Who Causes Cyclists’ Deaths?(freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com
Who Causes Cyclists’ Deaths?
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-deaths/
71 comments
I am an avid bicyclist who has been hit twice by motorists. Once when a car pulled out of a driveway right in front of me and once when a car pulled into a driveway right in front of me. But the most interesting incident was when a van almost ran into me. I caught up to the driver and asked if she was trying to hit me and she said "you're on a bicycle, you have to get out of my way". Rather than enlighten as to the law I looked at her two children in the back seat and said "you better hope other drivers are more courteous".
I made myself a credit-card sized copy of the relevant bike laws for my state (California), so I can pull it out and read/give it to people like this. I've only actually done it once, but it sure shut the guy up fast.
I would just call the police. Leaving the scene of an accident? Enjoy your time in jail.
Can you post a link?
This data matches my personal experience pretty well. I've been hit twice by careless drivers.
I was hoping this article would have some data on helmet vs non-helmet deaths.
I was hoping this article would have some data on helmet vs non-helmet deaths.
The data doesn't match my personal experience. I've only come close to hitting a bicyclist once and that's because he suddenly decided to take a left turn from the right lane, at night, while it was raining, without looking.
Anyway, it's no surprise that most accidents are caused by the drivers: 1. A bike can make small maneuvers and brake much more quickly than a car can. 2. Bikes usually aren't going as fast as cars. 3. Bicyclists are also more likely to get hurt in an auto vs. bike collision. 4. Bicyclists are a bunch of morons who almost never stop at stop signs or lights, which most likely bothers drivers so much that they vow to run over the next bicyclist they see.
Anyway, it's no surprise that most accidents are caused by the drivers: 1. A bike can make small maneuvers and brake much more quickly than a car can. 2. Bikes usually aren't going as fast as cars. 3. Bicyclists are also more likely to get hurt in an auto vs. bike collision. 4. Bicyclists are a bunch of morons who almost never stop at stop signs or lights, which most likely bothers drivers so much that they vow to run over the next bicyclist they see.
I used to tend to agree with 4) until I became a cyclist. You can follow the spirit of the law without following the letter of the law. If you're on a bike and you're trying to get somewhere in the city in a reasonable amount of time, it is highly impractical to come to a complete stop at every stop sign. Should you slow down and be ready to stop? Yes. Should you stop if there's traffic? Definitely yes. If the streets are deserted is it OK to coast through? With caution. Ride a couple miles in cyclists shoes and things look very different.
Please don't assume all cyclists are assholes. Sure, some cyclists are complete douchebags. Idiocy abounds here in Chicago. I recently saw a guy on the Lake Shore trail in Chicago talking on his phone and smoking a cigarette. And don't get me started on the hipsters riding their fixies with their iPods cranked up. Trust me, I want to punch them myself - but not all cyclists are to blame.
Please don't assume all cyclists are assholes. Sure, some cyclists are complete douchebags. Idiocy abounds here in Chicago. I recently saw a guy on the Lake Shore trail in Chicago talking on his phone and smoking a cigarette. And don't get me started on the hipsters riding their fixies with their iPods cranked up. Trust me, I want to punch them myself - but not all cyclists are to blame.
I highly recommend "Effective Cycling" by John Forester as a reference on how to learn the rules of cycling with automobiles on the same roads. The basic rule of thumb is the same as motorcyclists - pretend you are invisible and car drivers cannot see you.
Rolling through stop signs is a calculated risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling
Rolling through stop signs is a calculated risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling
> If you're on a bike and you're trying to get somewhere in the city in a reasonable amount of time, it is highly impractical to come to a complete stop at every stop sign.
By that standard, it's just as impractical in a car.
> Should you stop if there's traffic? Definitely yes.
The question is rarely what should one do, but what one does.
> Trust me, I want to punch them myself - but not all cyclists are to blame.
No one said that they were. However, the excuses for "bad behavior" by drivers and bicyclists are very different.
By that standard, it's just as impractical in a car.
> Should you stop if there's traffic? Definitely yes.
The question is rarely what should one do, but what one does.
> Trust me, I want to punch them myself - but not all cyclists are to blame.
No one said that they were. However, the excuses for "bad behavior" by drivers and bicyclists are very different.
By that standard, it's just as impractical in a car.
Last time I checked, you don't have to unclip to stop your car. And anyway, I live by a stop sign, and I have never seen a car come to a full stop either.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever ridden a bike? You get a sense of what rules you can and can't ignore. A stop sign when you are on the non-conflicting side of a T intersection? Probably safe to slow for, rather than stop, unclip, wait, and clip back in. A red light at a major intersection? Might as well wait.
Anyway, I am pretty conservative in breaking the rules, but I don't feel at all bad ignoring a stop sign when there is literally no traffic.
