Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how biker/pedestrian hostile it is here. I naively thought I'd be able to live a more active lifestyle because of the nicer weather, but instead I'm driving a car everywhere as I wouldn't feel safe on a bike.
It seems to be a pretty vicious cycle of the infrastructure being hostile to biking so nobody does it, nobody is biking so the roads are optimized for driving.
I've lived here for little over a year now and I've been _almost_ hit a couple of times while crossing the road at the crosswalk, and a few times at parking lots with drivers not looking back before reversing. I've also seen a dead cyclist in the intersection just outside my apartment complex :(
Florida is a perfect storm of retirees who should have had their licenses revoked years ago, car-centric exurban non-planning, big trucks as culture, and weather so hot and prone to unexpected storms that few people cycle for anything other than recreation and thus most riders are seen as ridiculous wannabe racers, or just some drunk who lost their drivers' license. Everything is spread out and connected by 6-lane divided highways with bike lanes "generously" thrown into the shoulder by FDOT, and everyone is distracted by their phones because they're bored because they spend enormous amounts of time sitting in traffic.
I lived in Florida for most of my early life, was car-free for a lot of it, and don't miss riding there at all. The cycling community in Miami used to joke that in the rest of the country, you ride like you're invisible - but in South Florida, you ride like the drivers can see you and are actively trying to kill you. Stay safe.
An old lady looked at me straight in the eye while not slowing down her car and I jumped at the last moment. There is a video of a cop car hitting a cyclist and then arresting him for their mistake. I've lived in places where there are no sidewalks whatsoever. Basically you can either drive a car or sit at home. Most US city infrastructure and most drivers are not fond of pedestrians and cyclists.
Another anecdote about Florida: I bike almost every day during good weather in Chicago and though I know it isn't the safest activity, I've never had a serious incident. I traveled to Florida last Fall and was struck by a car on my very first bike ride there. I was on a dedicated bike path that was separated from the road by a grass strip and was hit by a car turning into a driveway. It was 11am on a sunny day, but the person didn't see me. (The person was not elderly, so I believe he was probably distracted by his phone.)
>Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how biker/pedestrian hostile it is here.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but this was a surprise to you? I thought everyone in Europe realized how bicycle/pedestrial-hostile US cities are. Did you not come here first to check things out before committing to a cross-Atlantic move?
And seriously, Sweden is one of the top countries on the quality-of-life indices. The US is definitely not. Why would you leave there to come here? That's like me leaving the US and moving to El Salvador, thinking it'll somehow be nicer. (This is a valid comparison: compare the murder rates of Sweden vs. US to US vs. El Salvador.)
I think it's because it's a state with a lot of transplants (such as yourself) so you have a big mix of driving styles all interacting and they sometimes clash.
Planners often cite the lack of cyclists as an excuse not to create bicycle infrastructure, and fail the acknowledge the reason is due to the danger, rather than the desire to bike.
> I naively thought I'd be able to live a more active lifestyle because of the nicer weather, but instead I'm driving a car everywhere as I wouldn't feel safe on a bike.
It is super ironic, I agree. USA has a lot of room for activities, but the irony is that you have to _drive_ to them. Yes, you have to drive somewhere first, and when do what you want. Wants to run? Well, big chance you need to drive to some park. Wants to cycle? There is a chance you don't want to do straight from your house (like I have to go on a highway, which is not the best idea to cycle on).
> I've lived here for little over a year now and I've been _almost_ hit a couple of times while crossing the road at the crosswalk, and a few times at parking lots with drivers not looking back before reversing.
In USA, I recommend to walk in the middle of the parking lot (always!). This way you'll have time to react to any hazardous situations. Yes, some might honk at you, but better safe than sorry.
I have a personal conviction too that anywhere in South Florida which figures out how to change focus to walking/biking safely will reap very nice appreciation in real estate and taxes.
Yes, the weather is very hot, but the issue is not the heat but the fact everything is so far away and there isn't a safe way either-way of getting there without a car.
I'm a fan of how I understand Japanese zoning works + some of the stuff they're trying in Spain to ban cars in some areas.
You would have been better off in California or anywhere out west actually. The humid weather alone makes Florida not a great place for cycling, and the culture dooms the rest of any aspirations.
" I naively thought I'd be able to live a more active lifestyle because of the nicer weather"
The Florida lifestyle is to drive from air conditioned place to air conditioned place in your car. I am exaggerating but you should try ORegon or Washington for a more active lifestyle.
Did you research the weather before moving to Florida? The majority of the year it is oppressively hot and humid. Nothing a Scandinavian is even remotely used to.
This article fails to mention one of the biggest factors, which is the increased prevalence of SUVs and Trucks. These oversized vehicles have higher grilles and increased mass. The higher grille means injuries that on a car would have been a leg injury where the pedestrian ends up on the hood are abdominal injuries where the pedestrian can be pushed under the vehicle. The increased mass also means longer stopping distances.
When I moved to Texas I did not anticipate this. As a cyclist, I will definitely keep the types of vehicles in mind when choosing a place to live from here on. Texans do worse, as "grille guards" are particularly common: http://www.frontier-gear.com/products/grille-guards/
When I first saw one of these I thought it was something out of Mad Max. The vast majority of these people don't need these grille guards as they don't work on a farm or anything similar. My guess is that they are bought to make their truck or SUV look tougher.
In contrast, I grew up in a rural area where grille guards might be useful and I never saw them. Big trucks don't seem to be as common as here either.
The source is a long human interest piece; it's tough to figure out what actual statistics they are citing or making claims based on. Here's what I've teased out:
> That report also noted that SUVs and trucks were involved in a third of pedestrian injuries but 40 percent of deaths.
(I.e., slightly disproportionately more likely to kill in a given collision.)
That said, the number of deaths is about 4% of the total number of traffic-pedestrian crashes that go to emergency rooms. The number does not include anyone who went to urgent care, nor people who walked away.[0]
If 100% of SUV/truck drivers could switch to car-class automobiles, we'd expect to reduce pedestrian deaths about 359 (of 5376). It's something, but (1) difficult to imagine how we get there, and (2) definitely a minority fraction of 5376. I'm not sure that supports the idea that "increased prevalence of SUVS and trucks is one of the biggest factors."
