It's Never a Bicycle Accident(slate.com)
slate.com
It's Never a Bicycle Accident
https://slate.com/business/2021/03/shawn-bradley-bicycle-hit-by-car.html?ck_subscriber_id=1208045072
28 comments
Victimblaming is par for the course whenever a cyclist gets injured. It's really infuriating. I don't think that blaming the driver is good either, as the article says, most of the time it's a failure of the infrastructure that even made the situation possible. Very few drivers try to actively kill cyclists.
You should try cycling in my town. Okay, that's hyperbole but the way the drivers of many vehicles show massive aggression towards cyclists on the roads is narrowing the margin between an accident and a murder.
If you build roads only for cars, drivers will be pissed off when cyclists intrude on “their” space. Just like a cyclist would be pissed off if there were people walking in the bike lane. The structure of the world influences how you feel about people in it. Also definitely a bunch of assholes, but assholes tend to be fairly evenly distributed throughout the world
It's not very nice to cycle in my town either, but I don't think that they actually intend to cause a crash.
Having had an SUV drive literally drive up over the curb yelling because I was bicycling on the sidewalk I'm not willing to assume they don't ever intend to hit me. I've also had people swerve at me when I was on the gravel beside the road with a full lane-width shoulder between me and the white lane edge - they had to swerve entirely out of their lane and off the area it was legal for them to drive on to get near me. I think there's a certain sort of road rage that some people see a safe victim for and just cut lose.
They may not actually intend to cause a crash but they certainly don’t care if one happens as consequence if their actions.
> Victimblaming is par for the course whenever a cyclist gets injured.
To be fair, the injured party in an accident has no particular relevance to who is at fault.
To be fair, the injured party in an accident has no particular relevance to who is at fault.
At least in my city the statistics pretty clearly show that the drivers are "at fault" most of the time, but as I said, I believe the people responsible for the infrastructure are actually at fault. We could make our roads much safer by building them differently, but for some reason we don't.
Because to spend money on bicycle infrastructure will have to mean breaking the dominance of the car. And although rationally this would be the best thing one could do these days (at least in cities), people absolutely hate to share the road with cyclists.
For this to become more acceptable you have to have more motorists that ride the bicycle. And for that to happen you have to have better bicycle infrastructure.
For this to become more acceptable you have to have more motorists that ride the bicycle. And for that to happen you have to have better bicycle infrastructure.
No, not actively. But they took the decision to pilot tons of metal through a populated area. If you could have avoided that at all, e.g. by taking public transport or cycling yourself, and hit someone, you fully deserve the blame.
I dislike cyclists too, but this one is entirely on the drivers. Looking what vehicles are ahead of you and not running into them is not a difficult task. I think VR simulators with eye tracking could be used in the future to screen drivers who lack the required spatial abilities and keep them off the road.
There is one class of accidents where I think there is some culpability both on the part of the cyclists and infrastructure makers, though. Where the dedicated bike paths and roads intersect, there is often not enough visibility due to signs, hedges, pylons, etc. to spot some of the faster Lycra types in time. I suppose the well-meaning infrastructure makers assumed everyone is a casual cyclist going slow enough to be spotted in time.
There is one class of accidents where I think there is some culpability both on the part of the cyclists and infrastructure makers, though. Where the dedicated bike paths and roads intersect, there is often not enough visibility due to signs, hedges, pylons, etc. to spot some of the faster Lycra types in time. I suppose the well-meaning infrastructure makers assumed everyone is a casual cyclist going slow enough to be spotted in time.
That is the thing that annoys me the most. You don't walk on train tracks, you don't drive on the sidewalk. Excessive speed differences like these are dangerous. Either accept that cycling on the road is dangerous and work with that mindset or choose a fitting medium to travel for the ground given. On a bike, you are weaker and slower than the cars you share the road with. Being hit by a car won't fix infrastructure.
Bicycles are vehicles. Vehicles belong on the road. Where else?
On the bike lane. There is none? Either well behaved and aware of the circumstances on the road or under the car.
Every cyclist is inherently more well-behaved than anyone driving a dangerous, noisy and polluting machine driving through a populated area.
Especially those zigzagging with reckless speed between pedestrians on the pavement and not respecting traffic signals.
Even those. Disturbing pedestrians is not okay, of course. But why do people ride on the pavement in the first place? Because car drivers are making the road too dangerous.
Cyclist are a menace for well behaved pedestrians. They are very aggressive and endangering the well being of other people in the city centers, which are closed to general traffic or on walking paths outside of cities. Recklessly speeding between pedestrians and doing risky maneuvers thinking they are on the Tour the France.
If your oh-so-superior lifestyle is so much better, just move to a country where cars don't exist.
Cars and bikes do not belong on the same road without seperation. Mixing different speeds of transportation on the same road is inherently a stupid idea. And if you hold up everyone, don't expect people to like or respect you. Maybe i should start to park in bike lanes. Same issue really.
Cars and bikes do not belong on the same road without seperation. Mixing different speeds of transportation on the same road is inherently a stupid idea. And if you hold up everyone, don't expect people to like or respect you. Maybe i should start to park in bike lanes. Same issue really.
Why, yes. I pollute less and I'm drastically less likely to kill someone. I don't drive people mad with noise. My lifestyle is superior. Deal with it.
> Cars and bikes do not belong on the same road without seperation
That is not true. Even inside towns, cars can be driven safely at reasonable speeds of 10-20 km/h.
> Cars and bikes do not belong on the same road without seperation
That is not true. Even inside towns, cars can be driven safely at reasonable speeds of 10-20 km/h.
Well why are you still around cars when your lifestyle is so superior? There must be billions of people choosing the "superior" life.
How great that you are so superior yet you want cars to take 2-10 times as much fuel to let them drive at speeds they are not made for while creating more traffic jams. The next time i overtake a cyclist i will keep that in mind and use the first gear and full throttle.
People like you are the reason why "cyclist" becomes an insult. Justifying being annoying is a great way to make you popular i've heard.
How great that you are so superior yet you want cars to take 2-10 times as much fuel to let them drive at speeds they are not made for while creating more traffic jams. The next time i overtake a cyclist i will keep that in mind and use the first gear and full throttle.
People like you are the reason why "cyclist" becomes an insult. Justifying being annoying is a great way to make you popular i've heard.
> Well why are you still around cars when your lifestyle is so superior?
Tragedy of the commons.
> Justifying being annoying is a great way to make you popular i've heard.
Seems to work for you.
Tragedy of the commons.
> Justifying being annoying is a great way to make you popular i've heard.
Seems to work for you.
> Tragedy of the commons.
Ah so you’re saying the lifestyle isn’t superior because it throws self interest out of the discussion.
And yes, it works out quite well for me. My hatred for cyclists who don’t use the bike lanes built literally for them is growing daily and so is my skill to hold the horn for minutes and holding low speeds in first gear. They want coexistence and they get coexistence.
Ah so you’re saying the lifestyle isn’t superior because it throws self interest out of the discussion.
And yes, it works out quite well for me. My hatred for cyclists who don’t use the bike lanes built literally for them is growing daily and so is my skill to hold the horn for minutes and holding low speeds in first gear. They want coexistence and they get coexistence.
[deleted]
I wish journalism was concerned less with words and more with pointing out how to solve problems. This one in particular seems to be mostly a failure at city planning and lack of drivers education. It seems to me that car companies should be way less powerful in the US than they were 50 years ago (in terms of % of GDP), thus there should be a way out of this. Compare good and bad cities, shame the bad ones. Get insurance firms on board. Have websites compiling these kinds of things into liveability indices. Give good cities trophies or whatever. Once home prices are affected by it, incentives should be clear.
The usage of words affects people's perception of the problem though. The current wording minimises the problem to a degree that most people won't buy in to your solutions.
Trying to change words together with trying to push through solutions is IMO totally OK. But only working on the wording is to me a typical symptom of an IMO particularly useless kind of politics.
I give you a particularly egregious example coming out of Swiss German: Somewhere after WW2, handicapped people became a big topic. At the same time, the German word for "handicap" apparently started to become a bit of a swear word for some reason ("behindert"). So, politics changed the word to... "invalid". So now, people aren't just being labelled handicaped but actually worthless - thanks, I hate it. And then the word got calcified by introducing the state "invalidity insurance" (Invalidenversicherung) in 1960. Politicians really have a knack for butchering the language.
I give you a particularly egregious example coming out of Swiss German: Somewhere after WW2, handicapped people became a big topic. At the same time, the German word for "handicap" apparently started to become a bit of a swear word for some reason ("behindert"). So, politics changed the word to... "invalid". So now, people aren't just being labelled handicaped but actually worthless - thanks, I hate it. And then the word got calcified by introducing the state "invalidity insurance" (Invalidenversicherung) in 1960. Politicians really have a knack for butchering the language.
Just because a solution isn’t provided doesn’t make criticism any less valid. That’s just a way to silence people.
Only plumbers may complain about broken toilets
Only plumbers may complain about broken toilets
I crashed my bicycle just yesterday going 25mph. It started raining in the East Bay so I took the fast route home, down a winding hill with no room for cars to pass cyclists. The SUV behind me was honking and passed me, barely side swiping me. I reacted by jumping to the decaying road shoulder where there dead branches and a large crack which engulfed my front wheel. I went flying (according to my Garmin) at 24mph and probably got 15 feet of distance. No broken bones though - just bruises, rashes, and cuts.
My little daughter was hit by a bicycle riding on the sidewalk at high speed, leaving her with a permanent scar on her face. Is it a "bicycle accident"? There are millions of criminals on electric scooters and bicycles endangering the public in the cities.
> Is it a "bicycle accident"?
Yes, but no.
All of these accidents have basically nothing to do with the mode of transportation. It's a "being reckless accident". And you'll find recklessness in basically every mode of transportation ... from roller skates, over bikes, cars and even airplanes.
And, without wanting to defend the reckless, it's kind of understandable ... tail-gaiting the car in front does not go wrong 99.9% of the time. Clipping traffic on a bike does not go wrong 99.9% of the time. Going down the hill on rollerskates does not go wrong 99.9% of the time.
I understand why people are being reckless ... there is no consequence 99.9% of the time ... until ... that last time ... somebody gets hurt.
Yes, but no.
All of these accidents have basically nothing to do with the mode of transportation. It's a "being reckless accident". And you'll find recklessness in basically every mode of transportation ... from roller skates, over bikes, cars and even airplanes.
And, without wanting to defend the reckless, it's kind of understandable ... tail-gaiting the car in front does not go wrong 99.9% of the time. Clipping traffic on a bike does not go wrong 99.9% of the time. Going down the hill on rollerskates does not go wrong 99.9% of the time.
I understand why people are being reckless ... there is no consequence 99.9% of the time ... until ... that last time ... somebody gets hurt.
