The vast majority of cyclists I see don't wear "tour de france cosplay setups" (recent personal experience from Toronto and the bay area). The vast majority I see also don't run red lights.
I think you might have a sample biased towards those that you notice in negative ways.
The last time I read the stats for the London, UK, the number of cyclists seen jumping red lights was in the single digits of all cyclists counted and motorists accounted for 95% of total red light infractions.
What is immediately evident is that the less protections you have around you and the more you can go fast (if you can, you will), the more fatality rate is high.
The idea that if we could only move by bike there would be less accident is a false one
There would be less accidents for sure, because only a tiny fraction of the actual driver's population would go by bike.
But they would probably start falling from horses or have carriage accidents
> Bikes are safe. Cars are unsafe because they often kill other road users. You have them confused.
knifes kill people too
but I'm sure you use them
Guns kill people too, but they love them in the US, they love them so much that they put them in the hands of kids and let them go the school to shoot other kids
Cars are not unsafe, people driving them are.
It's the same people that ride bikes.
You have them confused.
As Conan's father said:
"No one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts."
As someone who daily commuted by bicycle, the last time I didn't stop at a red light was never. I've definitely seen more cars fail to stop at red lights than bicycles, too.
They carry on when the light is red?
I have seen plenty take off early and do it myself to avoid having the traffic pile up behind me, but going through a light that has just turned red would seem to invite catastrophe.
I'm neither a driver nor a cyclist - just a pedestrian - but my impression is that, at least in my part of London, cyclists carry on through red lights much more frequently than cars.
Same. Depending on the intersection and traffic there are places in zone 1 where the traffic signals seem to be considered completely optional for cyclists. I have also found myself needing to use a death stare to get some cyclists to stop at a zebra crossing as well; this happens far more frequently with cyclists than I ever needed to for cars or HGVs.
Yes, let's mock the cyclists for their bicycles and not those folks driving $30,000+ condo-sized pollution machines (and the leading cause of death for people under 30) so they can save 20 minutes on their commute and go to Costco once a month.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "
Edit: BTW, as a road cyclist, my very first reaction was the same as yours: Since this was a survey it's tough to tease out the real reasons from the rationalizations. Speaking for myself, I'll freely admit that my reasons for violating road rules (which, for me, is limited to rolling through stop signs at empty intersections) are more about energy savings and speed rather than safety.
But you can deliver that criticism without being cruelly mocking and dismissive of an activity you happen not to value.
You’re right, that was a bit harsh I guess, but I’m just mirroring the attitude I perceive from the cycling community. I recently bought a road bike myself and found the entire sport obnoxiously pretentious, including the guy at the bike shop, who sneered at me because I didn’t know what a “fondo” was.
> I recently bought a road bike myself and found the entire sport obnoxiously pretentious, including the guy at the bike shop, who sneered at me because I didn’t know what a “fondo” was.
And that sucks, I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. While I've met many lovely people in the cycling community, I've also run across similar attitudes, myself, from time to time. That's probably because the cycling community reflects people, and people are usually great and sometimes not so much.
But ask yourself: is it good for you, personally, to return that sneering with sneering of your own? Does that make you feel better about yourself or the people around you? What do you gain by stereotyping a huge community based on the poor behaviour of a few individuals?
My suggestion: Assuming you haven't been scared away from the hobby, leave an honest review of that bike shop owner (who legitimately sounds like an ass and isn't someone I'd want representing the cycling community), and then find a better shop.
And if you want to join a cycling club, find one that aligns with your values and beliefs. Cycling clubs are just like people in that they're not all the same.
While yours is a better title, your comment also helps me rationalize my behavior on a bike. Many people have irrational hate towards bikes, and those people operate much heavier equipment. They do so while staring at their cell phones. This is certainly a problem where all sides need to pay more attention, and not hate on each other.
And just because; my "tour de france cosplay" gives me a butt-pad for comfort, nice pockets on the back of my shirt to carry things, and dries really quick in the rain. I suppose if I spent $20,000 on a rolling sofa that would be better?
I used to bicycle commute to work, 11mi round trip. I broke rules, but not glaringly.
The worst of the rule breakers are the wrong-way cyclists: The ones who think that riding on the wrong side of the road is safer because they can see cars coming. They are wrong.
Riding on the wrong side, and on sidewalks, puts you in places cars would never expect you to be, and so they're even more oblivious.
If you're going to break rules, break the right ones and understand the impact fully.
It's especially dangerous when you're cycling on the right side of the road and come across cyclist going the wrong way.
Had this happen to me recently on a 55mph highway with no shoulder. The other cyclists didn't even take it upon themselves to move, they just headed right toward me.
Only of a 50 km/h (not mile) road, but I had another cyclist do this in the dark, weaving in and out of park cars, wearing dark clothing, without lights, in an area with minimal street lights, do this to me.
It was one of the closest calls I've had. I'm pretty sure I would have run into him head on if I hadn't had a bright front light.
I generally ride on on trails, but to save time to drive to trails, I've started riding on roads since about 4 months.
Behavior of some riders surprises me, they'll switch between pavement and road whenever they wish to. Just yesterday, someone jumped from the pavement onto the road a few metres ahead and the car in front of my was caught by surprise. Then there's people who will zoom past stop signs without considering there might be other vehicles and ignore them completely. I get what you're saying.
I always try to stay on the road, stop at stop signs, just ride as if I were a car. I've never had a close-call and always try to make my movement obvious.
> Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyze the factors associated with such behaviors. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.
As both a cyclist and a driver, I aim for maximum predictability whenever I'm on the road. None of my movements should ever surprise drivers or other cyclists (who are paying attention).
Candidly, about 3/4 of my cyclist friends are intent on following the rules of the road. The other 1/4 are convinced that rules only exist for cars. I've seen too many close calls from people making illegal moves under the mistaken belief that it was safer to run a stop sign, or make a quick lane change without signaling, or otherwise behave as if they could out-maneuver the cars around them.
As a driver, my only close calls with cyclists have been when they skipped stop signs or assumed that the cars would yield to them at 4-way stops. A cyclist even T-boned my wife's car while she was driving the speed limit down a residential street because the cyclist assumed they could maneuver around her.
Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
I agree, but at the same time I think the laws should be changed so that stop signs become yield signs for cyclists (so called Stop as Yield laws). Then it would be predictable and the laws would be designed in a way that makes sense for cycling.
This is effectively what I already do and most cyclists I know do as well. I would be lying if I said that I never skipped stop signs. The general difference between reckless/unsafe cyclists and others is less the skipping stop signs versus the when to skip. For instance, I would never skip if there was already a car at another stop sign.
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
This framing makes a lot of assumptions about city/road design that are not universal.
I'd say that cycling is inherently an incredibly safe activity. Driving is a dangerous activity to those inside the car, and even more so to those outside the car.
Yep, I actually feel much safer when I'm flying down singletrack on my mountain bike than I do when I'm commuting to work. On the mountain bike I know exactly what and where the dangers are, and I have a lot of control over how much risk I take. On my commuter, no matter how I ride, some subset of drivers get pissed of at my existence, and there's another set that aren't paying enough attention to notice my existence at all. There are ways I can ride that help mitigate some of the risks, but ultimately my safety is largely in the hands of the drivers around me.
