Does anyone have any data to compare the chance of a person at fault being criminally charged in a deadly car-car accident (no DUI or hit-and-run) to this effectively nil chance in deadly car-bike accidents? The article fails to mention it, yet makes multiple comparisons.
Edit: Did some googling, found this article (http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedes...) that finds that 60% of those at fault in deadly pedestrian accidents are not charged in accidents. Of those charged, many are not suspended. (Note the small sample size of 238) Does this point to a larger problem of drivers not being held accountable, period?
Accidentally killing someone is rarely, if ever, murder[1]. It is potentially manslaughter if it happened while committing a minor offense, or doing something particularly reckless[2].
Injuring someone would be battery, not assault, and similarly intent is needed.
As far as I know, accidentally injuring someone is not criminal, unless the accident happened due to reckless disregard for others' safety.
[1] Depending on the state, 2nd degree murder is possible if your actions showed depraved indifference to human life. In other jurisdictions this would be considered manslaughter
[2] IIRC states differ on whether or not a non-misdemeanor traffic violation is enough to consider a homicide to be manslaughter. I think that in most states an unintentional homicide that resulted from committing a misdemeanor is considered manslaughter. Furthermore states differ on which moving violations are misdemeanors. Also some states have vehicular manslaughter laws, which I know nothing about.
It varies. In the UK we have the charge "Causing death by dangerous driving". Simply defined "A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence."
Note there's no nod to accidents there. If you're speeding, if you're making lane changes without looking. If you're entering spaces designated for cyclists, or pedestrians; then it's not an honest accident. An accident, yes, but a criminal one, not an honest one.
The problem with click-bait is that it's so omnipresent with websites like BuzzFeed that if a journalist uses a non-factual title for an opinion piece, people say it's click bait. IMHO it's really fine in that case.
This. It does not deliver on the promise in the headline, and the headline exists only to make you simultaneously infuriated, confused or curious. If someone posted a comment with those properties they would be banned from HN.
I dread passing a cyclist, and always wonder what the legal/criminal consequences would be if the cyclist swerved in front of me while trying to pass a parked car (no bike lane).
EDIT: I meant a two lane road. I'm in the left lane. Cars are parked in the right lane sporadically. A cyclist is in the right lane, but veers into the left lane to go around it.
I don't know whether to feel reassured or what, but I'd rather sky dive to work than ride in the road while the average person drove by me.
In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it to happen safely.
I feel the problem is that we're deeply over-trained to read cues for what a car will do, and less so for bikes. To whit, if a bike _could_ dart in front of me, I assume it will. Much like a squirrel, deer, or inner city car in a traffic jam.
Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.
Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then take the lane. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing everyone can be is predictable.
If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane. As you say, you can not straddle either, so the only option is the full lane.
> If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane.
Legally, you can; the width of cars and bikes are actual facts, of course, but I don't think you'll find a fixed-in-law minimum distance for most of those things in the California Vehicle Code.
Starting Tuesday, there is. California's "Give me three" law goes into effect. However in a standard 13' wide lane a passenger car and a bike not forced off the right curb by parked cars or trash in the road can pass without the car needing to leave the lane. Happens all the time, no problems.
> Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does.
Legally, in California, a bicycle that isn't maintaining the "normal speed of traffic" for the road it is on is required to be operated as close as practical to the right-hand curb except in specifically enumerated circumstances. It does not have the same legal right to the road and lane as a car does. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 21202)
Where I live, the minimum speed is half the top speed, so if a bike is doing less than 20 mph in a 40 mph street it is theoretically violating traffic rules - not that it justifies anyone risking running over the cyclist.
If there is no bike lane, then legally you shouldn't be passing a cyclist unless it is a passing zone (broken yellow or white line), in which case you should have plenty of room to use the opposing lane.
If it's a solid line with no bike lane, then it's the same as if you were passing a car, i.e., illegal. I've been ticketed for that in SF.
No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly.
Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.
The solution is for all road-users to continuously adapt to what's happening around them. Folk who aren't capable of that shouldn't be allowed on the road.
Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.
Random stuff gets downvoted sometimes. It might not even have been intentional, what with no way to correct it. Obviously some people disagree with your statement, though, so who knows.
Which part of my post implied that I think that? Was it the part where I specifically suggested a solution that would keep cyclists safe and speed up traffic?
It depends whether you are referring to a lane with a posted speed limit of 40mph or one which the normal speed of traffic is 40mph. In California, both the posted speed limit and the normal speed of traffic are legally-significant values (particularly, there are significant legal rules that come into play for both vehicles in general and bicycles in particular that are being operated at less than the normal speed of traffic.)
what about moped drivers? They are constantly getting killed around here. I know a few people that only use them because of the gas savings. It use to just be people that had DUI's. At any rate a human life is the most precious thing there is IMHO, and we should be doing all we can to preserve them. I enjoyed the article.
OK, now tell us how to police it. "Just do it" doesn't count.
And then there's the fact that a large number of cyclists ride because they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance. How do millions of American's get around if you take their bike away, their only means of individual transportation?
> they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance
I assume they can afford medical bills after an incident? Or they can afford to pay for damage to vehicles?
I had my brand new paint taken off across 2 panels because a cyclist tried to squeeze in between me and another car at a stop light and lost his balance. Then he casually cycled away.
$2500 in damages. But good for him, he is 'too poor' to get insurance.
Insurance for cyclist would be significantly cheaper than auto and motorcycle owners. Without it you are a financial disaster waiting to happen.
So the police and state must suddenly take on this effort? At what cost? Where do the police resources come from? Even then, what if the cyclist still can't afford it? They have to walk? Do they need insurance if they are late and have to run, maybe jay-walk a couple times?
A working bicycle can be found for under $50 in even the most expensive cities, have $0 in operating costs, and will last for decades. There are likely no other personal transportation options which offer that.
Get out of our bubble. Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything in their budget or to plan more than a few weeks ahead... They can't account for unknown events, and frankly don't need to worry about going bankrupt because of an accident.
Bicycle licenses could come with mandatory training and licenses could be revoked for poor behavior. Licenses could be tied to mandatory insurance - to limit the exposure for government assistance programs.
Vehicular manslaughter -- which most fatal accidents are not -- is a criminal offense which, when proven, results in a lot more than losing your license.
Because now you will be going via insurance process where drivers rates will be reviewed and adjusted. Hitting an insured 'bike' now introduces an actual process where parties at fault will end up paying.
It's not going to be 'Oh I'm fully insured, registered and have a license. Who is this cyclist again?'.
I have 3rd party cycle insurance and it costs about £20 per year. Bikes are orders of magnitude more safe to others than cars which is why mandatory insurance is such a silly pointless idea. Should pedestrians have insurance just in case they scratch a cars hood when they get hit?
Mandatory insurance is there to protect other vehicles. It's to ensure that the person at fault is financially capable of covering the costs of the damage they cause.
