Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
In contrast, in Denmark, the drivers were very aware of every bicycle and pedestrian and much more relaxed towards them. It felt like utopia there, and according to the locals, the strict liability laws are a large part of it. Another significant reason is that Danes in general are much more calm and relaxed than anyone else I've seen so far.
Yes, the cars:cyclists thing is more dangerous to life and limb, but cyclists:pedestrians has the same proportion of arseholes. I'm not sure who pedestrians 'kick down' to, but no doubt they'd be the same if they do.
Every "close encounter" with a pedestrian I've ever had has been because the pedestrian, usually with his face buried deeply into his phone, starts swerving to the side or, worse, abruptly turns. Responsibility is on all parties in spaces where there is shared traffic, not just cyclists or cars or pedestrians.
I just read the article about statistics errors including base rate fallacy on HN today, worth a read:
Interesting, though, that you seek to 'excuse' the death of the pedestrian in your city 'because he's old', but don't bother to note the age spread of the vehicular deaths.
Over what time frame? Can you cite sources? This would be an unusually high death rate unless you mean over many years.
I run in bike lanes to avoid the dip and rise at every driveway and to make myself more visible to drivers at intersections. I will hop on the sidewalk if a cyclist is approaching.
- running reds and stop signs - riding without helmets (it's all fun and games until you fly through someone's rear windshield and die because helmets are too ugly and bulky for you) - riding on the wrong side of the road
We should be treated just like slower cars
cars all roll stop signs too, its normal and fine usually.
Other sources will show 3000+ deaths per year from stop sign violations.
Wow, who would have thought?
I ignore stop signs (and red lights) on a bike. I ignore certain stop signs (not all!) in a car.
Never felt unsafe doing either one.
1) Psychological: motorists give less safety margin to helmeted cyclists.
2) Cyclist reduction: locales which require helmets have sharply fewer cyclists on the road, which is is strongly correlated with less empathy from drivers and more cyclist fatalities.
Helmet laws are one of the worst possible ideas if you want cycling to be safe.
If they weren't required, there would have been more cyclists, possibly a better separated lane for you and the driver (assuming one was involved) would have been more used to and aware of the importance of sharing the road with those like you.
If you're planning on mountain biking or doing certain commutes, it absolutely makes sense to wear a helmet and yet, that doesn't mean that helmet laws are good for the safety of the populace as a whole (and this isn't even getting into 3rd order effects like heart disease in the sedentary, pollution related diseases, etc).
I've added one data point to the discussion, that's about it.
But mandating helmets aside, I'd highly recommend wearing one.
Folks who post on Hacker News rely on their mind almost exclusively for their income. And yet, when bicycling comes up, there are always advocates for doing away with helmets and for attempting to up the penalties for cars. Few, if any, appear to realize that cars are always going to have the "right of weight" on the road.
If you want to tighten up the laws for car drivers, that's fine - but it's still going to be the bicyclist who suffers the most in such an accident. Penalties won't help them when they are dead, a vegetable, or otherwise critically injured. Penalties won't stop a hit from the head from damaging the brain. Penalties won't stop cars from hitting bikers.
Look at the drunk driving penalties in the US. They are some of the harshest driving related penalties on our books; yet some people still drive drunk (and that's not counting those who drive (or ride) at a few percentage points below the legal limits).
And here's where I start getting into preachy territory: it's ultimately up to the biker to keep themselves alive; car drivers aren't going to magically become perfect drivers, and accidents will still happen. If you want to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars which weigh thousands of pounds that can move at speeds more than double your own, the only thing that will ultimately keep you alive is you.
Cyclists riding on roads with cars (even with painted bike lanes, but especially without them) are presumably at much greater risk of experiencing a fatal conflict, although statistics about this are less available than one would hope. Cyclists on dedicated cycle paths are at scarcely greater risk than pedestrians, who would probably object to being made to wear a helmet.
Given the above, I would support a compromise law that mandated helmet use on public (car) roads, but not in residential areas or dedicated bike paths.
Well yes, but the article explicitly says that in 87% of accidents, the car driver was at fault, not the cyclist, so obviously it's not the cyclist's fault.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to...
- https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-li...
I'm a car driver and I'll be honest here - I hate cyclists and bikers. And don't get me wrong, I like bikes in general. To be more specific, I hate them on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Sometimes cyclists appear from nowhere. The biggest problem is that it's hard to predict where cyclist is going to move next. It seems that a lot of them think that since they're small, they can maneuver as much as they want.
In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road. Single responsibility principle [1] FTW. But, as we know, cities do not have space for more roads (and it doesn't mean that they should). At that point, a lane for cyclists is a trade-off.
Now one may ask, "why don't you sell your car and get a bike instead?". This is a fair question, but wrong way of thinking, since these two vehicles are meant for different purposes, and that's a whole separate topic.
Now should car drivers have a lot more responsibility for their actions? Maybe, but that's a "quick hack", not a solution.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principleIs it that easy if you actually follow the 3 feet rule (often law)? http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-b...
