Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Cycle paths are optional here, and I very regularly opt out of driving on them because they are in a constant state of disarray, had snow and glass shoved on them, are too close to parking cars or end abruptly, forcing me to merge into traffic. So, being a vehicle, I drive on the street. I drive on the middle of the street, because (1) bicycles come with two (bi) wheels and naturally oscillate (2) street conditions very frequently make it necessary to use space to my left or right and (3) to make it clear that you can not overtake me in the same lane.
Car drivers regularly think this is an invitation to overtake me extremely closely, basically touching. They value my life, really any life, so little compared to the nonexistent time or speed benefit they would get from overtaking me. They think they are supremely in control of a large four ton object driving at 30 mph when they couldn't park it to an inch to save their life. They think I have done them wrong, and are now trying to get back at me; it's a game to them!
I don't know what it is that makes people lose all compassion or basic rational understanding of risks and dangers once they get into a car.
Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.
And it will be called an accident.
I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.
I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once.
There has to be some sort of accommodation, at least in that limited case where passing is difficult, and cyclists moving slower than the flow of traffic. Although clearly that doesn't legitimize risking someone's life.
Edit: Added second paragraph.
That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.
Things are definitely far more difficult to balance, simply because there are also many places where the road conditions don't allow a cyclist to exist safely (no shoulder, high speed limit, and less than 300ft visibility).
Intentionally slowing down and blocking traffic is an offense. If you are impeding the free flow of traffic, you may need to pull over. Where this is not possible, then its a different situation (ie, no shoulder or other hazard). But as a general rule, these are also places you should avoid ex-ante if you know will you will be obstructing traffic with reasonable foresight.
That might be a devil's advocate stance, but its not without merit. It amazes me how much arrogance and lack of street smarts many cyclists have (at least on the internet). I bike in urban areas and in rural ones. But people who are jerks <cause> accidents at a disproportionate rate. And its not just the drivers.
On the flip side, cars and suvs are driving faster and more dangerous (as they are larger) than years ago. That's a real problem. But a different issue. IMHO.
If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces.
Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.
You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense
In a dense city like Barcelona, the traffic doesn't go so fast, and I can usually keep up with most cars, except when accelerating from lights. That doesn't matter. If a car is behind, me they seem to think they have a right to drive too close and honk their horn at me to tell me to get out of the road, even though they will be stuck behind the car that is 20 meters ahead of me.
You have to realize that if a driver hits another car going 20 mph in city traffic chances are no one will be seriously hurt. Someone will likely get a ticket between $50 and $200 and their insurance goes up. Now when you throw a bike in that accident the rider is likely going to be seriously injured if not killed. No one wants to be in a situation where they have to worry about seriously hurting or killing someone. Most drivers simply want to get around the biker and avoid it but bikers don't make that easy and many of them act like they own the road. You just have to remember as a cyclists that you are the one who chose to put your safety at risk by riding in traffic.
Perhaps people could recognize that the existence of a cycle lane does not necessarily mean that it's safe or even physically possible to cycle within its boundaries.
You might be right, but being right and dead is cold comfort.
As true as that is, I almost wouldn't have it any other way. Biking in city traffic is exciting and almost like meditation to me. It's way less dangerous than biking in the country where I live now and biking here is pretty damned boring anyway.
I'm getting fat!
Maybe bikers should be required to pass tests and be licensed to ride.
People can't stop trains from crashing. What makes you think cars can avoid bikers 100% of the time?
And the pain... Cornering me into the extreme sides of the road, Honking as if I suddenly have to disappear from the road, Huge lines of cars causing traffic and most of them driving single, Splashing water, etc. I sometimes know some of them, but its as if they're a different person when they get into a car, somewhat inhuman.
What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition, I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her bike riding behind me. She called the cops.
The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong. I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.
Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.
I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc, etc, etc. If you don't want to die, stop trying.
I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.
I always obey traffic laws on my bike.
Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died. Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer than helmets and helmet laws do.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June...
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...
I'm not saying "all". But I drive about 400 miles per week (long commute) and I can say that I've seen approximately 5 bicyclist last month which stopped at the stop sign. They really stand out of the crowd.
