9 ms·

Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

95 points by zhanwei 11y ago

PebblesHD 11y ago
Whilst I agree with the concept that motorists are responsible for their own behaviour on the road and should not endanger other travellers, I believe that on a road where the speed limit is 55mph, or realistically any speed, that vehicles using that roadway should be able to maintain a safe and non-obstructive speed on said roadways. If your vehicle cannot maintain such a speed, it shouldnt be on a road with other vehicles. Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal access, they need to conform to the same rules.
- pascalo 11y ago
  Got any hard numbers on the menace part, and how it compares to cars as dangerous machines, or is that just anecdotal "evidence"? From what I have seen Sydney has a really obnoxious anti-cycling culture and a dismal level of cycling infrastructure.
  - PebblesHD 11y ago
    I live and work in Sydney and suffer near misses with cyclists on a regular basis, somehow I've never had a problem with a car running through a red light into a packed pedestrian crossing, only cyclists. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that cyclists seem to think road laws don't apply to them.
    - pascalo 11y ago
      The transgression of cycling through a red light is much more visible than lets say speeding, mobile phone or dangerous driving. Yet it is also much less dangerous than any of those things. Even if we assume that there is a massive level of red light jumping going on part of the Sydney cyclists, fatalities or serious injury as a result of this are extremely rare. Sadly the same cannot be said for cars hitting people.
  - kelnos 11y ago
    Having an obnoxious anti-cycling culture is by no means mutually exclusive with having irresponsible, law-breaking cyclists. (And in fact the latter may be a contributing factor to the former.)
- mcpherrinm 11y ago
  I agree. We should limit urban street speeds to 15mph so cars are not faster than other road users and stop killing people.
- davidw 11y ago
  > shouldnt be on a road This culture of "THE ROAD IS MINE, GET OUT OF MY WAY" is part of what leads to dead cyclists.
rkischuk 11y ago
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience. If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns. As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
- _pmf_ 11y ago
  > They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. I agree. Bikes as road vehicles is a dangerous anachronism. Overtaking bikes is the most unpleasant exercise for me as a driver. Although, given the state of roads vs. the state of sidewalks, I understand why they choose the road.
  - stephendedalus 11y ago
    The other reason cyclists choose the road is because sidewalks are frequently filled with turn-ins and turn-outs. So riding on a sidewalk, even if there were no pedestrians, would be an act of putting yourself in exactly the place motorists rush to get to/from most frequently.
- yitchelle 11y ago
  > They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The bike riding paths are also very well configured and designed, minimising the risk of accidents.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    > Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either Maybe you could explain what you're thinking of when you say this? My experience says that pedestrians and bikes are fully compatible; they commonly share sidewalks.
oldmanjay 11y ago
Also kids shouldn't have to look before crossing the street. Just make drivers not hit kids. Any other position is victim-blaming.
- zhanwei 11y ago
  Everyone should be responsible for their personal safety, regardless what everyone else says. But beyond that, i guess this piece is pushing for more responsibility on the motorist end.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Pretty sure the burden is on the car to ensure safety, since they are the one operating heavy machinery in public, instead of just walking. It actually does make sense to blame the driver for their behavior.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    If you step out into high speed traffic without warning you should be held 100% responsible for what happens.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  That's actually the rule in the US, if they cross at any place where it is legal to cross.
vishaldpatel 11y ago
As a cyclist, I am more than happy to see tech that makes me more visible! Why are people up in arms!!? So stupid.
- buro9 11y ago
  Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
  - baddox 11y ago
    I don't get your argument. Just because the lack of X does not excuse behavior Y doesn't mean that the presence of X isn't advisable. For instance, if you collide your automobile into another automobile because you didn't have a rear view mirror, that obviously is not an excuse. And yet, it is still reasonable to advise (and indeed require) that automobiles have rear view mirrors.
    - buro9 11y ago
      A cyclist in London died. I can't recall the guys name but probably can find the information for you if you insist. He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good. The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine. At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
      - baddox 11y ago
        There's no contradiction here. I think that the case as you described it is ludicrous, and I still think it's prudent for cyclists to take measures to increase their visibility.
makeitsuckless 11y ago
I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden. The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.
- wozniacki 11y ago
  Do cyclists in Netherlands skip traffic lights and act like they have a chip on their shoulder? Well American ones do. If cyclists are going to share the road, they would see fit have their bicycles registered, pay yearly fees and purchase insurance - both for themselves and the ones they cause harm to [1] - just like motorists do. Anything else is just favoritism. Won't stand in a court of law, here. The next time a cyclist injures someone - fatally or not - I can see the auto lobby getting behind efforts to requiring cyclists treated as motorists. I will gladly chip in for that. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-...
  - PebblesHD 11y ago
    Registration and Insurance isn't a bad idea actually...
    - buro9 11y ago
      London has over 6,000 cycles that are registered with clearly visible numbers, and with the cyclist on the bike known. It's called the cycle hire scheme. In this time, not a single cyclist has been tried for anything, and yet several of them have been killed by HGVs. Registrations aren't stopping cyclist fatalities.