As of a few years ago I actually quit riding on the road altogether. It seemed like for every mountain bike acquaintance I had that broke their collar bone, there was a road bike acquaintance that ended up dead or paralyzed. The risks no longer seemed worth it, especially given the fact that commuting by bike had begun to feel stressful instead of a nice way of getting some exercise before and after work.
> Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
Cycling isn't the dangerous activity here. Cyclists by themselves have an incredible safety record, especially once you adjust for the health benefits of exercise.
Driving is the activity that puts lives at risk, but with modern car "safety" improvements those lives tend not to be those of the driver or the passengers.
>> for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s visibility.
Ok... that is a very strange sentence. Time and energy (ie speed) are basically interchangeable (ie rolling through stop signs). So too are "safety" and "visibility" intrinsically related. Being seen by cars is like 90% of bicycle safety. The real question is whether lawbreaking for (time+energy) is greater than for (safety+visibility). The article doesn't give us that data.
For what it's worth, it's metabolically costly to completely stop and then start moving again on a bike. And it also costs some maneuverability. Let me explain.
Above a certain speed, both bicycles and motorcycles are more maneuverable, and more predictable, than they are when going more slowly. Above that speed threshold they're counter-steered. That is, when I want to turn right I apply very slight left-turning pressure to the front wheel. That makes the bike bank to the right and smoothly enter the turn. At lower speeds I turn the wheel in the direction I want to go.
This counter-steering thing is only a factor in two-wheeled vehicles: vehicles with more wheels can't bank, of course. I've been a cyclist for decades, but I didn't understand counter-steering until I took motorcycle driver training. Motorcycle instructors drill it into us because it's a vital part of swerving to avoid obstructions when going at motorized speeds.
As a cyclist in traffic I find I'm particularly vulnerable in the transition between direct-steer and counter-steer speeds. So, trying to keep my speed above the threshold both saves my energy and keeps me at maneuvering speed.
I do this by slowing down when approaching a red light, with the hope it will change to green before I arrive. I also try to stop a few meters back from a red light so I have space to get up to maneuvering speed before entering an intersection without having to stand and stomp my pedals.
I do the same thing. intersections are the most dangerous place you can be on two wheels, so having speed when you go through them means you're in them for a shorter period of time and you have more maneuverability and control of your bike.
Cyclists break rules because the rules were not written with us in mind.
The tired straw man argument against cyclists has them saying "treat me like a car!" one minute and "treat me like a pedestrian!" the next. But really, I just want to be treated like a cyclist. There are three major classes of transportation, not just two [@].
Here are some road rules that I regularly break for my own safety:
> In most places, it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. However, most roads near me have no bike lanes. My city (Atlanta) has a notorious problem with highway traffic spilling out into the city, and as a result drivers are viciously impatient and I've had too many close calls while riding my bike on major roads. I ride on the sidewalk when there is no other safe option.
> In some places, it is illegal for a bicycle to pass a red light, even when it's all clear. However, when I'm riding on the road, there is usually a pack of impatient drivers waiting behind me. If don't accelerate quickly enough, they will honk at me and/or pass me within inches. Usually, I can put a safe distance between myself and the cars behind me if I start moving a little before the light turns green.
> Regarding sidewalk riding again: My city has too many one-way streets. This is fine for cars, who travel a longer distance on average than I do. But for short bike trips, not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x. This is a problem solved by separated bike lanes.
Not to mention the fact that we rarely hold drivers accountable for their rule-breaking. As a bicyclist, my mistakes can are only lethal to myself. A driver's mistakes kill other people.
Here's also a list of dangerous traffic behavior that SHOULD be illegal but ISN'T, because the law is written for the convenience of drivers, not the safety of pedestrians and cyclists:
> Right-turn-on-red should be illegal anywhere there is a pedestrian signal. When turning on red, drivers are looking to the left for oncoming traffic, and rarely look for pedestrians to the right until it is too late. When the pedestrian light is on, there should be ZERO chance of being hit by a law-abiding car!
> Left turns should have a dedicated lane and signal. Left-turn-on-green puts drivers in direct conflict with pedestrians, for the same reasons as right-turn-on-red.
> Speeding is too pervasive, and speed limits should be strictly enforced. Failing to use a turn signal should also be ticketed more often. I would support camera enforcement if I didn't think it would leak into public spaces beyond just roads.
> Freight trucks and other vehicles pulling a trailer too often swerve outside their lane. This is extremely dangerous and should be punished.
[@] Really, their are four modes of ground transportation, but Americans don't believe in trains.
Same in Japan, at least on neighborhood streets (自転車を除く signs）. Plus, unlike USA, major traffic is well-separated from residential roads. There are also plenty of bike routes, greenways, and bridges/tunnels above/below major roads.
I'll be moving there as soon as they re-open their borders, and I couldn't be more excited. It's cyclist heaven.
If you're asking about greenways, here's [1] an article with some pictures. There's an extensive network of bike-able paths throughout the entire city,
If you're asking about pollution, Japanese cars are generally smaller and I believe electric cars are popular there. More trips are also taken by train / bike / moped, reducing overall emissions. Also, the roads + signals seem to be designed well, so there is less stop-and-go traffic.
I used to bike a road that was one way for cars, two way for bikes. I almost got hit because I didn't have a stop sign and the crossing car stopped and didn't look my way. (There were stop signs for bicycles going either way elsewhere, but this intersection markings made it clear I wasn't supposed to have to stop so I didn't)
We have a two-way cycletrack on a one-way street here in Berkeley and it's basically a death trap for those on bicycles because the people entering the street only look up the street to check for cars and never look down the street to check for bicycles. This problem also exists every place there is a crosswalk where one-way streets meet. I'm sure people who walk in cities are familiar with the experience of having to wait for a car to pass while the driver stares in the opposite direction.
> not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x
> That's by design
My point is that it is perfectly safe for me to ride sidewalks along one-way streets. Normally there are very few pedestrians. I always dismount in crowded areas.
It is not safe for cars to do the same.
> If cars could not care about pedestrian crossings and speed limits trips would be 10x faster
I disagree. Most of the traffic in e.g. midtown Atlanta is either highway-bound or fresh off the highway. It's the first or last 10 minutes of a 30-40 minute trip. Pedestrian crossings are a minor inconvenience. Even without pedestrians, there would be red lights to allow the other direction of traffic through.
In bicycle-friendly cities, it is a common rule that bicycles are allowed on sidewalks, provided that they respect pedestrians. It is entirely possible to safely operate a bicycle on a sidewalk.
Yes, accidents do happen. However, is is extremely rare that pedestrian-bicycle accidents are serious.
I would argue that if you only drive sometimes and not usually, you are more dangerous (reflexes are built with training and excercise)
Italy, especially Rome, has one of the highest number of cars per capita (Rome if I remember correctly has 73 cars every 100 inhabitants, making it the most car crowded city of the west)
It's not much worse than Netherlands or Germany and does better than the US.
