Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html
29 comments
You've answered your own question.
Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.
Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.
In NYC, where the legal speed limit is 30mph and traffic is usually slower a bike taking up the whole lane does nothing to slow the overall traffic flow. If a bike can keep up the minimum speed for traffic they deserve the same piece of the road a car has, just like a motorcycle or scooter. I agree it is almost always safer to be in the normal flow of traffic than on the fringe of the bike lane (in NYC at least).
+1. +1,000,000 if I could.
Because the bike paths are unsafe. Frankly cyclists usually annoy me, but he's following the law, and probably better than most of the self entitled idiots in cars who get by with the VERY minimum of safety awareness on the road.
FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for getting in my way.
And it will be called an accident.
I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.
And it will be called an accident.
I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.
That'll teach me a lesson! Seriously though, he said that he was getting run over, he said he was being passed by in a dangerously close way. Have you ever tried to pass a cyclist on a two-lane road without a shoulder? You'll find it's extremely difficult.
Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. What could you possibly be doing that is more important than endangering someone's life? Do you understand that the cyclist has a legal right to be there, and that the reason for that legal right is safety?
Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass.
Intentionally slowing down and blocking traffic is an offense. If you are impeding the free flow of traffic, you may need to pull over. Where this is not possible, then its a different situation (ie, no shoulder or other hazard). But as a general rule, these are also places you should avoid ex-ante if you know will you will be obstructing traffic with reasonable foresight.
That might be a devil's advocate stance, but its not without merit. It amazes me how much arrogance and lack of street smarts many cyclists have (at least on the internet). I bike in urban areas and in rural ones. But people who are jerks <cause> accidents at a disproportionate rate. And its not just the drivers.
On the flip side, cars and suvs are driving faster and more dangerous (as they are larger) than years ago. That's a real problem. But a different issue. IMHO.
Intentionally slowing down and blocking traffic is an offense. If you are impeding the free flow of traffic, you may need to pull over. Where this is not possible, then its a different situation (ie, no shoulder or other hazard). But as a general rule, these are also places you should avoid ex-ante if you know will you will be obstructing traffic with reasonable foresight.
That might be a devil's advocate stance, but its not without merit. It amazes me how much arrogance and lack of street smarts many cyclists have (at least on the internet). I bike in urban areas and in rural ones. But people who are jerks <cause> accidents at a disproportionate rate. And its not just the drivers.
On the flip side, cars and suvs are driving faster and more dangerous (as they are larger) than years ago. That's a real problem. But a different issue. IMHO.
The cyclist should pull over and wait until the road is clear or ride in roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. The cyclist is the one impending traffic and therefore should be the one to be inconvenienced.
Also the cyclist is the one who endangered their own life by deciding to ride in the street with cars. Even though cyclists have the right to be on the road they are still expected to fallow the traffic laws including signaling turns, stopping at stop signs and lights, and not impeding traffic flow. If they fallowed the laws they wouldn't be in danger. The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle accidents happen at intersections where surprise surprise cyclists very rarely fallow the law.
I cycle around the city in Barcelona, where the drivers are often arseholes.
In a dense city like Barcelona, the traffic doesn't go so fast, and I can usually keep up with most cars, except when accelerating from lights. That doesn't matter. If a car is behind, me they seem to think they have a right to drive too close and honk their horn at me to tell me to get out of the road, even though they will be stuck behind the car that is 20 meters ahead of me.
In a dense city like Barcelona, the traffic doesn't go so fast, and I can usually keep up with most cars, except when accelerating from lights. That doesn't matter. If a car is behind, me they seem to think they have a right to drive too close and honk their horn at me to tell me to get out of the road, even though they will be stuck behind the car that is 20 meters ahead of me.
I understand what your saying. I live in Chicago and things are pretty similar. I'm not saying that all drivers are correct in the way that they act. Many drivers are jerks about it but at the same time many bikers are jerks about the way they ride in traffic. A major reason drivers simply want to get around a cyclist is to avoid having to deal with the chance of hitting them if the swerve suddenly. Is the way they go about It right? Probably not but if you are going to put drivers in a situation where they have to worry about hitting you then its their right to be rude.
You have to realize that if a driver hits another car going 20 mph in city traffic chances are no one will be seriously hurt. Someone will likely get a ticket between $50 and $200 and their insurance goes up. Now when you throw a bike in that accident the rider is likely going to be seriously injured if not killed. No one wants to be in a situation where they have to worry about seriously hurting or killing someone. Most drivers simply want to get around the biker and avoid it but bikers don't make that easy and many of them act like they own the road. You just have to remember as a cyclists that you are the one who chose to put your safety at risk by riding in traffic.
You have to realize that if a driver hits another car going 20 mph in city traffic chances are no one will be seriously hurt. Someone will likely get a ticket between $50 and $200 and their insurance goes up. Now when you throw a bike in that accident the rider is likely going to be seriously injured if not killed. No one wants to be in a situation where they have to worry about seriously hurting or killing someone. Most drivers simply want to get around the biker and avoid it but bikers don't make that easy and many of them act like they own the road. You just have to remember as a cyclists that you are the one who chose to put your safety at risk by riding in traffic.
Are we now in magic land? Whats up with you and the other commentators in the immediate vicinity making up laws like "impeding traffic flow"?
If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces.
Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.
If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces.
Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.
Impeding traffic flow is a law in most states and counties and is frequently referenced in accident trials definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/
You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense
You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense
[deleted]
> Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass.
I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once.
There has to be some sort of accommodation, at least in that limited case where passing is difficult, and cyclists moving slower than the flow of traffic. Although clearly that doesn't legitimize risking someone's life.
Edit: Added second paragraph.
I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once.
There has to be some sort of accommodation, at least in that limited case where passing is difficult, and cyclists moving slower than the flow of traffic. Although clearly that doesn't legitimize risking someone's life.
Edit: Added second paragraph.
The accommodation is called the lane to your left. Switch over and pass me, just as you would a slower motorcycle or lorry.
That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.
That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.
The problem with 'the lane to the left' is that there are frequently two lane roads where doing so is illegal because of the double yellow line. I used to see that frequently on some country roads that people would bicycle on, and going into the other lane is really not an option (saw several accidents where two cars hit each other because there was a cyclist). In those cases the cyclist is also blatantly disregarding others and their own safety, which is why every single one of those accidents the cyclist was getting a ticket because it was also illegal to cycle on the roads (they had a speed limit >35mph).
Things are definitely far more difficult to balance, simply because there are also many places where the road conditions don't allow a cyclist to exist safely (no shoulder, high speed limit, and less than 300ft visibility).
Things are definitely far more difficult to balance, simply because there are also many places where the road conditions don't allow a cyclist to exist safely (no shoulder, high speed limit, and less than 300ft visibility).
I don't drive fwiw, and I'm very much in favour of cycling, but there are roads near me which are fundamentally ill-suited to mixing cars and cyclists. In those circumstances, cyclists should adjust just as motorists should.
What could the cyclist be doing that is more important than getting off of the road and letting traffic go around them instead of holding it up?
> Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane?
Perhaps people could recognize that the existence of a cycle lane does not necessarily mean that it's safe or even physically possible to cycle within its boundaries.
Perhaps people could recognize that the existence of a cycle lane does not necessarily mean that it's safe or even physically possible to cycle within its boundaries.
Given how many cops and taxis park in bike lanes and how many cars use bike lanes as turning lanes, yes, emphatically this.
You're playing with fire here.
You might be right, but being right and dead is cold comfort.
You might be right, but being right and dead is cold comfort.
> It's just completely surreal driving a bicycle in car traffic.
