In the Netherlands (as I understand it) the assumed-at-fault party in any crash is the one with the heavier weight-class vehicle. So a semi is assumed at faul over a truck, that’s assumed at fault over a sedan, over a motorcycle over an e-bike, over a bicycle, over a pedestrian. Or something along those lines.

Always seemed like a reasonable policy to me. The people operating heavier vehicles have a higher inherent responsibility to operate them safely.

Yes, that is indeed a sensible approach, but it will be difficult to implement here because the law in North America tends to side with drivers first and foremost.

I found it very enlightening to learn that even in the Netherlands, there used to be car culture similar to here, and it took the death of some children, and a grassroots campaign, before meaningful change began to occur.

There are many lessons to learn from the Netherlands with regard to bicycle infrastructure, and for our sake I certainly hope it doesn't involve the death of children.

> There are many lessons to learn from the Netherlands with regard to bicycle infrastructure, and for our sake I certainly hope it doesn't involve the death of children.

It doesn't have to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen

Like the Netherlands, the city of Copenhagen has a highly evolved bicycle infrastructure, but the catalyst for change was the dual oil crises in the 1970s which led to car-free Sundays and other oil preservation measures. People disovered that they actually appreciated the lack of cars and many started using bicycles as an alternative. This resulted in a grassroots movement campaigning for bicycle infrastructure in the city. The municipality caught on and today almost two thirds commute by bicycle.

Well, that is better, but then there are those scooters and other small motorcycles that are allowed to go on bike lanes for some reason, which - while living in Amsterdam - I felt were a menace, regardless of whether they'd be assumed-at-fault or not.

Yes this is true, but because of the separated infrastructure there are much fewer collision point between motorized and non motorized traffic. Basically all streets where cars can drive 50kmph (30mph) and up cyclist have a separate cycle path.

The separate cycling path is not a panacea - since car and cycle paths cross when there's a turn, or when a cyclist needs to cross to the other side.

I stopped in a bike lane to take a picture of an illegally parked Uber driver. He used his vehicle to try and plow me out of the lane and cut short my window of opportunity for a photo.

Reaction from police and Uber to a photo with the plate and the car making contact with my bike? "meh"

I think in Belgium and Netherlands most people are brought up to ride bicycles at a young age. You're only allowed to drive at the age of 18, so a bicycle is how you get around as a teenager. It helps that those are dense countries so you usually don't have to cycle far to get to school/friends/city.

Because most of us grow up that way, later in life, when we drive a car, we have the proper respect for bicycle riders. We drive slower when we overtake them, we looks in our mirrors before taking a turn.

good infrastructure helps too, but from having lived in the US and Europe, I think it's largely a cultural thing.

I was cycling on an empty, straight country road in daylight once. A guy in a car turned onto the road a nearly hit me. So unnecessary. He could have just waited 2 seconds for me to pass. I was incandescent with rage and gave chase, while screaming obscenities. Just as well he didn't stop as it was a long uphill and I would have been barely able to stand, let alone fight. ;0)

That sucks but what do you expect to happen given your photos are proof of nothing. It's just your word and a command to the police to "go punish this guy because I said so!"

I wish there were more places with bike lanes like Amsterdam and Copenhagen

But the law here in Holland is that the driver is always at fault when hitting a bicycle.

The bike lanes came later... (and yes they are a god send)

Same here in France. If a car hits a walking or cycling person, whatever the situation they are at fault.

Most of what the cyclists comment here would result in car drivers getting a huuuge insurance increase.

> If a car hits a walking or cycling person, whatever the situation they are at fault.

This is insane. Cyclists run stop signs, red lights, etc. all the time. Pedestrians run out in to traffic from behind parked cars. If they get hit when they do that it's their own fault.

What everyone needs to understand in every mixed traffic environment is that sharing the road goes both ways. Drivers have a responsibility to look out for cyclists, but cyclists have a responsibility to make themselves able to be seen. Everyone has a responsibility act in a way that allows their actions to be predicted by other users of the road, you never want to be surprising people.

If your actions cause someone to have to hit their brakes or make evasive maneuvers and you had a reasonable choice to not do those things, you're the one in the wrong even if you're legally right.

