7 ms·

Is It O.K. To Kill Cyclists?

75 points by nether 12y ago

crazypyro 12y ago
Does anyone have any data to compare the chance of a person at fault being criminally charged in a deadly car-car accident (no DUI or hit-and-run) to this effectively nil chance in deadly car-bike accidents? The article fails to mention it, yet makes multiple comparisons. Edit: Did some googling, found this article (http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedestrians-rarely-face-punishment-analysis-finds-4420 http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedes...) that finds that 60% of those at fault in deadly pedestrian accidents are not charged in accidents. Of those charged, many are not suspended. (Note the small sample size of 238) Does this point to a larger problem of drivers not being held accountable, period? This article (http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-prosecuted.html http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-pr...) provides a small amount of insight into the problem. Note this article is by an attorney and probably isn't free of conflicts of interest....
- DannyBee 12y ago
  So, clicking http://cironline.org/reports/how-we-analyzed-pedestrian-fatalities-4421 http://cironline.org/reports/how-we-analyzed-pedestrian-fata..., it doesn't explain how they assigned "fault", or which part of the data that came from. This seems like an important thing to explain :)
- fleitz 12y ago
  I've been in a few accidents and have never been charged nor seen anyone else charged. If killing someone in an accident is murder, surely injuring someone in an accident is assault.
  - sjtrny 12y ago
    Battery not assault http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime). It's not murder if it's an accident. Maybe manslaughter.
    - roel_v 12y ago
      "It's not murder if it's an accident. Maybe manslaughter." Depends on state law. Might be 2nd degree murder, depending on how you define "accident".
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    IANAL, but: Accidentally killing someone is rarely, if ever, murder[1]. It is potentially manslaughter if it happened while committing a minor offense, or doing something particularly reckless[2]. Injuring someone would be battery, not assault, and similarly intent is needed. As far as I know, accidentally injuring someone is not criminal, unless the accident happened due to reckless disregard for others' safety. [1] Depending on the state, 2nd degree murder is possible if your actions showed depraved indifference to human life. In other jurisdictions this would be considered manslaughter [2] IIRC states differ on whether or not a non-misdemeanor traffic violation is enough to consider a homicide to be manslaughter. I think that in most states an unintentional homicide that resulted from committing a misdemeanor is considered manslaughter. Furthermore states differ on which moving violations are misdemeanors. Also some states have vehicular manslaughter laws, which I know nothing about.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      Yes, this is what I mean, no one is charged when accidents happen as long as people were acting reasonably.
  - soneil 12y ago
    It varies. In the UK we have the charge "Causing death by dangerous driving". Simply defined "A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence." Note there's no nod to accidents there. If you're speeding, if you're making lane changes without looking. If you're entering spaces designated for cyclists, or pedestrians; then it's not an honest accident. An accident, yes, but a criminal one, not an honest one.
yournemesis 12y ago
Interesting article. Horrible click bait title. I guess it worked though.
- smallsharptools 12y ago
  Agreed. Click bait.
  - bvrlt 12y ago
    The problem with click-bait is that it's so omnipresent with websites like BuzzFeed that if a journalist uses a non-factual title for an opinion piece, people say it's click bait. IMHO it's really fine in that case.
    - yournemesis 12y ago
      This is different. The article didn't even answer the question.
      - hawkice 12y ago
        This. It does not deliver on the promise in the headline, and the headline exists only to make you simultaneously infuriated, confused or curious. If someone posted a comment with those properties they would be banned from HN.
- tormeh 12y ago
  At least it sort of defied Betteridge's law.
- baddox 12y ago
  In this case, the click bait is so horrible that I still remember the last time it made the rounds. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again.
alexpw 12y ago
I dread passing a cyclist, and always wonder what the legal/criminal consequences would be if the cyclist swerved in front of me while trying to pass a parked car (no bike lane). EDIT: I meant a two lane road. I'm in the left lane. Cars are parked in the right lane sporadically. A cyclist is in the right lane, but veers into the left lane to go around it. I don't know whether to feel reassured or what, but I'd rather sky dive to work than ride in the road while the average person drove by me.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- maxerickson 12y ago
  In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it to happen safely.
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    I feel the problem is that we're deeply over-trained to read cues for what a car will do, and less so for bikes. To whit, if a bike _could_ dart in front of me, I assume it will. Much like a squirrel, deer, or inner city car in a traffic jam. Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then take the lane. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing everyone can be is predictable.
- gohrt 12y ago
  In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. If you want to pass, move to an open lane.
loverofcode 12y ago
what about moped drivers? They are constantly getting killed around here. I know a few people that only use them because of the gas savings. It use to just be people that had DUI's. At any rate a human life is the most precious thing there is IMHO, and we should be doing all we can to preserve them. I enjoyed the article.
korzun 12y ago
Start with mandatory insurance and bike registration. But I guess that's an 'unpopular' idea within cycling community.
- hack_edu 12y ago