cperciva 11y ago
At first I thought this was going to be a parody of "anti-rape-culture" campaigns (e.g., "teaching women to defend themselves from rapists is wrong, because we should be teaching men to not rape women"), but much to my surprise it seems that the author is serious. And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing. How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
- baddox 11y ago
  Far from being a parody, it seems to employ the same arguments as the worst of those campaigns, namely, that any advocacy of prudent behavior is tantamount to blaming the victim or removing blame from the antagonist. Of course, in reality, you can have both without any contradictions. It is possible and reasonable to recommend that people avoid scenarios where there is a high risk of being victimized, while at the same time placing full legal (I'll leave moral up to other people) responsibility on the antagonist.
- cwp 11y ago
  By driving more slowly, under street lights, in a separate lane. You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    If I drive on a road, and it does not have street lights, how do I start driving on it under street lights? It does not have them. Face the reality. Where there is enough traffic to warrant it and the community can afford it, there are street lights and separate bike paths. But in many places, we don't have them. It is reasonable to require bikes to have lights in the dark, so that others can see them. I ride bike to work, >10km one way, and 98 % of the route has bike or bike/pedestrian paths. But I still have a) lights in my bike, b) reflective jacket, c) helmet. In the winter, I occasionally have trouble with pedestrians just because I don't see them (even with the good lights I have in my bike). Two thirds of bike fatalities here happen without a collision with a motor vehicle (i.e. bike hits another bike, a pedestrian, a stationary object, or just otherwise dies while riding). Of collisions with motor vehicles, the fault is usually with the driver, but not exclusively. Intersection + truck/bus is the dangerous combination.
keyanp 11y ago
This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood of a serious injury resulting from an accident. In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem. As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
- riffic 11y ago
  Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll pass a mandatory adult helmet law." Now they have two problems.
- bytecycle 11y ago
  To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll first need people actually riding their bikes. A change of mentality is required here. As a cyclist you shouldn't feel so unsafe that you have to put on a helmet and war paint. The money spent on ridiculous bike laws and expensive special infrastructure should first be allocated to educating all drivers. There needs to be a shift in attitude towards cyclists so they can feel safe again. All these passive-aggressive comments against cyclist are very sad to read. I guess you have to be a little insane and have a certain negligence about rules to comfortably ride your bike and be able to ignore all the maniacs behind the wheel.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    > To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll first need people actually riding their bikes Chicken-and-egg. On the other hand, to get people riding their bikes, you need to offer them an infrastructure that feels safe enough to get started.
    - 11y ago
jasonkester 11y ago
This is one of the nice things about moving to France. You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out. Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them. Usually all the way over in the far lane. I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  Wow, 2m? We just got a law passed here to make it 90cm (there was no specified distance before).
  - Kliment 11y ago
    It's 150cm in Germany but enforcement and compliance varies a lot by region.
andygambles 11y ago
I cycle to work nearly everyday in the UK. Locally we have crazy cycle lanes that at junction take you off the road and then have to yield to crossing traffic at junctions whereas if I stayed on the road I have right of way. I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road. However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them up and overtake then at the next set of lights. Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me they would arrive no later. I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road. I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from behind. On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit" response.
- peterfirefly 11y ago
  Turning like that across the traffic is not allowed in Denmark (and hasn't been for something like 30 years). You have to stop first.
- regularfry 11y ago
  As regards nearly being clipped despite wearing a helmet and hi-vis jacket, I don't wear a helmet precisely to avoid being hit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helmets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helme... is why.
peterwwillis 11y ago
"It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need any more defending from anybody." This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national newspapers. "it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar." The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike people to read his bike blog.
baddox 11y ago
I almost completely agree with the author's policy recommendations and criticisms of US car culture, but I find many of his arguments and implications to be fairly troubling. > We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”) Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe. > That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed, the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”) I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than others). > Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws. I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels like a sufficient reason to me. > Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it. As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like income and population density. > What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving it, and undividedly so. By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she already should already behave.
mdemare 11y ago