Another quite common headline technique is "Car hits pedestrian/bicycle/other-car". As if the car was driving itself. It somehow shifts the blame away from the driver to the object, the car. Similar to accepting that software has bugs and thus anything can happen an no one is to blame.
It sucks to read this, but its completely sound and logical for those who only drive cars. As more people start using bicycles these days, its slowing shifting though.
It sucks to read this, but its completely sound and logical for those who only drive cars. As more people start using bicycles these days, its slowing shifting though.
To realize how skewed this really is you just have to imagine a world where "a bicycle hit a pedestrian". You will never read that, it will always be "cyclist" with the implication of "your fault for even using a bike"
I’m not sure I agree with you about where to place blame. Sure, every driver has a duty to pay attention, and drive with caution - however, the sheer number of people injured by cars suggests there is a systemic problem. Blaming the driver in many incidents is like saying a lottery winner was skilled. The system is broken and has these injuries and deaths baked into it. Dealing with bad driving can only improve things to the limits of the systemic problems.
I always tell people I am not a cyclist, I am a bloke who rides a bike. The vilification of a group is how you make harming them palatable to people, and we have all heard the rhetoric surrounding "cyclists".
I am far sooner a friend, a son, a partner and someone you know, than a cyclist. I don't even qear lycra, and I spend my whole ride trying to be courteous so at least extend me the same courtesy.
Also, get off your fucking phone. Yes, you. Are you so basic and selfish you can't spend a second from your skinner box? Yes, at lights too. Driving your car is the most important thing you will do today, at least be present for the occasion. I promise the memes will be there when you get to your destination.
I am far sooner a friend, a son, a partner and someone you know, than a cyclist. I don't even qear lycra, and I spend my whole ride trying to be courteous so at least extend me the same courtesy.
Also, get off your fucking phone. Yes, you. Are you so basic and selfish you can't spend a second from your skinner box? Yes, at lights too. Driving your car is the most important thing you will do today, at least be present for the occasion. I promise the memes will be there when you get to your destination.
> get off your fucking phone
I generally look not so much at the car, but the driver, to see if he sees me. If he doesn't, I get off the road. Also if he's on the phone. If I'm behind the car, I watch for his brake lights and backup lights.
I generally look not so much at the car, but the driver, to see if he sees me. If he doesn't, I get off the road. Also if he's on the phone. If I'm behind the car, I watch for his brake lights and backup lights.
Likewise, I look for where their head is pointed. More often than it should be, they are enamored by their crotch while barelling along.
It amazes me how quickly people shift attention too, some people are back on their phone before they even finish turning at a junction. You could almost be impressed, but then you realise it's just stupity meeting luck on a daily basis.
It amazes me how quickly people shift attention too, some people are back on their phone before they even finish turning at a junction. You could almost be impressed, but then you realise it's just stupity meeting luck on a daily basis.
> Also, get off your fucking phone.
Years ago... before smartphones become an epidemic on the roads, I got personalized number plates AFK as a very nerdy joke. But these days I see them as a message to everyone about staying off their phones...
Years ago... before smartphones become an epidemic on the roads, I got personalized number plates AFK as a very nerdy joke. But these days I see them as a message to everyone about staying off their phones...
and we have all heard the rhetoric surrounding "cyclists".
I know how entrenched each sides are in this argument - drivers and cyclists. Neither will give an inch.
The best way to get cyclists some kind of safety is to INSIST on a full bore licensing, registering, insuring framework for cyclists just as the ones that exist for motor vehicles. Yes some form of license plates, registration, driving licenses, point deductions for bad riding etc.
And taxes and fees just like for motor vehicles, whether ICE vehicles or electric vehicles.
You cant just hop on a bicycle use infrastructure others are paying for and expect to be treated like equals without paying into the system your fair share.
Governments, underwriters, law enforcement & other stake holders just dont have any incentives to respond to your concerns, any other way. This is how the world works. It is in the interest of bicyclists to make it work for them through those ways.
We don't have a walking license and sidewalk tax either, and humans do not need to walk around with identifying serial numbers visible from afar either. Licenses are often about mitigating safety risk more than what the average human body could do alone.
Yeah no that's just BS. Why is it always okay to judge all cyclists by the worst offenders, but drivers are only judged by their own personal actions? If that's the way the argument should go, the group of drivers are far, far, far worse than cyclists. How many are killed by a cyclist each year, compared to a driver? So yeah, arguing about the merits of the "groups" is just plain useless.
The taxes for a car aren't even close to offsetting their costs on society (infrastructure, external factors like pollution etc). I already pay for the infrastructure through taxes. And most cyclists (including me) also operate cars. So that's not really an argument. Making cycling cheaper is a also net win (health, environment,+++), so making cycling more expensive is a stupid idea. Actually, saying "cyclists should pay your fair share" would mean that cycling would end up cheaper than now, and cars even more expensive. So I'm all for it.
The taxes for a car aren't even close to offsetting their costs on society (infrastructure, external factors like pollution etc). I already pay for the infrastructure through taxes. And most cyclists (including me) also operate cars. So that's not really an argument. Making cycling cheaper is a also net win (health, environment,+++), so making cycling more expensive is a stupid idea. Actually, saying "cyclists should pay your fair share" would mean that cycling would end up cheaper than now, and cars even more expensive. So I'm all for it.
I can already be fined as a cyclist for running a red light or riding on the pavement. I already pay tax that funds city infrastructure for roads, bike lanes and shared spaces. Why do I need a new, convoluted administrative burden introduced that does basically nothing other than encourage less people to ride a bike?
Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs as if they were mere suggestions and nothing more.
As do a lot of car drivers.
As do a lot of car drivers.
By the numbers, way more car drivers do.
Yes, there have been a number of studies that show that’s the case.
This is incredible. Starting in reverse,
> And taxes and fees just like for motor vehicles, whether ICE vehicles or electric vehicles
Those taxes and fees are for road upkeep and resurfacing. The fourth power law [0] tells us that bicycles have (if we're being exceedingly generous) a negligible impact, even relative to the average Mazda Miata.
> licensing, registering, insuring framework for cyclists
We have gun licenses, hunting licenses, driving licenses, pilot's licenses, and more. Note that all of the above can and will kill you, or those around you, if practiced unsafely. Per the fine article above, "It's Never a Bicycle Accident" is an astute way of putting it. Shawn Bradley isn't paralyzed because he was cycling unsafely, but because someone else was driving unsafely.
The same point is made regarding insurance: mandatory insurance means if you're in an accident someone else causes, your car isn't totaled or in need of thousands of dollars worth of work that the at-fault party can't pay for. This isn't much of an issue with bicycles though: a car can easily cause thousands in medical bills, but a vehicle is driving away relatively unscathed from any interaction with a cyclist.
> Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs
We come to a full stop when driving to verify it's safe. If it's safe, there's no penalty for coming to a complete stop. If it's unsafe, we recognize that it takes time and distance to stop your 2-ton vehicle; as such, it's a good thing you were already stopped. Considering cyclists weigh approximately an order of magnitude less, they also take dramatically less time to stop.
Do note that with the above, we're even arguing to your point: the cyclists rolling through signage are simultaneously the worst offenders, and the ones most likely to have their lives altered because of it. While we can say the best drivers can kill someone, the worst cyclists aren't going to kill anyone but themselves.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test
> And taxes and fees just like for motor vehicles, whether ICE vehicles or electric vehicles
Those taxes and fees are for road upkeep and resurfacing. The fourth power law [0] tells us that bicycles have (if we're being exceedingly generous) a negligible impact, even relative to the average Mazda Miata.
> licensing, registering, insuring framework for cyclists
We have gun licenses, hunting licenses, driving licenses, pilot's licenses, and more. Note that all of the above can and will kill you, or those around you, if practiced unsafely. Per the fine article above, "It's Never a Bicycle Accident" is an astute way of putting it. Shawn Bradley isn't paralyzed because he was cycling unsafely, but because someone else was driving unsafely.
The same point is made regarding insurance: mandatory insurance means if you're in an accident someone else causes, your car isn't totaled or in need of thousands of dollars worth of work that the at-fault party can't pay for. This isn't much of an issue with bicycles though: a car can easily cause thousands in medical bills, but a vehicle is driving away relatively unscathed from any interaction with a cyclist.
> Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs
We come to a full stop when driving to verify it's safe. If it's safe, there's no penalty for coming to a complete stop. If it's unsafe, we recognize that it takes time and distance to stop your 2-ton vehicle; as such, it's a good thing you were already stopped. Considering cyclists weigh approximately an order of magnitude less, they also take dramatically less time to stop.
Do note that with the above, we're even arguing to your point: the cyclists rolling through signage are simultaneously the worst offenders, and the ones most likely to have their lives altered because of it. While we can say the best drivers can kill someone, the worst cyclists aren't going to kill anyone but themselves.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test
I too, as a regular cyclist, would like to see more cyclists fined when they run red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle in the wrong direction etc., but enforcement is also lacking for motorists who run red lights, speed, or drive while on the phone. A critical difference is that motorists ignoring traffic law put others at risk, whereas cyclists usually only endanger themselves, if at all.
I don't see how licensing, registering, mandatory insurance etc. will change anything, but make cycling less popular.
Per my understanding, road infrastructure is typically paid from general taxes (obviously depending on country). As cyclists require less road space, cause less road wear and have practically no environmental burden compared to motorists it's probably the case that we pay a disproportionately high percentage of infrastcuture costs.
I don't see how licensing, registering, mandatory insurance etc. will change anything, but make cycling less popular.
Per my understanding, road infrastructure is typically paid from general taxes (obviously depending on country). As cyclists require less road space, cause less road wear and have practically no environmental burden compared to motorists it's probably the case that we pay a disproportionately high percentage of infrastcuture costs.
You are simply misinformed.
I pay for the infrastructure, it comes from income tax not registration. Yet look how little of my money goes to bicycle infrastructure anyway. Registration typically covers registration administration and sometimes third party insurance levys, different state to state but it almost never covers infrastructure. I also have two cars anyway, every cyclist I know owns a car.
Where I live, bicycle infractions are fineable and also demerit your car license. So no problem there but enforcement.
Of course cyclists can be in the wrong, but riders die when motorists are in the wrong, the stakes aren't the same. Saying cyclists are in the wrong doesn't suddenly make the mistakes equal. We could bicker about this point ad nauseum but motorists are the ones who chose to bring a lethal weapon into the community that day so it's their responsibility to make sure not to kill anyone.
Now this one is controversial and I am sure there are tonnes of selfish cyclists, but when I do anything marginally illegal it is in order to give drivers an easier time or make myself safe. I will pull onto the footpath in order to do a hook turn instead of sitting in the intersection for one example. Technically not illegal here either but motorists assume I am trying to cut ahead.
I pay for the infrastructure, it comes from income tax not registration. Yet look how little of my money goes to bicycle infrastructure anyway. Registration typically covers registration administration and sometimes third party insurance levys, different state to state but it almost never covers infrastructure. I also have two cars anyway, every cyclist I know owns a car.