As true as that is, I almost wouldn't have it any other way. Biking in city traffic is exciting and almost like meditation to me. It's way less dangerous than biking in the country where I live now and biking here is pretty damned boring anyway.
I'm getting fat!
As true as that is, I almost wouldn't have it any other way. Biking in city traffic is exciting and almost like meditation to me. It's way less dangerous than biking in the country where I live now and biking here is pretty damned boring anyway.
I'm getting fat!
The ownership and operation of motor vehicles is a form of psychosis. We are collectively delusional as a culture with regard to automobiles in North America.
I'll think about this the next time a biker almost hits me because they are riding on the sidewalk.
Maybe bikers should be required to pass tests and be licensed to ride.
People can't stop trains from crashing. What makes you think cars can avoid bikers 100% of the time?
Maybe bikers should be required to pass tests and be licensed to ride.
People can't stop trains from crashing. What makes you think cars can avoid bikers 100% of the time?
I've been cycling for commute for the last 4 years in India, Chennai to be precise. And this is a problem with most car drivers, especially the posh ones.
And the pain... Cornering me into the extreme sides of the road, Honking as if I suddenly have to disappear from the road, Huge lines of cars causing traffic and most of them driving single, Splashing water, etc. I sometimes know some of them, but its as if they're a different person when they get into a car, somewhat inhuman.
And the pain... Cornering me into the extreme sides of the road, Honking as if I suddenly have to disappear from the road, Huge lines of cars causing traffic and most of them driving single, Splashing water, etc. I sometimes know some of them, but its as if they're a different person when they get into a car, somewhat inhuman.
I have ridden a bike year around in Chicago for over four years. I have been hit once by a car, and once by a motorcycle. Both times I managed to walk with only scrapes and bruises.
What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition, I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her bike riding behind me. She called the cops.
The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong. I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.
Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.
What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition, I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her bike riding behind me. She called the cops.
The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong. I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.
Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.
No, it is not. But it is also not OK to prevent cyclists to kill themselves by car. I've witnessed an accident recently when the car in front of me hit a cyclist. He was:
a) riding at night without lights
b) running red light
c) against the traffic
d) without a helmet
I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc, etc, etc. If you don't want to die, stop trying.
I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc, etc, etc. If you don't want to die, stop trying.
scratch off point d. Helmets don't really do anything to protect you unless you practically fall off your bike standing still.
I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.
I always obey traffic laws on my bike.
Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died. Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer than helmets and helmet laws do.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June...
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.
I always obey traffic laws on my bike.
Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died. Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer than helmets and helmet laws do.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June...
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
Wearing a helmet is always better than not wearing one. You never know what kind of accident you might be in. Sure there are some a helmet may not protect you from, but there are plenty where a helmet will. It's a stupid, pointless risk not to take such an easy precaution to reduce your odds of permanent brain injury.
Case in point, a few years I was on the home stretch of a 50 mile weekend bikeride, less than a mile from home. I was tired, dehydrated, and fuzzy-brained, but still alert enough to be paying close attention to the traffic around me. I was riding ~10-15mph in the far left lane of one-way 4-lane primary thoroughfare (35mph speed limit).
4-way intersection ahead, figured I'd cross the intersection and ride up onto the very wide sidewalk on the far side so I could get out of traffic, slow to a crawl, relax, and take it easy the rest of the way home. As I came up to the intersection I angled slightly toward the sidewalk ramp on the other side, then turned my head around to the right to watch the traffic coming up behind me to make sure no car was going to make a left turn at the intersection and either turn into me or cut me off.
All clear with cars, no left turners, but when I looked ahead again I saw I'd miss-judged my path and was going to miss the on-ramp by about 5ft and hit the nearly 1ft-high curb instead. Going too fast to correct course and hit the ramp, or to slam on the breaks and stop, only thing I could do was try jump the bike, or at least the front wheel, over the curb.
Too tired, botched the maneuver, not quite high enough, front wheel hit the curb about halfway up and went from around 10-12mph to 0 in a millisecond. Of course me and the rest of the bike kept going, me slingshotting over the handlebars (bike shoes clipped in so angular momentum at work here) and then piledriven head first into the concrete sidewalk. My head landed first with a loud crack, then my body landed on my head, then the bike on top of my body.
I might have been out for a few seconds, not sure, but the first thing I remember was thinking, "ok don't move a muscle, just lay perfectly till, you might have just broken your back and even the slightest movement could cause a tear in your spinal cord." Slowly, gradually, tentatively I started testing that individual fingers and toes worked, then hands and feet, then arms and legs, and finally body and neck.
Everything was ok, but I was still lying there not daring to try to get up. Next thought was, "ok, that loud crack was my head hitting the concrete, I probably have a concussion. gotta be careful, don't black out." Reached up to my head, started feeling around. Helmet broken in places, totalled as designed, but still attached, strapped on, conformed to my head.
Still lying on the sidewalk with bike on top of me, afraid of further injury, and feeling around my head checking for injury. No blood, no pain anywhere. Disbelief. Check again, thoroughly. Still no blood, no pain. More disbelief.
Can I really have just had a crash that bad, where my head alone absorbed the entire impact of my 200lb self and ~20lb bike, without any injury besides skinned hands and some bruises? Mindbogglingly, yes that was exactly what happened. That helmet absorbed the whole damn thing, and I walked away without either a concussion or any kind of neck or spinal injury, just some scrapes and bruises.
So yeah, just wear a helmet. Even if you have 10 accidents where a helmet is irrelevant and just 1 where it is, it will have been worth it.
If my anecdotal evidence doesn't impress you, then think of it terms of Expected Payoff E(X). Wearing a helmet costs nothing of consequence, yet the benefits could range from 0 (you're never in a crash your entire life and never need it, or you're in a crash where a helmet makes absolutely no difference) to everything (you're in a crash that would cause permanent brain damage or death without a helmet protection). You can see how the averages work out.
Humans are very poor by default at evaluating risks that have low odds of occurring, but very high consequences if they do occur. Bike crashes are exactly this kind of risk, so don't be a typical human here - don't blow these types of risks off, discount them, or ignore them. Be smart, mitigate or neutralize them.
Case in point, a few years I was on the home stretch of a 50 mile weekend bikeride, less than a mile from home. I was tired, dehydrated, and fuzzy-brained, but still alert enough to be paying close attention to the traffic around me. I was riding ~10-15mph in the far left lane of one-way 4-lane primary thoroughfare (35mph speed limit).
4-way intersection ahead, figured I'd cross the intersection and ride up onto the very wide sidewalk on the far side so I could get out of traffic, slow to a crawl, relax, and take it easy the rest of the way home. As I came up to the intersection I angled slightly toward the sidewalk ramp on the other side, then turned my head around to the right to watch the traffic coming up behind me to make sure no car was going to make a left turn at the intersection and either turn into me or cut me off.
All clear with cars, no left turners, but when I looked ahead again I saw I'd miss-judged my path and was going to miss the on-ramp by about 5ft and hit the nearly 1ft-high curb instead. Going too fast to correct course and hit the ramp, or to slam on the breaks and stop, only thing I could do was try jump the bike, or at least the front wheel, over the curb.
Too tired, botched the maneuver, not quite high enough, front wheel hit the curb about halfway up and went from around 10-12mph to 0 in a millisecond. Of course me and the rest of the bike kept going, me slingshotting over the handlebars (bike shoes clipped in so angular momentum at work here) and then piledriven head first into the concrete sidewalk. My head landed first with a loud crack, then my body landed on my head, then the bike on top of my body.