> In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road.
I think most cyclists would love to live in this fantasy world, but it's not the reality we live in.
> these two vehicles are meant for different purposes
What purpose is each vehicle meant for? Who is deciding what their purpose is?
That's not about the 3 feet rule. It's about the relativeness of the number of bikes to the number of cars on the road. Yes, there are rules and requirements and al that, but then there is a psychological factor that is usually ruled out. Let's be realistic, check out this random image of New York [1]. Let's count, how many cars and bikers are there. 30+ cars and 1 bike. How many car drivers do you think expect to see the cyclist there? I mean, yes, they all know that cyclists/bikers are there, they exist, they are somewhere around, but the main focus is still on cars. That's what I was trying to say. Take delivery guys as an example. There are a lot of them and they are riding bikes as crazy. Only in GTA you can see a car driver driving as a delivery bike rider. Sometimes I think they are immortal.
> I think most cyclists would love to live in this fantasy world, but it's not the reality we live in.
Agreed.
> What purpose is each vehicle meant for? Who is deciding what their purpose is?
That's a provocative question and I'm not to argue here. Obviously, there is a substantial difference between a car and a bike. If I need to take my 2 year old kid to an emergency room and it's 2am in the morning, I'm not going to take a bike and put whole family on top of my head. This is just a simple example to illustrate what I meant.
[1] http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/new-york-city-busy-streets-w...
Exactly this and I'm happy that this is true in the UK. It works really well with 20mph restrictions in most parts of central London, so cycling in a traffic is pretty easy. Some drivers still may get upset if you don't give them way (so they can drive a few mph faster), but they can be safely ignored.
none < sharrows (painted "share the road symbols") < in-street bike lane < bike lane along street w/ some buffer in between < bike lane along street with physical barrier < bike path separate from the street.
Unfortunately much of US cycle infrastructure is none/sharrows/in-street bike lane.
I'm talking about slowish speeds here. Obviously if someone is rear ended at 50mph the culprit is obvious because no car can reverse that fast
It scares me that so few people acknowledge that.
I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving the engine, "rolling coal", etc.
Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an "accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough attention.
Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.
sounds fun
I doubt you could get more people to switch to commuting by bike if you required them to take those extreme measures, and it certainly doesn't seem to help me in the city much.
[edit] A simple thing a motorist can do to improve the safety of cyclists is to open a door using the "Dutch reach"[1]. It pretty much necessitates looking to the left before/as you open your door, and makes the check easier too!
> so go at a speed that lets you stop before hitting anything you don't see. Why aren't drivers taught this?
This was part of my driver's education curriculum.
Sure a rider dressed completely in black at night will be hard to see, but if you can't see a cyclist in front of you in broad daylight and have enough time to react to them then you're either driving dangerously or you're eyesight isn't good enough to be driving.
Sounds like you've never commuted by bicycle before. I've seen people decked out in high-vis clothing carried away in ambulances or their bikes found under car wheels with their headlights and tail lights still on. But don't take my word for it[1], the actual studies themselves aren't very conclusive either[2].
The actual root cause is likely inattentive drivers, poor roads/infrastructure, and the all too common drivers' mentality that "bikes don't belong on the roads" many cyclists encounter on a regular, day-to-day basis when drivers feel justified in passing too close, cutting cyclists off, or turning into them.
[1] https://motorbikewriter.com/professor-debunks-hi-vis-clothin... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/1...
The infrastructure bit is also not going to be solved by these laws (directly, anyway). Maybe more liability is the way to go for carelessness, but I do worry about those drivers who really do everything reasonable to avoid an accident, but still manage to hit someone.
Pretty much nobody does this. You're lucky if you get a signal; half the time the only way you know the driver wants to turn at all is that instinct and experience is telling you their driving is otherwise erratic.
On occasions that I wish were more rare, you'll see a driver take a right from the leftmost lane, blinker be damned.
The other common problem is that Uber drivers tend to believe the bike lane is their personal drop-off lane. I've had Ubers stop in the lane when there is parking right there next to the lane. In San Francisco of all places.
As a driver, and a biker, bikers: a red light applies to you. I've had a few close calls with bikers running reds. Laws like the proposed make me wonder how I'd "prove" it, if I didn't have a dashcam. (Which reminds me that I really need a dashcam.)
All of this is operator error, not problems with visibility. People are too damn lazy, so lazy they can't be bothered to follow the law, because 99% of the time it is without consequence, for them.
If you want a taste of the local discussion, just peruse the Streetsblog NYC bicycling category: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/
I've lived in a few major American cities, where cycle infrastructure is poor and subservient to car traffic, and also in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany where cycling infrastructure is (mostly) reasonable and well-maintained. I've written on Metafilter before about the swedish infrastructure: http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-Protection#559...
It's pretty pathetic that the "greatest city" in the wealthiest country in the world can't provide better infrastructure.