Where I live, bicycle infractions are fineable and also demerit your car license. So no problem there but enforcement.
Of course cyclists can be in the wrong, but riders die when motorists are in the wrong, the stakes aren't the same. Saying cyclists are in the wrong doesn't suddenly make the mistakes equal. We could bicker about this point ad nauseum but motorists are the ones who chose to bring a lethal weapon into the community that day so it's their responsibility to make sure not to kill anyone.
Now this one is controversial and I am sure there are tonnes of selfish cyclists, but when I do anything marginally illegal it is in order to give drivers an easier time or make myself safe. I will pull onto the footpath in order to do a hook turn instead of sitting in the intersection for one example. Technically not illegal here either but motorists assume I am trying to cut ahead.
As a cyclist I sometimes run red lights if it is safe. Why? Bacause I cannot get from A to B with a bicycle with the current infrastructure.
In my city of 30k people there are several traffic lights equipped with road sensors. So they only ever go green if something heavy enough or with enough metal / magnetic mass in it rolls over it. Especially for left-turn signals it's impossible to get them triggered as a cyclist here.
One will remember waiting in the middle of the road for a few minutes. So I decided I'll come to a stop if needed and see that it's safe to run the red light. I'd even do it if police is seeing it.
This topic has also been raised to the city council and local administration but I guess my tax money will not be spent on cycle friendly infrastructure.
> You cant just hop on a bicycle use infrastructure others are paying for and expect to be treated like equals without paying into the system your fair share.
There are a few studies that show that cycling saves cost while driving cars is subsidized by the government. That's taking taxes, fees into acount. Even the heavy petrol taxes in Europe.
Probably it helps to keep that in mind if one is again annoyed by cyclists (read people) using the road.
In my city of 30k people there are several traffic lights equipped with road sensors. So they only ever go green if something heavy enough or with enough metal / magnetic mass in it rolls over it. Especially for left-turn signals it's impossible to get them triggered as a cyclist here.
One will remember waiting in the middle of the road for a few minutes. So I decided I'll come to a stop if needed and see that it's safe to run the red light. I'd even do it if police is seeing it.
This topic has also been raised to the city council and local administration but I guess my tax money will not be spent on cycle friendly infrastructure.
> You cant just hop on a bicycle use infrastructure others are paying for and expect to be treated like equals without paying into the system your fair share.
There are a few studies that show that cycling saves cost while driving cars is subsidized by the government. That's taking taxes, fees into acount. Even the heavy petrol taxes in Europe.
Probably it helps to keep that in mind if one is again annoyed by cyclists (read people) using the road.
Never? Some accidents involving bicycles and cars are the bicycle's fault, some are the car's fault. Some are both, some are neither's.
Dutch law has a nice solution: liability correlates with weight. The more weight you put on the street, the more explaining you have to do, because you chose to potentially cause more damage. In a collision, the weightiest vehicle therefore is by default liable, unless they can prove otherwise. This means that in bicycle-car accidents, drivers almost always pay, and in bicycles pedestrian accident the cyclist.
We are trying to persuade our government here in Scotland that presumed liability [1] would be very effective. It is common throughout Europe.
[1] https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/blog/article/the-time-is-...
[1] https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/blog/article/the-time-is-...
> you chose to potentially cause more damage
Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked.
And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false. Any human has limits to reaction time, can't see everything and so on, fixing that substantially is really hard if not impossible (self-driving cars, maybe).
Yes, as a driver I basically chose to sign a blood contract to kill people with low probability cause I'm not a perfect machine. But did I have much choice? Driving my mom to a hospital on a bike is impossible. Are you sure you didn't sign other such contracts in you life for yourself and your family? Are you sure your quality of life you chose does not condemn other people to poverty and death?
Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked.
And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false. Any human has limits to reaction time, can't see everything and so on, fixing that substantially is really hard if not impossible (self-driving cars, maybe).
Yes, as a driver I basically chose to sign a blood contract to kill people with low probability cause I'm not a perfect machine. But did I have much choice? Driving my mom to a hospital on a bike is impossible. Are you sure you didn't sign other such contracts in you life for yourself and your family? Are you sure your quality of life you chose does not condemn other people to poverty and death?
By entering a heavy vehicle capable of generating orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than human beings on foot, yes, you have assumed the consequent responsibility of being more likely to cause severe accidents.
Fortunately hospitals here are accessible by both bike and public transport, and there are insurance provided taxi's for people who can't use them but do have to get to a hospital.
But, none of this means you can't drive a car. It just means by doing that you accept the appropriate responsibility, which plenty of Dutch people do every day! We are known for bikes, but the truth is that we are also amongst the biggest drivers (in terms of distance) in Europe.
Fortunately hospitals here are accessible by both bike and public transport, and there are insurance provided taxi's for people who can't use them but do have to get to a hospital.
But, none of this means you can't drive a car. It just means by doing that you accept the appropriate responsibility, which plenty of Dutch people do every day! We are known for bikes, but the truth is that we are also amongst the biggest drivers (in terms of distance) in Europe.
> Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked.
>
> And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false.
It's a "deadly environment" only because there are people who choose to surround themselves with "a metric ton of rigid metal."
It's a "deadly environment" only because there are people who choose to surround themselves with "a metric ton of rigid metal."
As you can afford a car, you can buy a dashcam to demonstrate to a court what the cyclist was doing wrong that might have caused you to crash into them.
What fraction of your trips are driving your mom to the hospital?
I've seen cyclists drafting behind trucks, where they ride about 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph.
If something happens up front and the trucker has to hit the brakes hard, is it his fault if the cyclist goes under his rear bumper?
If something happens up front and the trucker has to hit the brakes hard, is it his fault if the cyclist goes under his rear bumper?
For every well intended law there has to be someone who can conjure a ridiculous scenario out of thin air to prove that the whole concept is meaningless. But guess what: this is traffic, not programming. And intent matters.
It's not ridiculous. I've seen them do it with my own eyes (I was driving a bit back from the truck, I gave the pair a lot of extra space). I've heard other cyclists talking about how they regularly draft.
Yes, but you are using this to make it seem as though the law is ridiculous because it does not account for situations like that. Which it does. If you run into the back of a vehicle due to stupidity and reckless behavior (which applies to bicycles just as it would to other vehicles) then you will find that you can't claim it was the driver of the vehicles fault.
You are trying to make an argument that default liability is unjust and you are failing at that.
You are trying to make an argument that default liability is unjust and you are failing at that.
Mixing modalities like that is forbidden and not necessary in almost all of the Netherlands. Locations can always be reached by bike path, and only slow speed often urban roads allow mixing. The trucker could point out the bike was on a road it wasn't allowed.
It is only abroad that I started to see such dangerous cycling, and then discovered this idiotic war between the modalities.
It is only abroad that I started to see such dangerous cycling, and then discovered this idiotic war between the modalities.
Well, looks like the law will work there. He'll have lots of explaining to do and the explaining will be easy. Hardly sounds like a counter-example.
The idea of "default" liability is unjust. Who is at fault needs to be proven, at least with a preponderance of evidence. If that cannot be done, then liability should be shared.
No, the idea of "default" liability is just. Since driving in most places is a privilege not a right, arbitrary restrictions can be imposed. In this case, the restrictions simply involve increased risk of sanctions for the ability to drive increasingly risky vehicles.
This has a strong precedent: Class A vs Class C licences.
This has a strong precedent: Class A vs Class C licences.
> 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph.
Most cyclists would struggle to go much more than half of that speed. I think this must be an outlier.
I've also seen cars drafting behind trucks on the motorway doing 90kph. But they are a minority.
Most cyclists would struggle to go much more than half of that speed. I think this must be an outlier.
I've also seen cars drafting behind trucks on the motorway doing 90kph. But they are a minority.
In all fairness that sounds a lot like "laws do not exist for cyclists". Having to prove your innocence is incompatible with the idea of rule of law.
As a car driver, I would start setting up dash cams (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR) to help me proving my innocence.
As a car driver, I would start setting up dash cams (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR) to help me proving my innocence.
Both parties in the accident would need to prove their innocence. All else being equal, the party that introduced more kinetic energy onto public roads will be taken to be the most likely source of excess kinetic energy causing the accident.
> (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR)
Its wrong, dashcams are legal in most EU countries, but you don't have any right on the image diffusion.
[edit] I just checked, and tbh, you should search "are dashcam legal in the EU", yoiu'll have a list of countries in which its legal or illegal. Nothing to do with GDPR.
Its wrong, dashcams are legal in most EU countries, but you don't have any right on the image diffusion.
[edit] I just checked, and tbh, you should search "are dashcam legal in the EU", yoiu'll have a list of countries in which its legal or illegal. Nothing to do with GDPR.
I see the problem with the headline, so I can understand the overreaction. But you're right, "never" is as unrealistic as the headline.
I had to execute an extreme manouver to avoid hitting a kamikaze that cut through three lanes almost perpendicularly in very heavy traffic downtown Madrid. He scared the hell out of me, I still remember it clearly fifteen years later.
I had to execute an extreme manouver to avoid hitting a kamikaze that cut through three lanes almost perpendicularly in very heavy traffic downtown Madrid. He scared the hell out of me, I still remember it clearly fifteen years later.
> I had to execute an extreme manouver to avoid hitting a kamikaze that cut through three lanes almost perpendicularly in very heavy traffic downtown Madrid.
How curious. You take issue with the exact interpretation of 'never' and yet use a figurative interpretation of 'kamikaze'.
Allow me to simulate a response to your comment in the style of GP:
> Kamikaze? You saw a Japanese attack aircraft cut through three lanes perpendicularly in very heavy traffic in downtown Madrid fifteen years ago? That sounds very unlikely.
How curious. You take issue with the exact interpretation of 'never' and yet use a figurative interpretation of 'kamikaze'.
Allow me to simulate a response to your comment in the style of GP:
> Kamikaze? You saw a Japanese attack aircraft cut through three lanes perpendicularly in very heavy traffic in downtown Madrid fifteen years ago? That sounds very unlikely.
For none of them it's useful to think of "an accident" because that doesn't lead to actions that prevent future crashes.
Absolutely. Motorcyclists are actually pretty good at adopting this philosophy, or at least the ones I know. Of course motorcycles (for the most part) have the advantage of being able to out accelerate most cars on the road so they have some extra options.
An accident is an unintentional crash, which is not the same thing as not somebody's fault or not preventable.
IMO, the word 'accident' implies a lack of negligence.
Google says:
"an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."
I'll stick by my remark on it :-)
"an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."
