Hacker News Reader

Comment by makeitsuckless | Hacker News Reader

I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you.

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.

View on HN

I'm a cyclist in the U.S., but have no problem admitting that probably 90% of the time, the cyclist is at fault. I've ridden bikes in Europe with real bike lanes—U.S. urban cycling culture is not Dutch cycling culture. There is not a culture of responsible cycling. We don't have real bike lanes. We don't stop for red lights. We don't stop for pedestrians. As a result, the U.S. also does not have many drivers or pedestrians that are sympathetic to cyclists. In general, I am ashamed of my fellow cyclists in the U.S..

Come to NYC. We have Citibike here and messengers and delivery people on bikes.

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.

In New York cars routinely violate every law on parking, they break the speed limit on every block, change lanes without signaling, and block intersections.

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.

If your thought was to object to the statement you're replying to then probably it went wrong.

The traffic congestion in NYC keeps the speeds down, not to mention the potholes in the road.

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...

That's probably also true, and doesn't contradict the statement you are parodying.

> If cyclists would simply follow the traffic laws that already exist

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.

It is amazing what you find in bike lanes in NYC [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

According to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-23/pedestrian...), there were 11 bicycle on pedestrian fatalities in NYC between 1996 and 2005.

"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.

I'm a cyclist and I completely disagree with this. I've biked thousands and thousands of miles in SF, and I think 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. They are not the majority.

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-...

Maybe cyclists in SF are so special, but in LA I have yet to see a cyclist stopping at a stop sign. I walk to/from work about 2 miles each way and see about a dozen cyclists every day. Sure, cars some times do not stop at the sign either but I don't see this happening nearly as often as I see cyclists just happily cycling through stop without even an attempt to slow down. And I see much more cars than bikes.

They are the same in France. Never saw a single cyclist stop at a red light.

I have seen some red light stops here. There are streets in LA that are physically impossible to cross at a red light.

Safe bike culture varies wildly form city to city within the US. People in Portland are mad considerate (I've seen cyclists chide other cyclists for failing to use hand signals). NYC? I've seen bikers go the wrong way down Broadway in the UWS splitting lanes during rush hour.

Do you think there is a correlation between lack of usable infrastructure (even in the past) and rule breaking?

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.

Of course you have seen a bicycle stop for a stop sign. No need to lie, it throws away all points you're trying to make. Besides, this is the typical confirmation-biased anecdotes that pollutes these discussions.

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.

The bicyclist also enjoys a higher vantage point and less restrained view than the driver of a car. In some places the practice of rolling through stop signs on a bicycle is already being codified into law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop).

If I have seen - I don't remember doing so. As for why are they do not stop - I don't really care. The message I replied to said 90% bicyclists don't drive illegally, which contradicts my experience.

Cyclists do not _want_ to be hit by vehicles - if they are not stopping, they have looked around and deemed the situation to be safe enough.. That's not to say it's legal, but they do not have a death wish.

Not really the point (though I agree with you): the grandparent suggested that 80-90% of cyclists follow the rules of the road. The parent (and I) disagree with that; no one's suggesting those people want to get hit or are inattentive, just that they're not abiding by traffic laws.

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.)

My observations suggest that close to 100% of road users are not strictly law abiding and likely break multiple rules during most trips.

No one said they don't, and I'd agree with that. I think the whole law-abiding nature (or lack thereof) is a bit of a red herring when talking about this sort of thing. It's really just inattentiveness that causes drivers to hit cyclists, and a lack of awareness of cyclists in general. If a driver is about to make a right turn, he's often not thinking that a cyclist could be coming up on his right, from behind, so he doesn't even look there. That sort of thing is the real problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm a pedestrian in SF and disagree with this. I tend to walk anywhere between 4-8 miles per day, just as a matter of course, and I see dozens and dozens of cyclists. A significant number of them do not stop at red lights when traffic is light. A majority do not stop at stop signs. When it comes to stopping, cars are much more law-abiding (likely because the penalty is worse, not because of any desire to be safer). Many cyclists make unsafe turns; I've had a few close calls while walking. Many ride on the sidewalk. I even occasionally see a cyclist riding the wrong way on a one-way street (though most will move to the sidewalk instead of doing this, which is just as bad).