And just what would be the point of bike insurance cover? Car insurance is primarily for property damage and/or medical issues. When's the last time you saw a bike cause serious property damage? And it's obvious that short of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian (rare but it happens) it's the cyclist that's going to need the medical attention - not the car driver.
It's an unpopular idea because it makes no sense. It's needless paperwork, expense and bureaucracy for no real world benefit.
Is your insurance deductible $2500? If you had full insurance, as I assume you would from your comment, why not claim it? After all, it's there to protect you too. You can substitute cyclist for uninsured driver and the situation would be the same.
Registration is the bulk of the "needless paperwork" I was referring to. Cyclists get that hurled at them pretty frequently (just this weekend to be exact), with the idea that rego fees cover road costs. And of course it's simply not true over most of the world. The bulk of money for roads comes from non-registration related sources.
Accidents happen. All the time in fact. By one calculation 17,589 per day in the US [1]. Most of the time both people are in a steel cage and escape unharmed. About 115 people per day will die (also [1]).
There is a level of accepted risk tolerance in our choosing to let people drive cars. Accidents happen. People will get hurt. People will die. And you know what. Yes. Yes it is ok. The benefits outweigh the cons by multiple orders of magnitude (not that there is a unit of measurement).
You could ruin lives and throw drivers in jail but that just hurts society even more (imo). Ruins lives, costs the state money, and doesn't even change behavior. Accidents are accidents after all. You either have cars and accept that there will be accidents or you get rid of cars [2].
So fuck it. Yes. Yes it is ok. Accidents happen. We should, of course, work diligently to reduce risk and improve safety. And we do. But accidents will happen and people will die.
Your post effectively cancels itself out. "yes it is ok", but we should work to reduce risk and improve safety (a.k.a no, it's not ok).
By having zero penalty for negligence permits unpredictable behavior. A higher penalty (higher than zero in this case), one would hope, would encourage drivers to conform.
So, a patient driver who sees me plus never road rages at me? This is one of many situations in which a non-human driver is superior. Yes, I'd raise my hand to that.
Sure, I'd raise my hand. But this is a very strange point for the OP to raise. Driverless cars are not at option at this time (calm down, I know they exist, I cycle amongst them daily). In the future, sure.
The issue isn't bad drivers. The issue is people. What percentage of people do you think will have an at fault accident at least once in their lifetime? How many drivers would be left if every single one of those people had their license revoked?
An at fault minor accident, sure. An at fault accident that causes the death of another person - a very small percentage of the population. Penalty is at least acknowledgement to the victim's family that a fault of another caused their death, and action has been taken in an effort to prevent this from occurring again.
I really couldn't give a damn if those drivers who have killed another human being due to their driving were not allowed behind the wheel again.
The severity of the penalty is another matter. But your words advocate no penalty, and this idea that "hey, we all screw up sometimes, don't sweat it".
You talk of percentages. Look at the percentage of cyclists killed by vehicles in the US. If all we cared about was percentages, there would never be a drive for cycle lanes, there would never be a movement towards cycle oriented cities. You are telling a small percentage of pioneering citizens to suck it up, because "you knew the risks". Some scream of entitlement. I think cyclists are entitled to their lives. Don't you?
But there are some quite good markers for identifying potentially dangerous drivers beyond actual collisions. For example people who repeatedly use mobile phones at the wheel or are caught speeding. An honhest mistake is more forgivable than willfully putting people in danger.
Pewrsonally I think collisions should result in a large income based fine that is given to the victim and not paid for by insurance. We need something in between "insurance sorts it out" and manslaughter.
So, why not just increase the penalties, but don’t put anyone into jail?
In the article it sounds as though people receive a low fine. Why not take their driver’s license away for a month or two? Or what about probation? A points system where the driver’s license is lost after you rack up enough points?
There are ways to deter people from behaving recklessly without destroying their lives. Actually, if possible that should in my opinion always be the goal of the justice system (and it’s a failure – inevitable, probably, but still a failure – if that doesn’t work out).
If juries don’t want to send someone to jail, wouldn’t it be much more likely that they would want to take someone’s driver’s license away for a month?
It’s absurd to say “well, 30 thousand people per year die in car accidents in the US, and it’s the leading cause of death among young people, but oh well, it’s just inevitable and there’s nothing we can do.”
We can make dramatic improvements to these numbers if we build safer roads and get more people using public transit, biking, or walking instead of driving. Many countries in the world have much smaller rates of fatal road traffic accidents than the US does.
Not only that, but getting people to commute some way other than by car makes a substantial impact on carbon emissions, and more physical activity (even if it’s just walking from the bus stop to the office) has nice health benefits.
But stricter penalties for reckless driving that kills cyclists/pedestrians also seems entirely reasonable. A car is an incredibly dangerous machine, and people should treat driving with the care and respect it deserves.
If you kill someone with the negligent operation of a firearm, I would expect you to be charged. If you kill someone with the negligent operation of a vehicle, why the free pass?
To be clear, no-one's debating honest accidents. But if you are at fault, you should be held to account for it.
Well, the data from Europe shows you (Americans) can do much better than the deaths you have now. And of course the title of the article is not to be taken literally, but then again complaints about that are the bane of every article posted to a site populated with computer folk.
That's like saying that "being skinny and being in a room with body builders will never be safe" because the larger people are capable of physically hurting you either deliberately or through negligence - in other words, that is an unacceptable response to this issue.
Not just capable but largely blind on the sides and moving much much faster than you, not to mention probably won't even feel that they're running into you.
Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists, particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely.
Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake.
I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.
their speed makes them largely predictable, they basically don't move as seen from a car, just keep a huge bubble around them, and adapt your speed to what you can anticipate.
Moreover remember that cyclists only pose a risk to pedestrians, the risky person is the one with the highest kinetic energy, don't get your moral compass confused, driving a car is like going in the street with a rifle, you could kill anyone at any moment. Going on bike is like going with a knife, to kill someone you'll need some effort.
Roads by themselves are just patches of asphalt, not dangerous at all. Roads are made dangerous by the things that travel on them.
Choosing to drive subsequently bears significant responsibility in causing that danger, and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they injure another, not to mention the risks they pose to other drivers.
I understand driving in a safe manner, but I am not convinced that driving on major roads is worth it.
If someone tightrope-walked over Niagara and fell in I would certainly blame the victim.
Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.
Some things, like walking across Niagara falls, are inherently dangerous. Other things, like biking, are inherently safe, but are made dangerous by the actions of others.
Parks at night are dangerous by their nature and short skirts are unpredictable and unprotected forms of clothing to wear. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of sexual assaults involving attractive young women wearing short skirts, particularly in parks which aren't designed to let them walk across safely.
Choosing to wear a short skirt subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get raped, not to mention the risks they pose to rapists by causing them to enter a dark park where they might get mugged themselves.
