And yet, I see parents riding bikes on the roads of SF with their small children on board. Makes absolutely no sense to me, and I get scolded every time I bring it up.
Parenting and bicycling (the latter perhaps a little surprisingly) are two of the hottest and most divisive flamewar topics that exist. If you combine them in this way without any insulation, we get flamewar squared. That's probably why you're getting surprising responses from people—you're probably triggering them way more than you intend to.
Edit: you've been perpetuating this flamewar quite badly downthread. Could you please stop? I've banned one account that replied, but your account is also making things worse.
You get scolded because you are victim blaming. Regardless of whether or not you support better bike infrastructure or limiting cars or whatever measures: it should be safe to bike around town, and if it isn't blaming the cyclists isn't going to help, it will just cause the cyclists to remove themselves from traffic after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it.
This is not victim blaming. Nobody blamed cyclists here. It is a true and obvious statement from an observer that cycling is dangerous in San Francisco.
Of course, there are also places where the risk is higher. SF is just an example used because someone prominent died in SF whilst on a bicycle. The easiest thing the USA could do to make cycling safer without investing a cent in infrastructure is to adopt the rule that by default if a car hits a cyclist the car is at fault. The effect of that would be instantaneous, every bike would have an invisible force field of liability around it. Sure, some might abuse it, but nobody in their right mind is going to play chicken with a car.
> The easiest thing the USA could do to make cycling safer without investing a cent in infrastructure is to adopt the rule that by default if a car hits a cyclist the car is at fault.
That would obviously be an unfair and dumb rule because fault should always be determined on a case-by-case basis. We would also have a massive amount of fraud caused by cyclists intentionally hitting cars, just like the rash of pedestrians running in front of cars in Russia.
I ride bikes and I also drive cars, and I've seen a ton of dumb behavior from both cyclists and drivers. Nobody is immune to being a dumbass in this category. They just shouldn't mix.
The problem is infrastructure. In the places where cycling is safe and normally practiced by normal people, the bicycles and cars are mostly separated. US cycling advocates have been pushing for the wrong things for years, asking for rights on the road as though bikes are the same as cars, when in reality the only thing that works is separate roads.
> Nobody is immune to being a dumbass in this category. They just shouldn't mix.
Even in countries with the best bike infrastructure they still mix. It's the cyclists that come off second best (to put it mildly) in any confrontation so they need extra protection and a default 'car is in the wrong' rule made a huge difference in those places where it was enacted. To categorically dismiss it without further research is a bit silly assuming you actually want to make progress. The enemy of the good is the perfect and this is no different. Obviously there are problems with such a rule, but that's the wrong way of looking at it. The question should be does it have more advantages than disadvantages and that seems to be solidly proven by now.
People that believe that cyclists would en masse run in front of cars like in Russia either have a very negative idea of society or want to dismiss the idea without further consideration because they in fact do not want things to change at all whilst pretending they are looking for progress.
This is a profoundly bad idea whose negative implications and undesired second order effects would be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer.
Could you please stop perpetuating this flamewar? I'm sure you started it unintentionally, but this is not what HN is for and destroys what it is for—regardless of how right you are or feel you are.
> after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it
Please explain what you meant here. Less of a reason to do something about what? I don't know what you could mean other than people getting are getting hurt or dying, and if that stops happening then there will be less attention on the issue.
At what point will you stop optimizing for the number of dead children? Why not keep them in a padded room with some electrical impulses to stimulate their muscles as needed, while feeding them a perfect blend of nutrients for exact caloric intake.
Edit: lol this doesn't even break the site rules... it's a legitimate question. Fuck you dang.
>NASCAR champion dies after being t-boned by car in San Francisco's Presidio
Response with your same sentiment:
>And yet, I see parents driving cars on the roads of SF with their small children on board. Makes absolutely no sense to me, and I get scolded every time I bring it up.
Before you say it, I am fully aware of the risks of riding bicycles with children attached on busy streets. I don't do that myself, but I digress. My point is that there are many other things equally as risky for parents to be doing with their children. It is not your place to correct them.
See this[0] comment. I'd wager that it's not the point you're making that you're being scolded for, it's the fact that you're trying to tell a parent what to do, which, depending on your approach, may imply that they haven't already weighed the risks. Curious - are you a parent?
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, no matter how provocative another comment is or you feel it is. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
It was snarky and reduced another commenter's position to something stupid, in order to dismiss it. Those are both hallmarks of flamewar and the site guidelines specifically ask you not to do either of them:
"Don't be snarky."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Btw, if you find yourself "calling people out", you've definitely departed from the space we want discussion to happen within on HN—what you could call the window of curiosity. We're trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...
I vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes.
"I vote for one thing, but that won't stop me from victim-blaming and maintaining the status quo."
You know what's way cheaper than building bike lanes and the public transit necessary for private car restrictions? Better testing of drivers, regular re-testing and ongoing education, and severely punishing drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians through negligence or malice. As it stands, you're virtually guaranteed to get away with murder so long as you do it in a car.
There's an epidemic of idiots who barely know how to control their multi-ton vehicle on a good day.
But hey, thoughts and prayers, and malice in your comments, right?
> If a lot of people have to die in order to eventually get us cycling lanes, so be it
> The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!"
> it will just cause the cyclists to remove themselves from traffic after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
I'm not going to ban you because we haven't warned you before this thread, and because you've posted good comments—but I've also noticed other cases where you broke the site guidelines in previous threads. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
It's sad to see this comment being dogpiled by trolls, including the standard and annoying responses like "wrong takeaway" or "bad take" or the sarcastic "how dare people do X", or the standard European city defense, or the most annoying type of response: rephrasing the original post to make a maliciously bad argument.
We don't live in should-land. We live in reality. Parents who live in reality need to protect their children from the dangers that exist in reality.
Parents who live in reality in the city of San Francisco know that it is a dangerous place to ride bikes. It is not ok to tell people to ignore those dangers because they should not exist, or to scold people for making those dangers known. It's also not ok to tell people that they are responsible for solving problems they did not create, and it is really not ok to equate warning people about danger with victim blaming.
sidfthec, you are right and you should not be getting this kind of response.
What would you propose they do instead? Stay at home? Use public transport? Also drive a car?
It isn't realistic to counter a biking accident with claims that people are sacrificing their kids and that they are idiots for biking, for some people there simply are no viable alternatives that they can afford, and so they take the risk. The blame should go to the drunk drivers and the idiots, not the cyclists.
Every time you take your kids to school by car, you risk killing other kids by hitting them with your car. Especially if you drive an SUV or a truck with small windows that makes it hard to see children close to your car.
Every parent who takes their kids to school by bike makes the city safer. The more people who leave their car at home, the fewer people in cars who kill pedestrians.
You are choosing to frame a reality where transiting by car is the only acceptable way to live. Many don’t bike by choice, they bike because of economic reality—especially as parents.
San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities on earth, and you must cover rent for cars in addition to yourself. If you want to discourage family formation then go ahead, make it prohibitively expensive to exist as a family in our cities.
I don't run the world and neither does the OP. I don't even live in San Francisco. It's not our fault that things are this way, and it's really dumb to blame us for pointing out facts.
Is it now also victim-blaming to tell people to wear seat belts, or to look both ways before crossing the street? Telling people about danger is not a form of blaming.
People seem to be reacting to something the OP didn't actually write. Stop ascribing beliefs and motivations to people you don't know based on a few sentences of written text.
Thank you for admitting that you don’t live in San Francisco. The fact is you don’t know who this parent is. You have made the assumption that they are taking unacceptable risks. I don’t know your motivation, but your criticisms aren’t constructive.
> The fact is you don’t know who this parent is. You have made the assumption that they are taking unacceptable risks.
What on earth are you talking about? Who the heck is the parent here? I am merely defending someone who is being dogpiled by trolls for the outrage of pointing out the fact that cycling in SF is dangerous. I am familiar with SF even though I don't live there, and I know that is the case.
Could you please not perpetuate flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are? I understand the strong feelings on this topic—but posting like this is not what HN is for, and destroys what it is for.
p.s. Re "pointing out the fact" — I'm really not sure how many facts have been pointed out about cycling in SF in this discussion (is there even data on this relative to other places?) as opposed to feelings and perceptions. But let's assume that you and sidfthec are 100% right on the facts, and the people arguing the other side are 0% right. That's still not sufficient for a good HN conversation. Being right is excellent, but not enough; it also matters how you interact with the people who are wrong, or who you feel are wrong.
I think you and I agree, but it's an interesting question.
Neglect laws in the US are incredibly vague.
Driving a vehicle for some unnecessary reason like to take a child to a water park for fun could be construed as abuse/neglect, as it unnecessarily exposes the child to danger.
Our neglect, and child reporting laws, badly need overhauled because common sense it totally removed. People have been arrested for as little as letting the kid walk or be at the park independently. Things need reworded to make it clear it isn't neglectful unless the child is facing certain and imminent serious injury or death, or something along those lines.
