Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcavezza | Hacker News Reader

Riding a bike is dangerous. Take special precautions. Be aware of your surroundings. Wear bright colors. Wear extra lights if possible.

I am too scared to ride a bike in Boston, but I always make sure to check twice before opening my car door after parallel parking.

Be safe, bikers of HN.

View on HN

Riding a bike is dangerous.

This really makes me feel sorry for people who live in countries that do not encourage cycling.

I was born and raised in The Netherlands. Every Dutch friend and family member of mine learnt cycling as a small child. Many of them still cycle daily without a helmet, special clothing, or whatever. I cannot remember anyone having a serious accident. Two persons I know broke their arms, but in both cases there was no car involved (icy roads).

The difference? We have bicycle lanes. Many of them. They are often separated from the main roads. When there are lights, there are often separate bicycle lights. Besides that, laws are highly in favor of pedestrians and cyclers. For instance, a car driver is always responsible for paying 100% of damages of children under 14 and 50% of damages of those over 14. So, if a 40 year old cyclist is hit by a car, and 75% responsible for the accident and the car driver 25% responsible, the car driver still pays 50% of the damages of the cyclist. One of the results is that drivers of motorized vehicles tend to be more careful.

tl;dr: ask your government to make more cycling lanes and pass laws that favor pedestrians and cyclists.

Do people ride their bicycles on a sidewalk in the Netherlands when a bicycle lane is not available?

No, when there are no bike lanes the instruction is to ride on the car lane, on the right.

But there are enough bikes around that the drivers are always aware of them. And usually the drivers themselves are bike riders, or at least mostly everyone in their families is.

This probably helps cyclists get support from the people there. I guess it is a chicken and egg problem. I have been almost hit many a times by cyclists who think they are supposed to ride on the sidewalk. I suppose they don't know any better.

I am stealing this soapbox to remind everyone (I assume some are cyclists):

* Never ride on the sidewalk, ever.

* Never ride against traffic.

and finally, I don't know how to enforce this without a flamethrower/rocket launcher:

* Do not let cars force you off the road. You have the right to a full lane. A car may not ride beside you in the same lane.

We read about cyclists following the rules getting hit by idiot drivers and think it might be safer to ride on the sidewalk. Maybe statistics shows more cyclists get injured on the road than on the sidewalk.

However, this anecodote is apt. More pedestrians get hit by cars on sidewalk than in the middle of the road. This does not mean pedestrians should walk in the middle of the road. Similarly, more cyclists get injured while riding on the road. That does not mean you should ride on the sidewalk.

The Netherlands doesn't have a sizeable auto industry with politically powerful unions in key political states. Unfortunately, the American auto industry bends government at all levels to its will...cars own the road and everything is designed around the auto here.

What are the traffic rules like in the Netherlands?

Every time there's a bike story on HN, there's always a long side thread about bicycles not stopping at lights, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc etc, so I'm curious what happens in a place with mature infrastructure.

Pretty much the same things. Even as a cyclist I am amazed what other cyclists pull off wrt. to violating traffic rules.

But I think the difference is that most car drivers are or were also cyclists and the law favors cyclists, so car drivers tend to pay attention at intersections.

on a bike I feel much safer if I can see the traffic coming towards me... as opposed to riding on the right side of the street... might be a little more dangerous at busy intersections though..

As you pointed, people broke their arms while riding a bike

I had an uncle suffer a fracture as well while riding (or better falling from) a bike. No cars were involved

So I'd say it is dangerous depending on the speed and terrain.

Sure it is, so what? But there is a HUGE difference between

    Riding a bike with speed and on terrain that outrun your riding skills

and

    Being hit by a car driven by someone not paying enough attention

Period.

Of course ;) I'd take number 1 any time

2011 bicycling deaths in the Netherlands: 200 [1] [2]

2011: bicycling deaths in the US: 677 [3]

The deaths in the Netherlands have an interesting distribution. Nearly 2/3 of them are people over 60.

[1] http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publi...

[2] (English) http://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/road-deaths-...

[3] http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf

According to this: http://top10hell.com/top-10-countries-with-most-bicycles-per... (no idea about veracity of that data), Netherlands claimed 16.5 million cyclists cycling 2.5 km/day on average; compared to US with 100 million bicyclists cycling an average of 0.1 km/day.