Of course, if you weren't wearing the helmet, the truck mirror may or may not have touched you at all.
Had he not been wearing a helmet, that never would have happened.
The vehicle was a van, and turned right across me going straight (which normally I'd see clearly and avoid, but the way they hesitated implied they'd seen me so I rolled through. Alas.) I'd wager I was going around 20mph/30kph as I hit the side panel. Hips/shoulders first, then I felt my head whiplash into it. Without a helmet, I'd expect at least a mild concussion. With a helmet, I was able to roll away relatively unscathed (minor cuts/bruises) after we exchanged details.
Helmets can help at all/many speeds. They're not a perfect solution, but they're great sometimes. Don't discount them so bluntly :)
You mentioned you obey the law so you probably don't do this. Even if the law does not prohibit riding on the sidewalk, you should never ride on the sidewalk.
Just wanted to take this time to remind everyone that bicycles do not belong on the sidewalk.
That said, perhaps it's situational. My city has large amounts of arterial roads with heavy car traffic and sparse pedestrians. The speed limit on those roads is about 60 kph (about 40 mph), and I much prefer to stay off them as a cyclist. It would be much safer if I was allowed to cycle on the sidewalk in those areas, as there's little to no foot traffic. In the city itself, different matter. There's much more foot traffic, but the speed limit is lower, so perhaps it's best there to be on the road.
I am not saying go crazy and ride your bicycles on freeways. This is more about city streets. That being said, I truly believe the way to have fewer cars striking cyclists is to have more cyclists assert themselves on the road.
I'm also an advocate of taking up a full lane, but the laws in many places (like New York) actually require you to ride to the right/shoulder where feasible. Unfortunately that's not really clearly defined, so even though you have a legal right to a full lane, cops will still give you a ticket.
Having narrowly avoided being doored a few times, I won't ride anywhere within a foot's range of a completely open car door.
Sometimes it's the only sane option. While I can legally ride my bicycle on a four-lane road with a speed limit of 45MPH and no real shoulder, I'd have to be crazy to prefer that to the sidewalk that sees perhaps one pedestrian an hour.
I'm a cyclist and I'm constantly looking out for them and I still sometimes accidentally walk into them.
One of the biggest problems with New York's new bike lanes is that a great many pedestrians treat them as sidewalks and cops don't give them tickets for it. It totally should be a jaywalking ticket.
The helmets today are only tested with straight on impacts: they're tested by dropping them straight down on the crown of the helmet. But that doesn't happen in the real world. You're moving, meaning you're hit at an angle, meaning that there's a potential for a diffuse axonal injury[1]: the rotational component of the injury. MIPS[2] has helmets that help protect against that.
Is wearing a helmet safer than not wearing a helmet? Without a doubt.
Case in point, a few years I was on the home stretch of a 50 mile weekend bikeride, less than a mile from home. I was tired, dehydrated, and fuzzy-brained, but still alert enough to be paying close attention to the traffic around me. I was riding ~10-15mph in the far left lane of one-way 4-lane primary thoroughfare (35mph speed limit).
4-way intersection ahead, figured I'd cross the intersection and ride up onto the very wide sidewalk on the far side so I could get out of traffic, slow to a crawl, relax, and take it easy the rest of the way home. As I came up to the intersection I angled slightly toward the sidewalk ramp on the other side, then turned my head around to the right to watch the traffic coming up behind me to make sure no car was going to make a left turn at the intersection and either turn into me or cut me off.
All clear with cars, no left turners, but when I looked ahead again I saw I'd miss-judged my path and was going to miss the on-ramp by about 5ft and hit the nearly 1ft-high curb instead. Going too fast to correct course and hit the ramp, or to slam on the breaks and stop, only thing I could do was try jump the bike, or at least the front wheel, over the curb.
Too tired, botched the maneuver, not quite high enough, front wheel hit the curb about halfway up and went from around 10-12mph to 0 in a millisecond. Of course me and the rest of the bike kept going, me slingshotting over the handlebars (bike shoes clipped in so angular momentum at work here) and then piledriven head first into the concrete sidewalk. My head landed first with a loud crack, then my body landed on my head, then the bike on top of my body.
