Live data from Hacker News

Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

nytimes.com

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#61

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 law…

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?

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#62
post #17

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…

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.

A rolling stop is illegal in CA.

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#63
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.

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#64
post #17

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…

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.

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.

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#65
post #11

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.

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.

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#66
post #28

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.

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.

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#67
post #39
post #12

>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.

Vehicular manslaughter is a crime.

Vehicular manslaughter requires a "wrongful act".

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#68
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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.

I disagree. Bicycles belong on sidewalks far more than they belong on roads.

That said, perhaps it's situational. My city has large amounts of arterial roads with heavy car traffic and sparse pedestrians. The speed limit on those roads is about 60 kph (about 40 mph), and I much prefer to stay off them as a cyclist. It would be much safer if I was allowed to cycle on the sidewalk in those areas, as there's little to no foot traffic. In the city itself, different matter. There's much more foot traffic, but the speed limit is lower, so perhaps it's best there to be on the road.

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#69
post #17

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…

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 o…

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

Re: Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

#70
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.

Post reply on HN