Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden.
The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.
Now, granted, the author's complaints about US automobile manufacturers' influence on society can still apply, because that can at least partially explain the lower ratio of bicycles to automobiles in the US. There are undoubtedly other contributors to this low ratio, like the significantly higher median income and vastly lower population density of the United States.
And it's horrible.
The bicyclists ROUTINELY violate nearly every sane traffic law on the books. They go the wrong way against traffic, refuse to stop for stop lights or pedestrians in crosswalks, ride on sidewalks, have few if any safety features like headlights or taillights, and on and on.
If cyclists would simply follow the traffic laws that already exist, there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cyclists and pedestrians (yes, you read that right) and cyclists and cars.
If cars would simply follow the laws that already exist there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cars and people who die when hit.
But a cyclist running a red light is so commonplace in NYC that they think that it's not even a ticketable offense.
http://nypost.com/2014/09/24/most-cyclists-are-still-ignorin...
Yes, but bicycles are no cars. So the city need also to come up with bike lanes and adequate regulations. It is too easy to blame the participant which has no real place in traffic.
"There were no pedestrian deaths from cyclists in 2010, 2011 or 2012, according to city data."
I live in the Netherlands now but lived in NYC for 15 years and biked a lot while I was there. I'm not going to argue that NYC cyclists are perfect and follow all the traffic laws all the time, but at the same time, they're really not much different than Dutch cyclists. When it comes down to it, cyclists do what they have to do to get where they're going and avoid getting hit by cars. Some differences I have noticed: in the Netherlands, it's explicitly allowed for cyclists to bike against traffic on one way streets. Many more bikes in the Netherlands do have lights because 1) it's a 60 EUR fine otherwise and they enforce it and 2) the heavy dutch style bikes just tend to have them built in, whereas on the typical NYC bike, they're externally mounted and will get stolen off your bike in a heartbeat. The Dutch actually can be very aggressive cyclists, cruising through red lights when there's no traffic coming, passing suddenly and closely, flying through crowds of people, squeezing past trams, and generally inducing mild heart attacks in someone like me watching, but they're also extremely skilled since almost all of them have been biking nearly everywhere they go nearly every day of their lives since they were small children. They pull off complex maneuvers that I would never dream of and do it while texting. The final difference is that pedestrians here tend to be a bit more aware and will be careful to stay out of the bike paths.
And if you want further proof, just read the list of bicycle fatalities in SF [1] and see who is at fault. Most of the time it is the vehicle. And guess what happens when a vehicle is ruled at fault and kills a cyclist? Nothing [2]:
> Unfortunately, the lack of charges in this tragic case is par for the course in our justice system which continually fails to prosecute traffic cases as the crimes that they are. Four people were killed while biking in San Francisco last year, and no charges were filed against the drivers in any of these cases.
The myth that all cyclists are irresponsible and reckless is untrue and needs to die. Most cyclists are drivers and thus can emphasize with drivers and understand and predict what they are doing. However, most drivers are not cyclists, and often think a cyclist is doing something wrong when they are not. Or maybe they only notice when cyclists are doing something bad and their selective memory is reinforced. The point is, most drivers are good and most cyclists are good. A little more empathy on both sides would go a long way towards improving the situation, and untrue claims like "90% of the time the cyclist is at fault" is not helping.
1: https://medium.com/improving-our-cities/a-list-of-people-kil...
2: https://www.sfbike.org/news/statement-on-lack-of-charges-in-...
When I grew up in Germany, infrastructure was good and people obeyed traffic signs etc, when I lived in London it was every man for himself, as abiding by the rules was often more dangerous than not, and sometimes not even possible.
Have you thought of why this is so common? A bicycle uses human power, stopping is a much bigger hassle than sitting lazily in a car. And a bicycle approaches a stop sign much slower than a car, this having a better overview before crossing.