  OK, now tell us how to police it. "Just do it" doesn't count. And then there's the fact that a large number of cyclists ride because they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance. How do millions of American's get around if you take their bike away, their only means of individual transportation?
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Insurance on a bike would presumably be quite significantly cheaper than that on a car.
  - korzun 12y ago
    Same way DMV deals with mopeds. > they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance I assume they can afford medical bills after an incident? Or they can afford to pay for damage to vehicles? I had my brand new paint taken off across 2 panels because a cyclist tried to squeeze in between me and another car at a stop light and lost his balance. Then he casually cycled away. $2500 in damages. But good for him, he is 'too poor' to get insurance. Insurance for cyclist would be significantly cheaper than auto and motorcycle owners. Without it you are a financial disaster waiting to happen.
    - hack_edu 12y ago
      So the police and state must suddenly take on this effort? At what cost? Where do the police resources come from? Even then, what if the cyclist still can't afford it? They have to walk? Do they need insurance if they are late and have to run, maybe jay-walk a couple times? A working bicycle can be found for under $50 in even the most expensive cities, have $0 in operating costs, and will last for decades. There are likely no other personal transportation options which offer that. Get out of our bubble. Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything in their budget or to plan more than a few weeks ahead... They can't account for unknown events, and frankly don't need to worry about going bankrupt because of an accident. Poverty is fucked up.
lelf 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6703285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6703285 (166 comments)
- davesque 12y ago
  Right, I thought I'd seen this before.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
Accidents happen. All the time in fact. By one calculation 17,589 per day in the US [1]. Most of the time both people are in a steel cage and escape unharmed. About 115 people per day will die (also [1]). There is a level of accepted risk tolerance in our choosing to let people drive cars. Accidents happen. People will get hurt. People will die. And you know what. Yes. Yes it is ok. The benefits outweigh the cons by multiple orders of magnitude (not that there is a unit of measurement). You could ruin lives and throw drivers in jail but that just hurts society even more (imo). Ruins lives, costs the state money, and doesn't even change behavior. Accidents are accidents after all. You either have cars and accept that there will be accidents or you get rid of cars [2]. So fuck it. Yes. Yes it is ok. Accidents happen. We should, of course, work diligently to reduce risk and improve safety. And we do. But accidents will happen and people will die. [1] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104AAZnCBc https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104A... [2] Or maybe get rid of human controlled cars. Cyclists raise your hand if you want to ride against the risk profile of a driverless car!
- mwnz 12y ago
  Your post effectively cancels itself out. "yes it is ok", but we should work to reduce risk and improve safety (a.k.a no, it's not ok). By having zero penalty for negligence permits unpredictable behavior. A higher penalty (higher than zero in this case), one would hope, would encourage drivers to conform.
- nether 12y ago
  > Cyclists raise your hand if you want to ride against the risk profile of a driverless car! Driverless cars can detect cyclists: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-cars-city-driving http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-cars-c... So, a patient driver who sees me plus never road rages at me? This is one of many situations in which a non-human driver is superior. Yes, I'd raise my hand to that.
  - mwnz 12y ago
    Sure, I'd raise my hand. But this is a very strange point for the OP to raise. Driverless cars are not at option at this time (calm down, I know they exist, I cycle amongst them daily). In the future, sure.
donatj 12y ago
Biking on the streets with cars is like walking with bulls. Yeah, you can probably do it and be fine, but it will never be safe.
- mbillie1 12y ago
  That's like saying that "being skinny and being in a room with body builders will never be safe" because the larger people are capable of physically hurting you either deliberately or through negligence - in other words, that is an unacceptable response to this issue.
  - donatj 12y ago
    Not just capable but largely blind on the sides and moving much much faster than you, not to mention probably won't even feel that they're running into you.
  - donatj 12y ago
    More to my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIDvdlpHlk&t=1m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIDvdlpHlk&t=1m15s
AliAdams 12y ago
Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists, particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely. Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake. I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.
- nraynaud 12y ago
  their speed makes them largely predictable, they basically don't move as seen from a car, just keep a huge bubble around them, and adapt your speed to what you can anticipate. Moreover remember that cyclists only pose a risk to pedestrians, the risky person is the one with the highest kinetic energy, don't get your moral compass confused, driving a car is like going in the street with a rifle, you could kill anyone at any moment. Going on bike is like going with a knife, to kill someone you'll need some effort.
- MereInterest 12y ago
  Roads by themselves are just patches of asphalt, not dangerous at all. Roads are made dangerous by the things that travel on them. Choosing to drive subsequently bears significant responsibility in causing that danger, and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they injure another, not to mention the risks they pose to other drivers. I understand driving in a safe manner, but I am not convinced that driving on major roads is worth it. Quit blaming the victims.
  - AliAdams 12y ago
    If someone tightrope-walked over Niagara and fell in I would certainly blame the victim. Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.