Last time I checked, you don't have to unclip to stop your car. And anyway, I live by a stop sign, and I have never seen a car come to a full stop either.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever ridden a bike? You get a sense of what rules you can and can't ignore. A stop sign when you are on the non-conflicting side of a T intersection? Probably safe to slow for, rather than stop, unclip, wait, and clip back in. A red light at a major intersection? Might as well wait.
Anyway, I am pretty conservative in breaking the rules, but I don't feel at all bad ignoring a stop sign when there is literally no traffic.
> Last time I checked, you don't have to unclip to stop your car.
The last time I checked, clipping was a choice. We don't excuse drivers who make choices that make it inconvenient for them to obey traffic laws....
And no, "training" isn't an excuse either.
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever ridden a bike?
Yes, what of it?
> You get a sense of what rules you can and can't ignore.
Oh really?
> I don't feel at all bad ignoring a stop sign when there is literally no traffic.
That's nice, but observing bicyclists shows that "no traffic" often means "can I beat it if other folks give me a pass?". (My assumption that they're checking may be unfounded.)
The last time I checked, clipping was a choice. We don't excuse drivers who make choices that make it inconvenient for them to obey traffic laws....
And no, "training" isn't an excuse either.
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever ridden a bike?
Yes, what of it?
> You get a sense of what rules you can and can't ignore.
Oh really?
> I don't feel at all bad ignoring a stop sign when there is literally no traffic.
That's nice, but observing bicyclists shows that "no traffic" often means "can I beat it if other folks give me a pass?". (My assumption that they're checking may be unfounded.)
> By that standard, it's just as impractical in a car.
Which is why we should get rid of the stop signs and traffic lights. In addition to slowing traffic, their presence is correlated with increased accidents vs. intersections without them.
Which is why we should get rid of the stop signs and traffic lights. In addition to slowing traffic, their presence is correlated with increased accidents vs. intersections without them.
I've always been a fan of roundabouts, especially for smaller intersections.
Idiocy abounds here in Chicago.
So true. I don't think I've ever ridden on the north side of the Lakefront Trail without experiencing at least one moment of sheer terror. A nice ride, but I had to give it up. People talking on their cell phones, riding on the wrong side of the road, little kids playing on the path, joggers that jump right in front of you (got a new wheelset out of that), sand all over the road surface around blind curves... (and yes, I went down hard because of this). When it's raining, though, it's a great ride. A drop of rain and the entire city goes inside, leaving the entire trail for me :)
The south side is much better (but a very boring ride), and I have never really felt unsafe on the road.
Anyway, I am just waiting for someone to get really hurt... it is bound to happen some day.
So true. I don't think I've ever ridden on the north side of the Lakefront Trail without experiencing at least one moment of sheer terror. A nice ride, but I had to give it up. People talking on their cell phones, riding on the wrong side of the road, little kids playing on the path, joggers that jump right in front of you (got a new wheelset out of that), sand all over the road surface around blind curves... (and yes, I went down hard because of this). When it's raining, though, it's a great ride. A drop of rain and the entire city goes inside, leaving the entire trail for me :)
The south side is much better (but a very boring ride), and I have never really felt unsafe on the road.
Anyway, I am just waiting for someone to get really hurt... it is bound to happen some day.
You've only ever come close to hitting a bicyclist once -- perhaps that's due to your attention to driving?
I both drive and bicycle, and as a careful driver, I've never had a risky incident with a bicycle. However, I have been hit by a cars twice while riding my bicycle, both in cases where the inattentive driver engaged in illegal behavior.
One of the incidents sent me to the emergency room.
Observing automobile drivers over the years, I wouldn't hesitate to say that most people are barely qualified to operate a Segway, much less pilot a 4+ thousand pound automobile at 30+ miles per hour on a mixed-used road.
Lastly, your invective is misplaced. After writing three sentences on how bicycles are nothing like cars, you call them morons for not rigidly following the exact same rules as automobiles.
I both drive and bicycle, and as a careful driver, I've never had a risky incident with a bicycle. However, I have been hit by a cars twice while riding my bicycle, both in cases where the inattentive driver engaged in illegal behavior.
One of the incidents sent me to the emergency room.
Observing automobile drivers over the years, I wouldn't hesitate to say that most people are barely qualified to operate a Segway, much less pilot a 4+ thousand pound automobile at 30+ miles per hour on a mixed-used road.
Lastly, your invective is misplaced. After writing three sentences on how bicycles are nothing like cars, you call them morons for not rigidly following the exact same rules as automobiles.
So, mostly I've done all right as a driver, because I have a simple rule: if I come to an intersection with a stop sign or a light, and there's a bicycle coming up which will cross the intersection perpendicular to me, I throw away everything I know about right of way and stop until the bike crosses. Doesn't matter if the light's red to the bike. Doesn't matter if it's a stop sign and I got there first. I stop and wait, because the cyclist is an unpredictable factor and the only thing to do is wait until the bike is gone.
That said, I've had two incidents.