In contrast, (!)34% of pedestrians killed were drunk when they died, and (!)15% of drivers were drunk when they killed a pedestrian[ibid]. These are huge numbers! 1828 and 806 lives, respectively. We can't (and don't want) to prevent people from drinking, but maybe we can improve safety for drunk pedestrians, and figure out new ways to take drivers who have been drinking off the road.
Also bigger blind spots. On the bigger trucks it's practically impossible to see over the right front fender, so any pedestrian or cyclist approaching from that entire quarter - not just at intersections but even more so at driveways - will be in mortal danger.
I've personally advocated this position for nearly a decade now. I joke about having a Napolean complex with cars - I don't like driving anything that's taller than I am. (5'7") People often are confused by that comment, so I elaborate: When I'm up that high, I feel like I could run over a small child and not even feel it. Most of the people I mention this to feel more safe sitting higher in their car than other drivers, and don't see where this escalating arms race is going.
It's not the bumpers. Bumpers haven't moved much since the 90s. If anything they've moved up a little on cars and stayed static on everything smaller than a 3/4 ton truck. It's the hood/grill styling that's changed. Every SUV these days has a tall grill and hood. Even cars have become taller. It's because of the safety and fuel economy arms race. The front bodywork is one of the few things the manufacturers can sculpt however they want. The cabin needs to be deep for the crash test rating (reducing visibility in general) and the hood/windshield transition needs to be shallow for fuel economy (which has a side effect of increasing the A pillar blind spot). This is why we get vehicles with massive bulbous front bodywork. That then becomes a styling trend all in itself. Look at how the 4Runner has progressed over the years if you want a particularly ugly example.
I'd rather get hit by a 90s F-series or Miata (with the "pedestrian unsafe" folding headlights) than the modern equivalents (though the modern Miata would still be pretty tolerable).
Mass is only one factor in stopping distances. Many SUVs have more tire than they need and can stop very quickly. And some tiny/efficient cars have very light tires/brakes that mean they cannot stop as fast as they should.
I moved from the Netherlands to Canada and still bike to a lot of places. While I of course expected the lack of infrastructure, I did not fully expect the amount of hate I would be getting.
People here see you as some idiot who is playing with his toy while `serious` people are driving. They yell at you to get on the sidewalk, get off the road, that you don`t pay `road tax` (wtf), some homophobic shit. Canadians are so nice otherwise, but not on the road.
I've seen that in cities in the Midwest USA too. But in my area (not in a city) I have the opposite problem... people on the road are too nice, to the point where it is dangerous. There is bike trail I like to ride on and it only crosses one major road, but it's two lanes in each direction with a left turn lane. And I've had people stop on that road trying to wave me through, even though I have a stop sign and they don't. I am absolutely not crossing in traffic just because one person stopped, and I'm just waiting for the day when someone does that and causes a major accident.
It's safe to say that people in North America just don't know how to react to bicycles all around.
Yeah Canadian driving culture is surprisingly hostile. Even here in New Brunswick where people are stereotyped as slow old drivers that stop to let pedestrians to cross we had people openly posting on social media about wanting to crash into bikers when they put in new laws about giving bikes space on the road (put into place because of bikers getting hit.)
Weird. This article doesn't mention what (IMHO) is one of the biggest factors impacting pedestrian and cyclist safety: the ability in almost all of the US to turn right at red lights.
I live in NYC where this is illegal in the five boroughs. Weirdly I've met more than a few people who live here who didn't know this. You will come across drivers who don't know this too occasionally who'll give you attitude if you walk when you have right of way.
I've visited the Bay Area a lot and honestly I'm terrified of being a pedestrian or cyclist there. When a car hits a red light and wants to turn right the driver will naturally just look left for oncoming traffic. In doing so they'll not be able to see pedestrian coming from the right who might need to cross the road there and they seem more oblivious to cyclists coming from the left.
Couple that with roads that are typically much wider and you feel like you're taking your life in your hands every time you cross the road. In Palo Alto there's a crosswalk across El Camino where it's 6 lanes (IIRC). Not in a million years could you convince me to use it. You just don't know how drivers are going to react. Will they see you? Will they stop for you? Who knows? It's better to cross where there isn't one so you can predict car movement.
I don't know how the US ended up with this turning right at a red light rule. I haven't personally been in another country where this is the case. But I can't think of a more anti-pedestrian and anti-cyclist rule than this.
The reason we "ended up with this turning right at a red light rule" is simply that it is more efficient, and transportation is by definition architected for efficiency. It's the same reason we have more flashing yellow turn lights these days, because you shouldn't be stuck sitting at a red light in a turn lane when it's extremely visually obvious that there are no obstructions preventing you from proceeding.
In the world of marine navigation, baked into many rules and courtesies, is the idea that larger vessels are to be offered right of way over small vessels. Because small vessels are both more able to perceive the current situation, and more able to avoid mishaps.
Paradoxically, pedestrians often have the right of way always, despite the car being far less maneuverable, less perceptive of it's surroundings, and far more dangerous to collide with.
This negation of the common-sense logic found in marine navigation is why our streets are always reported as "becoming more dangerous".
I would upvote this by 1000 if I could. I lived in the bay area for 2 years, and one way streets + right on red is a recipe for disaster for pedestrians because drivers will never look to their right.
Interestingly, people in SF rarely jaywalk, and I wonder if it's related to this.
Interestingly (and obviously anecdotal) I've found the opposite has been happening in Philadelphia. And the main driving (no pun intended) factor, I think, was the introduction of our bike share program (Indego). Drivers were so much more hostile to bicyclists before these were introduced.
We now have more dedicated bike lanes, which helps immensely. We've introduced signs and indicators ("sharrows") that indicate to drivers that bicyclists have the right to use the lanes just as much as drivers. It's a noticeable difference from 10 years ago. I can't say for certain these other things would have happened without the introduction of the bike share program, but it seems to be what really changed things here.
Having lived in Philly for the last decade or so, I've noticed that it's never very dangerous to be a biker or a pedestrian here. I only know of two incidents where people I know have been struck, and usually in not too terrible ways. It especially helps that bike lanes are plentiful, most of the non-residential parts of the city are pretty damn easy to navigate, and within city limits people don't really drive too crazy.
Sure you get the one off case where people are being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but for whatever reason you can't really get away from that no matter where you are.