I might have been out for a few seconds, not sure, but the first thing I remember was thinking, "ok don't move a muscle, just lay perfectly till, you might have just broken your back and even the slightest movement could cause a tear in your spinal cord." Slowly, gradually, tentatively I started testing that individual fingers and toes worked, then hands and feet, then arms and legs, and finally body and neck.
Everything was ok, but I was still lying there not daring to try to get up. Next thought was, "ok, that loud crack was my head hitting the concrete, I probably have a concussion. gotta be careful, don't black out." Reached up to my head, started feeling around. Helmet broken in places, totalled as designed, but still attached, strapped on, conformed to my head.
Still lying on the sidewalk with bike on top of me, afraid of further injury, and feeling around my head checking for injury. No blood, no pain anywhere. Disbelief. Check again, thoroughly. Still no blood, no pain. More disbelief.
Can I really have just had a crash that bad, where my head alone absorbed the entire impact of my 200lb self and ~20lb bike, without any injury besides skinned hands and some bruises? Mindbogglingly, yes that was exactly what happened. That helmet absorbed the whole damn thing, and I walked away without either a concussion or any kind of neck or spinal injury, just some scrapes and bruises.
So yeah, just wear a helmet. Even if you have 10 accidents where a helmet is irrelevant and just 1 where it is, it will have been worth it.
If my anecdotal evidence doesn't impress you, then think of it terms of Expected Payoff E(X). Wearing a helmet costs nothing of consequence, yet the benefits could range from 0 (you're never in a crash your entire life and never need it, or you're in a crash where a helmet makes absolutely no difference) to everything (you're in a crash that would cause permanent brain damage or death without a helmet protection). You can see how the averages work out.
Humans are very poor by default at evaluating risks that have low odds of occurring, but very high consequences if they do occur. Bike crashes are exactly this kind of risk, so don't be a typical human here - don't blow these types of risks off, discount them, or ignore them. Be smart, mitigate or neutralize them.
This summer I was hit by a truck pulling a wide trailer. The truck overpassed me, but the driver neglected the fact that his trailer was about a foot wider than his truck. It smashed me from behind and laid me out on the pavement. I was lucky enough to not fall under the trailer, but still smashed hard onto the road and nearby sidewalk. My helmet, without a doubt, saved me from a serious head injury. I walked away with some extensive road rash and a minor concussion.
> pedestrians alike just aren't looking
You mentioned you obey the law so you probably don't do this. Even if the law does not prohibit riding on the sidewalk, you should never ride on the sidewalk.
Just wanted to take this time to remind everyone that bicycles do not belong on the sidewalk.
You mentioned you obey the law so you probably don't do this. Even if the law does not prohibit riding on the sidewalk, you should never ride on the sidewalk.
Just wanted to take this time to remind everyone that bicycles do not belong on the sidewalk.
I'm not talking about riding on the sidewalk. I'm talking about pedestrians who walk out into the street (when they don't have the light) in front of a cyclist because they're only looking for cars and not bikes. I'm talking about pedestrians who walk into bike lanes without even looking at all.
I'm a cyclist and I'm constantly looking out for them and I still sometimes accidentally walk into them.
One of the biggest problems with New York's new bike lanes is that a great many pedestrians treat them as sidewalks and cops don't give them tickets for it. It totally should be a jaywalking ticket.
I'm a cyclist and I'm constantly looking out for them and I still sometimes accidentally walk into them.
One of the biggest problems with New York's new bike lanes is that a great many pedestrians treat them as sidewalks and cops don't give them tickets for it. It totally should be a jaywalking ticket.
I disagree. Bicycles belong on sidewalks far more than they belong on roads.
That said, perhaps it's situational. My city has large amounts of arterial roads with heavy car traffic and sparse pedestrians. The speed limit on those roads is about 60 kph (about 40 mph), and I much prefer to stay off them as a cyclist. It would be much safer if I was allowed to cycle on the sidewalk in those areas, as there's little to no foot traffic. In the city itself, different matter. There's much more foot traffic, but the speed limit is lower, so perhaps it's best there to be on the road.
That said, perhaps it's situational. My city has large amounts of arterial roads with heavy car traffic and sparse pedestrians. The speed limit on those roads is about 60 kph (about 40 mph), and I much prefer to stay off them as a cyclist. It would be much safer if I was allowed to cycle on the sidewalk in those areas, as there's little to no foot traffic. In the city itself, different matter. There's much more foot traffic, but the speed limit is lower, so perhaps it's best there to be on the road.
One of the first things my driving instructor taught me is that you have to assert your right. A measly bicycle has as much right to be on the road as a Cadillac Escalade. At the risk of preaching to the choir, a bicycle should take up a full lane on the road unless there is a special bicycle lane.
I am not saying go crazy and ride your bicycles on freeways. This is more about city streets. That being said, I truly believe the way to have fewer cars striking cyclists is to have more cyclists assert themselves on the road.
I am not saying go crazy and ride your bicycles on freeways. This is more about city streets. That being said, I truly believe the way to have fewer cars striking cyclists is to have more cyclists assert themselves on the road.
Cycling on highways I'm pretty sure is illegal everywhere, thankfully.
I'm also an advocate of taking up a full lane, but the laws in many places (like New York) actually require you to ride to the right/shoulder where feasible. Unfortunately that's not really clearly defined, so even though you have a legal right to a full lane, cops will still give you a ticket.
Having narrowly avoided being doored a few times, I won't ride anywhere within a foot's range of a completely open car door.
I'm also an advocate of taking up a full lane, but the laws in many places (like New York) actually require you to ride to the right/shoulder where feasible. Unfortunately that's not really clearly defined, so even though you have a legal right to a full lane, cops will still give you a ticket.
Having narrowly avoided being doored a few times, I won't ride anywhere within a foot's range of a completely open car door.
But if you do then do it at the speed of the pedestrians.
There's nothing wrong with riding on the sidewalk as long as you're careful and it's not crowded. You shouldn't go blasting down it, but if it's safe and legal, what's the problem?
Sometimes it's the only sane option. While I can legally ride my bicycle on a four-lane road with a speed limit of 45MPH and no real shoulder, I'd have to be crazy to prefer that to the sidewalk that sees perhaps one pedestrian an hour.
Sometimes it's the only sane option. While I can legally ride my bicycle on a four-lane road with a speed limit of 45MPH and no real shoulder, I'd have to be crazy to prefer that to the sidewalk that sees perhaps one pedestrian an hour.
I had an accident recently as a cyclist with a vehicle, and I thank my helmet a lot for my lack of injury.
The vehicle was a van, and turned right across me going straight (which normally I'd see clearly and avoid, but the way they hesitated implied they'd seen me so I rolled through. Alas.) I'd wager I was going around 20mph/30kph as I hit the side panel. Hips/shoulders first, then I felt my head whiplash into it. Without a helmet, I'd expect at least a mild concussion. With a helmet, I was able to roll away relatively unscathed (minor cuts/bruises) after we exchanged details.
Helmets can help at all/many speeds. They're not a perfect solution, but they're great sometimes. Don't discount them so bluntly :)
The vehicle was a van, and turned right across me going straight (which normally I'd see clearly and avoid, but the way they hesitated implied they'd seen me so I rolled through. Alas.) I'd wager I was going around 20mph/30kph as I hit the side panel. Hips/shoulders first, then I felt my head whiplash into it. Without a helmet, I'd expect at least a mild concussion. With a helmet, I was able to roll away relatively unscathed (minor cuts/bruises) after we exchanged details.