I might have been out for a few seconds, not sure, but the first thing I remember was thinking, "ok don't move a muscle, just lay perfectly till, you might have just broken your back and even the slightest movement could cause a tear in your spinal cord." Slowly, gradually, tentatively I started testing that individual fingers and toes worked, then hands and feet, then arms and legs, and finally body and neck.
Everything was ok, but I was still lying there not daring to try to get up. Next thought was, "ok, that loud crack was my head hitting the concrete, I probably have a concussion. gotta be careful, don't black out." Reached up to my head, started feeling around. Helmet broken in places, totalled as designed, but still attached, strapped on, conformed to my head.
Still lying on the sidewalk with bike on top of me, afraid of further injury, and feeling around my head checking for injury. No blood, no pain anywhere. Disbelief. Check again, thoroughly. Still no blood, no pain. More disbelief.
Can I really have just had a crash that bad, where my head alone absorbed the entire impact of my 200lb self and ~20lb bike, without any injury besides skinned hands and some bruises? Mindbogglingly, yes that was exactly what happened. That helmet absorbed the whole damn thing, and I walked away without either a concussion or any kind of neck or spinal injury, just some scrapes and bruises.
So yeah, just wear a helmet. Even if you have 10 accidents where a helmet is irrelevant and just 1 where it is, it will have been worth it.
If my anecdotal evidence doesn't impress you, then think of it terms of Expected Payoff E(X). Wearing a helmet costs nothing of consequence, yet the benefits could range from 0 (you're never in a crash your entire life and never need it, or you're in a crash where a helmet makes absolutely no difference) to everything (you're in a crash that would cause permanent brain damage or death without a helmet protection). You can see how the averages work out.
Humans are very poor by default at evaluating risks that have low odds of occurring, but very high consequences if they do occur. Bike crashes are exactly this kind of risk, so don't be a typical human here - don't blow these types of risks off, discount them, or ignore them. Be smart, mitigate or neutralize them.
Your link is not relevant, sorry.
Good on the cop that issued that citation!
And not to mention that I see roughly one thousand times (literally) more cars than bicycles on the road.
I don't doubt that there is a lot of confirmation bias going on in this discussion. But there's almost certainly some substantial differences in behavior going on as well.
Bicyclists generally feel more entitled not to stop for stoplights when they feel it's safe to proceed. I've run lights on the bicycle myself, although I always stop, wait long enough to be sure the light isn't going to change on its own, and proceed carefully after checking for traffic. Quite a lot of bicyclists seem to think that the fact that their vehicles are human-powered means they shouldn't have to stop unless it's absolutely necessary.
On the flip side, I'm sure bicyclists violate the speed limit way less often. I'm sure they kill many fewer pedestrians too.
The phrase "I can't remember the last time..." is idiomatic usage in my dialect of English for: "This has occurred to me in the very distant past."
Honestly, I'd be interested in knowing which of us is using it in the "normal" fashion. I really don't know. Or perhaps we both are and it depends on the region.
To say the latter in conversation I would usually say "I can't actually remember X happening". I think "I cant remember the last time..." is roughly a shorthand for "I can't remember when the last time was that..." but who can be bothered actually saying all those words :P
Often the cars accelerate into the lights to get through.
I also see bikes jump through lights, but I don't usually find them as objectionable as they are i) going much slower, ii) weigh about 10% of the car, iii) have a massive interest in navigating the junction safely because of the mortal risk to themselves.
I get annoyed when I see either cars or bikes jumping lights that are for pedestrians.
While I certainly won't condone this, I also think it's a different class of problem from blatantly running a red light that has been red for a long time. Lights are timed to tolerate some abuse when it comes to trying to squeak through.
What I see bicycles do on a regular basis (and what this one particular jerk did the other day that really stuck out at me) is proceed through red lights that have been red for a long time. On a good day, they do it after stopping and waiting for a while. On a decent day, they check for traffic and only run the light if there's a hole. On a bad day, they just blow through.