That being said, if you're in another car or anywhere near I76, then you better believe it's every man for himself, and may the traffic gods have mercy on you.
I pretty much assume that unless I make eye contact with a driver and get some kind of acknowledgement, I don’t trust that they see me. By far the closest calls I’ve had are stop signs where someone in an SUV stops, doesn’t look right or left (or worse, doesn’t look up from their phone), and then just goes.
I also hate “share the road” situations where the right thing to do is take up the whole lane; drivers are almost religiously against this concept. Even if it’s, like, 30 yards. So you’re stuck either taking the dangerous option of treating a rough, basically nonexistent shoulder as a “bike lane”, or dealing with road rage as you occupy the full lane. I can keep up pretty well with traffic, but even so people just get angry.
this is pretty much how you learn to operate when you have a motorcycle. you are not seen unless you make eye contact and even then don't trust them. works to make a safer drive in a car.
now not to go full mean mode on cage drivers, we have our issues among riders too. I would say about every fifth new cyclist that wants to ride with us or friends; I admit to being a slacker; has to be schooled in not being a dick. No need to make the people who don't like bicycles like them less. Obey the rules, forgive, and ride.
I also hate “share the road” situations where the right thing to do is take up the whole lane;
When driving, I hate when cyclists don't take up the whole lane when they are supposed to (and where I live, they are supposed to unless there's a bike lane). It creates dangerous ambiguous situations when the lane belongs to a biker, but the biker doesn't take it. Pulling over to the side says "go ahead, and pass me" (whether it's a car or a bike). I can't tell you how many times I've seen bikes just mindlessly swerve from the middle of the lane, to outside the lane, and back, paying no attention to the flow of traffic.
I don't get angry at bikers. I get angry at anyone cutting me off or generally using the road erratically.
"I pretty much assume that unless I make eye contact with a driver and get some kind of acknowledgement, I don’t trust that they see me"
so true. After one or two close calls I'm always on my toes watching for vehicles while walking regardless of crosswalks, lights, one-way streets, having the right of way etc. Even on a sidewalk i keep an eye on traffic.
Regarding "sharrows", the alternative in my area to dealing with road rage is dealing with pedestrian rage, despite the sharrows being in a part of the city where cycling on the sidewalks is also allowed (and even preferred on certain sections of "shared road" where using the road could mean crossing traffic twice to go 30 yards).
> I pretty much assume that unless I make eye contact with a driver and get some kind of acknowledgement
1000 times this. IMHO this, and the closely related sizing up each other's expected path, is what is sorely missing in a lot of the US. One of the few times I was able to walk at a car (such that I would pass behind it) in a west coast parking lot and not have the driver stop in my way and wave me on like they did me a favor, it had a Red Sox sticker on the back.
> dealing with road rage as you occupy the full lane
I noticed they mentioned the speed reduction "Boston, for example, has reduced the city speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 mph." Cambridge across the river followed suit soon afterward, but having lived there for decades I can't say I've noticed one iota of difference in the speed cars travel. 25 mph is still ridiculously fast in most of the tight neighborhood streets. Really the speed limit should be reduced even further to 20 mph and even 15 in some areas accompanied by much stricter enforcement. It's not uncommon to see cars hitting 40+ going down some of the straighter roads that emanate out of the major squares.
I am a daily all-weather bike commuter and to be honest have not had a problem with cars. I don't really mind the concept of SOVs- we use one ourselves; it's just that they need to be much more tightly controlled at least in these neighborhoods.
I live in a town here the main street has a posted speed limit of 25 that absolutely nobody obeys and the average speed of traffic is always around 40.
If you take a road with a "natural" speed and try to artificially restrict with a speed limit, unless you are prepared to have officers posted on that road at all times ticketing people will ignore the limit entirely and go the "natural" speed of the road.
I see it all the time, all over, especially since I live in PA where the state thinks its a really sensible idea to keep almost every highway at 55 mph no matter what. When you try to heavily constrain car speed well below the natural speed of the road people simply stop trying to obey the limit at all and go whatever speed they want.
The city wide speed limit was irrelevant in both cities to begin with because in 99.99% of places you couldn't get up to that speed or if you could it would be uncomfortable (narrow streets, poor visibility, etc).
Conditions where one can even go 25+ for more than a couple hundred yards are rare and basically limited to main roads in low traffic conditions (i.e. late at night). These roads already had good bike lanes and the one cyclist riding in said lane at 1am is unlikely to be bothered by the one car that's also around going 30-40 in a separate lane (or I'm not at least).
Once thing I've noticed is that for the large majority of US drivers, the speed limit is a very weak signal for how fast they should drive. I think the strongest signals are the driver's perceived safeness and the "flow of traffic", although the 2nd might actually just be a corollary of the 1st. If it "feels safe" to be driving 35mph, then most drivers are going to drive 35mph regardless of the speed limit.
This is the crux of the matter. If people really thought they'd get a speeding ticket, perhaps they wouldn't speed. I live in a big city similar to Boston and I've never seen someone pulled over for speeding though. After all, what are the odds that:
1. A car speeds
2. In front of a cop
3. The cop can safely pursue the speeding vehicle in city traffic
I believe enforcement of moving violations in the Boston metro is impossible. It is impossible because there is not enough room for an officer in a car to pull a vehicle over while simultaneously keep traffic moving at a reasonable speed. The police have purposely chosen to not enforce moving violations in order to prioritize traffic.
In Chicago they've reduced the speed limit on one of the most frequented bike routes to 20 mph in some areas but its had perceivably no effect. My perception is that cars still average 25 to 35 mph through these areas and I've yet to ever see someone pulled over for speeding.
I’ve noticed that many new road projects near me haven’t included pedestrian crossings. Or, when included, the pedestrian crossings have been poorly-designed.
A view of a map of recent pedestrian deaths [1] seems to confirm this. Many of the deaths seem to be on major roadways that separate two densely populated areas. And, I’ve personally witnessed many more people crossing highways, lately (sometimes, even mothers with small children walking on the shoulder!)
Unfortunately, as the authors research shows, many deaths are in low-income areas. I suspect that low-income people aren’t well-represented when these roadways are designed. And, in particular, two new interchanges near me (that also lack pedestrian crossings), were also known to be areas where many (generally low-income) pedestrians cross, but none of those residents were at any of the planning meetings.
