3 ms·

So, cyclists can't physically cause road accidents that kill drivers? Interesting (and false :P)

mikeash 12y ago
I can't think of any scenario where a driver could kill somebody in an accident where the driver isn't at fault for it, except for cases where the cyclist at fault gets themselves killed. How does it work?
- msandford 12y ago
  From the article I originally linked to: "In stories where the driver had been cited, the penalty’s meagerness defied belief, like the teenager in 2011 who drove into the 49-year-old cyclist John Przychodzen from behind on a road just outside Seattle, running over and killing him. The police issued only a $42 ticket for an “unsafe lane change” because the kid hadn’t been drunk and, as they saw it, had not been driving recklessly." Kid kills cyclist, but doesn't get tried even for involuntary manslaughter. Had this kid used a gun instead of a car, you can be sure that the story would have a different ending. I believe that's a direct, nearly EXACT example of a driver killing a cyclist in an accident and not getting charged despite quite likely being at fault. If the police issued him SOME kind of a citation it stands to reason he wasn't 100% in the right. Someone else paid with their life. Here's another example in the article: "...Amelie Le Moullac, 24, pedaling inside a bike lane in San Francisco’s SOMA district when a truck turned right and killed her. In these articles, I found a recurring phrase: to quote from The San Francisco Chronicle story about Ms. Le Moullac, “The truck driver stayed at the scene and was not cited.”" How many more examples would you like to see? It takes me only a minute or two to dig these up as they're all over google. I don't have to go past the first page.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    ...What? I was replying to a comment saying that cyclists can kill people on the road by causing accidents. I responded by saying that I can't figure out that could happen without the driver being at fault, with the exception of the cyclist getting himself killed. I'm well aware of drivers killing cyclists and getting away with it. That's not what I was talking about.
    - msandford 12y ago
      Whoops, you're right! I think I missed part of that exchange the first time. If I take your statement out of context my reply sort-of makes sense but now I see that it doesn't really.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Oh well, at least your comment is interesting even if out of place.
- bane 12y ago
  Here's an easy one that's almost happened to me a few times. Picture this. http://wabikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Snohomish_bicycling.jpg http://wabikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Snohomish_bicy... Guy on bike hits a rock or crack in the road or whatever and loses control, veers or falls in front of the car in his lane. Speed limit on the road is 40. No time to brake the driver is forced to cut across the double yellows into the oncoming lane where he hits another car head on (driving above the speed limit doing 50). Drivers in both cars are killed instantly. Second scenario: seeing the oncoming car, the driver veers to the right, goes offroad and down an unseen gully, hits a tree head on and is taken to a hospital by an ambulance but dies from head injuries along the way. Of course there's the third scenario where the cyclist is killed: Driver can't do anything, tries to brake, but runs over the cyclist killing him in the process. All three scenarios are why I support this kind of road having dedicated bike-only zones off the shoulders.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Based on the width of that road it's entirely likely that the motorist is breaking the law by trying to pass when the road is too narrow to do so. I agree with you that having dedicated bike-only lanes are a far superior solution to the bike/car traffic interaction problem. Unfortunately in the scenarios described the driver is generally going to be at fault for doing something unsafe. I sympathize because doing the safe thing and waiting is not only inconvenient but also somewhere between frustrating and infuriating. But given the picture you linked to, the driver is at fault. Now in the situation where there's a 3ft shoulder and the cyclist is riding in it and goes down and falls into the road forcing a driver to make a horrible choice between a bunch of bad options then yes I'm very sympathetic to the points you make. But in that case the cyclist has 3ft to maneuver and probably doesn't hit the rock or the crack or veer or whatever. Furthermore a cyclist moving along at a decent clip is going to have a very hard time changing directions fast enough to get out into the road and under a car without giving the driver time to react. Bikes don't turn on a dime at 20mph. If you fall at 20mph you basically keep going in whatever direction you were headed, possibly with limbs flailing. Your center of mass can't just instantly move 3-5 feet perpendicular to the direction of travel. If the cyclist loses control due to some other circumstance then whatever happens is on him for not maintaining control of his vehicle. Perhaps he could be prosecuted for manslaughter or get sued for wrongful death. I don't have a problem with that; real life has consequences.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  The argument made that i responded to was "while cyclists aren't killing drivers, because it's not physically possible" This seems really simple: Cyclist decides to swerve across lanes without signaling, causing a car to need to break and swerve into a concrete barrier (or get hit by a truck, or whatever), and die. Cyclist is at fault for not signaling (among other things). He caused driver to die. I don't see why the cyclist would die in this scenario, assuming the car was successful in avoiding them prior to driver's death.