I'll stick by my remark on it :-)
Totally agreed, above all as a full-time cyclist
I've also been struck by behind, on my left arm, by a car driving fast. Couldn't use my arm for 1 month
Small nitpicking: I just don't like the final sentence comparison with
> "That’s not a bike accident more than getting bit by a shark is a swimming accident"
Sharks do it intentionally, even if that's probably often out of confusion with other preys (they don't like human flesh), it's a natural thing as much as a rhino could charge you, a croco or a mosquito could also bit you. Cars however, is one of the many artificial things in this over-consumption society. I'd have more compared it like:
> That’s not a bike accident more than getting shot by a bullet while walking in the street is an accident
I've also been struck by behind, on my left arm, by a car driving fast. Couldn't use my arm for 1 month
Small nitpicking: I just don't like the final sentence comparison with
> "That’s not a bike accident more than getting bit by a shark is a swimming accident"
Sharks do it intentionally, even if that's probably often out of confusion with other preys (they don't like human flesh), it's a natural thing as much as a rhino could charge you, a croco or a mosquito could also bit you. Cars however, is one of the many artificial things in this over-consumption society. I'd have more compared it like:
> That’s not a bike accident more than getting shot by a bullet while walking in the street is an accident
One of the linked accidents in the article looks terrible, a man is cycling along the road, a bus overtakes him and clips his handlebars, knocking him to the ground and then running over his torso with the rear wheels of the bus.
What a lot of people don’t realise is that you can’t overtake bicycles in a single lane. If there’s no cycle path/markings a bicycle takes up the full lane for exactly this reason. Bicycles can’t cycle close to parked cars due to passenger doors opening up randomly, and the sides of the road by the curb is generally not maintained enough to cycle in.
Cars/buses/trucks have to wait until they can safely overtake.
What a lot of people don’t realise is that you can’t overtake bicycles in a single lane. If there’s no cycle path/markings a bicycle takes up the full lane for exactly this reason. Bicycles can’t cycle close to parked cars due to passenger doors opening up randomly, and the sides of the road by the curb is generally not maintained enough to cycle in.
Cars/buses/trucks have to wait until they can safely overtake.
The solution to this is fixing local legislation. As a car driver your risk is asymmetric: you will have a few scratches/dents on your car and the other side ends up in hospital (or worse). So, it's important to bias traffic rules to protecting more vulnerable participants like cyclists or pedestrians.
Here are some examples of things that work in various countries:
The Netherlands fixed this ages ago. You hit a cyclist with a car, it's your fault regardless of the circumstances for the insurers. The net result is a country where drivers are very mindful of cyclists and check their right side mirrors before turning right and their left side mirror before 'dooring' a passing cyclist. Failing to do that is expensive and there are so many cyclists that it is in any case a good idea. Besides, nobody wants it on their conscience to have people hospitalized because of inattention, sloppiness, or incompetence.
France at some point introduced a simple traffic rule that states that when over taking cyclists you need to give them a lot of space. So, now you see cars slowing down and overtaking cyclists properly on two lane country roads: i.e. waiting for the left lane to clear and then using that and giving the cyclist at least a meter or so of clearance. It's kind of funny to see that in action but it works. Failing to do that has hefty fines associated with it if you get caught. So drivers actually do this. France has a lot of cyclists on country roads training and getting taken over by cars doing 90 km/hour is not risk free unless they keep their distance. So, a completely sane rule. Any accidents tend to be very nasty. And again, nobody wants that on their conscience anyway.
London introduced fees for entering the downtown area. Unless you have to be there, you'll want to avoid that because it's expensive. It also has cameras all over the place so if you mess up, it will be on camera. That was mainly done for pollution and security reasons but it also made it a safer place to bike around.
Here are some examples of things that work in various countries:
The Netherlands fixed this ages ago. You hit a cyclist with a car, it's your fault regardless of the circumstances for the insurers. The net result is a country where drivers are very mindful of cyclists and check their right side mirrors before turning right and their left side mirror before 'dooring' a passing cyclist. Failing to do that is expensive and there are so many cyclists that it is in any case a good idea. Besides, nobody wants it on their conscience to have people hospitalized because of inattention, sloppiness, or incompetence.
France at some point introduced a simple traffic rule that states that when over taking cyclists you need to give them a lot of space. So, now you see cars slowing down and overtaking cyclists properly on two lane country roads: i.e. waiting for the left lane to clear and then using that and giving the cyclist at least a meter or so of clearance. It's kind of funny to see that in action but it works. Failing to do that has hefty fines associated with it if you get caught. So drivers actually do this. France has a lot of cyclists on country roads training and getting taken over by cars doing 90 km/hour is not risk free unless they keep their distance. So, a completely sane rule. Any accidents tend to be very nasty. And again, nobody wants that on their conscience anyway.
London introduced fees for entering the downtown area. Unless you have to be there, you'll want to avoid that because it's expensive. It also has cameras all over the place so if you mess up, it will be on camera. That was mainly done for pollution and security reasons but it also made it a safer place to bike around.
Unfortunately I don't think such a law would be politically tenable in america, which is probably why it hasn't happened.
Most people in the Netherlands and in France have themselves been on a bicycle within car traffic, I feel that's more likely the reason why they are careful when they overtake a bicycle, rather than the fines.
For this reason I always try to drive in the center of the lane or even in the left tire-track of a lane when cycling in places without a shoulder or dedicated bike lane; that is, make it clear they can't just scoot past me on the left by taking as much of the lane as possible.
That's also super dangerous because car drivers are aggressive dicks who seem to hate anyone on a bike, so I generally won't cycle in places without bike lanes or shoulders unless it's like 4am and the roads are totally abandoned, but I'd rather risk getting deliberately rammed by a car than accidentally squished between lanes.
That's also super dangerous because car drivers are aggressive dicks who seem to hate anyone on a bike, so I generally won't cycle in places without bike lanes or shoulders unless it's like 4am and the roads are totally abandoned, but I'd rather risk getting deliberately rammed by a car than accidentally squished between lanes.
Not sure why you're downvoted, I do similar exactly because otherwise cars pass me by a mere few centimetres. If I'm in the middle of the lane, they can't unless they're really set on pushing me off, and then at least I have a buffer of space to my right that I can verve into.
If you stick to the side of the road, you make it the default decision for people (many of which I'm sure might not if they knew better) to pass too close to you, plus you've got no buffer or escape route.
The thing is most people don't understand that putting yourself in the middle of the lane, as a bike, is the safest thing to do for everyone. Motorcycles are taught to do exactly that: position themselves so that they positively take their lane.
If you stick to the side of the road, you make it the default decision for people (many of which I'm sure might not if they knew better) to pass too close to you, plus you've got no buffer or escape route.
The thing is most people don't understand that putting yourself in the middle of the lane, as a bike, is the safest thing to do for everyone. Motorcycles are taught to do exactly that: position themselves so that they positively take their lane.
Drivers hate cyclists because they're slow, dangerous, usually don't follow rules of the road (regarding stops, traffic lights, right of way, one-way streets) and they can die, or be badly injured, as soon as they get in contact with anything at all for a microsecond.
Cycling in the city is scary because going with a bike in the traffic is straight-up insanity.
Cycling in the city is scary because going with a bike in the traffic is straight-up insanity.
As someone pointed out downthread, there are no "cyclists", just other people who, at that time, are on bikes.
Hating someone and unnecessarily acting in ways that might cause their death because they are moving slowly due to being on a bike is, to put it mildly, psychotic.
Hating someone and unnecessarily acting in ways that might cause their death because they are moving slowly due to being on a bike is, to put it mildly, psychotic.
Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not questioning that for a second.
That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the biker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. They can stop at any time on the road for some reason without even a warning, and as soon as you touch them they're pretty much dead. That's enough to give any driver a 500% stress increase. And I'm sure for the biker is the same.
I know I sound like an asshole but if drivers hate cyclists, and pedestrians hate cyclists, and motorbikers hate cyclists, and public transport drivers hate cyclists, and truck drivers hate cyclists, and politicians hate cyclists... I'm not saying they're right, but for sure there is a recurring reason that's worth investigating.
That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the biker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. They can stop at any time on the road for some reason without even a warning, and as soon as you touch them they're pretty much dead. That's enough to give any driver a 500% stress increase. And I'm sure for the biker is the same.
I know I sound like an asshole but if drivers hate cyclists, and pedestrians hate cyclists, and motorbikers hate cyclists, and public transport drivers hate cyclists, and truck drivers hate cyclists, and politicians hate cyclists... I'm not saying they're right, but for sure there is a recurring reason that's worth investigating.
If roads are busy, it's worth noting traffic is created by motorized vehicles in the first place... plus, if slowing down is required to make roads safer, what? why is that a problem attributed to cyclists if usually (depending on which part of the world you live) cyclists don't have alternatives?
> That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained.
Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer.
You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.
Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer.
You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.
That's not true when you're forced to do 10km/h for prolonged periods of time (that's hindrance to traffic and you can usually get a fine for that) because you can't safely overtake a bycicle that's going in a zig-zag way on the lane to avoid a myriad of potholes, or because it's an uphill road and it's too physically taxing for the biker, sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road.
That's only stress and useless danger for everyone involved.
That's only stress and useless danger for everyone involved.
> sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road
If we use that logic we can make all kinds of arguments about a car being the wrong vehicle for the wrong roads.
For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved?
If we use that logic we can make all kinds of arguments about a car being the wrong vehicle for the wrong roads.
For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved?
> For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved?
Yes, SUVs are stupid and totally the wrong type of vehicle for a city, but for a different set of reasons.
Yes, SUVs are stupid and totally the wrong type of vehicle for a city, but for a different set of reasons.
What people like you don't get is that 90+% of the roads are open for all kinds of traffic.
Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars.
But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traffic that is the "wrong vehicle for the road".
And it would also be the very same people who would complain about a cycle path beside the road as it's a waste of tax dollars in their mind if it's not used by thousands of cyclists a day.
I don't get it. If you just hate people that power their transportation themselves say it, but don't use such excuses.
Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars.
But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traffic that is the "wrong vehicle for the road".
And it would also be the very same people who would complain about a cycle path beside the road as it's a waste of tax dollars in their mind if it's not used by thousands of cyclists a day.
I don't get it. If you just hate people that power their transportation themselves say it, but don't use such excuses.
A digger, a horse, a motorbike, a roman chariot or a cow are all preferable alternatives to cyclists on road, for the simple fact that, with all other means of transport, you get a lot more leeway if something goes awry for whatever reason (e.g. a pothole).
With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder.
Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look forward to that actually. But having bikes and cars together is a glaring design failure and, quite honestly, nothing more than pure insanity.
With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder.
Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look forward to that actually. But having bikes and cars together is a glaring design failure and, quite honestly, nothing more than pure insanity.
If you are going to hit a cyclist because the cyclist dodged a pothole then you are not leaving enough safety distance.
In my country you need to pass cyclists with minimum 1.5m distance to the side within city/village (usually 50 kph speed limits) or 2m outside of the city/village.