Some facts about cycling in the Netherlands: - After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will be fined if you don't have them. - Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced. - Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic laws - they will run red lights when they can. - Practically nobody wears helmets. - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)
- odiroot 11y ago
  Cycling ban on sidewalks is not really enforced though. At least in Amsterdam from what I experienced. But people rarely drive on sidewalks, they don't need to with bicycle paths being really everywhere. On the other hand you get scooter drivers speeding crazily on the very same bike paths. I've heard it's actually legal but I'm not sure.
- bsder 11y ago
  > - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists) Um, isn't that actually quite a LOT. Do we really want to emulate that? The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Right about the same level as the fatal car crash death toll per year. Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a statistical viewpoint is not going to make people very sympathetic.
  - rlpb 11y ago
    > The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Out of how many active cyclists?
  - ffumarola 11y ago
    The population of SF is ~840k. The SFMTA estimates that 16% of San Francisco residents are "frequent cyclists", defined as cycling two or more days per week. That means ~135k frequent cyclists. 184:10,000,000 = .0184 per 1,000 10:135,000 = .0741 per 1,000 SF = 4x higher For SF to be safer than the Netherlands, bike deaths need to pretty much disappear.
exclusiv 11y ago
Someone once told me that bicycles have no business being on the road at all. I thought they were just bitter due to an altercation, but the more I thought about it - it's entirely logical. Most roads are simply not built for bicycles and that is why they shouldn't be allowed at this point. They become a hazard because they can't attain the proper speed and they are allowed to flop between acting like a cyclist and acting like a car as another poster mentioned. It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties. I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield. You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars. I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO. The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.
bontoJR 11y ago
I guess the right stays in the middle. We have to make drivers more responsible with cyclists, but on the other hand cyclists have to play following rules. I don't think is always drivers' fault or vice-versa, we should evaluate case by case, but admit that sometimes, some cyclists, are even more dangerous than cars for pedestrians, is not crazy. I saw bike-couriers in London, NY and even here in ZH completely ignoring signals, jumping on sidewalks, avoiding kids with emergency maneuvers. I am not pro-drivers or pro-cyclists, but we have to find the right balance to share streets.
kika 11y ago
The article calls for crackdown on drivers and may be rightfully so, but. I came to the US from the country where road laws are based on the concept of "operator of the dangerous machine". Such an operator is at fault by default and have to prove their innocence. End even if they do, they still have to compensate medical expenses. Such compensations are not as ridiculously high as they are in the US but still may be quite expensive for the person who _wasn't guilty_ at the first place. And if they were guilty the future of the unfortunate car driver is much more grim. Courts routinely convict such drivers for 1-2 years behind bars (there even special "prisons" for such "criminals" which do not even look like prisons, more like military camps behind barbed wire). If the driver was drunk that could easily become 4-5 years or more. And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia). Go figure. What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do , stop other party from doing the wrong thing". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc. Sure! Where do I sign up? The author fails to deliver the answer "how". "Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.
- timwaagh 11y ago
  as a native of the coutry ywhich is generally considered cyclist heaven (netherlands) bike lanes are quite nice. i did not have any problem cycling to work today. its safe and i get my exercise. infrastructure works. and yes cars are dangerous machines. people should be careful with them. its a lot of responsibility. but criminalisation is just stupid. that doesn't happen in countries which prioritize road safety.
- maaaats 11y ago
  Why do you write this as if driving drunk is okay?
  - kika 11y ago
    Hm, why do you have such impression? Killing someone while driving drunk is quite a felony in my book. But breaking someone's arm just because you were not able to figure out where the lane markings are is not okay too, but doesn't sound like a felony punishable by the jail time. Also, the standards of sobriety are very different in different countries. In Russia you're technically drunk if you had a bottle of yogurt for breakfast. And they _will_ use that against you in court, it's not just a "fun fact".
Sharlin 11y ago
It's fascinating how the mostly-subconscious bias shows in news articles about driver-cyclist and driver-pedestrian collisions. The driver (and their responsibility) is abstracted away by just referring to a "car", and even when it is clear that the driver broke the law it is rarely mentioned. Phrases like "a driver hit a cyclist" are almost never used; at most it's something like "A cyclist collided with a car" and often even worse - using formulations that imply that cars are some sort of an agency-less force of nature like lightning - getting hit is either an unfortunate accident or recklessness on the victim's part. Almost always the cyclist is victim-blamed for not using a helmet.
regularfry 11y ago
I've seen a few comments here using the example of "I see cycle couriers doing X, therefore cyclists are at fault". It's worth being cautious trying to learn much from the example of cycle couriers: they're disproportionately visible members of the cycling population, they spend all their working days on bikes so they're disproportionately good at it and very confident in their skills, added to which they are stereotypically young, male, and have a strong financial incentive to bend the rules to get wherever they're going quickly.
- regularfry 11y ago
  I'd be intrigued to know why the downvote.

