5 ms·

I believe bicycles are purposely devoid of rights by the automobile industry lobby to get people to go through all the pain of buying and owning a car. It's pa

I believe bicycles are purposely devoid of rights by the automobile industry lobby to get people to go through all the pain of buying and owning a car. It's painful, and people hate it, but they do it because there's no other good way to get from point A to point B in America. Some examples: 1) I suspect the "new car smell" that car buyers believe affects their judgment is purposely chosen glue (I think it's a glue) that dissipates into a gas that literally, psychiatrically impairs buyer's judgment. It's real. [edit: it's still relatively mild]. 2) Stealing a person's main means of transport should be punished independently of how expensive that mode of transport is. So, the penalty for stealing a car should be based on the price of a car and the fact it was the main means of transport for that person. Same goes for bicycles, it could have been a $100 bike, but it's the main means of transport and that person is equally stranded as the driver without it. For this reason, being a bike thief stealing 10 bicycles could mean a decade in jail, if laws were different. Who would steal bikes then? 3) Enforce both car driving violations and bike driving violations, but based on lethality of the vehicle. Right now both driving a car drunk and riding a bike drunk are a DUI, which is ridiculous. 4) Legislation that privileges driving over biking harms children, because they can ride a bike starting age 8 or so, but can't drive until 16. 5) Driving is an extremely lethal activity, but AFAIK biking deaths are mostly attributable to automobiles. If you try to run someone over with a car you can be charged with (I forget the wording but more or less) "using a deadly weapon". Because that's what it is. A killing machine.

pmiller2 6y ago
If you try to run someone down, and end up killing them, that would be considered murder. If you try, but don't end up killing them, it would be assault with a deadly weapon at the very least, or possibly attempted murder. If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter. There's an additional constraint of acting negligently. If you're going 45 on a road where the speed limit is fifty and someone sprints out in front of your car, you won't be convicted of vehicular manslaughter (assuming obviously that you didn't have time to react).
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Right, that's why the word "could" is in there. All of the crimes I mentioned have an element of either intent or fault attached to them. Coming close to someone, even at speed, without intending to do any harm is not "attempted murder" or assault in any form. This is fortunate, because to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      ... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver. Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches". IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist while leaving at least eight feet. If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.
      - taeric 6y ago
        Cyclist get pushed by the air more than cars. Give a bit of extra room.
        adrianN 6y ago
        Cyclists are also much more likely to swerve because a bee hit their eye or their chain slipped.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading "within a few feet" as "six inches."
        jessaustin 6y ago
        I'm biased by experience. Why did you write "within"? Three feet is an acceptable distance to allow if you're traveling less than 40mph. Less than three feet is not. This seems beside the point? Above you seemed to imply it is inherently challenging to pass a cyclist. That is only the case if one attempts to pass in inappropriate situations. Cyclists have at least as much right to the road as motorists have.
- daniel-cussen 6y ago
  Yeah, I think that's the phrase I'm looking for, "assault with a deadly weapon". Happens a lot when marriages break up, from what the person who introduced me to the term described, divorcées-to-be chasing their husbands down in their cars. We talk so much in America about gun control, why not also car control?
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  At least where I live, you can get "vehicular manslaughter" for intentionally running over a cyclist. It's easier to give a murderer a plea deal for a lesser charge so you don't have to take the time to convict them and prove it was intentional. (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who-intentionally-ran-over-and-killed-bicyclist-gets-16-years-in-prison/2458118/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who...)
clankyclanker 6y ago
So your suspicions are partially verifiable. The automobile industry did buy laws (and the LA subway-trolley system) to favor cars in America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://gizmodo.com/90-years-ago-the-los-angeles-subway-was-born-in-this-l-1744653992 https://gizmodo.com/90-years-ago-the-los-angeles-subway-was-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... Apparently LA's loss of underground subway was tied to its loss of overland subway, as well. They seem to have been the same system?
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  They also invented the fake "crime" of "jay" walking. Note that "jay" is a slur for "insane". Note that "jaydriving" is not a crime.
rossjudson 6y ago
I like the rules in China. If you are driving a car and collide with a bicycle, it is presumed to be your fault. If you are riding a bicycle and collide with a pedestrian, it is presumed to be your fault. Of course, just like everything about driving in China, the rules mean very little. It's pretty hard to enforce your rights if you're dead. My ten-years-old experience driving there was interesting. At any given time you could expect the cars around you to do the stupidest of all possible things, completely ignoring the rules. But they'd do it slowly, and expect others to adapt...which they did.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Doesn't China also have the problem where helping the victim is considered an admission of guilt / attempt to over up, because an innocent person wouldn't give of themself to help?
zanderz 6y ago
Drunk driving also used to just be something that happens, not taboo or enforced much, until a huge cultural and law enforcement change happened. It will take something similar to finally make it not ok for cars to run over cyclists.