Helmets can help at all/many speeds. They're not a perfect solution, but they're great sometimes. Don't discount them so bluntly :)
Current helmets protect against impact injuries (eg, the pavement hitting your head). Yes, when the speed/energy is high, helmets won't do much. But when the speed is moderate, helmets help a lot. Then, there's also wearing the helmet properly, something many bicyclists fail to do.
The helmets today are only tested with straight on impacts: they're tested by dropping them straight down on the crown of the helmet. But that doesn't happen in the real world. You're moving, meaning you're hit at an angle, meaning that there's a potential for a diffuse axonal injury[1]: the rotational component of the injury. MIPS[2] has helmets that help protect against that.
Is wearing a helmet safer than not wearing a helmet? Without a doubt.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_axonal_injury
[2]:http://mipshelmet.com/home
The helmets today are only tested with straight on impacts: they're tested by dropping them straight down on the crown of the helmet. But that doesn't happen in the real world. You're moving, meaning you're hit at an angle, meaning that there's a potential for a diffuse axonal injury[1]: the rotational component of the injury. MIPS[2] has helmets that help protect against that.
Is wearing a helmet safer than not wearing a helmet? Without a doubt.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_axonal_injury
[2]:http://mipshelmet.com/home
Helmets protect you. I slid down a street and my head bounced on the pavement - without a helmet I would have been much worse off. The road rash was enough. Another incident was a truck mirror that grazed my helmet. Nothing major, but in all, the helmet does its job.
> Another incident was a truck mirror that grazed my helmet.
Of course, if you weren't wearing the helmet, the truck mirror may or may not have touched you at all.
Of course, if you weren't wearing the helmet, the truck mirror may or may not have touched you at all.
This. I saw a bus mirror actually catch a guy's helmet and pick him up off his bike by his head, hauling him down the street.
Had he not been wearing a helmet, that never would have happened.
Had he not been wearing a helmet, that never would have happened.
I hope you aren't saying that seriously. If those vehicles caught bicyclists in the helmet, they were both just too close to the cyclists. What if the cyclist swerved an inch to avoid a rock in the road, or even simply turned his/her head to look at something? Yeah, whamo.
Thus everyone should avoid helmets! They can kill.
Seriously: Outliers do not describe a population.
So you are fine with approx an inch clearance with passing vehicles? I don't think so.
this guy got injured right where thickest part of the standard styrofoam helmet is. About half way above the eyebrow to the temple. He survived (but there was a lot of blood) but with the helmet he'd walked from the scene with a few scratches on his knees.
I'm not saying "all". But I drive about 400 miles per week (long commute) and I can say that I've seen approximately 5 bicyclist last month which stopped at the stop sign. They really stand out of the crowd.
I'm not saying "all". But I drive about 400 miles per week (long commute) and I can say that I've seen approximately 5 bicyclist last month which stopped at the stop sign. They really stand out of the crowd.
I saw a bicyclist flip over a car door. He just had a baseball cap on, but it was torn to shreds. I'm glad that wasn't his forehead on the asphalt.
I see cars run stop signs and red lights all the time. I see cars speed everywhere, including neighborhoods with poor visibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
I can't remember the last time I saw a car run a red light that wasn't just squeaking by a yellow. I can remember the last time I saw a bicycle do this, it was yesterday and the guy didn't even pretend to stop or care as he obstructed traffic that had the right of way.
And not to mention that I see roughly one thousand times (literally) more cars than bicycles on the road.
I don't doubt that there is a lot of confirmation bias going on in this discussion. But there's almost certainly some substantial differences in behavior going on as well.
Bicyclists generally feel more entitled not to stop for stoplights when they feel it's safe to proceed. I've run lights on the bicycle myself, although I always stop, wait long enough to be sure the light isn't going to change on its own, and proceed carefully after checking for traffic. Quite a lot of bicyclists seem to think that the fact that their vehicles are human-powered means they shouldn't have to stop unless it's absolutely necessary.
On the flip side, I'm sure bicyclists violate the speed limit way less often. I'm sure they kill many fewer pedestrians too.
And not to mention that I see roughly one thousand times (literally) more cars than bicycles on the road.
I don't doubt that there is a lot of confirmation bias going on in this discussion. But there's almost certainly some substantial differences in behavior going on as well.
Bicyclists generally feel more entitled not to stop for stoplights when they feel it's safe to proceed. I've run lights on the bicycle myself, although I always stop, wait long enough to be sure the light isn't going to change on its own, and proceed carefully after checking for traffic. Quite a lot of bicyclists seem to think that the fact that their vehicles are human-powered means they shouldn't have to stop unless it's absolutely necessary.
On the flip side, I'm sure bicyclists violate the speed limit way less often. I'm sure they kill many fewer pedestrians too.
Maybe it depends where you live (UK here). I see multiple cars jump multiple different red lights everyday, when the lights are very definitely red.
Often the cars accelerate into the lights to get through.
I also see bikes jump through lights, but I don't usually find them as objectionable as they are i) going much slower, ii) weigh about 10% of the car, iii) have a massive interest in navigating the junction safely because of the mortal risk to themselves.
I get annoyed when I see either cars or bikes jumping lights that are for pedestrians.
Often the cars accelerate into the lights to get through.
I also see bikes jump through lights, but I don't usually find them as objectionable as they are i) going much slower, ii) weigh about 10% of the car, iii) have a massive interest in navigating the junction safely because of the mortal risk to themselves.
I get annoyed when I see either cars or bikes jumping lights that are for pedestrians.
When you're talking about accelerating to get through, I take it you're discussing running of red lights quickly after a yellow.
While I certainly won't condone this, I also think it's a different class of problem from blatantly running a red light that has been red for a long time. Lights are timed to tolerate some abuse when it comes to trying to squeak through.
What I see bicycles do on a regular basis (and what this one particular jerk did the other day that really stuck out at me) is proceed through red lights that have been red for a long time. On a good day, they do it after stopping and waiting for a while. On a decent day, they check for traffic and only run the light if there's a hole. On a bad day, they just blow through.
I object for two reasons. First, even though they're likely to take the physical damage in a crash, they're still imposing potential emotional damage on others. Even if they're not at all at fault, a normal human will feel awful for hurting or killing a bicyclist while driving. Second, it gives all bicyclists a bad reputation, and that harms me when I'm on my bicycle.
While I certainly won't condone this, I also think it's a different class of problem from blatantly running a red light that has been red for a long time. Lights are timed to tolerate some abuse when it comes to trying to squeak through.
What I see bicycles do on a regular basis (and what this one particular jerk did the other day that really stuck out at me) is proceed through red lights that have been red for a long time. On a good day, they do it after stopping and waiting for a while. On a decent day, they check for traffic and only run the light if there's a hole. On a bad day, they just blow through.
I object for two reasons. First, even though they're likely to take the physical damage in a crash, they're still imposing potential emotional damage on others. Even if they're not at all at fault, a normal human will feel awful for hurting or killing a bicyclist while driving. Second, it gives all bicyclists a bad reputation, and that harms me when I'm on my bicycle.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
According to that article, there is a good chance that running red lights is doing the opposite. Maybe time you changed your assumptions and objections.
According to that article, there is a good chance that running red lights is doing the opposite. Maybe time you changed your assumptions and objections.
That's quite an interesting link, but I'm not sure that conclusion can be applied outside of London as there seem to be a lot of confounding factors involved.
In the other hand see a car do it on a weekly basis where as I can't remember the last time a bicycle did it (and in the few cases I saw it, there was no obstruction of traffic and in fact they were getting a head start to allow traffic to flow more smoothly). So now that we have these disparate anecdotes what happens next?
> I can't remember the last time a bicycle did it (and in the few cases I saw it...