95 points by zhanwei 11y ago

Whilst I agree with the concept that motorists are responsible for their own behaviour on the road and should not endanger other travellers, I believe that on a road where the speed limit is 55mph, or realistically any speed, that vehicles using that roadway should be able to maintain a safe and non-obstructive speed on said roadways. If your vehicle cannot maintain such a speed, it shouldnt be on a road with other vehicles. Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal access, they need to conform to the same rules.

pascalo 11y ago
Got any hard numbers on the menace part, and how it compares to cars as dangerous machines, or is that just anecdotal "evidence"? From what I have seen Sydney has a really obnoxious anti-cycling culture and a dismal level of cycling infrastructure.
- PebblesHD 11y ago
  I live and work in Sydney and suffer near misses with cyclists on a regular basis, somehow I've never had a problem with a car running through a red light into a packed pedestrian crossing, only cyclists. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that cyclists seem to think road laws don't apply to them.
  - pascalo 11y ago
    The transgression of cycling through a red light is much more visible than lets say speeding, mobile phone or dangerous driving. Yet it is also much less dangerous than any of those things. Even if we assume that there is a massive level of red light jumping going on part of the Sydney cyclists, fatalities or serious injury as a result of this are extremely rare. Sadly the same cannot be said for cars hitting people.
- kelnos 11y ago
  Having an obnoxious anti-cycling culture is by no means mutually exclusive with having irresponsible, law-breaking cyclists. (And in fact the latter may be a contributing factor to the former.)
mcpherrinm 11y ago
I agree. We should limit urban street speeds to 15mph so cars are not faster than other road users and stop killing people.
davidw 11y ago
> shouldnt be on a road This culture of "THE ROAD IS MINE, GET OUT OF MY WAY" is part of what leads to dead cyclists.

rkischuk 11y ago

Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience. If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns. As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.

