6 ms·

I think having the right legal framework helps a lot to get a good bicycle culture. Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance wi

by Luc 16y ago

I think having the right legal framework helps a lot to get a good bicycle culture. Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault. Most streets where I live (in the center of Antwerp) are one-way for cars, but two-way for bicycles. And cars are limited to 30 km/h. My wife goes to work on her bicycle and gets paid for it (per km) by her employer, enough to buy a new bike every year. At busy crossings with stop lights, bicycles get a designated space in front of the cars. That way when the light turns green the bicyclists can get going first, safely turn etc. I just saw 2 policemen on bicycles pass in front of my window... Measures like these help make bicycling something accepted by society, not something only crazy lycra-clad hipsters do.

jacquesm 16y ago
Contrast that with cycling in the states where you're derided and people throw stuff at you from passing cars (beer cans seem to be a favourite projectile). In the cities it's still somewhat doable but outside it's simply impossible. No separate lanes, cars passing you within inches, risking you being clipped by a mirror.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  That happens most often when you are on a road you really don't belong on. Are you familiar with Highway 9? (for those who don't know, twisty steep 2-lane mountain road, very popular with bicyclists who ride in the middle of the lane and later complain about all the cars) Though they love it to death, that road was not built for cyclists, and it's far too expensive to expand it to give the cyclists their own lane.
  - akgerber 16y ago
    Except those bicyclists pay taxes too, and have the exact same legal right to use the road. Riding in the "middle" of the road is a necessary technique to prevent being passed danngerously closely. Neither of those things justifies being assaulted. As a side note, it appears that SR-9 near Silicon Valley existed long before automobiles, and thus was not built for automobiles either. It was probably "built for" horse wagons and pedestrians, and used by bicyclists years before any motorist.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      That is true, but whether their actions are 100% legal or not, the road is not designed to properly accommodate both cars and cyclists. Thus they piss of drivers, and hence the frustration towards cyclists, which is what I was explaining. Of course they don't deserve to be assaulted, I never said that they did. I personally try to treat them as kindly as possible. For reference, I say 'no business being on' because they know they will be putting themselves in a compromised position, legal or not. They can shake their fist at drivers and such, but they know it is unsafe going in. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        > Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea. I think that goes for the whole fixed-gear story as well, even where it's legal it isn't very smart. As a bicyclist you're already vulnerable enough, no point in adding more factors to increase that vulnerability.
      - markeroon 16y ago
        To be fair, I'm sure that the cyclists find the cars on highway 9 to be equally frustrating, especially when they're being treated like they don't belong there.
- olefoo 16y ago
  I've biked all over the western United States, and I've never had actual beer cans thrown at me. That said I have been on the receiving end of a certain amount of aggressive driving and general idiocy but the prevalence is pretty much the same city or country.
run4yourlives 16y ago
Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault. Sorry, but doesn't anyone have an issue with this? Why is there an expectation that cyclists cannot possibly be held responsible for their actions? By this logic, if my mini hits a bus, I shouldn't be responsible, even if I ran a red light. I tend to agree with most of the other points, but this one is ridiculous.
- fortes 16y ago
  Well, there's a huge asymmetry between a car hitting a bike and vice-versa. So I'd guess it's not that the bike can't be held responsible, but that the potential downside for a biker is death, while the car would likely just suffer some dents. Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.
  - alaithea 16y ago
    I wouldn't want to get hit by a car on my bike no matter who was going to pay for it.
    - fortes 16y ago
      Clearly, but you might relax a little if you believe that drivers are more cautious due to the insurance laws.
- dwiel 16y ago
  Biking by itself is not that dangerous. Biking near cars is dangerous. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it. Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending on the situation. This law gives people driving a little more reason to be more careful. Also, keep in mind in the US, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver's insurance always pays no matter whose at fault.
dylanz 16y ago
Luc, can you describe your wife's employers bicycle policy? I'm trying to set one up at my company as well, and haven't found the ideal plan yet. Suggestions welcome!
- Luc 16y ago
  I don't have access to the exact agreement at the moment. My wife's employer, funnily enough, is a petroleum company. I think the bike policies of the company are those set out by Collective Bargaining Agreement (negotiations between employer and employee organisations) for the whole petroleum sector, but I can't find a good English language article. Colruyt, a supermarket company in Belgium, is well known as having a successful bicycle policy. E.g. - company-owned bicycles placed at the train station closest to the HQ so people can use the train to commute - free bicycles for employees who use them at least 3 times a week for their commute - 0.15 eurocent per kilometer compensation This is just the bicycle part of it though. They also have programs to facilitate and encourage car-pooling, or to encourage use of scooters instead of cars. Their trucks must be >95% full before delivering, they use rail as much as possible etc. (Some of this is from memory, don't shoot me if I'm off by a few cent or percent). Coincidentally Colruyt is also the most profitable and fastest growing supermarket chain in Belgium. One more thing - a lot of this is backed by laws or measures in the tax code. E.g. the 'compensation per km' is tax-free to the employee and there are likewise tax reductions on the employer's side. So these things may be harder to implement in a different country.
  - dylanz 16y ago
    This is fantastic. Thanks for the detailed response Luc!
    - natrius 16y ago
      If you're in America, there are similar tax breaks available, so make sure you look into those.