Indeed, the last time I saw it was so long ago I can't remember when it was.
The phrase "I can't remember the last time..." is idiomatic usage in my dialect of English for: "This has occurred to me in the very distant past."
The phrase "I can't remember the last time..." is idiomatic usage in my dialect of English for: "This has occurred to me in the very distant past."
How odd. When I use that phrase, I mean it literally.
I've never understood that phrase to mean anything other than its literal meaning.
You must speak some mythical human language that makes sense :P
No way!
Honestly, I'd be interested in knowing which of us is using it in the "normal" fashion. I really don't know. Or perhaps we both are and it depends on the region.
Honestly, I'd be interested in knowing which of us is using it in the "normal" fashion. I really don't know. Or perhaps we both are and it depends on the region.
Yeah, it probably depends on a lot of factors, including social sub-cultures within dialects. To me using "I can't remember the last time X" to mean "I actually can't remember X happening" still sounds incredibly weird. Is that what you mean by the literal meaning?
To say the latter in conversation I would usually say "I can't actually remember X happening". I think "I cant remember the last time..." is roughly a shorthand for "I can't remember when the last time was that..." but who can be bothered actually saying all those words :P
To say the latter in conversation I would usually say "I can't actually remember X happening". I think "I cant remember the last time..." is roughly a shorthand for "I can't remember when the last time was that..." but who can be bothered actually saying all those words :P
Yep, that's pretty much what I mean. I'm not sure whether or not I've ever seen a car run a red light in person (aside from the all-too-common squeaking through yellows), but in any case I can't remember any specific instance.
No time like the present to present the present English that people speak :).
Ideally, somebody more motivated than I presents some statistics, although I fear they may not exist (neither the stats nor the person).
I see them too. I also see them got ticketed heavily and some even lost the privilege to drive. But I can't say that vast majority of cars run stop signs.
Your link is not relevant, sorry.
Your link is not relevant, sorry.
You're not a cyclist so you judge them differently than you judge cars. Cyclists do get ticketed, even when they are commiting crimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhWCFi3JIcU
Holy crap, that is the first time I have ever heard of a bicyclist being pulled over and ticketed.
Good on the cop that issued that citation!
Good on the cop that issued that citation!
Here in Barcelona I have heard of more cyclists get ticket than car owners (probably I know a lot more people that ride bikes admittedly). For listening to music while biking amongst other things. I guess they are an easy target for police.
I do not bike to work, right, it's 50 miles one way. But I ride the bike for recreational purposes.
I think I was... what? 4? 5? ... when my parents explained that your reasoning is invalid.
I am still young (20), but in my entire life I have only seen a car run a red light once.
Maybe it's different up here in Canada, though.
Maybe it's different up here in Canada, though.
When you say "running stop signs", do you mean a rolling slow-down/speed up if they're the first at the intersection? I do that all the time, not sure if it's legal but it's a pain to stop fully. With cars around I always stop, especially in SF I'd be insane not to.
some of them just speed through the intersection if they consider it safe, I've heard screeching tires a few times, which means they misjudged.
Stopping at every stop sign is a financial pain for a motorist, because MPG drops considerably. So what? Stop sign is a stop sign, it means "stop". The solution to this is not ignoring signs because it's a "pain" but to replace stop signs with roundabouts, like in Europe.
Stopping at every stop sign is a financial pain for a motorist, because MPG drops considerably. So what? Stop sign is a stop sign, it means "stop". The solution to this is not ignoring signs because it's a "pain" but to replace stop signs with roundabouts, like in Europe.
Relevant to this discussion: Roundabouts do cyclists no favors whatsoever.
This article cites a number of others on the subject: http://www.cascade.org/2010/11/circular-logic/
This article cites a number of others on the subject: http://www.cascade.org/2010/11/circular-logic/
I'm not thinking about special favors for cyclists, roundabouts allow everyone not to stop if there's no cross traffic.
Rolling stops on bicycle are only legal in one state - Idaho.
A rolling stop is illegal in CA.
Cyclists running red lights are a big problem in LA. I am very much in favor of cycling, but you have to follow the laws. I know it is a pain in the ass to stop at every stoplight when you have to use your own muscles to accelerate, but you have to do it.
Cycling laws are the biggest problem in LA. Depending on where you are in LA, you're either can ride on the sidewalk or you can't. There's no consistency. I'm not in favor of ANYONE riding on the sidewalk, but cops in LA in areas where you can ride on the sidewalk like to be dicks and give cyclists bogus tickets for riding in the street.
http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/la-county-side...
http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/la-county-side...
Quite unfair. When I commuted by bike in SF for a couple years, I wore hi-vis clothing, front and rear lights even when it wasn't dark yet (especially at dusk!), and stuck to designated bike routes with calmer traffic when possible. And every day I saw hundreds of other cyclists just like me who didn't have a death wish.
The (small-y) yahoos who ride dangerously certainly stand out more, but it's depressing to have folks like you throw up their hands and say, effectively: Too bad there's nothing we can do to make cycling safer, since too many cyclists just "want to die".
The (small-y) yahoos who ride dangerously certainly stand out more, but it's depressing to have folks like you throw up their hands and say, effectively: Too bad there's nothing we can do to make cycling safer, since too many cyclists just "want to die".
SF has problems with people running lights and stop signs because of the hills. I think its dis-ingenuous to deny this. It may be different in soma/mission, where the topography is completely different. But in the financial district (lots of 1 ways, no left turns, hills, tourists, etc) and around market street...the whole industry of bike messengers (ie, 30 years of history) is predicated on them not following traffic rules. Actually, that might be a little strong. But you get my point. They make money because they are faster...and the way to be faster than traffic is not not go with the flow.
>I think its dis-ingenuous to deny this
I didn't mention stop signs or red lights in my comment. I just pointed out that there's a large population of conscientious, safety-minded cyclists out there who get ignored in these types of discussions.
Your invocation of law-breaking bike messengers in the second half of your comment is in fact a perfect recapitulation of the tendency I was referring to!
I didn't mention stop signs or red lights in my comment. I just pointed out that there's a large population of conscientious, safety-minded cyclists out there who get ignored in these types of discussions.
Your invocation of law-breaking bike messengers in the second half of your comment is in fact a perfect recapitulation of the tendency I was referring to!
Previous commenter was giving an example of 'suicidal' riding. The fact that others ride in a responsible manner does not serve as a counter-factual. That's all I was saying. That, and I believe that there are reasons other than "irrational crazy" why people ride the way they do. Can you do a trakcstand on the side of a steep hill? How about ingress/egree from a clippless pedal? That stuff is hard and slow, so people take "shortcuts" around norms of doing things (eg, run stop signs, go up one-way streets, etc) that are more rational to them than "giving up the bike". Either because they need the money or just like the fitness/lifestyle/image etc. Its not even that you need to :"look down" on these guys...just you can't have a policy discussion and pretend they don't exist. =D
I don't see such classy combination at once often, it's just a sum of everything I see. But running lights and stops is very-very common here.
No one is suggesting that the driver should be held accountable by default for a collision with a cyclist. But it would be nice if society even entertained the possibility that a driver could be at fault.
Bike safety starts with the rider. One of the scariest experiences I ever had while driving a car was nearly hitting a cyclist as I was pulling out of a parking lot. He was riding at night with no lights or reflectors visible. Oh, and he was wearing 100% dark clothing too. This was in an area with very little street lighting. He was basically invisible to me until he got extremely close. Fortunately I saw him in time and stopped, but to this day it still makes my heart race a little bit to think about it.