fleitz 12y ago
Motor vehicle accidents are generally not prosecuted as crimes, whether they involve bicycles or not. Bicycles are generally considered motor vehicles so accidents an accident killing a bicyclist is largely treated the same as an accident killing a motorist.
ahomescu1 12y ago
Some European countries put the bike lane on the sidewalk next to pedestrians, instead of on the side of the road next to all the cars. This always seemed to me the safer option.
- mbillie1 12y ago
  A few places in Salt Lake City, the side-of-the-road parking is in between traffic and the bike lane, shielding the bike lane from cars. I'd be curious to see if it makes a statistical difference in accident rates.
  - eric_h 12y ago
    There are a couple of bike lanes like this in NYC, they are by far my preferred bike routes.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Have a look at this road junction. The red stripe is a cycle lane. Dropped pin near 2 Kingsmead Ave, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL51 0AZ http://goo.gl/maps/Fd77g http://goo.gl/maps/Fd77g Note how the cycle lane is explicitly given right of way - vehicles turning off the main road must give way to cyclists here. (Drivers are supposed to give way for pedestrians who have started to cross but, well, they don't.) https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183 https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-...
- mxfh 12y ago
  I can assure you as a commute cyclist in Berlin that it's not. The less car drivers see you as traffic the more dangerous it gets. Also the surface maintenance there is just horrible compared to a proper road. The single biggest threat to cyclists are right turning vehicles that either don't see you at all or worse underestimate your velocity and try to overtake you on the non- turning bike lane shortly before a crossing turning right (just happened to me on Monday). So driving in the actual straight lane is the safest option.
  - 12y ago
robbiet480 12y ago
Moments after I read this, California Highway Patrol (Golden Gate Division) issued an alert (which I received via SMS) asking the public to help find a hit-and-run suspect that killed a cyclist in Winters, CA. The alert is at http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/ http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/
sshconnection 12y ago
Also, since then, the cop who killed the former Napster COO was let off without charges: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-milton-charges-deputy-20140828-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-milton-charges-d... He was typing an email at the time of the accident.
nraynaud 12y ago
In France since a few years, the driver's fault is presumed if the accident is with a cyclist or a pedestrian (for the civil case). It means that the burden of the proof is on the driver. Strangely enough, the usual civil system applies between a cyclist and a pedestrian.
from_elsewhere 12y ago
Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave? More importantly, is this sort of appeal appropriate for the author to publish? It's also interesting to note the author is a recreational rather than commuter cyclist. His asserted empathy for motorists and fear of cycling is partly thanks to the privilege of rejecting cycling as an everyday reality of transportation. Can he, in his limited experience, truly understand the world in which everyday cyclists live? As I see it, this article's conclusion is akin to the following: > So here’s my proposal: Every time you go out in public, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every interaction everywhere to help white people (and police officers) view black people as predictable members of society who deserve respect. This editorial insistence on empathizing with motorists paints cyclists as a class of rule-breakers and hooligans, not a diverse and largely forward-thinking group of citizens who happen to be united in their mode of transportation. In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration. I'd like to see the above questions earnestly addressed.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  What an emotionally charged appeal to victimhood The way I see it, you can accept the reality that you're engaging in a more dangerous activity and take the proper attitude, or you can rage about your ideals from a hospital bed and hope that'll somehow make a difference. As a motorcyclist, I simply expect that drivers are paying no attention, and it's on me to protect myself. I can go your way, but that's cold comfort to broken bones and torn skin - and yes, I have been wrecked by driver inattention, so this is not merely academic. I have a very hard time with this modern tendency to enpower victimhood, but as my name indicates, I'm an old man. Might be a generational thing.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    "You were walking on the sidewalk, you had it coming when that car ran you down." Seriously? We're going to blame the victims here? Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity, especially in designated lanes when observing all traffic rules.
guyzero 12y ago
In NYC at least you can kill pretty much anyone in a car and you won't be charged. http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... "Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request." Not even criminal charges here - these drivers are still driving daily, professionally. Basically cars are always right, legally, morally and inertially.
- scardine 12y ago
  Same here in Brazil, even in DUI hit-an-run assassinations you hardly see the perpetrator doing any jail time.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
revelation 12y ago
Maybe some people here can rediscover their appreciation for the sanctity of human life if we put a face on the issue. Here's Derek Sivers blogging about the death of his friend Milt Olin: http://sivers.org/milt http://sivers.org/milt (The deputy that killed Milt Olin was fiddling with his phone as he left his lane and drove straight into him at speed. After the accident, he claimed Milt had swerved into his lane. It took a prosecutor a year to finally conclude there was zero criminality here.) If you are okay with that, I await your comment.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
j_baker 12y ago
