7 ms·

> The dangers came into focus this year after 25 cyclists were killed on city streets — the highest toll in two decades. The "highest toll in two decades" give

> The dangers came into focus this year after 25 cyclists were killed on city streets — the highest toll in two decades. The "highest toll in two decades" gives some context, but I wish writers would share ratio metrics rather than absolute numbers in cases like this. I.e. the number of active cyclists on the road might be outpacing the deaths, but we don't know when you just say "25 cyclists were killed in 2019." Also, how does that stack up to the number of pedestrians killed accidentally, etc.

product50 7y ago
And I wish they also tell us how many accidents do bikers cause themselves as they are notorious for not following any traffic rules - thereby endangering the live of others.
- sgillen 7y ago
  You're being down-voted for the tone of your post I think. But I think it's an interesting point. If there is evidence that US bikers have a culture that does not following traffic laws that can and should seriously impact policy decisions. It's possible some of the great suggestions here that work well in other cities wouldn't work in the US for this or any dozen of other reasons. Not saying that there for is such a culture, only that it is certainly a popular complaint, and if there is truth for it we should factor that into our decisions.
  - james-mcelwain 7y ago
    It's not an interesting point because this topic has already been studied. Cyclists break traffic laws at roughly the same rates as motorists.
    - sgillen 7y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't aware of studies in this area. Do you know of studies that compare breaking traffic laws of cyclists in different countries?
      - james-mcelwain 7y ago
        I'm only familiar with the US. If I had to speculate, it's probably better in countries with better bike infrastructure. I know personally I only break traffic laws when I feel it's subjectively safer for me as a cyclist to do so. There is a legal push in some places for the [Idaho stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), which seeks to make this behavior legal in the name of safety.
      - pedantsamaritan 7y ago
        Here's an article with some comments on Denmark: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/#5562fe24bfaa https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists... For my own reference as much as others: Florida study on rates for people driving vs cycling: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b... Wesley Marshall (Univ of Co) surverying 18k people: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclis... (I haven't found the actual paper on this one)
- bagacrap 7y ago
  I'll take 100 cyclists gliding through a red over a single motorist doing the same. While not literally impossible to kill someone else by using a bike wrong, it's orders of magnitude less likely than with a car.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  A better pespective: people are people. They aren't drivers or bikers but just people. And the same person is a driver on one day and a biker on another. Guess what, drivers are also notorious for not following traffic rules -- not using blinkers, not stopping fully at a stop sign, driving above speed limits, running a light after it's already turned red -- thereby endangering the lives of others. It's not about whose fault things are -- it's just people being people. It's about designing a system and incentives that saves lives overall (driver's licenses, bike lanes, speed limits, ticketing, etc.).
  - u801e 7y ago
    > And the same person is a driver on one day and a biker on another. Yes, but cyclists try to act like pedestrians and move at speeds typical of vehicles. Pedestrians typically move between 2 to 6 mph. Cyclists move between 10 to 30 mph. While a motorist can see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk and yield to them, it's much harder for them to see a cyclist in time to yield to them because of how much faster they move. Also, if cyclists switch between pedestrian mode and vehicle mode constantly, it makes it much harder to predict what they will do for both motorists and pedestrians. When people can't predict what will happen, then a collision is much more likely.
    - mynameisvlad 7y ago
      You've completely missed the parent's point. It's not productive to lump every cyclist together, or every driver together. At the end of the day, people are people, and some people who happen to be cyclist are shitty, while others who happen to be drivers are assholes. But that doesn't mean ALL cyclists are assholes, or all drivers.
      - u801e 7y ago
        I never said that all cyclists, motorists, or pedestrians are "assholes". I just said that if a cyclist tries to act like a pedestrian at cyclist speed, then collisions (with pedestrians and/or motorists) are more likely.