That minimum distance is there especially for such situations where the cyclist needs to dodge Potholes, Glass, ...
That minimum distance is also required if the cyclist is riding on the shoulder. Some paint on between you and the cyclist doesn't keep anyone of you safe on it's own.
In my country you need to pass cyclists with minimum 1.5m distance to the side within city/village (usually 50 kph speed limits) or 2m outside of the city/village.
That minimum distance is there especially for such situations where the cyclist needs to dodge Potholes, Glass, ...
That minimum distance is also required if the cyclist is riding on the shoulder. Some paint on between you and the cyclist doesn't keep anyone of you safe on it's own.
> With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder.
You chose the 800 millisecond value by choosing to follow too closely.
You can make it whatever interval is most convenient for you.
You chose the 800 millisecond value by choosing to follow too closely.
You can make it whatever interval is most convenient for you.
[deleted]
And what's the danger here? If having to drive slowly makes you so angry you can't drive safely, you shouldn't be driving at all.
Yeah, more like 20km/h, the horror. And any young cyclist will take it to 30kmh which happen to be the limit in crowded city center. And with electric bikes, i think even elderly could make it. Idc anyway, my 2nd gear lowest speed is 18km/h and i am slower than most cyclists.
You should overtake the cyclist the same way you overtake a car, in my country there is a fine if you're doing it wrong.
You should overtake the cyclist the same way you overtake a car, in my country there is a fine if you're doing it wrong.
> You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.
Yes. And this doesn't just take into account cyclists, it also takes into account car doors suddenly opening or pedestrians suddenly walking into the road.
Yes. And this doesn't just take into account cyclists, it also takes into account car doors suddenly opening or pedestrians suddenly walking into the road.
To use your logic about "everyone hating cyclists" (which is not true, but believe what you want..):
If traffic with cars+cars have thousands lethal accidents, cars+cyclists have lots of lethal accidents, but cyclists+cyclists have almost no lethal accidents, isn't it worth investigating? Maybe the problem here is the cars on the road. Hmm, removing them is probably a good idea.
If traffic with cars+cars have thousands lethal accidents, cars+cyclists have lots of lethal accidents, but cyclists+cyclists have almost no lethal accidents, isn't it worth investigating? Maybe the problem here is the cars on the road. Hmm, removing them is probably a good idea.
>If traffic with cars+cars have thousands lethal accidents, cars+cyclists have lots of lethal accidents, but cyclists+cyclists have almost no lethal accidents, isn't it worth investigating? Maybe the problem here is the cars on the road. Hmm, removing them is probably a good idea.
I totally and completely agree. I'm OK with car-free cities. But having both on the same road is wrong and insane.
I totally and completely agree. I'm OK with car-free cities. But having both on the same road is wrong and insane.
There's a sense of ownership in your posts -- the roads are for cars, and everyone else gets to use them with your permission.
But that's cobblers, isn't it? The roads are there for everyone. People get to use them because they're members of our society and following the law, not because they happen to use one particular type of vehicle.
But that's cobblers, isn't it? The roads are there for everyone. People get to use them because they're members of our society and following the law, not because they happen to use one particular type of vehicle.
> I know I sound like an asshole but if drivers hate cyclists, and pedestrians hate cyclists, and motorbikers hate cyclists, and public transport drivers hate cyclists, and truck drivers hate cyclists, and politicians hate cyclists..
Because cyclists need their own dedicated cycleways which at least in the UK there aren't many of. Cyclists are going too slow for motorised vehicles and too fast for pedestrians.
Because cyclists need their own dedicated cycleways which at least in the UK there aren't many of. Cyclists are going too slow for motorised vehicles and too fast for pedestrians.
None of those groups of people "hate cyclists", this is a flat out lie and generalisation.
"slow" very much depends on the city. In lots of places (eg, London) cyclists easily keep up with the speed of traffic.
No-one should break the rules or the law. I'm curious why you think cyclists are more likely to do so. It's easy to find many examples of drivers breaking both. https://www.youtube.com/user/CyclingMikey
No-one should break the rules or the law. I'm curious why you think cyclists are more likely to do so. It's easy to find many examples of drivers breaking both. https://www.youtube.com/user/CyclingMikey
> No-one should break the rules or the law.
I actually disagree with this. You should not break the spirit of the law, and as citizens we have the moral responsibility to ensure we challenge the law where it is inappropriate or misguided by breaking it. The law is fallible and laws change over time, they often put in place for reasons that no longer apply (or are completely false premises in the first place). A great example is jaywalking - which if enforced is completely ridiculous.
Regarding cycling, the highway code wasn't really written for cycling safety. Some red lights are actually safer for a cyclist to jump, it's often safer to mount the pavement and cycle in places - sometimes there's badly designed cycle lanes that end in the middle of nowhere with no option to cycle safely, one-way streets and low traffic areas can force rule abiding cyclists down unsafe busy roads etc. etc.
I actually disagree with this. You should not break the spirit of the law, and as citizens we have the moral responsibility to ensure we challenge the law where it is inappropriate or misguided by breaking it. The law is fallible and laws change over time, they often put in place for reasons that no longer apply (or are completely false premises in the first place). A great example is jaywalking - which if enforced is completely ridiculous.
Regarding cycling, the highway code wasn't really written for cycling safety. Some red lights are actually safer for a cyclist to jump, it's often safer to mount the pavement and cycle in places - sometimes there's badly designed cycle lanes that end in the middle of nowhere with no option to cycle safely, one-way streets and low traffic areas can force rule abiding cyclists down unsafe busy roads etc. etc.
I've been teaching my girlfriend how to cycle in London recently. I've told her that she needs to stand her ground, and not cycle so close to the pavement. It's scary though. I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous
Cycling close to the pavement is super dangerous because if your pedal so much as touches the kerbstones on the downstroke you'll get thrown into traffic. I've seen more than one kid fall in the way of oncoming traffic like that, fortunately without anybody getting hurt but still, it can happen in a fraction of a second.
> I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous
I always let the bus and the truck have the right of way, even when I'm in my car, because I prefer to die in my bed.
I always let the bus and the truck have the right of way, even when I'm in my car, because I prefer to die in my bed.
This 10,000x! The people who tell cyclists they need to “follow the rules of the road” are the same ones who will tailgate you and yell at you when you take up the full lane.
[deleted]
Absolutely untrue. I am not a cyclist but i have about once in 3 months or so, a near accident where i just barely avoid crushing or rolling over some crazy cyclist that falls on his damn bike right under my car or drives from round the corner at full speed without damn looking anywhere. However careful i am trying to be it's just a matter of luck that i didn't kill anyone (and i once scratched my car and the other guy's a bit avoiding that in the last split second, once). And i totally can't see how it is my fault. At the very best, they are a hinderance because cautious people have to completely avoid a lane where one cyclist is driving on the edge of, thus slowing down the entire car traffic.
Bicycles are dangerous and those cyclists don't know what they are doing, they are a danger to themselves and others - because i am sure quite a few innocent people went to jail accidentally killing them.
Bicycles are dangerous and those cyclists don't know what they are doing, they are a danger to themselves and others - because i am sure quite a few innocent people went to jail accidentally killing them.
> Bicycles are dangerous...
It's an interesting statement, given that every example you gave is about a driver of a car about to kill a cyclist. It seems that it's the cars, or rather, the drivers, that are dangerous.
It's an interesting statement, given that every example you gave is about a driver of a car about to kill a cyclist. It seems that it's the cars, or rather, the drivers, that are dangerous.
In the UK the majority of drivers who kill cyclists do not go to prison https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-28345522
It's a common bit of dark humour in the cycling community that if you want to get away with murder, make sure the victim is riding a bike at the time.
It's a common bit of dark humour in the cycling community that if you want to get away with murder, make sure the victim is riding a bike at the time.
"just barely avoid crushing or rolling over some crazy cyclist that falls on his damn bike right under my car"
You are supposed to respect a safe separation distance so that you don't "barely avoid crushing them" if something happen, not tailgate them. Since it happens every 3 months, consider if your driving might be at fault. If not for the cyclist, at least for the sake of not scratching your car, eh.
You are supposed to respect a safe separation distance so that you don't "barely avoid crushing them" if something happen, not tailgate them. Since it happens every 3 months, consider if your driving might be at fault. If not for the cyclist, at least for the sake of not scratching your car, eh.
I'm both a cyclist and a driver. I regularly see middle-aged cyclists riding without the sense of a 6 year old. I don't get it.
I also avoid driving in residential streets if I can avoid it because of kids on bikes, and I know they're crazy. I did crazy stuff on a bike as a kid, and barely survived.
I also avoid driving in residential streets if I can avoid it because of kids on bikes, and I know they're crazy. I did crazy stuff on a bike as a kid, and barely survived.
Reminds me of the saying:
“If you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole.
If you meet assholes all day long, you’re the asshole”
“If you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole.
If you meet assholes all day long, you’re the asshole”
"At the very best, they [old people | horse riders | children | motorcyclists | other drivers] are a hinderance because cautious people have to completely avoid a lane where one $X is driving on the edge of, thus slowing down the entire car traffic.
$X are dangerous and they don't know what they are doing, they are a danger to themselves and others."
So where do we go with this line of thought? As you can see, it's not helpful in any material way. We need to make the roads safer for everyone, including other drivers. And not vilify a small (but increasing) and vulnerable portion of road users because of anecdotes.
BTW, I'm a motorist, cyclist, horse rider, old person, ex-child. So I might be biased.
$X are dangerous and they don't know what they are doing, they are a danger to themselves and others."
So where do we go with this line of thought? As you can see, it's not helpful in any material way. We need to make the roads safer for everyone, including other drivers. And not vilify a small (but increasing) and vulnerable portion of road users because of anecdotes.
BTW, I'm a motorist, cyclist, horse rider, old person, ex-child. So I might be biased.
Are you driving in the bike lane?
Otherwise I cannot fathom how people are almost dead by your car every other month. Or aren't you following the law by holding a safe distance and a reasonable speed, perhaps?
Otherwise I cannot fathom how people are almost dead by your car every other month. Or aren't you following the law by holding a safe distance and a reasonable speed, perhaps?
Hey you don't own the streets so if someone slower is in front of you, you might just slow down for a while and don't give a damn about slowing traffic. Better safe than sorry.
It's so strange to have this "areas of death" in our towns. You turn the wrong way - you're dead. You saw the wrong color - dead. I understand that it takes some evolution to solve that, but it's SO. STRANGE.
Imagine people who never saw that concept - high speed (>30mph) roads near pedestrians. And then someone comes and says "Let's build these danger zones with custom rules, they will allow people to leave public transport for personal vehicles. And if you step it wrong, you might get killed!".
Would these people agree? Would they take it as a natural idea? Insane.
Imagine people who never saw that concept - high speed (>30mph) roads near pedestrians. And then someone comes and says "Let's build these danger zones with custom rules, they will allow people to leave public transport for personal vehicles. And if you step it wrong, you might get killed!".
