Hacker News Reader

Comment by avalys | Hacker News Reader

Better title: “in informal survey, cyclists rationalize their lawbreaking by claiming it is for their own safety.”

I’m sure all the cyclists I see running stop signs and red lights on their $2,000+ Tour de France cosplay setups have safety foremost on their minds.

View on HN

> on their $2,000+ Tour de France cosplay setups

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "

Edit: BTW, as a road cyclist, my very first reaction was the same as yours: Since this was a survey it's tough to tease out the real reasons from the rationalizations. Speaking for myself, I'll freely admit that my reasons for violating road rules (which, for me, is limited to rolling through stop signs at empty intersections) are more about energy savings and speed rather than safety.

But you can deliver that criticism without being cruelly mocking and dismissive of an activity you happen not to value.

You’re right, that was a bit harsh I guess, but I’m just mirroring the attitude I perceive from the cycling community. I recently bought a road bike myself and found the entire sport obnoxiously pretentious, including the guy at the bike shop, who sneered at me because I didn’t know what a “fondo” was.

> I recently bought a road bike myself and found the entire sport obnoxiously pretentious, including the guy at the bike shop, who sneered at me because I didn’t know what a “fondo” was.

And that sucks, I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. While I've met many lovely people in the cycling community, I've also run across similar attitudes, myself, from time to time. That's probably because the cycling community reflects people, and people are usually great and sometimes not so much.

But ask yourself: is it good for you, personally, to return that sneering with sneering of your own? Does that make you feel better about yourself or the people around you? What do you gain by stereotyping a huge community based on the poor behaviour of a few individuals?

My suggestion: Assuming you haven't been scared away from the hobby, leave an honest review of that bike shop owner (who legitimately sounds like an ass and isn't someone I'd want representing the cycling community), and then find a better shop.

And if you want to join a cycling club, find one that aligns with your values and beliefs. Cycling clubs are just like people in that they're not all the same.

Yes, let's mock the cyclists for their bicycles and not those folks driving $30,000+ condo-sized pollution machines (and the leading cause of death for people under 30) so they can save 20 minutes on their commute and go to Costco once a month.

The vast majority of cyclists I see don't wear "tour de france cosplay setups" (recent personal experience from Toronto and the bay area). The vast majority I see also don't run red lights.

I think you might have a sample biased towards those that you notice in negative ways.

The last time I’ve seen a cyclist stop at a red light was never

The last time I read the stats for the London, UK, the number of cyclists seen jumping red lights was in the single digits of all cyclists counted and motorists accounted for 95% of total red light infractions.

I guess motorists account for 99% of them

Now we should make a proportion with the total number of users

I suspect cyclists jump red lights a lot more per capita

But I can't say it for sure, not knowing the actual numbers

Then multiply both by the potential harm of each vehicle and we can fully quantify which are the more dangerous.

First of all, bikes are notoriously more dangerous than cars.

No matter how anyone puts it, bikes are inherently more dangerous, cars have safety features that are simply not present on bikes.

Here is the study

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

A picture is worth a thousand words

> Basing numbers on per billion miles travelled takes the raw numbers and adjusts them for exposure

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a0f8be5f3583d076974c1...

What is immediately evident is that the less protections you have around you and the more you can go fast (if you can, you will), the more fatality rate is high.

The idea that if we could only move by bike there would be less accident is a false one

There would be less accidents for sure, because only a tiny fraction of the actual driver's population would go by bike.

But they would probably start falling from horses or have carriage accidents

Bikes are safe. Cars are unsafe because they often kill other road users. You have them confused.

> Bikes are safe. Cars are unsafe because they often kill other road users. You have them confused.

knifes kill people too

but I'm sure you use them

Guns kill people too, but they love them in the US, they love them so much that they put them in the hands of kids and let them go the school to shoot other kids

Cars are not unsafe, people driving them are.

It's the same people that ride bikes.

You have them confused.

As Conan's father said:

"No one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts."

BTW

If you like to live, don't ride a bike.

"More cycling fatalities than deaths in cars"

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/more-cycling-f...

Crash Statistics - who was at fault?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ClubExpressClubFiles/86708/graphics...

Fatality rate (UK)

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/DfT_chart.png

Your parent's incorrect assumption is an enlightening one. You were correct to read my comment as one on the dangers presented to other road users.

Bikes are safe?

Let's see if it's true

> driver survived with only minor injuries

https://i2-prod.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article...

> this guy was happily riding his bike, fell of it and died from the crash. Paramedics could do nothing to save him, upon arrival he was already dead.

https://caserta.occhionotizie.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...

Which one of the two looks safer to you?

As someone who daily commuted by bicycle, the last time I didn't stop at a red light was never. I've definitely seen more cars fail to stop at red lights than bicycles, too.

They carry on when the light is red? I have seen plenty take off early and do it myself to avoid having the traffic pile up behind me, but going through a light that has just turned red would seem to invite catastrophe.

I'm neither a driver nor a cyclist - just a pedestrian - but my impression is that, at least in my part of London, cyclists carry on through red lights much more frequently than cars.

Obviously, purely anecdotal.

Same. Depending on the intersection and traffic there are places in zone 1 where the traffic signals seem to be considered completely optional for cyclists. I have also found myself needing to use a death stare to get some cyclists to stop at a zebra crossing as well; this happens far more frequently with cyclists than I ever needed to for cars or HGVs.

While yours is a better title, your comment also helps me rationalize my behavior on a bike. Many people have irrational hate towards bikes, and those people operate much heavier equipment. They do so while staring at their cell phones. This is certainly a problem where all sides need to pay more attention, and not hate on each other.

And just because; my "tour de france cosplay" gives me a butt-pad for comfort, nice pockets on the back of my shirt to carry things, and dries really quick in the rain. I suppose if I spent $20,000 on a rolling sofa that would be better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com