One involved an actual collision; I was coming out of a parking lot, and stopped waiting for a break in traffic to pull out into the street, and suddenly heard a strange noise. A cyclist coming through the lot had simply ridden straight into the side of my (motionless) car. He brushed himself off, got back on his bike, waved at me and went on.
The second miraculously did not involve a collision. One morning I was heading home from running some errands, and was driving along a road that serves as a partial bypass for a highway that goes through town. There's one lane of traffic in each direction and the speed limit is 65 miles per hour. I came up over the crest of a small hill, and suddenly saw a cyclist, pedaling along in the lane in front of me, and slammed the brakes to slow down and keep from running him over. He took no notice of me, and kept on pedaling with me behind him (speedometer said he was doing about 15mph). To this day I believe that he and I were both incredibly lucky: he was lucky in that I was able to see him and react in time. I was lucky in that I didn't hit him, and that nobody else coming up behind slammed into me. Doing 45 under the limit on a road with blind spots is not a safe practice.
The massive irony of that one, by the way, is that a paved bike lane runs parallel to that bypass, and I live in a town which takes pride in maintaining a healthy network of quality bike paths. On the occasions when I've talked to cyclists about why they still use the roads, they've been unanimous in their opinion that they don't like the paths because they have to be shared with foot traffic which just gets in their way and slows them down.
That said, I've had two incidents.
One involved an actual collision; I was coming out of a parking lot, and stopped waiting for a break in traffic to pull out into the street, and suddenly heard a strange noise. A cyclist coming through the lot had simply ridden straight into the side of my (motionless) car. He brushed himself off, got back on his bike, waved at me and went on.
The second miraculously did not involve a collision. One morning I was heading home from running some errands, and was driving along a road that serves as a partial bypass for a highway that goes through town. There's one lane of traffic in each direction and the speed limit is 65 miles per hour. I came up over the crest of a small hill, and suddenly saw a cyclist, pedaling along in the lane in front of me, and slammed the brakes to slow down and keep from running him over. He took no notice of me, and kept on pedaling with me behind him (speedometer said he was doing about 15mph). To this day I believe that he and I were both incredibly lucky: he was lucky in that I was able to see him and react in time. I was lucky in that I didn't hit him, and that nobody else coming up behind slammed into me. Doing 45 under the limit on a road with blind spots is not a safe practice.
The massive irony of that one, by the way, is that a paved bike lane runs parallel to that bypass, and I live in a town which takes pride in maintaining a healthy network of quality bike paths. On the occasions when I've talked to cyclists about why they still use the roads, they've been unanimous in their opinion that they don't like the paths because they have to be shared with foot traffic which just gets in their way and slows them down.
Your first incident reminds me of a similar story that I experienced, as the cyclist.
I'm going own a hill at about 60km/hr, and a car pulls out directly in front of me from a side street - presumably to see round another car illegally parked on the corner. trouble is, he didn't see me coming from the other direction. Note that I have right of way at this intersection.
I had no time to stop/avoid, so I smack into the side of the car, level with the front wheels. The whole bike rotated around the front wheel, with me still on it, so that my head smashed into the bonnet, leaving a nice old dent, before my bike and I rolled off the other side ofthe bonnet and ont the curb.
Naturally, I was concussed, and not terribly sure about who I was at this point of time, but I do remember the guy yelling at me for about 2 minutes, before jumping back in his car and storming off. He also made the comment about it being my fault that I hit a stationary car...
I'm going own a hill at about 60km/hr, and a car pulls out directly in front of me from a side street - presumably to see round another car illegally parked on the corner. trouble is, he didn't see me coming from the other direction. Note that I have right of way at this intersection.
I had no time to stop/avoid, so I smack into the side of the car, level with the front wheels. The whole bike rotated around the front wheel, with me still on it, so that my head smashed into the bonnet, leaving a nice old dent, before my bike and I rolled off the other side ofthe bonnet and ont the curb.
Naturally, I was concussed, and not terribly sure about who I was at this point of time, but I do remember the guy yelling at me for about 2 minutes, before jumping back in his car and storming off. He also made the comment about it being my fault that I hit a stationary car...
Did this motorist get into any trouble for this?
No, I was having trouble remembering my name, let alone noting down license plates. And it was in a suburban street, so there was nobody else around...
I do remember the walk to the hospital - the front forks of my bike had been bent back far enough that the front wheel's back edge was behnd the bike's frame, ie you couldn't put the wheel straight. So I had to hold the bike vertical, rolling only on the back wheel, whilst trying to walk 5km in cleats, whilst concussed. I don't recommend the experience.
I do remember the walk to the hospital - the front forks of my bike had been bent back far enough that the front wheel's back edge was behnd the bike's frame, ie you couldn't put the wheel straight. So I had to hold the bike vertical, rolling only on the back wheel, whilst trying to walk 5km in cleats, whilst concussed. I don't recommend the experience.