I understand wearing short skirts where it is safe to but am not convinced wearing them when going out for the night is worth it.
Did anyone here not think that argument was absurd? When did blaming the victim become an ethically acceptable basis for setting public policy?
1) Dangerous driving is not always an active choice
2) Even if (1) was true, it is incorrect to assert that the entirety of the danger to cyclists on the road is dangerous drivers
It may be that you were aware that this was the case and your phrasing was simply an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) at being emotive, but it made your statement incorrect to be so definitive.
Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is simply a matter of probability.
I don't think it is any stretch of reasoning to say that choosing to be close to and often in the path of people driving at legal speed in itself carries risk, indiscriminate of how good and conscientious the driver is.
Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is simply a matter of probability.
If you can't drive safely at a given speed, slow down. It's really as simple as that.
(Yes, of course there are exceptions. If you're driving an emergency response vehicle then the likely damage caused by arriving later may be genuinely greater than the likely damage caused by going faster. But obviously we're not talking about that sort of situation here and for normal driving it really is that simple.)
Why do you think it is unreasonable of me to say that someone who puts themselves in a risky position is by definition partly to blame?
I don't accept your premise that cycling around town on public roads is necessarily a risky position.
I live in Cambridge, UK, a city known for having a lot more cyclists than most places in this country, and also known for its historical (read: narrow and windy) street plan. It's about as cycle-hostile an environment as you can get and it's difficult to make big changes to improve things anywhere near the city centre. And yet in a couple of decades of living here, moving around as both a cyclist and a driver, I have never been concerned about a car-cycle accident from either side.
This doesn't require some level of super-human reaction time and supreme driving skill in the car, nor a force shield around my bike. It just requires following the basic legal rules of the road and allowing for the fact that not all road users are the same. In particular, I avoid potential accidents with cyclists all the time when driving, often simply because I allow plenty of space around them so when something unexpected happens there's still room for everyone when the cyclist suddenly changes speed or direction. You are never, contrary to your original post, forced to overtake a cyclist. In fact, if it would be dangerous to do so, you are legally required not to overtake, as with passing any other vehicle.
If a cyclist breaks the rules themselves and then gets hurt, sure, assign them some or all of the responsibility. I don't care you are less protected than a car, he had the green light and you knowingly or carelessly ran a red. I do not support calls for car drivers to be legally responsible for any car-cyclist accident by default, because I see cyclists do insane stuff like this every day.
But if a cyclist is simply using the road in an otherwise considerate way, there really isn't any need for cars to go racing past them at high relative speeds and with little clearance (and no, a bit of ill-judged paint that some authority slapped on the road does not excuse a lack of basic driving skills). And if drivers don't do that, and cyclists follow the rules too, then your original claim that "It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists" just doesn't stand up in my experience. Accidents do happen, and sadly some degree of injury and even death is almost inevitable unless we close down efficient transportation systems altogether; on this much, we agree. But to cause a fatal car-cycle crash usually requires not only bad luck but also a failure on the part of either or both of the driver and the cyclist to follow the rules, and at that point it's not just an accident any more.
I completely agree that different roads carry different risks - I think cycling around a city centre is completely different than cycling on a winding country road - but indiscriminate of the magnitude, I think it is undeniable to say that there is a risk.
Causes of accidents have such a diverse and complex range of causes, I think it is not right to make as clear-cut an argument 'if everyone drove safely there would be no accidents'.
In my mind it is much safer to consider the road as a complex system with relatively predictable probability of injury (which in its function contains the risk of meeting an unsafe driver, but is not limited to that). I realise on a case-by-case level there is a definitive split of blame and I'm not attempting to isolate drivers from any blame, but simply from the cyclist's view all I'm asking you to accept is the following:
1) a risk of injury for cyclists originates from the 'system' of traffic on a road
2) someone who enters willingly into a situation, aware that doing so carries a risk (eg climbing a ladder) must accept some (not necessarily all) responsibility in that decision if the risk becomes realised.
Sadly, a significant proportion of the human population is sociopathic. So far the best answer we've found as a society is to try to avoid allowing such people to be in situations where they will do real harm to others.
Fortunately, most people aren't like that, so attempting to establish conventions so everyone can interact safely on the road (or in the park, for that matter) is still worthwhile.
Your entire argument is framed in the context of driving being a right and not a privilege. Cars do not own the road. Bicycles are vehicles and you have to treat them as such - it's the law. I'm not sure where you live but at least in the US many people take driving for granted since it's so easy to get a license, and so difficult to lose it (barring exceptionally negligent or irresponsible behavior). But there are rules of the road, and you do have to follow them if you want to partake in the benefits of driving.
I do not claim that driving is a right, but I do think it is reasonable to say that driving is significantly more important to a country's economic activity, signalled by the amount of investment in road infrastructure in, I would venture, every developed country.
I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does.
> I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does.
That's my whole point...there is no legal basis for your claim, if we're talking about surface streets in a city and not highways.
Motor vehicle accidents are generally not prosecuted as crimes, whether they involve bicycles or not.
Bicycles are generally considered motor vehicles so accidents an accident killing a bicyclist is largely treated the same as an accident killing a motorist.
Some European countries put the bike lane on the sidewalk next to pedestrians, instead of on the side of the road next to all the cars. This always seemed to me the safer option.
A few places in Salt Lake City, the side-of-the-road parking is in between traffic and the bike lane, shielding the bike lane from cars. I'd be curious to see if it makes a statistical difference in accident rates.
I can assure you as a commute cyclist in Berlin that it's not. The less car drivers see you as traffic the more dangerous it gets. Also the surface maintenance there is just horrible compared to a proper road.
The single biggest threat to cyclists are right turning vehicles that either don't see you at all or worse underestimate your velocity and try to overtake you on the non- turning bike lane shortly before a crossing turning right (just happened to me on Monday). So driving in the actual straight lane is the safest option.
Why would you care if cars see you as traffic, if you have to follow the same rules pedestrians do? If they're on the sidewalk, bicycles cross the street at the pedestrian green and have to stop at pedestrian red. The only safety problem might be accidents between bicycles and people.
Slight confusion here - A bicycle lane that's sharing the same surface as the sidewalk isn't a sidewalk, it's a bicycle lane.
How you cross the road follows the rules of the road - ours have stop/yield markings at signalled junctions, and the lane carries on across the road on an unsignalled junction.
In the later case, I have right of way crossing the road you're waiting to turn into - because I'm not leaving my lane, and you are.
A bicycle in a bike lane is not a pedestrian. It's not on a footpath. It's a vehicle on a surface designated for vehicles. We're still traffic.
> I can assure you as a commute cyclist in Berlin that it's not [safer to bike on the sidewalk than in the street]. The less car drivers see you as traffic the more dangerous it gets.
I don't get this. Are they going to drive up on the sidewalk and hit you because they don't see you as traffic? How do the pedestrians survive?