They're doing the opposite here, putting up dedicated stop lights at "troublesome" crosswalks because nobody, ever, stops for people in crosswalks. Well, aside from the 15mph crosswalks they have around schools where everyone stops because the police like to hide around those.
The safest infrastructure are ones that split pedestrian / bicyclist / motor traffic as much as possible, for obvious reasons. But that infrastructure has fallen out of favor as of late. "Complete streets" are the new fashion trend, and are significantly more dangerous, by combining these forms of traffic altogether and just sort of hoping it all works out.
But, "complete" streets are super cheap, and give the illusion of improved infrastructure, so the trend will likely continue for the near future -- further increasing accidents as it does.
In my opinion isolating separate transportation modes is only good if it is complete isolation but that's never feasible in a city. Too expensive and space-inefficient to make every intersection collision-free for cars, bikes and pedestrians.
If you separate cars, bikes and pedestrians most of the time but their paths cross at intersections then you have a problem because drivers might not expect a sudden bike lane out of nowhere. It's better to have the bike lane on the street so that cars see it all the time. This makes them drive slower and more carefully because they expect bikes to show up there.
I don't have data to back this up although I vaguely remember reading about it in "Streetfight" by Janette Sadik-Khan. If I recall correctly introduction of unseparated bike lanes in New York City didn't increase bike fatalities despite increasing the number of bikers and it also decreased number of pedestrian fatalities thanks to cars driving slower because of bikes. Of course the article shows that now the pedestrian deaths increased so it might have been a premature conclusion on Sadik-Khans part.
What, you don't like to share a narrow lane with no shoulder right up against a concrete barrier that you'd better not go over because the other side is a 20 foot drop down to train tracks?
EDIT: Not to mention this photo shows the one and only bike symbol on the block. Given how worn off it is I assume most drivers have no idea this is the "bike route."
heh a couple summer's ago in Dallas i got hit by a police officer while crossing the street. Ironically, while he was on his cell phone. I had to do the whole ninja-roll thing over the hood and on to the pavement. Came out of it with only a sore wrist and a funny story for the conference call i was late to.
a buddy of mine grabbed a guy and pulled him out of the way of a city bus. The guy had the light to cross and the bus was making a turn while watching for traffic and not people. My friend saved a life that day.
while crossing a fairly busy street, again in Dallas, a girl about 10 feet in front of me got completely leveled by, yet again, a car turning right watching for traffic and not people. She was not ok.
Honestly I think right turns on red should be illegal at more intersections for this reason. At least busier ones. It's these cases where a right turner has to carefully watch for oncoming traffic that pedestrians are exactly opposite of where they're looking. God forbid you're trying to cross from the same side of the street as the right turner.
Here's the thing drivers - if you turn right and don't check over your right shoulder for the bike or pedestrian, then one day you will be that guy that kills somebody. Its just a matter of time.
Always, always glance over your right shoulder when turning right.
Turning right on a red light is prohibited in many countries, unless indicated by a separate, arrow-shaped (green or orange) light. Surprised to learn that it is however allowed in most of the USA.
I moved from Dallas to Minneapolis and was certain I would feel safer walking and biking because of it's reputation as a bike friendly city. In Dallas, it seemed somewhat understandable to me for drivers not to except to see pedestrians and bikers because there just aren't that many of them - the city is so spread out. But the drivers in Minneapolis are straight up entitled, aggressive, and dangerous in high foot traffic areas. Right turn on red and and stop signs are treated as roll throughs, and only if there isn't oncoming traffic. I felt safer as a pedestrian living in NYC than I have in either Dallas or Minneapolis.
I have personally noticed some unintended consequences due to modern auto design. The more steeply sloped windshields for better aerodynamics mean that in most cases a pedestrian can no longer see where the driver is looking. All they see is a reflection of the bright sky. The greater tendency to have smoked windows to the sides and rear just makes things worse.
The flatter angle of the front A-pillars also increases the size of the blind spot[1]. A-pillars have to provide rollover protection these days and as a result have to be somewhat wider to produce the required strength.
It’s much harder to know where the car you are driving ends too. With bonnets that slope away at an increasing gradient you can’t tell. In older cars you could see the front of the vehicle you were driving. I also find my view obstructed by the wide A pillars, particularly on winding roads.
There's a great, if a bit cheesy video from FortNine [1] on why motorcyclists can be basically invisible to even cautious drivers due to the way our brain processes information, and I think the same thing would apply for bicyclists. When I'm on my bike (of either type) I assume nobody sees me and act accordingly.
For cyclists and pedestrians to really be safe we need to design our road infrastructure to counteract those issues from the start. I visited Copenhagen a few years ago and biked everywhere, and it was a real eye opener how safe and easy it was compared with my home in Chicago.
I don't understand why anyone ever though walkways, bikeways and driveways should intersect without strict rights-of-way, or run parallel without actual barriers between them. In low traffic areas, fine, practicality wins, but the 8-lane roads from a decade ago have turned into 8-lanes with motorcycle lanes between them (sometimes only imaginary, but still legally real), bike lanes (sometimes not as the outer-most lane), and mid-street pedestrian crosswalks that have very confusing, seemingly optional, signaling. People sucked at driving under far simpler conditions. They still suck just as bad and new obstacles and distractions keep being introduced. Strict separation is the only sane option.
What I find absolutely INSANE about American traffic signals is that they're built on the assumption that drivers will turn-on-red while the pedestrian walk signal is active.
This causes so many unnecessary conflicts. At best, you get a nasty look from an impatient right-turner who has to slam their brakes to avoid hitting you. At worst, you get killed for obeying a traffic signal.
Similar with left turning. Why don't all high-volume roads have dedicated left turn arrows? If a driver misjudges the speed of the next car, you can bet they'll choose to follow through with the turn and hit a pedestrian rather than getting hit by a car going through a green light.
The best tell of the US bike infrastructure being a joke is that local governments have the audacity to put some paint on a 45MPH road, and call it a bike lane. No separation, no barrier, just cars whizzing by at 45+, next to a cyclist going 15. And the bike lanes sometimes suddenly disappear, making bikers dismount or merge into fast traffic. No, thanks. I'll take the sidewalk that's empty 90% of the time.
