Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html

by 001sky • 13 years ago

79 164 13 years ago

nytimes.com

imwhimsical2• 13 years ago

TL;DR — No.

Lagged2Death2• 13 years ago

You'd better read it this time maybe.

imwhimsical2• 13 years ago

I stand corrected (and misunderstood).

When I said "No." I meant it's ethically wrong to kill cyclists, and not "O.K". I was merely answering the question posed in the title. I agree my use of "TL;DR" probably made sure everybody took this the wrong way, and was technically out of place, too.

rcthompson4• 13 years ago

You must not have read the article, because that's definitely not the TL;DR. Sentences like this tell a very different story:

We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.

That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."

tsotha11• 13 years ago

Or society has de facto decided there's no point in sending someone to jail for a legitimate accident.

ck2• 13 years ago

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.

Lagged2Death2• 13 years ago

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.

consonants• 13 years ago

You're on your own if you're involved in an accident while riding a bike.

justin66• 13 years ago

If a driver kills a pedestrian

The situation isn't a whole hell of a lot better for walkers vs. bike riders. "I just didn't see him" still works.

tsotha11• 13 years ago

The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".

Yeah... we call it "freedom".

dmm5• 13 years ago

Are you suggesting that banning cars is an appropriate response to cyclists being hit by cars?

kika9• 13 years ago

I can't resist the urge: responsible government should still allow people to use cars, but full-auto cars should be banned! :-)

scotty79• 13 years ago

Sort of. Wherever there are two lanes or more, cars should be banned on rightmost one that should be separated with some concrete blocks.

dpiers• 13 years ago

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.

001sky4• 13 years ago

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?

And we wonder.

http://distractify.com/news/how-america-is-turning-kids-into...

antonius• 13 years ago

If there was ever a title to draw you into reading the article.. this is it.

tnuc• 13 years ago

Legally it's OK to kill cyclists.

Lobbyists who work for car companies, write the law on road safety.

busterarm10• 13 years ago

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.

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

> "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"

What do you mean you got run over from behind? When I picture that collision the cyclist would be killed or horribly injured. Certainly not able to call the police - and if able to call anyone they would probably call an ambulance.

I'm not doubting you, just confused by the way you've stated it.

busterarm10• 13 years ago

Sure. I was cycling down 21st in Astoria and staying to the right. I passed a bus that was picking up a line of passengers and still had about 5-6 more to go as I was passing it. I was already about 3/4 of the block away from the stop when the bus ran me over.

Basically the bus immediately pulled out after picking up the last passenger and was going way too fast not looking ahead. I got hit from behind on the front-right side of the bus and fell to the right and ended up in the bus' right front wheelwell which I rolled out of before it ran me over completely. My bike took more damage than I did -- I was lucky.

dwaltrip• 13 years ago

That is fucked up.

thetrb• 13 years ago

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.

dmm5• 13 years ago

Are there any statistics what happens to drivers at fault that kill another car driver?

I would argue that cyclists are different because they are much more vulnerable than other vehicles and the law should reflect that fact.

arjie• 13 years ago

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.

hetman7• 13 years ago

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.

sliverstorm2• 13 years ago

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.

mikeash9• 13 years ago

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.

tsotha11• 13 years ago

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.

scarmig• 13 years ago

Vehicular manslaughter is a crime.

tsotha11• 13 years ago

Vehicular manslaughter requires a "wrongful act".

kazagistar• 13 years ago

You would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him.

There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."

tsotha11• 13 years ago

you would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him.

If that's the proposal then my counter-proposal is to ban all bicycles from the streets. People make mistakes, and it's simply not reasonable to put someone in jail for a mistake a normal person would have made.

sliverstorm2• 13 years ago

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.

CookWithMe4• 13 years ago

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...).

tsotha11• 13 years ago

Why do you assume that doesn't happen?

jbl• 13 years ago

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.

tsotha11• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure if the cops knew someone was texting when he hit a cyclist he would get charged with something serious. But I'm not sure how you'd go about proving that's the case in the absence of witnesses. It's not unreasonable to take "I didn't see the cyclist" at face value if you don't have any evidence to the contrary - that's just a presumption of innocence.

revelation4• 13 years ago

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.

tsotha11• 13 years ago

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.

I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already.

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.

I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801.

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.

... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.

djhworld• 13 years ago

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

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.

Brakenshire4• 13 years ago

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:

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

kika9• 13 years ago

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.

busterarm10• 13 years ago

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.