Drivers are in control of potentially deadly machines. When I got my driver's license I was taught to always be prepared to stop in case somebody does something stupid. I think defaulting to having the driver at fault is reasonable. If they have proof they couldn't possibly stop, they are free to take the case to court.

Its not insane; on the contrary, it is clever. The risk of physical damage is higher with a cyclist, than a car. The law tries to balancethat risk/reward out, and it leads to car drivers driving more safe because now the risks are higher.

Furthermore, a lot more cyclists fit in a city than cars, and they are more likely local population who also take care of local Co2 reduction. Although tourists are welcome to cycle as well.

cycling is a chicken and egg problem. while you're all saying "cyclists are responsible for being seen" then cycling stays as macho hobby. As a UK cycle commuter who travels a lot to Netherlands, the big thing they did there is to make it normal and easy for everyone to cycle. Not just fit macho well equipped enthusiasts but children, elderly, timid, and badly equipped. Once the bike lane is fully separated and well lit and full of other cyclists you don't need high vis gear and excellent situational awareness to avoid being killed and that makes cycling universally accessible and slashes the number of cars required

Well, in France, some accidents are not a matter of law, but insurance arbitration. There is not "whatever the situation", just a default assumption that pedestrians and cyclists have priority. Then there is a case study.

The insurance arbitration can be weird though: if you are getting out of a parking spot, with all the indicators and cautious maneuvers, and get hit, you are at fault. Bike, car, bus ...

Similarly, if a hunter kills me in the woods it is my fault for not dressing like a clown.

> you're the one in the wrong even if you're legally right

IOW, you’re right. Law is funny that way.

Only in Holland? Rest of the Netherlands has different rules?

I had a similar thought, but then, I also find it annoying when people say "America" to mean the United States, and not the continent(s)

Could have just said

s/Holland/Netherlands

And/or: Holland are two provinces of The Netherlands.

I'm from the south and don't really see a problem to call it Holland which is why I used that word, even while I reconsidered using the more correct "The Netherlands".

The distinction between Holland / Netherlands is not interesting unless you are from down here. It is similar to the distinction between hackers & crackers. Yes it is different, no.. most people don't care (and shouldn't care IMO).

No in all of the Netherlands, fortunately.

The letter was more "hey, people keep running this particular stop sign and this is the main bicycle path that students use to get to school. Please do something about it. Maybe like cutting back the tree in front of the stop sign or posting someone"

Instead they added a stop sign to the main road and now more people run that particular stop sign.

> I don't care if the rider was in the wrong, you're a lot more squishy on a bike than in a plastic housing with a motor.

This is so weird to me. It’s the complete opposite in the Netherlands. Because you are in a car, and you are best protected, you’re basically always in the wrong if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of what they were doing (at least that’s what I was taught).

I’m sorry you had these experiences. I too got hit twice, but no major damage other than totaling my bike.

The reason why I have little sympathy for these types of stories is that I witness cyclists being assholes every day I drive. Stuff like running lights and stop signs, changing lanes with no signals, riding on sidewalks and crosswalks, riding in lanes with moving cars, etc etc.

I understand that in the US bike environments are really unsafe, but I don’t think that routine not obeying traffic laws or conventions is the way to go.

> riding on sidewalks and crosswalks, riding in lanes with moving cars

In one sentence you managed to point directly to the dichotomy cyclists face. Car drivers: “get out of the road it’s for cars!”, pedestrians: “get off the sidewalk it’s for pedestrians!”

In many places there just isn’t safe areas for cyclists that doesn’t end up putting them in conflict with other users of streets.

One thing that’s hard on a bicycle is to keep your cool after a collision or near miss. You end up with so much adrenaline pumping that anger often comes.

Like others on this thread have mentioned though, getting angry at people in cars is not helpful, best case they feel bad, worst case they become angry and now have a multi-ton weapon on their side.

> In many places there just isn’t safe areas for cyclists that doesn’t end up putting them in conflict with other users of streets.

Cyclists are unambiguously wrong if they cycle on the pavement. Just as cars drivers are unquestionably wrong when they are in a cycle lane. This is cycle riders doing to pedestrians exactly that they don’t want drivers to do, and this is dangerous for people who are in a more vulnerable position than they are. I have zero sympathy for riders on the pavement, I’ve had too many collisions or near misses, including with small children.