Even with mostly seperate lanes for cycles and cars there are so e places where they meet. Junctions is one example. A car turning off the road into another road may cross a cycle path. In that example the car is probably supposed to give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the cycle path / pavement.
Moments after I read this, California Highway Patrol (Golden Gate Division) issued an alert (which I received via SMS) asking the public to help find a hit-and-run suspect that killed a cyclist in Winters, CA. The alert is at http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/
In France since a few years, the driver's fault is presumed if the accident is with a cyclist or a pedestrian (for the civil case). It means that the burden of the proof is on the driver.
Strangely enough, the usual civil system applies between a cyclist and a pedestrian.
Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave? More importantly, is this sort of appeal appropriate for the author to publish?
It's also interesting to note the author is a recreational rather than commuter cyclist. His asserted empathy for motorists and fear of cycling is partly thanks to the privilege of rejecting cycling as an everyday reality of transportation. Can he, in his limited experience, truly understand the world in which everyday cyclists live?
As I see it, this article's conclusion is akin to the following:
> So here’s my proposal: Every time you go out in public, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every interaction everywhere to help white people (and police officers) view black people as predictable members of society who deserve respect.
This editorial insistence on empathizing with motorists paints cyclists as a class of rule-breakers and hooligans, not a diverse and largely forward-thinking group of citizens who happen to be united in their mode of transportation.
In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration. I'd like to see the above questions earnestly addressed.
The way I see it, you can accept the reality that you're engaging in a more dangerous activity and take the proper attitude, or you can rage about your ideals from a hospital bed and hope that'll somehow make a difference.
As a motorcyclist, I simply expect that drivers are paying no attention, and it's on me to protect myself. I can go your way, but that's cold comfort to broken bones and torn skin - and yes, I have been wrecked by driver inattention, so this is not merely academic.
I have a very hard time with this modern tendency to enpower victimhood, but as my name indicates, I'm an old man. Might be a generational thing.
"You were walking on the sidewalk, you had it coming when that car ran you down."
Seriously? We're going to blame the victims here? Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity, especially in designated lanes when observing all traffic rules.
The parent in no way suggested blaming victims (and your fake-quote is a bit of straw-man hyperbole). He merely suggested that the supposed victims here should take a little extra responsibility for their safety and increase their vigilance.
I'm still the victim if, say, I'm walking in shady part of town at night, looking at my phone instead of paying attention, and I get mugged. But just because I'm the victim in this scenario, it doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't do more to protect myself from a bad outcome.
Would you rather be more vigilant, or increase your chances of a hospital visit? I'm talking about the reality of the situation here, not the ideal world where everyone on the road behaves like we think they should.
I'm going to suggest that when you "take a little extra responsibility for their safety" you fight for protection, like bike lanes, more vigorous enforcement of laws, and equal rights compared to other vehicle operators.
It's a very American attitude to say things like "don't visit that part of town, it's a bad neighbourhood". What about things like "that part of town is in rough shape, we should work to revitalize it" or "I shouldn't have to live in fear when walking down the street, what can we do to mitigate that fear".
Changing attitudes and the environment that produces them takes time.
"forward-thinking" Eh...that sounds pretty obnoxious. I wouldn't gloat when trying to win sympathy.
Plus it's kind of ridiculous to me because I grew up in a third world country where the primary mode of transportation was biking.
As for diverse...most of the cyclists I know are middle class or above white people with some Asians sprinkled in. All the poor people I know actually take the bus or drive a beater car.
> Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave?
The answer is, whether most people admit it or not, people resent cyclists.
Before I continue: I'm not saying this is a good thing. But I am saying this is what is happening in a lot of people's brains.
I think the big reason, and this occurs at a subconscious level, is that the presence of cyclists increases your cognitive load. And our brains are pretty taxed by driving as it is. When there are bikes, you've got to pay attention to a completely new type of vehicle that does not move or behave like other vehicles. You've got to look for a vehicle that is hard to see, and that out of the corner of your eye, looks more like a pedestrian than a vehicle. If you could 'eliminate' bikes, there would be a lot less for your brain to worry about.
Add to this that cyclists are the minority, and you can imagine a world without city cyclists, and you're spending all this mental energy on something that feels like it could be "optimized" away. The thought occurs, even if only on a subconscious level, "If those stupid bikes were gone this would be so much easier!"
Once again, I disagree with that way of thinking, but it is a common way of thinking nonetheless.
Self driving cars and protected bike lanes are probably our best best, because changing people's minds seems like a fool's errand.
In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration.
And I assert that this is a lazy, hyperbolic comparison that tries to compare a ridiculously complex issue involving race, socioeconomic divides, police brutality, and then some, to a fairly simple issue involving cyclists who flaunt the rules of the road, and drivers who ignore cyclists.
I'm a consummate pedestrian in SF who is somewhat afraid of becoming a cyclist, and who drives once or twice a month (mostly to get out of the city). Even I have some close calls with cyclists who think it's cool to ride on the sidewalk when there's a perfectly good (and not even particularly heavily-trafficked) road sitting next to them.
I witness a lot of crap: cyclists running red lights and stop signs, cyclists weaving around stopped traffic at lights in order to get ahead, cyclists riding the wrong way on one-way streets (sometimes on the sidewalk because "that doesn't count" apparently), cyclists riding side-by-side blocking traffic lanes.
Maybe it's not a majority of cyclists who do this stuff, but it is a very large minority.
And then there's my favorite: Critical Mass, a monthly event where a ton of cyclists get together (a bunch of them clearly drunk) and ride around SF en masse, blocking streets and taunting cars. And they wonder why drivers hate them? Seriously?
Having said all that, I do know some cyclists who are awesome and obey the law, and always put safety and vigilance first. I wish everyone was like that.
"Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request."
Not even criminal charges here - these drivers are still driving daily, professionally.
Basically cars are always right, legally, morally and inertially.
(The deputy that killed Milt Olin was fiddling with his phone as he left his lane and drove straight into him at speed. After the accident, he claimed Milt had swerved into his lane. It took a prosecutor a year to finally conclude there was zero criminality here.)
> But studies performed in Arizona, Minnesota and Hawaii suggest that drivers are at fault in more than half of cycling fatalities.
I'd be amazed if this were true in SF. I'm an avid cyclist, love biking around the city for fun or to commute, etc. The cause of most near crashes (and crashes) I've witnessed are idiot cyclists thinking it's ok to blow through stop signs or traffic lights, or to wildly cut across two lanes without signalling and expecting the entire universe to notice them and stop for them. When I'm driving, I'm hyper-aware of the stupidity I've seen when I'm biking and try to take that into account when cyclists are around, and I don't blame other motorists for getting pissed or even aggressive. Cyclists have this incredible double-standard...they want to use the road, but they don't want to share it. Sure, everyone who drives a car is an earth-destroying, gas-guzzling, roided out freak who's trying to kill you, but isn't that all the more reason to have some respect for everyone else on the road?