In fact, it's somewhat telling that most bicycle fatalities don't involve a cyclist doing something stupid: most cyclist law-breaking is done when the cyclist believes it's safe to do so, and they're usually very attentive and aware of their surroundings for the duration. It's when the cyclist is in a normal state, and has no reason to expect a surprise attack-by-car, that the fatalities happen.
(As a pedestrian, I very much sympathize with this. I tend to jaywalk quite often when walking, and when I do, I'm super attentive and ensure it's safe before crossing. It's probably more likely that I'd get hit by a car when I have the right of way than when jaywalking. But I'm still breaking the law, as is the cyclist when he/she runs a stop sign.)
And if you want further proof, just read the list of bicycle fatalities in SF and see who is at fault. Most of the time it is the vehicle.
This point has nothing to do with whether or not the majority of cyclists are responsible and law-abiding. All it does is suggest that drivers are inattentive, and that the state is strongly biased toward drivers and wrongly backs them up when they kill someone.
I wouldn't say that most cyclists are irresponsible (more that they tend to take risks, risks which may actually be reasonable and acceptable), and I certainly don't believe that most cyclists are at fault when there's a fatality involving a car (quite the opposite). But suggesting that most cyclists habitually follow the rules of the road... that's just absurd in my experience.
probably 80 or 90% of cyclists are responsible and law abiding. There are maybe 10 or 20 percent who are bad, run red lights and do other crazy shit
Just to be clear, your statistics don't actually disagree with each other. It's entirely possible -- I'd even say likely -- that the 10 or 20 percent of cyclists who "do crazy shit" are involved in and responsible for 90% of bicycle-involved accidents.
If you assume that the 20% of fatal accidents that are purely the driver's fault are evenly distributed among cyclists, can you also assume that any 10-20% of cyclists are involved in 90% of accidents?
Fatal accidents don't have to be like general accidents. But.
Most of the cyclists I see are pretty well-behaved, stopping at lights and behaving nicely.
The drivers, though, have no idea what to do with this strange two-wheeled human-vehicle centaurish thing which randomly appears on the road with them.
They'll swerve out into oncoming lanes of traffic if I'm by the side of the road. They'll pull to a near crawl and form a column behind me. They'll speed up and buzz my bike going 40 mph. They'll honk at me as they come up behind me, pass me, and drive past. One nice lady tried to run me down in her SUV because I had the gall to pass on her right. And if there're two (two!) bikes sharing a lane? They'll completely lose their minds at the sight of such a miracle.
Let's use hand signals, and show which way we're going--haha, just kidding, no drivers in the city seem to understand the difference between "I'm turning left", "I'm turning right", "I'm about to brake", and "being on a bike is so awesome I'm just going to flail my left arm around".
Also, the roads here are just barely good enough for cars--on bikes, you'll merrily eat a pothole and go flying, or bend a rim, or whatever. The sidewalks are even worse, otherwise we'd be on those.
And then there are the pedestrians! If drivers are clueless, people that are ambling around or jogging are malevolently stupid. Call out your passing side ahead of time, and they stop and crane their head around trying to see if God himself was talking to them--instead of, you know, moving out of the way in the indicated direction. Then there are the uppity joggers who will get in your face for sharing a dirt path ~4m wide.
The biking culture is getting better here, but it can really grate on one's nerves.
You completely lost me with this paragraph as your attitude to pedestrians is almost an exact reflection of the problematic one that many drivers have to cyclists.
Unfortunately, we are accepted neither by the drivers nor the pedestrians...I would be happy to stay off the sidewalks entirely (there being other safety issues with them) were the roads not so much worse.
Anyways, gripe as I do, I still consider it my responsibility not to hit pedestrians, since I'm the larger vehicle.
My position is that walking is humanity's natural way of moving around and that urban landscapes where they maintain primacy are by far the most pleasant in which to exist and move around. We obviously also need other modes of transport in our modern world but every effort should be made to keep these other modes of transport from taking over primacy. Unfortunately this is exactly what cars have done. There is much less of a threat from cyclists to pedestrians but still, as a cyclist, I feel that is up to us to respect pedestrians and not the other way round. Of course, I would also like to see car drivers demonstrate the same attitude towards cyclists (and, of course, pedestrians).