I object for two reasons. First, even though they're likely to take the physical damage in a crash, they're still imposing potential emotional damage on others. Even if they're not at all at fault, a normal human will feel awful for hurting or killing a bicyclist while driving. Second, it gives all bicyclists a bad reputation, and that harms me when I'm on my bicycle.
According to that article, there is a good chance that running red lights is doing the opposite. Maybe time you changed your assumptions and objections.
Maybe it's different up here in Canada, though.
Stopping at every stop sign is a financial pain for a motorist, because MPG drops considerably. So what? Stop sign is a stop sign, it means "stop". The solution to this is not ignoring signs because it's a "pain" but to replace stop signs with roundabouts, like in Europe.
This article cites a number of others on the subject: http://www.cascade.org/2010/11/circular-logic/
http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/la-county-side...
The (small-y) yahoos who ride dangerously certainly stand out more, but it's depressing to have folks like you throw up their hands and say, effectively: Too bad there's nothing we can do to make cycling safer, since too many cyclists just "want to die".
I didn't mention stop signs or red lights in my comment. I just pointed out that there's a large population of conscientious, safety-minded cyclists out there who get ignored in these types of discussions.
Your invocation of law-breaking bike messengers in the second half of your comment is in fact a perfect recapitulation of the tendency I was referring to!
Before anyone jumps on me for not seeing it from the cyclist's perspective, I spent several years commuting by bicycle, frequently going home after dark. During that time, I made damn sure I had enough lights and reflectors for car drivers to see me. I was never under the impression that basic safety was anyone's responsibility but my own.
That of course doesn't mean that there aren't car drivers out there who are careless around cyclists, but cyclists themselves have to take the first steps, such as making sure you are visible to everyone around you, (including avoiding getting into other people's blind spots), and above all maintaing awareness and caution at all times. I realize I probably sound like a school teacher, but they say these sorts of things for a reason. A cyclist with cavalier, reckless, or lackadaisical attitude towards safety is an accident waiting to happen.
I totally get the American argument in favor of the right to bear arms, but at least that's based on the assumption of responsible gun ownership.
When it comes to cars however, any sense of responsibility seems to go out of the window. Cars and bicycles aren't equals, a car is a heavy piece of machinery that can kill a grown man in an instant. The driver of a car has a much, much greater responsibility to the safety of those around them.
Cars and bikes are not equal, that's right, as well as small sedans and large pickup trucks are not equal, motorcycles and cars are not equal, semis and pickups are not equal, etc, etc, etc. So what? There're rules of the road, California Vehicle Code in my case, and everyone using a public road should obey one, period. Having a car driver more responsible for safety of those around him doesn't mean that bicyclist can cut in front of this driver while running a red light against the traffic and consider himself to have a right of way just because he's a weakest player on the road.
What do you mean you got run over from behind? When I picture that collision the cyclist would be killed or horribly injured. Certainly not able to call the police - and if able to call anyone they would probably call an ambulance.
I'm not doubting you, just confused by the way you've stated it.
Basically the bus immediately pulled out after picking up the last passenger and was going way too fast not looking ahead. I got hit from behind on the front-right side of the bus and fell to the right and ended up in the bus' right front wheelwell which I rolled out of before it ran me over completely. My bike took more damage than I did -- I was lucky.
Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was critically injured cycling in the city
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-lor...
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on...
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207...
If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic.
> If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at:
Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't behave that way.
Can you imagine grandmas and schools kids riding their bikes in urban traffic?
Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.
I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.
There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."
If that's the proposal then my counter-proposal is to ban all bicycles from the streets. People make mistakes, and it's simply not reasonable to put someone in jail for a mistake a normal person would have made.
Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car.
It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.
...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child).
Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).
b) The article claimed so.
> “We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.
Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already.
>The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on.
I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801.
>Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.
In any case, the truth is, accidents do happen. What would throwing the teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?
Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be a lot more careful behind the wheel.
I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have been made legal and available, not less.
So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths, cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.
I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really think there's something else going on in this case.
If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.
The situation isn't a whole hell of a lot better for walkers vs. bike riders. "I just didn't see him" still works.
Yeah... we call it "freedom".
Your post is a baseless rant which generalizes the thoughts and actions of hundreds of millions of people.