Even in rare places where signs say "bikes may use full lane", I've been near ran over by cars angrily speeding past me.
No (edit: quantitative, you'd think that stipulation would be obvious because we're on HN) mention of increase in popularity of cycling for one's commute (seems to be up year over year in my unscientific observation)? I even skimmed the linked articles and they also seem to only be counting deaths, not deaths per anything. That doesn't tell us anything useful. This entire article is hand-wavy.
I'm sure if everyone who currently rides a bicycle to work went out and started commuting via skateboard tomorrow we'd have a heck of a lot more skateboard fatalities.
Also worth mentioning that this is an op-ed so it is not subject to normal journalistic standards (however low they may sometimes be).
> More people are being killed because cities are encouraging residents to walk and bike, but their roads are still dominated by fast-moving vehicular traffic. As my research has shown, this shifting mix can be deadly.
I think the increase in the number of pedestrian deaths is also caused by the increase in the number of SUVs/CUVs and an increase in the size of cars generally speaking. Bigger cars -> more pedestrian deaths looks like a decent enough "correlation is causation" for me.
The article only gives a passing mention to distracted driving but I really think it's what's driving the dramatic increases over the past decade much more so than vehicle design or social attitudes. Around 6 months ago I started driving a truck, offering a much higher vantage, sitting in traffic I'd say > 60% of people are actively on their phones at any given time. It's an epidemic and I'm not sure what the fix is - maybe treating it more like DUIs?
The city of Austin just had a bus driver kill a cyclist a few weeks ago who was later found to have been texting and driving a city bus.
We know that drivers on phones rely primarily on their peripheral vision to spot other vehicles, but it's very easy for a pedestrian or cyclist to slip through that.
Well, in the US cars _always_ have the right of way (technically, it is illegal, but who cares, drivers think they are entitled to it).
So, nobody stops for you at pedestrian crossings, unless you already are walking on it (and you can even feel their frustration), everybody pulls ahead on the pedestrian crossings at intersections, thus making it dangerous for people, who have to slide around. And the turn on right, yes, mentioned here before – same thing, people pull forward too much, plus don't wait for people to cross fully (again, illegal).
Looking at all of it, I am curious why can't they put police behind crosswalks and just fine everybody with such behaviour? Drivers will learn their lessons really quickly (everybody understands fines and money), and this should improve situation drastically.
Parts of the US. Where I live if you pause near the edge of a sidewalk for too long cars will just start screeching to a stop and waving for you to cross. To the point that it's a problem.
I was the co-captain of my college cycling team. I still find certain open roads in Southern California reasonable, but I find myself more and more concerned about the other traffic on the road. I am a physician in no small part because I got hit by a car while riding my bike, and my surgeon was exceptionally gracious, letting me scrub in on surgeries during my convalescence.*
------
* Unrelated footnote: This was before HIPAA. I very much wonder if my kids would be afforded the same opportunity today.
Manhattan definitely has this problem. It's a pedestrian city where most people walk and take the subway everywhere. Meanwhile, there's a ton of cars everywhere, mostly Ubers and people driving through to get to New Jersey, that act like the whole island is their personal highway. It's super dangerous, like putting a gun range in the middle of a playground.
I don't care what the law says or what anybody thinks; if there is an empty sidewalk I'm going to bike on it rather than put myself at risk on the road.
I worked at a personal injury law firm in LA and the number of calls we got daily regarding bicycle collisions was disturbing. I knew I would never ride a bike or a motorcycle in LA. It wasn’t a matter of if you got hit but when.
Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians? It might be possible that the sudden increase in deaths is due to the rise of handheld distractions.
Also the same could be true of drivers and cyclist using their handheld.
Why on earth would it mention that? When were you last grievously injured by an inattentive pedestrian?
The ultimate cause of these deaths is principally in the tons of metal propelled to abnormal speeds by engines that could just as well serve the power needs of an entire row of houses. If your traffic policy doesn't realize this basic fact and instead prefers to make worthless publicity campaigns appealing for "everyone to pay attention", it is not rooted in evidence and doomed to fail.
Imagine every day we had 10+ planes crash, killing everyone inside, and we collectively shrug our shoulders, make tactless comments along the lines of "if it goes up it's gonna come down" and put up posters for plane construction workers to pay more attention putting the rattling cans together.
"Adding to the dangers are distracted drivers and pedestrians and the introduction of electric scooters. Some observers also believe an epidemic of narcissism is causing more aggressive driving. "
> Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians?
I don't know what you mean - it shouldn't matter how distracted and inattentive a pedestrian on the sidewalk is, because the cyclists shouldn't be in the same space as them in the first place.
this shouldn't be downvoted. I've sat a green light while a pedestrian walked right out in front of me without even looking up from their phone. They only realized what they did in the middle of the road and then darted back.
In the Bay Area it's popular for cyclists to bike on narrow, winding, steep roads with no shoulder like Sand Hill Rd. or Highway 9 in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Regardless of how you feel about bikes the conditions are inherently unsafe for bikes and cars and there are multiple annual fatalities.
I can't think of another form of exercise where a participant puts themselves and non-participants in legal danger.
While I totally understand your point, I think that the cyclists are not the ones putting themselves in danger. They have every right to use the road safely. The danger is caused by the divers.
There are many reasons for this but the most common is not taking sufficient separation from the cyclist when passing them. Here in Spain is 1.5m but you don't usually see many cars so close.
I recently moved to a city with "excellent" bicycle infrastructure. Contrary to what I might have imagined, this seems to make things more dangerous for all. The extra lanes, markings, lights, and signs increase distraction, making it harder to concentrate on what actually matters--people.
In addition, almost no bicyclists actually drive lawfully here. It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks. And often when a rather nice bike lane is at hand, they'll choose to ride down the sidewalk instead, endangering pedestrians.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but as a pedestrian, I fear bicyclists more than cars.
"It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks."
That bothers me too. I ride a bike myself but a lot of bikers ride like complete idiots. My favorite is riding at night without lights and reflective equipment.
jbarberu|7 years ago
It seems to be a pretty vicious cycle of the infrastructure being hostile to biking so nobody does it, nobody is biking so the roads are optimized for driving.