by Luc 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

Contrast that with cycling in the states where you're derided and people throw stuff at you from passing cars (beer cans seem to be a favourite projectile). In the cities it's still somewhat doable but outside it's simply impossible. No separate lanes, cars passing you within inches, risking you being clipped by a mirror.

sliverstorm 16y ago
That happens most often when you are on a road you really don't belong on. Are you familiar with Highway 9? (for those who don't know, twisty steep 2-lane mountain road, very popular with bicyclists who ride in the middle of the lane and later complain about all the cars) Though they love it to death, that road was not built for cyclists, and it's far too expensive to expand it to give the cyclists their own lane.
- akgerber 16y ago
  Except those bicyclists pay taxes too, and have the exact same legal right to use the road. Riding in the "middle" of the road is a necessary technique to prevent being passed danngerously closely. Neither of those things justifies being assaulted. As a side note, it appears that SR-9 near Silicon Valley existed long before automobiles, and thus was not built for automobiles either. It was probably "built for" horse wagons and pedestrians, and used by bicyclists years before any motorist.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    That is true, but whether their actions are 100% legal or not, the road is not designed to properly accommodate both cars and cyclists. Thus they piss of drivers, and hence the frustration towards cyclists, which is what I was explaining. Of course they don't deserve to be assaulted, I never said that they did. I personally try to treat them as kindly as possible. For reference, I say 'no business being on' because they know they will be putting themselves in a compromised position, legal or not. They can shake their fist at drivers and such, but they know it is unsafe going in. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea. I think that goes for the whole fixed-gear story as well, even where it's legal it isn't very smart. As a bicyclist you're already vulnerable enough, no point in adding more factors to increase that vulnerability.
    - markeroon 16y ago
      To be fair, I'm sure that the cyclists find the cars on highway 9 to be equally frustrating, especially when they're being treated like they don't belong there.
olefoo 16y ago
I've biked all over the western United States, and I've never had actual beer cans thrown at me. That said I have been on the receiving end of a certain amount of aggressive driving and general idiocy but the prevalence is pretty much the same city or country.

run4yourlives 16y ago

Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault. Sorry, but doesn't anyone have an issue with this? Why is there an expectation that cyclists cannot possibly be held responsible for their actions? By this logic, if my mini hits a bus, I shouldn't be responsible, even if I ran a red light. I tend to agree with most of the other points, but this one is ridiculous.

fortes 16y ago
Well, there's a huge asymmetry between a car hitting a bike and vice-versa. So I'd guess it's not that the bike can't be held responsible, but that the potential downside for a biker is death, while the car would likely just suffer some dents. Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.
- alaithea 16y ago
  I wouldn't want to get hit by a car on my bike no matter who was going to pay for it.
  - fortes 16y ago
    Clearly, but you might relax a little if you believe that drivers are more cautious due to the insurance laws.
dwiel 16y ago
Biking by itself is not that dangerous. Biking near cars is dangerous. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it. Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending on the situation. This law gives people driving a little more reason to be more careful. Also, keep in mind in the US, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver's insurance always pays no matter whose at fault.

dylanz 16y ago

Luc, can you describe your wife's employers bicycle policy? I'm trying to set one up at my company as well, and haven't found the ideal plan yet. Suggestions welcome!

Luc 16y ago
I don't have access to the exact agreement at the moment. My wife's employer, funnily enough, is a petroleum company. I think the bike policies of the company are those set out by Collective Bargaining Agreement (negotiations between employer and employee organisations) for the whole petroleum sector, but I can't find a good English language article. Colruyt, a supermarket company in Belgium, is well known as having a successful bicycle policy. E.g. - company-owned bicycles placed at the train station closest to the HQ so people can use the train to commute - free bicycles for employees who use them at least 3 times a week for their commute - 0.15 eurocent per kilometer compensation This is just the bicycle part of it though. They also have programs to facilitate and encourage car-pooling, or to encourage use of scooters instead of cars. Their trucks must be >95% full before delivering, they use rail as much as possible etc. (Some of this is from memory, don't shoot me if I'm off by a few cent or percent). Coincidentally Colruyt is also the most profitable and fastest growing supermarket chain in Belgium. One more thing - a lot of this is backed by laws or measures in the tax code. E.g. the 'compensation per km' is tax-free to the employee and there are likewise tax reductions on the employer's side. So these things may be harder to implement in a different country.
- dylanz 16y ago
  This is fantastic. Thanks for the detailed response Luc!
  - natrius 16y ago
    If you're in America, there are similar tax breaks available, so make sure you look into those.