The Dutch >50% rule was introduced after a randomish clump of accidents in which adults in cars survived and children on bicycles died. There were many mortal accidents year after year, a lot of Dutch felt that car drivers weren't behaving sympathetically, and that particularly gruesome clump of accidents drove public opinion far enough to pass the >50% law.
THEN the culture changed, AFTER the change in rules.
The reason this causes relatively few accidents is because people driving cars in cities are extra careful.
Because of this I'm inclined to believe that the safety of cyclists is a result of regulation much more than 'responsible' cycling.
Even if the kid say, hides behind a tree then decides to cut across traffic without warning?
The fact that I'd go to jail for that is what's insane.
Even if there's no speed limit - driving in a middle of town, near a path or pavement lined with trees you should be careful, and slow down.
And in rare case that there's a tree near motorway and somehow a kid on a bike managed to get there and hide - you will manage to explain yourself before court.
What's important is the attitude. IMHO the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die" is more insane than having to explain yourself after you killed someone, even if it's not your fault.
Death has smaller utility than discomfort.
You are putting words into mouths.
It's more like, "acknowledge that if you misbehave on the road, your chances of getting killed increase and it may be your fault." I don't know why it's impossible for some people to hear that without imagining the "deserves" part.
Edit: s/waking/walking/
For example, a bicycle is moving much faster than a person opening a car door. It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it.
Now see the problem?
The reality is that cars and bicycles do not belong on the same roads. Period. Bicycles need bike lanes that are separated from roads.
In the Netherlands, we would say check the street before opening your car door. If you open your car door on a narrow street and a car hits it, is the driver of the other car also responsible?
Then again, I live in Denmark, so my views might be a bit skewed.
It is essentially "Marine Law" - the most maneuverable must make way way for lesser. Perfect common sense.
With boats, maneuverability. With "road sharers", survivability.
People start riding a bike when they are 2 years old. So everybody knows how fragile you are on a bike.
Most roads cars and cyclist share are 30 km/h roads.
You need to have lights while driving at night.
And so on.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/3739+Hollandsche+Rading,+N...
I was cycling south on the bike path, against the flow of the traffic in the lane of the road closest to the path when a work van pulled into the path at speed and nearly killed me (I managed to move over into the median between the path and road in time to avoid a collision).
The rest of the bicycling scene was fantastic, but given my short period there, it was quite an experience to record.
Last time I mentioned this to a Nederlander they said I must not have had the awareness of a native (I did not link the location that time), but it seems clear enough that a vehicle had no business pulling onto that path to travel (of course they might pull across it into a house or whatever).
And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing.
How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.
Face the reality. Where there is enough traffic to warrant it and the community can afford it, there are street lights and separate bike paths. But in many places, we don't have them. It is reasonable to require bikes to have lights in the dark, so that others can see them.
I ride bike to work, >10km one way, and 98 % of the route has bike or bike/pedestrian paths. But I still have a) lights in my bike, b) reflective jacket, c) helmet. In the winter, I occasionally have trouble with pedestrians just because I don't see them (even with the good lights I have in my bike).
Two thirds of bike fatalities here happen without a collision with a motor vehicle (i.e. bike hits another bike, a pedestrian, a stationary object, or just otherwise dies while riding). Of collisions with motor vehicles, the fault is usually with the driver, but not exclusively. Intersection + truck/bus is the dangerous combination.
For case 3) and HGV, a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8
So, to answer your question, people in traffic should follow traffic laws.
That said, the law is the law. You have to be visible in traffic. If the light burns out, then maybe its a bad idea to be out in traffic at night.
