It's just completely surreal driving a bicycle in car traffic. The vast majority of car drivers simply lack the moral character and should not ever be allowed to drive such dangerous machinery.
Cycle paths are optional here, and I very regularly opt out of driving on them because they are in a constant state of disarray, had snow and glass shoved on them, are too close to parking cars or end abruptly, forcing me to merge into traffic. So, being a vehicle, I drive on the street. I drive on the middle of the street, because (1) bicycles come with two (bi) wheels and naturally oscillate (2) street conditions very frequently make it necessary to use space to my left or right and (3) to make it clear that you can not overtake me in the same lane.
Car drivers regularly think this is an invitation to overtake me extremely closely, basically touching. They value my life, really any life, so little compared to the nonexistent time or speed benefit they would get from overtaking me. They think they are supremely in control of a large four ton object driving at 30 mph when they couldn't park it to an inch to save their life. They think I have done them wrong, and are now trying to get back at me; it's a game to them!
I don't know what it is that makes people lose all compassion or basic rational understanding of risks and dangers once they get into a car.
Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.
I have ridden a bike year around in Chicago for over four years. I have been hit once by a car, and once by a motorcycle. Both times I managed to walk with only scrapes and bruises.
What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition, I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her bike riding behind me. She called the cops.
The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong. I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.
Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.
No, it is not. But it is also not OK to prevent cyclists to kill themselves by car. I've witnessed an accident recently when the car in front of me hit a cyclist. He was:
a) riding at night without lights
b) running red light
c) against the traffic
d) without a helmet
I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc, etc, etc.
If you don't want to die, stop trying.
Quite unfair. When I commuted by bike in SF for a couple years, I wore hi-vis clothing, front and rear lights even when it wasn't dark yet (especially at dusk!), and stuck to designated bike routes with calmer traffic when possible. And every day I saw hundreds of other cyclists just like me who didn't have a death wish.
The (small-y) yahoos who ride dangerously certainly stand out more, but it's depressing to have folks like you throw up their hands and say, effectively: Too bad there's nothing we can do to make cycling safer, since too many cyclists just "want to die".
Bike safety starts with the rider. One of the scariest experiences I ever had while driving a car was nearly hitting a cyclist as I was pulling out of a parking lot. He was riding at night with no lights or reflectors visible. Oh, and he was wearing 100% dark clothing too. This was in an area with very little street lighting. He was basically invisible to me until he got extremely close. Fortunately I saw him in time and stopped, but to this day it still makes my heart race a little bit to think about it.
Before anyone jumps on me for not seeing it from the cyclist's perspective, I spent several years commuting by bicycle, frequently going home after dark. During that time, I made damn sure I had enough lights and reflectors for car drivers to see me. I was never under the impression that basic safety was anyone's responsibility but my own.
That of course doesn't mean that there aren't car drivers out there who are careless around cyclists, but cyclists themselves have to take the first steps, such as making sure you are visible to everyone around you, (including avoiding getting into other people's blind spots), and above all maintaing awareness and caution at all times. I realize I probably sound like a school teacher, but they say these sorts of things for a reason. A cyclist with cavalier, reckless, or lackadaisical attitude towards safety is an accident waiting to happen.
You ever seen Amsterdam traffic? Lots of cyclists ignore red lights etc, etc, etc, and yet for some odd reason that's not considered an excuse for just running them over with your car.
I totally get the American argument in favor of the right to bear arms, but at least that's based on the assumption of responsible gun ownership.
When it comes to cars however, any sense of responsibility seems to go out of the window. Cars and bicycles aren't equals, a car is a heavy piece of machinery that can kill a grown man in an instant. The driver of a car has a much, much greater responsibility to the safety of those around them.
Cyclists running red lights are a big problem in LA. I am very much in favor of cycling, but you have to follow the laws. I know it is a pain in the ass to stop at every stoplight when you have to use your own muscles to accelerate, but you have to do it.
When you say "running stop signs", do you mean a rolling slow-down/speed up if they're the first at the intersection? I do that all the time, not sure if it's legal but it's a pain to stop fully. With cars around I always stop, especially in SF I'd be insane not to.
scratch off point d. Helmets don't really do anything to protect you unless you practically fall off your bike standing still.
I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.
I always obey traffic laws on my bike.
Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died. Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer than helmets and helmet laws do.
No one is suggesting that the driver should be held accountable by default for a collision with a cyclist. But it would be nice if society even entertained the possibility that a driver could be at fault.
I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and the bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct (non-emergency line) to report it with the bus number (the 4 digit one on the back) and they repeatedly hung up on me when I told them I was run down by a city bus who drove away.
I think this is problem that's endemic in the UK too. Our love of the motor vehicle, and design of the city to meet the needs of the motorist just leaves little to no room to make cycling a safe activity.
Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was critically injured cycling in the city
Yes, definitely a big problem in the UK too. Although I think support for cycling is perhaps more cross-party than in the US, at least in the political elite. Both the Conservative PM and Mayor of London are nominally pro-bike, also The Times (centre-right paper for those from outside the UK) ran a major campaign on cycle safety, after one of their journalists was killed:
It's pretty amazing how quickly tribalism emerges in cases like this. As societies, we seem to require very little difference before it's ok not to give a damn about people being killed. A disagreement about the most efficient form of transportation escalates in a moment into life and death.
The author makes all of the relevant points. When I first moved to SV, I bought a nice bike and rode it around for awhile. Then I started to notice the utter lack of attention to cyclists, even those such as myself who rode with a helmet and obeyed all of the traffic laws. You're just invisible.
Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't behave that way.
>So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere...
Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.
I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.
I think this is the core of the discrepancy. Cyclists are so vulnerable that a half-second of inattention from either the driver or the cyclist can result in death.
Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car.
It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.
The problem is that "I didn't see the cyclist" becomes a catch-all excuse that law-enforcement takes at face value. This leads to an implicit (though not acknowledged or stated) assumption that a driver cannot be at fault in a driver/cyclist ahem interaction.
I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.
Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on.
Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
If a child gets run down by someone who didn't see him...
...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child).
Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).
Why are so many comments here raising the straw-man argument of a cyclist flagrantly disregarding all traffic laws and common sense? No one is suggesting that the driver should be at fault in such cases.
This article is a string of anecdotes presented as a trend. Where's the hard data?
In any case, the truth is, accidents do happen. What would throwing the teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?
I don't know - but I do know that if no one goes to jail for reckless driving, people will continue to drive recklessly. And it's not just bicyclists who die from reckless driving - lots of motorists die as well. And yet, hardly anyone is prosecuted, and people continue to drive tired, distracted or otherwise incapacitated. And people die. And society seems to consider it the price of doing business.
Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be a lot more careful behind the wheel.
Considering the rate at which they happen with automobiles and the death and injury that result from said accidents, you would think we'd have banned or severely limited personal automobiles by now.
The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".
I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have been made legal and available, not less.
So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths, cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.
You seem to forget that kids are tossed out of schools in the US for playing with toy guns. You can get thrown out for making your food look like a gun.
On the other hand, many of these mass killers are? Kids. The same kids who are never taught how to handle themselves around potential danger or to manage risk and stress.
So, we get a bunch of kids who sit at home a rather playing with their pop-tarts as toy guns, play "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER" video games. Cause why? That's a good way for them to learn how to safely handle firearms?
Things have changed. I went to visit a teacher at my old high school while I was back home, and was told I needed to apply for a visitor pass (w/ background check) beforehand in order to be allowed in the building. And even then, I needed the person I was visiting to escort me.
Your post is a baseless rant which generalizes the thoughts and actions of hundreds of millions of people.
The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".
I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really think there's something else going on in this case.
If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.
I see problems like this as "points-in-time". There will eventually be a technology based solution to these sorts of things. Early warning systems, collision detection, even just pervasiveness of go-pro cameras as the price point brings it into "standard equipment" territory (thus allowing distinction between negligence and accident).
That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't look to the criminal justice system for it.
I grew up cycling in London. Came from a family of cyclists and motorbikers. My uncles taught me one rule, which has saved me on numerous occasions (on a bike and in a car):
"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"
Whenever I read a piece like this I'm always reminded of this BBC piece on why motorists hate cyclists. There's a good evolutionary reason for doing so, and it's worth understanding.
I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.
A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in cars so their sympathies are there.
I'm glad that people are cycling and that this article pleads with everyone to follow the rules of the road, but beyond that, it's still pretty sensational.
Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through, accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no criminal charges followed.
I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved, the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.
In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by technology designed to survive in it.
Are there any statistics what happens to drivers at fault that kill another car driver?
What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?
I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.
At the very least, loss of driving privileges pending classwork and retesting should be required.
If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to have the capability to do this safely.
Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we should raise the driving age, greatly raise driving test standards, and require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially inspected my driving. It's insane.
But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally vastly overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of regular testing as a slight against them.
I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.
A key difference, I think, is when one driver kills another there is often a more grievous error involved. With cyclists on the other hand, it only takes a tiny error at low speeds to have a fatal accident. I'm thinking the magnitude of the error might be playing into verdicts.
I don't know about jail, but I find it hard to believe that people who have demonstrated incompetence with a motor vehicle, fatal incompetence, are allowed to drive.
Anyway, there really is only one long term solution: exclusive roads for non-pedestrian, non-motor vehicles. We should aim to solve these problems by making it hard for people to have them. I don't think a punishment deterrent really works in situations like these. Most people drive in a switched off mode, and they aren't going to change.
How do we determine "unintentional"? Does having a blase attitude towards the road qualify? Most people don't even internalise the fact they're driving a ball of steel weighing over a tonne with the potential to mame or kill. Is that entirely their fault or of a society that treats driving as a right rather than a privilege and doesn't bother to educate the driver with advanced skills to handle the death machine.
Perhaps the physical disparity between these two modes of transport makes them so incompatible they just shouldn't be sharing the same space at all. Unfortunately cities just haven't been built with this in mind, so making the adjustment seems near impossible at this point.
It's no surprise the author of this piece is from San Francisco. SF is a particularly dangerous city to cycle in, at least for commuters. Riding on the main drags of Market street, Mission, and others is exceedingly dangerous, since drivers are reckless and you're competing with MUNI buses, streetcars, and in packed cycling lanes.
I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city, but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States. The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.
For those questioning whether having and enforcing laws that protect cyclists may help:
In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.
In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.
Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.
So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase safety.
(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in the long term).
I don't understand how people can ride bicycles on public roads along side cars and trucks. The average driver is highly incompetent. Most people don't get proper training how to drive. A lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or eating while driving. Heavy objects moving at high speeds can be very dangerous.
I don't understand how people can walk on public sidewalks along bicyclists that ignore all traffic rules and drive wherever they like. The average cyclist is highly incompetent. Most people don't get any training at all. A lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or listening to music with headphones while cycling. Bicycles moving at high speeds can be very dangerous to pedestrians that are walking on sidewalks.
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
Cycle paths are optional here, and I very regularly opt out of driving on them because they are in a constant state of disarray, had snow and glass shoved on them, are too close to parking cars or end abruptly, forcing me to merge into traffic. So, being a vehicle, I drive on the street. I drive on the middle of the street, because (1) bicycles come with two (bi) wheels and naturally oscillate (2) street conditions very frequently make it necessary to use space to my left or right and (3) to make it clear that you can not overtake me in the same lane.
Car drivers regularly think this is an invitation to overtake me extremely closely, basically touching. They value my life, really any life, so little compared to the nonexistent time or speed benefit they would get from overtaking me. They think they are supremely in control of a large four ton object driving at 30 mph when they couldn't park it to an inch to save their life. They think I have done them wrong, and are now trying to get back at me; it's a game to them!
I don't know what it is that makes people lose all compassion or basic rational understanding of risks and dangers once they get into a car.
[+] [-] FreakyT|12 years ago|reply
Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.
[+] [-] fumar|12 years ago|reply
What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition, I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her bike riding behind me. She called the cops.
The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong. I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.
Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.
[+] [-] kika|12 years ago|reply
I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc, etc, etc. If you don't want to die, stop trying.
[+] [-] chockablock|12 years ago|reply
The (small-y) yahoos who ride dangerously certainly stand out more, but it's depressing to have folks like you throw up their hands and say, effectively: Too bad there's nothing we can do to make cycling safer, since too many cyclists just "want to die".
[+] [-] crbnw00ts|12 years ago|reply
Before anyone jumps on me for not seeing it from the cyclist's perspective, I spent several years commuting by bicycle, frequently going home after dark. During that time, I made damn sure I had enough lights and reflectors for car drivers to see me. I was never under the impression that basic safety was anyone's responsibility but my own.