> Cyclists break rules because the rules were not written with us in mind.
And often the road infrastructure itself. My pet peeve is here in the UK you have junctions which sense when a vehicle has approached to trigger the light sequence, but many of them don't detect bicycles, so if it's quiet you're forced to sit and wait until a car pulls up behind you (or jump the light).
I ride bicycles and motorcyles and frequently break the letter of the law for my own safety. Two wheeled transportation just simply is not considered or understood by transit authorities, at least not in my city.
I will never stop behind a car. That just is not going to happen. I don't want to be the meat on a texting driver stopped car sandwich. This means some amount of lane filtering/splitting.
I will ride my bike on a sidewalk to avoid traffic, even if there is a "bike lane" if I don't feel that lane is safe, such as when it is on a major route with lots of traffic.
I will not give you room to pass if there are parked cars on the side of the road. I'm not going to get doored so you can get to your destination 30 seconds faster.
When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat model makes sense.
This says nothing of the lack of knowledge on the part of drivers as to what motorcycles and bicycles are actually entitled to do and their willingness to be vigilantes to enforce their perception of the law, even when it endangers my life.
>When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat model makes sense.
I realize this is a low value comment, but this is absolutely true. Whether through negligence or not, they display over and over again that it's true.
I don't know that it is that drivers are actively trying to kill me. I think it's that there's some phenomenon, yet to be documented by science, that causes people to become more solipsistic when they are operating a motor vehicle.
The net result being, they don't recognize a clear moral difference between cyclists, pedestrians, and orange construction barrels, and see their most noteworthy difference as being the fact that some move faster than others.
For the same reason I try not to be behind a motorbike (or a bike)
A turn that I can make at 30kmh safely becomes a turn where the two wheeler in front of me stalls almost to an halt and I have to break in the middle of it
They use different trajectories, which are almost unpredictable
They stop in front of cars at the traffic light, but their start is very slow so usually a jam is created from nothing (sudden start/stops are the root cause of the majority of crashes in traffic jams)
I think everyone should consider their strength and weaknesses and account for them
Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
I totally understand the frustration here, however this is what the (admittedly ridiculous) "survey" is talking about. Cars cut me off very often so they don't have to wait... what, 5 extra seconds through a turn?
Many times these cars cut me, then have to stop anyway for a pedestrian.
I often run lights if they are right before a hill. This is specifically to keep the cars behind me from getting mad and doing unsafe things. I'd rather just get out of the way.
I've been trying for years to work with the municipality of Rome to convince people to let their vehicles at home, if they don't want to fully commit with the driving (or biking)
I don't even listen to music anymore when I drive...
Sounds like you need to reevaluate your following distance and responsibilities as a driver. Much of your complaints here are why two wheeled operators assume cars are trying to kill them. Most of this is your responsibility to avoid.
Stopping behind a car and following are not comparable. The speed differential is the key here, and the crumple zones. In your car it is the hood and fenders, on my bike it is my body. A 25mph collision is easily fatal.
> Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
Differential between what? The one rear wheel?
> It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
Huh? The rules of the road completely account for these differences. There is absolutely a right and wrong.
> If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended
It is 100% your responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end someone. Bike riders just take evasive and defensive action because drivers can't be trusted.
> If I didn't care, I would not brake, don't you think?
You're missing the point. If you have to brake suddenly in a corner for a motorcycle you made a mistake and were following too close. You should change your behavior in the future.
> At 30kmh bike brakes are more efficient
Except they can't be used effectively while turning.
> So you are betting your life on someone else's sense of responsibility?
I was very clear about this. I assume you will fail in your responsibility. This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.
Most of the times I have to because the biker (motor or not) approached the turn at a far greater speed then they could handle
Don't build up expectations, if you can't keep them
I guess you never witnessed a bike surpassing you on the right side of a turn, like they were on a race track, just to stop in front of you when they realise there is some kind of blockage or it is a slow turn and it's not the car in front of them that it's trying to slow then down on purpose
Try to keep the distances when they jump in front of you from nowhere...
> This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.
So you are making someone else unsafe, possibly a woman with a stroller, to keep you safe?
There are 40 million cars in Italy (not counting other kind of vehicles)
There have been 612 pedestrian deaths in 2018.
Not accounting for the context and only counting cars. stats just count the number of pedestrians hit and dead, they could have been hit by a bicycle as far as we know.
> stats just count the number of pedestrians hit and dead, they could have been hit by a bicycle as far as we know.
Very unlikely, unless it's something that happens in Italy only. I found that in the UK, with a comparable populations, incidents where pedestrians die are and a bike is involved (with no info on who's at fault) are about 4 per year. Similar data is available in other nations, AFAIK.
And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian, so you're forgetting the whole amount of deaths on the road. In 2018 there have been 3,300 road-related deaths in Italy. Since cyclists can only kill pedestrians (unless a very rare event occurs), they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths?
I think it's quite clear that cyclists can easily get injured if they break road rules; and being hit by a bicycle is far less serious than being hit by a motorcycle or by a car at the same speed, right? This is less and less true as the size of the vehicle increases.
The kind of punishment you get for an illegal act should be proportional to how serious is your infringement. I despise "cicloamatori" as well, since they fill up roads for no reasons and they overtake me with 5cms clearance; but, on italian roads, as a bike commuter, I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable (because some roads are impossible to use when on a bike).
I agree that some behaviours by some cyclists show a total disregard for their integrity and law. I think I've never took a street in the wrong direction in my whole life. And I would NOT expect cars to slow down or stop because I'm happily breaking the law just because I'm on a bike! If I'm on a sidewalk and ANY pedestrian approaches, I stop and I let them pass FIRST.
But, let's put things in perspective. Cyclists pay for their mistakes AND for others' mistakes with their own blood. But their contribution to road deaths and injuries is non-existent.
> And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian
Not only.
Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents.
Bikers have the tendency to think that everybody is out to kill them.
But if you think about it, everybody else, even bikers when they are not on a bike, think that bikers (or _other_ bikers in case of bikers) are out to kill themselves.
Why?
Because they don't follow the same rules they try to enforce on others.
One example among many, that is easy to spot just looking around: bikers (rightfully) campaign a lot around the concept of safe distance
Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone?
Not that cars are better in this regard, of course!
It's just a different way of being an asshole.
> they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths?
There have been only 8 cyclists dead in Rome in 2018 in over 27 thousands accidents.
it's not even sure they died in an accident with a car, the stats don't say it.
It means one dead every 3,375 accidents.
And yet bikes are the most dangerous way to go around in Italy (statistically, it means that rarely you will have an accident, but if you do, there are much more chances that it will be bad).
> I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable
This link is interesting and I'll review it thoroughly. Thanks. But I don't see what part of it you're using for your "cars are not more dangerous than bikes". Is there any section about who's at fault for an accident?
Cars are less dangerous for those who drive them. We're talking about being less dangerous for others, especially for vulnerable user groups.
> Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents.
... like what? And how often? "Indirectly" you mean 2nd order effects. But I need to run directly at full speed into somebody in order to try and kill it with a bike; the weight is low (almost like the person alone) and the speed is low as well.
