Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

The thing about riding your bike on the sidewalk is that you, as the cyclist, can avoid virtually all danger by being cautious. Whereas on the road, you're pretty much at the mercy of car drivers and are at great risk regardless of how careful you are.

>>Fortunately, most sidewalks where I live are sparsely populated, and I make sure to slow down to walking speed or dismount completely when going through areas with lots of pedestrians.

I clearly said I slow down or dismount when I'm near pedestrians. If you still feel terrified or bullied, I think that's a personal problem.

>>As a driver managing turns, you're traveling at a very different speed than the people I'm expecting on the sidewalk which makes turning safely much more difficult.

Bikers who do this deserve absolutely no sympathy. The safe thing to do when biking on sidewalks is to dismount as you arrive at an intersection, even if the pedestrian light is green. Then you cross the intersection as a pedestrian, i.e. by walking.

Granted it's probably not as bad as many other American cities, but for all Seattle's often rather liberal laid-back nature, Seattleites also seem to lovvvve their cars, and the state of public infrastructure to reflect that.

I used to bike a lot in Seattle about 25 years ago, and well ... I always felt very alone, and often very nervous. I felt part of a fringe. My impression was that although there generally wasn't the sort of overt "kill bicyclists!" aggression you might find elsewhere, Seattle was still very much a car-focused city, and that few concessions were made to bicyclists, other than the random token gesture (bike racks on buses, etc). There seemed to be essentially zero real bike infrastructure.

Maybe things have changed in the last few decades, I dunno. I haven't noticed much obvious change when I've visited since, although the bike cops are great (they're the friendliest police I've ever encountered!).

Your link does not say that drivers are ‘seldom cited’; it says that drivers are cited slightly over half the time. A priori, an even split in responsibility across all cases seems perfectly reasonable.

I doubt that, maybe in burst/sprint but not sustained...Hell, the average top speeds in the Tour de France during the sprints is barely 25mph and those are top athletes.

>but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such.

So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on bicycles? That's fairly myopic...

In fact, just this morning a lady got hit and put in the ICU at the corner of King St and 3rd in San Francisco, right near the ballpark. Yolanda, the lady who manages the front desk, was reviewing the tapes with the police after the accident. That's the second serious accident involving a pedestrian or bicyclist at that intersection since the beginning of the year. TBH, the speed limit in SoMa needs to be dropped to 25 mph. People drive far too fast in this neighborhood for it to be safe for either bicyclists or pedestrians.

Most cyclists in the TdF, maybe. 25 mph is quite fast on a bicycle.

Aren't tickets usually a source of revenue?

> Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.

The average speed of the tour de france winners now is only about 25mph and that is very heavily drug assisted;)

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

Given this I can't really take your statement as a serious one:)

I am not disagreeing, genuinely curious about the argument

ADDED: I did a little research and found other examples of privilege vs. right[1].

[1] http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

That's a bold claim. Citation?

In an ideal world bicycles are given equal respect and stature on the roads. In practice, however, riders have a lot more to lose in a collision with a car.

If that was a sound argument, then one could say that the right to own a firearm is really just a privilege because most states require a license to own a firearm which may be revoked by the state for a variety of reasons. Or similarly that the right to vote is just a privilege because you must register and there are a variety of reasons for the state to revoke it.

Just because a right is regulated does not make it a privilege.

Instead people are getting all anal about the use of "never" and "always", and use far-fetched examples where a car can be threatened by a bike when atttempting to avoid running over it and crashing into something else.

Way to direct the discussion away from the point I'm trying to make. Look at this Dutch national report on bike safety:

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf

The Netherlands has one of the highest percentage of people riding bikes with an estimated 14 million bicycles for 16.5 million inhabitants. It has one of the most developed infrastructures in favour of bike safety, about the safest traffic in Europe in general, and as a culture it is about as bike-oriented as it gets. Despite all of this, travelling with your bike is still 4.7 times more dangerous than travelling with a car.

I am in no way trying to absolve cyclists or pedestrians of their responsibility in traffic safety, but denying that they aren't inherently more vulnerable and that infrastructure design should emphasize their safety is absurd.

Why not? The roads were built for cars. Driving on them isn't just "convenient," it's exactly what was intended to happen. Don't get me wrong, there should absolutely be more bike lanes and other considerations so that cyclists can travel safely. But, the infrastructure in its current state is definitely built around automobiles, and mixing bikes in is dangerous.

I just spent 4 days commuting around Chicago on bike, so again, I'm all for it. But, as a cyclist, I think you have to approach it like you're in someone else's territory and subject to their whims. I don't believe an indignant "this is my road too" attitude is going to do you any favors.

Edit: Bike lanes increase safety but I just added it to point out that it's a relatively complicated situation. I think lower speeds were the biggest factor towards increasing safety. I can't find the study either so the above really isn't worth all that much, my memory being what it is.

I highly doubt that. I have seen dozens of bicyclists cause absolute chaos in traffic. Granted, I've never seen any collisions, but I can't imagine that the chaos I've seen is "safe" compared to the normal flow of traffic.

> Yet all it takes is a nudge, honk, door opening, unsignaled turn, etc. to kill a cyclist.

True, but if your implication is that bicyclists should be able to freely use roads because of how vulnerable they are, then pedestrians should also be able to freely use roads.

Well, think about it this way. Why are pedestrians banned from walking on roads, even when there are no nearby sidewalks? The answer, I believe, is that it's extremely dangerous, both to the pedestrian and to automobile drivers, and that it would cause massive inefficiency in the flow of traffic. The reality is that bicycles, like pedestrians, necessarily behave very different than automobiles, and most of our roads and traffic laws are designed around automobiles. Similarly, bicycles are not allowed on certain types of roads (many bridges, freeways, etc.) Obviously, its a continuum, and bicycles can fit in with automobiles better than pedestrians. The question is simply where to draw the line.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2013/stop-sign-compliance-temecula-...