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June...

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...

http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html

kika9• 13 years ago

this guy got injured right where thickest part of the standard styrofoam helmet is. About half way above the eyebrow to the temple. He survived (but there was a lot of blood) but with the helmet he'd walked from the scene with a few scratches on his knees.

I'm not saying "all". But I drive about 400 miles per week (long commute) and I can say that I've seen approximately 5 bicyclist last month which stopped at the stop sign. They really stand out of the crowd.

CaveTech• 13 years ago

This summer I was hit by a truck pulling a wide trailer. The truck overpassed me, but the driver neglected the fact that his trailer was about a foot wider than his truck. It smashed me from behind and laid me out on the pavement. I was lucky enough to not fall under the trailer, but still smashed hard onto the road and nearby sidewalk. My helmet, without a doubt, saved me from a serious head injury. I walked away with some extensive road rash and a minor concussion.

brianobush3• 13 years ago

Helmets protect you. I slid down a street and my head bounced on the pavement - without a helmet I would have been much worse off. The road rash was enough. Another incident was a truck mirror that grazed my helmet. Nothing major, but in all, the helmet does its job.

notjosh• 13 years ago

I had an accident recently as a cyclist with a vehicle, and I thank my helmet a lot for my lack of injury.

The vehicle was a van, and turned right across me going straight (which normally I'd see clearly and avoid, but the way they hesitated implied they'd seen me so I rolled through. Alas.) I'd wager I was going around 20mph/30kph as I hit the side panel. Hips/shoulders first, then I felt my head whiplash into it. Without a helmet, I'd expect at least a mild concussion. With a helmet, I was able to roll away relatively unscathed (minor cuts/bruises) after we exchanged details.

Helmets can help at all/many speeds. They're not a perfect solution, but they're great sometimes. Don't discount them so bluntly :)

38252• 13 years ago

pedestrians alike just aren't looking

You mentioned you obey the law so you probably don't do this. Even if the law does not prohibit riding on the sidewalk, you should never ride on the sidewalk.

Just wanted to take this time to remind everyone that bicycles do not belong on the sidewalk.

skierscott• 13 years ago

Current helmets protect against impact injuries (eg, the pavement hitting your head). Yes, when the speed/energy is high, helmets won't do much. But when the speed is moderate, helmets help a lot. Then, there's also wearing the helmet properly, something many bicyclists fail to do.

The helmets today are only tested with straight on impacts: they're tested by dropping them straight down on the crown of the helmet. But that doesn't happen in the real world. You're moving, meaning you're hit at an angle, meaning that there's a potential for a diffuse axonal injury[1]: the rotational component of the injury. MIPS[2] has helmets that help protect against that.

Is wearing a helmet safer than not wearing a helmet? Without a doubt.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_axonal_injury

[2] http://mipshelmet.com/home

pjungwir• 13 years ago

I saw a bicyclist flip over a car door. He just had a baseball cap on, but it was torn to shreds. I'm glad that wasn't his forehead on the asphalt.

SkyMarshal• 13 years ago

Wearing a helmet is always better than not wearing one. You never know what kind of accident you might be in. Sure there are some a helmet may not protect you from, but there are plenty where a helmet will. It's a stupid, pointless risk not to take such an easy precaution to reduce your odds of permanent brain injury.

Case in point, a few years I was on the home stretch of a 50 mile weekend bikeride, less than a mile from home. I was tired, dehydrated, and fuzzy-brained, but still alert enough to be paying close attention to the traffic around me. I was riding ~10-15mph in the far left lane of one-way 4-lane primary thoroughfare (35mph speed limit).

4-way intersection ahead, figured I'd cross the intersection and ride up onto the very wide sidewalk on the far side so I could get out of traffic, slow to a crawl, relax, and take it easy the rest of the way home. As I came up to the intersection I angled slightly toward the sidewalk ramp on the other side, then turned my head around to the right to watch the traffic coming up behind me to make sure no car was going to make a left turn at the intersection and either turn into me or cut me off.

All clear with cars, no left turners, but when I looked ahead again I saw I'd miss-judged my path and was going to miss the on-ramp by about 5ft and hit the nearly 1ft-high curb instead. Going too fast to correct course and hit the ramp, or to slam on the breaks and stop, only thing I could do was try jump the bike, or at least the front wheel, over the curb.

