It's Never a Bicycle Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#51

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:03 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #43

WalterBright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen cyclists drafting behind trucks, where they ride about 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph. If something happens up front and the trucker has to hit the brakes hard, is it his fault if the cyclist goes under his rear bumper?

For every well intended law there has to be someone who can conjure a ridiculous scenario out of thin air to prove that the whole concept is meaningless. But guess what: this is traffic, not programming. And intent matters.

It's not ridiculous. I've seen them do it with my own eyes (I was driving a bit back from the truck, I gave the pair a lot of extra space). I've heard other cyclists talking about how they regularly draft.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#52

Post by atoav » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:03 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #40

WalterBright wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Victimblaming is par for the course whenever a cyclist gets injured. To be fair, the injured party in an accident has no particular relevance to who is at fault.

At least in my city the statistics pretty clearly show that the drivers are "at fault" most of the time, but as I said, I believe the people responsible for the infrastructure are actually at fault. We could make our roads much safer by building them differently, but for some reason we don't.

Because to spend money on bicycle infrastructure will have to mean breaking the dominance of the car. And although rationally this would be the best thing one could do these days (at least in cities), people absolutely hate to share the road with cyclists.

For this to become more acceptable you have to have more motorists that ride the bicycle. And for that to happen you have to have better bicycle infrastructure.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#53

Post by brnt » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:03 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #30

brnt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dutch law has a nice solution: liability correlates with weight. The more weight you put on the street, the more explaining you have to do, because you chose to potentially cause more damage. In a collision, the weightiest vehicle therefore is by default liable, unless they can prove otherwise. This means that in bicycle-car accidents, drivers almost always pay, and in bicycles pedestrian accident the cyclist.

I've seen cyclists drafting behind trucks, where they ride about 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph. If something happens up front and the trucker has to hit the brakes hard, is it his fault if the cyclist goes under his rear bumper?

Mixing modalities like that is forbidden and not necessary in almost all of the Netherlands. Locations can always be reached by bike path, and only slow speed often urban roads allow mixing. The trucker could point out the bike was on a road it wasn't allowed.

It is only abroad that I started to see such dangerous cycling, and then discovered this idiotic war between the modalities.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#54

Post by robbiep » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:04 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #39

conradludgate wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been teaching my girlfriend how to cycle in London recently. I've told her that she needs to stand her ground, and not cycle so close to the pavement. It's scary though. I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous

Cycling close to the pavement is super dangerous because if your pedal so much as touches the kerbstones on the downstroke you'll get thrown into traffic. I've seen more than one kid fall in the way of oncoming traffic like that, fortunately without anybody getting hurt but still, it can happen in a fraction of a second.

100 times yes. Defensive cycling. Not a perfect prevention strategy but the best we can do

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#55

Post by masklinn » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:04 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #32

bogle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try cycling in my town. Okay, that's hyperbole but the way the drivers of many vehicles show massive aggression towards cyclists on the roads is narrowing the margin between an accident and a murder.

It's not very nice to cycle in my town either, but I don't think that they actually intend to cause a crash.

They may not actually intend to cause a crash but they certainly don’t care if one happens as consequence if their actions.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#56

Post by nielsole » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:04 AM UTC

Other phrases (at least in german media): "cyclist injures _himself_ badly"

"The cyclist wore no helmet" (as if that changes fault in an accident)

The car "couldn't stop in time" (e.g. for a red light before hitting a cyclist/pedestrian in the intersection)

When the cyclist is struck at night the car driver sometimes is quoted with the claim the bike had no lights. While sometimes that may be right, the car driver obviously didn't see the cyclist (otherwise they wouldn't have run them over) and the light is often damaged in the accident. The cyclist on a stretcher is not available to counter that claim leaving a biased report.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#57

Post by renewiltord » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:04 AM UTC

narag wrote: post #28

WalterBright wrote: post #6

Never? Some accidents involving bicycles and cars are the bicycle's fault, some are the car's fault. Some are both, some are neither's.

I see the problem with the headline, so I can understand the overreaction. But you're right, "never" is as unrealistic as the headline. I had to execute an extreme manouver to avoid hitting a kamikaze that cut through three lanes almost perpendicularly in very heavy traffic downtown Madrid. He scared the hell out of me, I still remember it clearly fifteen years later.

> I had to execute an extreme manouver to avoid hitting a kamikaze that cut through three lanes almost perpendicularly in very heavy traffic downtown Madrid.

How curious. You take issue with the exact interpretation of 'never' and yet use a figurative interpretation of 'kamikaze'.

Allow me to simulate a response to your comment in the style of GP:

> Kamikaze? You saw a Japanese attack aircraft cut through three lanes perpendicularly in very heavy traffic in downtown Madrid fifteen years ago? That sounds very unlikely.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#58

Post by wozniacki » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #5

I always tell people I am not a cyclist, I am a bloke who rides a bike. The vilification of a group is how you make harming them palatable to people, and we have all heard the rhetoric surrounding "cyclists". I am far sooner a friend, a son, a partner and someone you know, than a cyclist. I don't even qear lycra, and I spend my whole ride trying to be courteous so at least extend me the same courtesy. Also, get off y…

  and we have all heard the rhetoric surrounding "cyclists".

Are you saying that not even a smidgen of truth belies such rhetoric? Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs as if they were mere suggestions and nothing more.

I know how entrenched each sides are in this argument - drivers and cyclists. Neither will give an inch.

The best way to get cyclists some kind of safety is to INSIST on a full bore licensing, registering, insuring framework for cyclists just as the ones that exist for motor vehicles. Yes some form of license plates, registration, driving licenses, point deductions for bad riding etc.

And taxes and fees just like for motor vehicles, whether ICE vehicles or electric vehicles.

You cant just hop on a bicycle use infrastructure others are paying for and expect to be treated like equals without paying into the system your fair share.

Governments, underwriters, law enforcement & other stake holders just dont have any incentives to respond to your concerns, any other way. This is how the world works. It is in the interest of bicyclists to make it work for them through those ways.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#59

Post by kennywinker » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

bogle wrote: post #22

adrianN wrote: post #2

Victimblaming is par for the course whenever a cyclist gets injured. It's really infuriating. I don't think that blaming the driver is good either, as the article says, most of the time it's a failure of the infrastructure that even made the situation possible. Very few drivers try to actively kill cyclists.

You should try cycling in my town. Okay, that's hyperbole but the way the drivers of many vehicles show massive aggression towards cyclists on the roads is narrowing the margin between an accident and a murder.

If you build roads only for cars, drivers will be pissed off when cyclists intrude on “their” space. Just like a cyclist would be pissed off if there were people walking in the bike lane. The structure of the world influences how you feel about people in it. Also definitely a bunch of assholes, but assholes tend to be fairly evenly distributed throughout the world

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#60

Post by yyy888sss » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

Bikes are similar to pedestrians not cars. In bike friendly places such as the Netherlands or Cambridge UK cyclists and those on foot share the same part of the city. It helps in these places that almost car drivers also use a bike to get around so they are more aware, but the main thing is designing the cities so that high speed 2-40 ton vehicles are totally separated from low speed 50-100kg cyclists and pedestrians.