Would these people agree? Would they take it as a natural idea? Insane.
Agreed, and I believe people of the future will be astounded that we used to accept that public streets were killing fields for small kids, animals and the inattentive. (Not to mention having a significant portion of the area taken up by idle vehicles, but I digress.)
I believe the solution will be autonomous cars, which are not only (overly) cautious, but can pick you up or drop you off, and then scuttle off to underground parking or to pick up the next person.
I believe the solution will be autonomous cars, which are not only (overly) cautious, but can pick you up or drop you off, and then scuttle off to underground parking or to pick up the next person.
I'm pretty sure you could frame anything as it's negative externalities and make it sound crazy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of...
To take some wisdom from HotFuzz
https://youtu.be/puK5CwThaq4
I'm a cyclist and I've had a few incidents in the past. Some of them my fault, some of them not. But calling them accidents is very damaging
https://youtu.be/puK5CwThaq4
I'm a cyclist and I've had a few incidents in the past. Some of them my fault, some of them not. But calling them accidents is very damaging
To all the outlawed cyclists I'd like to say: show your fellow countrymen how it's done in the salvation state of the Netherlands.
Cyclists own the roads here, see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
Cyclists own the roads here, see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
Watched it and still see a car swerving around on the wrong side of the street against trafic crossing in between bikes. I'm so happy living in northern Sweden with much less trafic. People are getting more agressive though, I have had drivers of cars honk their horns when I cross roads where I had right of way, or driving fast to get over crossings before pedestrians. The snow piles at the side of roads and crossings have been higher than people this winter and drivers don't care, they still drive fast around corners on streets that are missing the curb and some of the road because of the snowpiles. The side of the roads are also more dangerous because of the ice buildup of melting snow so can be very dangerous not to bike in the middle of the street.
Thankfully we have bike roads almost everywhere.
Thankfully we have bike roads almost everywhere.
Just the other day here a guy in an SUV passed through a cloud of cyclists pedal to the metal during the morning rush hour when a lot of local kids cycle to school either with their parents or alone. I confronted him a little bit further on (when he had to slow down again, which is one reason why such hurrying makes no sense, it's just too busy). His motivation: none of the kids put out their hand. So that carries a potential death penalty these days, in case you weren't aware of it, and this is supposedly the most bike friendly country in the world. His own ~7 year old daughter was in the passenger seat, I wonder how he would feel if it was his kid on the road with a person like him zooming by in an 1800 Kg vehicle. People like him are the reason I still ride with my kids to school in the morning.
I called the police and reported the asshole for reckless driving, they said they'd follow up on it which I trust they really will. Driving is a privilege, and I would love it if reckless drivers would lose their license at the first offense.
I called the police and reported the asshole for reckless driving, they said they'd follow up on it which I trust they really will. Driving is a privilege, and I would love it if reckless drivers would lose their license at the first offense.
> “...I would love it if reckless drivers would lose their license at the first offense.”
that’s too punitive, but i’d be quite happy with a quickly escalating, income-/wealth-adjusted fine. so like 0.01% of yearly income on first offense, 0.1% on second offense, 1% on third offense, or something like that, on a rolling 12-month basis, where you can voluntarily give up you license for 3 months to reset the scale of you can’t/don’t want to pay. driving without a license could reinstate the scale and invoke the next level of fine on top.
that’s too punitive, but i’d be quite happy with a quickly escalating, income-/wealth-adjusted fine. so like 0.01% of yearly income on first offense, 0.1% on second offense, 1% on third offense, or something like that, on a rolling 12-month basis, where you can voluntarily give up you license for 3 months to reset the scale of you can’t/don’t want to pay. driving without a license could reinstate the scale and invoke the next level of fine on top.
How is it too punitive? They're operating a massive structure of (usually literally) flaming steel. If they can't consider the safety of people who very plausibly will be their victims without constant vigilance, they really shouldn't be driving.
Doubly so for pickups, which are now so large that they offer a near-nonexistent risk on the driver's end for poor driving and nearly-certain serious-injury-and-or-death for anyone caught up against it.
Doubly so for pickups, which are now so large that they offer a near-nonexistent risk on the driver's end for poor driving and nearly-certain serious-injury-and-or-death for anyone caught up against it.
>How is it too punitive?
Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law and we have to choose who it gets enforced against.
Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law and we have to choose who it gets enforced against.
Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society
In the Netherlands? I find that claim suspect.
Though I would get behind cracking down on dangerous drivers endangering pedestrians and cyclists even in the US where it's much harder to live without a car. Maybe it would get easier to live without a car if we began skewing policies in that direction.
In the Netherlands? I find that claim suspect.
Though I would get behind cracking down on dangerous drivers endangering pedestrians and cyclists even in the US where it's much harder to live without a car. Maybe it would get easier to live without a car if we began skewing policies in that direction.
> “ "normal traffic flow" ...when everyone is breaking the law...”
?? I understood the OP as referring to vehicles sharing the roadway with bicyclists and apparently in a school zone.
I have no sympathy for anyone’s excuse—worker or working moms who drive on roads shared with pedestrians and bicyclists. I live in the US, and our car-centric culture is toxic to anyone not in a car.
?? I understood the OP as referring to vehicles sharing the roadway with bicyclists and apparently in a school zone.
I have no sympathy for anyone’s excuse—worker or working moms who drive on roads shared with pedestrians and bicyclists. I live in the US, and our car-centric culture is toxic to anyone not in a car.
OP didn't say any traffic violation should result in revocation of license, just reckless driving. At least where I live, that's a specific violation that is well beyond any violation that might come from following normal traffic flow.
Reckless driving as defined by statute typically includes a "more than X over the limit" clause where X is small enough to include "normal traffic speed for a clear day with light traffic on the interstate highway system and many state highways"
This is exactly my point. The laws are far too broad to have stiff penalties and draconian enforcement. Of course nobody should be driving 40+ through some downtown center signed at 25 where pedestrians are present. But people routinely make common sense exemptions to the letter of the law. They treat that stop that could have been a yield were it not for the option to turn left as a yield. They ignore a 40-20-40 speed limit drop when that drop is there for a particular problem condition that is not applicable at the time. Etc. Etc. Cyclists and pedestrians make common sense exemptions all the time too, albeit a different set of exemptions specific to their mode of transportation. The overwhelming majority of traffic participants behave reasonably, but reasonable is not consistent with the letter of the law.
Of course we don't want "reckless drivers" on the roads but "reckless" is by its very definition an ambiguous term and nobody's yet to nail it down in statutory form in a way that doesn't leave gaping loopholes or make reasonably people subjet to being screwed at the discretion of law enforcement. And we see that every time law enforcement tries to go hard on a particular type of crime it just devolves into doing the most enforcement against the most vulnerable.
This is exactly my point. The laws are far too broad to have stiff penalties and draconian enforcement. Of course nobody should be driving 40+ through some downtown center signed at 25 where pedestrians are present. But people routinely make common sense exemptions to the letter of the law. They treat that stop that could have been a yield were it not for the option to turn left as a yield. They ignore a 40-20-40 speed limit drop when that drop is there for a particular problem condition that is not applicable at the time. Etc. Etc. Cyclists and pedestrians make common sense exemptions all the time too, albeit a different set of exemptions specific to their mode of transportation. The overwhelming majority of traffic participants behave reasonably, but reasonable is not consistent with the letter of the law.
Of course we don't want "reckless drivers" on the roads but "reckless" is by its very definition an ambiguous term and nobody's yet to nail it down in statutory form in a way that doesn't leave gaping loopholes or make reasonably people subjet to being screwed at the discretion of law enforcement. And we see that every time law enforcement tries to go hard on a particular type of crime it just devolves into doing the most enforcement against the most vulnerable.
yes, i'd advocate changing speed limits (a prescriptive) to suggested speeds, and instead focus enforcement largely on distracted driving (a descriptive), which is the singular predominant cause of collisions (along with impaired driving and then reckless driving).
in addition, institute traffic calming measures like narrowing lanes, grade separations, cut outs/cut ins, and more trees in suburban/urban areas, so that it's more instinctive to drive slower, for everyone's benefit in those areas.
in addition, institute traffic calming measures like narrowing lanes, grade separations, cut outs/cut ins, and more trees in suburban/urban areas, so that it's more instinctive to drive slower, for everyone's benefit in those areas.
In my mind, because "offence", depending on legislature, might be vehicular manslaughter, a parking ticket or anything in between. There is also a huge difference between driving 55 in a 50 zone and driving 90 at the same location.
I think the critical part here is "reckless driver", so the "offence" needs to be of a kind to qualify the driver as such. Parking ticket likely doesn't.
i agree that it’s the sole job of a driver to maneuver their 2-ton vehicle safely and without distraction (especially not phone distraction), but it does no good to be blindered by retributive rage when considering a counterbalancing incentive structure. we are fallible humans in a highly dynamic world, so let’s have some empathy and compassion for every mistake-making human, not just arbitrarily small groupings of them.
It's not retributive to not allow someone who has failed the most important task in driving to drive. We don't allow children to do it, we don't allow the (extremely) elderly to do it, we shouldn't allow people who put others at risk to do it either.
Empathy and compassion are all fine and good, and in this case, the compassionate would make sure to take anyone who has shown willingness to cause an accident off the road for good. Not even a terrible person deserves to have a murder on their conscience, and nobody deserves to die because someone wasn't paying enough attention while flying down the highway.
Empathy and compassion are all fine and good, and in this case, the compassionate would make sure to take anyone who has shown willingness to cause an accident off the road for good. Not even a terrible person deserves to have a murder on their conscience, and nobody deserves to die because someone wasn't paying enough attention while flying down the highway.
Impounding the driving license and/or car for a limited period of time could be a more egalitarian, privacy friendly and easier to implement alternative.
Your idea of some form of progressive rate punishment sounds really good. Time is probably the easiest to implement parameter:
- impound_car(time)
- impound_license(time)
- impound_license_and_car(time)
- impound_license_and_all_cars_owned(time)
Your idea of some form of progressive rate punishment sounds really good. Time is probably the easiest to implement parameter:
- impound_car(time)
- impound_license(time)
- impound_license_and_car(time)
- impound_license_and_all_cars_owned(time)
In societies with professional money managing services, how do you fine someone who has no personal income, no wealth, and is in millions of dollars in debt*?
*...to an offshore shell company over which they have 100% control.
*...to an offshore shell company over which they have 100% control.
You remove their license and impound cars they have permission to drive
you make that the state revenue service’s problem, since they already face that issue anyway. any income stream, including passive income and unrealized gains, is fair game.
Percent of the car they were driving.
Too punitive? So death sentence is OK for a kid that forgets to put out the arm once? I don't really understand this mentality.
Again, hyperbole helps no-one.