Too tired, botched the maneuver, not quite high enough, front wheel hit the curb about halfway up and went from around 10-12mph to 0 in a millisecond. Of course me and the rest of the bike kept going, me slingshotting over the handlebars (bike shoes clipped in so angular momentum at work here) and then piledriven head first into the concrete sidewalk. My head landed first with a loud crack, then my body landed on my head, then the bike on top of my body.

I might have been out for a few seconds, not sure, but the first thing I remember was thinking, "ok don't move a muscle, just lay perfectly till, you might have just broken your back and even the slightest movement could cause a tear in your spinal cord." Slowly, gradually, tentatively I started testing that individual fingers and toes worked, then hands and feet, then arms and legs, and finally body and neck.

Everything was ok, but I was still lying there not daring to try to get up. Next thought was, "ok, that loud crack was my head hitting the concrete, I probably have a concussion. gotta be careful, don't black out." Reached up to my head, started feeling around. Helmet broken in places, totalled as designed, but still attached, strapped on, conformed to my head.

Still lying on the sidewalk with bike on top of me, afraid of further injury, and feeling around my head checking for injury. No blood, no pain anywhere. Disbelief. Check again, thoroughly. Still no blood, no pain. More disbelief.

Can I really have just had a crash that bad, where my head alone absorbed the entire impact of my 200lb self and ~20lb bike, without any injury besides skinned hands and some bruises? Mindbogglingly, yes that was exactly what happened. That helmet absorbed the whole damn thing, and I walked away without either a concussion or any kind of neck or spinal injury, just some scrapes and bruises.

So yeah, just wear a helmet. Even if you have 10 accidents where a helmet is irrelevant and just 1 where it is, it will have been worth it.

If my anecdotal evidence doesn't impress you, then think of it terms of Expected Payoff E(X). Wearing a helmet costs nothing of consequence, yet the benefits could range from 0 (you're never in a crash your entire life and never need it, or you're in a crash where a helmet makes absolutely no difference) to everything (you're in a crash that would cause permanent brain damage or death without a helmet protection). You can see how the averages work out.

Humans are very poor by default at evaluating risks that have low odds of occurring, but very high consequences if they do occur. Bike crashes are exactly this kind of risk, so don't be a typical human here - don't blow these types of risks off, discount them, or ignore them. Be smart, mitigate or neutralize them.

dmm5• 13 years ago

I see cars run stop signs and red lights all the time. I see cars speed everywhere, including neighborhoods with poor visibility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

CamperBob2• 13 years ago

I think I was... what? 4? 5? ... when my parents explained that your reasoning is invalid.

kika9• 13 years ago

I see them too. I also see them got ticketed heavily and some even lost the privilege to drive. But I can't say that vast majority of cars run stop signs.

Your link is not relevant, sorry.

mikeash9• 13 years ago

I can't remember the last time I saw a car run a red light that wasn't just squeaking by a yellow. I can remember the last time I saw a bicycle do this, it was yesterday and the guy didn't even pretend to stop or care as he obstructed traffic that had the right of way.

And not to mention that I see roughly one thousand times (literally) more cars than bicycles on the road.

I don't doubt that there is a lot of confirmation bias going on in this discussion. But there's almost certainly some substantial differences in behavior going on as well.

Bicyclists generally feel more entitled not to stop for stoplights when they feel it's safe to proceed. I've run lights on the bicycle myself, although I always stop, wait long enough to be sure the light isn't going to change on its own, and proceed carefully after checking for traffic. Quite a lot of bicyclists seem to think that the fact that their vehicles are human-powered means they shouldn't have to stop unless it's absolutely necessary.

On the flip side, I'm sure bicyclists violate the speed limit way less often. I'm sure they kill many fewer pedestrians too.

haukilup• 13 years ago

I am still young (20), but in my entire life I have only seen a car run a red light once.

Maybe it's different up here in Canada, though.

casual_slacker• 13 years ago

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.

socillion• 13 years ago

Rolling stops on bicycle are only legal in one state - Idaho.

tsotha11• 13 years ago

A rolling stop is illegal in CA.

kika9• 13 years ago

some of them just speed through the intersection if they consider it safe, I've heard screeching tires a few times, which means they misjudged.