Before anyone jumps on me for not seeing it from the cyclist's perspective, I spent several years commuting by bicycle, frequently going home after dark. During that time, I made damn sure I had enough lights and reflectors for car drivers to see me. I was never under the impression that basic safety was anyone's responsibility but my own.
That of course doesn't mean that there aren't car drivers out there who are careless around cyclists, but cyclists themselves have to take the first steps, such as making sure you are visible to everyone around you, (including avoiding getting into other people's blind spots), and above all maintaing awareness and caution at all times. I realize I probably sound like a school teacher, but they say these sorts of things for a reason. A cyclist with cavalier, reckless, or lackadaisical attitude towards safety is an accident waiting to happen.
Before anyone jumps on me for not seeing it from the cyclist's perspective, I spent several years commuting by bicycle, frequently going home after dark. During that time, I made damn sure I had enough lights and reflectors for car drivers to see me. I was never under the impression that basic safety was anyone's responsibility but my own.
That of course doesn't mean that there aren't car drivers out there who are careless around cyclists, but cyclists themselves have to take the first steps, such as making sure you are visible to everyone around you, (including avoiding getting into other people's blind spots), and above all maintaing awareness and caution at all times. I realize I probably sound like a school teacher, but they say these sorts of things for a reason. A cyclist with cavalier, reckless, or lackadaisical attitude towards safety is an accident waiting to happen.
You ever seen Amsterdam traffic? Lots of cyclists ignore red lights etc, etc, etc, and yet for some odd reason that's not considered an excuse for just running them over with your car.
I totally get the American argument in favor of the right to bear arms, but at least that's based on the assumption of responsible gun ownership.
When it comes to cars however, any sense of responsibility seems to go out of the window. Cars and bicycles aren't equals, a car is a heavy piece of machinery that can kill a grown man in an instant. The driver of a car has a much, much greater responsibility to the safety of those around them.
I totally get the American argument in favor of the right to bear arms, but at least that's based on the assumption of responsible gun ownership.
When it comes to cars however, any sense of responsibility seems to go out of the window. Cars and bicycles aren't equals, a car is a heavy piece of machinery that can kill a grown man in an instant. The driver of a car has a much, much greater responsibility to the safety of those around them.
I've worked in Ams for few months, about 15 years ago. And I've seen car-bike accidents there too. Not sure what do you mean by "excuse".
Cars and bikes are not equal, that's right, as well as small sedans and large pickup trucks are not equal, motorcycles and cars are not equal, semis and pickups are not equal, etc, etc, etc. So what? There're rules of the road, California Vehicle Code in my case, and everyone using a public road should obey one, period. Having a car driver more responsible for safety of those around him doesn't mean that bicyclist can cut in front of this driver while running a red light against the traffic and consider himself to have a right of way just because he's a weakest player on the road.
Cars and bikes are not equal, that's right, as well as small sedans and large pickup trucks are not equal, motorcycles and cars are not equal, semis and pickups are not equal, etc, etc, etc. So what? There're rules of the road, California Vehicle Code in my case, and everyone using a public road should obey one, period. Having a car driver more responsible for safety of those around him doesn't mean that bicyclist can cut in front of this driver while running a red light against the traffic and consider himself to have a right of way just because he's a weakest player on the road.
I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and the bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct (non-emergency line) to report it with the bus number (the 4 digit one on the back) and they repeatedly hung up on me when I told them I was run down by a city bus who drove away.
>> "I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and the bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct"
What do you mean you got run over from behind? When I picture that collision the cyclist would be killed or horribly injured. Certainly not able to call the police - and if able to call anyone they would probably call an ambulance.
I'm not doubting you, just confused by the way you've stated it.
What do you mean you got run over from behind? When I picture that collision the cyclist would be killed or horribly injured. Certainly not able to call the police - and if able to call anyone they would probably call an ambulance.
I'm not doubting you, just confused by the way you've stated it.
Sure. I was cycling down 21st in Astoria and staying to the right. I passed a bus that was picking up a line of passengers and still had about 5-6 more to go as I was passing it. I was already about 3/4 of the block away from the stop when the bus ran me over.
Basically the bus immediately pulled out after picking up the last passenger and was going way too fast not looking ahead. I got hit from behind on the front-right side of the bus and fell to the right and ended up in the bus' right front wheelwell which I rolled out of before it ran me over completely. My bike took more damage than I did -- I was lucky.
Basically the bus immediately pulled out after picking up the last passenger and was going way too fast not looking ahead. I got hit from behind on the front-right side of the bus and fell to the right and ended up in the bus' right front wheelwell which I rolled out of before it ran me over completely. My bike took more damage than I did -- I was lucky.
That is fucked up.
I think this is problem that's endemic in the UK too. Our love of the motor vehicle, and design of the city to meet the needs of the motorist just leaves little to no room to make cycling a safe activity.
Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was critically injured cycling in the city
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-lor...
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on...
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207...
If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was critically injured cycling in the city
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-lor...
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on...
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207...
If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
Yes, definitely a big problem in the UK too. Although I think support for cycling is perhaps more cross-party than in the US, at least in the political elite. Both the Conservative PM and Mayor of London are nominally pro-bike, also The Times (centre-right paper for those from outside the UK) ran a major campaign on cycle safety, after one of their journalists was killed:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic.
> If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic.
> If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
It's pretty amazing how quickly tribalism emerges in cases like this. As societies, we seem to require very little difference before it's ok not to give a damn about people being killed. A disagreement about the most efficient form of transportation escalates in a moment into life and death.
The author makes all of the relevant points. When I first moved to SV, I bought a nice bike and rode it around for awhile. Then I started to notice the utter lack of attention to cyclists, even those such as myself who rode with a helmet and obeyed all of the traffic laws. You're just invisible.
Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't behave that way.
Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't behave that way.
When you have an environment that only assholes will tolerate, only assholes will inhabit it.
Can you imagine grandmas and schools kids riding their bikes in urban traffic?
Can you imagine grandmas and schools kids riding their bikes in urban traffic?
No argument on the environment, and no I can't.
>So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere...
Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.
I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.
Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.
I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.
You would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him.
There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."
There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."
>you would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him.
If that's the proposal then my counter-proposal is to ban all bicycles from the streets. People make mistakes, and it's simply not reasonable to put someone in jail for a mistake a normal person would have made.
If that's the proposal then my counter-proposal is to ban all bicycles from the streets. People make mistakes, and it's simply not reasonable to put someone in jail for a mistake a normal person would have made.
I think this is the core of the discrepancy. Cyclists are so vulnerable that a half-second of inattention from either the driver or the cyclist can result in death.
Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car.
It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.
Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car.
It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.
If a child gets run down by someone who didn't see him...
...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child).
Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).
...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child).
Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).
Why do you assume that doesn't happen?
a) The way you stated it implies that it is ALWAYS an accident, never a crime.
b) The article claimed so.
> “We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
b) The article claimed so.
> “We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
I guarantee you if you killed a cyclist in the SF bay area there would be a police investigation.
The problem is that "I didn't see the cyclist" becomes a catch-all excuse that law-enforcement takes at face value. This leads to an implicit (though not acknowledged or stated) assumption that a driver cannot be at fault in a driver/cyclist ahem interaction.
I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.
I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.
I'm pretty sure if the cops knew someone was texting when he hit a cyclist he would get charged with something serious. But I'm not sure how you'd go about proving that's the case in the absence of witnesses. It's not unreasonable to take "I didn't see the cyclist" at face value if you don't have any evidence to the contrary - that's just a presumption of innocence.
Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on.
Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
>Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again.
I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already.
>The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on.
I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801.
>Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.
I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already.
>The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on.
I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801.
>Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.