There's a case to be made against the "always follow the law" argument: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-a... TL;DR - These laws were made for cars, not bikes.
orthecreedence 12y ago
> But studies performed in Arizona, Minnesota and Hawaii suggest that drivers are at fault in more than half of cycling fatalities. I'd be amazed if this were true in SF. I'm an avid cyclist, love biking around the city for fun or to commute, etc. The cause of most near crashes (and crashes) I've witnessed are idiot cyclists thinking it's ok to blow through stop signs or traffic lights, or to wildly cut across two lanes without signalling and expecting the entire universe to notice them and stop for them. When I'm driving, I'm hyper-aware of the stupidity I've seen when I'm biking and try to take that into account when cyclists are around, and I don't blame other motorists for getting pissed or even aggressive. Cyclists have this incredible double-standard...they want to use the road, but they don't want to share it. Sure, everyone who drives a car is an earth-destroying, gas-guzzling, roided out freak who's trying to kill you, but isn't that all the more reason to have some respect for everyone else on the road? Granted, I've had my fair share of asshole drivers turn right in front of me without signalling or just merge into the bike line for no reason (prompting me to "gently" tap their car window). Hell, I've even had people run red lights and come within a foot of slamming into me, and I've been doored really bad by someone getting out of a taxi, but to be honest I'm as cautious around other cyclists as I am around cars. Maybe it's just SF and it's the wild west here, but biking at rush hour is just as bad because of other cyclists, not just cars. I think drivers would hate us a lot less if we stopped at a stop sign once in a while and thought about others besides ourselves (same goes for shitty drivers too).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  I can only speak for DC -- but it is the exact same here. I have seen fervent defenses about why cyclists shouldn't have to follow traffic rules as well (better visibility, mobility, etc) -- but all those arguments apply equally to motorcycles, and inversely to large trucks... I am not sure we want 5+ rules of the road...
- ajtaylor 12y ago
  I yell at cyclists for running red lights, etc. It's stupid, illegal, could get them killed and also gives everyone a bad reputation.
soneil 12y ago
As terrible as this article is, I have to agree with the basic premise; there are three times it's socially acceptable to kill someone in the US. a) human privilege - If someone is actively and maliciously threatening the life of me, or my immediate family. b) 'castle doctrine' - If someone enters my home with malicious intent. c) They're on a bicycle. It does seem you can have a more reasonable debate over whether it's acceptable to kill someone who is actively in the process of a non-lethal crime, than it is to debate the murder of someone who added several seconds to your daily commute.
roel_v 12y ago
I live in a country where cycling is a major mode of transportation (Netherlands). I also work (albeit tangentially, this is not an appeal to authority) in transportation planning. In my view, expectations of cyclists in countries that don't traditionally have bikes on their roads are unrealistic in their expectations. Nobody in their right mind in the Netherlands would ride a bike on highways or major multiple-lane roads (and in fact, it's mostly prohibited); yet I see cyclists in New Zealand and Australia do that all the time (I suspect it's similar in the US but I haven't observed it personally). Similarly, nobody in their right mind drives a bike the same way they drive a car - on the same lanes, in the middle of the lane, basically like a slow motor cycle (outside of areas where cars move faster than walking speed, that is - i.e. not rush hour in urban centers). Now I understand that you'd sort of have to if there is no alternative, like a well developed separate cycling network as we have. Heck, just having bicycle lanes already seems to be hailed as a big progression in many places. But I have a hard time understanding why cyclists are so determined to portray themselves as this sub-group, a minority that deserves special attention, with its own clothing ranges and gear sets and entitlements and internet forums for circle jerking about how much better the world would be if only everybody else was just like you. I'm trying hard not to blame the victim here, but the problem the author identifies with cyclists turning public opinion against them is real (which is still not a reason not to prosecute people who kill cyclists, of course). 'Our' cyclists (sorry if this sounds condescending, I can't really think of a better way of putting it) don't identify as 'cyclists'. They're just a cross section of the population, and as such there is no such culture clash. Maybe it's easy for me to say because we never had to make a transition the way many countries will have to, but pitting yourself as the underdog who needs special treatment from everybody else seems to be a long, hard slog, or maybe even counter-productive in at least the short term. Not that I have an alternative though, prisoner's dilemma and all.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Yes, generally the solution is the two things you identify: 1) there is an extensive bicycle network, separated as much as possible from the vehicular lanes; and 2) cycling is something a broad cross-section of the population does, on said network. In that case it would be both stupid and probably illegal to bike in the car lanes, and there is also no real "cyclist" identity. That is also how it is here (Copenhagen). In almost all parts of the U.S., the law and infrastructure cuts the other way, though. There is no separate bike infrastructure [1], and bicycles are legally treated as vehicles. In that context, it doesn't seem that surprising to me that the fewer people who still dare ride a bike demand to be treated as the (poorly designed) legal framework envisions they should be. [1] I'd love a good source to verify this comparison (I heard it in a talk), but something I recently heard quoted is: Greater Copenhagen (1.5m people) has more km of protected bicycle infrastructure (~1000km) than the entire United States added together does (~400km).

