I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you.
Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden.
The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.
At first I thought this was going to be a parody of "anti-rape-culture" campaigns (e.g., "teaching women to defend themselves from rapists is wrong, because we should be teaching men to not rape women"), but much to my surprise it seems that the author is serious.
And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing.
How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
Far from being a parody, it seems to employ the same arguments as the worst of those campaigns, namely, that any advocacy of prudent behavior is tantamount to blaming the victim or removing blame from the antagonist. Of course, in reality, you can have both without any contradictions. It is possible and reasonable to recommend that people avoid scenarios where there is a high risk of being victimized, while at the same time placing full legal (I'll leave moral up to other people) responsibility on the antagonist.
As both a cyclist and a driver, I agree with you to a point. However, the wife of an ex-colleague of mine cycles to work every day. She was knocked off her bike by a car one dark morning (luckily not hurt, just a bit shaken up). She had lights front and back on the bike, was wearing a high visibility jacket, had a head mounted light, and little lights on her body. Basically, she was lit up like a Christmas tree. The drivers response after hitting her - "sorry, I didn't see you".
I love it when people wear lights on themselves at night (pedestrians too!) It makes my job much easier whenever I am operating a car or a bicycle. However, if I realize that I have not noticed someone in the street until I am passing them that is an indicator that my speed is unreasonable for the conditions and I would immediately slow down.
How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
You're not. In your example with the cyclist with a burnt-out light, dark clothing, and dark night, if you had hit him, I would very clearly assert that the cyclist was at fault.
I'm fine with requiring cyclists to have front and rear lights in the dark and/or rain (hell, this is already required of cars), but requiring clothing with reflective paint on top of that? It's a bit ridiculous, IMO. Lights are more than sufficient to make a cyclist visible, the rest of the burden should be on drivers to actually pay attention to what they're doing
The current safety technologies like lights and brakes are absolutely necessary but they only work up to a certain point. The rest are human factor. But to say that cyclist should stay safe by spraying paint on their body is getting a bit too far.
By driving more slowly, under street lights, in a separate lane.
You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.
There is a 100$-200$ fine where I live if you drive around a car without working lights. The same law is used if the rear light of a bicycle is not working.
So, to answer your question, people in traffic should follow traffic laws.
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience.
If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns.
As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
Bicycles are not comparable to motor vehicles, as they are much slower (50 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).
Bicycles are also not comparable to pedestrians, as they are much faster (5 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).
I think it's a mistake to mix traffic that differs in speed by a factor of 3.
As someone who moved from the Netherlands to London, it has taken me years to adjust to absence of real bicycle lanes. They really do seem like the best answer to me.
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
I live in Tempe, AZ near ASU - one of the "most bike friendly" cities in the US, and I can't tell you how many times I've been nearly killed by a bike at full speed weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk - where it's actually illegal for them to ride.
Bikes do not belong on the sidewalk unless they're moving as slow as a pedestrian, which they never are. They're a hazard.
Many years ago I biked daily on 40 mph city streets, so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.
Some boroughs have already completed the move (i.e. the link above) and others are following.
Traffic in London rarely gets above 20mph anyway, so it barely impacts. As a driver it makes driving more relaxing and hasn't impacted travel times. As a cyclist, it's a joy to not have vehicles racing to overtake in appropriate places.
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The bike riding paths are also very well configured and designed, minimising the risk of accidents.
Taking a lane while riding a bike is the safest thing to do when the road is too narrow because it prevents drivers from trying to "squeeze" by. It's also how people claim they want bikes to act, just act more like a car, unless it slightly annoys me. In which case, move over, ride on the shoulder while people blow by you without slowing down from going 15 over in a 30 mph zone.
Lane splitting/filtering at stop lights puts bikers in a safer and more visible position, in front of, instead of between vehicles. When I attempt to queue at lights, the car behind me will often inch up until I'm uncomfortable. If there is a car coming, I often wonder whether they "see" me, or whether I'm about to get caught between two cars having a fender bender, and end up leaving with two broken legs.
Sidewalks are not meant for bikes. The offset from the road, and expectation that traffic on them will move slowly leads to drivers pulling into them without actually checking for traffic. On many occasions while jogging I've almost ended up on someones hood, add a bike, and I'd have been across the hood and on the left side of the car before the driver even looked to his right for traffic.
I cycle around Seattle quite a bit and my preference is always to ride on the sidewalk. As far as I know, this is legal as long as I yield to pedestrians.
