11 ms·
The sad truth is that while bicycles should be respected as vehicles, they are given lip service at best in driver education and there is little attempt made at
by oinksoft 13y ago
The sad truth is that while bicycles should be respected as vehicles, they are given lip service at best in driver education and there is little attempt made at going after motorists who drive aggressively around them. As a result, you put yourself at great risk of life and limb when you ride on a road like this one: http://www.mapquest.com/?version=1.0&hk=6-LvU0mhA3 http://www.mapquest.com/?version=1.0&hk=6-LvU0mhA3 (Hillandale Rd, Durham, NC)
I accomplish all of my short-range transport by bicycle or foot, and I only very rarely will even ride on the main thoroughfare through downtown Alexandria, Washington St., because its practical speed limit is 40mph although the posted one is 25mph. Too many times drivers cut it close, honk at me to point out the audacity of crowding the auto-space, or slam their brakes without noticing my bike behind them.
Riding a bicycle on any street that has a speed limit greater than 25mph, lacks frequent stops (lights or signs), or has more than one lane is simply treacherous even for the skilled cyclist because you never know when a self-important jerk like the mystery murderer here will feel the need to shave twenty seconds off of their commute.
- robbyking 13y agoWhich is why more people should ride. The more cyclists there are on the road the safer we all are.
- enraged_camel 13y agoI'm not sure if your logic holds up to critical scrutiny. To me, more bikes would simply mean a greater potential for accidents. What needs to be fixed is driver education, especially the driver tests.
- usaar333 13y agoDriver awareness is huge: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/11/more-bikes-means-less-accidents.html http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/11/more-bikes-means-less-a...
- enraged_camel 13y agoI only ride my bike on dedicated bike lanes (by "dedicated" I mean those blocked from the main road) and bike paths. Everywhere else, I ride on the sidewalk. Fortunately, most sidewalks where I live are sparsely populated, and I make sure to slow down to walking speed or dismount completely when going through areas with lots of pedestrians. Someone told me I could get cited for riding my bike on a sidewalk. Fuck that shit. I'd rather pay $50 than get hit by a car.
- ejs 13y agoPeople are often killed riding on sidewalks, I avoid riding on them because they are very dangerous wherever there is a driveway - cars move to the edge of the street without expecting a vehicle moving at 15mph+ on the sidewalk.
- enraged_camel 13y agoTrust me, I know. I always slow down to walking speed when I'm approaching a drive-way or a parking lot exit. The thing about riding your bike on the sidewalk is that you, as the cyclist, can avoid virtually all danger by being cautious. Whereas on the road, you're pretty much at the mercy of car drivers and are at great risk regardless of how careful you are.
- malandrew 13y agoCitation. I mean I know it does happen, but I'm extremely skeptical of the use of the word "often" here.
- vanderZwan 13y agoI'm from the Netherlands, where separate bike lanes are the norm. The thought of having to share the road with cars, especially in a place where people aren't used to bike traffic, terrifies me. Also, IIRC when a car hits pedestrian or bike, the car is always the "guilty" party because pedestrians or bikes are never a safety threat to cars (you can still be acquitted if it is clear that there's no way you could have prevented the crash). Does the US have something like that to promote cautious driving habits?
- MartinCron 13y agoThe thought of having to share the road with cars, especially in a place where people aren't used to bike traffic, terrifies me It should terrify you. It's terrifying. I know dozens of people who regularly commute by bike in the ostensibly bike-friendly city of Seattle. Nearly all of them have been hit by a car at some point.
- malandrew 13y agoI'm in SF and I've been hit twice. Once in Berkeley and once in SF. The thing that bothers me the most is that the police are very non-chalant about the whole affair. They refused to fill out a police report unless someone was hurt. This means that both of my accidents didn't show up on the official statistics for number of bike accidents in the city.
- snogglethorpe 13y agoHmm, is Seattle an "ostensibly bike-friendly" city? Granted it's probably not as bad as many other American cities, but for all Seattle's often rather liberal laid-back nature, Seattleites also seem to lovvvve their cars, and the state of public infrastructure to reflect that. I used to bike a lot in Seattle about 25 years ago, and well ... I always felt very alone, and often very nervous. I felt part of a fringe. My impression was that although there generally wasn't the sort of overt "kill bicyclists!" aggression you might find elsewhere, Seattle was still very much a car-focused city, and that few concessions were made to bicyclists, other than the random token gesture (bike racks on buses, etc). There seemed to be essentially zero real bike infrastructure. Maybe things have changed in the last few decades, I dunno. I haven't noticed much obvious change when I've visited since, although the bike cops are great (they're the friendliest police I've ever encountered!).