Stopping at every stop sign is a financial pain for a motorist, because MPG drops considerably. So what? Stop sign is a stop sign, it means "stop". The solution to this is not ignoring signs because it's a "pain" but to replace stop signs with roundabouts, like in Europe.

hristov• 13 years ago

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.

busterarm10• 13 years ago

Cycling laws are the biggest problem in LA. Depending on where you are in LA, you're either can ride on the sidewalk or you can't. There's no consistency. I'm not in favor of ANYONE riding on the sidewalk, but cops in LA in areas where you can ride on the sidewalk like to be dicks and give cyclists bogus tickets for riding in the street.

http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/la-county-side...

chockablock2• 13 years ago

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".

kika9• 13 years ago

I don't see such classy combination at once often, it's just a sum of everything I see. But running lights and stops is very-very common here.

001sky4• 13 years ago

SF has problems with people running lights and stop signs because of the hills. I think its dis-ingenuous to deny this. It may be different in soma/mission, where the topography is completely different. But in the financial district (lots of 1 ways, no left turns, hills, tourists, etc) and around market street...the whole industry of bike messengers (ie, 30 years of history) is predicated on them not following traffic rules. Actually, that might be a little strong. But you get my point. They make money because they are faster...and the way to be faster than traffic is not not go with the flow.

rcthompson4• 13 years ago

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.

crbnw00ts• 13 years ago

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.

bowlofpetunias• 13 years ago

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.

kika9• 13 years ago

I've worked in Ams for few months, about 15 years ago. And I've seen car-bike accidents there too. Not sure what do you mean by "excuse".

Cars and bikes are not equal, that's right, as well as small sedans and large pickup trucks are not equal, motorcycles and cars are not equal, semis and pickups are not equal, etc, etc, etc. So what? There're rules of the road, California Vehicle Code in my case, and everyone using a public road should obey one, period. Having a car driver more responsible for safety of those around him doesn't mean that bicyclist can cut in front of this driver while running a red light against the traffic and consider himself to have a right of way just because he's a weakest player on the road.

Brakenshire4• 13 years ago

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.

nekopa• 13 years ago

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"

And it's so true.

desireco42• 13 years ago

From my local Chicago experience and we got Divvy recently, woohoo ! cyclists are the one who are reckless and endangering other traffic participants.

Obviously not all, but essentially driving bicycle is simply activity for which traffic laws were not made, it is hard to stop and go on the bicycle etc. Having cyclists whiz by you while you drive is often unexpected.

So there. Until we get something like Bogota, Colombia, these things will happen.

Did I mention we have Divvy in Chicago :)

nick22• 13 years ago

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.

MikusR2• 13 years ago

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.

nick22• 13 years ago

It is illegal to ride bikes on sidewalks in a lot of cities.

tbrownaw• 13 years ago

I would imagine that it's related to how getting run over by a bicycle tends to be somewhat less fatal that getting run over by a car.

aelaguiz• 13 years ago

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.

rgrieselhuber2• 13 years ago

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.

dmm5• 13 years ago

When you have an environment that only assholes will tolerate, only assholes will inhabit it.

Can you imagine grandmas and schools kids riding their bikes in urban traffic?

rgrieselhuber2• 13 years ago

No argument on the environment, and no I can't.

nostromo2• 13 years ago

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?

nmcfarl• 13 years ago

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.

arcosdev2• 13 years ago

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.

rwmj• 13 years ago

I cycle occasionally and pretty much 1 journey in 10 I'm either hit by or have a scary near-miss with a car driver.

swalling• 13 years ago

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.

fumar• 13 years ago

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.

rbellio• 13 years ago

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.

revelation4• 13 years ago

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.

FreakyT2• 13 years ago

You've answered your own question.

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.

hetman7• 13 years ago

Because the bike paths are unsafe. Frankly cyclists usually annoy me, but he's following the law, and probably better than most of the self entitled idiots in cars who get by with the VERY minimum of safety awareness on the road.

kyledrake2• 13 years ago

FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for getting in my way.

And it will be called an accident.

I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.

Joeboy• 13 years ago

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?

Perhaps people could recognize that the existence of a cycle lane does not necessarily mean that it's safe or even physically possible to cycle within its boundaries.

jackmaney5• 13 years ago

+1. +1,000,000 if I could.

SethMurphy• 13 years ago

In NYC, where the legal speed limit is 30mph and traffic is usually slower a bike taking up the whole lane does nothing to slow the overall traffic flow. If a bike can keep up the minimum speed for traffic they deserve the same piece of the road a car has, just like a motorcycle or scooter. I agree it is almost always safer to be in the normal flow of traffic than on the fringe of the bike lane (in NYC at least).

nostromo2• 13 years ago

You're playing with fire here.

You might be right, but being right and dead is cold comfort.

busterarm10• 13 years ago

It's just completely surreal driving a bicycle in car traffic.

