3 ms·

The problems with cycling is that the riders have both far more "flexibility" in what they can do and get away with, and that many have zero "legal" qualificati

The problems with cycling is that the riders have both far more "flexibility" in what they can do and get away with, and that many have zero "legal" qualification to practice the activity. I say this as both a regular (daily) cyclist and driver, and I find the 2 points dangerous to myself in both these functions. So the first point means many cyclists will just choose what kind of participant to traffic they are at each moment: they will behave like a car or pedestrian as they please, following car rules, pedestrian rules, or personal rules depending on which fits them best. And not having a driver's license to suspend means the rules are usually written on the spot. Traffic lights, stop signs, are just informative. So many cyclists insist that requiring them to wear a helmet is "victim blaming". [0] Not many would say the same about not wearing a seatbelt. For the second point, the lack of any formal education equivalent to a driving school where you are told about the laws and best practices translates into people being blissfully unaware when endangering themselves and others. Most pedestrians and drivers will know the rules even if they don't follow them. They are taught in school and sometimes from a young age. Cyclists fall in the middle, neither this nor that. [0] https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-and-sexist/a-48044927 https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-...

CalRobert 8y ago
The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the cyclist. After all, why don't drivers wear helmets? Head trauma kills plenty of people in car crashes. Give it time, and eventually you start seeing people picked on while they're walking, too. Our minister for transport wants to make it illegal to walk at night without wearing a high vis vest. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=term%2C+I+am+exploring+whether+the+wearing+of+high+visibility+clothing+is+better+achieved+by+way+of+educational+and+publicity+campaigns+run+by+the+Road+Safety+Authority#g1398.r https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=t... Maybe instead of forcing everyone to dress like clowns, just don't hit people with your car. Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage. They DO, however, have presumed liability laws, meaning that the operator of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed liable in a crash.
- waste_monk 8y ago
  Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle crosses your path and causes an accident? Australian road rules are quite reasonable - all parties have a duty to try and avoid accidents, but for example if a bicycle exits a footpath onto a lane where you have an existing right of way and hit them, they would be at fault for failing to give way, and also because any action that causes a vehicle with right of way to change their behaviour can be considered dangerous driving
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if it's your right of way. Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be more careful. 100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street as people had for millenia. That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.
    - close04 8y ago
      > the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.

CalRobert 8y ago

The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the cyclist. After all, why don't drivers wear helmets? Head trauma kills plenty of people in car crashes. Give it time, and eventually you start seeing people picked on while they're walking, too. Our minister for transport wants to make it illegal to walk at night without wearing a high vis vest. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=term%2C+I+am+exploring+whether+the+wearing+of+high+visibility+clothing+is+better+achieved+by+way+of+educational+and+publicity+campaigns+run+by+the+Road+Safety+Authority#g1398.r https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=t... Maybe instead of forcing everyone to dress like clowns, just don't hit people with your car. Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage. They DO, however, have presumed liability laws, meaning that the operator of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed liable in a crash.

waste_monk 8y ago
Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle crosses your path and causes an accident? Australian road rules are quite reasonable - all parties have a duty to try and avoid accidents, but for example if a bicycle exits a footpath onto a lane where you have an existing right of way and hit them, they would be at fault for failing to give way, and also because any action that causes a vehicle with right of way to change their behaviour can be considered dangerous driving
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if it's your right of way. Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be more careful. 100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street as people had for millenia. That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.
  - close04 8y ago
    > the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.