75 points by nether 12y ago

Does anyone have any data to compare the chance of a person at fault being criminally charged in a deadly car-car accident (no DUI or hit-and-run) to this effectively nil chance in deadly car-bike accidents? The article fails to mention it, yet makes multiple comparisons. Edit: Did some googling, found this article (http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedestrians-rarely-face-punishment-analysis-finds-4420 http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedes...) that finds that 60% of those at fault in deadly pedestrian accidents are not charged in accidents. Of those charged, many are not suspended. (Note the small sample size of 238) Does this point to a larger problem of drivers not being held accountable, period? This article (http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-prosecuted.html http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-pr...) provides a small amount of insight into the problem. Note this article is by an attorney and probably isn't free of conflicts of interest....

DannyBee 12y ago
So, clicking http://cironline.org/reports/how-we-analyzed-pedestrian-fatalities-4421 http://cironline.org/reports/how-we-analyzed-pedestrian-fata..., it doesn't explain how they assigned "fault", or which part of the data that came from. This seems like an important thing to explain :)
fleitz 12y ago
I've been in a few accidents and have never been charged nor seen anyone else charged. If killing someone in an accident is murder, surely injuring someone in an accident is assault.
- sjtrny 12y ago
  Battery not assault http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime). It's not murder if it's an accident. Maybe manslaughter.
  - roel_v 12y ago
    "It's not murder if it's an accident. Maybe manslaughter." Depends on state law. Might be 2nd degree murder, depending on how you define "accident".
- aidenn0 12y ago
  IANAL, but: Accidentally killing someone is rarely, if ever, murder[1]. It is potentially manslaughter if it happened while committing a minor offense, or doing something particularly reckless[2]. Injuring someone would be battery, not assault, and similarly intent is needed. As far as I know, accidentally injuring someone is not criminal, unless the accident happened due to reckless disregard for others' safety. [1] Depending on the state, 2nd degree murder is possible if your actions showed depraved indifference to human life. In other jurisdictions this would be considered manslaughter [2] IIRC states differ on whether or not a non-misdemeanor traffic violation is enough to consider a homicide to be manslaughter. I think that in most states an unintentional homicide that resulted from committing a misdemeanor is considered manslaughter. Furthermore states differ on which moving violations are misdemeanors. Also some states have vehicular manslaughter laws, which I know nothing about.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Yes, this is what I mean, no one is charged when accidents happen as long as people were acting reasonably.
- soneil 12y ago
  It varies. In the UK we have the charge "Causing death by dangerous driving". Simply defined "A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence." Note there's no nod to accidents there. If you're speeding, if you're making lane changes without looking. If you're entering spaces designated for cyclists, or pedestrians; then it's not an honest accident. An accident, yes, but a criminal one, not an honest one.

yournemesis 12y ago

Interesting article. Horrible click bait title. I guess it worked though.

smallsharptools 12y ago
Agreed. Click bait.
- bvrlt 12y ago
  The problem with click-bait is that it's so omnipresent with websites like BuzzFeed that if a journalist uses a non-factual title for an opinion piece, people say it's click bait. IMHO it's really fine in that case.
  - yournemesis 12y ago
    This is different. The article didn't even answer the question.
    - hawkice 12y ago
      This. It does not deliver on the promise in the headline, and the headline exists only to make you simultaneously infuriated, confused or curious. If someone posted a comment with those properties they would be banned from HN.
tormeh 12y ago
At least it sort of defied Betteridge's law.
baddox 12y ago
In this case, the click bait is so horrible that I still remember the last time it made the rounds. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again.

alexpw 12y ago

I dread passing a cyclist, and always wonder what the legal/criminal consequences would be if the cyclist swerved in front of me while trying to pass a parked car (no bike lane). EDIT: I meant a two lane road. I'm in the left lane. Cars are parked in the right lane sporadically. A cyclist is in the right lane, but veers into the left lane to go around it. I don't know whether to feel reassured or what, but I'd rather sky dive to work than ride in the road while the average person drove by me.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 12y ago
In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it to happen safely.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  I feel the problem is that we're deeply over-trained to read cues for what a car will do, and less so for bikes. To whit, if a bike _could_ dart in front of me, I assume it will. Much like a squirrel, deer, or inner city car in a traffic jam. Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then take the lane. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing everyone can be is predictable.
gohrt 12y ago
In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. If you want to pass, move to an open lane.

loverofcode 12y ago

what about moped drivers? They are constantly getting killed around here. I know a few people that only use them because of the gas savings. It use to just be people that had DUI's. At any rate a human life is the most precious thing there is IMHO, and we should be doing all we can to preserve them. I enjoyed the article.

korzun 12y ago

Start with mandatory insurance and bike registration. But I guess that's an 'unpopular' idea within cycling community.