I can ride nearly the same speed as on the road, and stop or slow down at my leisure. It's much more enjoyable. I never find pedestrians to be an issue.
It's always far faster than walking and less stressful than riding in the street.
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
I agree. Bikes as road vehicles is a dangerous anachronism. Overtaking bikes is the most unpleasant exercise for me as a driver. Although, given the state of roads vs. the state of sidewalks, I understand why they choose the road.
Yes! I have so much dislike for cyclists because they run red lights, they drive between cars, and they flit about. I can't ever predict what they're going to do because they don't seem bound by the same rules I am bound by in my car.
One of the main problems is that the road have not been designed for cyclists at all. In Denmark there is dedicated bike lanes, and cyclists like you describe is for the most part not a problem at all.
The article calls for crackdown on drivers and may be rightfully so, but. I came to the US from the country where road laws are based on the concept of "operator of the dangerous machine". Such an operator is at fault by default and have to prove their innocence. End even if they do, they still have to compensate medical expenses. Such compensations are not as ridiculously high as they are in the US but still may be quite expensive for the person who _wasn't guilty_ at the first place. And if they were guilty the future of the unfortunate car driver is much more grim. Courts routinely convict such drivers for 1-2 years behind bars (there even special "prisons" for such "criminals" which do not even look like prisons, more like military camps behind barbed wire). If the driver was drunk that could easily become 4-5 years or more.
And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia).
Go figure.
What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do , stop other party from doing the wrong thing". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc. Sure! Where do I sign up?
The author fails to deliver the answer "how". "Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.
as a native of the coutry ywhich is generally considered cyclist heaven (netherlands) bike lanes are quite nice. i did not have any problem cycling to work today. its safe and i get my exercise. infrastructure works.
and yes cars are dangerous machines. people should be careful with them. its a lot of responsibility. but criminalisation is just stupid. that doesn't happen in countries which prioritize road safety.
It's fascinating how the mostly-subconscious bias shows in news articles about driver-cyclist and driver-pedestrian collisions. The driver (and their responsibility) is abstracted away by just referring to a "car", and even when it is clear that the driver broke the law it is rarely mentioned. Phrases like "a driver hit a cyclist" are almost never used; at most it's something like "A cyclist collided with a car" and often even worse - using formulations that imply that cars are some sort of an agency-less force of nature like lightning - getting hit is either an unfortunate accident or recklessness on the victim's part. Almost always the cyclist is victim-blamed for not using a helmet.
> - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)
Um, isn't that actually quite a LOT. Do we really want to emulate that?
The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Right about the same level as the fatal car crash death toll per year.
Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a statistical viewpoint is not going to make people very sympathetic.
This is one of the nice things about moving to France.
You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out. Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them. Usually all the way over in the far lane.
I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.
"It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need any more defending from anybody."
This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national newspapers.
"it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar."
The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike people to read his bike blog.
I cycle to work nearly everyday in the UK. Locally we have crazy cycle lanes that at junction take you off the road and then have to yield to crossing traffic at junctions whereas if I stayed on the road I have right of way.
I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road.
However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them up and overtake then at the next set of lights.
Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me they would arrive no later.
I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road.
I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from behind.
On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit" response.
Whilst I agree with the concept that motorists are responsible for their own behaviour on the road and should not endanger other travellers, I believe that on a road where the speed limit is 55mph, or realistically any speed, that vehicles using that roadway should be able to maintain a safe and non-obstructive speed on said roadways. If your vehicle cannot maintain such a speed, it shouldnt be on a road with other vehicles.
Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal access, they need to conform to the same rules.
I guess the right stays in the middle. We have to make drivers more responsible with cyclists, but on the other hand cyclists have to play following rules. I don't think is always drivers' fault or vice-versa, we should evaluate case by case, but admit that sometimes, some cyclists, are even more dangerous than cars for pedestrians, is not crazy. I saw bike-couriers in London, NY and even here in ZH completely ignoring signals, jumping on sidewalks, avoiding kids with emergency maneuvers. I am not pro-drivers or pro-cyclists, but we have to find the right balance to share streets.
I've seen a few comments here using the example of "I see cycle couriers doing X, therefore cyclists are at fault". It's worth being cautious trying to learn much from the example of cycle couriers: they're disproportionately visible members of the cycling population, they spend all their working days on bikes so they're disproportionately good at it and very confident in their skills, added to which they are stereotypically young, male, and have a strong financial incentive to bend the rules to get wherever they're going quickly.