As far as I know, this is standard in driving laws across the U.S. Is there somewhere this doesn't apply?

I never said no good reason...

>hat about if you merge into my lane right in front of me and then slam on your brakes? In that case, you made it impossible for me to maintain a safe distance.

This has been arbitrated in court (at least in my neck of the woods), if you merge and in doing so cause an accident you're a fault. The entire law system is setup to relate to the actions that a "reasonable" person would do. It isn't reasonable to expect the person who you've just merged in front of to immediately be at a safe distance (in fact you, the merger, are responsible for merging in a way that's safe.)

Most cars are blocked by other cars on the road and you don't see cars honking at other cars nearly as often as it happens to bicyclists (except maybe in NYC... hehe)

Also, most of the time the substandard width lane issue is only a factor within cities. Cars shouldn't really be traveling that quickly within a city, except maybe on elevated highways.

In terms of the hit-and-run == negligence...the two things correlate...a drunk driver may be so drunk that they don't realize they've killed someone. Or more maliciously, they do realize it but don't want to take a breathalyzer at the scene of the crime. However, there are cases (which does not seem to apply to the case in question) in which otherwise well-behaved drivers have killed someone unknowingly or for some reason panicked and left. It's still a crime, but it's not "homicide"

A young man, in a hurry, changes his plans, and driving. He pulls in to an old fire station, turned scout hall, where some boy scouts are having a meeting. In the courtyard that was the engine apron, he yanks the steering wheel and makes his wheels squeal, sprays a little gravel.

Two parents who are outside waiting for their children yell at him. He gives them the finger. They say he's a dangerous driver and that they're calling the cops, and he'd better stay. He says "No, I'm leaving". Voices are raised.

The driver decides no, he really is leaving. The parents decide (rightly or wrongly) that he isn't - they're making a citizen's arrest. He puts his car in gear. From each side, at the same time, the parents open his car door.

They admit that it's to stop him.

He admits he panics. He puts the car in reverse and hits the accelerator - the open doors catch both parents and knock them down. The older parent breaks his hip.

The younger one, however - much worse. His head is caught between the asphalt and the bottom of the car door, and as he reverses, the man's head is dribbled almost like a basketball between the two, before the driver gets free, and flees the scene.

The other parents call the police (and EMS). The driver is picked up nearby and charged with vehicular assault and leaving the scene.

Had he, however, left the scene and immediately called 911, the parents would have been the ones charged, with kidnapping / false imprisonment. The driver's defense, and one which stood in court a great deal, was that the parents had already demonstrated a willingness to physically restrain him against his will for a tenuous "crime", and after his panic, who is to say that he wouldn't be in further physical danger?

The younger driver, as it happens, recovered fully - after an intracranial hemorrhage, surgery, a medically-induced coma, and a 1 1/2" hole placed in his skull to drain blood.

So, no - be careful to paint such broad black and white brush strokes.

Require more stringent testing to grant drivers licenses. It seems as though issuing DLs is treated too much as a revenue stream and not enough as an education/screening process.

Cameras are a great CYA, but they are not going to prevent crime & accidents from happening.

You'd basically just be building a car-less retirement community and hope that young people opt into it.

I've never been to any country where the drivers are more courteous to pedestrians than the USA.

I am not sure why ostensibly intelligent people would engage in any activity where you are one texting teenager away from crippling injury or death.

Population density alone makes it an issue outside of large cities like New York, because of that you'll also find most cities have pretty lackluster public transportation.

It is tragic that people are hurt and worse because of automobiles but they are a fact of life in America and cyclists are a very minor subset of the population for which taxes rarely cater.

One of the major problems with bicycling is the lack of respect between the cyclist and the motorist, it goes both ways but there are plenty of motorists who do not understand the laws and despise cyclists. But there are also many cyclists who fail to follow the laws which helps perpetuate the hate from motorists.

If more cities had the budget for dedicated cycling paths and road usage I'm sure they would use it but as it is now only some "greener" cities are able to do anything.

People who drink themselves to death cannot be said to be "choosing" to do that in any meaningful way.

There are real dollar costs to our overall quality of life from society's health self abuse expense. Excuse the graphic image, but a car accident is generally walk away or dead, while health care for the long term unhealthy keeps bleeding once it starts.

"The motorist advocacy group AAA said accidents cost $164.2 billion each year, which based on the methodology used in the report comes to an annual per person cost of $1,051." (2008)

By comparison, some other systemic costs:

- $190 billion in annual medical costs due to obesity (2012)

- CDC reports excessive alcohol consumption cost the U.S. $224 billion (2006)

- Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: $96 billion

- Taxpayers yearly fed/state tax burden from smoking-caused gov’t spending: $70.7 billion

- Productivity losses caused by smoking each year: $97 billion

Obesity alone or alcohol alone cost us all more than accidents. I for one have other "quality of life" things I'd like to do with my money than subsidize "self destructive" choice.

> I passionately hate people who absolutely have to drive their cars

I clock under 4K miles a year, mostly long distance trips with four or more passengers. But I'm fortunate enough to live near NYC and use public transportation. It's a lot harder in most of the US. Comparing communities across the US and Europe, it seems the best way to affect driving culture is with community layouts that put food (groceries and restaurants) within easy walking distance.

If you were in a field such as chemistry/philosophy/biology/etc., you would also be alive for the deaths of some eminent people in your field, but not in the same proportions.