On the other hand, many of these mass killers are? Kids. The same kids who are never taught how to handle themselves around potential danger or to manage risk and stress.
So, we get a bunch of kids who sit at home a rather playing with their pop-tarts as toy guns, play "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER" video games. Cause why? That's a good way for them to learn how to safely handle firearms?
And we wonder.
http://distractify.com/news/how-america-is-turning-kids-into...
That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't look to the criminal justice system for it.
"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"
And it's so true.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...
I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.
A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in cars so their sympathies are there.
Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through, accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no criminal charges followed.
I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved, the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.
In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by technology designed to survive in it.
What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?
I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.
I would argue that cyclists are different because they are much more vulnerable than other vehicles and the law should reflect that fact.
Anyway, there really is only one long term solution: exclusive roads for non-pedestrian, non-motor vehicles. We should aim to solve these problems by making it hard for people to have them. I don't think a punishment deterrent really works in situations like these. Most people drive in a switched off mode, and they aren't going to change.
If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to have the capability to do this safely.
Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we should raise the driving age, greatly raise driving test standards, and require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially inspected my driving. It's insane.
But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally vastly overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of regular testing as a slight against them.
I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.
I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city, but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States. The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.
In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.
In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.
Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.
So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase safety.
(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in the long term).
Cyclists get fined, and they can even loose their driving license (for cars).
These checks are not too-frequent (neither are those for car drivers), but they exist.
And read this, as it suggests sticking to the rules may be more dangerous for cyclists.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
I was on my motorcycle on the left lane in a city when a car way ahead of me just plowed into a bicycle riding on the side of the road ahead of it as if it wasn't there. The car driver was dreaming or sleeping- I don't know. The bicycle rider, an elderly person, almost went through the windshield. Me and some others stopped to help. Luckily he survived.
Story 2
When I grew up I was on my bicycle all the time. I was one of the cyclists you may see disobeying traffic rules but I never did it in any dangerous way, to myself or to traffic around me. I had zero encounters involving cars though I did have a few scary falls involving myself doing stupid stuff. This is over years of riding every day.
The point I am trying to make here is that treating a bicycle like a car is stupid. It's almost as stupid as saying pedestrians should walk on the road, stop at stop signs, change lanes when they want to turn, and stop at traffic lights. Bicycles sit somewhere between pedestrians and motorized traffic, they're not one and they're not the other.
These days I am very careful about where and how I ride my bicycle. This is because I don't have that sixth sense anymore of what's going on around me as I don't ride as much and I also don't live in the same place. New riders in a new environment should be very very careful. I will often prefer to ride on an empty sidewalk to riding on the road as the odds of getting mowed down are much lower (but watch out for cars zooming out of driveways). As a driver I give plenty of room to cyclists, if I can I move out of their lane, because I know that a bicycle may simply move into my path at any point and I know how hard it is for a cyclist to hold a line perfectly over a length of time.
Adding another thought here: It seems car drivers these days are more isolated from what goes on around them for various reasons. I see this even in myself as my car is better insulated and there are more distractions (GPS, phone, etc). This is yet another problem in sharing the road.
Very. I narrowly avoided getting creamed by one of my neighbors who wasn't looking where they were driving about a week after moving here. Unfortunately I tried to hop a 6-inch-plus curb to avoid getting hit and wound up going over the bars and skinning my hands and arms pretty badly.
I break the rules. I stay out of the road of cars as much as I can. I believe this makes me safer.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...
This article shows that women have far more accidents than men, and it is suggested that it is because they don't break the rules as much.
Obviously not all, but essentially driving bicycle is simply activity for which traffic laws were not made, it is hard to stop and go on the bicycle etc. Having cyclists whiz by you while you drive is often unexpected.
So there. Until we get something like Bogota, Colombia, these things will happen.
Did I mention we have Divvy in Chicago :)
When I said "No." I meant it's ethically wrong to kill cyclists, and not "O.K". I was merely answering the question posed in the title. I agree my use of "TL;DR" probably made sure everybody took this the wrong way, and was technically out of place, too.
> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.
That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."
Lobbyists who work for car companies, write the law on road safety.