I've lived here for little over a year now and I've been _almost_ hit a couple of times while crossing the road at the crosswalk, and a few times at parking lots with drivers not looking back before reversing. I've also seen a dead cyclist in the intersection just outside my apartment complex :(
sethhochberg|7 years ago
I lived in Florida for most of my early life, was car-free for a lot of it, and don't miss riding there at all. The cycling community in Miami used to joke that in the rest of the country, you ride like you're invisible - but in South Florida, you ride like the drivers can see you and are actively trying to kill you. Stay safe.
justaguyhere|7 years ago
jetrink|7 years ago
magduf|7 years ago
Sorry if this sounds rude, but this was a surprise to you? I thought everyone in Europe realized how bicycle/pedestrial-hostile US cities are. Did you not come here first to check things out before committing to a cross-Atlantic move?
And seriously, Sweden is one of the top countries on the quality-of-life indices. The US is definitely not. Why would you leave there to come here? That's like me leaving the US and moving to El Salvador, thinking it'll somehow be nicer. (This is a valid comparison: compare the murder rates of Sweden vs. US to US vs. El Salvador.)
cainxinth|7 years ago
I think it's because it's a state with a lot of transplants (such as yourself) so you have a big mix of driving styles all interacting and they sometimes clash.
francisofascii|7 years ago
bloomca|7 years ago
It is super ironic, I agree. USA has a lot of room for activities, but the irony is that you have to _drive_ to them. Yes, you have to drive somewhere first, and when do what you want. Wants to run? Well, big chance you need to drive to some park. Wants to cycle? There is a chance you don't want to do straight from your house (like I have to go on a highway, which is not the best idea to cycle on).
> I've lived here for little over a year now and I've been _almost_ hit a couple of times while crossing the road at the crosswalk, and a few times at parking lots with drivers not looking back before reversing.
In USA, I recommend to walk in the middle of the parking lot (always!). This way you'll have time to react to any hazardous situations. Yes, some might honk at you, but better safe than sorry.
0xCMP|7 years ago
Yes, the weather is very hot, but the issue is not the heat but the fact everything is so far away and there isn't a safe way either-way of getting there without a car.
I'm a fan of how I understand Japanese zoning works + some of the stuff they're trying in Spain to ban cars in some areas.
seanmcdirmid|7 years ago
AndyMcConachie|7 years ago
maxxxxx|7 years ago
The Florida lifestyle is to drive from air conditioned place to air conditioned place in your car. I am exaggerating but you should try ORegon or Washington for a more active lifestyle.
jtms|7 years ago
overcast|7 years ago
jak92|7 years ago
justinph|7 years ago
Source: https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killi...
btrettel|7 years ago
When I first saw one of these I thought it was something out of Mad Max. The vast majority of these people don't need these grille guards as they don't work on a farm or anything similar. My guess is that they are bought to make their truck or SUV look tougher.
In contrast, I grew up in a rural area where grille guards might be useful and I never saw them. Big trucks don't seem to be as common as here either.
loeg|7 years ago
> That report also noted that SUVs and trucks were involved in a third of pedestrian injuries but 40 percent of deaths.
(I.e., slightly disproportionately more likely to kill in a given collision.)
That said, the number of deaths is about 4% of the total number of traffic-pedestrian crashes that go to emergency rooms. The number does not include anyone who went to urgent care, nor people who walked away.[0]
If 100% of SUV/truck drivers could switch to car-class automobiles, we'd expect to reduce pedestrian deaths about 359 (of 5376). It's something, but (1) difficult to imagine how we get there, and (2) definitely a minority fraction of 5376. I'm not sure that supports the idea that "increased prevalence of SUVS and trucks is one of the biggest factors."
In contrast, (!)34% of pedestrians killed were drunk when they died, and (!)15% of drivers were drunk when they killed a pedestrian[ibid]. These are huge numbers! 1828 and 806 lives, respectively. We can't (and don't want) to prevent people from drinking, but maybe we can improve safety for drunk pedestrians, and figure out new ways to take drivers who have been drinking off the road.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind...
notacoward|7 years ago
timerol|7 years ago
dsfyu404ed|7 years ago
I'd rather get hit by a 90s F-series or Miata (with the "pedestrian unsafe" folding headlights) than the modern equivalents (though the modern Miata would still be pretty tolerable).
gpvos|7 years ago
Tiktaalik|7 years ago
sandworm101|7 years ago
ab71e5|7 years ago
People here see you as some idiot who is playing with his toy while `serious` people are driving. They yell at you to get on the sidewalk, get off the road, that you don`t pay `road tax` (wtf), some homophobic shit. Canadians are so nice otherwise, but not on the road.
freehunter|7 years ago
It's safe to say that people in North America just don't know how to react to bicycles all around.
AMerrit|7 years ago
danieljohnson|7 years ago
cletus|7 years ago
I live in NYC where this is illegal in the five boroughs. Weirdly I've met more than a few people who live here who didn't know this. You will come across drivers who don't know this too occasionally who'll give you attitude if you walk when you have right of way.
I've visited the Bay Area a lot and honestly I'm terrified of being a pedestrian or cyclist there. When a car hits a red light and wants to turn right the driver will naturally just look left for oncoming traffic. In doing so they'll not be able to see pedestrian coming from the right who might need to cross the road there and they seem more oblivious to cyclists coming from the left.
Couple that with roads that are typically much wider and you feel like you're taking your life in your hands every time you cross the road. In Palo Alto there's a crosswalk across El Camino where it's 6 lanes (IIRC). Not in a million years could you convince me to use it. You just don't know how drivers are going to react. Will they see you? Will they stop for you? Who knows? It's better to cross where there isn't one so you can predict car movement.
I don't know how the US ended up with this turning right at a red light rule. I haven't personally been in another country where this is the case. But I can't think of a more anti-pedestrian and anti-cyclist rule than this.
tom_|7 years ago
b1r6|7 years ago
In the world of marine navigation, baked into many rules and courtesies, is the idea that larger vessels are to be offered right of way over small vessels. Because small vessels are both more able to perceive the current situation, and more able to avoid mishaps.
Paradoxically, pedestrians often have the right of way always, despite the car being far less maneuverable, less perceptive of it's surroundings, and far more dangerous to collide with.