You're not. In your example with the cyclist with a burnt-out light, dark clothing, and dark night, if you had hit him, I would very clearly assert that the cyclist was at fault.
I'm fine with requiring cyclists to have front and rear lights in the dark and/or rain (hell, this is already required of cars), but requiring clothing with reflective paint on top of that? It's a bit ridiculous, IMO. Lights are more than sufficient to make a cyclist visible, the rest of the burden should be on drivers to actually pay attention to what they're doing
If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns.
As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
I agree. Bikes as road vehicles is a dangerous anachronism. Overtaking bikes is the most unpleasant exercise for me as a driver. Although, given the state of roads vs. the state of sidewalks, I understand why they choose the road.
Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The bike riding paths are also very well configured and designed, minimising the risk of accidents.
Maybe you could explain what you're thinking of when you say this? My experience says that pedestrians and bikes are fully compatible; they commonly share sidewalks.
The optimal solution is of course to build dedicated bike lanes, but if that's not a option I'd rather ride my bike on the road with other cars, than on a shared path with pedestrians. It's also a matter of attitude, roads are built to allow cars to travel between point A and point B as fast as possible. If cycling is to be seen as a form of transportation they also need to have access to proper infrastructure.
1. Dedicated bike lanes.
2. Bikes hiding along the side of a street without bike lanes, hoping not to be killed.
3. Bikes using the sidewalk.
Sharing the sidewalk is far and away the safest thing for the bikers; even if you're using a dedicated bike lane you'll sometimes have to cross car traffic (say, if you're making a left turn -- I'm willing to do this as part of a giant herd of bikes, but if I'm on my own I just use crosswalks with the pedestrians). Cars are fast; bikes aren't. I could see myself potentially injuring a small child by crashing into them with my bike; I cannot imagine seriously injuring an adult the same way. I have personally been involved in a bike crash; I crashed into a motorized bicycle going the other way in a bike lane. This is much worse in terms of speed differential than a bike hitting a pedestrian, but the total of my injuries was a bleeding knuckle.
> The optimal solution is of course to build dedicated bike lanes
This is phrased with much more confidence than I believe you can reasonably have. Maybe a better solution is to assume that bikers aren't such idiots that they'll be crushing children beneath their wheels all the time if you allow them on the sidewalks. I fairly frequently get stuck behind groups of pedestrians when the sidewalk isn't wide enough for me to go around them. I've often heard one of them say to another "hey, let that guy by". I've never heard anyone say "hey, get off the sidewalk".
> If cycling is to be seen as a form of transportation they also need to have access to proper infrastructure.
Trust me, cycling is viewed as a form of transportation here. And yes, dedicated bike lanes are all over the place. But it's still routine for bikes to use the sidewalk. There are plenty of older areas with wide sidewalks and narrow streets.
Bicycles and scooters on the sidewalk, ridden by inconsiderate riders, are common, irritating and dangerous. The same is true of cars driving in cycle lanes or service lanes, and the myriad other thinga car drivers do to make life difficult for cyclists.
Sure, cycling on the pavement may be in your own self-interest, but it is strictly bad for pedestrians. Why should they have to change their walking pattern for you? I will give way to electric scooters on the sidewalk, not because I don't mind them, but because it's less unpleasant than a collision or being shouted/hooted at.
/rant
Bicycles on the sidewalk are fairly common. They're not dangerous.
I've been that pedestrian. We're walking on the pavement. We become aware of someone behind us on a bicycle, who cannot get through unless we move aside. My friend suggests we stop at the side and let the bicycle pass. I reluctantly do so.
Did the cyclist ask me to change? No. Did the cyclist inconvenience me? Yes.
> Bicycles on the sidewalk are fairly common. They're not dangerous.
I was walking to work in Shanghai, ~90 minutes ago (shortly before 7am). A cyclist on the pavement nearly hit me. He was a foreigner wearing a business suit. He was cycling on a pavement which had explicit markings and bollards to separate what was a pedestrian walkway into two lanes (one for cycles). He was cycling along the (narrower) pedestrian part.