> But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians
The first photo, it's probably something taken with slow or stopped traffic. It's not illegal to overtake stopped cars. In the 2nd the cyclist is in a bike lane, did you realize that?
> Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone?
I don't understand whether you're joking. Do you realize how many f*ing parking spots exist for cars and motorbikes, and how few parking spots exist for bikes? You can park 6-20 cars (depending on whether facilities are available, like racks) where a SINGLE CAR parks. Now the problem is that "bikes take up valuable pedestrian space". Don't you see cars and vans parked everywhere, including sidewalks, in Rome? Something like, daily?
Cars in Rome don't park in "doppia fila"?
> Then don't use them. Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them.
I cannot use those roads because car drivers are jerks, they park (illegally) in terrible places and they don't yield to bikes.
> I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me.
That's the root of the problem, man. You don't like bikes, and you don't need bikes. So you hate them. You're far more empathic to car drivers, because "everybody drives when in need".
It's your problem, though, and I couldn't care less.
> Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline)
Only if you don't take into account the negative externalities caused by pollution. IIRC paying for carbon offsets for around 10.000 miles per year would amount to roughly 10.000 USD in carbon offsets. Also, roads for cars require far more maintenance than those where bikes can go.
I live in the outskirts of Trieste and I love my commute until the very last 500m to get to my office, when I'm deep in the city. For the first 18kms I always follow all road rules; but when I get into the city center... anything can happen. If I want to get to my office in full health, I need to do any kind of strange things, INCLUDING doing a very small cut through a sidewalk. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it if there were another safe way.
But I don't pollute and add real traffic to a city that is already very complex and has many problems.
One last thought: the idea that cyclists are the bullies is just too absurd to me. They're extra vulnerable. They risk their lives. A car ignoring a red light is not the same as a bike ignoring a red light, because the potential outcome is very different. They can "cause an accident" because somebody else breaks.
I cannot find the link now, but I remember a study from Netherlands where it was clear that, once bike usage goes up and crosses a certain thresholds, the GLOBAL RATE of accide...
Mopeds stay on the road. I don't break laws that can result in me hitting a pedestrian.
In the United States it is illegal (almost everywhere) to ride between lanes of traffic at any speed. That is a law I break almost every time I am on a motorcycle. The only way to hit a pedestrian in that situation is if they are walking between lanes of traffic. I typically do it at stop signs and lights where I stop between two rows of cars so if one gets rear ended I am not the one that gets obliterated.
I will treat a traffic light as a stop sign if it does not detect my bike, which is common. I won't wait for a car to hopefully stop behind me without killing me. I do this at intersections I am familiar with. This is technically legal if you do it a certain way but I often don't wait that long to minimize my risk.
I'm not taking a motorized vehicle down a sidewalk at any speed. I will ride my bicycle on a sidewalk along busy streets if there is minimal pedestrian presence and no alternate route. When a conflict with a pedestrian presents itself I move back to the road if possible.
There are also legal things I do that are often perceived as illegal such as riding with my high beams on during the day or skipping ferry lines. If I get flashed by oncoming traffic they may be mad at me but at least I know they saw me.
This depends entirely on the density of a sidewalk. If you have a densely populated sidewalk (e.g. New York/Chicago sidewalks), then bikes should be walked while on the sidewalk. If it is a sidewalk in a suburb, where there are 1-2 pedestrians per hour at busy times, then I'm going to continue riding my bike.
Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times I've been nearly hit by cars in [everywhere] who think stop signs and crosswalk rules don't apply to them.
If it weren't for cars, traffic wouldn't need to be so tightly controlled because the stakes would be so much lower.
While I don't condone running red lights, driver rage at cyclists running red lights or pedestrians jay-walking (a term invented by the auto industry) would be far better directed at drivers who don't take the task of operating a multi-thousand pound machine at high velocities seriously.
I have personally lost count of the times I have seen strollers with babies on heavy trafficked bike roads, and 3-5 years old on training cycles. I have however yet to hear a single accident where a cyclist have hit one of those extremely vulnerable individuals being hit, which if it happened would likely result in the child being killed.
As a former cyclist, the headline is 100% bullshit. I generally broke laws for the sake of efficiency. Having said that, there is a huge distinction between breaking overbearing laws designed for cars, and going against the common norms of the road. Treating red lights and stop signs as yields is fine. Ignoring the existence of intersections and forcing drivers to yield to you is being an asshole on a good day, and deadly on a bad one.
The things I did do for safety (eg riding out far enough to not get doored, taking a lane to turn or avoid obstacles) generally weren't illegal. Although I could see this being different in a place with different laws that weren't worded in terms of safety.
I cycle a lot, and I don't drive. And yes, I sometimes break rules for my safety. For example, I refuse to use stupidly designed cycle lanes that:
* Mount the foot path and then return to the road.
* Force me to use pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
* Railroad me onto the side of the road when I actually want to make a turn (ie: force me to dismount and use a pedestrian crossing instead of using the correct lane for that turn)
* Vanish abruptly
But a lot of cyclists I see (in my city anyway) are just inconsiderate assholes who have no road etiquette. They run red lights, ignore one way systems, cycle on pedestrian paths, or (the very worst) cycle the wrong way on cycle paths.
And don't get me started on lycra clad (always male) cyclists who 'come at you' side-by-side on a cycle path that fits exactly two cyclists. I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.
'I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.'
Thanks for the entirely accurate and entertaining read. There are definitely many c-words among us, and I assume you don't mean 'commuters' -- most of those of us are just trying to get along without getting squashed, and that often means using infrastructure in ways other than the intended, because it was never intended for our safety.
Depends a lot where you are from. Here in Copenhagen, biking is a fairly safe and well respected way of transport. Pity it does not seem to be so in many other places.
Around me, there are a couple of intersections which have detectors to change the signal light, so if there's no car around you're not getting a green light.
Things are getting better I guess... in NY, "complete streets" was signed in 2011. I consider that pretty recent though. Even post 2011, there were projects near me that were already underway and getting completed that completely ignored cycling. -.-
"B. ... if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes, whichever is shorter, ..."
I thought the article would list out some of the rules that cyclists break.
I'm sure 100% of people break some rule at some point, so saying 100% of the participants admitted to breaking some rule, is like saying 100% of people fart in public.
But, anyway, for the 18 months or so that I biked to work, I tried to follow the rules. Yes, I rolled through some stop signs. (Don't we all, no matter what kind of vehicle we're piloting?) The much slower speed on a bike makes it easier to look at all incoming lanes before you enter the intersection.
But, I've had close calls in a car with cyclists. I've had close calls on a bike with cars. I once went over my handlebars when some doofus bolted across the street on a bike without looking. People are bad at following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if it's a car or a bicycle.
>Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system dominated by cars.
Because bike lanes were an afterthought. Cycling is very unsafe.
Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks. The problem arose was that sidewalks were unsafe. Pedestrians would just walk into the way of the cyclists and the cyclists would be hurt.