A one-lane road, in a town, with a speed limit of 65 miles an hour? That is the only problem here. (They don't even let you drive that fast on the 9-lane expressways in Chicago!)
The massive irony of that one, by the way, is that a paved bike lane runs parallel to that bypass, and I live in a town which takes pride in maintaining a healthy network of quality bike paths.
This doesn't mean much. There are many more accidents where a motorist turns across a bike path without looking than there are where a motorist hits a bicycle from behind. Playing the numbers, you're safer on the road than on the bike path. That is why "experienced cyclists" avoid them.
Your case is very, very rare, and the solution is to bring the speed limit on that section of road down to 25. Then everyone is safe.
The massive irony of that one, by the way, is that a paved bike lane runs parallel to that bypass, and I live in a town which takes pride in maintaining a healthy network of quality bike paths.
This doesn't mean much. There are many more accidents where a motorist turns across a bike path without looking than there are where a motorist hits a bicycle from behind. Playing the numbers, you're safer on the road than on the bike path. That is why "experienced cyclists" avoid them.
Your case is very, very rare, and the solution is to bring the speed limit on that section of road down to 25. Then everyone is safe.
"A one-lane road, in a town, with a speed limit of 65 miles an hour? That is the only problem here. (They don't even let you drive that fast on the 9-lane expressways in Chicago!)"
So here's a map of the spot which may help you understand what's going on here:
http://bit.ly/ZlTJc
The smaller strip of concrete to the north is the bike route. As you can see, it's not exactly "in town" -- again, this is a bypass connecting a couple of highways with a route that doesn't go through the town.
"There are many more accidents where a motorist turns across a bike path without looking than there are where a motorist hits a bicycle from behind. Playing the numbers, you're safer on the road than on the bike path. That is why "experienced cyclists" avoid them."
This contradicts what I was told by a number of "experienced cyclists".
So here's a map of the spot which may help you understand what's going on here:
http://bit.ly/ZlTJc
The smaller strip of concrete to the north is the bike route. As you can see, it's not exactly "in town" -- again, this is a bypass connecting a couple of highways with a route that doesn't go through the town.
"There are many more accidents where a motorist turns across a bike path without looking than there are where a motorist hits a bicycle from behind. Playing the numbers, you're safer on the road than on the bike path. That is why "experienced cyclists" avoid them."
This contradicts what I was told by a number of "experienced cyclists".
Bikes brake more slowly than a car. I've been hit by a car while riding in the past, where they've pulled in front, overtaken and slammed on the brakes.
See this, too: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459119
and then the driver turns out to be a crackpot: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pack-pileup-driver-accus...
but still got off pretty much scot free: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cycle-pack-crash-driver-...
See this, too: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459119
and then the driver turns out to be a crackpot: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pack-pileup-driver-accus...
but still got off pretty much scot free: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cycle-pack-crash-driver-...
Bikes brake more slowly than a car. I've been hit by a car while riding in the past, where they've pulled in front, overtaken and slammed on the brakes.
Sounds like a reaction time or misuse of your brakes, rather than a general rule about the amount of time required to slow the bike.
Go somewhere where there's no traffic (or obstacles), get your bike up to speed, and slowly engage the front brake. Now do it again, but more quickly. Eventually you will learn how much force you can apply without flipping the bike; this is a skill you need to ride your bike safely.
Just pulling the rear brake is not going to stop the bicycle quickly; the wheel skids and you develop no more braking force.
Sounds like a reaction time or misuse of your brakes, rather than a general rule about the amount of time required to slow the bike.
Go somewhere where there's no traffic (or obstacles), get your bike up to speed, and slowly engage the front brake. Now do it again, but more quickly. Eventually you will learn how much force you can apply without flipping the bike; this is a skill you need to ride your bike safely.
Just pulling the rear brake is not going to stop the bicycle quickly; the wheel skids and you develop no more braking force.
This reply is probably a bit late, but I've been riding bikes for more than 10 years. I know how to stop my bike and how fast it can stop.
The issue (just from what I've been told) is a question of contact area - bikes don't have much, cars have a lot more.
The issue (just from what I've been told) is a question of contact area - bikes don't have much, cars have a lot more.
If there's nobody around, I'll often roll through a stop sign on my bike. Back in the UK, there's almost no stop signs, instead everything's yields or 'roundabouts', which seem more efficient and safer, since they require more situational awareness.
There's definitely suicidal bikers around blowing through stop lights and weaving through traffic, but I don't think that if they were gone, car drivers would be perfectly happy sharing the road with bikes. We're slow and a pain to pass, plus there's the occasional aura of moral superiority. :)
There's definitely suicidal bikers around blowing through stop lights and weaving through traffic, but I don't think that if they were gone, car drivers would be perfectly happy sharing the road with bikes. We're slow and a pain to pass, plus there's the occasional aura of moral superiority. :)
> the occasional aura of moral superiority. :)
The aura of entitlement rather, the one that typically takes up a lane and a half.