Granted, I've had my fair share of asshole drivers turn right in front of me without signalling or just merge into the bike line for no reason (prompting me to "gently" tap their car window). Hell, I've even had people run red lights and come within a foot of slamming into me, and I've been doored really bad by someone getting out of a taxi, but to be honest I'm as cautious around other cyclists as I am around cars.
Maybe it's just SF and it's the wild west here, but biking at rush hour is just as bad because of other cyclists, not just cars. I think drivers would hate us a lot less if we stopped at a stop sign once in a while and thought about others besides ourselves (same goes for shitty drivers too).
I can only speak for DC -- but it is the exact same here. I have seen fervent defenses about why cyclists shouldn't have to follow traffic rules as well (better visibility, mobility, etc) -- but all those arguments apply equally to motorcycles, and inversely to large trucks... I am not sure we want 5+ rules of the road...
As terrible as this article is, I have to agree with the basic premise; there are three times it's socially acceptable to kill someone in the US.
a) human privilege - If someone is actively and maliciously threatening the life of me, or my immediate family.
b) 'castle doctrine' - If someone enters my home with malicious intent.
c) They're on a bicycle.
It does seem you can have a more reasonable debate over whether it's acceptable to kill someone who is actively in the process of a non-lethal crime, than it is to debate the murder of someone who added several seconds to your daily commute.
I live in a country where cycling is a major mode of transportation (Netherlands). I also work (albeit tangentially, this is not an appeal to authority) in transportation planning.
In my view, expectations of cyclists in countries that don't traditionally have bikes on their roads are unrealistic in their expectations. Nobody in their right mind in the Netherlands would ride a bike on highways or major multiple-lane roads (and in fact, it's mostly prohibited); yet I see cyclists in New Zealand and Australia do that all the time (I suspect it's similar in the US but I haven't observed it personally). Similarly, nobody in their right mind drives a bike the same way they drive a car - on the same lanes, in the middle of the lane, basically like a slow motor cycle (outside of areas where cars move faster than walking speed, that is - i.e. not rush hour in urban centers).
Now I understand that you'd sort of have to if there is no alternative, like a well developed separate cycling network as we have. Heck, just having bicycle lanes already seems to be hailed as a big progression in many places. But I have a hard time understanding why cyclists are so determined to portray themselves as this sub-group, a minority that deserves special attention, with its own clothing ranges and gear sets and entitlements and internet forums for circle jerking about how much better the world would be if only everybody else was just like you. I'm trying hard not to blame the victim here, but the problem the author identifies with cyclists turning public opinion against them is real (which is still not a reason not to prosecute people who kill cyclists, of course).
'Our' cyclists (sorry if this sounds condescending, I can't really think of a better way of putting it) don't identify as 'cyclists'. They're just a cross section of the population, and as such there is no such culture clash. Maybe it's easy for me to say because we never had to make a transition the way many countries will have to, but pitting yourself as the underdog who needs special treatment from everybody else seems to be a long, hard slog, or maybe even counter-productive in at least the short term. Not that I have an alternative though, prisoner's dilemma and all.
Yes, generally the solution is the two things you identify: 1) there is an extensive bicycle network, separated as much as possible from the vehicular lanes; and 2) cycling is something a broad cross-section of the population does, on said network. In that case it would be both stupid and probably illegal to bike in the car lanes, and there is also no real "cyclist" identity. That is also how it is here (Copenhagen).
In almost all parts of the U.S., the law and infrastructure cuts the other way, though. There is no separate bike infrastructure [1], and bicycles are legally treated as vehicles. In that context, it doesn't seem that surprising to me that the fewer people who still dare ride a bike demand to be treated as the (poorly designed) legal framework envisions they should be.
[1] I'd love a good source to verify this comparison (I heard it in a talk), but something I recently heard quoted is: Greater Copenhagen (1.5m people) has more km of protected bicycle infrastructure (~1000km) than the entire United States added together does (~400km).
151 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadEdit: Did some googling, found this article (http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedes...) that finds that 60% of those at fault in deadly pedestrian accidents are not charged in accidents. Of those charged, many are not suspended. (Note the small sample size of 238) Does this point to a larger problem of drivers not being held accountable, period?
This article (http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-pr...) provides a small amount of insight into the problem. Note this article is by an attorney and probably isn't free of conflicts of interest....
This seems like an important thing to explain :)
If killing someone in an accident is murder, surely injuring someone in an accident is assault.
Depends on state law. Might be 2nd degree murder, depending on how you define "accident".
Accidentally killing someone is rarely, if ever, murder[1]. It is potentially manslaughter if it happened while committing a minor offense, or doing something particularly reckless[2].
Injuring someone would be battery, not assault, and similarly intent is needed.
As far as I know, accidentally injuring someone is not criminal, unless the accident happened due to reckless disregard for others' safety.
[1] Depending on the state, 2nd degree murder is possible if your actions showed depraved indifference to human life. In other jurisdictions this would be considered manslaughter
[2] IIRC states differ on whether or not a non-misdemeanor traffic violation is enough to consider a homicide to be manslaughter. I think that in most states an unintentional homicide that resulted from committing a misdemeanor is considered manslaughter. Furthermore states differ on which moving violations are misdemeanors. Also some states have vehicular manslaughter laws, which I know nothing about.
Note there's no nod to accidents there. If you're speeding, if you're making lane changes without looking. If you're entering spaces designated for cyclists, or pedestrians; then it's not an honest accident. An accident, yes, but a criminal one, not an honest one.
EDIT: I meant a two lane road. I'm in the left lane. Cars are parked in the right lane sporadically. A cyclist is in the right lane, but veers into the left lane to go around it.
I don't know whether to feel reassured or what, but I'd rather sky dive to work than ride in the road while the average person drove by me.
Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.
IIRC, in California, it isn't illegal to share a lane, (though it still may be a bad idea) but its illegal to straddle lanes.
Legally, you can; the width of cars and bikes are actual facts, of course, but I don't think you'll find a fixed-in-law minimum distance for most of those things in the California Vehicle Code.
Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does. You must not encroach on that.
Legally, in California, a bicycle that isn't maintaining the "normal speed of traffic" for the road it is on is required to be operated as close as practical to the right-hand curb except in specifically enumerated circumstances. It does not have the same legal right to the road and lane as a car does. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 21202)
If it's a solid line with no bike lane, then it's the same as if you were passing a car, i.e., illegal. I've been ticketed for that in SF.
Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.
Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.
After n years. Time to sign out from HN.
And then there's the fact that a large number of cyclists ride because they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance. How do millions of American's get around if you take their bike away, their only means of individual transportation?
> they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance
I assume they can afford medical bills after an incident? Or they can afford to pay for damage to vehicles?