In general, it is similar to the reasons why bike and car are not so compatible on the road.
On that street, cars attempt and do pass by me every day, despite there definitely not being enough room for a bike and a car to move next to each other – resulting in them passing by at distances of as little as 1m! Did I mention the speed limit of 30 km/h there and that I’m usually doing exactly that?
There’s also at least once a day some idiot who thinks he can turn right over the bike lane without checking for actual bikes on that lane and another idiot who considers the bike lane a very convenient parking spot. There are also usually two to three cases where a driver attempting to turn into the main street from the right (without right of way) stops on the bike lane and then gets upset if one attempts to drive around them.
The idea that German drivers are aware or tolerant of bikes is absolutely ridiculous – though of course they may be more aware and tolerant than Australian bikers, but I don’t know that (:
Unfortunately, policing these traffic violations seems to be perfectly uncommon here.
Of course, most of these wouldn’t be issues if we treated bikes like cars with the exact same rights and obligations as cars.
Hmm, I suppose you did not mean this, but I think that mandating a bike rider's license, registration, insurance and annual tax would not help that much to remove problems.
Overall, I don't see how bikes could have the exact same rights and obligations as cars, although overall both are vehicles and should be treated as vehicles, equally. Still, you can't ride a bike on an Autobahn, and neither can you drive a tractor. You may or may not be allowed to ride bike on a road that is dedicated to buses, although you may be allowed to ride a bike there. Etc, etc. Bikes cannot and shouldn't have *exact' same rights and obligations as cars.
If that means I can use inner-city roads the same ways cars can use them and that I’m not forced onto shoddy bike lanes the width of a towel, I’m happy to get registered, pay insurance etc. I somewhat expect bike insurance to be less expensive than car insurance on account of you being able to do less damage with a bike; similarly, taxes should be lower as even overland bike paths are much cheaper than anything built for cars. Overall, I’m not unhappy about the idea, though.
> Overall, I don't see how bikes could have the exact same rights and obligations as cars, although overall both are vehicles and should be treated as vehicles, equally. Still, you can't ride a bike on an Autobahn, and neither can you drive a tractor. You may or may not be allowed to ride bike on a road that is dedicated to buses, although you may be allowed to ride a bike there. Etc, etc. Bikes cannot and shouldn't have *exact' same rights and obligations as cars.
Of course there was some hyperbole there – I don’t expect to be allowed to drive on a highway, but not because I am a cyclist but because I can’t meet some minimum speed (i.e. the same rules that mean tractors can’t drive there either). However, I don’t see why I can’t drive on an inner-city road among cars which are at most allowed to drive 50 km/h and instead have to stick to a tiny bike lane next to a series of parked cars.
Regarding bus lanes, I am actually not too fond of them being open to cyclists: A single bus being slowed down annoys substantially more people than even a couple cars being slowed down and passing by a stopped bus is a major annoyance and safety issue. There’s some idea that you can promote cycling by giving out these perks (elsewhere, hybrids or electric cars are allowed to use them, too), but overall that shouldn’t be necessary in a healthy climate.
Don't let people do stuff that compromises your safety.
Trust me, they are.
I commute about 18Km into Cologne, and the traffic I come across have been pretty good. I even had the local bus follow me down a one lane street without much of a horn or flashing lights for about 1 km. In general, they treat me and the other bike riders like another car.
I have also commuted in other parts of Cologne, but also had good behaviour from the drivers.
I can ride nearly the same speed as on the road, and stop or slow down at my leisure. It's much more enjoyable. I never find pedestrians to be an issue.
It's always far faster than walking and less stressful than riding in the street.
If you really do yield to pedestrians than I suppose they don't but most bicyclists are -- like smokers -- not nearly as considerate as they think they are.
Bicycles are not comparable to motor vehicles, as they are much slower (50 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).