It’s also often more dangerous for the cyclist anyway because drivers pulling out of parking lots, alleys, side roads, etc. nose their way into the crosswalk as long as no pedestrians are in their immediate way. They aren’t expecting a bike going 15-20 mph on the sidewalk.

In my jurisdiction it’s illegal for cyclists to be on the sidewalk but cars must treat them as owning the lane.

My complaint is about cyclists entering a lane with a car which is super dangerous. Just as it would be for a car to enter a lane held by a cyclist.

Your complaint is confusing. "Enter a lane with a vehicle"? As in, be on the road while vehicles are on the road?

It sounds as if you think, if there is no dedicated bike lane, that bicyclists shouldn't exist.

In many places, legally, vehicles have no more right to the road than bicycles. The "road" is a shared lane for bicyclists and vehicles.

That it is dangerous is the responsibility of all to mitigate, but the multi-ton steel box has the obligation to yield.

https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/90000/velka/sh...

I don’t think I’m explaining myself properly. I mean that if a car is already in a section of a lane, a bike would ride alongside a car on the left or right side, in the same lane.

Just like you couldn’t have two cars side by side in a lane, you can’t have a bike and a car in the same lane.

We have mixed traffic with bikes and cars on the same road, but they’re supposed to be sequential, not side by side.

Here’s an example of what I mean.

I’m on a single lane suburban road with a line of 20 cars all going 10mph. A bike rides alongside me going 20 mph in the same lane, passing me and other cars. The bike is 1-2 feet away from the side of my car.

In my jurisdiction it's also "required" for cars to give a cyclist the lane, but in practice this doesn't happen and violations are rarely enforced. A cyclist claiming the whole lane is also more likely to be on the receiving end of road rage

Again, I’m not saying that cars are perfect. I was just pointing out how I frequently see cyclists breaking traffic laws and norms. I don’t think that because cars are assholes that bikes can be too.

Do you think it’s appropriate that a bike passes a car in its own lane? Do you think the law should be changed to allow this?

And do those cyclists “being assholes” kill 50000 Americans a year? Or even close to the proportional equivalent?

The fact that people driving 2 ton steel killing machines complain about cyclists being “assholes” when it’s overwhelmingly their killing machines that, you know, kill cyclists, pedestrians, and other people in killing machines, is a remarkable display of entitlement.

>Do you think it’s appropriate that a bike passes a car in its own lane?

This is entirely situational. There are cases where it is OK and there are cases when it isn't.

There was an Uber blocking traffic on my street today and I went past them. It would be ridiculous to have to just sit behind the car until their passenger showed up, and I'm sure as hell nit gonna ride my bike into oncoming traffic

>Do you think the law should be changed to allow this?

It doesn't need to be changed. The law in my state already allows this under many circumstances

> I frequently see cyclists breaking traffic laws and norms.

More frequently than cars? There are over 5 million car crashes in the US every year. 30,000+ people killed.

Do you think it's appropriate to blame the victims?

You are contradicting yourself again and somehow still are not getting it.

Pedestrians can shove it. Cyclists on the sidewalk are nowhere near as annoying or dangerous as cyclists on the road, and pedestrians who work to keep cyclists on the road and off of sidewalks have the blood of the unlucky cyclists on their hands...

This is a truly terrible perspective. Many pedestrians are slow and extremely vulerable to the effects of being toppled by a wheeled vehicle. This is particularly a problem when people are leaving buildings onto sidewalks unaware of cross traffic moving at 10+ kph. Bicycles belong on the road with other vehicles.

Honestly bicycles belong in their own dedicated spaces. As a driver I don't want them on the road and as a pedestrian I don't want them on the sidewalks. Bike lanes are a start but we need dedicated bike infrastructure.

You say that as if road are for cars and are only "allowing" the bikes to be there by their good grace. It should be flipped around.

Everything about road design is for cars.

I've lived in a place with dedicated bike infrastructure. It was amazing. We should be pushing for that.

And why are cyclists so antagonistic? Not a good look if one wants their group to be taken seriously.

As if the drivers are cool and level headed while mowing cyclists down? People fearing for their lives are allowed to be agitated.