So politicians looking to raise tax revenues started making it difficult to ride a bike. Helmets are required, bans from sidewalks, 20km/h speed limits of bike lanes/paths. Many reflectors on the bike. Bell or horn on the bike needed. This is all to harass cyclists.
Now that bikes are on roads, now you have cars just driving into the way of cyclsts and hurting them; possibly even killing them.
Why are cyclists always being hurt by everyone else?
> Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks.
Depends a bit by what you mean by "originally". In the early 1900s, bikes traveled in the street. Pedestrians traveled in the street. Everybody was in the street. The idea that the streets are the sole province of the car, and that pedestrians/bikers may cross the street only where it does not inconvenience the car, is the result of marketing to avoid cars being liable for pedestrian injury/death.
So, same story of cars being overly prominent, but stepping back another 50 years.
101 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadI’m sure all the cyclists I see running stop signs and red lights on their $2,000+ Tour de France cosplay setups have safety foremost on their minds.
I think you might have a sample biased towards those that you notice in negative ways.
Now we should make a proportion with the total number of users
I suspect cyclists jump red lights a lot more per capita
But I can't say it for sure, not knowing the actual numbers
No matter how anyone puts it, bikes are inherently more dangerous, cars have safety features that are simply not present on bikes.
Here is the study
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
A picture is worth a thousand words
> Basing numbers on per billion miles travelled takes the raw numbers and adjusts them for exposure
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a0f8be5f3583d076974c1...
What is immediately evident is that the less protections you have around you and the more you can go fast (if you can, you will), the more fatality rate is high.
The idea that if we could only move by bike there would be less accident is a false one
There would be less accidents for sure, because only a tiny fraction of the actual driver's population would go by bike.
But they would probably start falling from horses or have carriage accidents
knifes kill people too
but I'm sure you use them
Guns kill people too, but they love them in the US, they love them so much that they put them in the hands of kids and let them go the school to shoot other kids
Cars are not unsafe, people driving them are.
It's the same people that ride bikes.
You have them confused.
As Conan's father said:
"No one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts."
BTW
If you like to live, don't ride a bike.
--
"More cycling fatalities than deaths in cars"
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/more-cycling-f...
--
Crash Statistics - who was at fault?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ClubExpressClubFiles/86708/graphics...
--
Fatality rate (UK)
https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/DfT_chart.png
Let's see if it's true
> driver survived with only minor injuries
https://i2-prod.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article...
> this guy was happily riding his bike, fell of it and died from the crash. Paramedics could do nothing to save him, upon arrival he was already dead.
https://caserta.occhionotizie.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...
Which one of the two looks safer to you?
Obviously, purely anecdotal.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "
Edit: BTW, as a road cyclist, my very first reaction was the same as yours: Since this was a survey it's tough to tease out the real reasons from the rationalizations. Speaking for myself, I'll freely admit that my reasons for violating road rules (which, for me, is limited to rolling through stop signs at empty intersections) are more about energy savings and speed rather than safety.
But you can deliver that criticism without being cruelly mocking and dismissive of an activity you happen not to value.
And that sucks, I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. While I've met many lovely people in the cycling community, I've also run across similar attitudes, myself, from time to time. That's probably because the cycling community reflects people, and people are usually great and sometimes not so much.
But ask yourself: is it good for you, personally, to return that sneering with sneering of your own? Does that make you feel better about yourself or the people around you? What do you gain by stereotyping a huge community based on the poor behaviour of a few individuals?
My suggestion: Assuming you haven't been scared away from the hobby, leave an honest review of that bike shop owner (who legitimately sounds like an ass and isn't someone I'd want representing the cycling community), and then find a better shop.
And if you want to join a cycling club, find one that aligns with your values and beliefs. Cycling clubs are just like people in that they're not all the same.
And just because; my "tour de france cosplay" gives me a butt-pad for comfort, nice pockets on the back of my shirt to carry things, and dries really quick in the rain. I suppose if I spent $20,000 on a rolling sofa that would be better?
Which is about as scientific as my personal anecdote of being run over by a cyclist.
The worst of the rule breakers are the wrong-way cyclists: The ones who think that riding on the wrong side of the road is safer because they can see cars coming. They are wrong.
Riding on the wrong side, and on sidewalks, puts you in places cars would never expect you to be, and so they're even more oblivious.
If you're going to break rules, break the right ones and understand the impact fully.
Had this happen to me recently on a 55mph highway with no shoulder. The other cyclists didn't even take it upon themselves to move, they just headed right toward me.
It was one of the closest calls I've had. I'm pretty sure I would have run into him head on if I hadn't had a bright front light.
Behavior of some riders surprises me, they'll switch between pavement and road whenever they wish to. Just yesterday, someone jumped from the pavement onto the road a few metres ahead and the car in front of my was caught by surprise. Then there's people who will zoom past stop signs without considering there might be other vehicles and ignore them completely. I get what you're saying.
I always try to stay on the road, stop at stop signs, just ride as if I were a car. I've never had a close-call and always try to make my movement obvious.
> Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyze the factors associated with such behaviors. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.
As both a cyclist and a driver, I aim for maximum predictability whenever I'm on the road. None of my movements should ever surprise drivers or other cyclists (who are paying attention).
Candidly, about 3/4 of my cyclist friends are intent on following the rules of the road. The other 1/4 are convinced that rules only exist for cars. I've seen too many close calls from people making illegal moves under the mistaken belief that it was safer to run a stop sign, or make a quick lane change without signaling, or otherwise behave as if they could out-maneuver the cars around them.
As a driver, my only close calls with cyclists have been when they skipped stop signs or assumed that the cars would yield to them at 4-way stops. A cyclist even T-boned my wife's car while she was driving the speed limit down a residential street because the cyclist assumed they could maneuver around her.
Cycling is dangerous. Don't make it more dangerous by adding unpredictability to the mix.
I agree, but at the same time I think the laws should be changed so that stop signs become yield signs for cyclists (so called Stop as Yield laws). Then it would be predictable and the laws would be designed in a way that makes sense for cycling.
This is effectively what I already do and most cyclists I know do as well. I would be lying if I said that I never skipped stop signs. The general difference between reckless/unsafe cyclists and others is less the skipping stop signs versus the when to skip. For instance, I would never skip if there was already a car at another stop sign.
This framing makes a lot of assumptions about city/road design that are not universal. I'd say that cycling is inherently an incredibly safe activity. Driving is a dangerous activity to those inside the car, and even more so to those outside the car.
As of a few years ago I actually quit riding on the road altogether. It seemed like for every mountain bike acquaintance I had that broke their collar bone, there was a road bike acquaintance that ended up dead or paralyzed. The risks no longer seemed worth it, especially given the fact that commuting by bike had begun to feel stressful instead of a nice way of getting some exercise before and after work.
Cycling isn't the dangerous activity here. Cyclists by themselves have an incredible safety record, especially once you adjust for the health benefits of exercise.
Driving is the activity that puts lives at risk, but with modern car "safety" improvements those lives tend not to be those of the driver or the passengers.