Bicycles are also not comparable to pedestrians, as they are much faster (5 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).
I think it's a mistake to mix traffic that differs in speed by a factor of 3.
As someone who moved from the Netherlands to London, it has taken me years to adjust to absence of real bicycle lanes. They really do seem like the best answer to me.
I live in Tempe, AZ near ASU - one of the "most bike friendly" cities in the US, and I can't tell you how many times I've been nearly killed by a bike at full speed weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk - where it's actually illegal for them to ride.
Bikes do not belong on the sidewalk unless they're moving as slow as a pedestrian, which they never are. They're a hazard.
Many years ago I biked daily on 40 mph city streets, so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.
I also think that cyclists shouldn't ride at speed on the sidewalk, but even if, cyclists causing pedestrian fatalities is extremely rare. It has happened, but it's statistically insignificant when compared to cars killing pedestrians.
There is a big difference between getting hit by 90kg at 30km/h vs 1900kg at 45km/h.
I've almost been knocked into a busy 50 mph street by sidewalk cyclists, so yeah.
""" From 1996 to 2005, 11 pedestrians across New York City died after being struck by bicyclists.... 2006 to 2013, there were just four pedestrian deaths, according to the city’s Department of Transportation. """ [0]
0: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-23/pedestrian...
It is entirely possible that the low bike-on-pedestrian fatality rate is due in part to the law mandating that cyclists and pedestrians be segregated.
Don't get me wrong, all of it counts and is sad and regrettable. I do however think there is an anti-cyclist bias ingrained in the perception and reporting of it's dangers, that's out of whack with the real numbers on accidents.
[1] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758...
But here's the rub - people don't want to put up with even a 1-in-1000 chance of getting a broken arm just from walking on the sidewalk, and they don't want to constantly be on guard against bikes zipping all over the place on what should be a relaxing walk.
It's annoying, and that's why we have things like noise ordnances even though no one ever like, dies because the neighbors are too loud.
The real solution is to separate cars and bikes, just like we separate cars and people. Dedicated, buffered bike lanes and safer intersections.
It is almost as if everyone only care about conveniences rather than safety. If only everyone followed traffic laws, had dedicated roads for each kind of transportation, and maintenance for each kind of road was identical, then we would not be in this mess. As it stand, people are a hazard to each other when traffic of one kind mixes with an other.
A gradual move to 20mph on all roads is being introduced: http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/parking-roads/street_im...
Some boroughs have already completed the move (i.e. the link above) and others are following.
Traffic in London rarely gets above 20mph anyway, so it barely impacts. As a driver it makes driving more relaxing and hasn't impacted travel times. As a cyclist, it's a joy to not have vehicles racing to overtake in appropriate places.
Please, no. The biggest nuisance I experience as a pedestrian are cyclists riding on the sidewalk.
Lane splitting/filtering at stop lights puts bikers in a safer and more visible position, in front of, instead of between vehicles. When I attempt to queue at lights, the car behind me will often inch up until I'm uncomfortable. If there is a car coming, I often wonder whether they "see" me, or whether I'm about to get caught between two cars having a fender bender, and end up leaving with two broken legs.
Sidewalks are not meant for bikes. The offset from the road, and expectation that traffic on them will move slowly leads to drivers pulling into them without actually checking for traffic. On many occasions while jogging I've almost ended up on someones hood, add a bike, and I'd have been across the hood and on the left side of the car before the driver even looked to his right for traffic.
And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia).
Go figure.
What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do , stop other party from doing the wrong thing". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc. Sure! Where do I sign up? The author fails to deliver the answer "how". "Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.
Also, the standards of sobriety are very different in different countries. In Russia you're technically drunk if you had a bottle of yogurt for breakfast. And they _will_ use that against you in court, it's not just a "fun fact".
- After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will be fined if you don't have them.
- Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced.
- Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic laws - they will run red lights when they can.
- Practically nobody wears helmets.