Mistakes may sometimes lead to extreme consequences. A cyclist not indicating and thus experiencing an accident is not much different from someone ignoring safety rules around power tools and getting (badly) hurt by it. The damage is accidental, not punitive.
"Death sentence" in such cases is overly emotional and meant to derail a discussion. It's meant to divide, not unite.
Instead of having such almost pornographic fantasies about crimes and punishments, let's rather invest some energy to determine how we can lower the number of accidents, e.g. by providing better street law education for children who are about to start cycling, and better traffic enforcement.
Mistakes may sometimes lead to extreme consequences. A cyclist not indicating and thus experiencing an accident is not much different from someone ignoring safety rules around power tools and getting (badly) hurt by it. The damage is accidental, not punitive.
"Death sentence" in such cases is overly emotional and meant to derail a discussion. It's meant to divide, not unite.
Instead of having such almost pornographic fantasies about crimes and punishments, let's rather invest some energy to determine how we can lower the number of accidents, e.g. by providing better street law education for children who are about to start cycling, and better traffic enforcement.
This is the drivers point of view, nowhere do we get the information of what actually happened. Just that the driver said the kids didn't put out the hand when he came in his big car in high speed. Were the kids actually turning or just going straight? Were they crossing the street?
Specifically it was a roundabout, and the driver took half of it, the kids only 1/4, so he had to wait for all of 3 seconds before he realized they were making the turn, absolutely no reason to start driving that aggressively, especially not through literally 10's of cyclists. Very dangerous maneuver and only because he was irritated.
This is the exact spot:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eemnesserweg,+Baarn/@52.21...
kids coming from Eemnesserweg turning right, car going straight, oncoming cyclist traffic on the road from the right as well. It was a pretty close call, there simply is no room there for faster driving than the speed at which the bikes move, which is fine because it takes less than a minute to cross the center of this town.
This is the exact spot:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eemnesserweg,+Baarn/@52.21...
kids coming from Eemnesserweg turning right, car going straight, oncoming cyclist traffic on the road from the right as well. It was a pretty close call, there simply is no room there for faster driving than the speed at which the bikes move, which is fine because it takes less than a minute to cross the center of this town.
In all fairness, OP's description of the incident is not very clear. As both a driver and a cyclist, the only situation I can imagine a car driving through a "cloud of cyclists" under any circumstance is an intersection with a second lane for turning left (or right, in left-hand traffic countries).
In such a situation, a cyclist may want to switch lanes to the turning lane, and - of course - would have to indicate the lane change. If no such indication is given, as a car driver, I would expect the cyclist to continue onwards, especially if there are lights that are green. I would not expect the cyclist to swerve out without indication - and as a cyclist, I agree that this is a very dangerous situation for the cyclist, since not only you are swerving out into the direct path of a car, but you also get slower relative to it.
In such a situation, a cyclist may want to switch lanes to the turning lane, and - of course - would have to indicate the lane change. If no such indication is given, as a car driver, I would expect the cyclist to continue onwards, especially if there are lights that are green. I would not expect the cyclist to swerve out without indication - and as a cyclist, I agree that this is a very dangerous situation for the cyclist, since not only you are swerving out into the direct path of a car, but you also get slower relative to it.
If you can't imagine a cloud of cyclists you need to watch a video or two of what dutch cycling traffic is like. Flooring your accelerator in a spot like that is super dangerous.
Would revoking someone's right to own firearms the first time they acted recklessly in a crowd of children with one also seem "too punitive" to you, or should they retain their weapons to act recklessly with them in crowds a second time?
The victims will be just as dead. Cars are lethal.
The victims will be just as dead. Cars are lethal.
oh yes, let’s think of the children! bubble-wrap them, lock them at home for doubleplus good, and tote around a robotic, screen-mediated facsimile so there’s no chance of pain or injury. that should fix that problem right up.
No one said that at all. Quite the opposite actually: the suggestion was to prevent those who would endanger children from doing so, so that the children might carry on with their lives without fear.
> Driving is a privilege
Its amazing how this simple fact is utterly incapable of being understood by every driver on the road. not just the ones that think they score points for clipping cyclists.
The arrogant, self righteousness of todays entitled drivers is going to be what pushes Gov to mandate autonomous driving.
Its amazing how this simple fact is utterly incapable of being understood by every driver on the road. not just the ones that think they score points for clipping cyclists.
The arrogant, self righteousness of todays entitled drivers is going to be what pushes Gov to mandate autonomous driving.
I don't think the hyperbole helps anyone ... You do not put your hand out because you want to ask for mercy of the executioner in the metal coffin, you put your hand out to indicate your intention.
It's the same reason why cars have blinkers. If a car does not use the blinker, a resulting accident is a preventable mistake by the car driver. In the same vein, a cyclist not indicating a change of lane and/or direction has endangered themselves, and others.
A car driver who has no idea about the intention of a cyclist will assume that the cyclist will continue to use the same lane / the same direction as before - and act accordingly.
No car driver wants to be involved in an accident - at best, it's costly and causes legal hassle. At worst, you have been part of a death.
It's the same reason why cars have blinkers. If a car does not use the blinker, a resulting accident is a preventable mistake by the car driver. In the same vein, a cyclist not indicating a change of lane and/or direction has endangered themselves, and others.
A car driver who has no idea about the intention of a cyclist will assume that the cyclist will continue to use the same lane / the same direction as before - and act accordingly.
No car driver wants to be involved in an accident - at best, it's costly and causes legal hassle. At worst, you have been part of a death.
Kids cycling will always make mistakes. Even adults have a hard time signalling properly on a bike when on a roundabout because their need to signal conflicts with their need to control the bicycle, especially the elderly.
So, when a cyclist 'does not put out their hand' you play it safe as a driver.
So, when a cyclist 'does not put out their hand' you play it safe as a driver.
Is it, though? I would understand this like the "more guilty" party was being named - the one that caused the accident.
Where I live, the newspapers print rather graphic photos of particularly bad car-on-car accidents when the happen locally. Part of that is sensationalism, sure - but part of it is making people aware that bad accidents actually do happen, even if you never individually were involved in one, and that you should think about when you made bad decisions that could have lead to accidents in the past - it makes you, subconsciously, show more attention the next few times you drive.
While this may not have been the case in this particular accident, the number of times I see cyclists' complete disregard for traffic rules and thus in effect their own safety is too high. Generally painting cyclists as traffic victims absolves them from any wrongdoing, makes them pay less attention, and may thus lead to more accidents.
Where I live, the newspapers print rather graphic photos of particularly bad car-on-car accidents when the happen locally. Part of that is sensationalism, sure - but part of it is making people aware that bad accidents actually do happen, even if you never individually were involved in one, and that you should think about when you made bad decisions that could have lead to accidents in the past - it makes you, subconsciously, show more attention the next few times you drive.
While this may not have been the case in this particular accident, the number of times I see cyclists' complete disregard for traffic rules and thus in effect their own safety is too high. Generally painting cyclists as traffic victims absolves them from any wrongdoing, makes them pay less attention, and may thus lead to more accidents.
Yes! This one is also great: "How We Talk About Drivers Hitting Cyclists" https://www.outsideonline.com/2392955/lets-talk-about-driver...
Media always portray it as a passive car just happened to hit a cyclist. But that shapes the discussion. It was an action by a driver. Not “he was struck from behind by an automobile while riding his bicycle a mere block from his home.”, as the article says. The cyclist wasn't struck. It wasn't by an automobile. It was a driver (actively) hitting him.
When it's framed like that instead, one can actually start improving and understand why it happened and try to avoid it in the future. Instead of portraying it like a freak accident like a meteor just happened to strike and there is really nothing to be done.
Media always portray it as a passive car just happened to hit a cyclist. But that shapes the discussion. It was an action by a driver. Not “he was struck from behind by an automobile while riding his bicycle a mere block from his home.”, as the article says. The cyclist wasn't struck. It wasn't by an automobile. It was a driver (actively) hitting him.
When it's framed like that instead, one can actually start improving and understand why it happened and try to avoid it in the future. Instead of portraying it like a freak accident like a meteor just happened to strike and there is really nothing to be done.
The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, while the majority of drivers are not cyclists, so I think it’s quite reasonable to expect the cyclist to have the more rounded perspective on road safety.
The only cyclists I see behaving recklessly on the road are groups of teenage boys, and that’s more to do with them being teenage boys than being cyclists.
The only cyclists I see behaving recklessly on the road are groups of teenage boys, and that’s more to do with them being teenage boys than being cyclists.
Other phrases (at least in german media):
"cyclist injures _himself_ badly"
"The cyclist wore no helmet" (as if that changes fault in an accident)
The car "couldn't stop in time" (e.g. for a red light before hitting a cyclist/pedestrian in the intersection)
When the cyclist is struck at night the car driver sometimes is quoted with the claim the bike had no lights. While sometimes that may be right, the car driver obviously didn't see the cyclist (otherwise they wouldn't have run them over) and the light is often damaged in the accident. The cyclist on a stretcher is not available to counter that claim leaving a biased report.
"The cyclist wore no helmet" (as if that changes fault in an accident)
The car "couldn't stop in time" (e.g. for a red light before hitting a cyclist/pedestrian in the intersection)
When the cyclist is struck at night the car driver sometimes is quoted with the claim the bike had no lights. While sometimes that may be right, the car driver obviously didn't see the cyclist (otherwise they wouldn't have run them over) and the light is often damaged in the accident. The cyclist on a stretcher is not available to counter that claim leaving a biased report.
> the light is often damaged in the accident
You can tell if the light was on when it was damaged, by examining the filament. They do this in airplane accident investigations to see which panel lamps were on when it crashed.
This doesn't work for LED lights, though. Just incandescent.
You can tell if the light was on when it was damaged, by examining the filament. They do this in airplane accident investigations to see which panel lamps were on when it crashed.
This doesn't work for LED lights, though. Just incandescent.
Do any cyclists still use incandescent bulbs?
Bikes are similar to pedestrians not cars. In bike friendly places such as the Netherlands or Cambridge UK cyclists and those on foot share the same part of the city. It helps in these places that almost car drivers also use a bike to get around so they are more aware, but the main thing is designing the cities so that high speed 2-40 ton vehicles are totally separated from low speed 50-100kg cyclists and pedestrians.
Willy May,
He died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Never argue with a bus, and never trust a driver that hasn't looked you in the eye, and even then be wary.
Never argue with a bus, and never trust a driver that hasn't looked you in the eye, and even then be wary.
If there is no dedicated bike lane (or if it is blocked by a taxi or FedEx truck), I usually take the entire car lane.
Cars tend to pass way too close, and taking the lane (which is completely legal where I live) means I have some space to move a little bit away from a car while it's passing too close.
Cars tend to pass way too close, and taking the lane (which is completely legal where I live) means I have some space to move a little bit away from a car while it's passing too close.