- jermaustin1 7y ago
  I feel I can answer this anecdotally, as well as put it in some context. As a pedestrian I have been struck by a delivery bike running a red light exactly twice. The more egregious incident: I assumed he was going to stop, he decided he was not going to stop. Frogger ensued. I was flattened. He also went down and yelled at me. We were both "fine" other than getting a little bit of NYC on us. I know a couple of people have died from these guys, but I don't think it is a significant number. The real problem IS the cars generally, but the semi-regulated taxis specifically. As a biker I have been struck by a car also, exactly twice. Both times by a non medallion wearing driver, both on my way from the bike rack on 53rd to port authority (~11 super short blocks), both I was inside the bike lane on 9th avenue. One on instance the driver blindly turned without a blinker from the not turn lane. I saw it happening, but citibikes aren't known for how reliable their brakes are, and we collided at a VERY low speed. I was able to hop off before I fell. The bigger issue on 9th avenue is the turn lanes that are IN the bike lane... The other time I was hit, I was side swiped as the driver decided to not look that I was in the lane. I had my umbrella in hand as I was being side swiped and was swinging it against his driver window. He then flipped me off and pull further into the lane. Knocking me into another biker and we both went down. I know these are anecdotal, but the 11 blocks I would ride a citi bike could have killed me twice in 2 years. I have been almost killed 0 times by delivery bikes in NYC for the thousands of miles I walked. I will side with bikers over cars in NYC any day of the week.
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    > The more egregious incident: I assumed he was going to stop, he decided he was not going to stop. People look at me crazy when I say I feel safer around scooters than bicycles and this is why. Cycling inertia makes you super-reluctant to slow down or stop. Whereas with scooters all you have to do is twist the throttle to speed back up.
- quartz 7y ago
  I see this question come up all the time and the answer is that on average, fewer than one person per year dies due to a collision with a bicycle in NYC. In fact 5 of the last 8 years had zero pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cyclists. [1] Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of "endangering the lives of others." [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtml#crashdata https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtm...
  - ordinaryperson 7y ago
    Cyclists do kill pedestrians in NYC. E.g.: https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-central-park-calls-it-an-unavoidable-accident https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-centr... Not saying it's a high probability, especially as compared to motor vehicles, but to state the opposite -- cyclists don't have a history of endangering the lives of others -- is also false. They can and do kill pedestrians.
    - themoonbus 7y ago
      The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".
      - ordinaryperson 7y ago
        No. Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'" He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others. They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others. They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US they only kill about 1 person a year. That doesn't mean sharks are not dangerous or don't have a history of endangering people. If you or he want to make a statement about the low probability of such an event -- fine. Or compare cyclists to far more dangerous motor vehicles, also fine. But to say that cyclists don't and have never endangered pedestrians is not factually accurate.
bluntfang 7y ago
Are you saying the value of these cyclist's lives is based on how many cyclists there are?
- randyrand 7y ago
  Don’t be purposely dull. Yes the value of the issue depends on how dangerous bicycling is relative to other things. That’s no surprise. 1:100,000,000 != 1:100
  - syndacks 7y ago
    Don't be purposely dull by implying the parent comment doesn't understand the difference between one hundred million and one hundred.
    - randyrand 7y ago
      Using that to illustrate the point implies the exact opposite :)
- infogulch 7y ago
  No, the value of the risk factor for an individual choosing wether to use bikes for transportation is based on how many total cyclists there are.
- mitchdoogle 7y ago
  You're making an emotional argument while the parent comment wants to see actual data devoid of emotion. Emotion can be a great persuasive tactic to convince people there is a problem, but it doesn't do much to actually solve the problem.