- baddox 13y ago> The sad truth is that while bicycles should be respected as vehicles, I tend to agree, but I can see both sides. There is also very little (and, as far as I know, zero required) bicyclist education, and many bicyclists make little attempt to drive predictably and safely either out of boldness or ignorance. Similarly, while stricter rules and enforcement for automobile drivers is warranted, I think the same goes for bicyclists. I don't think it's appropriate to consider bicycles as "first-class vehicles" in all situations, namely in the dangerous situations you list (speed limits >~25mph, multiple automobile lanes, etc.). In those situations, I think it's reasonable to ban bicyclists outright, for the safety of the bicyclists and automobile drivers. Of course, along with that is the need for dedicated bicycle lanes, or better yet, completely separate thoroughfares for bicycles.
- oinksoft 13y agoI think that a cyclist flaunting traffic laws should always be liable for accidents, but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such. Any city that has resources for this ought to take a hard look at the size of their police force. Your idea of banning cycle traffic on >25mph roads is misguided. Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.
- aroch 13y ago>Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill I doubt that, maybe in burst/sprint but not sustained...Hell, the average top speeds in the Tour de France during the sprints is barely 25mph and those are top athletes. >but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such. So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on bicycles? That's fairly myopic...
- oinksoft 13y agoYou're right, there are lots of slow cyclists who seldom top 15mph. Nevertheless, the speed limit is a speed limit, and if I can manage 25mph on a 35mph road, I don't see the issue. Mixed-use roads that see cyclists clogging traffic should provide simple painted bike lanes if nothing else. So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on bicycles? That's fairly myopic... Fewer than 1000 people die in bicycle accidents a year. It is just not comparable to the danger of auto transport.
- aroch 13y agoBy the same token, many bicyclists freely ignore traffic laws too. They don't properly stop at stop signs or intersections (on red or yellow) and they act like pedestrians when it suits them. >[Slam] their brakes without noticing my bike behind them You're a vehicle when you ride on the streets, it's your responsibility to maintain a safe distance from the person in front of you and to react to their brake lights. The person in front of you is well within their rights to slam on their brakes if and when they need/want
- oinksoft 13y agoThat's not true. If I'm a motorist, moving at speed, and I slam my brakes to grab that nifty parking spot, I am liable. Not the person who rear-ends me.
- ArbitraryCrow 13y agoNot in my jurisdiction. You're responsible for maintaining a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you, to allow for unexpected stops. It doesn't matter if they stop for a cat, a toddler, or hallucinated giant killer marmosets from outer space. As far as I know, this is standard in driving laws across the U.S. Is there somewhere this doesn't apply?
- aroch 13y agoIf you're a motorist at speed (and I'll take "at speed" to mean normal street speed); you're almost probably not looking for a parking spot. Further, if you're going "at speed" --25-35mph -- the person behind you should be, at minimum, 2-3 car lengths behind you. If they aren't, they're failing to maintain a safe distance. You're not liable if the person behind you, driving unsafely, rear-ends you.
- oinksoft 13y agoClearly you've never driven in the DC area. Seeing cars slam their brakes at 25-30mph to grab a spot on a busy street is laughably commonplace.
- 13y ago
- malandrew 13y agoIn San Francisco, according to CSC 21202, the bicyclist is allowed full use of lanes. The important clause to pay attention to is clause (c). The most important part of that clause is the use of the term "substandard width lane", which although not defined in the statute, has been established via jurisprudence to be approximately 14-15 ft. Many many rightmost lanes in SF are not 14+ ft wide, meaning that on most roads in SF you can legally ride right in the middle of the rightmost lane. This is much safer than putting yourself in the doorzone and swerving to avoid a door and getting hit by a driver on your left or leaving too little room on your lefthand side that some driver will try to squeeze through. Every cyclist should go out and measure a lane or two here and there to get a feeling for approximately how wide a 14 ft lane is, so you know when you can legally take up the whole lane. The only other thing to keep in mind with this, is that if you do take up the whole lane, it is your responsibility to pull over to the right periodically if the number of cars backed up behind you exceeds 5 (IIRC)
- bjterry 13y agoIf you wait until 5 cars are backed up behind you, you could be incredibly rude to 4 vehicles of people. You should be considerate and allow vehicles to pass after a reasonable amount of time (i.e. as dictated by courtesy and not the law) and when it's safe to do so.