_pmf_ 11y ago
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. I agree. Bikes as road vehicles is a dangerous anachronism. Overtaking bikes is the most unpleasant exercise for me as a driver. Although, given the state of roads vs. the state of sidewalks, I understand why they choose the road.
- stephendedalus 11y ago
  The other reason cyclists choose the road is because sidewalks are frequently filled with turn-ins and turn-outs. So riding on a sidewalk, even if there were no pedestrians, would be an act of putting yourself in exactly the place motorists rush to get to/from most frequently.
yitchelle 11y ago
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The bike riding paths are also very well configured and designed, minimising the risk of accidents.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either Maybe you could explain what you're thinking of when you say this? My experience says that pedestrians and bikes are fully compatible; they commonly share sidewalks.

oldmanjay 11y ago

Also kids shouldn't have to look before crossing the street. Just make drivers not hit kids. Any other position is victim-blaming.

zhanwei 11y ago
Everyone should be responsible for their personal safety, regardless what everyone else says. But beyond that, i guess this piece is pushing for more responsibility on the motorist end.
rtpg 11y ago
Pretty sure the burden is on the car to ensure safety, since they are the one operating heavy machinery in public, instead of just walking. It actually does make sense to blame the driver for their behavior.
- serge2k 11y ago
  If you step out into high speed traffic without warning you should be held 100% responsible for what happens.
aidenn0 11y ago
That's actually the rule in the US, if they cross at any place where it is legal to cross.

vishaldpatel 11y ago

As a cyclist, I am more than happy to see tech that makes me more visible! Why are people up in arms!!? So stupid.

buro9 11y ago
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
- baddox 11y ago
  I don't get your argument. Just because the lack of X does not excuse behavior Y doesn't mean that the presence of X isn't advisable. For instance, if you collide your automobile into another automobile because you didn't have a rear view mirror, that obviously is not an excuse. And yet, it is still reasonable to advise (and indeed require) that automobiles have rear view mirrors.
  - buro9 11y ago
    A cyclist in London died. I can't recall the guys name but probably can find the information for you if you insist. He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good. The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine. At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
    - baddox 11y ago
      There's no contradiction here. I think that the case as you described it is ludicrous, and I still think it's prudent for cyclists to take measures to increase their visibility.

makeitsuckless 11y ago

I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden. The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.

wozniacki 11y ago
Do cyclists in Netherlands skip traffic lights and act like they have a chip on their shoulder? Well American ones do. If cyclists are going to share the road, they would see fit have their bicycles registered, pay yearly fees and purchase insurance - both for themselves and the ones they cause harm to [1] - just like motorists do. Anything else is just favoritism. Won't stand in a court of law, here. The next time a cyclist injures someone - fatally or not - I can see the auto lobby getting behind efforts to requiring cyclists treated as motorists. I will gladly chip in for that. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-...
- PebblesHD 11y ago
  Registration and Insurance isn't a bad idea actually...
  - buro9 11y ago
    London has over 6,000 cycles that are registered with clearly visible numbers, and with the cyclist on the bike known. It's called the cycle hire scheme. In this time, not a single cyclist has been tried for anything, and yet several of them have been killed by HGVs. Registrations aren't stopping cyclist fatalities.

cperciva 11y ago

At first I thought this was going to be a parody of "anti-rape-culture" campaigns (e.g., "teaching women to defend themselves from rapists is wrong, because we should be teaching men to not rape women"), but much to my surprise it seems that the author is serious. And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing. How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?