Does this mean the law should be focused on bikers? No, here's why:
1) the laws should be focused on # of bad actors. There are more significantly more drivers than bikers on the road meaning:
Probability(driving unsafely | biker) > probability(driving unsafely | driver) BUT Number(bikers biking unsafely) <<< Number(drivers driving unsafely)
2) Even excluding the frequency of each mode of transportation, the risk profile is completely different. A car is a 1 ton fast moving object capable of killing 10s of people (see the London attacks). A bike is much less deadly. The legal constraints should follow the risk profile of the mode of transportation (which is also why truckers have much stricter rules and penalties while driving)
3) If you do a damage assessment (i.e # of biker deaths caused by bad drivers vs vice versa) you will see the numbers are way way higher on the driver side. So from a public policy perspective it makes sense to focus on the drivers.
That being said, I think public policy should have some focus on the bikers. I think humans expect some sense of fairness in their legal systems and when car drivers don't see rules fairly applied, you get road rage directed at pedestrians and bikers. So I'd applaud: * Stricter enforcement of ticketing on bikers who fail to signal before turns, do not slow at busy intersections, running red lights, unsafely lane splitting , etc. I've seen so many bikers do this and it's so unsafe. * Education requirements for BOTH drivers and bikers for getting a state id / drivers license
Australian drivers are actively hostile to cyclists. To the extent that I've had stuff thrown at me (by strangers) from cars. This is a specific cultural problem that I've not seen elsewhere. You can see it in the comments on any site whenever the question of cycling comes up.
We also have a problem with lycra-clad sports cyclists who generally behave intolerantly. Often they defend this as a reaction to driver hostility. But it's not helping.
Aussies really hate anyone breaking the rules, too. Or rather, someone else breaking the rules when they have to obey them. Cyclists being unidentifiable by camera, and therefore able to run red lights with impunity, enrages car drivers stuck at one of our 4-hour red lights.
It's pretty rare to see a "normal" person cycling as a method of transport here. Which is ridiculous, because the climate's amazing for it.
It has roughly 4 significant advantages over many areas though. A history of relying on bicycles, temperate weather, flatness and a population density that can justify spending a lot of money on infrastructure.
I live in region about the same physical size as the Netherlands, with a population of ~300,000. It isn't stunning that we have 50x less infrastructure here.
But in the end, I actually blame the police. Truth is police just doesn't give a damn. If police acted when they see a car disrespecting a bicycle (for instance seeing a car passing the bicycle without holding the minimum legal distance from it... which happens constantly a lot of times every day to me) or when they see a car ignoring a STOP or priority sign when a bicycle is coming, then the car drivers would learn the lesson and it would stop.
But no, the police just ignores those situations and this way nothing will ever change,
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...
And if it is it undermines the central thesis of the piece, which is that car drivers should be assumed to be at fault and have to prove their innocence.
If it's so dangerous to be a cyclist, we should probably make bicycles illegal outside designated bike paths.
In California, it's the law for automobiles to give bicyclists 3 ft / 1 m of clearance. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer...
Other things like bicycle lanes and intersections need to be designed to minimize risks like in the Netherlands.
Bicyclists and drivers have responsibilities to follow safe practices like:
- not running stop signs
- using proper reflectors, clothing and lighting
- not getting too close to other traffic or occupying their blindspot(s)
- not getting caught between curb and turning vehicles, and turning vehicles eliminating space to prevent bicycles from occupying space that is unsafe.
- not riding on sidewalks because it's mostly illegal
From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them.
What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws.
You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green).
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... [2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [3] http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-...
I think the key here is that stop sign is treated as a yield sign and not an automatic right of way. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but is quite different from what I've been observing in my neighborhood.
Riding on the sidewalks are legal in some places (sidewalks are OK to ride on in Seattle as many of the multi-use trails join up with them and the roads do not have shoulders), and same with "running" red lights - in Idaho cyclists are allowed to do this[1] as it's proven to be safer[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st...
Here's a study from Brisbane on the effects on public bicycle share: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812...
In contrast the youbike program in Taipei and its suburbs (where helmets are not required) has been very successful.
If we're going to be liberal pinheads here, why don't we go all the way? Make cyclists who use public roadways retain insurance coverage for the same necessary risks(pip, uninsured motorist, minimum liability insurance).
That being said, it's important to realize this only applies to civil cases, which are decided on the balance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Absent any other factors, it's more likely the the car caused the accident. This is just like the default assumption that, absent any other evidence, if there is a rear-end collision, the fault lies with the person in the rear, even if the person in the rear claims that the person in front actually threw their car into reverse and was driving the wrong way.
Please stop writing articles that argue laws need to be changed to make cycling safer so that more people ride bikes. It immediately signals to me that the article is strongly biased towards cyclists.
Cyclists do need to be protected and laws do probably need to be changed, but don't make it part of your agenda to convince everyone to cycle.