It depends on the local culture. You've gotta be pretty dedicated to ride a bike in the metro near me on some streets, because the layout isn't very friendly to bikers.
Those that do seem to rarely obey traffic laws- the number of near-miss incidents alone caused by bicyclists who run red lights or weave in and out of lanes, up onto sidewalks, then back down into traffic is too damn high, to borrow a meme.
The city would be a whole lot better off somewhere in the middle- more room for dedicated biking, and more enforcement of safe behavior.
It's not just the roads either, unfortunately. There's a shared walking and bicycling path that runs around a lake in the city. It's fairly popular, but I've never been more than twice because I find walking there is unpleasant. You can only get nearly clipped by bikers flying past, not staying in their lane, just so many times.
To be quite honest, it is very useful for cyclists to behave this way when they have to constantly fight traffic because it makes drivers give them a wider berth. You don't know what that bike's about to do, so you stay the fuck away instead of blazing by too close.
On the other hand, people who can't bother to get a bell for their bike and zoom past pedestrians are dickheads.
Honestly no bike belongs mixing with pedestrians any more than any other vehicle bell or no bell. A pedestrian is meandering along at 1-3MPH a bike is comparatively racing at 10-20.
Even at only 10MPH you are closing on a slow walker by at least 13 feet per second. If they notice you 60 feet behind they have less than 5 seconds to react. If they don't notice you and you don't maneuver you'll hit them. If you maneuver and they also try to get out of the way you might still hit them.
I've had multiple bikes zip by with very little space where a slight step to the side would have let to disaster. Honestly anyone caught biking on the sidewalk ought to have their equipment impounded and sold.
If you ride on a sidewalk, it's harder for cars which approach from side streets, alleys and driveways to see you.
Doubly so if you ride opposite to the traffic direction, thinking that it's okay because you're off the road; drivers don't expect something to be coming down the sidewalk at 20-30km/h from the wrong direction, where less of their attention is focused.
It's legal in only half the country and its stupid everywhere.
"The overall crash rate for cyclists was 0.29 per 1000 cycled kilometres and 6.1 per 1000 cycled hours. The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h, which was considerably greater than other road environments. For example, the risk was 8.8 on shared pedestrian and bicycle paths, 5.8 on cycle lanes and 4.7 on roads."
I understand it may be preferable from the cyclists perspective to injure a pedestrian rather than risk getting hit by a car but your unilaterally risking them to procure a benefit for your self. Morally you are fucking them.
Furthermore some are more vulnerable to serious or permanent injury than others and they don't have an option not to be on a sidewalk especially in the city.
If you have access to a car and are cycling for your health or to achieve a warm fuzzy for saving the earth and hypothetical and mostly fictional people while actually risking, injuring, or killing existing people because actually biking on the street is too dangerous you should probably bike on the street like an adult or turn the key in your car.
> The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h
I'm amazed that whoever cooked up this figure is sure it isn't 26.3 or 26.5.
(I suspect that riding on the sidewalk is unsafe, at least serious riding by grownups; not four-year-olds on kid bikes. I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure.)
It clearly states that in the dataset they were studying the crash rate on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h.
That’s just a simple fact, not a “cooked up figure”.
> I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure
Pretty sure an elementary school student could figure out how to obtain this sort of figure.
There is no way to gather such a data set. There is no mass surveillence system which tracks where cyclists are cycling, and how many hours.
Let's look at just the sidewalk versus road issue: if you could surreptitiously place GPS tags on random cyclists, the GPS system does not have the accuracy to tell whether the cyclist is on the sidewalk or road.
Are you ok? If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered. I have a hard time believing that a person capable of navigating to HN and producing somewhat coherent sentences is too stupid to figure this out.
This is not an acceptable way to speak here. When you find yourself adding emotional content including insults before your statements take a breath and delete everything but the factual statements. For example you could have simply said
"If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered"
It would have added the same value without degrading the conversation or being rude.
That is not clear at all. They might simply disagree with the methodology and that is a legit topic to discuss. More importantly if you actually think he is trolling the best route to go is to disengage and downvote. This doesn't distract from the discussion or degrade the discussion into name calling.
Also hacker news rules are to respond to the most charitable interpretation of the users point. Assume they are disagreeing in good faith and engage with the topic or disengage and down vote if you feel the users contribution is negative.
That particular figure is from a referenced paper by a R. G. Poulos (at al), whose data comes from self-reporting.
"This paper examines self-reported prospectively collected data from 2038 adult transport and recreational cyclists from New South Wales (Australia) to determine exposure-based incident crash and injury rates."
I don't agree that you should intentionally endanger the safety and lives of others to get some extra elbow room.
The most important thing you can do on a road (aside from situational awareness) is be predictable- that others have an idea of what you're going to do.
If you're behaving erratically or crossing into pedestrian crosswalks so it doesn't look quite so much like you're running a red light, you're seriously increasing the odds of colliding with a vehicle or person.
The problem is that right now everyone is still looking to switch jobs.
If you assume that recessions bring out some really talented engineers looking for jobs, that's not happening yet. A good company strategy would be to stop or slow down hiring, wait for the recession to start in full swing, then restart hiring when the good talent is on the market. At the same time, you could use it to re-evaluate projects. If you've ever worked at a big company, I'm sure you can think of a few projects that should be killed because they are a waste of resources. This gives a big company a chance to remove some poor performing employees. Unfortunately, this will also get rid of good employees too, because of politics and bad managers.
This can be bad for the employees because you aren't sure if your project is going to be cancelled. You are less likely to look at new jobs, so if your current job is really bad you are stuck. This also puts downward pressure on salaries.
I don't know if this is the ethical thing to do, but I think it makes business sense.
That's an interesting point I hadn't thought about before but it should have been obvious. Crypto is inherently inflationary to the system as a whole, since you're increasing the amount of currency without increasing the number of goods.
But that doesn't matter, you can borrow one on a defi platform and re-lend it. The exact same "money creation" process that people complain about with "banks" also works for any deposit-taking lending organisation.
it depends how you read it? do you look at the global picture. the last "crash" happened after the market reached a peak of 700B value. today the market is worth more than that even after crashing. my point is that the crypto market shows crash-resilience unlike anything else that has actually crashed
For those who bought Bitcoin at around $60K - $40K it is indeed a giant crash from its previous high which it has lost 60% of its value. It is possible that if can crash another 60% to $10K, taking the whole crypto market with it. But we'll see.
> > my point is that the crypto market shows crash-resilience unlike anything else that has actually crashed
Yes. Crypto has had many 'crashes' but it seems that it isn't going to completely go away as wrongly predicted in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021 and now 2022.
But again, as the commenters still fail to notice, the whole market (including crypto) has crashed.
if you bought into the predominant sentiment on HN (imminent crypto collapse) in 2018 and sold you would have had some serious losses. if you held your position you would have made some serious gains
> It is possible that if can crash another 60% to $10K, taking the whole crypto market with it. But we'll see.
Simple answer is to save money, reduce spam reports, get better signal-to-noise ratios in analytics, etc — basically all the same reasons you should be doing opt-in in the first place.
Like all topics, there’s a lot to learn about it, differing opinions, etc — for example, some might say not to send an re-opt-in email to an email that’s recently opened an email, others might say that the open was just automatically triggered.
To learn more, Google to start with might be “re-opt-in campaign”:
Every co2 we put out there without it doing specific work before like smelting or transporting critical goods is co2 we need to remove which we wouldn't otherwise.
It sure is better for Tesla to make cars out of it, calling this whole story a net benefit is just Missleasing.
Not everyone scans the internet every day