undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanalog3110mo ago0 comments

Indeed, that's a good point. My state maintains a map of reported crashes, and most of the dots on the map in my locale are on the highest speed roads. It seems like when the cars are going slower -- and there are fewer of them -- there are fewer crashes. And if the severity is less, like you say, then that's a compounding factor.

We're not NYC, where every street is packed with moving and parked cars. Most of the traffic is on the faster roads, and the cyclists tend to thread our way through the sleepy residential streets. That's good enough separation for me. The parts of town where bikes have to mix with cars, are where they focus more attention on bike lanes.

0 comments

usrusr10mo ago

> It seems like when the cars are going slower -- and there are fewer of them -- there are fewer crashes

Yes, because the throughput of that fast, high density road is so much bigger. Subjectively it feels like it has something like 2x the amount of cars, and when we look at accident density we may very well correct by that factor, but in reality the difference in throughput is much bigger. Number of cars present at a given point in time x speed. That quiet road, it's close to having no car throughput at all compared to the big one, but it still sees the occasional accident.

analog31OP10mo ago

Indeed, on the main road through my locale, I'd be passed by 100+ cars per minute. On my 30 minute commute to work, via side streets, I encounter maybe 10 to 20 cars total.

I consider car avoidance to be the #1 cycling safety measure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse