11 ms·

Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that

71 points by mmariani 9y ago

analog31 9y ago
In case "presumed liability" seems like a troubling innovation, here in the US we have something like it for rear-end collisions. The person driving the car in the rear, is presumed to have caused the crash.
- sliken 9y ago
  Heh, which opens up the possibility of fraud by backing into someone. Which then of course results in more drivers deciding to get a dash cam. So now we have excellent coverage of weird things happening in Russia because a decent fraction of the population has a dash cam.
  - DavidFlint 9y ago
    In Europe reversing car is (almost) always at fault in most countries.
    - sparky_z 9y ago
      Which is why they claim you're the one that ran into them. Hence the need for dash cams.
      - DavidFlint 9y ago
        It is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down.
        oh_sigh 9y ago
        Sans dashcam how do you prove whether someone backed into a vehicle, or drove into the back of a vehicle? I'm talking about slowish speeds here. Obviously if someone is rear ended at 50mph the culprit is obvious because no car can reverse that fast
        analog31 9y ago
        That's where "presumed liability" enters the picture. Sans dashcam, the cop can gather other kinds of traditional evidence such as witness accounts, but otherwise the person in back is presumed to be at fault.
        oh_sigh 9y ago
        Sure, but I was specifically asking the poster above me, because they said "It is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down."
  - analog31 9y ago
    Soon every car will have a dash cam anyway, as part of the mechanism for preventing rear end collisions.
    - sliken 9y ago
      Currently many cars have automatic braking (honda, subaru, bmw, tesla, etc) I'm not aware of any that actually record it for playback. Does anyone know otherwise?
- weberc2 9y ago
  Also people who cut you off and then slam on their brakes.
- vacri 9y ago
  When driving, you're supposed to leave an 'emergency stopping distance' between you and the car in front.
- abrother 9y ago
  Something that scares me. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume guilt/liability is mutually exclusive for one party or the other, and is moreover disingenuous. It scares me that so few people acknowledge that.
alrs 9y ago
The stagnation of cycling in Australia is well-understood to be due to the mandatory helmet laws of the early 1990s.
- xiaoma 9y ago
  This is completely true. Here's a study from Brisbane on the effects on public bicycle share: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812000733 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812... In contrast the youbike program in Taipei and its suburbs (where helmets are not required) has been very successful.
- spartanatreyu 9y ago
  How else are we supposed to face the magpies?
  - flukus 9y ago
    Last time I lived in Brisbane the Magpies had adapted to helmets anyway, they will semi-land on your shoulder and attack your ears.
quantum_magpie 9y ago
I completely agree with the article. Car drivers have to have a lot more responsibility for their actions. They are already the worst part of every city, with their excessive honking, stinky exhaust and lack of awareness of their surroundings. So far, while riding on the side of a road, I've had a pickup truck driver trying to kill me in the US; numerous buses and trucks trying to hit me or run me off the road, SUV drivers and passengers trying to hit me with garbage and multiple people threatening me with violence (and a bus who had actually succeeded in hitting me) in Lithuania. Just over several years of commuting. In addition, I closely follow traffic rules, and always do the hand signals for turns. Basically, ride the bike the same way as I would drive a car. I also refuse to ever ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. In contrast, in Denmark, the drivers were very aware of every bicycle and pedestrian and much more relaxed towards them. It felt like utopia there, and according to the locals, the strict liability laws are a large part of it. Another significant reason is that Danes in general are much more calm and relaxed than anyone else I've seen so far.
- vacri 9y ago
  Everyone kicks down. I've seen drivers treat cyclists like shit, and seen cyclists treat pedestrians like shit. In my hometown there have been a couple of deaths of pedestrians because cyclists are too busy being macho on their morning commute. As a pedestrian, I've been buzzed and verbally abused by cyclists riding where they're not supposed to. Yes, the cars:cyclists thing is more dangerous to life and limb, but cyclists:pedestrians has the same proportion of arseholes. I'm not sure who pedestrians 'kick down' to, but no doubt they'd be the same if they do.
  - droopyEyelids 9y ago
    This is your argument in favor of the status quo? Or are you just expressing some feelings?
  - sidlls 9y ago
    I commute by bicycle. Cars are generally something I don't have to worry about because my commute is mainly not on roads and where it is there are generous bike lanes (although I have been almost hit by cars, deliberately, before). The non-road portions of my commute are on paths that are marked at regular intervals with words and symbols noting that the paths are shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Every "close encounter" with a pedestrian I've ever had has been because the pedestrian, usually with his face buried deeply into his phone, starts swerving to the side or, worse, abruptly turns. Responsibility is on all parties in spaces where there is shared traffic, not just cyclists or cars or pedestrians.
pbiggar 9y ago
Apparently, drivers are scarcely even charged for killing cyclists: - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to... - https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-worth-anyway https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-li...
weberc2 9y ago
Generally I support policies which incentives safer driving, but it feels a bit won't to punish drivers when, although nominally" cars cause accidents", the actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility. This is a technical problem, and it should probably be addressed as such.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sliken 9y ago
  I'm betting you aren't a bicyclist. If you ride regularly you quickly realize that it's not a visibility problem, but that some drivers feel like bikes don't belong on the road. I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving the engine, "rolling coal", etc. Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an "accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough attention.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > I had a brick thrown at me Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.
    - shiftpgdn 9y ago
jacquesm 9y ago
Good read on this subject: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...
vacri 9y ago
How do you disprove guilt-by-default in a "he said/she said" legal case?
- micahbright 9y ago
  You don't. All you have is the evidence available. That being said, a judge or jury has the ability to read in to the tone and body language of both parties to make a determination...therefore, you get a dash camera.
- alasdair_ 9y ago
  You don't. That being said, it's important to realize this only applies to civil cases, which are decided on the balance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Absent any other factors, it's more likely the the car caused the accident. This is just like the default assumption that, absent any other evidence, if there is a rear-end collision, the fault lies with the person in the rear, even if the person in the rear claims that the person in front actually threw their car into reverse and was driving the wrong way.
jaggi1 9y ago
I hate bike riders. Sharing road etc. is fine but it is irresponsible for bikers to ride on the road and expect car drivers to be watchful. If there is an accident not only the biker and his family is in trouble but the driver too. It is much better to keep a separate bike lanes or let bikers ride on pavement. Where either things are not possible have some mechanism for to detect the bikers and alert the cars through flashing lights or something. Biking is fine in a park or for kids. There is no sense in riding bike in the middle of a rush traffic.
xupybd 9y ago
I think more needs to be done to make the roads safer for bikes. Multi lane roundabouts are insane when you throw in cyclists. I don't know a solution but they are way too dangerous.
mangofoobar 9y ago
I read it as: "CATS overwhelming cause..."
rollingpebbles 9y ago
Pulled over, off the street, on a bicycle in Palo Alto to comment... In California, it's the law for automobiles to give bicyclists 3 ft / 1 m of clearance. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer-zone-for-cyclists-takes-effect https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer... Other things like bicycle lanes and intersections need to be designed to minimize risks like in the Netherlands. Bicyclists and drivers have responsibilities to follow safe practices like: - not running stop signs - using proper reflectors, clothing and lighting - not getting too close to other traffic or occupying their blindspot(s) - not getting caught between curb and turning vehicles, and turning vehicles eliminating space to prevent bicycles from occupying space that is unsafe. - not riding on sidewalks because it's mostly illegal
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Often running stop signs and red lights (while taking due care) is safer for cyclists. This has started to be recognised with some places legalising it.
  - sologoub 9y ago
    Source? From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them. What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.
    - netinstructions 9y ago
      > Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws. You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green). [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-getting-around-20161211-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... [2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147952354.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [3] http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-stop-signs/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-...
dgut 9y ago
Cars are a thing of the past. I'm in Leiden, NL right now, and "wow" what a refreshing thing to be surrounded by bikes instead of cars. It feels human, it's futuristic and beautiful.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The bike infrastructure in the Netherlands really is amazing. It has roughly 4 significant advantages over many areas though. A history of relying on bicycles, temperate weather, flatness and a population density that can justify spending a lot of money on infrastructure. I live in region about the same physical size as the Netherlands, with a population of ~300,000. It isn't stunning that we have 50x less infrastructure here.
beerbajay 9y ago
I recently moved to NYC which while slightly less hellish than expected, still manages to be very unfriendly to cyclists. NYPD routinely blames cyclists for their own deaths, seemingly always looking for some excuse for the driver's distraction/unawareness/aggressiveness. If you want a taste of the local discussion, just peruse the Streetsblog NYC bicycling category: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/ http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/ I've lived in a few major American cities, where cycle infrastructure is poor and subservient to car traffic, and also in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany where cycling infrastructure is (mostly) reasonable and well-maintained. I've written on Metafilter before about the swedish infrastructure: http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-Protection#5599557 http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-Protection#559... It's pretty pathetic that the "greatest city" in the wealthiest country in the world can't provide better infrastructure.
micahbright 9y ago
"If the insurance company contests the claim, the injured cyclist or pedestrian has to take the case to a civil court." If we're going to be liberal pinheads here, why don't we go all the way? Make cyclists who use public roadways retain insurance coverage for the same necessary risks(pip, uninsured motorist, minimum liability insurance).
- Fricken 9y ago
  I've only seen conservatives makes those arguments, and never in good faith.
  - micahbright 9y ago
    Good faith is only what you perceive it to be?
- brewdad 9y ago
  Most cyclists (in the US) own cars too. They are covered by their auto insurance in the event of a bike crash. My wife was hit by a car as a pedestrian and we dealt with everything through our auto policy.
andreygrehov 9y ago
Are cars causing bike collisions or bikes causing collisions on the road? I'm a car driver and I'll be honest here - I hate cyclists and bikers. And don't get me wrong, I like bikes in general. To be more specific, I hate them on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Sometimes cyclists appear from nowhere. The biggest problem is that it's hard to predict where cyclist is going to move next. It seems that a lot of them think that since they're small, they can maneuver as much as they want. In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road. Single responsibility principle [1] FTW. But, as we know, cities do not have space for more roads (and it doesn't mean that they should). At that point, a lane for cyclists is a trade-off. Now one may ask, "why don't you sell your car and get a bike instead?". This is a fair question, but wrong way of thinking, since these two vehicles are meant for different purposes, and that's a whole separate topic. Now should car drivers have a lot more responsibility for their actions? Maybe, but that's a "quick hack", not a solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle
- bretthoerner 9y ago
  > I hate them on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Is it that easy if you actually follow the 3 feet rule (often law)? http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-bicyclists.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-b... > In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road. I think most cyclists would love to live in this fantasy world, but it's not the reality we live in. > these two vehicles are meant for different purposes What purpose is each vehicle meant for? Who is deciding what their purpose is?
  - andreygrehov 9y ago
    > Is it that easy if you actually follow the 3 feet rule (often law)? That's not about the 3 feet rule. It's about the relativeness of the number of bikes to the number of cars on the road. Yes, there are rules and requirements and al that, but then there is a psychological factor that is usually ruled out. Let's be realistic, check out this random image of New York [1]. Let's count, how many cars and bikers are there. 30+ cars and 1 bike. How many car drivers do you think expect to see the cyclist there? I mean, yes, they all know that cyclists/bikers are there, they exist, they are somewhere around, but the main focus is still on cars. That's what I was trying to say. Take delivery guys as an example. There are a lot of them and they are riding bikes as crazy. Only in GTA you can see a car driver driving as a delivery bike rider. Sometimes I think they are immortal. > I think most cyclists would love to live in this fantasy world, but it's not the reality we live in. Agreed. > What purpose is each vehicle meant for? Who is deciding what their purpose is? That's a provocative question and I'm not to argue here. Obviously, there is a substantial difference between a car and a bike. If I need to take my 2 year old kid to an emergency room and it's 2am in the morning, I'm not going to take a bike and put whole family on top of my head. This is just a simple example to illustrate what I meant. [1] http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/new-york-city-busy-streets-wallpaper-3.jpg http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/new-york-city-busy-streets-w...
jbmorgado 9y ago
I ride my bike to work and it's incredible how asinine and stupid some drivers are. Some of them don't even know (or at least pretend) that bicycles can occupy the rods along with cars. It's just ridiculous. But in the end, I actually blame the police. Truth is police just doesn't give a damn. If police acted when they see a car disrespecting a bicycle (for instance seeing a car passing the bicycle without holding the minimum legal distance from it... which happens constantly a lot of times every day to me) or when they see a car ignoring a STOP or priority sign when a bicycle is coming, then the car drivers would learn the lesson and it would stop. But no, the police just ignores those situations and this way nothing will ever change,
i-machine-learn 9y ago
It's interesting to note that a common refrain you hear is "Bikes are the worst offenders! I see bikes running red lights all the time". If you pair it with this report, you might think your anecdotal experience doesn't jive with this report. As a biker, I would have to agree with the car drivers, a high % of bikers blatantly (and unsafely) break road rules; a much higher percentage than cars. I'd estimate it at 20-30% in SF. Does this mean the law should be focused on bikers? No, here's why: 1) the laws should be focused on # of bad actors. There are more significantly more drivers than bikers on the road meaning: Probability(driving unsafely | biker) > probability(driving unsafely | driver) BUT Number(bikers biking unsafely) <<< Number(drivers driving unsafely) 2) Even excluding the frequency of each mode of transportation, the risk profile is completely different. A car is a 1 ton fast moving object capable of killing 10s of people (see the London attacks). A bike is much less deadly. The legal constraints should follow the risk profile of the mode of transportation (which is also why truckers have much stricter rules and penalties while driving) 3) If you do a damage assessment (i.e # of biker deaths caused by bad drivers vs vice versa) you will see the numbers are way way higher on the driver side. So from a public policy perspective it makes sense to focus on the drivers. That being said, I think public policy should have some focus on the bikers. I think humans expect some sense of fairness in their legal systems and when car drivers don't see rules fairly applied, you get road rage directed at pedestrians and bikers. So I'd applaud: * Stricter enforcement of ticketing on bikers who fail to signal before turns, do not slow at busy intersections, running red lights, unsafely lane splitting , etc. I've seen so many bikers do this and it's so unsafe. * Education requirements for BOTH drivers and bikers for getting a state id / drivers license
marcus_holmes 9y ago
I ride a bike in Australia as a commuter regularly, and rode in Amsterdam and Berlin on a recent trip. Wow, the difference was amazing. Berlin, especially, was a dream come true. Cycling in a city was actually pleasant. Australian drivers are actively hostile to cyclists. To the extent that I've had stuff thrown at me (by strangers) from cars. This is a specific cultural problem that I've not seen elsewhere. You can see it in the comments on any site whenever the question of cycling comes up. We also have a problem with lycra-clad sports cyclists who generally behave intolerantly. Often they defend this as a reaction to driver hostility. But it's not helping. Aussies really hate anyone breaking the rules, too. Or rather, someone else breaking the rules when they have to obey them. Cyclists being unidentifiable by camera, and therefore able to run red lights with impunity, enrages car drivers stuck at one of our 4-hour red lights. It's pretty rare to see a "normal" person cycling as a method of transport here. Which is ridiculous, because the climate's amazing for it.
gozur88 9y ago
If you dig deep enough into this article you see this sweeping assertion in the headline is based on a few hundred crashes in South Australia. And rather than say the cars were at fault, the report says in most cases the cyclists were found to be not at fault. Which I don't believe is the same thing, legally. And if it is it undermines the central thesis of the piece, which is that car drivers should be assumed to be at fault and have to prove their innocence. If it's so dangerous to be a cyclist, we should probably make bicycles illegal outside designated bike paths.
garyrichardson 9y ago
Dear world, Please stop writing articles that argue laws need to be changed to make cycling safer so that more people ride bikes. It immediately signals to me that the article is strongly biased towards cyclists. Cyclists do need to be protected and laws do probably need to be changed, but don't make it part of your agenda to convince everyone to cycle.

71 points by mmariani 9y ago

In case "presumed liability" seems like a troubling innovation, here in the US we have something like it for rear-end collisions. The person driving the car in the rear, is presumed to have caused the crash.

sliken 9y ago
Heh, which opens up the possibility of fraud by backing into someone. Which then of course results in more drivers deciding to get a dash cam. So now we have excellent coverage of weird things happening in Russia because a decent fraction of the population has a dash cam.
- DavidFlint 9y ago
  In Europe reversing car is (almost) always at fault in most countries.
  - sparky_z 9y ago
    Which is why they claim you're the one that ran into them. Hence the need for dash cams.
    - DavidFlint 9y ago
      It is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down.
      - oh_sigh 9y ago
        Sans dashcam how do you prove whether someone backed into a vehicle, or drove into the back of a vehicle? I'm talking about slowish speeds here. Obviously if someone is rear ended at 50mph the culprit is obvious because no car can reverse that fast
        analog31 9y ago
        That's where "presumed liability" enters the picture. Sans dashcam, the cop can gather other kinds of traditional evidence such as witness accounts, but otherwise the person in back is presumed to be at fault.
        oh_sigh 9y ago
        Sure, but I was specifically asking the poster above me, because they said "It is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down."
- analog31 9y ago
  Soon every car will have a dash cam anyway, as part of the mechanism for preventing rear end collisions.
  - sliken 9y ago
    Currently many cars have automatic braking (honda, subaru, bmw, tesla, etc) I'm not aware of any that actually record it for playback. Does anyone know otherwise?
weberc2 9y ago
Also people who cut you off and then slam on their brakes.
vacri 9y ago
When driving, you're supposed to leave an 'emergency stopping distance' between you and the car in front.
abrother 9y ago
Something that scares me. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume guilt/liability is mutually exclusive for one party or the other, and is moreover disingenuous. It scares me that so few people acknowledge that.

alrs 9y ago

The stagnation of cycling in Australia is well-understood to be due to the mandatory helmet laws of the early 1990s.

xiaoma 9y ago
This is completely true. Here's a study from Brisbane on the effects on public bicycle share: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812000733 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812... In contrast the youbike program in Taipei and its suburbs (where helmets are not required) has been very successful.
spartanatreyu 9y ago
How else are we supposed to face the magpies?
- flukus 9y ago
  Last time I lived in Brisbane the Magpies had adapted to helmets anyway, they will semi-land on your shoulder and attack your ears.

quantum_magpie 9y ago

I completely agree with the article. Car drivers have to have a lot more responsibility for their actions. They are already the worst part of every city, with their excessive honking, stinky exhaust and lack of awareness of their surroundings. So far, while riding on the side of a road, I've had a pickup truck driver trying to kill me in the US; numerous buses and trucks trying to hit me or run me off the road, SUV drivers and passengers trying to hit me with garbage and multiple people threatening me with violence (and a bus who had actually succeeded in hitting me) in Lithuania. Just over several years of commuting. In addition, I closely follow traffic rules, and always do the hand signals for turns. Basically, ride the bike the same way as I would drive a car. I also refuse to ever ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. In contrast, in Denmark, the drivers were very aware of every bicycle and pedestrian and much more relaxed towards them. It felt like utopia there, and according to the locals, the strict liability laws are a large part of it. Another significant reason is that Danes in general are much more calm and relaxed than anyone else I've seen so far.

vacri 9y ago
Everyone kicks down. I've seen drivers treat cyclists like shit, and seen cyclists treat pedestrians like shit. In my hometown there have been a couple of deaths of pedestrians because cyclists are too busy being macho on their morning commute. As a pedestrian, I've been buzzed and verbally abused by cyclists riding where they're not supposed to. Yes, the cars:cyclists thing is more dangerous to life and limb, but cyclists:pedestrians has the same proportion of arseholes. I'm not sure who pedestrians 'kick down' to, but no doubt they'd be the same if they do.
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  This is your argument in favor of the status quo? Or are you just expressing some feelings?
- sidlls 9y ago
  I commute by bicycle. Cars are generally something I don't have to worry about because my commute is mainly not on roads and where it is there are generous bike lanes (although I have been almost hit by cars, deliberately, before). The non-road portions of my commute are on paths that are marked at regular intervals with words and symbols noting that the paths are shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Every "close encounter" with a pedestrian I've ever had has been because the pedestrian, usually with his face buried deeply into his phone, starts swerving to the side or, worse, abruptly turns. Responsibility is on all parties in spaces where there is shared traffic, not just cyclists or cars or pedestrians.

pbiggar 9y ago

Apparently, drivers are scarcely even charged for killing cyclists: - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to... - https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-worth-anyway https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-li...

weberc2 9y ago

Generally I support policies which incentives safer driving, but it feels a bit won't to punish drivers when, although nominally" cars cause accidents", the actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility. This is a technical problem, and it should probably be addressed as such.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sliken 9y ago
I'm betting you aren't a bicyclist. If you ride regularly you quickly realize that it's not a visibility problem, but that some drivers feel like bikes don't belong on the road. I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving the engine, "rolling coal", etc. Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an "accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough attention.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > I had a brick thrown at me Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.
  - shiftpgdn 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

Good read on this subject: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...

vacri 9y ago

How do you disprove guilt-by-default in a "he said/she said" legal case?

micahbright 9y ago
You don't. All you have is the evidence available. That being said, a judge or jury has the ability to read in to the tone and body language of both parties to make a determination...therefore, you get a dash camera.
alasdair_ 9y ago
You don't. That being said, it's important to realize this only applies to civil cases, which are decided on the balance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Absent any other factors, it's more likely the the car caused the accident. This is just like the default assumption that, absent any other evidence, if there is a rear-end collision, the fault lies with the person in the rear, even if the person in the rear claims that the person in front actually threw their car into reverse and was driving the wrong way.

jaggi1 9y ago

I hate bike riders. Sharing road etc. is fine but it is irresponsible for bikers to ride on the road and expect car drivers to be watchful. If there is an accident not only the biker and his family is in trouble but the driver too. It is much better to keep a separate bike lanes or let bikers ride on pavement. Where either things are not possible have some mechanism for to detect the bikers and alert the cars through flashing lights or something. Biking is fine in a park or for kids. There is no sense in riding bike in the middle of a rush traffic.

xupybd 9y ago

I think more needs to be done to make the roads safer for bikes. Multi lane roundabouts are insane when you throw in cyclists. I don't know a solution but they are way too dangerous.

mangofoobar 9y ago

I read it as: "CATS overwhelming cause..."

rollingpebbles 9y ago

Pulled over, off the street, on a bicycle in Palo Alto to comment... In California, it's the law for automobiles to give bicyclists 3 ft / 1 m of clearance. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer-zone-for-cyclists-takes-effect https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer... Other things like bicycle lanes and intersections need to be designed to minimize risks like in the Netherlands. Bicyclists and drivers have responsibilities to follow safe practices like: - not running stop signs - using proper reflectors, clothing and lighting - not getting too close to other traffic or occupying their blindspot(s) - not getting caught between curb and turning vehicles, and turning vehicles eliminating space to prevent bicycles from occupying space that is unsafe. - not riding on sidewalks because it's mostly illegal

rorykoehler 9y ago
Often running stop signs and red lights (while taking due care) is safer for cyclists. This has started to be recognised with some places legalising it.
- sologoub 9y ago
  Source? From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them. What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.
  - netinstructions 9y ago
    > Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws. You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green). [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-getting-around-20161211-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... [2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147952354.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [3] http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-stop-signs/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-...

dgut 9y ago

Cars are a thing of the past. I'm in Leiden, NL right now, and "wow" what a refreshing thing to be surrounded by bikes instead of cars. It feels human, it's futuristic and beautiful.

maxerickson 9y ago
The bike infrastructure in the Netherlands really is amazing. It has roughly 4 significant advantages over many areas though. A history of relying on bicycles, temperate weather, flatness and a population density that can justify spending a lot of money on infrastructure. I live in region about the same physical size as the Netherlands, with a population of ~300,000. It isn't stunning that we have 50x less infrastructure here.

beerbajay 9y ago

I recently moved to NYC which while slightly less hellish than expected, still manages to be very unfriendly to cyclists. NYPD routinely blames cyclists for their own deaths, seemingly always looking for some excuse for the driver's distraction/unawareness/aggressiveness. If you want a taste of the local discussion, just peruse the Streetsblog NYC bicycling category: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/ http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/ I've lived in a few major American cities, where cycle infrastructure is poor and subservient to car traffic, and also in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany where cycling infrastructure is (mostly) reasonable and well-maintained. I've written on Metafilter before about the swedish infrastructure: http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-Protection#5599557 http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-Protection#559... It's pretty pathetic that the "greatest city" in the wealthiest country in the world can't provide better infrastructure.

micahbright 9y ago

"If the insurance company contests the claim, the injured cyclist or pedestrian has to take the case to a civil court." If we're going to be liberal pinheads here, why don't we go all the way? Make cyclists who use public roadways retain insurance coverage for the same necessary risks(pip, uninsured motorist, minimum liability insurance).

Fricken 9y ago
I've only seen conservatives makes those arguments, and never in good faith.
- micahbright 9y ago
  Good faith is only what you perceive it to be?
brewdad 9y ago
Most cyclists (in the US) own cars too. They are covered by their auto insurance in the event of a bike crash. My wife was hit by a car as a pedestrian and we dealt with everything through our auto policy.

andreygrehov 9y ago

Are cars causing bike collisions or bikes causing collisions on the road? I'm a car driver and I'll be honest here - I hate cyclists and bikers. And don't get me wrong, I like bikes in general. To be more specific, I hate them on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Sometimes cyclists appear from nowhere. The biggest problem is that it's hard to predict where cyclist is going to move next. It seems that a lot of them think that since they're small, they can maneuver as much as they want. In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road. Single responsibility principle [1] FTW. But, as we know, cities do not have space for more roads (and it doesn't mean that they should). At that point, a lane for cyclists is a trade-off. Now one may ask, "why don't you sell your car and get a bike instead?". This is a fair question, but wrong way of thinking, since these two vehicles are meant for different purposes, and that's a whole separate topic. Now should car drivers have a lot more responsibility for their actions? Maybe, but that's a "quick hack", not a solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle

bretthoerner 9y ago
> I hate them on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Is it that easy if you actually follow the 3 feet rule (often law)? http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-bicyclists.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-b... > In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road. I think most cyclists would love to live in this fantasy world, but it's not the reality we live in. > these two vehicles are meant for different purposes What purpose is each vehicle meant for? Who is deciding what their purpose is?
- andreygrehov 9y ago
  > Is it that easy if you actually follow the 3 feet rule (often law)? That's not about the 3 feet rule. It's about the relativeness of the number of bikes to the number of cars on the road. Yes, there are rules and requirements and al that, but then there is a psychological factor that is usually ruled out. Let's be realistic, check out this random image of New York [1]. Let's count, how many cars and bikers are there. 30+ cars and 1 bike. How many car drivers do you think expect to see the cyclist there? I mean, yes, they all know that cyclists/bikers are there, they exist, they are somewhere around, but the main focus is still on cars. That's what I was trying to say. Take delivery guys as an example. There are a lot of them and they are riding bikes as crazy. Only in GTA you can see a car driver driving as a delivery bike rider. Sometimes I think they are immortal. > I think most cyclists would love to live in this fantasy world, but it's not the reality we live in. Agreed. > What purpose is each vehicle meant for? Who is deciding what their purpose is? That's a provocative question and I'm not to argue here. Obviously, there is a substantial difference between a car and a bike. If I need to take my 2 year old kid to an emergency room and it's 2am in the morning, I'm not going to take a bike and put whole family on top of my head. This is just a simple example to illustrate what I meant. [1] http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/new-york-city-busy-streets-wallpaper-3.jpg http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/new-york-city-busy-streets-w...

jbmorgado 9y ago

I ride my bike to work and it's incredible how asinine and stupid some drivers are. Some of them don't even know (or at least pretend) that bicycles can occupy the rods along with cars. It's just ridiculous. But in the end, I actually blame the police. Truth is police just doesn't give a damn. If police acted when they see a car disrespecting a bicycle (for instance seeing a car passing the bicycle without holding the minimum legal distance from it... which happens constantly a lot of times every day to me) or when they see a car ignoring a STOP or priority sign when a bicycle is coming, then the car drivers would learn the lesson and it would stop. But no, the police just ignores those situations and this way nothing will ever change,

i-machine-learn 9y ago

It's interesting to note that a common refrain you hear is "Bikes are the worst offenders! I see bikes running red lights all the time". If you pair it with this report, you might think your anecdotal experience doesn't jive with this report. As a biker, I would have to agree with the car drivers, a high % of bikers blatantly (and unsafely) break road rules; a much higher percentage than cars. I'd estimate it at 20-30% in SF. Does this mean the law should be focused on bikers? No, here's why: 1) the laws should be focused on # of bad actors. There are more significantly more drivers than bikers on the road meaning: Probability(driving unsafely | biker) > probability(driving unsafely | driver) BUT Number(bikers biking unsafely) <<< Number(drivers driving unsafely) 2) Even excluding the frequency of each mode of transportation, the risk profile is completely different. A car is a 1 ton fast moving object capable of killing 10s of people (see the London attacks). A bike is much less deadly. The legal constraints should follow the risk profile of the mode of transportation (which is also why truckers have much stricter rules and penalties while driving) 3) If you do a damage assessment (i.e # of biker deaths caused by bad drivers vs vice versa) you will see the numbers are way way higher on the driver side. So from a public policy perspective it makes sense to focus on the drivers. That being said, I think public policy should have some focus on the bikers. I think humans expect some sense of fairness in their legal systems and when car drivers don't see rules fairly applied, you get road rage directed at pedestrians and bikers. So I'd applaud: * Stricter enforcement of ticketing on bikers who fail to signal before turns, do not slow at busy intersections, running red lights, unsafely lane splitting , etc. I've seen so many bikers do this and it's so unsafe. * Education requirements for BOTH drivers and bikers for getting a state id / drivers license

marcus_holmes 9y ago

I ride a bike in Australia as a commuter regularly, and rode in Amsterdam and Berlin on a recent trip. Wow, the difference was amazing. Berlin, especially, was a dream come true. Cycling in a city was actually pleasant. Australian drivers are actively hostile to cyclists. To the extent that I've had stuff thrown at me (by strangers) from cars. This is a specific cultural problem that I've not seen elsewhere. You can see it in the comments on any site whenever the question of cycling comes up. We also have a problem with lycra-clad sports cyclists who generally behave intolerantly. Often they defend this as a reaction to driver hostility. But it's not helping. Aussies really hate anyone breaking the rules, too. Or rather, someone else breaking the rules when they have to obey them. Cyclists being unidentifiable by camera, and therefore able to run red lights with impunity, enrages car drivers stuck at one of our 4-hour red lights. It's pretty rare to see a "normal" person cycling as a method of transport here. Which is ridiculous, because the climate's amazing for it.

gozur88 9y ago

If you dig deep enough into this article you see this sweeping assertion in the headline is based on a few hundred crashes in South Australia. And rather than say the cars were at fault, the report says in most cases the cyclists were found to be not at fault. Which I don't believe is the same thing, legally. And if it is it undermines the central thesis of the piece, which is that car drivers should be assumed to be at fault and have to prove their innocence. If it's so dangerous to be a cyclist, we should probably make bicycles illegal outside designated bike paths.

garyrichardson 9y ago

Dear world, Please stop writing articles that argue laws need to be changed to make cycling safer so that more people ride bikes. It immediately signals to me that the article is strongly biased towards cyclists. Cyclists do need to be protected and laws do probably need to be changed, but don't make it part of your agenda to convince everyone to cycle.