All in all, the hatred towards cyclists will not go anywhere until there is a proper cycling accommodations on the roads. Separate lanes, separate licenses and separate fines. With rights there should come the responsibilities, with responsibilities - the penalties and enforcement. Neither of that exists at the moment (at least here in Canada).
If one wants to cycle - at least pass the exam, show you know the rules. Perhaps you learn that one must walk your damn bicycle when using a pedestrian zebra crossing and such. Instead what I am seeing is a righteous middle finger waving and yelling, and that does indeed makes me want nothing else but to run over such lovely road companions.
The aura of entitlement rather, the one that typically takes up a lane and a half.
All in all, the hatred towards cyclists will not go anywhere until there is a proper cycling accommodations on the roads. Separate lanes, separate licenses and separate fines. With rights there should come the responsibilities, with responsibilities - the penalties and enforcement. Neither of that exists at the moment (at least here in Canada).
If one wants to cycle - at least pass the exam, show you know the rules. Perhaps you learn that one must walk your damn bicycle when using a pedestrian zebra crossing and such. Instead what I am seeing is a righteous middle finger waving and yelling, and that does indeed makes me want nothing else but to run over such lovely road companions.
Even if you try to put bike lanes everywhere, left turns are still a fact of life. Cars and bikes have to coexist. If you regularly interact with cyclists, then I'm guessing you're on city streets with a speed limit of about 35 mph. If occasionally slowing down to 15 is that big of an inconvenience to you, then you should probably reevaluate things. Seriously. I explained why cyclists take lanes and you still insist on harboring animosity towards us for it. All for stealing valuable seconds from you. If people are stealing your right of way from you (which I see far too often) that's one thing. But you have a problem with law-abiding cyclists. That is odd to me.
All I can say is that spending quite a while as a cyclist and a pedestrian I am now as the driver aware that I am the one sitting comfortably in almost a ton of steel who can speed up effortlessly.
So much bitterness.
This is why I lobby to ban cars. With everyone wanting to "run over" cyclists and pedestrians, I feel that non-commercial motor vehicles should be made illegal; they are just too dangerous in the hands of self-identified murderers.
This is why I lobby to ban cars. With everyone wanting to "run over" cyclists and pedestrians, I feel that non-commercial motor vehicles should be made illegal; they are just too dangerous in the hands of self-identified murderers.
How exactly do you lobby for the car ban ? Just curious.
... that does indeed makes me want nothing else but to run over such lovely road companions.
Your automobile is not a toy, it is a multi-ton industrial machine.
Killing people with it is not a joke.
If you find that driving so aggravates you as to leave you feeling a desire to run bicyclists over, you need to reevaluate the amount of time you spend driving.
Your automobile is not a toy, it is a multi-ton industrial machine.
Killing people with it is not a joke.
If you find that driving so aggravates you as to leave you feeling a desire to run bicyclists over, you need to reevaluate the amount of time you spend driving.
>4. Bicyclists are a bunch of morons who almost never stop at stop signs or lights, which most likely bothers drivers so much that they vow to run over the next bicyclist they see.
Funny you say this, I worked in San Antonio for a while and there is a pretty popular area for hardcore cyclists, due to the hill-country style roads. One of the guys I worked with constantly reminded us how much he couldn't stand cyclists because even if they had plenty of room to let someone pass, they would hold up traffic simply because it was their right.
I honestly loved seeing the cyclists, it looked like fun and they seem to have quite a community. His reaction was still pretty funny and somewhat horrifying when he'd talk about his dislike of them though, got so worked up when I mentioned I was thinking of biking to and from work.
Funny you say this, I worked in San Antonio for a while and there is a pretty popular area for hardcore cyclists, due to the hill-country style roads. One of the guys I worked with constantly reminded us how much he couldn't stand cyclists because even if they had plenty of room to let someone pass, they would hold up traffic simply because it was their right.
I honestly loved seeing the cyclists, it looked like fun and they seem to have quite a community. His reaction was still pretty funny and somewhat horrifying when he'd talk about his dislike of them though, got so worked up when I mentioned I was thinking of biking to and from work.
"he couldn't stand cyclists because even if they had plenty of room to let someone pass, they would hold up traffic simply because it was their right."
I think this is just a misconception. Anytime there's not enough room in a lane for a car to safely pass entirely within the lane, the safest thing to do is to take the entire lane so cars will pass you in the next lane. It's not about holding up traffic; it's about avoiding opportunities for drivers to maim by miscalculation.
I think this is just a misconception. Anytime there's not enough room in a lane for a car to safely pass entirely within the lane, the safest thing to do is to take the entire lane so cars will pass you in the next lane. It's not about holding up traffic; it's about avoiding opportunities for drivers to maim by miscalculation.