pmiller2 6y ago

If you try to run someone down, and end up killing them, that would be considered murder. If you try, but don't end up killing them, it would be assault with a deadly weapon at the very least, or possibly attempted murder. If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter.

wutbrodo 6y ago
> If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter. There's an additional constraint of acting negligently. If you're going 45 on a road where the speed limit is fifty and someone sprints out in front of your car, you won't be convicted of vehicular manslaughter (assuming obviously that you didn't have time to react).
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Right, that's why the word "could" is in there. All of the crimes I mentioned have an element of either intent or fault attached to them. Coming close to someone, even at speed, without intending to do any harm is not "attempted murder" or assault in any form. This is fortunate, because to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    ... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver. Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches". IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist while leaving at least eight feet. If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.
    - taeric 6y ago
      Cyclist get pushed by the air more than cars. Give a bit of extra room.
      - adrianN 6y ago
        Cyclists are also much more likely to swerve because a bee hit their eye or their chain slipped.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading "within a few feet" as "six inches."
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        I'm biased by experience. Why did you write "within"? Three feet is an acceptable distance to allow if you're traveling less than 40mph. Less than three feet is not. This seems beside the point? Above you seemed to imply it is inherently challenging to pass a cyclist. That is only the case if one attempts to pass in inappropriate situations. Cyclists have at least as much right to the road as motorists have.
daniel-cussen 6y ago
Yeah, I think that's the phrase I'm looking for, "assault with a deadly weapon". Happens a lot when marriages break up, from what the person who introduced me to the term described, divorcées-to-be chasing their husbands down in their cars. We talk so much in America about gun control, why not also car control?
Rebelgecko 6y ago
At least where I live, you can get "vehicular manslaughter" for intentionally running over a cyclist. It's easier to give a murderer a plea deal for a lesser charge so you don't have to take the time to convict them and prove it was intentional. (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who-intentionally-ran-over-and-killed-bicyclist-gets-16-years-in-prison/2458118/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who...)

clankyclanker 6y ago

So your suspicions are partially verifiable. The automobile industry did buy laws (and the LA subway-trolley system) to favor cars in America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://gizmodo.com/90-years-ago-the-los-angeles-subway-was-born-in-this-l-1744653992 https://gizmodo.com/90-years-ago-the-los-angeles-subway-was-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... Apparently LA's loss of underground subway was tied to its loss of overland subway, as well. They seem to have been the same system?

alisonkisk 6y ago
They also invented the fake "crime" of "jay" walking. Note that "jay" is a slur for "insane". Note that "jaydriving" is not a crime.

rossjudson 6y ago

I like the rules in China. If you are driving a car and collide with a bicycle, it is presumed to be your fault. If you are riding a bicycle and collide with a pedestrian, it is presumed to be your fault. Of course, just like everything about driving in China, the rules mean very little. It's pretty hard to enforce your rights if you're dead. My ten-years-old experience driving there was interesting. At any given time you could expect the cars around you to do the stupidest of all possible things, completely ignoring the rules. But they'd do it slowly, and expect others to adapt...which they did.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Doesn't China also have the problem where helping the victim is considered an admission of guilt / attempt to over up, because an innocent person wouldn't give of themself to help?

zanderz 6y ago

Drunk driving also used to just be something that happens, not taboo or enforced much, until a huge cultural and law enforcement change happened. It will take something similar to finally make it not ok for cars to run over cyclists.