baddox 11y ago
Far from being a parody, it seems to employ the same arguments as the worst of those campaigns, namely, that any advocacy of prudent behavior is tantamount to blaming the victim or removing blame from the antagonist. Of course, in reality, you can have both without any contradictions. It is possible and reasonable to recommend that people avoid scenarios where there is a high risk of being victimized, while at the same time placing full legal (I'll leave moral up to other people) responsibility on the antagonist.
cwp 11y ago
By driving more slowly, under street lights, in a separate lane. You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  If I drive on a road, and it does not have street lights, how do I start driving on it under street lights? It does not have them. Face the reality. Where there is enough traffic to warrant it and the community can afford it, there are street lights and separate bike paths. But in many places, we don't have them. It is reasonable to require bikes to have lights in the dark, so that others can see them. I ride bike to work, >10km one way, and 98 % of the route has bike or bike/pedestrian paths. But I still have a) lights in my bike, b) reflective jacket, c) helmet. In the winter, I occasionally have trouble with pedestrians just because I don't see them (even with the good lights I have in my bike). Two thirds of bike fatalities here happen without a collision with a motor vehicle (i.e. bike hits another bike, a pedestrian, a stationary object, or just otherwise dies while riding). Of collisions with motor vehicles, the fault is usually with the driver, but not exclusively. Intersection + truck/bus is the dangerous combination.

keyanp 11y ago

This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood of a serious injury resulting from an accident. In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem. As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.

riffic 11y ago
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll pass a mandatory adult helmet law." Now they have two problems.
bytecycle 11y ago
To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll first need people actually riding their bikes. A change of mentality is required here. As a cyclist you shouldn't feel so unsafe that you have to put on a helmet and war paint. The money spent on ridiculous bike laws and expensive special infrastructure should first be allocated to educating all drivers. There needs to be a shift in attitude towards cyclists so they can feel safe again. All these passive-aggressive comments against cyclist are very sad to read. I guess you have to be a little insane and have a certain negligence about rules to comfortably ride your bike and be able to ignore all the maniacs behind the wheel.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  > To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll first need people actually riding their bikes Chicken-and-egg. On the other hand, to get people riding their bikes, you need to offer them an infrastructure that feels safe enough to get started.
  - 11y ago

jasonkester 11y ago

This is one of the nice things about moving to France. You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out. Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them. Usually all the way over in the far lane. I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.

aidenn0 11y ago
Wow, 2m? We just got a law passed here to make it 90cm (there was no specified distance before).
- Kliment 11y ago
  It's 150cm in Germany but enforcement and compliance varies a lot by region.

andygambles 11y ago

I cycle to work nearly everyday in the UK. Locally we have crazy cycle lanes that at junction take you off the road and then have to yield to crossing traffic at junctions whereas if I stayed on the road I have right of way. I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road. However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them up and overtake then at the next set of lights. Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me they would arrive no later. I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road. I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from behind. On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit" response.

peterfirefly 11y ago
Turning like that across the traffic is not allowed in Denmark (and hasn't been for something like 30 years). You have to stop first.
regularfry 11y ago
As regards nearly being clipped despite wearing a helmet and hi-vis jacket, I don't wear a helmet precisely to avoid being hit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helmets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helme... is why.

peterwwillis 11y ago

"It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need any more defending from anybody." This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national newspapers. "it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar." The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike people to read his bike blog.

baddox 11y ago

I almost completely agree with the author's policy recommendations and criticisms of US car culture, but I find many of his arguments and implications to be fairly troubling. > We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”) Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe. > That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed, the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”) I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than others). > Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws. I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels like a sufficient reason to me. > Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it. As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like income and population density. > What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving it, and undividedly so. By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she already should already behave.

mdemare 11y ago

Some facts about cycling in the Netherlands: - After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will be fined if you don't have them. - Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced. - Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic laws - they will run red lights when they can. - Practically nobody wears helmets. - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)

odiroot 11y ago
Cycling ban on sidewalks is not really enforced though. At least in Amsterdam from what I experienced. But people rarely drive on sidewalks, they don't need to with bicycle paths being really everywhere. On the other hand you get scooter drivers speeding crazily on the very same bike paths. I've heard it's actually legal but I'm not sure.
bsder 11y ago
> - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists) Um, isn't that actually quite a LOT. Do we really want to emulate that? The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Right about the same level as the fatal car crash death toll per year. Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a statistical viewpoint is not going to make people very sympathetic.
- rlpb 11y ago
  > The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Out of how many active cyclists?
- ffumarola 11y ago
  The population of SF is ~840k. The SFMTA estimates that 16% of San Francisco residents are "frequent cyclists", defined as cycling two or more days per week. That means ~135k frequent cyclists. 184:10,000,000 = .0184 per 1,000 10:135,000 = .0741 per 1,000 SF = 4x higher For SF to be safer than the Netherlands, bike deaths need to pretty much disappear.