And if you don't want to take a diverse group of people seriously because of some slight you have with a minority of them, you're not really interested in taking them seriously in the first place, and are just looking for excuses. Classic tactic used to neglect lots of groups one's not in. "If the millions of BLM supporters want to be taken seriously, they shouldn't have a few people among them rioting!" is another example.

See this is what I mean by antagonism.

Before roads were for cars they were for horse+buggies, or chariots, or other transport. Cyclists are not first-class citizens on roads and they never will be. And frankly I don't want to get stuck behind one on a road with a dramatically higher speed limit than what you can pedal at. That shit is just rude.

The amount of entitlement that seems to come from the cycling community makes it really hard for others to empathize with your situation. You can make a bad faith argument comparing yourselves to BLMers if you want, but I can see right through it.

Appreciate your sitaution as a minority among minorities and plan your moves appropriately. But thinking that cyclists should get higher priority over multi-ton cars and such you are mistaken.

> People fearing for their lives are allowed to be agitated.

Don't forget that by cycling you are choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight.

> And frankly I don't want to get stuck behind one on a road with a dramatically higher speed limit than what you can pedal at.

In big cities that's never a problem. Cars are stuck behind other cars.

> You can make a bad faith argument comparing

I didn't compare myself to that, only an example. If anything that's a straw man and bad faith on you..

> Don't forget that by cycling you are choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight.

It's not a fight. But you and other drivers looking at it like that is very telling, heh.

> This is particularly a problem when people are leaving buildings onto sidewalks unaware of cross traffic moving at 10+ kph. Bicycles belong on the road with other vehicles.

I can never understand how anyone can make this argument without seeing how it applies even harder to why bicycles shouldn't be on the road with cars going 45+ MPH (~70+ km/h).

Bicycles are closer to pedestrians than cars outside of the slowest city roads.

Agreed. When I got my bike for the first few weeks I would ride on the sidewalk. Until my wife pointed out that in our residential neighborhood, anybody could back out of their driveway and hit me and it would be my fault as I would be in their blind spot. Since then I bike on the road.

Show me evidence that cyclists on sidewalks are responsible for even 5% of the fatalities that happen from cyclists being on the roads. I think you're the one with the terrible perspective.

Most sidewalks are way too damn narrow for passing a pedestrian IMHO. I stick to bike trails and side streets, sidewalks only exist in my route planning for emergency maneuvers.

Also I live in New Orleans where having a few feet of very broken, ragged sidewalk due to a tree's roots bursting up through them as the pavement slowly sinks is a very common sight. Trust me you do not wanna bicycle on that shit.

Car drivers seem to violate traffic laws at least as often as bicyclists. And that's just speed limits.

Certainly, I don’t think car drivers are perfect by any means. I’m not sure the exact ratio, but I see cars speeding every day as well. But it’s pretty rare to see a car run a red light or weave around other cars.

I would love to live where you live. Around me in a US city, cars stop in crosswalks, run reds, ignore left and right turn rules and swing into turns like no one could ever possibly be crossing or cycling. And I live in what's supposedly the bike and ped friendly core.

Just this weekend in my neighborhood, and elderly woman was murdered by a driver hooking a left turn while she was in a crosswalk. Same neighborhood, a homeowner had a driver crash into her home for the second time in three months!

Driving culture in the US is undisciplined and low-skilled. The requirements for earning a license are far too low in every state.

Where I live, drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians are all insane. When I’m driving I don’t trust any of them. When I’m walking, I don’t trust any of them. I don’t bike here because I don’t want to die. My fifteen minute, five mile commute is never completed without witnessing egregious violations.

My city seems dedicated to making the roads as deadly as possible. Rather than having bicycles go down a parallel road, they gave them a bike lane on the main road. Thing is, there is no real benefit to bicyclists to be on that road versus a parallel road. I wouldn't bike on that road for pay. The city also added speed bumps. So idiot drivers drive into the bike lane to go around the bumps. The same city has changed left + straight lanes to be left only and right only lanes to be right + straight. This has the effect of "no turn on red" which should reduce danger to pedestrians... but the lanes don't always line up, sometimes there are near collisions because people think they are in the straight lane or because people turning an unprotected left in the opposing traffic think they are in a turn lane (and indicators are optional).

I could rant on for pages.