I had my brand new paint taken off across 2 panels because a cyclist tried to squeeze in between me and another car at a stop light and lost his balance. Then he casually cycled away.
$2500 in damages. But good for him, he is 'too poor' to get insurance.
Insurance for cyclist would be significantly cheaper than auto and motorcycle owners. Without it you are a financial disaster waiting to happen.
A working bicycle can be found for under $50 in even the most expensive cities, have $0 in operating costs, and will last for decades. There are likely no other personal transportation options which offer that.
Get out of our bubble. Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything in their budget or to plan more than a few weeks ahead... They can't account for unknown events, and frankly don't need to worry about going bankrupt because of an accident.
Poverty is fucked up.
Did you just find that out? Congratulations.
Most of cyclists in NYC are probably making more than you. Save your tears.
If you really cared and understood the dynamics of the 'poor' you would realize that stuff like this is there to protect them.
Rich person can afford the expense of two broken legs. Poor person? Not so much.
Stay in that bubble, and tell me more about the rich and entitled bicyclists that slow down your Uber.
If $10/month puts you off biking then you should not bike in highly populated areas. Period.
This is classic case of poor financial planning. You don't need $10/month insurance? Too expensive right?
Take a chance, then get injured and get hit with a $10,000 medical invoice. Good job saving $120/year, you showed them.
How will insurance or registration stop cyclists from getting hit by cars? It hasn't stopped cars from hitting each other.
It's not going to be 'Oh I'm fully insured, registered and have a license. Who is this cyclist again?'.
This makes no sense. This like saying that you don't need car insurance because you drive a small vehicle.
Insurance is there to protect you, not just other vehicles.
It's an unpopular idea because it makes no sense. It's needless paperwork, expense and bureaucracy for no real world benefit.
Last time? When the cyclist took off most of my paint with his handle bars and pedals trying to squeeze in. $2500 in body work out of my pocket.
Insurance is not only there to protect other people, it's also there to protect you.
That needless paperwork you speak off is exactly why it works.
Registration is the bulk of the "needless paperwork" I was referring to. Cyclists get that hurled at them pretty frequently (just this weekend to be exact), with the idea that rego fees cover road costs. And of course it's simply not true over most of the world. The bulk of money for roads comes from non-registration related sources.
There is a level of accepted risk tolerance in our choosing to let people drive cars. Accidents happen. People will get hurt. People will die. And you know what. Yes. Yes it is ok. The benefits outweigh the cons by multiple orders of magnitude (not that there is a unit of measurement).
You could ruin lives and throw drivers in jail but that just hurts society even more (imo). Ruins lives, costs the state money, and doesn't even change behavior. Accidents are accidents after all. You either have cars and accept that there will be accidents or you get rid of cars [2].
So fuck it. Yes. Yes it is ok. Accidents happen. We should, of course, work diligently to reduce risk and improve safety. And we do. But accidents will happen and people will die.
[1] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104A... [2] Or maybe get rid of human controlled cars. Cyclists raise your hand if you want to ride against the risk profile of a driverless car!
By having zero penalty for negligence permits unpredictable behavior. A higher penalty (higher than zero in this case), one would hope, would encourage drivers to conform.
Driverless cars can detect cyclists: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-cars-c...
So, a patient driver who sees me plus never road rages at me? This is one of many situations in which a non-human driver is superior. Yes, I'd raise my hand to that.
Why not just ban bad drivers from driving. You would get less congestion, safer roads, and free up driving jobs for more appropriate people.
I really couldn't give a damn if those drivers who have killed another human being due to their driving were not allowed behind the wheel again.
The severity of the penalty is another matter. But your words advocate no penalty, and this idea that "hey, we all screw up sometimes, don't sweat it".
You talk of percentages. Look at the percentage of cyclists killed by vehicles in the US. If all we cared about was percentages, there would never be a drive for cycle lanes, there would never be a movement towards cycle oriented cities. You are telling a small percentage of pioneering citizens to suck it up, because "you knew the risks". Some scream of entitlement. I think cyclists are entitled to their lives. Don't you?
Pewrsonally I think collisions should result in a large income based fine that is given to the victim and not paid for by insurance. We need something in between "insurance sorts it out" and manslaughter.
In the article it sounds as though people receive a low fine. Why not take their driver’s license away for a month or two? Or what about probation? A points system where the driver’s license is lost after you rack up enough points?
There are ways to deter people from behaving recklessly without destroying their lives. Actually, if possible that should in my opinion always be the goal of the justice system (and it’s a failure – inevitable, probably, but still a failure – if that doesn’t work out).
If juries don’t want to send someone to jail, wouldn’t it be much more likely that they would want to take someone’s driver’s license away for a month?
I think a proactive approach is far better than a reactive approach.
We can make dramatic improvements to these numbers if we build safer roads and get more people using public transit, biking, or walking instead of driving. Many countries in the world have much smaller rates of fatal road traffic accidents than the US does.
Not only that, but getting people to commute some way other than by car makes a substantial impact on carbon emissions, and more physical activity (even if it’s just walking from the bus stop to the office) has nice health benefits.
But stricter penalties for reckless driving that kills cyclists/pedestrians also seems entirely reasonable. A car is an incredibly dangerous machine, and people should treat driving with the care and respect it deserves.
To be clear, no-one's debating honest accidents. But if you are at fault, you should be held to account for it.
Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake.
I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.
Moreover remember that cyclists only pose a risk to pedestrians, the risky person is the one with the highest kinetic energy, don't get your moral compass confused, driving a car is like going in the street with a rifle, you could kill anyone at any moment. Going on bike is like going with a knife, to kill someone you'll need some effort.
Choosing to drive subsequently bears significant responsibility in causing that danger, and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they injure another, not to mention the risks they pose to other drivers.
I understand driving in a safe manner, but I am not convinced that driving on major roads is worth it.
Quit blaming the victims.
Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.
Parks at night are dangerous by their nature and short skirts are unpredictable and unprotected forms of clothing to wear. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of sexual assaults involving attractive young women wearing short skirts, particularly in parks which aren't designed to let them walk across safely.
Choosing to wear a short skirt subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get raped, not to mention the risks they pose to rapists by causing them to enter a dark park where they might get mugged themselves.
I understand wearing short skirts where it is safe to but am not convinced wearing them when going out for the night is worth it.
Did anyone here not think that argument was absurd? When did blaming the victim become an ethically acceptable basis for setting public policy?
Why do you think it is unreasonable of me to say that someone who puts themselves in a risky position is by definition partly to blame?
1) Dangerous driving is not always an active choice
2) Even if (1) was true, it is incorrect to assert that the entirety of the danger to cyclists on the road is dangerous drivers
It may be that you were aware that this was the case and your phrasing was simply an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) at being emotive, but it made your statement incorrect to be so definitive.
I don't think it is any stretch of reasoning to say that choosing to be close to and often in the path of people driving at legal speed in itself carries risk, indiscriminate of how good and conscientious the driver is.