So if we assume those numbers are right that gives 200 deaths in Netherlands for 15,000 million km cycled per year (16.5 * 2.5 * 365) ; versus US where there were 677 deaths for 3,650 million km (100 * 0.1 * 365).

This makes cycling in US 25 times a dangerous as Netherlands: Netherlands has 1 death per 75 million km cycled while US has a fatality every 5.3 km.

In comparison, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in... says 1.16 fatalities for cars per 100 million vehicle miles travelled, so one death every 86 million kilometers -- safer than cycling in Netherlands by distance, much safer than cycling.

Another page with similar calculations: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/734/cycling/cycling-rates-by-c...

shows 5.8 cyclists killed per 100 million km cycled in US, versus 1.1 in Netherlands.

>US has a fatality every 5.3 km.

did you mean every 5.3 million km?

Riding a bike does not have to be as dangerous as it is in most places in the United States.

Here[1] is an interesting video on how the Dutch got their bicycle paths.

From the intro:

"The Netherlands has the world's largest number of cyclists, but it is also the safest place in the world to cycle. That is largely because of the perfect cycling infrastructure that can be found throughout the country. How did the Dutch get this network of high quality cycle paths?"

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

The more important difference is safety in numbers e.g. drivers will look over their shoulder before turning right, because usually there is a bike. Drivers are conditioned to take into account bikes and their erratic driving.

I agree, when driving a car in the Netherlands you always expect a bycicle even when there is non. It also helps that in case of an accident between a car and bycicle the blame almost automatic shifts towards the driver of the car.

I bike commute in Boston (Live in Somerville, bike into Boston), and while there's definitely a risk, I feel pretty safe doing so - there are a lot of good bike lanes that make it possible. I definitely agree with your recommendations - need to be very aware of the cars around you (assume everyone in a car is an idiot/out to get you), and I wear a neon jacket, along with lights when it's dark. I definitely feel like it's only a matter of time until I get doored, though. . .

As former Somerville to Boston year round bike commuter (I' now in SF), I just wanted to tell you to rock on and stay safe. :-)

I know a good number of bike commuters in Boston and we've all gone down at some point, some in worse ways than others, but I don't think anyone has been doored too badly, which was always my biggest fear. In my case, I was hit from behind while riding with my lights on in a bike line (Somerville Ave) and thinking I was hyperaware of the cars behind me (the car drove off, but I'm pretty sure it was a drunk driver from the erratic driving). In a friend's case, a police car without its sirens on in JP blasted through a red light and hit him head on. Both of these accidents and most of the serious bike incidents I know of occurred at night. I'm actually more afraid of darkness than doors nowadays.

>Riding a bike is dangerous

Not true. However I agree with all the other safety tips.

Cycling is as dangerous as walking (as a pedestrian). Source - http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-...

Not in the US: I have not seen a single US city yet with proper bike lanes. At best (and this is rare) you're separated by a solid line which is not enough. But most of the time you're basically on your own.

I just looked up the scene of the accident at 1700 Hillandale Road, Durham on Google Street View. If you're on a bike there's nothing for you - you're like a slow engineless motorcycle. This is _very_ dangerous.

Come to Redmond, WA sometime. http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/log/68cddaf2-3fd8-4a67... (Of course I drive everywhere, and two of my housemates have been winged. At least it's more likely to be by a Prius than a pickup.)

I'm a Durham resident. The city as a whole does not have great accomodations for bikers on the roads. It has some great bike paths, but in places where that isn't an option you generally are on the road with cars and very little leeway to get out of the way.

It's difficult to look at the Google Street View and get an accurate feel for what's really happening here on Hillandale. If you put 1700 Hillandale in, you're greeted with a massive multilane freeway interchange. However, this accident appears to have taken place further down the block when it narrows to two lanes. (See the photo in the linked story.)

In the US, we've got groups like the Tea Party, who think bike lanes are part of a UN conspiracy to take our guns. This can make it controversial for a city to consider bike lanes.

Google "agenda 21 bike lanes" for the sad details. There was a good New York Times story on this, too. [1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-p...

It almost sounds like the driver purposefully hit him:

http://www.wral.com/bicyclist-killed-in-durham-hit-and-run/1...

Witnesses told police that the car, a late-1990s or early 2000s model, slowed quickly and swerved before hitting Vidal and continuing north on Hillandale Road.

most drivers do hit cyclists on purpose, to "teach them" not to ride on the street (street is for cars).

besides, most of the time there is no responsibility for the driver (I advice you to browse through "cyclist hit" articles on some pro-cyclist sites).