- 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)
But people rarely drive on sidewalks, they don't need to with bicycle paths being really everywhere.
On the other hand you get scooter drivers speeding crazily on the very same bike paths. I've heard it's actually legal but I'm not sure.
Um, isn't that actually quite a LOT. Do we really want to emulate that?
The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Right about the same level as the fatal car crash death toll per year.
Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a statistical viewpoint is not going to make people very sympathetic.
Out of how many active cyclists?
The SFMTA estimates that 16% of San Francisco residents are "frequent cyclists", defined as cycling two or more days per week.
That means ~135k frequent cyclists.
184:10,000,000 = .0184 per 1,000 10:135,000 = .0741 per 1,000
SF = 4x higher
For SF to be safer than the Netherlands, bike deaths need to pretty much disappear.
Okay. Kind of makes the ranting of the whole article pointless, though.
You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out. Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them. Usually all the way over in the far lane.
I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.
This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national newspapers.
"it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar."
The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike people to read his bike blog.
I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road.
However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them up and overtake then at the next set of lights.
Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me they would arrive no later.
I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road.
I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from behind.
On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit" response.
Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal access, they need to conform to the same rules.
From what I have seen Sydney has a really obnoxious anti-cycling culture and a dismal level of cycling infrastructure.
This culture of "THE ROAD IS MINE, GET OUT OF MY WAY" is part of what leads to dead cyclists.
It actually does make sense to blame the driver for their behavior.
He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good.
The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine.
At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
In fact, I think cycling at night is safer because my flashing lights and reflectors are in their eye. During the day, I just blend into the background. This is also why I keep my car's lights on when driving in the day.
> That’s just the beginning! Because now Volvo — those endearingly safety-minded Swedes — wants cyclists to take “safety” a step further and spray themselves with something called “Lifepaint” so they glow in the dark.
> This is just another way for drivers to outsource any and all responsibility for what they do with their cars to other road users. The giveaway? Volvo’s promotional video is full of testimonials, including this one from a driver: ...
> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)
Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe.
> That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed, the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”)
I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than others).
> Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws.
I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels like a sufficient reason to me.
> Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it.
As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like income and population density.
> What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving it, and undividedly so.
By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she already should already behave.
As someone who has ridden many miles in the US (and many kilometers in Italy), I don't find it such a stretch. There are a lot of pissed-off drivers. Everyone who has ridden a bike enough has stories of being harassed for no reason. Once, for instance, I was riding with a few friends, single-file, lined up as close as we could get to the right side of the straight road, and this guy buzzes us with inches to spare, and no oncoming traffic in the other lane. If he'd "miscalculated" he could have easily injured or killed us.
No, he's not. He's implying that instead of motorists being charged with reckless driving or other similar charges, they're most often not even charged. I once had a car make a left turn across 4 lanes of traffic and a turn lane and t-bone me while I was cycling. He couldn't be bothered to make his way safely to the turn lane, pause, then turn left. He just swung across the entire road and hit me. He didn't even get a ticket because he told the officer the sun was in his eyes. I left the scene of the accident in an ambulance and was unable to function normally for over a year. It's not equal.
I don't believe the author was saying that. He said...
> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)
I believe what the author meant is that there's an accident and then there's something far less than accident that's more the result of reckless driving, poor driving or aggressive driving. And yet the law always errs on the side of it being an unavoidable accident.
In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem.
As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
Chicken-and-egg. On the other hand, to get people riding their bikes, you need to offer them an infrastructure that feels safe enough to get started.
Either way the point of the article (which a shocking number of people in the comments here and on the article missed) is that it's this chicken and the egg problem that needs to be addressed.
1) "that guy wears helmet; he seems to be a law-abiding cyclist who knows what he's doing and behaves in a predictable way"
2) "that cyclist doesn't seem to control his vehicle; I need to pass by a wider margin".
It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties.
I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield.
You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars.
I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO.
The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.