As true as that is, I almost wouldn't have it any other way. Biking in city traffic is exciting and almost like meditation to me. It's way less dangerous than biking in the country where I live now and biking here is pretty damned boring anyway.

I'm getting fat!

arcosdev2• 13 years ago

The ownership and operation of motor vehicles is a form of psychosis. We are collectively delusional as a culture with regard to automobiles in North America.

morkfromork• 13 years ago

I'll think about this the next time a biker almost hits me because they are riding on the sidewalk.

Maybe bikers should be required to pass tests and be licensed to ride.

People can't stop trains from crashing. What makes you think cars can avoid bikers 100% of the time?

rdsubhas• 13 years ago

I've been cycling for commute for the last 4 years in India, Chennai to be precise. And this is a problem with most car drivers, especially the posh ones.

And the pain... Cornering me into the extreme sides of the road, Honking as if I suddenly have to disappear from the road, Huge lines of cars causing traffic and most of them driving single, Splashing water, etc. I sometimes know some of them, but its as if they're a different person when they get into a car, somewhat inhuman.

rcthompson4• 13 years ago

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.

hetman7• 13 years ago

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.

mjhagen• 13 years ago

This was so weird to read as a Dutchman. In the Netherlands the automobile driver is (almost) always at fault.

YZF• 13 years ago

Story 1

I was on my motorcycle on the left lane in a city when a car way ahead of me just plowed into a bicycle riding on the side of the road ahead of it as if it wasn't there. The car driver was dreaming or sleeping- I don't know. The bicycle rider, an elderly person, almost went through the windshield. Me and some others stopped to help. Luckily he survived.

Story 2

When I grew up I was on my bicycle all the time. I was one of the cyclists you may see disobeying traffic rules but I never did it in any dangerous way, to myself or to traffic around me. I had zero encounters involving cars though I did have a few scary falls involving myself doing stupid stuff. This is over years of riding every day.

The point I am trying to make here is that treating a bicycle like a car is stupid. It's almost as stupid as saying pedestrians should walk on the road, stop at stop signs, change lanes when they want to turn, and stop at traffic lights. Bicycles sit somewhere between pedestrians and motorized traffic, they're not one and they're not the other.

These days I am very careful about where and how I ride my bicycle. This is because I don't have that sixth sense anymore of what's going on around me as I don't ride as much and I also don't live in the same place. New riders in a new environment should be very very careful. I will often prefer to ride on an empty sidewalk to riding on the road as the odds of getting mowed down are much lower (but watch out for cars zooming out of driveways). As a driver I give plenty of room to cyclists, if I can I move out of their lane, because I know that a bicycle may simply move into my path at any point and I know how hard it is for a cyclist to hold a line perfectly over a length of time.

Adding another thought here: It seems car drivers these days are more isolated from what goes on around them for various reasons. I see this even in myself as my car is better insulated and there are more distractions (GPS, phone, etc). This is yet another problem in sharing the road.

busterarm10• 13 years ago

New riders in a new environment should be very very careful.

Very. I narrowly avoided getting creamed by one of my neighbors who wasn't looking where they were driving about a week after moving here. Unfortunately I tried to hop a 6-inch-plus curb to avoid getting hit and wound up going over the bars and skinning my hands and arms pretty badly.

CookWithMe4• 13 years ago

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).

jackmaney5• 13 years ago

How about enforcing laws against cyclists that constantly break traffic laws?

CookWithMe4• 13 years ago

Glad you are asking, these are enforced in Germany as well. I personally witnessed police waiting behind traffic lights to catch cyclists running a red light, stopping cyclists who ride on a pedestrian-only path and checking for proper lights at night. I think they also check for drunken riders, although I have never witnessed that personally.

Cyclists get fined, and they can even loose their driving license (for cars).

These checks are not too-frequent (neither are those for car drivers), but they exist.

collyw5• 13 years ago

Sounds like road envy to me. I know plenty of cyclist that have fines over here.

And read this, as it suggests sticking to the rules may be more dangerous for cyclists.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...

melindajb• 13 years ago

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.

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.

collyw5• 13 years ago

Hmmm. The final suggestion of sticking exactly to the letter of the law isn't in my opinion what makes me safe.

I break the rules. I stay out of the road of cars as much as I can. I believe this makes me safer.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-mos...

This article shows that women have far more accidents than men, and it is suggested that it is because they don't break the rules as much.

Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

Related Stories