

I’d much rather be hit by a car at 30km/h than a bike.

Come to think of it - drivers license for cars probably makes a difference as well.

Edit - anecdote:

A co-worker of mine got hit by a bike at a buss stop. Not really super fast, but oh my he got tangled. Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc. He was off work for almost a year in total. A modern car would most likely not have caused him, or the rider the kind of damage they incurred.

No you wouldn't: a car-pedestrian accident at 30km/h gives you about a 5% chance to die. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowle...

With a bicycle I'm quite sure the odds of a fatality are <<1%

Ok, I’m prepared to stand corrected. 30km/h is probably a bit to high speed, although data vs bike is hard to find.

Getting hit by a bike a 30km/h might well get you killed though, judging from the state of my friend mentioned above.

A bike have no deformation zones and no slick surfaces to slide along.

Thank you for enlightening me with some numbers though.

While a bicycle probably isn't going to be going as fast as a car, at equal speeds bicycle collisions aren't going to be that much less dangerous than car impacts. 30 km/h is a quite attainable speed for a bicycle. I definitely wouldn't assume <<1%.

You unfortunately miss the huge difference in mass and thus impact force. I guess it will make at least some difference.

A 100kg cyclist + bicycle vs a 1500kg car (+ driver)

I would take in to account the hard stop.

A modern car have deformation zones and angles for you to basically slide along - you will never get the impact of that full mass.

A bike, well, you will come to a hard stop and it’s got metal rods sticking out here and there.

Getting hit by a bicycle at high speed is worse than what you’d expect, at least according to my personal experiences.

Deformation zones are designed to protect the car's occupants in the event of a collision with a tree. They are not designed to protect a pedestrian. (Although some modern cars are beginning to have proximity sensors that can launch an automatic emergency brake. That would help the pedestrian. The deformation zone certainly doesn't.)

None of which is meant to imply that being hit by a speeding bike is harmless, of course.

> Deformation zones are designed to protect the car's occupants in the event of a collision with a tree. They are not designed to protect a pedestrian.

Nonsense, all modern cars have deformation zones specifically for protecting pedestrians during collisions. All modern crash tests by EuroNCAP etc. have tests for such impacts and current results speak volumes for the improvements in this area.

https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...

Here's the ratings for the Tesla Model 3 vs. pedestrians for example: https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/54117/pedestriancrashimage.pn...

You can see clearly the impact of the very soft bumpers designed specifically for such crashes.

I seem to find several papers and books discussing pedestrian saftey in regards to bumper, hood/bonnet design and crumple zones.

I’m no expert by any means, but I’m certain though that pedestrian safety is considered when it comes to car design.

Having a crumple zone that absorb energy seems like it would work in favor of someone getting hit as well?

About 80% of the cyclist+bike combination is made of more or less squishy flesh.

> A modern car have deformation zones and angles for you to basically slide along -

That protects the people in the car, not those outside. Being hit by those deformation zones _will_ hurt.

There is one thing that makes modern cars less dangerous to pedestrians, and it's that when someone is hit by a car they are more likely to roll over the hood than under the wheel. HOWEVER this is only the case for sedans, and definitely NOT for SUVs. Now look at the proportion of SUVs in your area.

"When considering the average length of hospital stay, the majority of pedestrians involved in collisions with cyclists were admitted for fewer than two days (53.1%), while only 7.7% required a hospital stay greater than 7 days. Compared to pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles, the duration of hospital stays were significantly shorter (χ2(1)=27.5, p < 0.01, φc=0.06), furthermore the severity of collisions were also significantly lower compared to collisions involving motor vehicles (χ2(1)=9.85, p < 0.01, φc=0.04)."

(But I don't know what the figures mean.)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.10.018 at https://s23705.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pedestrian...

> No you wouldn't: a car-pedestrian accident at 30km/h gives you about a 5% chance to die.

That would be including the accidents where the car never stopped, e.g. backing out from a garage and running over a toddler the driver didn't see.

So, your argument is that with the exception of cases where a car is more dangerous than a bike - both are equally dangerous. You don't say.

The discussion started by referencing ~30km/h collisions.

Not someone slowly backed over by massive vehicle, which is most likely included in the death count.

Slow backing car vs slow bicycle? I take impact with slow bike every day.

I’ve seen the result of a man getting hit by a bike at ~30km/h.

Just awful. He barely survived, being reasonably fit and not too old/weak.

If it was my choice - yes I would, assuming a somewhat modern car.

That's probably true, but death isn't the only negative outcome. I'm regularly buzzed from behind by bicyclists passing me at high speed on sidewalks. It's quite unnerving, since most of our local cyclists are idiots, generally untrained, unable to quick stop, and often riding without any brakes at all.

I've taken to carrying an umbrella everywhere, swinging it quite dramatically as I walk. This seems to be an effective way to cause cyclists to keep a safe distance.

>Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc.

What in the hell was going on there? I mean, I get GP's point about aggressive cyclists. I noticed them in Berlin especially (straight, wide roads on flat terrain), but even then people will usually try to brake before they run into you. This kind of damage sounds insane. Was the cyclist hitting him at full-speed? If so, how???

Yeah, so at places in Sweden we have the most stupid buss stops.

You have main road, then a curb followed by a bicycle lane followed by a buss stop with a pedestrian sidewalk behind it.

If you want to get to the buss you need to cross the cycle-lane.

If the cyclist is careless and speeding, and you maybe are not paying enough attention, bad stuff can and do happen.

But this makes no sense. Whenever I see such bus stops I wonder who designed them in this way. It makes pedestrians and cyclist compete for the same area without any obvious sign. Pedestrians need to act quickly, otherwise they will miss the bus. Cyclists don't see any red light or other signal to stop from afar, and when they got closer and realize people start pouring from the bus stop to the road, they need to breake in the last moment. Sometimes you don't even realize what's going on as the bus is hidden from your view by trucks.

This is why a call them “stupid”. They are obviously dangerous, still I have one just like it around the corner from my home.

Just the other week a guy got hit in the arm by a slow riding bike while waiting, which made him so pissed he grabbed the bike rider by the arm and kind of threw him to the ground.

People had to separate them from fist fighting.

It's actually lots of regulation that states what is important in city planning, bicyclepaths are at the bottom of those list.

I've seen these kind of stops in the Netherlands and can totally understand your point. I am all for separate bike lanes but why you would do it in a way to have this separate "bus island" I couldn't see.

Cyclist-pedestrian collision fatalities (or even serious injuries) are very rare. In the UK they make national news. This is far far less than motorist - anything else collisions.

As are pedestrian deaths at < 30km/h according to statistics though.

At 30km/h you’ll have approx ~5 deaths of 100, by car.

I don’t think you’ll have much less by bike at those speeds but injuries might well be worse - see stats of hospital times car vs bicycle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com