Why are so many comments here raising the straw-man argument of a cyclist flagrantly disregarding all traffic laws and common sense? No one is suggesting that the driver should be at fault in such cases.
This article is a string of anecdotes presented as a trend. Where's the hard data?
In any case, the truth is, accidents do happen. What would throwing the teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?
In any case, the truth is, accidents do happen. What would throwing the teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?
I don't know - but I do know that if no one goes to jail for reckless driving, people will continue to drive recklessly. And it's not just bicyclists who die from reckless driving - lots of motorists die as well. And yet, hardly anyone is prosecuted, and people continue to drive tired, distracted or otherwise incapacitated. And people die. And society seems to consider it the price of doing business.
Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be a lot more careful behind the wheel.
Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be a lot more careful behind the wheel.
Considering the rate at which they happen with automobiles and the death and injury that result from said accidents, you would think we'd have banned or severely limited personal automobiles by now.
The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".
I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have been made legal and available, not less.
So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths, cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.
I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have been made legal and available, not less.
So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths, cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.
The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".
I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really think there's something else going on in this case.
If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.
I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really think there's something else going on in this case.
If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.
> If a driver kills a pedestrian
The situation isn't a whole hell of a lot better for walkers vs. bike riders. "I just didn't see him" still works.
The situation isn't a whole hell of a lot better for walkers vs. bike riders. "I just didn't see him" still works.
You're on your own if you're involved in an accident while riding a bike.
>The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".
Yeah... we call it "freedom".
Yeah... we call it "freedom".
Are you suggesting that banning cars is an appropriate response to cyclists being hit by cars?
Things have changed. I went to visit a teacher at my old high school while I was back home, and was told I needed to apply for a visitor pass (w/ background check) beforehand in order to be allowed in the building. And even then, I needed the person I was visiting to escort me.
Your post is a baseless rant which generalizes the thoughts and actions of hundreds of millions of people.
Your post is a baseless rant which generalizes the thoughts and actions of hundreds of millions of people.
You seem to forget that kids are tossed out of schools in the US for playing with toy guns. You can get thrown out for making your food look like a gun.
On the other hand, many of these mass killers are? Kids. The same kids who are never taught how to handle themselves around potential danger or to manage risk and stress.
So, we get a bunch of kids who sit at home a rather playing with their pop-tarts as toy guns, play "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER" video games. Cause why? That's a good way for them to learn how to safely handle firearms?
And we wonder.
http://distractify.com/news/how-america-is-turning-kids-into...
On the other hand, many of these mass killers are? Kids. The same kids who are never taught how to handle themselves around potential danger or to manage risk and stress.
So, we get a bunch of kids who sit at home a rather playing with their pop-tarts as toy guns, play "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER" video games. Cause why? That's a good way for them to learn how to safely handle firearms?
And we wonder.
http://distractify.com/news/how-america-is-turning-kids-into...
I see problems like this as "points-in-time". There will eventually be a technology based solution to these sorts of things. Early warning systems, collision detection, even just pervasiveness of go-pro cameras as the price point brings it into "standard equipment" territory (thus allowing distinction between negligence and accident).
That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't look to the criminal justice system for it.
That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't look to the criminal justice system for it.
I grew up cycling in London. Came from a family of cyclists and motorbikers. My uncles taught me one rule, which has saved me on numerous occasions (on a bike and in a car):
"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"
And it's so true.
"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"
And it's so true.
Whenever I read a piece like this I'm always reminded of this BBC piece on why motorists hate cyclists. There's a good evolutionary reason for doing so, and it's worth understanding.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...
I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.
A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in cars so their sympathies are there.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...
I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.
A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in cars so their sympathies are there.
I'm glad that people are cycling and that this article pleads with everyone to follow the rules of the road, but beyond that, it's still pretty sensational.
Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through, accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no criminal charges followed.
I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved, the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.
In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by technology designed to survive in it.
Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through, accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no criminal charges followed.
I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved, the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.
In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by technology designed to survive in it.
Are there any statistics what happens to drivers at fault that kill another car driver?
What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?
I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.
What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?
I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.
> Are there any statistics what happens to drivers at fault that kill another car driver?
I would argue that cyclists are different because they are much more vulnerable than other vehicles and the law should reflect that fact.
I would argue that cyclists are different because they are much more vulnerable than other vehicles and the law should reflect that fact.
I don't know about jail, but I find it hard to believe that people who have demonstrated incompetence with a motor vehicle, fatal incompetence, are allowed to drive.
Anyway, there really is only one long term solution: exclusive roads for non-pedestrian, non-motor vehicles. We should aim to solve these problems by making it hard for people to have them. I don't think a punishment deterrent really works in situations like these. Most people drive in a switched off mode, and they aren't going to change.
Anyway, there really is only one long term solution: exclusive roads for non-pedestrian, non-motor vehicles. We should aim to solve these problems by making it hard for people to have them. I don't think a punishment deterrent really works in situations like these. Most people drive in a switched off mode, and they aren't going to change.
How do we determine "unintentional"? Does having a blase attitude towards the road qualify? Most people don't even internalise the fact they're driving a ball of steel weighing over a tonne with the potential to mame or kill. Is that entirely their fault or of a society that treats driving as a right rather than a privilege and doesn't bother to educate the driver with advanced skills to handle the death machine.
A key difference, I think, is when one driver kills another there is often a more grievous error involved. With cyclists on the other hand, it only takes a tiny error at low speeds to have a fatal accident. I'm thinking the magnitude of the error might be playing into verdicts.
At the very least, loss of driving privileges pending classwork and retesting should be required.
If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to have the capability to do this safely.
Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we should raise the driving age, greatly raise driving test standards, and require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially inspected my driving. It's insane.
But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally vastly overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of regular testing as a slight against them.
I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.
If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to have the capability to do this safely.
Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we should raise the driving age, greatly raise driving test standards, and require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially inspected my driving. It's insane.
But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally vastly overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of regular testing as a slight against them.
I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.
Perhaps the physical disparity between these two modes of transport makes them so incompatible they just shouldn't be sharing the same space at all. Unfortunately cities just haven't been built with this in mind, so making the adjustment seems near impossible at this point.
It's no surprise the author of this piece is from San Francisco. SF is a particularly dangerous city to cycle in, at least for commuters. Riding on the main drags of Market street, Mission, and others is exceedingly dangerous, since drivers are reckless and you're competing with MUNI buses, streetcars, and in packed cycling lanes.
I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city, but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States. The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.
I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city, but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States. The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.
For those questioning whether having and enforcing laws that protect cyclists may help:
In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.
In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.
Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.
So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase safety.
(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in the long term).
In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.
In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.
Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.
So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase safety.
(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in the long term).
How about enforcing laws against cyclists that constantly break traffic laws?
Sounds like road envy to me. I know plenty of cyclist that have fines over here.
And read this, as it suggests sticking to the rules may be more dangerous for cyclists.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
And read this, as it suggests sticking to the rules may be more dangerous for cyclists.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
The rules of the road are the rules of the road and--unless otherwise specified--are to be followed by cyclists and drivers. Period. No exceptions.
Glad you are asking, these are enforced in Germany as well. I personally witnessed police waiting behind traffic lights to catch cyclists running a red light, stopping cyclists who ride on a pedestrian-only path and checking for proper lights at night. I think they also check for drunken riders, although I have never witnessed that personally.
Cyclists get fined, and they can even loose their driving license (for cars).
These checks are not too-frequent (neither are those for car drivers), but they exist.
Cyclists get fined, and they can even loose their driving license (for cars).
These checks are not too-frequent (neither are those for car drivers), but they exist.