hack_edu 12y ago
OK, now tell us how to police it. "Just do it" doesn't count. And then there's the fact that a large number of cyclists ride because they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance. How do millions of American's get around if you take their bike away, their only means of individual transportation?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Insurance on a bike would presumably be quite significantly cheaper than that on a car.
- korzun 12y ago
  Same way DMV deals with mopeds. > they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance I assume they can afford medical bills after an incident? Or they can afford to pay for damage to vehicles? I had my brand new paint taken off across 2 panels because a cyclist tried to squeeze in between me and another car at a stop light and lost his balance. Then he casually cycled away. $2500 in damages. But good for him, he is 'too poor' to get insurance. Insurance for cyclist would be significantly cheaper than auto and motorcycle owners. Without it you are a financial disaster waiting to happen.
  - hack_edu 12y ago
    So the police and state must suddenly take on this effort? At what cost? Where do the police resources come from? Even then, what if the cyclist still can't afford it? They have to walk? Do they need insurance if they are late and have to run, maybe jay-walk a couple times? A working bicycle can be found for under $50 in even the most expensive cities, have $0 in operating costs, and will last for decades. There are likely no other personal transportation options which offer that. Get out of our bubble. Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything in their budget or to plan more than a few weeks ahead... They can't account for unknown events, and frankly don't need to worry about going bankrupt because of an accident. Poverty is fucked up.

lelf 12y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6703285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6703285 (166 comments)

davesque 12y ago
Right, I thought I'd seen this before.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Accidents happen. All the time in fact. By one calculation 17,589 per day in the US [1]. Most of the time both people are in a steel cage and escape unharmed. About 115 people per day will die (also [1]). There is a level of accepted risk tolerance in our choosing to let people drive cars. Accidents happen. People will get hurt. People will die. And you know what. Yes. Yes it is ok. The benefits outweigh the cons by multiple orders of magnitude (not that there is a unit of measurement). You could ruin lives and throw drivers in jail but that just hurts society even more (imo). Ruins lives, costs the state money, and doesn't even change behavior. Accidents are accidents after all. You either have cars and accept that there will be accidents or you get rid of cars [2]. So fuck it. Yes. Yes it is ok. Accidents happen. We should, of course, work diligently to reduce risk and improve safety. And we do. But accidents will happen and people will die. [1] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104AAZnCBc https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104A... [2] Or maybe get rid of human controlled cars. Cyclists raise your hand if you want to ride against the risk profile of a driverless car!

mwnz 12y ago
Your post effectively cancels itself out. "yes it is ok", but we should work to reduce risk and improve safety (a.k.a no, it's not ok). By having zero penalty for negligence permits unpredictable behavior. A higher penalty (higher than zero in this case), one would hope, would encourage drivers to conform.
nether 12y ago
> Cyclists raise your hand if you want to ride against the risk profile of a driverless car! Driverless cars can detect cyclists: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-cars-city-driving http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-cars-c... So, a patient driver who sees me plus never road rages at me? This is one of many situations in which a non-human driver is superior. Yes, I'd raise my hand to that.
- mwnz 12y ago
  Sure, I'd raise my hand. But this is a very strange point for the OP to raise. Driverless cars are not at option at this time (calm down, I know they exist, I cycle amongst them daily). In the future, sure.

donatj 12y ago

Biking on the streets with cars is like walking with bulls. Yeah, you can probably do it and be fine, but it will never be safe.

mbillie1 12y ago
That's like saying that "being skinny and being in a room with body builders will never be safe" because the larger people are capable of physically hurting you either deliberately or through negligence - in other words, that is an unacceptable response to this issue.
- donatj 12y ago
  Not just capable but largely blind on the sides and moving much much faster than you, not to mention probably won't even feel that they're running into you.
- donatj 12y ago
  More to my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIDvdlpHlk&t=1m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIDvdlpHlk&t=1m15s

AliAdams 12y ago

Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists, particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely. Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake. I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.

nraynaud 12y ago
their speed makes them largely predictable, they basically don't move as seen from a car, just keep a huge bubble around them, and adapt your speed to what you can anticipate. Moreover remember that cyclists only pose a risk to pedestrians, the risky person is the one with the highest kinetic energy, don't get your moral compass confused, driving a car is like going in the street with a rifle, you could kill anyone at any moment. Going on bike is like going with a knife, to kill someone you'll need some effort.
MereInterest 12y ago
Roads by themselves are just patches of asphalt, not dangerous at all. Roads are made dangerous by the things that travel on them. Choosing to drive subsequently bears significant responsibility in causing that danger, and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they injure another, not to mention the risks they pose to other drivers. I understand driving in a safe manner, but I am not convinced that driving on major roads is worth it. Quit blaming the victims.
- AliAdams 12y ago
  If someone tightrope-walked over Niagara and fell in I would certainly blame the victim. Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.

fleitz 12y ago

Motor vehicle accidents are generally not prosecuted as crimes, whether they involve bicycles or not. Bicycles are generally considered motor vehicles so accidents an accident killing a bicyclist is largely treated the same as an accident killing a motorist.

ahomescu1 12y ago

Some European countries put the bike lane on the sidewalk next to pedestrians, instead of on the side of the road next to all the cars. This always seemed to me the safer option.

mbillie1 12y ago
A few places in Salt Lake City, the side-of-the-road parking is in between traffic and the bike lane, shielding the bike lane from cars. I'd be curious to see if it makes a statistical difference in accident rates.
- eric_h 12y ago
  There are a couple of bike lanes like this in NYC, they are by far my preferred bike routes.
DanBC 12y ago
Have a look at this road junction. The red stripe is a cycle lane. Dropped pin near 2 Kingsmead Ave, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL51 0AZ http://goo.gl/maps/Fd77g http://goo.gl/maps/Fd77g Note how the cycle lane is explicitly given right of way - vehicles turning off the main road must give way to cyclists here. (Drivers are supposed to give way for pedestrians who have started to cross but, well, they don't.) https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183 https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-...
mxfh 12y ago
I can assure you as a commute cyclist in Berlin that it's not. The less car drivers see you as traffic the more dangerous it gets. Also the surface maintenance there is just horrible compared to a proper road. The single biggest threat to cyclists are right turning vehicles that either don't see you at all or worse underestimate your velocity and try to overtake you on the non- turning bike lane shortly before a crossing turning right (just happened to me on Monday). So driving in the actual straight lane is the safest option.
- 12y ago

robbiet480 12y ago

Moments after I read this, California Highway Patrol (Golden Gate Division) issued an alert (which I received via SMS) asking the public to help find a hit-and-run suspect that killed a cyclist in Winters, CA. The alert is at http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/ http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/

sshconnection 12y ago

Also, since then, the cop who killed the former Napster COO was let off without charges: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-milton-charges-deputy-20140828-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-milton-charges-d... He was typing an email at the time of the accident.

nraynaud 12y ago

In France since a few years, the driver's fault is presumed if the accident is with a cyclist or a pedestrian (for the civil case). It means that the burden of the proof is on the driver. Strangely enough, the usual civil system applies between a cyclist and a pedestrian.

from_elsewhere 12y ago

Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave? More importantly, is this sort of appeal appropriate for the author to publish? It's also interesting to note the author is a recreational rather than commuter cyclist. His asserted empathy for motorists and fear of cycling is partly thanks to the privilege of rejecting cycling as an everyday reality of transportation. Can he, in his limited experience, truly understand the world in which everyday cyclists live? As I see it, this article's conclusion is akin to the following: > So here’s my proposal: Every time you go out in public, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every interaction everywhere to help white people (and police officers) view black people as predictable members of society who deserve respect. This editorial insistence on empathizing with motorists paints cyclists as a class of rule-breakers and hooligans, not a diverse and largely forward-thinking group of citizens who happen to be united in their mode of transportation. In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration. I'd like to see the above questions earnestly addressed.

oldmanjay 12y ago
What an emotionally charged appeal to victimhood The way I see it, you can accept the reality that you're engaging in a more dangerous activity and take the proper attitude, or you can rage about your ideals from a hospital bed and hope that'll somehow make a difference. As a motorcyclist, I simply expect that drivers are paying no attention, and it's on me to protect myself. I can go your way, but that's cold comfort to broken bones and torn skin - and yes, I have been wrecked by driver inattention, so this is not merely academic. I have a very hard time with this modern tendency to enpower victimhood, but as my name indicates, I'm an old man. Might be a generational thing.
- astrodust 12y ago
  "You were walking on the sidewalk, you had it coming when that car ran you down." Seriously? We're going to blame the victims here? Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity, especially in designated lanes when observing all traffic rules.

guyzero 12y ago

In NYC at least you can kill pretty much anyone in a car and you won't be charged. http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... "Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request." Not even criminal charges here - these drivers are still driving daily, professionally. Basically cars are always right, legally, morally and inertially.

scardine 12y ago
Same here in Brazil, even in DUI hit-an-run assassinations you hardly see the perpetrator doing any jail time.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

revelation 12y ago

Maybe some people here can rediscover their appreciation for the sanctity of human life if we put a face on the issue. Here's Derek Sivers blogging about the death of his friend Milt Olin: http://sivers.org/milt http://sivers.org/milt (The deputy that killed Milt Olin was fiddling with his phone as he left his lane and drove straight into him at speed. After the accident, he claimed Milt had swerved into his lane. It took a prosecutor a year to finally conclude there was zero criminality here.) If you are okay with that, I await your comment.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

j_baker 12y ago

There's a case to be made against the "always follow the law" argument: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-a... TL;DR - These laws were made for cars, not bikes.

