Comment by oldstrangers | Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldstrangers | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The article and provided information answers all of your questions. The point is to get the cyclist out of a danger zone as fast as possible.

Why make this legal statewide?

Intersections are by far the most dangerous locations for bicyclists, in Colorado and elsewhere. The most recent data we have from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which is comprehensive for the state from 2017-2019, indicates that in that time frame 72.2% of reported crashes between bicyclists and drivers took place at intersections or were "intersection related." When bicyclists are able to get out of the intersection and away from that conflict zone before a potential crash can even occur their safety improves.

The Safety Stop is safer for bicyclists and motorists alike. Research shows that the Safety Stop:

● Reduces interactions between motorists and bicyclists in intersections.

● Reduces crashes in intersections.

● Increases the visibility of bicyclists in the intersection.

● Reduces the number of bicyclist-only injuries associated with starting and stopping on a bicycle.

"I'm not sure I see the point." "Is bicycling so hard..." ... "bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists."

You see how you brought a level of animosity towards this relatively benign measure to increase cyclist safety? Yeah, that's why stuff like this is important. People with a "cars first" mentality have no appreciation for the vulnerability of cyclists and often go out of their way to ridicule them.

Despite the predominantly helpful info in your comment, you are also making assumptions about the parent commenter having an animosity and "cars first" mentality that may not be accurate or justified. See their comment elsewhere in the thread:

> I've been riding bikes in the city since I was 6 years old.

> you are also making assumptions about the parent commenter having an animosity

Not so. The OP comes right out and says this,

> As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.

Which is wrong, shitty, and straight up victim blaming.

See Forrester's insider criticism of cycling culture

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cyclin...

It's not an assumption, it's very obvious in his rhetoric that he prioritizes cars and the laws built for those cars over cyclists and any potential laws built for them. Hence, cars-first.

Even if he rides his bike everyday, he still views the world from the perspective of someone driving a car.

I'm the grinch of cycling ever since I blew my knees from doing rides that went up a mile vertically when I was 20. There was that time I was in agony riding home from a Ross Perot rally.

I went through a phase when my knees hurt just looking at a bicycle. Even today I avoid any hills, off-road or anything challenging.

I'd just like to point out the subtle use of language to objectify motorists and thus make it easier to ignore their side of the issue when these discussions come up. You can see it very clearly here:

"laws built for those cars over cyclists"

If one wishes to engage with people who like using cars, instead of dismissing or ignoring them, use motorist instead of car. I hope our societies are still human centered enough that we can agree that cars are used by people to do things, not the other way around.

I can't tell if this is parody or not.

It ignores motorcycles, who at least in my head is why the term "cyclist." is used. Trucks, Cars, bikes, cyclists. Last two slightly more humanized because you can see the human fly off of the thing in an accident, trucks and cars, driver wearing a seatbelt is part of the machine.

It’s a classic trope in these conversations: “I’m an avid cyclist, but…”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com