I don't understand how people can ride bicycles on public roads along side cars and trucks. The average driver is highly incompetent. Most people don't get proper training how to drive. A lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or eating while driving. Heavy objects moving at high speeds can be very dangerous.
I don't understand how people can walk on public sidewalks along bicyclists that ignore all traffic rules and drive wherever they like. The average cyclist is highly incompetent. Most people don't get any training at all. A lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or listening to music with headphones while cycling. Bicycles moving at high speeds can be very dangerous to pedestrians that are walking on sidewalks.
This was so weird to read as a Dutchman. In the Netherlands the automobile driver is (almost) always at fault.
Story 1
I was on my motorcycle on the left lane in a city when a car way ahead of me just plowed into a bicycle riding on the side of the road ahead of it as if it wasn't there. The car driver was dreaming or sleeping- I don't know. The bicycle rider, an elderly person, almost went through the windshield. Me and some others stopped to help. Luckily he survived.
Story 2
When I grew up I was on my bicycle all the time. I was one of the cyclists you may see disobeying traffic rules but I never did it in any dangerous way, to myself or to traffic around me. I had zero encounters involving cars though I did have a few scary falls involving myself doing stupid stuff. This is over years of riding every day.
The point I am trying to make here is that treating a bicycle like a car is stupid. It's almost as stupid as saying pedestrians should walk on the road, stop at stop signs, change lanes when they want to turn, and stop at traffic lights. Bicycles sit somewhere between pedestrians and motorized traffic, they're not one and they're not the other.
These days I am very careful about where and how I ride my bicycle. This is because I don't have that sixth sense anymore of what's going on around me as I don't ride as much and I also don't live in the same place. New riders in a new environment should be very very careful. I will often prefer to ride on an empty sidewalk to riding on the road as the odds of getting mowed down are much lower (but watch out for cars zooming out of driveways). As a driver I give plenty of room to cyclists, if I can I move out of their lane, because I know that a bicycle may simply move into my path at any point and I know how hard it is for a cyclist to hold a line perfectly over a length of time.
Adding another thought here: It seems car drivers these days are more isolated from what goes on around them for various reasons. I see this even in myself as my car is better insulated and there are more distractions (GPS, phone, etc). This is yet another problem in sharing the road.
I was on my motorcycle on the left lane in a city when a car way ahead of me just plowed into a bicycle riding on the side of the road ahead of it as if it wasn't there. The car driver was dreaming or sleeping- I don't know. The bicycle rider, an elderly person, almost went through the windshield. Me and some others stopped to help. Luckily he survived.
Story 2
When I grew up I was on my bicycle all the time. I was one of the cyclists you may see disobeying traffic rules but I never did it in any dangerous way, to myself or to traffic around me. I had zero encounters involving cars though I did have a few scary falls involving myself doing stupid stuff. This is over years of riding every day.
The point I am trying to make here is that treating a bicycle like a car is stupid. It's almost as stupid as saying pedestrians should walk on the road, stop at stop signs, change lanes when they want to turn, and stop at traffic lights. Bicycles sit somewhere between pedestrians and motorized traffic, they're not one and they're not the other.
These days I am very careful about where and how I ride my bicycle. This is because I don't have that sixth sense anymore of what's going on around me as I don't ride as much and I also don't live in the same place. New riders in a new environment should be very very careful. I will often prefer to ride on an empty sidewalk to riding on the road as the odds of getting mowed down are much lower (but watch out for cars zooming out of driveways). As a driver I give plenty of room to cyclists, if I can I move out of their lane, because I know that a bicycle may simply move into my path at any point and I know how hard it is for a cyclist to hold a line perfectly over a length of time.
Adding another thought here: It seems car drivers these days are more isolated from what goes on around them for various reasons. I see this even in myself as my car is better insulated and there are more distractions (GPS, phone, etc). This is yet another problem in sharing the road.
> New riders in a new environment should be very very careful.
Very. I narrowly avoided getting creamed by one of my neighbors who wasn't looking where they were driving about a week after moving here. Unfortunately I tried to hop a 6-inch-plus curb to avoid getting hit and wound up going over the bars and skinning my hands and arms pretty badly.
Very. I narrowly avoided getting creamed by one of my neighbors who wasn't looking where they were driving about a week after moving here. Unfortunately I tried to hop a 6-inch-plus curb to avoid getting hit and wound up going over the bars and skinning my hands and arms pretty badly.
If there was ever a title to draw you into reading the article.. this is it.
Hmmm. The final suggestion of sticking exactly to the letter of the law isn't in my opinion what makes me safe.
I break the rules. I stay out of the road of cars as much as I can. I believe this makes me safer.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
This article shows that women have far more accidents than men, and it is suggested that it is because they don't break the rules as much.
I break the rules. I stay out of the road of cars as much as I can. I believe this makes me safer.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
This article shows that women have far more accidents than men, and it is suggested that it is because they don't break the rules as much.
From my local Chicago experience and we got Divvy recently, woohoo ! cyclists are the one who are reckless and endangering other traffic participants.
Obviously not all, but essentially driving bicycle is simply activity for which traffic laws were not made, it is hard to stop and go on the bicycle etc. Having cyclists whiz by you while you drive is often unexpected.
So there. Until we get something like Bogota, Colombia, these things will happen.
Did I mention we have Divvy in Chicago :)
Obviously not all, but essentially driving bicycle is simply activity for which traffic laws were not made, it is hard to stop and go on the bicycle etc. Having cyclists whiz by you while you drive is often unexpected.
So there. Until we get something like Bogota, Colombia, these things will happen.
Did I mention we have Divvy in Chicago :)
I cycle occasionally and pretty much 1 journey in 10 I'm either hit by or have a scary near-miss with a car driver.
TL;DR — No.
You must not have read the article, because that's definitely not the TL;DR. Sentences like this tell a very different story:
> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.
That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."
> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.
That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."
Or society has de facto decided there's no point in sending someone to jail for a legitimate accident.
So you're saying that 100% of collisions between cars and bikes are either the cyclist's fault or "legitimate accidents", and 0% are the motorist's fault?
You'd better read it this time maybe.
I stand corrected (and misunderstood).
When I said "No." I meant it's ethically wrong to kill cyclists, and not "O.K". I was merely answering the question posed in the title. I agree my use of "TL;DR" probably made sure everybody took this the wrong way, and was technically out of place, too.
When I said "No." I meant it's ethically wrong to kill cyclists, and not "O.K". I was merely answering the question posed in the title. I agree my use of "TL;DR" probably made sure everybody took this the wrong way, and was technically out of place, too.
Legally it's OK to kill cyclists.
Lobbyists who work for car companies, write the law on road safety.
Lobbyists who work for car companies, write the law on road safety.
Cycle paths are optional here, and I very regularly opt out of driving on them because they are in a constant state of disarray, had snow and glass shoved on them, are too close to parking cars or end abruptly, forcing me to merge into traffic. So, being a vehicle, I drive on the street. I drive on the middle of the street, because (1) bicycles come with two (bi) wheels and naturally oscillate (2) street conditions very frequently make it necessary to use space to my left or right and (3) to make it clear that you can not overtake me in the same lane.
Car drivers regularly think this is an invitation to overtake me extremely closely, basically touching. They value my life, really any life, so little compared to the nonexistent time or speed benefit they would get from overtaking me. They think they are supremely in control of a large four ton object driving at 30 mph when they couldn't park it to an inch to save their life. They think I have done them wrong, and are now trying to get back at me; it's a game to them!
I don't know what it is that makes people lose all compassion or basic rational understanding of risks and dangers once they get into a car.