5 ms·

Doesn't help that drivers act incredibly entitled to the road and view pedestrians and bicycles as obstacles.

rimliu 9y ago
Otoh, drivets are also the ones taking the traffic regulations most seriously. Pedestrians are inclined to jaywalk, and that’s pretty much it, but don’t get me started on bicycles…
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  This. Drivers, pedestrians and bikers hating each other is a result of infrastructure that results in them having to interact in poorly defined ways.
- emj 9y ago
  Your comment is anecdata, basing these kinds of statements on personal experiences is not a good idea, the truth is we break the rules with the same frequency what ever mode of transport the use. Furthermore in the statistics for accidents in Sweden serious injuries drivers vs. pedestrian/bicyclist you can see that in ~80% of the cases it was caused by drivers.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Bikes are slower so you would expect them to cause even fewer accidents. 20% may not seem like it, but it suggests bikes riders are much worse at following the rules of the road than drivers. In practice you actually see this with bike riders regularly ignoring red lights ect.
    - btrettel 9y ago
      Cyclist here. A lot if drivers will be rude (or worse) to me on the road because of the sort of things you said. Based on most objective studies I've seen there is no real difference in the fraction of cyclists and drivers who regularly break the law. They break different laws, but I'd say drivers break the law in much more dangerous ways (e.g., speeding). Cyclists running red lights is a problem, but I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. In contrast I can think of more times off the top of my head when drivers blew through red lights without looking (most were obviously distracted), but that's to be expected as there are many more drivers than cyclists. Anyway, it seems to me that the fraction of drivers who are bad is about the same as that for cyclists, so someone's mode of transportation is not informative about whether someone's law abiding. Saying otherwise is not justified. You can find a lot about these studies via Google, e.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+drivers+breaking+the+law https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+d... By the way, I follow the law to the letter. Doesn't get me any more respect on the road, unfortunately.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Minor tranffic violoations are rarely an issue it's the big ones like: I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. which tend to kill people. Minor speeding (~15%) is not a significant hazard. Going through a red light is about as dangerous as doing ~50-100MPH over the speed limit which is very rare. Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. Again about as risky as a car slowly driving on the sidewalk, which you just don't see. Bike riders on sidewalks are again extremely dangerous and often lead to fatalities, but it's also very common. PS: I worked with bike messengers who may be unusually bad about this stuff.
        btrettel 9y ago
        Well, my experience differs a lot, and I suspect I've seen at least an order of magnitude more cyclists than you have. I think it's a combination of selective attention and your experience with bike messengers that's potentially the problem. Bike messengers seem to be particularly impatient and more likely to violate the law to shave off a few seconds. Also could be the location. Of the cities I've spent non-negligible time in, I found cyclists in Baltimore to be considerably worse than cyclists in Austin or DC. To address another point, even the "minor" speeding you mention is a significant hazard. 15% over the speed limit is 32% more kinetic energy. Combine that with the fact that speeding really does not save much time in most situations, I think it's a clear loser in a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps on an empty highway it's okay. But a driver's time to destination in most cases is more limited by stop lights and traffic, and believe me, I know. As a cyclist who doesn't go faster than 25 mph it's really irritating to have a driver pass me dangerously, only to sit behind them at the next light for 2 minutes, or for me to pass them because they are waiting to turn. I have no detailed statistics for this, but it happens so frequently that I don't think speeding is likely to save much time. It mostly provides psychological relief for impatient drivers. (Your opinion, of course, may differ.) > Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. I don't "lane split" or "filter" as it's called, but it's worth noting that this is frequently legal (perhaps not in your jurisdiction) and it has its proponents, many of which tout it's apparent safety benefits. I don't think the data is clear about whether it's safe or dangerous on net. I personally don't think it offers any advantages, so it's not worth the potential risk. Also, many drivers encourage cyclists to do that to get out of their way. You should see how infuriated some drivers get when I take the lane at an intersection rather than filter through to the front. I've talked to cyclists who run red lights, and I frequently have heard that they just want to get away from angry drivers, and running the light allows them to do that. (I don't think this is the right approach.) The same applies to sidewalk riding, which is fairly clearly more dangerous, yet riding legally is often discouraged by drivers, sometimes violently.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    There’s no good data because there is no statistically valid enforcement of rules of the road in bikes. In part because the rules are designed for cars, I’ve always observed cyclists, including myself, breaking common sense rules at much higher rates than cars. Blowing red lights, riding on sidewalks, failure to signal, riding, etc.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Pedestrians and cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. This is like complaining that people treat guns and knives with different levels of seriousness. Of course they do; both are potentially deadly, but one far more so than the other.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. If they behave dangerously and put themselves at risk of being hit, even if they are the one taking the risk, the car driver will always be at fault, no matter what. And yes, like some others have echoed in comments here, many bike riders do not stop at red lights. I see that every - single - day, multiple times.