Interestingly, they drive vehicles with a massive amount of technology like crumple zones, and buckle them into specially designed seats so that if they get into an accident they have a good chance of surviving.
Bikes are extremely exposed in comparison. One small tap could be devastating.
They drive vehicles that cost $10,000USD per year to own. And maybe they need two, if they have 2 or more children(!).
Cars are a great technology, but a city cannot scale with everyone owning their own car, and families cannot build wealth paying $20,000+/year for their 2-car transit lifestyle.
I disagree with you, but I wouldn't downvote your thoughts for sure.
It really is a catch22. Biking is often not safe on existing roads. But what is the alternative? Not bike at all and wait until we have bikelane utopia? It's just not going to happen. What about people who don't have an option, aka no money? What about people who do not need a car because they live close enough to their destination? What about the cosmological stupidity of only having one viable option for personal mobility in face of climate change, rising fossil fuel prices, local and global pollution due to cars, ...?
Something needs to happen, shaming people for trying to get around on bike, such a small thing, yet, so odious to so many, it isn't helping.
The OP didn't shame anyone. Why are you making this wild accusation?
Read what was written. No shaming is there.
You seem to be reacting to something you ascribe to the OP, but there is simply no logical path from statements in the OP's post that leads one to assume anyone is being shamed or blamed.
Lived in Chicago before SF and there’s a night and day difference. Bike lanes are everywhere and protected by barricades and concrete barriers in Chicago. I had heard SF was a “biking” city, but it’s more that a bunch of people bike here, not that it’s fully bike accessible.
But, until that happens, isn't it at least a bit odd for parents to put their children in such a dangerous situation? I live in the Netherlands and we have good, safe cycling infrastructure. I would never ride in the US given current infrastructure there (much less with my kids). Hopefully some day it is properly invested in.
The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!"
Yes, its dangerous, because other people make it dangerous. The unfortunate reality of living in America is that a lot of people do a lot of things that are not terribly hazardous to themselves but are quite hazardous to other people. As a parent, I have chosen to do what I can to mitigate the risks as best as I can, short of just staying home, or driving everywhere.
Honestly, this bicyclist was killed at a location where I would feel comfortable riding with my kids. Its fairly low traffic, has decent bike lanes, and the speed limit is low. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you build serious infrastructure, no bike thoroughfare is safe from sufficiently motivated/reckless/drunk drivers. Based on the accident details (especially the driver having minor injuries), this sounds like somebody driving waaaay too fast for the road. All of this to say, this isn't an argument for stopping biking, or biking without kids, but it is an argument for more aggressively enforcing traffic laws on these roads that are tempting to joy riders, and improving biking infrastructure so its harder for these accidents to occur.
It's odd but entirely understandable--many parents and immigrants and non-ultra rich people cannot afford cars or parking in an ultra-high cost of living city like San Francisco.
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that in the US unless people put themselves in dangerous situations in the first place, nobody will ever vote to improve the safety of the infrastructure? If so, what is the connection? If not can you clarify what you mean?
Here in the Netherlands we didn't get to good bicycle infrastructure by trying to maximize the number of people in dangerous situations as a stepping stone, so maybe I'm missing something unique about the US.
Edit: asked an American friend and apparently in the US cyclists have to assert their presence since there aren't dedicated lanes, up to things like keeping a stick on your bike to hit cars that impinge on your rights. So that's certainly different. I still wouldn't put young children in that situation but it's certainly something quite different from here.
Sorry for the late reply. Yeah it's a chicken and egg problem here in the US.
If there aren't enough riders, then the planners won't have the data to support painting some bike lanes to attract more riders and get people out of cars.
And then the car people will complain that the bike lane is taking up "their" road and planners will be forced to remove the bike lane or let it rot.
San Francisco has a massive 464 miles of protected bike lanes, off street paths, and trails. We do a pretty good job of isolating modes of transportation with the exception of bikes occupying car spaces.
We don't allow cars on BART/Caltrain tracks for example because it is dangerous to drivers.
Kids in cars die all the time. Do you have any reference for the mortality rate per mile, or some other measure, between cars and bikes?
It's also worth noting that people may design their lives around the fact that they can bike their kids instead of drive them. For example, they might put them in a more local school that they/their kids can bike to, instead of a school much further away that they would need to drive to.
I mean for sure. But let's be real here, the difference really is night&day. There's a spectrum etc etc, but there's genuinely a categorical break somewhere. And america is on the other side.
Am parent, can confirm. Trust that we are making the best decisions we can make for our children. People quick to criticize parents are often lacking key context and important details specific to that familial situation. Judge not lest ye, and such.