This negation of the common-sense logic found in marine navigation is why our streets are always reported as "becoming more dangerous".
pcsanwald|7 years ago
Interestingly, people in SF rarely jaywalk, and I wonder if it's related to this.
joekrill|7 years ago
We now have more dedicated bike lanes, which helps immensely. We've introduced signs and indicators ("sharrows") that indicate to drivers that bicyclists have the right to use the lanes just as much as drivers. It's a noticeable difference from 10 years ago. I can't say for certain these other things would have happened without the introduction of the bike share program, but it seems to be what really changed things here.
JimiofEden|7 years ago
Sure you get the one off case where people are being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but for whatever reason you can't really get away from that no matter where you are.
That being said, if you're in another car or anywhere near I76, then you better believe it's every man for himself, and may the traffic gods have mercy on you.
techiferous|7 years ago
I'm not sure that driver attitudes are the primary cause of cycling deaths. Lack of visibility might be one, though.
gdubs|7 years ago
I also hate “share the road” situations where the right thing to do is take up the whole lane; drivers are almost religiously against this concept. Even if it’s, like, 30 yards. So you’re stuck either taking the dangerous option of treating a rough, basically nonexistent shoulder as a “bike lane”, or dealing with road rage as you occupy the full lane. I can keep up pretty well with traffic, but even so people just get angry.
Shivetya|7 years ago
now not to go full mean mode on cage drivers, we have our issues among riders too. I would say about every fifth new cyclist that wants to ride with us or friends; I admit to being a slacker; has to be schooled in not being a dick. No need to make the people who don't like bicycles like them less. Obey the rules, forgive, and ride.
dfxm12|7 years ago
When driving, I hate when cyclists don't take up the whole lane when they are supposed to (and where I live, they are supposed to unless there's a bike lane). It creates dangerous ambiguous situations when the lane belongs to a biker, but the biker doesn't take it. Pulling over to the side says "go ahead, and pass me" (whether it's a car or a bike). I can't tell you how many times I've seen bikes just mindlessly swerve from the middle of the lane, to outside the lane, and back, paying no attention to the flow of traffic.
I don't get angry at bikers. I get angry at anyone cutting me off or generally using the road erratically.
chasd00|7 years ago
so true. After one or two close calls I'm always on my toes watching for vehicles while walking regardless of crosswalks, lights, one-way streets, having the right of way etc. Even on a sidewalk i keep an eye on traffic.
Stephen304|7 years ago
mindslight|7 years ago
1000 times this. IMHO this, and the closely related sizing up each other's expected path, is what is sorely missing in a lot of the US. One of the few times I was able to walk at a car (such that I would pass behind it) in a west coast parking lot and not have the driver stop in my way and wave me on like they did me a favor, it had a Red Sox sticker on the back.
> dealing with road rage as you occupy the full lane
Meh, free soda.
xefer|7 years ago
I am a daily all-weather bike commuter and to be honest have not had a problem with cars. I don't really mind the concept of SOVs- we use one ourselves; it's just that they need to be much more tightly controlled at least in these neighborhoods.
zanny|7 years ago
If you take a road with a "natural" speed and try to artificially restrict with a speed limit, unless you are prepared to have officers posted on that road at all times ticketing people will ignore the limit entirely and go the "natural" speed of the road.
I see it all the time, all over, especially since I live in PA where the state thinks its a really sensible idea to keep almost every highway at 55 mph no matter what. When you try to heavily constrain car speed well below the natural speed of the road people simply stop trying to obey the limit at all and go whatever speed they want.
dsfyu404ed|7 years ago
Conditions where one can even go 25+ for more than a couple hundred yards are rare and basically limited to main roads in low traffic conditions (i.e. late at night). These roads already had good bike lanes and the one cyclist riding in said lane at 1am is unlikely to be bothered by the one car that's also around going 30-40 in a separate lane (or I'm not at least).
mbrameld|7 years ago
dfxm12|7 years ago
This is the crux of the matter. If people really thought they'd get a speeding ticket, perhaps they wouldn't speed. I live in a big city similar to Boston and I've never seen someone pulled over for speeding though. After all, what are the odds that:
1. A car speeds
2. In front of a cop
3. The cop can safely pursue the speeding vehicle in city traffic
bluntfang|7 years ago
I believe enforcement of moving violations in the Boston metro is impossible. It is impossible because there is not enough room for an officer in a car to pull a vehicle over while simultaneously keep traffic moving at a reasonable speed. The police have purposely chosen to not enforce moving violations in order to prioritize traffic.
alexlrobertson|7 years ago
afpx|7 years ago
A view of a map of recent pedestrian deaths [1] seems to confirm this. Many of the deaths seem to be on major roadways that separate two densely populated areas. And, I’ve personally witnessed many more people crossing highways, lately (sometimes, even mothers with small children walking on the shoulder!)
Unfortunately, as the authors research shows, many deaths are in low-income areas. I suspect that low-income people aren’t well-represented when these roadways are designed. And, in particular, two new interchanges near me (that also lack pedestrian crossings), were also known to be areas where many (generally low-income) pedestrians cross, but none of those residents were at any of the planning meetings.
[1] http://www.governing.com/gov-data/transportation-infrastruct...
UncleEntity|7 years ago
maxsilver|7 years ago
But, "complete" streets are super cheap, and give the illusion of improved infrastructure, so the trend will likely continue for the near future -- further increasing accidents as it does.
admiral_biatch|7 years ago
If you separate cars, bikes and pedestrians most of the time but their paths cross at intersections then you have a problem because drivers might not expect a sudden bike lane out of nowhere. It's better to have the bike lane on the street so that cars see it all the time. This makes them drive slower and more carefully because they expect bikes to show up there.
I don't have data to back this up although I vaguely remember reading about it in "Streetfight" by Janette Sadik-Khan. If I recall correctly introduction of unseparated bike lanes in New York City didn't increase bike fatalities despite increasing the number of bikers and it also decreased number of pedestrian fatalities thanks to cars driving slower because of bikes. Of course the article shows that now the pedestrian deaths increased so it might have been a premature conclusion on Sadik-Khans part.
junga|7 years ago
Can you provide a source for this? (especially concerning the separation of bicyclists and motor traffic)
anonymou2|7 years ago
wlesieutre|7 years ago
https://i.imgur.com/0cxvaJM.png
At least they put up a no parking sign.
