11–20 of 168 posts
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.
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.
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.
Yeah... we call it "freedom".
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.
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.
TL;DR — No.
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."
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.
"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"
And it's so true.
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…
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...