Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's Never a Bicycle Accident

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#141

Post by brnt »

Dzugaru wrote: post #80
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.

> you chose to potentially cause more damage Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked. And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false. Any human has limits to reaction time,…

By entering a heavy vehicle capable of generating orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than human beings on foot, yes, you have assumed the consequent responsibility of being more likely to cause severe accidents.

Fortunately hospitals here are accessible by both bike and public transport, and there are insurance provided taxi's for people who can't use them but do have to get to a hospital.

But, none of this means you can't drive a car. It just means by doing that you accept the appropriate responsibility, which plenty of Dutch people do every day! We are known for bikes, but the truth is that we are also amongst the biggest drivers (in terms of distance) in Europe.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#142

Post by DoreenMichele »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #140
caslon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it too punitive? They're operating a massive structure of (usually literally) flaming steel. If they can't consider the safety of people who very plausibly will be their victims without constant vigilance, they really shouldn't be driving. Doubly so for pickups, which are now so large that they offer a near-nonexistent risk on the driver's end for poor driving and nearly-certain serious-injury-and-or-death for…

>How is it too punitive? Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law a…

Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society

In the Netherlands? I find that claim suspect.

Though I would get behind cracking down on dangerous drivers endangering pedestrians and cyclists even in the US where it's much harder to live without a car. Maybe it would get easier to live without a car if we began skewing policies in that direction.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#143

Post by aembleton »

Dzugaru wrote: post #80
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.

> you chose to potentially cause more damage Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked. And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false. Any human has limits to reaction time,…

As you can afford a car, you can buy a dashcam to demonstrate to a court what the cyclist was doing wrong that might have caused you to crash into them.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#144

Post by nieve »

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.

Having had an SUV drive literally drive up over the curb yelling because I was bicycling on the sidewalk I'm not willing to assume they don't ever intend to hit me. I've also had people swerve at me when I was on the gravel beside the road with a full lane-width shoulder between me and the white lane edge - they had to swerve entirely out of their lane and off the area it was legal for them to drive on to get near me. I think there's a certain sort of road rage that some people see a safe victim for and just cut lose.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#145

Post by aembleton »

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?

> 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph.

Most cyclists would struggle to go much more than half of that speed. I think this must be an outlier.

I've also seen cars drafting behind trucks on the motorway doing 90kph. But they are a minority.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#146

Post by aembleton »

DocTomoe wrote: post #46
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.

In all fairness that sounds a lot like "laws do not exist for cyclists". Having to prove your innocence is incompatible with the idea of rule of law. As a car driver, I would start setting up dash cams (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR) to help me proving my innocence.

> which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR

Is CCTV also illegal now?

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#147

Post by orwin »

prower wrote: post #118
sneak wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer. You're confusing inconvenience…

That's not true when you're forced to do 10km/h for prolonged periods of time (that's hindrance to traffic and you can usually get a fine for that) because you can't safely overtake a bycicle that's going in a zig-zag way on the lane to avoid a myriad of potholes, or because it's an uphill road and it's too physically taxing for the biker, sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road. That's only stress and us…

Yeah, more like 20km/h, the horror. And any young cyclist will take it to 30kmh which happen to be the limit in crowded city center. And with electric bikes, i think even elderly could make it. Idc anyway, my 2nd gear lowest speed is 18km/h and i am slower than most cyclists.

You should overtake the cyclist the same way you overtake a car, in my country there is a fine if you're doing it wrong.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#148

Post by thraxil »

Dzugaru wrote: post #80
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.

> you chose to potentially cause more damage Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked. And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false. Any human has limits to reaction time,…

> Seriously? I surrounded myself with a metric ton of rigid metal and bazillion safety systems (and pay ridiculous sums for that, mind you) to protect myself and my family in a deadly environment. Cyclist chose to go there practically naked. > > And before you say it's not a "deadly environment", it's "deadly people" - that's mostly false.

It's a "deadly environment" only because there are people who choose to surround themselves with "a metric ton of rigid metal."

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#149

Post by orwin »

DocTomoe wrote: post #46
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.

In all fairness that sounds a lot like "laws do not exist for cyclists". Having to prove your innocence is incompatible with the idea of rule of law. As a car driver, I would start setting up dash cams (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR) to help me proving my innocence.

> (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR)

Its wrong, dashcams are legal in most EU countries, but you don't have any right on the image diffusion.

[edit] I just checked, and tbh, you should search "are dashcam legal in the EU", yoiu'll have a list of countries in which its legal or illegal. Nothing to do with GDPR.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#150

Post by yokaze »

etripe wrote: post #130
caslon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it too punitive? They're operating a massive structure of (usually literally) flaming steel. If they can't consider the safety of people who very plausibly will be their victims without constant vigilance, they really shouldn't be driving. Doubly so for pickups, which are now so large that they offer a near-nonexistent risk on the driver's end for poor driving and nearly-certain serious-injury-and-or-death for…

In my mind, because "offence", depending on legislature, might be vehicular manslaughter, a parking ticket or anything in between. There is also a huge difference between driving 55 in a 50 zone and driving 90 at the same location.

I think the critical part here is "reckless driver", so the "offence" needs to be of a kind to qualify the driver as such. Parking ticket likely doesn't.
Post reply on HN