If you can't drive safely at a given speed, slow down. It's really as simple as that.
(Yes, of course there are exceptions. If you're driving an emergency response vehicle then the likely damage caused by arriving later may be genuinely greater than the likely damage caused by going faster. But obviously we're not talking about that sort of situation here and for normal driving it really is that simple.)
I don't accept your premise that cycling around town on public roads is necessarily a risky position.
I live in Cambridge, UK, a city known for having a lot more cyclists than most places in this country, and also known for its historical (read: narrow and windy) street plan. It's about as cycle-hostile an environment as you can get and it's difficult to make big changes to improve things anywhere near the city centre. And yet in a couple of decades of living here, moving around as both a cyclist and a driver, I have never been concerned about a car-cycle accident from either side.
This doesn't require some level of super-human reaction time and supreme driving skill in the car, nor a force shield around my bike. It just requires following the basic legal rules of the road and allowing for the fact that not all road users are the same. In particular, I avoid potential accidents with cyclists all the time when driving, often simply because I allow plenty of space around them so when something unexpected happens there's still room for everyone when the cyclist suddenly changes speed or direction. You are never, contrary to your original post, forced to overtake a cyclist. In fact, if it would be dangerous to do so, you are legally required not to overtake, as with passing any other vehicle.
If a cyclist breaks the rules themselves and then gets hurt, sure, assign them some or all of the responsibility. I don't care you are less protected than a car, he had the green light and you knowingly or carelessly ran a red. I do not support calls for car drivers to be legally responsible for any car-cyclist accident by default, because I see cyclists do insane stuff like this every day.
But if a cyclist is simply using the road in an otherwise considerate way, there really isn't any need for cars to go racing past them at high relative speeds and with little clearance (and no, a bit of ill-judged paint that some authority slapped on the road does not excuse a lack of basic driving skills). And if drivers don't do that, and cyclists follow the rules too, then your original claim that "It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists" just doesn't stand up in my experience. Accidents do happen, and sadly some degree of injury and even death is almost inevitable unless we close down efficient transportation systems altogether; on this much, we agree. But to cause a fatal car-cycle crash usually requires not only bad luck but also a failure on the part of either or both of the driver and the cyclist to follow the rules, and at that point it's not just an accident any more.
Causes of accidents have such a diverse and complex range of causes, I think it is not right to make as clear-cut an argument 'if everyone drove safely there would be no accidents'.
In my mind it is much safer to consider the road as a complex system with relatively predictable probability of injury (which in its function contains the risk of meeting an unsafe driver, but is not limited to that). I realise on a case-by-case level there is a definitive split of blame and I'm not attempting to isolate drivers from any blame, but simply from the cyclist's view all I'm asking you to accept is the following:
1) a risk of injury for cyclists originates from the 'system' of traffic on a road
2) someone who enters willingly into a situation, aware that doing so carries a risk (eg climbing a ladder) must accept some (not necessarily all) responsibility in that decision if the risk becomes realised.
I know of at least 5 HN posters who will fully agree with your sexual assualt example. They will say that it is, in fact, entirely the woman's fault.
Fortunately, most people aren't like that, so attempting to establish conventions so everyone can interact safely on the road (or in the park, for that matter) is still worthwhile.
I do not claim that driving is a right, but I do think it is reasonable to say that driving is significantly more important to a country's economic activity, signalled by the amount of investment in road infrastructure in, I would venture, every developed country.
I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does.
That's my whole point...there is no legal basis for your claim, if we're talking about surface streets in a city and not highways.
Bicycles are generally considered motor vehicles so accidents an accident killing a bicyclist is largely treated the same as an accident killing a motorist.
Dropped pin near 2 Kingsmead Ave, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL51 0AZ
http://goo.gl/maps/Fd77g
Note how the cycle lane is explicitly given right of way - vehicles turning off the main road must give way to cyclists here.
(Drivers are supposed to give way for pedestrians who have started to cross but, well, they don't.) https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-...
The single biggest threat to cyclists are right turning vehicles that either don't see you at all or worse underestimate your velocity and try to overtake you on the non- turning bike lane shortly before a crossing turning right (just happened to me on Monday). So driving in the actual straight lane is the safest option.
How you cross the road follows the rules of the road - ours have stop/yield markings at signalled junctions, and the lane carries on across the road on an unsignalled junction.
In the later case, I have right of way crossing the road you're waiting to turn into - because I'm not leaving my lane, and you are.
A bicycle in a bike lane is not a pedestrian. It's not on a footpath. It's a vehicle on a surface designated for vehicles. We're still traffic.
I don't get this. Are they going to drive up on the sidewalk and hit you because they don't see you as traffic? How do the pedestrians survive?
He was typing an email at the time of the accident.
Strangely enough, the usual civil system applies between a cyclist and a pedestrian.
It's also interesting to note the author is a recreational rather than commuter cyclist. His asserted empathy for motorists and fear of cycling is partly thanks to the privilege of rejecting cycling as an everyday reality of transportation. Can he, in his limited experience, truly understand the world in which everyday cyclists live?
As I see it, this article's conclusion is akin to the following:
> So here’s my proposal: Every time you go out in public, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every interaction everywhere to help white people (and police officers) view black people as predictable members of society who deserve respect.
This editorial insistence on empathizing with motorists paints cyclists as a class of rule-breakers and hooligans, not a diverse and largely forward-thinking group of citizens who happen to be united in their mode of transportation.
In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration. I'd like to see the above questions earnestly addressed.
The way I see it, you can accept the reality that you're engaging in a more dangerous activity and take the proper attitude, or you can rage about your ideals from a hospital bed and hope that'll somehow make a difference.
As a motorcyclist, I simply expect that drivers are paying no attention, and it's on me to protect myself. I can go your way, but that's cold comfort to broken bones and torn skin - and yes, I have been wrecked by driver inattention, so this is not merely academic.
I have a very hard time with this modern tendency to enpower victimhood, but as my name indicates, I'm an old man. Might be a generational thing.
Seriously? We're going to blame the victims here? Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity, especially in designated lanes when observing all traffic rules.
Pedestrian? Cyclist? $50 fine.
That you face stiffer penalties for pirating a DVD or smoking a joint speaks to how broken the legal framework is.
I'm still the victim if, say, I'm walking in shady part of town at night, looking at my phone instead of paying attention, and I get mugged. But just because I'm the victim in this scenario, it doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't do more to protect myself from a bad outcome.
Would you rather be more vigilant, or increase your chances of a hospital visit? I'm talking about the reality of the situation here, not the ideal world where everyone on the road behaves like we think they should.
It's a very American attitude to say things like "don't visit that part of town, it's a bad neighbourhood". What about things like "that part of town is in rough shape, we should work to revitalize it" or "I shouldn't have to live in fear when walking down the street, what can we do to mitigate that fear".