I can't think of any scenario where a driver could kill somebody in an accident where the driver isn't at fault for it, except for cases where the cyclist at fault gets themselves killed. How does it work?

msandford 12y ago
From the article I originally linked to: "In stories where the driver had been cited, the penalty’s meagerness defied belief, like the teenager in 2011 who drove into the 49-year-old cyclist John Przychodzen from behind on a road just outside Seattle, running over and killing him. The police issued only a $42 ticket for an “unsafe lane change” because the kid hadn’t been drunk and, as they saw it, had not been driving recklessly." Kid kills cyclist, but doesn't get tried even for involuntary manslaughter. Had this kid used a gun instead of a car, you can be sure that the story would have a different ending. I believe that's a direct, nearly EXACT example of a driver killing a cyclist in an accident and not getting charged despite quite likely being at fault. If the police issued him SOME kind of a citation it stands to reason he wasn't 100% in the right. Someone else paid with their life. Here's another example in the article: "...Amelie Le Moullac, 24, pedaling inside a bike lane in San Francisco’s SOMA district when a truck turned right and killed her. In these articles, I found a recurring phrase: to quote from The San Francisco Chronicle story about Ms. Le Moullac, “The truck driver stayed at the scene and was not cited.”" How many more examples would you like to see? It takes me only a minute or two to dig these up as they're all over google. I don't have to go past the first page.
- mikeash 12y ago
  ...What? I was replying to a comment saying that cyclists can kill people on the road by causing accidents. I responded by saying that I can't figure out that could happen without the driver being at fault, with the exception of the cyclist getting himself killed. I'm well aware of drivers killing cyclists and getting away with it. That's not what I was talking about.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Whoops, you're right! I think I missed part of that exchange the first time. If I take your statement out of context my reply sort-of makes sense but now I see that it doesn't really.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Oh well, at least your comment is interesting even if out of place.
bane 12y ago
Here's an easy one that's almost happened to me a few times. Picture this. http://wabikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Snohomish_bicycling.jpg http://wabikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Snohomish_bicy... Guy on bike hits a rock or crack in the road or whatever and loses control, veers or falls in front of the car in his lane. Speed limit on the road is 40. No time to brake the driver is forced to cut across the double yellows into the oncoming lane where he hits another car head on (driving above the speed limit doing 50). Drivers in both cars are killed instantly. Second scenario: seeing the oncoming car, the driver veers to the right, goes offroad and down an unseen gully, hits a tree head on and is taken to a hospital by an ambulance but dies from head injuries along the way. Of course there's the third scenario where the cyclist is killed: Driver can't do anything, tries to brake, but runs over the cyclist killing him in the process. All three scenarios are why I support this kind of road having dedicated bike-only zones off the shoulders.
- msandford 12y ago
  Based on the width of that road it's entirely likely that the motorist is breaking the law by trying to pass when the road is too narrow to do so. I agree with you that having dedicated bike-only lanes are a far superior solution to the bike/car traffic interaction problem. Unfortunately in the scenarios described the driver is generally going to be at fault for doing something unsafe. I sympathize because doing the safe thing and waiting is not only inconvenient but also somewhere between frustrating and infuriating. But given the picture you linked to, the driver is at fault. Now in the situation where there's a 3ft shoulder and the cyclist is riding in it and goes down and falls into the road forcing a driver to make a horrible choice between a bunch of bad options then yes I'm very sympathetic to the points you make. But in that case the cyclist has 3ft to maneuver and probably doesn't hit the rock or the crack or veer or whatever. Furthermore a cyclist moving along at a decent clip is going to have a very hard time changing directions fast enough to get out into the road and under a car without giving the driver time to react. Bikes don't turn on a dime at 20mph. If you fall at 20mph you basically keep going in whatever direction you were headed, possibly with limbs flailing. Your center of mass can't just instantly move 3-5 feet perpendicular to the direction of travel. If the cyclist loses control due to some other circumstance then whatever happens is on him for not maintaining control of his vehicle. Perhaps he could be prosecuted for manslaughter or get sued for wrongful death. I don't have a problem with that; real life has consequences.
DannyBee 12y ago
The argument made that i responded to was "while cyclists aren't killing drivers, because it's not physically possible" This seems really simple: Cyclist decides to swerve across lanes without signaling, causing a car to need to break and swerve into a concrete barrier (or get hit by a truck, or whatever), and die. Cyclist is at fault for not signaling (among other things). He caused driver to die. I don't see why the cyclist would die in this scenario, assuming the car was successful in avoiding them prior to driver's death.