Ok... that is a very strange sentence. Time and energy (ie speed) are basically interchangeable (ie rolling through stop signs). So too are "safety" and "visibility" intrinsically related. Being seen by cars is like 90% of bicycle safety. The real question is whether lawbreaking for (time+energy) is greater than for (safety+visibility). The article doesn't give us that data.
Above a certain speed, both bicycles and motorcycles are more maneuverable, and more predictable, than they are when going more slowly. Above that speed threshold they're counter-steered. That is, when I want to turn right I apply very slight left-turning pressure to the front wheel. That makes the bike bank to the right and smoothly enter the turn. At lower speeds I turn the wheel in the direction I want to go.
This counter-steering thing is only a factor in two-wheeled vehicles: vehicles with more wheels can't bank, of course. I've been a cyclist for decades, but I didn't understand counter-steering until I took motorcycle driver training. Motorcycle instructors drill it into us because it's a vital part of swerving to avoid obstructions when going at motorized speeds.
As a cyclist in traffic I find I'm particularly vulnerable in the transition between direct-steer and counter-steer speeds. So, trying to keep my speed above the threshold both saves my energy and keeps me at maneuvering speed.
I do this by slowing down when approaching a red light, with the hope it will change to green before I arrive. I also try to stop a few meters back from a red light so I have space to get up to maneuvering speed before entering an intersection without having to stand and stomp my pedals.
The tired straw man argument against cyclists has them saying "treat me like a car!" one minute and "treat me like a pedestrian!" the next. But really, I just want to be treated like a cyclist. There are three major classes of transportation, not just two [@].
Here are some road rules that I regularly break for my own safety:
> In most places, it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. However, most roads near me have no bike lanes. My city (Atlanta) has a notorious problem with highway traffic spilling out into the city, and as a result drivers are viciously impatient and I've had too many close calls while riding my bike on major roads. I ride on the sidewalk when there is no other safe option.
> In some places, it is illegal for a bicycle to pass a red light, even when it's all clear. However, when I'm riding on the road, there is usually a pack of impatient drivers waiting behind me. If don't accelerate quickly enough, they will honk at me and/or pass me within inches. Usually, I can put a safe distance between myself and the cars behind me if I start moving a little before the light turns green.
> Regarding sidewalk riding again: My city has too many one-way streets. This is fine for cars, who travel a longer distance on average than I do. But for short bike trips, not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x. This is a problem solved by separated bike lanes.
Not to mention the fact that we rarely hold drivers accountable for their rule-breaking. As a bicyclist, my mistakes can are only lethal to myself. A driver's mistakes kill other people.
Here's also a list of dangerous traffic behavior that SHOULD be illegal but ISN'T, because the law is written for the convenience of drivers, not the safety of pedestrians and cyclists:
> Right-turn-on-red should be illegal anywhere there is a pedestrian signal. When turning on red, drivers are looking to the left for oncoming traffic, and rarely look for pedestrians to the right until it is too late. When the pedestrian light is on, there should be ZERO chance of being hit by a law-abiding car!
> Left turns should have a dedicated lane and signal. Left-turn-on-green puts drivers in direct conflict with pedestrians, for the same reasons as right-turn-on-red.
> Speeding is too pervasive, and speed limits should be strictly enforced. Failing to use a turn signal should also be ticketed more often. I would support camera enforcement if I didn't think it would leak into public spaces beyond just roads.
> Freight trucks and other vehicles pulling a trailer too often swerve outside their lane. This is extremely dangerous and should be punished.
[@] Really, their are four modes of ground transportation, but Americans don't believe in trains.
I'll be moving there as soon as they re-open their borders, and I couldn't be more excited. It's cyclist heaven.
If you're asking about greenways, here's [1] an article with some pictures. There's an extensive network of bike-able paths throughout the entire city,
If you're asking about pollution, Japanese cars are generally smaller and I believe electric cars are popular there. More trips are also taken by train / bike / moped, reducing overall emissions. Also, the roads + signals seem to be designed well, so there is less stop-and-go traffic.
[1] https://taiken.co/single/tokyo-greenways-the-forgotten-paths...
But then you end up with a lot of bikers hit by cars, because if you take a turn on the wrong side, you are practically invisible
If you see this in NL, the road is also closed for cyclists (in this direction): https://verkeersregels.vvn.nl/verkeersborden-en-tekens/c02
But if this modifier sign is put below, it's a two-way street for cyclists: https://verkeersregels.vvn.nl/index.php/verkeersborden-en-te...
In my opinion the classes are 2: fragile users and not fragile ones
Pedestrians are the most vulnerable, trucks and heavy machinery in general are the least ones
> not being able to use the sidewalk would increase trip time by 3-4x
That's by design
If cars could not care about pedestrian crossings and speed limits trips would be 10x faster
> A driver's mistakes kill other people.
I've been hit by a bicicle in Belgium and I ended up at the hospital with a broken leg
I was lucky enough to anticipate the crash, start running away and the biker only hit my leg
If I wasn't paying attention nobody knows if I'd still be here telling the story
My point is that it is perfectly safe for me to ride sidewalks along one-way streets. Normally there are very few pedestrians. I always dismount in crowded areas.
It is not safe for cars to do the same.
> If cars could not care about pedestrian crossings and speed limits trips would be 10x faster
I disagree. Most of the traffic in e.g. midtown Atlanta is either highway-bound or fresh off the highway. It's the first or last 10 minutes of a 30-40 minute trip. Pedestrian crossings are a minor inconvenience. Even without pedestrians, there would be red lights to allow the other direction of traffic through.
But it's not for pedestrians
I bet that if cars were allowed to drive on sidewalks their ride would be faster as well
Yes, accidents do happen. However, is is extremely rare that pedestrian-bicycle accidents are serious.
... there are far more accidents involving bikes and pedestrians
Everything it's entirely possible in theory
It's entirely possible to not steal from others, so why we have laws against it and the police enforcing the law?
...because more people use bicycles
...because it's safer to do so compared to bicycle-unfriendly cities
...where there are far more car-bicycle and car-pedestrian accidents
(for road fatalities, compare e.g. USA with Japan or anywhere in Europe on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... )
The two things don't follow
Bikers are drivers too
I would argue that if you only drive sometimes and not usually, you are more dangerous (reflexes are built with training and excercise)
Italy, especially Rome, has one of the highest number of cars per capita (Rome if I remember correctly has 73 cars every 100 inhabitants, making it the most car crowded city of the west)
It's not much worse than Netherlands or Germany and does better than the US.
And often the road infrastructure itself. My pet peeve is here in the UK you have junctions which sense when a vehicle has approached to trigger the light sequence, but many of them don't detect bicycles, so if it's quiet you're forced to sit and wait until a car pulls up behind you (or jump the light).
I will never stop behind a car. That just is not going to happen. I don't want to be the meat on a texting driver stopped car sandwich. This means some amount of lane filtering/splitting.
I will ride my bike on a sidewalk to avoid traffic, even if there is a "bike lane" if I don't feel that lane is safe, such as when it is on a major route with lots of traffic.
I will not give you room to pass if there are parked cars on the side of the road. I'm not going to get doored so you can get to your destination 30 seconds faster.