EDIT: Not to mention this photo shows the one and only bike symbol on the block. Given how worn off it is I assume most drivers have no idea this is the "bike route."
chasd00|7 years ago
a buddy of mine grabbed a guy and pulled him out of the way of a city bus. The guy had the light to cross and the bus was making a turn while watching for traffic and not people. My friend saved a life that day.
while crossing a fairly busy street, again in Dallas, a girl about 10 feet in front of me got completely leveled by, yet again, a car turning right watching for traffic and not people. She was not ok.
Dallas isn't that friendly to pedestrians
nkrisc|7 years ago
JoeAltmaier|7 years ago
Always, always glance over your right shoulder when turning right.
nmc|7 years ago
Turning right on a red light is prohibited in many countries, unless indicated by a separate, arrow-shaped (green or orange) light. Surprised to learn that it is however allowed in most of the USA.
cleetus|7 years ago
gruez|7 years ago
did the officer get disciplined for this?
upofadown|7 years ago
The flatter angle of the front A-pillars also increases the size of the blind spot[1]. A-pillars have to provide rollover protection these days and as a result have to be somewhat wider to produce the required strength.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_blind_spot#Effects_of_...
lostlogin|7 years ago
pdovy|7 years ago
For cyclists and pedestrians to really be safe we need to design our road infrastructure to counteract those issues from the start. I visited Copenhagen a few years ago and biked everywhere, and it was a real eye opener how safe and easy it was compared with my home in Chicago.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0
kgwxd|7 years ago
benrbray|7 years ago
This causes so many unnecessary conflicts. At best, you get a nasty look from an impatient right-turner who has to slam their brakes to avoid hitting you. At worst, you get killed for obeying a traffic signal.
Similar with left turning. Why don't all high-volume roads have dedicated left turn arrows? If a driver misjudges the speed of the next car, you can bet they'll choose to follow through with the turn and hit a pedestrian rather than getting hit by a car going through a green light.
antisthenes|7 years ago
Even in rare places where signs say "bikes may use full lane", I've been near ran over by cars angrily speeding past me.
SEJeff|7 years ago
https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a23676188/best-bike-cities...
Source: I live in Chicago and ride a bicycle when it is nice out.
monksy|7 years ago
dsfyu404ed|7 years ago
I'm sure if everyone who currently rides a bicycle to work went out and started commuting via skateboard tomorrow we'd have a heck of a lot more skateboard fatalities.
Also worth mentioning that this is an op-ed so it is not subject to normal journalistic standards (however low they may sometimes be).
benwad|7 years ago
> More people are being killed because cities are encouraging residents to walk and bike, but their roads are still dominated by fast-moving vehicular traffic. As my research has shown, this shifting mix can be deadly.
paganel|7 years ago
bryanlarsen|7 years ago
badfrog|7 years ago
It's right in the introduction:
> As cities strive to improve the quality of life for their residents, many are working to promote walking and biking
[...]
> More people are being killed because cities are encouraging residents to walk and bike
dr_dshiv|7 years ago
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollan...
simplyluke|7 years ago
The city of Austin just had a bus driver kill a cyclist a few weeks ago who was later found to have been texting and driving a city bus.
We know that drivers on phones rely primarily on their peripheral vision to spot other vehicles, but it's very easy for a pedestrian or cyclist to slip through that.
bloomca|7 years ago
So, nobody stops for you at pedestrian crossings, unless you already are walking on it (and you can even feel their frustration), everybody pulls ahead on the pedestrian crossings at intersections, thus making it dangerous for people, who have to slide around. And the turn on right, yes, mentioned here before – same thing, people pull forward too much, plus don't wait for people to cross fully (again, illegal).
Looking at all of it, I am curious why can't they put police behind crosswalks and just fine everybody with such behaviour? Drivers will learn their lessons really quickly (everybody understands fines and money), and this should improve situation drastically.
closetohome|7 years ago
Parts of the US. Where I live if you pause near the edge of a sidewalk for too long cars will just start screeching to a stop and waving for you to cross. To the point that it's a problem.
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
killjoywashere|7 years ago
------
* Unrelated footnote: This was before HIPAA. I very much wonder if my kids would be afforded the same opportunity today.
jdlyga|7 years ago
tonymet|7 years ago
elhudy|7 years ago
FloNeu|7 years ago
mrhappyunhappy|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
smoke-alarm|7 years ago
[deleted]
baud147258|7 years ago
Also the same could be true of drivers and cyclist using their handheld.
stefan_|7 years ago
The ultimate cause of these deaths is principally in the tons of metal propelled to abnormal speeds by engines that could just as well serve the power needs of an entire row of houses. If your traffic policy doesn't realize this basic fact and instead prefers to make worthless publicity campaigns appealing for "everyone to pay attention", it is not rooted in evidence and doomed to fail.
Imagine every day we had 10+ planes crash, killing everyone inside, and we collectively shrug our shoulders, make tactless comments along the lines of "if it goes up it's gonna come down" and put up posters for plane construction workers to pay more attention putting the rattling cans together.
upofadown|7 years ago
>Most pedestrians and bicyclists are killed or injured while they are obeying the law.
neetodavid|7 years ago
This is linked in that passage: https://theconversation.com/the-value-of-unplugging-in-the-a...
chrisseaton|7 years ago
I don't know what you mean - it shouldn't matter how distracted and inattentive a pedestrian on the sidewalk is, because the cyclists shouldn't be in the same space as them in the first place.
chasd00|7 years ago
ahoy|7 years ago
everdev|7 years ago
Regardless of how you feel about bikes the conditions are inherently unsafe for bikes and cars and there are multiple annual fatalities.
I can't think of another form of exercise where a participant puts themselves and non-participants in legal danger.
ainiriand|7 years ago
There are many reasons for this but the most common is not taking sufficient separation from the cyclist when passing them. Here in Spain is 1.5m but you don't usually see many cars so close.
eat|7 years ago
towaway1138|7 years ago
In addition, almost no bicyclists actually drive lawfully here. It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks. And often when a rather nice bike lane is at hand, they'll choose to ride down the sidewalk instead, endangering pedestrians.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but as a pedestrian, I fear bicyclists more than cars.
maxxxxx|7 years ago
That bothers me too. I ride a bike myself but a lot of bikers ride like complete idiots. My favorite is riding at night without lights and reflective equipment.