    - TulliusCicero 9y ago
      First off, you're wrong. Cyclists can absolutely be found at fault. Secondly, cyclist scofflaw-ness is mostly a result of a transportation system that's hostile to them. The Dutch aren't nicer cyclists because they're born that way, superior to Americans; they're nicer cyclists because the system there largely respects people on bikes, and so the system receives respect in return. Go to any city with widespread segregated bike lanes and bike lights, and you'll likely find a culture where cyclists are no more likely to break the law than pedestrians or motorists. Third, motorists are hardly exempt from constant law-breaking. How often do people not signal, or roll through stop signs, or enter the intersection right after the light turns red, or park in a bike lane, or 'block the box', or tailgate, or break the speed limit? I've lived in enough places in the US to know that the answer is "constantly". And all that with a vehicle that's vastly more dangerous than any bike or jogger. I mean, my god, one of the most common and stereotypical complaints in America about where anyone lives is "ugh, drivers in [state] are the WORST".
- megaman22 9y ago
  My experience is generally that it's safer to cross the street away from crosswalks. Typically, crosswalks are put in places that have subpar visibility in one or both directions, or at intersections where there are many more variables in play and potential decisions that multiple parties can make. Drivers will do unpredictable things if you are on foot and merely in the general area of a crosswalk. If you cross the street on a straight-away with good visibility, you can gauge the speed of the traffic, determine a safe window, and cross easily, without disruption.

Otoh, drivets are also the ones taking the traffic regulations most seriously. Pedestrians are inclined to jaywalk, and that’s pretty much it, but don’t get me started on bicycles…

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
This. Drivers, pedestrians and bikers hating each other is a result of infrastructure that results in them having to interact in poorly defined ways.
emj 9y ago
Your comment is anecdata, basing these kinds of statements on personal experiences is not a good idea, the truth is we break the rules with the same frequency what ever mode of transport the use. Furthermore in the statistics for accidents in Sweden serious injuries drivers vs. pedestrian/bicyclist you can see that in ~80% of the cases it was caused by drivers.
- Retric 9y ago
  Bikes are slower so you would expect them to cause even fewer accidents. 20% may not seem like it, but it suggests bikes riders are much worse at following the rules of the road than drivers. In practice you actually see this with bike riders regularly ignoring red lights ect.
  - btrettel 9y ago
    Cyclist here. A lot if drivers will be rude (or worse) to me on the road because of the sort of things you said. Based on most objective studies I've seen there is no real difference in the fraction of cyclists and drivers who regularly break the law. They break different laws, but I'd say drivers break the law in much more dangerous ways (e.g., speeding). Cyclists running red lights is a problem, but I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. In contrast I can think of more times off the top of my head when drivers blew through red lights without looking (most were obviously distracted), but that's to be expected as there are many more drivers than cyclists. Anyway, it seems to me that the fraction of drivers who are bad is about the same as that for cyclists, so someone's mode of transportation is not informative about whether someone's law abiding. Saying otherwise is not justified. You can find a lot about these studies via Google, e.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+drivers+breaking+the+law https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+d... By the way, I follow the law to the letter. Doesn't get me any more respect on the road, unfortunately.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Minor tranffic violoations are rarely an issue it's the big ones like: I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. which tend to kill people. Minor speeding (~15%) is not a significant hazard. Going through a red light is about as dangerous as doing ~50-100MPH over the speed limit which is very rare. Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. Again about as risky as a car slowly driving on the sidewalk, which you just don't see. Bike riders on sidewalks are again extremely dangerous and often lead to fatalities, but it's also very common. PS: I worked with bike messengers who may be unusually bad about this stuff.
      - btrettel 9y ago
        Well, my experience differs a lot, and I suspect I've seen at least an order of magnitude more cyclists than you have. I think it's a combination of selective attention and your experience with bike messengers that's potentially the problem. Bike messengers seem to be particularly impatient and more likely to violate the law to shave off a few seconds. Also could be the location. Of the cities I've spent non-negligible time in, I found cyclists in Baltimore to be considerably worse than cyclists in Austin or DC. To address another point, even the "minor" speeding you mention is a significant hazard. 15% over the speed limit is 32% more kinetic energy. Combine that with the fact that speeding really does not save much time in most situations, I think it's a clear loser in a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps on an empty highway it's okay. But a driver's time to destination in most cases is more limited by stop lights and traffic, and believe me, I know. As a cyclist who doesn't go faster than 25 mph it's really irritating to have a driver pass me dangerously, only to sit behind them at the next light for 2 minutes, or for me to pass them because they are waiting to turn. I have no detailed statistics for this, but it happens so frequently that I don't think speeding is likely to save much time. It mostly provides psychological relief for impatient drivers. (Your opinion, of course, may differ.) > Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. I don't "lane split" or "filter" as it's called, but it's worth noting that this is frequently legal (perhaps not in your jurisdiction) and it has its proponents, many of which tout it's apparent safety benefits. I don't think the data is clear about whether it's safe or dangerous on net. I personally don't think it offers any advantages, so it's not worth the potential risk. Also, many drivers encourage cyclists to do that to get out of their way. You should see how infuriated some drivers get when I take the lane at an intersection rather than filter through to the front. I've talked to cyclists who run red lights, and I frequently have heard that they just want to get away from angry drivers, and running the light allows them to do that. (I don't think this is the right approach.) The same applies to sidewalk riding, which is fairly clearly more dangerous, yet riding legally is often discouraged by drivers, sometimes violently.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  There’s no good data because there is no statistically valid enforcement of rules of the road in bikes. In part because the rules are designed for cars, I’ve always observed cyclists, including myself, breaking common sense rules at much higher rates than cars. Blowing red lights, riding on sidewalks, failure to signal, riding, etc.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Pedestrians and cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. This is like complaining that people treat guns and knives with different levels of seriousness. Of course they do; both are potentially deadly, but one far more so than the other.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. If they behave dangerously and put themselves at risk of being hit, even if they are the one taking the risk, the car driver will always be at fault, no matter what. And yes, like some others have echoed in comments here, many bike riders do not stop at red lights. I see that every - single - day, multiple times.
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    First off, you're wrong. Cyclists can absolutely be found at fault. Secondly, cyclist scofflaw-ness is mostly a result of a transportation system that's hostile to them. The Dutch aren't nicer cyclists because they're born that way, superior to Americans; they're nicer cyclists because the system there largely respects people on bikes, and so the system receives respect in return. Go to any city with widespread segregated bike lanes and bike lights, and you'll likely find a culture where cyclists are no more likely to break the law than pedestrians or motorists. Third, motorists are hardly exempt from constant law-breaking. How often do people not signal, or roll through stop signs, or enter the intersection right after the light turns red, or park in a bike lane, or 'block the box', or tailgate, or break the speed limit? I've lived in enough places in the US to know that the answer is "constantly". And all that with a vehicle that's vastly more dangerous than any bike or jogger. I mean, my god, one of the most common and stereotypical complaints in America about where anyone lives is "ugh, drivers in [state] are the WORST".
megaman22 9y ago
My experience is generally that it's safer to cross the street away from crosswalks. Typically, crosswalks are put in places that have subpar visibility in one or both directions, or at intersections where there are many more variables in play and potential decisions that multiple parties can make. Drivers will do unpredictable things if you are on foot and merely in the general area of a crosswalk. If you cross the street on a straight-away with good visibility, you can gauge the speed of the traffic, determine a safe window, and cross easily, without disruption.