Story usually goes like this: I also were hit by a car last year. No responsibility for the driver. As I was unconsious the driver was free to tell anything. It ended with police determinig that I was cycling peacefuly and suddenly my front wheel fell off. If you wonder why I didn't go to court, my aunt is a judge, I asked her opinion and she convinced me thet I would just waste money - a person she knows personally takes care of those types of cases (main court - after which you might not appeal anymore), and she just doesn't like cyclists, so she makes sure drivers don't get "abused". (Poland, "Województwo Łódzkie" region) - that case is NOT special, simmilar stuff happens all over the world.

Eeesh. Knee-jerk reaction: drivers like that should have their cars impounded and their legs broken.

More seriously, how do you think we can change driving culture from what you describe to something more like they have in Holland?

Uhum, sure... Most people would never deliberately hurt other people. It's just not normal to think that a person would purposefully aim a vehicle at another human. If you really strongly believe what you wrote there - you may want to consider your world view a bit unhealthy. Edit: (or a result of PTSD from living in a really awful place).

Yep, this is true. How many cars does a cyclist travel with on a trip? There's bound to be a couple sadistic drivers in the group.

"most drivers do hit cyclists on purpose, to "teach them" not to ride on the street (street is for cars)."

Seriously?

Just yesterday this happened in Seattle: http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/07/08/west-seattle-green...

Yikes, if that's true, that's terrible.

That said, I doubt if it's most accidents. Here in Boston, where the roads are all pretty terrible, there are bicycle accidents all the time. The roads are bad enough with just cars on them, but throw bicyclists into the mix and it's downright scary. I drive, and dealing with bicyclists is a nightmare. For every rule-following bicyclist, there are 10 who change lanes side-to-side, who pass on the right through an intersection (this one drives me crazy), blow through stop lights thinking that a quick glance for traffic is enough.

Unfortunately every year someone gets hit around here, usually by a bus. I haven't read much about any intentional accidents--usually it's a bicyclist that tried to pass a bus on the wrong side and the bus turned (wide turning radius). Or blowing through an intersection against a red when they didn't realize that it wasn't clear. It's terrible, but not "intentional". Maybe it's different elsewhere, but saying that most accidents are intentional seems...bold?

I would not yet attribute that this was intentional (especially if the driver slowed quickly.)

The more likely scenario here is that the driver was distracted, did not realize that there was a cyclist in the lane - perhaps made worse by lanes narrowing - and slowed quickly and swerved to try to avoid the accident.

It seems especially unlikely that this was intentional when he turned himself in the next day.

Of course, yes it does happen that drivers try to scare or even harm cyclists for fun or because they believe that cars should be the only road users. But I don't think that's what happened in this case.

Makes me wonder about wearing a helmet, regardless of the heat and the gooflyness. On the other hand, I mainly ride the bike where there is little traffic anyway.

Please familiarise yourself with the evidence for and against wearing cycle helmets.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-...

Edit:

>mainly ride the bike where there is little traffic anyway

This. Use cycle paths that are off the (car) roads. It more pleasant and safer, and you can usually go faster too, as there are no traffic lights.

While I understand the safety arguments for encouraging people to ride on separate bike infrastructure, I generally think this is a pretty short-sighted attitude; cycling will never achieve the level of convenience necessary for it to attain a reasonably high transportation modal share if the recommended practice for cyclists is to take circuitous recreational paths through parks instead of the much-more-direct routes available to motorists. Look at any cities in Europe that have reached moderate cycling modal share (Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc.), and you'll see that while grade-separated cycling infrastructure is common in high-traffic areas, it follows the same routes as cars (complete with traffic lights), and that cycling on same-grade painted lanes is common in lower-traffic areas. Nobody is pushing cyclists in these cities onto inefficient completely-separate bike infrastructure.

Thanks for the link. I was dimly aware of some arguments against wearing helmets but haven't examined the issue in depth.

I don't think there are too many people arguing against wearing helmets, as an individual choice. It may turn out that helmets don't do much, but you're probably not any worse off for wearing them (except maybe sweatier in the summer, etc.). Lots of cycling advocates do, however, advocate against mandatory helmet laws, which have a whole host of negative effects that don't apply to the individual-cyclist-decision case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com