When you're on two wheels all cars are trying to kill you. No other threat model makes sense.
This says nothing of the lack of knowledge on the part of drivers as to what motorcycles and bicycles are actually entitled to do and their willingness to be vigilantes to enforce their perception of the law, even when it endangers my life.
I realize this is a low value comment, but this is absolutely true. Whether through negligence or not, they display over and over again that it's true.
The net result being, they don't recognize a clear moral difference between cyclists, pedestrians, and orange construction barrels, and see their most noteworthy difference as being the fact that some move faster than others.
To rephrase when I started riding motorcycles I was told "it is better to be wrong and alive than right and dead".
When the risk is my life I won't trust anyone else to make the right decision.
I don't literally think that all drivers are on a murderous rampage but I choose my own actions as if they are.
For the same reason I try not to be behind a motorbike (or a bike)
A turn that I can make at 30kmh safely becomes a turn where the two wheeler in front of me stalls almost to an halt and I have to break in the middle of it
They use different trajectories, which are almost unpredictable
They stop in front of cars at the traffic light, but their start is very slow so usually a jam is created from nothing (sudden start/stops are the root cause of the majority of crashes in traffic jams)
I think everyone should consider their strength and weaknesses and account for them
Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended
Many times these cars cut me, then have to stop anyway for a pedestrian.
I often run lights if they are right before a hill. This is specifically to keep the cars behind me from getting mad and doing unsafe things. I'd rather just get out of the way.
We usually do it without thinking too much, the same way we don't think about walking or breathing
Something different in the process and something bad will happen.
Most of the times drivers (and bikers) will compensate for someone else's mistake, sometimes nobody does
Yeah, this is the problem.
I've been trying for years to work with the municipality of Rome to convince people to let their vehicles at home, if they don't want to fully commit with the driving (or biking)
I don't even listen to music anymore when I drive...
Stopping behind a car and following are not comparable. The speed differential is the key here, and the crumple zones. In your car it is the hood and fenders, on my bike it is my body. A 25mph collision is easily fatal.
> Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
Differential between what? The one rear wheel?
> It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
Huh? The rules of the road completely account for these differences. There is absolutely a right and wrong.
> If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended
It is 100% your responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end someone. Bike riders just take evasive and defensive action because drivers can't be trusted.
If I didn't care, I would not brake, don't you think?
At 30kmh bike brakes are more efficient
At 30kmh every second an object moves about 8 and a half meters
> It is 100% your responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end someone
So you are betting your life on someone else's sense of responsibility?
I wish I was as optimistic as you are!
You're missing the point. If you have to brake suddenly in a corner for a motorcycle you made a mistake and were following too close. You should change your behavior in the future.
> At 30kmh bike brakes are more efficient
Except they can't be used effectively while turning.
> So you are betting your life on someone else's sense of responsibility?
I was very clear about this. I assume you will fail in your responsibility. This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.
I just said I have to.
For the sake of someone else's safety
Most of the times I have to because the biker (motor or not) approached the turn at a far greater speed then they could handle
Don't build up expectations, if you can't keep them
I guess you never witnessed a bike surpassing you on the right side of a turn, like they were on a race track, just to stop in front of you when they realise there is some kind of blockage or it is a slow turn and it's not the car in front of them that it's trying to slow then down on purpose
Try to keep the distances when they jump in front of you from nowhere...
> This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.
So you are making someone else unsafe, possibly a woman with a stroller, to keep you safe?
That's not what I call being responsible...
No? If I ride my bicycle on the sidewalk it is at basically walking speed so as not to endanger pedestrians.
If I lane split my motorcycle the woman and stroller would have to be in traffic to be at any risk.
What's the difference with a moped or a motorbike doing the same?
Breaking the same law, but with rather different outcomes.
There have been 612 pedestrian deaths in 2018.
Not accounting for the context and only counting cars. stats just count the number of pedestrians hit and dead, they could have been hit by a bicycle as far as we know.
It's 15 every million cars.
That's not very likely as well.
Very unlikely, unless it's something that happens in Italy only. I found that in the UK, with a comparable populations, incidents where pedestrians die are and a bike is involved (with no info on who's at fault) are about 4 per year. Similar data is available in other nations, AFAIK.
And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian, so you're forgetting the whole amount of deaths on the road. In 2018 there have been 3,300 road-related deaths in Italy. Since cyclists can only kill pedestrians (unless a very rare event occurs), they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths?
I think it's quite clear that cyclists can easily get injured if they break road rules; and being hit by a bicycle is far less serious than being hit by a motorcycle or by a car at the same speed, right? This is less and less true as the size of the vehicle increases.
The kind of punishment you get for an illegal act should be proportional to how serious is your infringement. I despise "cicloamatori" as well, since they fill up roads for no reasons and they overtake me with 5cms clearance; but, on italian roads, as a bike commuter, I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable (because some roads are impossible to use when on a bike).
I agree that some behaviours by some cyclists show a total disregard for their integrity and law. I think I've never took a street in the wrong direction in my whole life. And I would NOT expect cars to slow down or stop because I'm happily breaking the law just because I'm on a bike! If I'm on a sidewalk and ANY pedestrian approaches, I stop and I let them pass FIRST.
But, let's put things in perspective. Cyclists pay for their mistakes AND for others' mistakes with their own blood. But their contribution to road deaths and injuries is non-existent.
Refs: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicy...
There are simply more of them, running way more miles.
UK government made a study about it
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian
Not only.
Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents.
Bikers have the tendency to think that everybody is out to kill them.
But if you think about it, everybody else, even bikers when they are not on a bike, think that bikers (or _other_ bikers in case of bikers) are out to kill themselves.
Why?
Because they don't follow the same rules they try to enforce on others.
One example among many, that is easy to spot just looking around: bikers (rightfully) campaign a lot around the concept of safe distance
Here is an example
https://s23705.pcdn.co/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/d...
But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians
https://st.focusedcollection.com/14026668/i/650/focused_1815...
https://www.cyc-lok.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Dublin-cyc...
Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone?
Am I the only one that have seen this?
https://www.repstatic.it/content/localirep/img/rep-firenze/2...
https://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/image/contentid/policy:1.137...
https://radionbc.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bici-tre-320x...
https://radionbc.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bici-due-320x...
Not that cars are better in this regard, of course!
It's just a different way of being an asshole.
> they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths?
There have been only 8 cyclists dead in Rome in 2018 in over 27 thousands accidents.
it's not even sure they died in an accident with a car, the stats don't say it.
It means one dead every 3,375 accidents.
And yet bikes are the most dangerous way to go around in Italy (statistically, it means that rarely you will have an accident, but if you do, there are much more chances that it will be bad).
> I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable
That sounds about right, but it's simply...
This link is interesting and I'll review it thoroughly. Thanks. But I don't see what part of it you're using for your "cars are not more dangerous than bikes". Is there any section about who's at fault for an accident?
Cars are less dangerous for those who drive them. We're talking about being less dangerous for others, especially for vulnerable user groups.
> Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents.