- revelation 13y agoYou don't seem to understand. Cars can not legally pass bicycles and stay in a single lane. The math does not work out when you take into consideration that bicycles need to keep a greater distance to the right to avoid morons who open doors into traffic and that, having only two wheels, they will naturally swerve left and right, and often do so on purpose to avoid the various pitfalls that are not maintained roads, where a light hit to the suspension on a normal car can dead stop your wheel and send you flying.
- adrr 13y agoSanta Monica has the same rules. I biked to worked for two months straight, my car never left the garage until one day someone didn't like the fact i was in the middle of the lane. Accelerated at me, and then tried to run me off the road at 35+ mph on a small street. Tired of people honking at me or cutting me off so i quit riding my bike. Not worth my life. City really needs to take every 4th or 5th street and make them bike streets where cars are allowed but required to yield to bikes at all times. No passing, no overtaking etc. Gladly ride an extra 4th blocks if means i'm not going to get run down.
- tptacek 13y agoIt doesn't look like this tragedy had anything to do with respect for bicyclists; the driver, who could likely at minimum be charged with manslaughter, drove off the road to avoid traffic and fled the scene of the accident. I don't disagree with what I think is the spirit of your comment, which is that there's probably a policy response to this tragedy. To me, it highlights the all-to-lax nature of our moving violation enforcement laws; every American who gets behind the wheel (myself very much included) subjects their neighbors to tremendous risks, and the penalties and risk of detection don't create meaningful incentives.
- oinksoft 13y agoI didn't intend to highlight lack of respect so much as lack of general awareness amongst motorists of the rights of bicyclists as road vehicles. In the worst cases, this manifests itself in more aggressive responses. This here was a case of negligence, not malice. Neither source linked from the article says that the driver went off-road, both say that Seth Vidal was traveling "on Hillandale Road," that he was "a bicyclist traveling north on Hillandale Road." It makes no sense for a bicycle advocate and experienced rider to be riding off-road, so I will have to see a source to believe that.
- tptacek 13y ago"The accident apparently occurred after dark, when a driver swerved off the road to avoid traffic and ran into Seth’s bike from behind".
- smsm42 13y agoWhen I've been in Munich, I've seen they have there dedicated lanes for bike traffic, which are not a part of general street and designed so that cars never go there - they are part of the same space as pedestrian walks but pedestrians are not supposed to walk there either - it is an exclusive bike space, with higher barriers for bigger danger (cars) and separation from lower danger (pedestrians). I think it works much better than what is here in California, where bicyclists share space on the road with cars. Each time I drive by a cyclist on the road, I can't help thinking how small mistake it would take - either from his/her side or from driver's side - for a tragedy to happen. That's why I am very reluctant to go on such shared spaces when I'm biking - I'd much prefer to have a space of a sidewalk than on a road.
- yason 13y agoHowever, this isn't a bicycle problem: it's an urban planning problem. If you design for cars (multi-lane high-speed roads), this is what you get. Unfortunately, riders and pedestrians will suffer for now. Hint: Mount a retractable side flag to your bicycle and hang a sharp, metal object at the end where the reflector is. Leave it hanging on a long enough string (10-15cm) so as to allow it to move around easily. That should keep car drivers away, at least those who appreciate the paintwork on their cars.
- curveship 13y agoThat's not where Seth was hit. From the reports I've heard so far (I'm a Durhamite and knew Seth socially), he was hit on the south end of the block, where it's a totally different road: http://goo.gl/maps/DQxO6 http://goo.gl/maps/DQxO6 . That block of Hillandale Road changes so radically in one block for historical reasons: the narrow section you see above is just as it emerges from a golf course, and the city has been unable to expand that section of road, so I've been told, because the golf course owns the shoulders and has resisted efforts. All the cyclists in town know it as a dangerous section, but are forced to use it as it's one of few routes over I85, the freeway visible in your mapquest link.
- oinksoft 13y agoThanks so much for clarifying this, I just chose the point where the road crossed I-85 because the reports said it happened near that interchange. Truth be told, that stretch you show is even more frightening to me for the reasons you describe -- it's exactly the sort of road where drivers who just got off the highway would feel "stuck" behind a cyclist, and it's so narrow.