exclusiv 11y ago

Someone once told me that bicycles have no business being on the road at all. I thought they were just bitter due to an altercation, but the more I thought about it - it's entirely logical. Most roads are simply not built for bicycles and that is why they shouldn't be allowed at this point. They become a hazard because they can't attain the proper speed and they are allowed to flop between acting like a cyclist and acting like a car as another poster mentioned. It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties. I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield. You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars. I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO. The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.

bontoJR 11y ago

I guess the right stays in the middle. We have to make drivers more responsible with cyclists, but on the other hand cyclists have to play following rules. I don't think is always drivers' fault or vice-versa, we should evaluate case by case, but admit that sometimes, some cyclists, are even more dangerous than cars for pedestrians, is not crazy. I saw bike-couriers in London, NY and even here in ZH completely ignoring signals, jumping on sidewalks, avoiding kids with emergency maneuvers. I am not pro-drivers or pro-cyclists, but we have to find the right balance to share streets.

kika 11y ago

The article calls for crackdown on drivers and may be rightfully so, but. I came to the US from the country where road laws are based on the concept of "operator of the dangerous machine". Such an operator is at fault by default and have to prove their innocence. End even if they do, they still have to compensate medical expenses. Such compensations are not as ridiculously high as they are in the US but still may be quite expensive for the person who _wasn't guilty_ at the first place. And if they were guilty the future of the unfortunate car driver is much more grim. Courts routinely convict such drivers for 1-2 years behind bars (there even special "prisons" for such "criminals" which do not even look like prisons, more like military camps behind barbed wire). If the driver was drunk that could easily become 4-5 years or more. And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia). Go figure. What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do , stop other party from doing the wrong thing". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc. Sure! Where do I sign up? The author fails to deliver the answer "how". "Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.

timwaagh 11y ago
as a native of the coutry ywhich is generally considered cyclist heaven (netherlands) bike lanes are quite nice. i did not have any problem cycling to work today. its safe and i get my exercise. infrastructure works. and yes cars are dangerous machines. people should be careful with them. its a lot of responsibility. but criminalisation is just stupid. that doesn't happen in countries which prioritize road safety.
maaaats 11y ago
Why do you write this as if driving drunk is okay?
- kika 11y ago
  Hm, why do you have such impression? Killing someone while driving drunk is quite a felony in my book. But breaking someone's arm just because you were not able to figure out where the lane markings are is not okay too, but doesn't sound like a felony punishable by the jail time. Also, the standards of sobriety are very different in different countries. In Russia you're technically drunk if you had a bottle of yogurt for breakfast. And they _will_ use that against you in court, it's not just a "fun fact".

Sharlin 11y ago

It's fascinating how the mostly-subconscious bias shows in news articles about driver-cyclist and driver-pedestrian collisions. The driver (and their responsibility) is abstracted away by just referring to a "car", and even when it is clear that the driver broke the law it is rarely mentioned. Phrases like "a driver hit a cyclist" are almost never used; at most it's something like "A cyclist collided with a car" and often even worse - using formulations that imply that cars are some sort of an agency-less force of nature like lightning - getting hit is either an unfortunate accident or recklessness on the victim's part. Almost always the cyclist is victim-blamed for not using a helmet.

regularfry 11y ago

I've seen a few comments here using the example of "I see cycle couriers doing X, therefore cyclists are at fault". It's worth being cautious trying to learn much from the example of cycle couriers: they're disproportionately visible members of the cycling population, they spend all their working days on bikes so they're disproportionately good at it and very confident in their skills, added to which they are stereotypically young, male, and have a strong financial incentive to bend the rules to get wherever they're going quickly.

regularfry 11y ago
I'd be intrigued to know why the downvote.