I don't know the solution. I now drive first for my own safety, second to limit my own liability, and third for the safety of others. I equate that with giving up. But on one side are idiots that think the road should be built just for them and on the other side are well-meaning idiots that remove the double yellow lines because drivers slow down. One thing I do know is that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers should be kept physically separate wherever possible.

Could the very low age of 16 be a reason? Not based in the US so I'm probably wrong

My personal belief is that there must be a very low bar for driving because In many places in the US, if you don't have ready access to a car for transportation, your life will be very difficult. Poor public transportation combined with massive sprawl ensure this.

Also, generally speaking, Americans do not like things that add perceived barriers to their personal freedom and independence, so any proposal to make it more difficult to get a license would probably be unpopular.

I think if you picked a random population of cars, and a random population of bikes, the cars would more regularly break the law - generally speeding (full disclosure, I generally go 10-15 over the speed limit when driving).

Then consider injuries caused by breaking the law on the road. Bikes breaking the law cause few, speeding cars cause many.

Dismissing the regular lawbreaking of cars doesn’t seem rational. Just because you don’t like the way bikes break the law doesn’t mean bikes breaking the law has a negative impact.

Cursory search turns this up:

> Speeding was a factor in 26% of all traffic fatalities in 2018, killing 9,378, or an average of over 25 people per day.

Source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safe...

Let’s say the ratio of violations per mode is the same. In the city I live in, bicyclists make up <1% of road users. So the drivers operating their vehicles dangerously out number bicyclists doing so 100:1. And vehicles are what are killing and severely injuring people, not bicyclists.

Sure. But both those things are equally illegal, and a car exceeding the speed limit is more likely to cause serious injury or death than a bicycle running a red light. So why treat the latter as somehow worse than the former?

At peak time, I can stand at the crossing outside Old Kent Road ASDA for 5 minutes and see 3-5 cars actively jumping a red light with 5-10 others entering the junction without a clear exit (means other cars and pedestrians have to weave around them when the lights change.)

> riding on sidewalks and crosswalks

> riding in lanes with moving cars

where are they supposed to ride?

They’re supposed to ride in the road and occupy a lane just like another vehicle. If a bike is in the lane then a car shouldn’t enter the lane and should pass when safe. Likewise bikes shouldn’t enter a lane with a car.

What I meant is a bike shouldn’t ride alongside a moving car in a lane but should be ahead or behind, like any vehicle.

As a cyclist I would love it if that were feasible, but it creates bitter road rage in so many drivers that it really isn't safe.

When I'm on a bike, I honestly don't feel safe taking up the entire lane. I guess in theory the expectation is that cars will calmly drive behind my slow bike until there is room to pass, however long that may be, but I know that people are going to get impatient, and that just makes it feel less safe, or inappropriate. I feel like at any second I'm going to get startled by a loud car horn right behind me, which is very distracting.

So for me the sharrows do make a difference, since they make it feel safe to use more of the road, which makes me do it.

Honestly I've never had a car be that patient with me. They've always honked and fairly often yelled.

I’ve listened in on a few community board meetings on road safety in New York City in order to better understand the situation, and was really put off by how the bicycle advocates were simultaneously demanding more protection from the police while openly mocking the suggestion that they need to stop running red lights. The hypocrisy of disrespecting the law while requesting more severe enforcement of the law against their opponents felt really gross and caused me to check out on the issue of bike safety completely.

I'm not condoning it, but you might want to understand why cyclists typically run red lights and stop signs. The reason is the top most dangerous spots for a cyclist are 1) sitting at an intersection and 2) passing though an intersection. If I cross an intersection starting from non-zero momentum I can cross it in 2 seconds. If I start from zero it take more than 5. Now I'm not just going to go through an intersection without checking, but I'm going to slow down, check, and go, because that's what's safest for me. This is what I see the vast majority of people do. Now I've seen people not do that and just blast through, but I can't count more than 5 in my entire life that have done that. You know what happens when you do fully come to a stop and the intersection is clear? Cars honk at you. Cars get real close. People yell about how you aren't supposed to be on the road and threaten you. I'll take my chances with the intersection, considering I've been chased by some of these people on more than one occasion.

This again comes back to the fact that cyclists are neither pedestrians nor motorized vehicles. It isn't a surprise that they want to be treated like cyclists and not be in that binary classification. It is only hypocrisy if you use the wrong classifications. If you're really trying to understand bike safety try riding in their shoes for a month or two. You'll start to get it real fast.