orthecreedence 12y ago

> But studies performed in Arizona, Minnesota and Hawaii suggest that drivers are at fault in more than half of cycling fatalities. I'd be amazed if this were true in SF. I'm an avid cyclist, love biking around the city for fun or to commute, etc. The cause of most near crashes (and crashes) I've witnessed are idiot cyclists thinking it's ok to blow through stop signs or traffic lights, or to wildly cut across two lanes without signalling and expecting the entire universe to notice them and stop for them. When I'm driving, I'm hyper-aware of the stupidity I've seen when I'm biking and try to take that into account when cyclists are around, and I don't blame other motorists for getting pissed or even aggressive. Cyclists have this incredible double-standard...they want to use the road, but they don't want to share it. Sure, everyone who drives a car is an earth-destroying, gas-guzzling, roided out freak who's trying to kill you, but isn't that all the more reason to have some respect for everyone else on the road? Granted, I've had my fair share of asshole drivers turn right in front of me without signalling or just merge into the bike line for no reason (prompting me to "gently" tap their car window). Hell, I've even had people run red lights and come within a foot of slamming into me, and I've been doored really bad by someone getting out of a taxi, but to be honest I'm as cautious around other cyclists as I am around cars. Maybe it's just SF and it's the wild west here, but biking at rush hour is just as bad because of other cyclists, not just cars. I think drivers would hate us a lot less if we stopped at a stop sign once in a while and thought about others besides ourselves (same goes for shitty drivers too).

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
MetaCosm 12y ago
I can only speak for DC -- but it is the exact same here. I have seen fervent defenses about why cyclists shouldn't have to follow traffic rules as well (better visibility, mobility, etc) -- but all those arguments apply equally to motorcycles, and inversely to large trucks... I am not sure we want 5+ rules of the road...
ajtaylor 12y ago
I yell at cyclists for running red lights, etc. It's stupid, illegal, could get them killed and also gives everyone a bad reputation.

soneil 12y ago

As terrible as this article is, I have to agree with the basic premise; there are three times it's socially acceptable to kill someone in the US. a) human privilege - If someone is actively and maliciously threatening the life of me, or my immediate family. b) 'castle doctrine' - If someone enters my home with malicious intent. c) They're on a bicycle. It does seem you can have a more reasonable debate over whether it's acceptable to kill someone who is actively in the process of a non-lethal crime, than it is to debate the murder of someone who added several seconds to your daily commute.

roel_v 12y ago

I live in a country where cycling is a major mode of transportation (Netherlands). I also work (albeit tangentially, this is not an appeal to authority) in transportation planning. In my view, expectations of cyclists in countries that don't traditionally have bikes on their roads are unrealistic in their expectations. Nobody in their right mind in the Netherlands would ride a bike on highways or major multiple-lane roads (and in fact, it's mostly prohibited); yet I see cyclists in New Zealand and Australia do that all the time (I suspect it's similar in the US but I haven't observed it personally). Similarly, nobody in their right mind drives a bike the same way they drive a car - on the same lanes, in the middle of the lane, basically like a slow motor cycle (outside of areas where cars move faster than walking speed, that is - i.e. not rush hour in urban centers). Now I understand that you'd sort of have to if there is no alternative, like a well developed separate cycling network as we have. Heck, just having bicycle lanes already seems to be hailed as a big progression in many places. But I have a hard time understanding why cyclists are so determined to portray themselves as this sub-group, a minority that deserves special attention, with its own clothing ranges and gear sets and entitlements and internet forums for circle jerking about how much better the world would be if only everybody else was just like you. I'm trying hard not to blame the victim here, but the problem the author identifies with cyclists turning public opinion against them is real (which is still not a reason not to prosecute people who kill cyclists, of course). 'Our' cyclists (sorry if this sounds condescending, I can't really think of a better way of putting it) don't identify as 'cyclists'. They're just a cross section of the population, and as such there is no such culture clash. Maybe it's easy for me to say because we never had to make a transition the way many countries will have to, but pitting yourself as the underdog who needs special treatment from everybody else seems to be a long, hard slog, or maybe even counter-productive in at least the short term. Not that I have an alternative though, prisoner's dilemma and all.

_delirium 12y ago
Yes, generally the solution is the two things you identify: 1) there is an extensive bicycle network, separated as much as possible from the vehicular lanes; and 2) cycling is something a broad cross-section of the population does, on said network. In that case it would be both stupid and probably illegal to bike in the car lanes, and there is also no real "cyclist" identity. That is also how it is here (Copenhagen). In almost all parts of the U.S., the law and infrastructure cuts the other way, though. There is no separate bike infrastructure [1], and bicycles are legally treated as vehicles. In that context, it doesn't seem that surprising to me that the fewer people who still dare ride a bike demand to be treated as the (poorly designed) legal framework envisions they should be. [1] I'd love a good source to verify this comparison (I heard it in a talk), but something I recently heard quoted is: Greater Copenhagen (1.5m people) has more km of protected bicycle infrastructure (~1000km) than the entire United States added together does (~400km).