Changing attitudes and the environment that produces them takes time.
Plus it's kind of ridiculous to me because I grew up in a third world country where the primary mode of transportation was biking.
As for diverse...most of the cyclists I know are middle class or above white people with some Asians sprinkled in. All the poor people I know actually take the bus or drive a beater car.
The answer is, whether most people admit it or not, people resent cyclists.
Before I continue: I'm not saying this is a good thing. But I am saying this is what is happening in a lot of people's brains.
I think the big reason, and this occurs at a subconscious level, is that the presence of cyclists increases your cognitive load. And our brains are pretty taxed by driving as it is. When there are bikes, you've got to pay attention to a completely new type of vehicle that does not move or behave like other vehicles. You've got to look for a vehicle that is hard to see, and that out of the corner of your eye, looks more like a pedestrian than a vehicle. If you could 'eliminate' bikes, there would be a lot less for your brain to worry about.
Add to this that cyclists are the minority, and you can imagine a world without city cyclists, and you're spending all this mental energy on something that feels like it could be "optimized" away. The thought occurs, even if only on a subconscious level, "If those stupid bikes were gone this would be so much easier!"
Once again, I disagree with that way of thinking, but it is a common way of thinking nonetheless.
Self driving cars and protected bike lanes are probably our best best, because changing people's minds seems like a fool's errand.
And I assert that this is a lazy, hyperbolic comparison that tries to compare a ridiculously complex issue involving race, socioeconomic divides, police brutality, and then some, to a fairly simple issue involving cyclists who flaunt the rules of the road, and drivers who ignore cyclists.
I'm a consummate pedestrian in SF who is somewhat afraid of becoming a cyclist, and who drives once or twice a month (mostly to get out of the city). Even I have some close calls with cyclists who think it's cool to ride on the sidewalk when there's a perfectly good (and not even particularly heavily-trafficked) road sitting next to them.
I witness a lot of crap: cyclists running red lights and stop signs, cyclists weaving around stopped traffic at lights in order to get ahead, cyclists riding the wrong way on one-way streets (sometimes on the sidewalk because "that doesn't count" apparently), cyclists riding side-by-side blocking traffic lanes.
Maybe it's not a majority of cyclists who do this stuff, but it is a very large minority.
And then there's my favorite: Critical Mass, a monthly event where a ton of cyclists get together (a bunch of them clearly drunk) and ride around SF en masse, blocking streets and taunting cars. And they wonder why drivers hate them? Seriously?
Having said all that, I do know some cyclists who are awesome and obey the law, and always put safety and vigilance first. I wish everyone was like that.
http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc...
"Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request."
Not even criminal charges here - these drivers are still driving daily, professionally.
Basically cars are always right, legally, morally and inertially.
Here's Derek Sivers blogging about the death of his friend Milt Olin:
http://sivers.org/milt
(The deputy that killed Milt Olin was fiddling with his phone as he left his lane and drove straight into him at speed. After the accident, he claimed Milt had swerved into his lane. It took a prosecutor a year to finally conclude there was zero criminality here.)
If you are okay with that, I await your comment.
TL;DR - These laws were made for cars, not bikes.
I'd be amazed if this were true in SF. I'm an avid cyclist, love biking around the city for fun or to commute, etc. The cause of most near crashes (and crashes) I've witnessed are idiot cyclists thinking it's ok to blow through stop signs or traffic lights, or to wildly cut across two lanes without signalling and expecting the entire universe to notice them and stop for them. When I'm driving, I'm hyper-aware of the stupidity I've seen when I'm biking and try to take that into account when cyclists are around, and I don't blame other motorists for getting pissed or even aggressive. Cyclists have this incredible double-standard...they want to use the road, but they don't want to share it. Sure, everyone who drives a car is an earth-destroying, gas-guzzling, roided out freak who's trying to kill you, but isn't that all the more reason to have some respect for everyone else on the road?
Granted, I've had my fair share of asshole drivers turn right in front of me without signalling or just merge into the bike line for no reason (prompting me to "gently" tap their car window). Hell, I've even had people run red lights and come within a foot of slamming into me, and I've been doored really bad by someone getting out of a taxi, but to be honest I'm as cautious around other cyclists as I am around cars.
Maybe it's just SF and it's the wild west here, but biking at rush hour is just as bad because of other cyclists, not just cars. I think drivers would hate us a lot less if we stopped at a stop sign once in a while and thought about others besides ourselves (same goes for shitty drivers too).
a) human privilege - If someone is actively and maliciously threatening the life of me, or my immediate family. b) 'castle doctrine' - If someone enters my home with malicious intent. c) They're on a bicycle.
It does seem you can have a more reasonable debate over whether it's acceptable to kill someone who is actively in the process of a non-lethal crime, than it is to debate the murder of someone who added several seconds to your daily commute.
In my view, expectations of cyclists in countries that don't traditionally have bikes on their roads are unrealistic in their expectations. Nobody in their right mind in the Netherlands would ride a bike on highways or major multiple-lane roads (and in fact, it's mostly prohibited); yet I see cyclists in New Zealand and Australia do that all the time (I suspect it's similar in the US but I haven't observed it personally). Similarly, nobody in their right mind drives a bike the same way they drive a car - on the same lanes, in the middle of the lane, basically like a slow motor cycle (outside of areas where cars move faster than walking speed, that is - i.e. not rush hour in urban centers).
Now I understand that you'd sort of have to if there is no alternative, like a well developed separate cycling network as we have. Heck, just having bicycle lanes already seems to be hailed as a big progression in many places. But I have a hard time understanding why cyclists are so determined to portray themselves as this sub-group, a minority that deserves special attention, with its own clothing ranges and gear sets and entitlements and internet forums for circle jerking about how much better the world would be if only everybody else was just like you. I'm trying hard not to blame the victim here, but the problem the author identifies with cyclists turning public opinion against them is real (which is still not a reason not to prosecute people who kill cyclists, of course).
'Our' cyclists (sorry if this sounds condescending, I can't really think of a better way of putting it) don't identify as 'cyclists'. They're just a cross section of the population, and as such there is no such culture clash. Maybe it's easy for me to say because we never had to make a transition the way many countries will have to, but pitting yourself as the underdog who needs special treatment from everybody else seems to be a long, hard slog, or maybe even counter-productive in at least the short term. Not that I have an alternative though, prisoner's dilemma and all.
In almost all parts of the U.S., the law and infrastructure cuts the other way, though. There is no separate bike infrastructure [1], and bicycles are legally treated as vehicles. In that context, it doesn't seem that surprising to me that the fewer people who still dare ride a bike demand to be treated as the (poorly designed) legal framework envisions they should be.
[1] I'd love a good source to verify this comparison (I heard it in a talk), but something I recently heard quoted is: Greater Copenhagen (1.5m people) has more km of protected bicycle infrastructure (~1000km) than the entire United States added together does (~400km).