product50 7y ago

And I wish they also tell us how many accidents do bikers cause themselves as they are notorious for not following any traffic rules - thereby endangering the live of others.

sgillen 7y ago
You're being down-voted for the tone of your post I think. But I think it's an interesting point. If there is evidence that US bikers have a culture that does not following traffic laws that can and should seriously impact policy decisions. It's possible some of the great suggestions here that work well in other cities wouldn't work in the US for this or any dozen of other reasons. Not saying that there for is such a culture, only that it is certainly a popular complaint, and if there is truth for it we should factor that into our decisions.
- james-mcelwain 7y ago
  It's not an interesting point because this topic has already been studied. Cyclists break traffic laws at roughly the same rates as motorists.
  - sgillen 7y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of studies in this area. Do you know of studies that compare breaking traffic laws of cyclists in different countries?
    - james-mcelwain 7y ago
      I'm only familiar with the US. If I had to speculate, it's probably better in countries with better bike infrastructure. I know personally I only break traffic laws when I feel it's subjectively safer for me as a cyclist to do so. There is a legal push in some places for the [Idaho stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), which seeks to make this behavior legal in the name of safety.
    - pedantsamaritan 7y ago
      Here's an article with some comments on Denmark: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/#5562fe24bfaa https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists... For my own reference as much as others: Florida study on rates for people driving vs cycling: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b... Wesley Marshall (Univ of Co) surverying 18k people: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclis... (I haven't found the actual paper on this one)
bagacrap 7y ago
I'll take 100 cyclists gliding through a red over a single motorist doing the same. While not literally impossible to kill someone else by using a bike wrong, it's orders of magnitude less likely than with a car.
crazygringo 7y ago
A better pespective: people are people. They aren't drivers or bikers but just people. And the same person is a driver on one day and a biker on another. Guess what, drivers are also notorious for not following traffic rules -- not using blinkers, not stopping fully at a stop sign, driving above speed limits, running a light after it's already turned red -- thereby endangering the lives of others. It's not about whose fault things are -- it's just people being people. It's about designing a system and incentives that saves lives overall (driver's licenses, bike lanes, speed limits, ticketing, etc.).
- u801e 7y ago
  > And the same person is a driver on one day and a biker on another. Yes, but cyclists try to act like pedestrians and move at speeds typical of vehicles. Pedestrians typically move between 2 to 6 mph. Cyclists move between 10 to 30 mph. While a motorist can see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk and yield to them, it's much harder for them to see a cyclist in time to yield to them because of how much faster they move. Also, if cyclists switch between pedestrian mode and vehicle mode constantly, it makes it much harder to predict what they will do for both motorists and pedestrians. When people can't predict what will happen, then a collision is much more likely.
  - mynameisvlad 7y ago
    You've completely missed the parent's point. It's not productive to lump every cyclist together, or every driver together. At the end of the day, people are people, and some people who happen to be cyclist are shitty, while others who happen to be drivers are assholes. But that doesn't mean ALL cyclists are assholes, or all drivers.
    - u801e 7y ago
      I never said that all cyclists, motorists, or pedestrians are "assholes". I just said that if a cyclist tries to act like a pedestrian at cyclist speed, then collisions (with pedestrians and/or motorists) are more likely.
jermaustin1 7y ago
I feel I can answer this anecdotally, as well as put it in some context. As a pedestrian I have been struck by a delivery bike running a red light exactly twice. The more egregious incident: I assumed he was going to stop, he decided he was not going to stop. Frogger ensued. I was flattened. He also went down and yelled at me. We were both "fine" other than getting a little bit of NYC on us. I know a couple of people have died from these guys, but I don't think it is a significant number. The real problem IS the cars generally, but the semi-regulated taxis specifically. As a biker I have been struck by a car also, exactly twice. Both times by a non medallion wearing driver, both on my way from the bike rack on 53rd to port authority (~11 super short blocks), both I was inside the bike lane on 9th avenue. One on instance the driver blindly turned without a blinker from the not turn lane. I saw it happening, but citibikes aren't known for how reliable their brakes are, and we collided at a VERY low speed. I was able to hop off before I fell. The bigger issue on 9th avenue is the turn lanes that are IN the bike lane... The other time I was hit, I was side swiped as the driver decided to not look that I was in the lane. I had my umbrella in hand as I was being side swiped and was swinging it against his driver window. He then flipped me off and pull further into the lane. Knocking me into another biker and we both went down. I know these are anecdotal, but the 11 blocks I would ride a citi bike could have killed me twice in 2 years. I have been almost killed 0 times by delivery bikes in NYC for the thousands of miles I walked. I will side with bikers over cars in NYC any day of the week.
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  > The more egregious incident: I assumed he was going to stop, he decided he was not going to stop. People look at me crazy when I say I feel safer around scooters than bicycles and this is why. Cycling inertia makes you super-reluctant to slow down or stop. Whereas with scooters all you have to do is twist the throttle to speed back up.
quartz 7y ago
I see this question come up all the time and the answer is that on average, fewer than one person per year dies due to a collision with a bicycle in NYC. In fact 5 of the last 8 years had zero pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cyclists. [1] Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of "endangering the lives of others." [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtml#crashdata https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtm...
- ordinaryperson 7y ago
  Cyclists do kill pedestrians in NYC. E.g.: https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-central-park-calls-it-an-unavoidable-accident https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-centr... Not saying it's a high probability, especially as compared to motor vehicles, but to state the opposite -- cyclists don't have a history of endangering the lives of others -- is also false. They can and do kill pedestrians.
  - themoonbus 7y ago
    The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".
    - ordinaryperson 7y ago
      No. Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'" He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others. They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others. They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US they only kill about 1 person a year. That doesn't mean sharks are not dangerous or don't have a history of endangering people. If you or he want to make a statement about the low probability of such an event -- fine. Or compare cyclists to far more dangerous motor vehicles, also fine. But to say that cyclists don't and have never endangered pedestrians is not factually accurate.

bluntfang 7y ago

Are you saying the value of these cyclist's lives is based on how many cyclists there are?

randyrand 7y ago
Don’t be purposely dull. Yes the value of the issue depends on how dangerous bicycling is relative to other things. That’s no surprise. 1:100,000,000 != 1:100
- syndacks 7y ago
  Don't be purposely dull by implying the parent comment doesn't understand the difference between one hundred million and one hundred.
  - randyrand 7y ago
    Using that to illustrate the point implies the exact opposite :)
infogulch 7y ago
No, the value of the risk factor for an individual choosing wether to use bikes for transportation is based on how many total cyclists there are.
mitchdoogle 7y ago
You're making an emotional argument while the parent comment wants to see actual data devoid of emotion. Emotion can be a great persuasive tactic to convince people there is a problem, but it doesn't do much to actually solve the problem.