And if someone is doing exactly that in a rush hour clogging up the street and holding up a couple of blocks worth of traffic (including buses), how does it make this cyclist look ?
If it's rush hour, traffic probably isn't moving that much faster than the cyclist. Regardless, cyclists are allowed on the road at any time of day, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. Should I be forced to drive so you can save a couple of seconds?
You do realize that rush hour is caused by too many cars on the road, right? If cars were banned from the streets at rush hour, roads would probably have higher throughput. You can fit about four people on bikes in the space that (usually) one person is taking up with their car.
Blaming people for traffic is ridiculous. Everyone causes traffic. If you want free-flowing roads, price congestion.
You do realize that rush hour is caused by too many cars on the road, right? If cars were banned from the streets at rush hour, roads would probably have higher throughput. You can fit about four people on bikes in the space that (usually) one person is taking up with their car.
Blaming people for traffic is ridiculous. Everyone causes traffic. If you want free-flowing roads, price congestion.
If you want free-flowing roads, price congestion.
But gas is already too expensive, and riding public transportation is too inconvenient! Let's blame a minority group for all our problems!!
But gas is already too expensive, and riding public transportation is too inconvenient! Let's blame a minority group for all our problems!!
It makes the road network look woefully inadequate. The solution is to add another lane, not to whine about the cyclist wanting to get home from work without dying.
Incidentally, I've almost been hit by a car who suddenly decided to take a left turn from the right lane. Bad drivers are dangerous regardless of which vehicle they happen to be piloting.
I started commuting by bike about 3 years ago and it was then that I realized how many bad motorists are on the street...and how many bad cyclists are on the street. I believe that every vehicle on the road, no matter the number of wheels, should follow the rules of the road. I think of traffic laws as a protocol. If some one doesn't follow the protocol, then there's ambiguity. And ambiguity will lead to accidents.
This is true. But it is clear that licensing doesn't help anything; automobile drivers are required to know the rules of the road, but they violate them anyway.
The best solution I can think of is to drastically reduce speed limits in areas where bicycles, cars, and pedestrians are going to be using the roads. Nothing moving faster than 20mph, and the once-fatal accidents become mere annoyances.
It will never happen, though, because people would have to take public transportation to get to work quickly. The horror!
The best solution I can think of is to drastically reduce speed limits in areas where bicycles, cars, and pedestrians are going to be using the roads. Nothing moving faster than 20mph, and the once-fatal accidents become mere annoyances.
It will never happen, though, because people would have to take public transportation to get to work quickly. The horror!
A critical masshole nearly bowled over the two guys ahead of me at a crosswalk today, while doing a super cool track stand, running a redlight, while we were crossing on a green cross signal. He topped it off by calling the gentleman he almost hit a 'bitch.' Classy masshole hipsterism at its best.
Wanting respect by cars is one thing, but pedestrian hostile cyclists deserve to get clotheslined.
Wanting respect by cars is one thing, but pedestrian hostile cyclists deserve to get clotheslined.
My local problem with cyclists are ones who ride on the shoulder of fast narrow roads. Most of them are dressed up like they are cycling for the sake of cycling -- not trying to get somewhere. This behavior makes the automobile drivers less safe by causing them to move closer to oncoming traffic in the other lane. I may be able to see them and give them room but it doesn't mean the oncoming traffic understands what's going on -- especially when the roads are curvy. In those situations I feel like side swiping the cyclist would be preferable to a head-on collusion with an oncoming vehicle.
Car drivers go on joyrides too. Are spans of straight road that few and far between? You don't have to pass immediately.
It seems like it would be harder to pass a car going 5 mph under the speed limit, which I presume happens more often. More people need to recognize how humans tend to perceive the actions of minorities and adjust their sentiments accordingly.
It seems like it would be harder to pass a car going 5 mph under the speed limit, which I presume happens more often. More people need to recognize how humans tend to perceive the actions of minorities and adjust their sentiments accordingly.
Note that the stats are from Toronto, ON. Having lived there, I can comment on how dangerous some patches of road are to ride on. Many sections of bike lane are directly in the "door zone" and the lanes themselves are often obstructed by illegally parked cars. Despite the lively cycling community, the city is not geared (pardon the pun) towards cyclists.
many people seem to assume that such accidents are usually the cyclist’s fault
Really? Of everything in this content-less article, this is the one I find surprising and for which I would be interested in some data. Other than New Yorkers witnessing crazy bike messenger antics, who thinks that bicycle riders are usually at fault in bike-car interactions?
Really? Of everything in this content-less article, this is the one I find surprising and for which I would be interested in some data. Other than New Yorkers witnessing crazy bike messenger antics, who thinks that bicycle riders are usually at fault in bike-car interactions?