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
He's not in arms against the tech, but rather against the laws that make them mandatory. Because it encourages motor vehicle drivers even more to not properly pay attention because they're not the ones at fault when hitting a cyclist.
I almost completely agree with the author's policy recommendations and criticisms of US car culture, but I find many of his arguments and implications to be fairly troubling.
> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)
Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe.
> That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed, the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”)
I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than others).
> Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws.
I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels like a sufficient reason to me.
> Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it.
As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like income and population density.
> What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving it, and undividedly so.
By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she already should already behave.
> Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe.
No, he's not. He's implying that instead of motorists being charged with reckless driving or other similar charges, they're most often not even charged. I once had a car make a left turn across 4 lanes of traffic and a turn lane and t-bone me while I was cycling. He couldn't be bothered to make his way safely to the turn lane, pause, then turn left. He just swung across the entire road and hit me. He didn't even get a ticket because he told the officer the sun was in his eyes. I left the scene of the accident in an ambulance and was unable to function normally for over a year. It's not equal.
> Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe.
As someone who has ridden many miles in the US (and many kilometers in Italy), I don't find it such a stretch. There are a lot of pissed-off drivers. Everyone who has ridden a bike enough has stories of being harassed for no reason. Once, for instance, I was riding with a few friends, single-file, lined up as close as we could get to the right side of the straight road, and this guy buzzes us with inches to spare, and no oncoming traffic in the other lane. If he'd "miscalculated" he could have easily injured or killed us.
This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood of a serious injury resulting from an accident.
In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem.
As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
Someone once told me that bicycles have no business being on the road at all. I thought they were just bitter due to an altercation, but the more I thought about it - it's entirely logical. Most roads are simply not built for bicycles and that is why they shouldn't be allowed at this point. They become a hazard because they can't attain the proper speed and they are allowed to flop between acting like a cyclist and acting like a car as another poster mentioned.
It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties.
I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield.
You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars.
I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO.
The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.
[+] [-] makeitsuckless|11 years ago|reply
Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden.
The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.
[+] [-] cperciva|11 years ago|reply
And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing.
How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
[+] [-] baddox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Digit-Al|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c22|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelnos|11 years ago|reply
You're not. In your example with the cyclist with a burnt-out light, dark clothing, and dark night, if you had hit him, I would very clearly assert that the cyclist was at fault.
I'm fine with requiring cyclists to have front and rear lights in the dark and/or rain (hell, this is already required of cars), but requiring clothing with reflective paint on top of that? It's a bit ridiculous, IMO. Lights are more than sufficient to make a cyclist visible, the rest of the burden should be on drivers to actually pay attention to what they're doing
[+] [-] zhanwei|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwp|11 years ago|reply
You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.
[+] [-] belorn|11 years ago|reply
So, to answer your question, people in traffic should follow traffic laws.
[+] [-] rkischuk|11 years ago|reply
If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns.
As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
[+] [-] micheljansen|11 years ago|reply
Bicycles are not comparable to motor vehicles, as they are much slower (50 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).
Bicycles are also not comparable to pedestrians, as they are much faster (5 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).
I think it's a mistake to mix traffic that differs in speed by a factor of 3.
As someone who moved from the Netherlands to London, it has taken me years to adjust to absence of real bicycle lanes. They really do seem like the best answer to me.
[+] [-] brandonmenc|11 years ago|reply
I live in Tempe, AZ near ASU - one of the "most bike friendly" cities in the US, and I can't tell you how many times I've been nearly killed by a bike at full speed weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk - where it's actually illegal for them to ride.
Bikes do not belong on the sidewalk unless they're moving as slow as a pedestrian, which they never are. They're a hazard.
Many years ago I biked daily on 40 mph city streets, so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.
[+] [-] buro9|11 years ago|reply
A gradual move to 20mph on all roads is being introduced: http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/parking-roads/street_im...
Some boroughs have already completed the move (i.e. the link above) and others are following.
Traffic in London rarely gets above 20mph anyway, so it barely impacts. As a driver it makes driving more relaxing and hasn't impacted travel times. As a cyclist, it's a joy to not have vehicles racing to overtake in appropriate places.
[+] [-] yitchelle|11 years ago|reply
Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The bike riding paths are also very well configured and designed, minimising the risk of accidents.