It's the same story everywhere. Cyclists are blamed not only for their mistakes but for others' mistakes as well. When an accident happened, a cyclist is blamed irrespective of whoever is at mistake. I have seen it first-hand multiple times. Also, people casually say that why are these cyclists ride on busy roads?
I firmly believe that nobody should be using the road in a car until they have learnt to use the road on a bicycle.
Pilots don't learn to fly in airliners. Captains don't learn to sail in ocean liners. Why on earth do we let people operate machinery weighing multiple tons and capable of high speeds on the public highway without having anywhere near the same level of experience?
99% of car operators on the road have zero experience of the road outside of a car. A person on a bike is still a person, but a person in a car is a car. They can't feel the road. They hate travelling under the speed limit because there's a tank of fossil fuel and they only need to squeeze a pedal to effortlessly ascend hills or battle the wind. This is why they will never treat cyclists as people and with respect.
Pilots don't learn to fly in airliners. Captains don't learn to sail in ocean liners. Why on earth do we let people operate machinery weighing multiple tons and capable of high speeds on the public highway without having anywhere near the same level of experience?
99% of car operators on the road have zero experience of the road outside of a car. A person on a bike is still a person, but a person in a car is a car. They can't feel the road. They hate travelling under the speed limit because there's a tank of fossil fuel and they only need to squeeze a pedal to effortlessly ascend hills or battle the wind. This is why they will never treat cyclists as people and with respect.
A lot of comments point out situations with car drivers not being considerate of cyclists. Not to defend car drivers, but you could interchange car drivers with cyclists and cyclists with pedestrians and you would end up with people giving the same anecdotes. You see cyclists speeding through "walk only" areas just as you see cars ignoring bike lanes or giving space to cyclists in general. You'll see just as much people on the phone or even texting while riding a bike, too. Et cetera.
You might argue a bike hitting a pedestrian probably won't be as lethal as two tonnes of SUV hitting a cyclist, but that's a lame justification curled in the deepest realms of double standards. There's plenty of examples when cyclists didn't care enough about cars because the car is supposed to act as the cyclist is apparently clearly in a disadvantage. Same with pedestrians and cyclists, again.
Again, not to defend or blame anyone. I am driving my car maybe two times per month and I am mostly on bike, foot or public transport. But from my experience you just have assholes with egocentric justifications and reasoning on all sides.
You might argue a bike hitting a pedestrian probably won't be as lethal as two tonnes of SUV hitting a cyclist, but that's a lame justification curled in the deepest realms of double standards. There's plenty of examples when cyclists didn't care enough about cars because the car is supposed to act as the cyclist is apparently clearly in a disadvantage. Same with pedestrians and cyclists, again.
Again, not to defend or blame anyone. I am driving my car maybe two times per month and I am mostly on bike, foot or public transport. But from my experience you just have assholes with egocentric justifications and reasoning on all sides.
The number of pedestrians harmed by people riding bikes is minuscule. They would be reduced further if there were safe cycle infrastructure so that people weren’t so scared that they ride on the pavement. Pedestrians and people on bikes are both victims of our car dominated culture. Consider that more pedestrians are killed by motorists mounting sidewalks each year than are killed by cyclists.
But what is your point? Your whole post is meaningless, it's just useless centrism with fluffy words about "both sides" in order to exonerate drivers.
The point is that comments (in regard to the article) are littered with anecdotes about cyclists getting in danger because of cars. It's a one-sided view. There's problems on both sides equally. Conflicts of this kind are waved off as "the driver was an asshole", which might be correct in single cases, but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely.
> There's problems on both sides equally.
No, it's not. A driver is driving something lethal that kills thousands each year. Don't try to pretend a cyclist being remotely close to a driver when it comes to severity of the actions. It's not a "one-sided view", it's the truth that drivers are far more dangerous than cyclists. If 99 scientists says something and one quack says something else, the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, you know.
> but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely
True, that cyclists need better infrastructure and similar stuff. What also misses the point is to start devil's advocating that "cyclists are just as bad".
No, it's not. A driver is driving something lethal that kills thousands each year. Don't try to pretend a cyclist being remotely close to a driver when it comes to severity of the actions. It's not a "one-sided view", it's the truth that drivers are far more dangerous than cyclists. If 99 scientists says something and one quack says something else, the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, you know.
> but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely
True, that cyclists need better infrastructure and similar stuff. What also misses the point is to start devil's advocating that "cyclists are just as bad".
Most cyclist activists that I know advocate for separate infrastructure for bicycles precisely because being on the pavement is unsafe for pedestrians (and annoying for cyclists) and being on the road is unsafe for cyclists (and annoying for cars).
Assholes in a car are more dangerous than assholes on a bike, simple as.
Cycling is almost one of those politically charged conversations which should be banned from HN. As a bicycle commuter and enthusiast (since somehow cyclist is a dirty word) I’ve long since learned that any online discussion inevitably devolves into a sociopathic blame game.
I will say, however, that cost is one of the primary issues which is rarely addressed. In the USA the dollar is king and it shows in all aspects of our lives.
Compared to automobiles, Bicycles are too cheap for their own good. America would have good cycling infrastructure If bicycles cost $20k to purchase, $5k per year to fuel, $500 to register, $1,500 year to insure and if the bicycling lobby spent hundreds of millions of dollars bribing politicians yearly.
Drivers (why isn’t driver a dirty word?), at least in the USA, have a clear sense of superiority and entitlement which drives (pun intended) their sociopathic behavior. “I spent $50,000 on my Tesla and thousands more on licensing and maintenance! That money gives me the right to get back to my bedroom community in San Mateo as quickly as possible, fuck you and your 2-wheels, i’ll run you over with zero legal consequences” is a common attitude.
The USA will never get dutch-quality cycling infrastructure until bicycle riders spend driver-level money.
I will say, however, that cost is one of the primary issues which is rarely addressed. In the USA the dollar is king and it shows in all aspects of our lives.
Compared to automobiles, Bicycles are too cheap for their own good. America would have good cycling infrastructure If bicycles cost $20k to purchase, $5k per year to fuel, $500 to register, $1,500 year to insure and if the bicycling lobby spent hundreds of millions of dollars bribing politicians yearly.
Drivers (why isn’t driver a dirty word?), at least in the USA, have a clear sense of superiority and entitlement which drives (pun intended) their sociopathic behavior. “I spent $50,000 on my Tesla and thousands more on licensing and maintenance! That money gives me the right to get back to my bedroom community in San Mateo as quickly as possible, fuck you and your 2-wheels, i’ll run you over with zero legal consequences” is a common attitude.
The USA will never get dutch-quality cycling infrastructure until bicycle riders spend driver-level money.
US culture and infrastructure seem to be super car focused and almost universally toxic to people riding bikes. That looks like a problem to me.
Could some focus on the car side of the problem help solve this with less expenditure of political capital?
Requiring proper driver education for example doesn't require people to show empathy to these weird creatures they've never met - cyclists. I'm certainly not a US culture expert, but that might be one feasible baby step in certain US states.
Could some focus on the car side of the problem help solve this with less expenditure of political capital?
Requiring proper driver education for example doesn't require people to show empathy to these weird creatures they've never met - cyclists. I'm certainly not a US culture expert, but that might be one feasible baby step in certain US states.
In transport academia "crash" vs "accident" is contested. I'm a "crash" person but I'm lampooned by "accident" people for it. It's the wrong word or maybe it doesn't matter. There are even people who argue for some are "crash" and some are "accident". The "accident" example quoted is a motorcyclist who was struck in the face (not wearing a full-face helmet) by a bird then rode onto the wrong side and struck another motorcyclist, at least one died. So was it the bird's fault, ie. an unpredictable and without human involvement, or should the first motorcyclist had a full face helmet?
My view is that "accident" implies an act-of-god that couldn't be prevented, whereas a "crash" is an impact, there is no doubt that an impact occurred. If you write off a "crash" as an "accident" you are tempted to not investigate and try and learn from it. The more you dig deeper into "accidents" is you find they some are not. With a decreasing number of fatal crashes, in my Australian state but the same number of police investigating they are starting to find (and prove) that some crashes are deliberate. What has long been suspected of the possibility of suicide and murder by head-on crash is proving to be real.
Words can be important.
My view is that "accident" implies an act-of-god that couldn't be prevented, whereas a "crash" is an impact, there is no doubt that an impact occurred. If you write off a "crash" as an "accident" you are tempted to not investigate and try and learn from it. The more you dig deeper into "accidents" is you find they some are not. With a decreasing number of fatal crashes, in my Australian state but the same number of police investigating they are starting to find (and prove) that some crashes are deliberate. What has long been suspected of the possibility of suicide and murder by head-on crash is proving to be real.
Words can be important.
Two thoughts here. First, why do we need to choose between "crash" or "accident"? Why can't journalists be more descriptive, even in headlines, by saying something like "bird strike", "single vehicle collision", etc?
Second, there's a saying with the motorcyclists I personally know, "full face or no face", meaning in the event of a mishap, helmets that provide less coverage are far less likely to protect the rider. I don't think we should mandate what type of helmet people wear, or wearing a helmet at all, but assigning some responsibility to the rider who got hit where a full face helmet would have protected might be appropriate.
Second, there's a saying with the motorcyclists I personally know, "full face or no face", meaning in the event of a mishap, helmets that provide less coverage are far less likely to protect the rider. I don't think we should mandate what type of helmet people wear, or wearing a helmet at all, but assigning some responsibility to the rider who got hit where a full face helmet would have protected might be appropriate.
There's a similar idea that I've heard since about 2010 about subtly-influencing differences in how a human language appears to impact cognition.
> Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could. Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped: "The vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase." [0]
Here's a figure from the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20210319233610/https://www.econo...
The difference between "crash" (there's likely a human agent) and "accident" (there is no human agent) seems to be the same.
On the other hand, in my experience from editing the professional writing of colleagues, there's often subtle implications from the chose of words. We tend to have so many different options in English, but two words never really mean the same thing because each carries different connotations either from history or from usage. Yet many readers aren't quite aware of those implications. I'm not sure if the implication does not exist for them, or if they are simply not aware of how it might colour their perception.
[0] "Lost in translation?", The Economist, 2010-07-29, https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/07/29/lost-in-transla...
> Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could. Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped: "The vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase." [0]
Here's a figure from the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20210319233610/https://www.econo...
The difference between "crash" (there's likely a human agent) and "accident" (there is no human agent) seems to be the same.
On the other hand, in my experience from editing the professional writing of colleagues, there's often subtle implications from the chose of words. We tend to have so many different options in English, but two words never really mean the same thing because each carries different connotations either from history or from usage. Yet many readers aren't quite aware of those implications. I'm not sure if the implication does not exist for them, or if they are simply not aware of how it might colour their perception.
[0] "Lost in translation?", The Economist, 2010-07-29, https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/07/29/lost-in-transla...
[deleted]