If you lived in a town with a bunch of college kids thinking, "The reasonable man stops at red lights, the unreasonable man changes the world and stops global warming," or with grim-faced yuppies thinking, "I woke up at 4am so I could ride a century today, and any lazy jerk who didn't should be prepared to slam on his brakes and yield priority to my unstoppable 90 RPM," then you might feel differently. Even if they account for 5% of the riders on the road, they account for approximately 90% of public perception of cyclists. Cyclists are just like drivers -- if they're polite and responsible, they don't make any impression. Assholes are memorable. Most people don't know many cyclists personally, so it's the assholes who determine the public image.
Maybe it's a US thing. The roads and traffic culture isn't good for cycling there.
Depends on where you are. In redneck country, maybe. In any major city, not really a problem.
I am sure Europe is very similar.
(As an aside, I noticed while in Copenhagen that they have laws to prevent cyclists from riding safely. In some places, you are forced to ride on the sidewalk, sometimes separated from the street by trees, which leads to dangerous encounters at intersections where the cars are turning across the flow of forward-moving bicycle traffic. This is where most accidents happen, and is why it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk in the US... in many places, anyway.)
I am sure Europe is very similar.
(As an aside, I noticed while in Copenhagen that they have laws to prevent cyclists from riding safely. In some places, you are forced to ride on the sidewalk, sometimes separated from the street by trees, which leads to dangerous encounters at intersections where the cars are turning across the flow of forward-moving bicycle traffic. This is where most accidents happen, and is why it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk in the US... in many places, anyway.)
When it comes to sharing the road with cars, many people seem to assume that such accidents are usually the cyclist’s fault
Well, there's a context-free assertion. but that's OK, because it means we can fill up that Important Daily Blog Post with a rather obvious and unsurprising statistic. It might have been interesting to correlate accident levels with surveys of driving manners in different cities - I hear New Yorkers are famously discourteous drivers, which may have prompted the quote above - but this didn't happen. Indeed, the discussion here, even among people who consider this irrelevant, has been considerably more education than the trite little article that inspired it, and for which I hope the writer was paid a mere pittance.
Well, there's a context-free assertion. but that's OK, because it means we can fill up that Important Daily Blog Post with a rather obvious and unsurprising statistic. It might have been interesting to correlate accident levels with surveys of driving manners in different cities - I hear New Yorkers are famously discourteous drivers, which may have prompted the quote above - but this didn't happen. Indeed, the discussion here, even among people who consider this irrelevant, has been considerably more education than the trite little article that inspired it, and for which I hope the writer was paid a mere pittance.
"Well, there's a context-free assertion."
Read the comments on any newspaper article about a car-bike collision. Hard data would've been nice, but it's still a fact.
Read the comments on any newspaper article about a car-bike collision. Hard data would've been nice, but it's still a fact.
I know the view exists, but I slighted it as 'context-free' because I don't know what constitutes 'many people', especially given that commenters are self-selected and thus not statistically representative of the general population. Here in San Francisco, for example, the main newspaper (the moderate-liberal Chronicle) is awash in conservative reader commentary, but this vocal contingent's influence on election results seems to be marginal. So perhaps all the above tells us is that (for example) drivers are more likely to read newspapers as well as owning valuable vehicles, which cyclists are more likely to chat on blogs, in keeping with their lower economic outlay.
I know I'm being pedantic here. Perhaps an interesting freakonomics post would examine different perceptions of few, some, man,y most, all and other such terms, the softness of which is often abused in public discourse.
I know I'm being pedantic here. Perhaps an interesting freakonomics post would examine different perceptions of few, some, man,y most, all and other such terms, the softness of which is often abused in public discourse.
Traffic signaling designed for cars makes drivers lazy. This would help: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-e...
US roadsways, driving laws, driver education, and even drivers' habits are all based around cars interacting with cars. A quick glance that will catch a car-sized object will miss a cyclist. A collision that would be a fender-bender will do far more damage to a cyclist.
I honestly don't know what would possess people to ride a bicycle on a busy street, bike lane or no.
I honestly don't know what would possess people to ride a bicycle on a busy street, bike lane or no.
I honestly don't know what would possess people to ride a bicycle on a busy street, bike lane or no.
Quality of life -- I do it so that I don't have to deal with the anger, frustration, and sunk time and money that seems to be inherent in driving (and owning) a car.
I haven't died yet. Knock on wood
Quality of life -- I do it so that I don't have to deal with the anger, frustration, and sunk time and money that seems to be inherent in driving (and owning) a car.
I haven't died yet. Knock on wood
Here's to further not-dying!
US roadsways, driving laws, driver education, and even drivers' habits are all based around cars interacting with cars. A quick glance that will catch a car-sized object will miss a cyclist. A collision that would be a fender-bender will do far more damage to a cyclist.
Those are all facts, but not necessarily a condemnation of peoples' choice to ride a bicycle. One could just as easily see it as a critique of our car-centric culture.
Those are all facts, but not necessarily a condemnation of peoples' choice to ride a bicycle. One could just as easily see it as a critique of our car-centric culture.
Facts must be weighed. It's one thing to say "this should be safer" and another to say "this is safe".