While the cyclists might have very valid reasons for breaking the law, the fact is that at present, the law classifies them as "vehicles" and classifies them as subject to the same rules as the other vehicles (the cars).

Regularly watching cyclists flaunt the rules that the car driver would be cited for breaking, and never seeing a single cyclist cited for the law breaking, leaves a foul taste for cyclists in the mouths of many motorists. They don't get to run stops or red lights with impunity and without punishment.

So as long as the law says cyclists must obey the same rules car drivers are also supposed to obey, the subset of cyclists that break those rules on a regular basis do not help, in the least, the arguments to try to convince car drivers to be more respectful of cyclists.

The start should be the cyclists obeying the same rules as the cars (which would help with not pissing off numerous car drivers daily) while working the politician angle to change the rules for cyclists to something safer for cyclists (and at which point the car drivers will no longer have a way to rationalize their hatred of the cyclists as just "law breakers").

> The start should be the cyclists obeying the same rules as the cars (which would help with not pissing off numerous car drivers daily)

The problem is that as your parent commenter pointed out obeying these laws also pisses off drivers. Drivers get pissed off when cyclists take the full lane, and they get pissed off when cyclists come to a full stop in front of them at a stop sign. I don't run red lights and stop signs on my bike and it annoys me when people do, but I feel like the many violations drivers commit every day are just normalized because there are so many more drivers than cyclists.

Not to mention that safety is more important than getting a ticket. It is unsurprising that people choose the safer option over the legal option. Plenty of laws are broken and "it's the law" has never been a great excuse.

We should also consider that many people have different definitions for "running a stop sign" and it isn't equally applied to cars and bikes. A roll at a stop sign is ignored for a car but "running" for a bike. I don't blow through (that's irresponsible), but I do roll, per the given reasons above (funny enough I never roll when driving).

> Regularly watching cyclists flaunt the rules that the car driver would be cited for breaking

Yes and no. I am sorry when cyclists flaunt the rules — it does happen — but there are also those of us that strictly obey the law. (It helps keep me alive.) But I see cars break many of the same rules, quite often. For example, seeing a car run a red isn't even a rare thing. (A rare one is seeing a car driving the wrong way.) Between the two groups, I don't think I see one break the rules more often than the other. (I certainly see more violations from motorists… but I also see more motorists.)

> never seeing a single cyclist cited for the law breaking,

I've seen this, multiple times. Oddly, only while biking. Probably about as (in)frequently as I see motorists get cited.

> So as long as the law says cyclists must obey the same rules car drivers are also supposed to obey, the subset of cyclists that break those rules on a regular basis do not help, in the least, the arguments to try to convince car drivers to be more respectful of cyclists.

That there are those out there that don't obey the law should not matter to validly argue that the world would be better — that is, fewer cyclists would die — if both motorists and cyclists alike would obey the law.

This makes absolutely no sense.

If you’ve ever biked in a city, you would know that the people who get pissed more than anyone else by bikers following red light rules are the cars behind them that cannot accelerate when the light turns green, because the biker in front of them is slow to get going.

Invariably, they will simply get pissed and try and pass the bike dangerously, if not honk or hit them out of the way.

> never seeing a single cyclist cited for the law breaking

Every cyclist I know has at least one story of being pulled over by a cop for perfectly safe, oftentimes strictly legal riding.

On the other hand, you'd be hard-pressed to find a motorist that ever faced consequences for murdering a cyclist.

I see you're getting downvoted to near invisibility, but...As a pedestrian in the SF Bay area, the times I've been hit or nearly hit by vehicles - each time it's been clueless cyclists blowing stop signs/lights, or riding the wrong way, or on sidewalks.

I see a lot of comments complaining about the times pedestrians haven been hit/near hit by bicycles. Setting aside the fact that this is entirely because the majority of infrastructure places bicycles extremely close to pedestrians, have you ever considered the obvious reason why we don’t hear as many complaints about pedestrians that have been hit multiple time’s by cars? Here’s a couple of hints.

1) The hits by cars result in the deaths of tens of thousands of pedestrians per year in the US compared to single digits, if any, by bicycles.

2) Dead people don’t write HN comments.