[+] [-] jrock08|11 years ago|reply
Lane splitting/filtering at stop lights puts bikers in a safer and more visible position, in front of, instead of between vehicles. When I attempt to queue at lights, the car behind me will often inch up until I'm uncomfortable. If there is a car coming, I often wonder whether they "see" me, or whether I'm about to get caught between two cars having a fender bender, and end up leaving with two broken legs.
Sidewalks are not meant for bikes. The offset from the road, and expectation that traffic on them will move slowly leads to drivers pulling into them without actually checking for traffic. On many occasions while jogging I've almost ended up on someones hood, add a bike, and I'd have been across the hood and on the left side of the car before the driver even looked to his right for traffic.
[+] [-] gamegoblin|11 years ago|reply
I can ride nearly the same speed as on the road, and stop or slow down at my leisure. It's much more enjoyable. I never find pedestrians to be an issue.
It's always far faster than walking and less stressful than riding in the street.
[+] [-] _pmf_|11 years ago|reply
I agree. Bikes as road vehicles is a dangerous anachronism. Overtaking bikes is the most unpleasant exercise for me as a driver. Although, given the state of roads vs. the state of sidewalks, I understand why they choose the road.
[+] [-] cheshire137|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvidgaard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelnos|11 years ago|reply
Please, no. The biggest nuisance I experience as a pedestrian are cyclists riding on the sidewalk.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kika|11 years ago|reply
And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia).
Go figure.
What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do , stop other party from doing the wrong thing". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc. Sure! Where do I sign up? The author fails to deliver the answer "how". "Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.
[+] [-] timwaagh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterfirefly|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maaaats|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sharlin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdemare|11 years ago|reply
- After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will be fined if you don't have them.
- Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced.
- Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic laws - they will run red lights when they can.
- Practically nobody wears helmets.
- 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)
[+] [-] bsder|11 years ago|reply
Um, isn't that actually quite a LOT. Do we really want to emulate that?
The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Right about the same level as the fatal car crash death toll per year.
Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a statistical viewpoint is not going to make people very sympathetic.
[+] [-] odiroot|11 years ago|reply
But people rarely drive on sidewalks, they don't need to with bicycle paths being really everywhere.
On the other hand you get scooter drivers speeding crazily on the very same bike paths. I've heard it's actually legal but I'm not sure.
[+] [-] rvschuilenburg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkester|11 years ago|reply
You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out. Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them. Usually all the way over in the far lane.
I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|11 years ago|reply
This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national newspapers.
"it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar."
The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike people to read his bike blog.
[+] [-] andygambles|11 years ago|reply
I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road.
However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them up and overtake then at the next set of lights.
Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me they would arrive no later.
I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road.
I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from behind.
On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit" response.
[+] [-] regularfry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterfirefly|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PebblesHD|11 years ago|reply
Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal access, they need to conform to the same rules.
[+] [-] pascalo|11 years ago|reply
From what I have seen Sydney has a really obnoxious anti-cycling culture and a dismal level of cycling infrastructure.
[+] [-] mcpherrinm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bontoJR|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldmanjay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regularfry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regularfry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vishaldpatel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buro9|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ygra|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|11 years ago|reply
> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)
Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe.
> That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed, the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”)
I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than others).
> Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws.
I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels like a sufficient reason to me.
> Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it.
As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like income and population density.
> What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving it, and undividedly so.
By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she already should already behave.
[+] [-] stephendedalus|11 years ago|reply
No, he's not. He's implying that instead of motorists being charged with reckless driving or other similar charges, they're most often not even charged. I once had a car make a left turn across 4 lanes of traffic and a turn lane and t-bone me while I was cycling. He couldn't be bothered to make his way safely to the turn lane, pause, then turn left. He just swung across the entire road and hit me. He didn't even get a ticket because he told the officer the sun was in his eyes. I left the scene of the accident in an ambulance and was unable to function normally for over a year. It's not equal.
[+] [-] davidw|11 years ago|reply
As someone who has ridden many miles in the US (and many kilometers in Italy), I don't find it such a stretch. There are a lot of pissed-off drivers. Everyone who has ridden a bike enough has stories of being harassed for no reason. Once, for instance, I was riding with a few friends, single-file, lined up as close as we could get to the right side of the straight road, and this guy buzzes us with inches to spare, and no oncoming traffic in the other lane. If he'd "miscalculated" he could have easily injured or killed us.
[+] [-] keyanp|11 years ago|reply
In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem.
As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
[+] [-] exclusiv|11 years ago|reply
It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties.
I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield.
You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars.
I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO.
The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.