This makes intuitive sense. A car vs. bike accident is fer worse for the cyclist than for the motorist, so it makes sense that the cyclist would be paying more attention on the road.
I think some cyclists -- because they are in the open air, with full peripheral vision and hearing, looking through no windshield, totally in tune with the environment -- expect all other vehicles on the road to have the same awareness.
But the same total awareness is impossible in a car, even among the vigilant. That's why the visibility aids, legal/customary traffic rhythms, and assigned places for different travelers on shared paths are so important.
The cyclists who scare the crap out of me seem to believe that everyone will see them even though they're in dark clothes, at dusk, with a dim taillight if anything at all, and traveling in an unexpected place (like against traffic, in crosswalks/from sidewalks as if they were pedestrians, or making turns at places or angles where other vehicles don't). I tend to see them -- though never as soon as if they were in normal flows -- but it only takes one momentarily inattentive driver for disaster to strike.
(And don't even get me started about joggers who prefer to jog in the street, often with headphones on or in dark clothes at dusk, when there's a sidewalk right there. I think the "runner's high" impairs judgment as much as some other highs.)
But the same total awareness is impossible in a car, even among the vigilant. That's why the visibility aids, legal/customary traffic rhythms, and assigned places for different travelers on shared paths are so important.
The cyclists who scare the crap out of me seem to believe that everyone will see them even though they're in dark clothes, at dusk, with a dim taillight if anything at all, and traveling in an unexpected place (like against traffic, in crosswalks/from sidewalks as if they were pedestrians, or making turns at places or angles where other vehicles don't). I tend to see them -- though never as soon as if they were in normal flows -- but it only takes one momentarily inattentive driver for disaster to strike.
(And don't even get me started about joggers who prefer to jog in the street, often with headphones on or in dark clothes at dusk, when there's a sidewalk right there. I think the "runner's high" impairs judgment as much as some other highs.)
I strongly advise you to follow the link to the source which reveals many more astounding data tidbits like
"U.S. cyclists are three times more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more than Dutch cyclists, whether compared per-trip or per-distance traveled"
http://www.projectfreeride.org/team/cycling_health_and_safet...
http://www.projectfreeride.org/team/cycling_health_and_safet...
this is interesting, from the parent:
"As levels of pedestrian and bicyclist activity rise their per capita risk falls. Drivers adapt their behavior in the presence of increased cycling and walking (17)."
(17) Jacobsen P. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. 2003.
This is exactly why I proselytize.
Why is this on Hacker News?
Even though I'm an avid biker I have the same question as you and, I'm assuming, share the same sentiment about the stories that have been appearing here lately. Still, I have to question your reasoning behind creating an account called "WhyIsThisOnHN". That's just trollish. Earn enough karma and flag posts that seem irrelevant.
Avid biker and long time lurker here, and I believe that (a) this article belongs on reddit, not on HN, (b) there has been a recent flurry of submissions with no connection to hacking or hackers and a low barrier to entry that generates inane discussions, (c) telling someone to downvote is itself trollish, because to rely solely on the downvote to express one's opinion is to expect them to remain silent and accept the opinion of the masses, and I suspect the parent is making a statement about the recent voting by the masses on HN.
I hate road bicyclists. Not the guy just trying to get somewhere on his bike, the guys wearing special suits and riding in packs blocking traffic. get a mountain bike or get a motorcycle you morons. I have to deal with these guys every day and I am sick of them engaging in ridiculously unsafe behavior that I will get fucking blamed for if I kill one of them.
You do know that you sweat just as much on a mountain bike and therefore would need to wear the same "special suits", right?
Anyway, my advice is to calm down a bit and drive slower. You'll make the roads safer for everyone, "special suit" or not.
Anyway, my advice is to calm down a bit and drive slower. You'll make the roads safer for everyone, "special suit" or not.
I think i hate the fact that everyone finds their behavior perfectly acceptable more than I hate them. I don't know about where you live, but around here they act like children. intentionally blocking cars, running full speed through intersections causing cars to slam on the brakes, and worst of all taking pride in all this by vilifying people who are just trying to get to work with annoying slogans. I ride a motorcycle, I know exactly how annoying people in cars can be, but If I did what they do i would deserve to get hit.
Sounds to me like a guy on a bike hurt your feelings once, and now you generalizing that one case to "all the time".
no...I deal with this every day, as in I just dealt with this while riding home not 10 minutes before I sat down to write this. traffic was once again massively blocked, bikers were once again changing lanes randomly in front of cars without signaling and riding through intersections in an unsafe manner. maybe it's just my commute route, but it is fucking constant.
However, as a motorist, I am often very annoyed at the cyclists (including the ones all dressed up like they should know what they are doing) who seem to think they can ignore things like stop signs, red lights, and other traffic warning devices. If you're gonna ride on the road, and expect me to follow the rules, you should too.
~JW