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 90% of the time, the cyclist is at fault

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.

No idea about SF, but where I live, cycle-related facilities are split into 20% that are clearly the cyclist's fault, another 20% that are clearly the driver's, and 60% that either involve a combination of errors or where the details are difficult to ascertain, particularly since one person involved is dead.

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.

Is that cause or effect, though? The environment is hostile to cyclists, so do you only get those who will be as hostile as they need to be in return to survive?

I work as a messenger and yes - the way to avoid being turned into (the main issue, if you are on the inside of someone who can't see you or someone doesn't signal) is to push in front of and into the flow of traffic. I have no doubt that it is concerning and annoying to drivers, but they have then seen me.

It's funny how the exact same "Bicyclists don't respect any rules and are always at fault"-attitude exists here in Finland. Yet it turns out that drivers are at fault in 70% of all bike-car crashes.

Note, however, that few of (fatal) accidents are with cars. Cars do injure bicyclists, but lorries and buses are the deadly ones. For some reason, cyclists focus on opposing cars, not on reducing bike-LGV accidents.

I commute to work every day on my bike, and I live in Houston, which is probably about as car-friendly a city as you can get.

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.

> 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.

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.

I do see the parallel.

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.

Yes, agree that cyclists often occupy an unhappy middle position between cars and pedestrians.

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).

Aren't you confusing cause and effect?

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.

Cycling locals in Amsterdam are far from 'responsible'. People cross with red lights constantly, to the point where there is a social pressure to conform or be seen as either a tourist or just annoyingly in the way. People actively scare pedestrians by passing them close by and at high speeds (I've done this in... lesser moods, and I'm not proud of it).

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.

But I feel like the causal direction might be mixed up here. There are two phenomena: Netherlands is safer for cyclists, and Netherlands punishes automobile drivers more for hitting a cyclist. You seem to be implying that the latter causes the former. But it seems to be that both could be caused by a third (potential, I don't actually know) phenomenon: that the ratio of cyclists to automobiles in the Netherlands is much higher than it is in the US. It's easy to see why this third phenomenon could cause the first two.

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.

The dutch have done significantly more to encourage bicycle trips than this one law. Bike paths, separated bike lanes with independent signals, removal of (previously existing) automobile-focused infrastructure in cities, etc. These changes were fought for and implemented with the absolute intent of increasing bicycle access and they have been wildly successful.

> 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.

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.

In most place where this could happen there is speed limit, probably to 30 kmph. At that speed you won't kill that kid. Most probably you will even manage to avoid it completely.

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.

> the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die"

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.

As a motorist (with the licence to drive a bus) and a cyclist, I must stress that it is incredibly hard to see unlit cyclists at night. Particularly on raining nights it is practically impossible. I don't want to hit a bike, and neither does anyone else. But I think putting a focus on making them more visible is a good thing.

Then again, I live in Denmark, so my views might be a bit skewed.

I agree with you there. Fortunately, in many jurisdictions in the United States, an electric rear light is mandatory.

I was in the Netherlands, cycling on the path shown here:

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).

In France, in case of an accident between a car and a "non-car" (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, skater...), the car is considered responsible by default. Of course they will be a police investigation, but if the police can find any evidence of the "non-car" fault, the car is considered faulty.

I don't understand why people would have trouble with that, unless they are arguing from a purely selfish perspective.

It is essentially "Marine Law" - the most maneuverable must make way way for lesser. Perfect common sense.

Not sure that makes sense in this context, or even reflects actual traffic law. A pedestrian is easily more maneuverable than a car (I can turn on a dime when walking, but a car needs much more time and space), but the car should never have automatic right-of-way over a pedestrian.

you mistake my meaning - it is "more makes way for less".

With boats, maneuverability. With "road sharers", survivability.

I agree 100%, and it's the reason I love, love, love the intersection at 10th and Pike in Seattle (which is arguably a "shit show" for all the odd things that happen there) because it's people first; people can just start walking out into traffic and traffic stops for people. It's a very interesting demonstration.

Edit: s/waking/walking/

You want to be careful with these kinds of burden of proof chains.

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.

Being "doored" is the car driver's fault. Children are taught to look before opening the door.

> It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it.

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?

There is a lot more going on in the Netherlands.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com