... like what? And how often? "Indirectly" you mean 2nd order effects. But I need to run directly at full speed into somebody in order to try and kill it with a bike; the weight is low (almost like the person alone) and the speed is low as well.
> But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians
The first photo, it's probably something taken with slow or stopped traffic. It's not illegal to overtake stopped cars. In the 2nd the cyclist is in a bike lane, did you realize that?
> Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone?
I don't understand whether you're joking. Do you realize how many f*ing parking spots exist for cars and motorbikes, and how few parking spots exist for bikes? You can park 6-20 cars (depending on whether facilities are available, like racks) where a SINGLE CAR parks. Now the problem is that "bikes take up valuable pedestrian space". Don't you see cars and vans parked everywhere, including sidewalks, in Rome? Something like, daily?
Cars in Rome don't park in "doppia fila"?
> Then don't use them. Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them.
I cannot use those roads because car drivers are jerks, they park (illegally) in terrible places and they don't yield to bikes.
> I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me.
That's the root of the problem, man. You don't like bikes, and you don't need bikes. So you hate them. You're far more empathic to car drivers, because "everybody drives when in need".
It's your problem, though, and I couldn't care less.
> Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline)
Only if you don't take into account the negative externalities caused by pollution. IIRC paying for carbon offsets for around 10.000 miles per year would amount to roughly 10.000 USD in carbon offsets. Also, roads for cars require far more maintenance than those where bikes can go.
I live in the outskirts of Trieste and I love my commute until the very last 500m to get to my office, when I'm deep in the city. For the first 18kms I always follow all road rules; but when I get into the city center... anything can happen. If I want to get to my office in full health, I need to do any kind of strange things, INCLUDING doing a very small cut through a sidewalk. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it if there were another safe way.
But I don't pollute and add real traffic to a city that is already very complex and has many problems.
One last thought: the idea that cyclists are the bullies is just too absurd to me. They're extra vulnerable. They risk their lives. A car ignoring a red light is not the same as a bike ignoring a red light, because the potential outcome is very different. They can "cause an accident" because somebody else breaks.
I cannot find the link now, but I remember a study from Netherlands where it was clear that, once bike usage goes up and crosses a certain thresholds, the GLOBAL RATE of accide...
In the United States it is illegal (almost everywhere) to ride between lanes of traffic at any speed. That is a law I break almost every time I am on a motorcycle. The only way to hit a pedestrian in that situation is if they are walking between lanes of traffic. I typically do it at stop signs and lights where I stop between two rows of cars so if one gets rear ended I am not the one that gets obliterated.
I will treat a traffic light as a stop sign if it does not detect my bike, which is common. I won't wait for a car to hopefully stop behind me without killing me. I do this at intersections I am familiar with. This is technically legal if you do it a certain way but I often don't wait that long to minimize my risk.
I'm not taking a motorized vehicle down a sidewalk at any speed. I will ride my bicycle on a sidewalk along busy streets if there is minimal pedestrian presence and no alternate route. When a conflict with a pedestrian presents itself I move back to the road if possible.
There are also legal things I do that are often perceived as illegal such as riding with my high beams on during the day or skipping ferry lines. If I get flashed by oncoming traffic they may be mad at me but at least I know they saw me.
https://www.romadailynews.it/photogallery_new/images/2015/05...
While it is pretty common in cities like Rome or Paris or Barcelona
Yeah, don't do that. If you want to be on the sidewalk, walk your bike.
As a pedestrian, I won't move away from the path of bikes on the sidewalk, even if you have to fall down "because" of me.
While I don't condone running red lights, driver rage at cyclists running red lights or pedestrians jay-walking (a term invented by the auto industry) would be far better directed at drivers who don't take the task of operating a multi-thousand pound machine at high velocities seriously.
I have personally lost count of the times I have seen strollers with babies on heavy trafficked bike roads, and 3-5 years old on training cycles. I have however yet to hear a single accident where a cyclist have hit one of those extremely vulnerable individuals being hit, which if it happened would likely result in the child being killed.
The other options just invite broken bones and head trauma.
In NYC, any bicyclist over 12 years old or with wheels over 26" is required to ride in the street.
Here, that's a good way to die. We can say that because bicyclists are regularly run down. Pedestrians too.
It's the natural outcome when you densely pack retirees with drive thru pharmacies/liquor stores.
The things I did do for safety (eg riding out far enough to not get doored, taking a lane to turn or avoid obstacles) generally weren't illegal. Although I could see this being different in a place with different laws that weren't worded in terms of safety.
* Mount the foot path and then return to the road.
* Force me to use pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
* Railroad me onto the side of the road when I actually want to make a turn (ie: force me to dismount and use a pedestrian crossing instead of using the correct lane for that turn)
* Vanish abruptly
But a lot of cyclists I see (in my city anyway) are just inconsiderate assholes who have no road etiquette. They run red lights, ignore one way systems, cycle on pedestrian paths, or (the very worst) cycle the wrong way on cycle paths.
And don't get me started on lycra clad (always male) cyclists who 'come at you' side-by-side on a cycle path that fits exactly two cyclists. I'm not sure if they expect you to slide into another dimension, but a loud, sharp c-word generally jolts them out of their idiocy.
Things are getting better I guess... in NY, "complete streets" was signed in 2011. I consider that pretty recent though. Even post 2011, there were projects near me that were already underway and getting completed that completely ignored cycling. -.-
"B. ... if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes, whichever is shorter, ..."
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/secti...
Which makes a lot of sense. I've been in this situation in my car as well. The light just doesn't change.
I'm sure 100% of people break some rule at some point, so saying 100% of the participants admitted to breaking some rule, is like saying 100% of people fart in public.
But, anyway, for the 18 months or so that I biked to work, I tried to follow the rules. Yes, I rolled through some stop signs. (Don't we all, no matter what kind of vehicle we're piloting?) The much slower speed on a bike makes it easier to look at all incoming lanes before you enter the intersection.
But, I've had close calls in a car with cyclists. I've had close calls on a bike with cars. I once went over my handlebars when some doofus bolted across the street on a bike without looking. People are bad at following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if it's a car or a bicycle.
Because bike lanes were an afterthought. Cycling is very unsafe.
Originally bikes were expected to ride on sidewalks. The problem arose was that sidewalks were unsafe. Pedestrians would just walk into the way of the cyclists and the cyclists would be hurt.
So politicians looking to raise tax revenues started making it difficult to ride a bike. Helmets are required, bans from sidewalks, 20km/h speed limits of bike lanes/paths. Many reflectors on the bike. Bell or horn on the bike needed. This is all to harass cyclists.
Now that bikes are on roads, now you have cars just driving into the way of cyclsts and hurting them; possibly even killing them.
Why are cyclists always being hurt by everyone else?
Depends a bit by what you mean by "originally". In the early 1900s, bikes traveled in the street. Pedestrians traveled in the street. Everybody was in the street. The idea that the streets are the sole province of the car, and that pedestrians/bikers may cross the street only where it does not inconvenience the car, is the result of marketing to avoid cars being liable for pedestrian injury/death.
So, same story of cars being overly prominent, but stepping back another 50 years.