That of course doesn't mean that there aren't car drivers out there who are careless around cyclists, but cyclists themselves have to take the first steps, such as making sure you are visible to everyone around you, (including avoiding getting into other people's blind spots), and above all maintaing awareness and caution at all times. I realize I probably sound like a school teacher, but they say these sorts of things for a reason. A cyclist with cavalier, reckless, or lackadaisical attitude towards safety is an accident waiting to happen.
[+] [-] dmm|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
I totally get the American argument in favor of the right to bear arms, but at least that's based on the assumption of responsible gun ownership.
When it comes to cars however, any sense of responsibility seems to go out of the window. Cars and bicycles aren't equals, a car is a heavy piece of machinery that can kill a grown man in an instant. The driver of a car has a much, much greater responsibility to the safety of those around them.
[+] [-] hristov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] casual_slacker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] busterarm|12 years ago|reply
I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.
I always obey traffic laws on my bike.
Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died. Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer than helmets and helmet laws do.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June...
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
[+] [-] rcthompson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] busterarm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djhworld|12 years ago|reply
Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was critically injured cycling in the city
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-lor...
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on...
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207...
If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
[+] [-] Brakenshire|12 years ago|reply
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic.
> If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.
On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
[+] [-] Brakenshire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rgrieselhuber|12 years ago|reply
Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't behave that way.
[+] [-] tsotha|12 years ago|reply
Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.
I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car.
It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.
[+] [-] jbl|12 years ago|reply
I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.
[+] [-] kazagistar|12 years ago|reply
There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
[+] [-] scarmig|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CookWithMe|12 years ago|reply
...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child).
Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).
[+] [-] rcthompson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nostromo|12 years ago|reply
In any case, the truth is, accidents do happen. What would throwing the teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?
[+] [-] nmcfarl|12 years ago|reply
Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be a lot more careful behind the wheel.
[+] [-] arcosdev|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have been made legal and available, not less.
So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths, cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.
[+] [-] 001sky|12 years ago|reply
On the other hand, many of these mass killers are? Kids. The same kids who are never taught how to handle themselves around potential danger or to manage risk and stress.
So, we get a bunch of kids who sit at home a rather playing with their pop-tarts as toy guns, play "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER" video games. Cause why? That's a good way for them to learn how to safely handle firearms?
And we wonder.
http://distractify.com/news/how-america-is-turning-kids-into...
[+] [-] dpiers|12 years ago|reply
Your post is a baseless rant which generalizes the thoughts and actions of hundreds of millions of people.
[+] [-] Lagged2Death|12 years ago|reply
I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really think there's something else going on in this case.
If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.
[+] [-] tsotha|12 years ago|reply
Yeah... we call it "freedom".
[+] [-] dmm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aelaguiz|12 years ago|reply
That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't look to the criminal justice system for it.
[+] [-] nekopa|12 years ago|reply
"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"
And it's so true.
[+] [-] melindajb|12 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...
I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.
A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in cars so their sympathies are there.
[+] [-] rbellio|12 years ago|reply
Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through, accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no criminal charges followed.
I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved, the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.
In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by technology designed to survive in it.
[+] [-] thetrb|12 years ago|reply
What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?
I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.
[+] [-] mikeash|12 years ago|reply
If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to have the capability to do this safely.
Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we should raise the driving age, greatly raise driving test standards, and require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially inspected my driving. It's insane.
But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally vastly overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of regular testing as a slight against them.
I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arjie|12 years ago|reply
Anyway, there really is only one long term solution: exclusive roads for non-pedestrian, non-motor vehicles. We should aim to solve these problems by making it hard for people to have them. I don't think a punishment deterrent really works in situations like these. Most people drive in a switched off mode, and they aren't going to change.
[+] [-] hetman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmm|12 years ago|reply
I would argue that cyclists are different because they are much more vulnerable than other vehicles and the law should reflect that fact.
[+] [-] hetman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swalling|12 years ago|reply
I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city, but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States. The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.
[+] [-] CookWithMe|12 years ago|reply
In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.
In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.
Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.
So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase safety.
(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in the long term).
[+] [-] jackmaney|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nick2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikusR|12 years ago|reply