31–40 of 186 posts
Also kids shouldn't have to look before crossing the street. Just make drivers not hit kids. Any other position is victim-blaming.
It actually does make sense to blame the driver for their behavior.
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience. If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns. As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes…
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience. If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light turns. As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes…
The thing is, they are neither, really. Bicycles are not comparable to motor vehicles, as they are much slower (50 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h). Bicycles are also not comparable to pedestrians, as they are much faster (5 km/h vs ~15-20 km/h). I think it's a mistake to mix traffic that differs in speed by a factor of 3. As someone who moved from the Netherlands to London, it has taken me years to adjust to absence of real bic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
I don't get your argument. Just because the lack of X does not excuse behavior Y doesn't mean that the presence of X isn't advisable. For instance, if you collide your automobile into another automobile because you didn't have a rear view mirror, that obviously is not an excuse. And yet, it is still reasonable to advise (and indeed require) that automobiles have rear view mirrors.
He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good.
The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine.
At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. I live in Tempe, AZ near ASU - one of the "most bike friendly" cities in the US, and I can't tell you how many times I've been nearly killed by a bike at full speed weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk - where it's actually illegal for them to ride. Bikes do not belong on the sidewalk unless they're moving as slow as…
While I totally understand that it must've felt menacing to nearly have been hit by a bicycle, do you _really_ think it would've killed you? I also think that cyclists shouldn't ride at speed on the sidewalk, but even if, cyclists causing pedestrian fatalities is extremely rare. It has happened, but it's statistically insignificant when compared to cars killing pedestrians. There is a big difference between getting h…
I've almost been knocked into a busy 50 mph street by sidewalk cyclists, so yeah.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. I live in Tempe, AZ near ASU - one of the "most bike friendly" cities in the US, and I can't tell you how many times I've been nearly killed by a bike at full speed weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk - where it's actually illegal for them to ride. Bikes do not belong on the sidewalk unless they're moving as slow as…
While I totally understand that it must've felt menacing to nearly have been hit by a bicycle, do you _really_ think it would've killed you? I also think that cyclists shouldn't ride at speed on the sidewalk, but even if, cyclists causing pedestrian fatalities is extremely rare. It has happened, but it's statistically insignificant when compared to cars killing pedestrians. There is a big difference between getting h…
""" From 1996 to 2005, 11 pedestrians across New York City died after being struck by bicyclists.... 2006 to 2013, there were just four pedestrian deaths, according to the city’s Department of Transportation. """ [0]
0: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-23/pedestrian...
I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insan…
Even if the kid say, hides behind a tree then decides to cut across traffic without warning?
The fact that I'd go to jail for that is what's insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got any hard numbers on the menace part, and how it compares to cars as dangerous machines, or is that just anecdotal "evidence"? From what I have seen Sydney has a really obnoxious anti-cycling culture and a dismal level of cycling infrastructure.
I live and work in Sydney and suffer near misses with cyclists on a regular basis, somehow I've never had a problem with a car running through a red light into a packed pedestrian crossing, only cyclists. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that cyclists seem to think road laws don't apply to them.
I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insan…
I'm a cyclist in the U.S., but have no problem admitting that probably 90% of the time, the cyclist is at fault. I've ridden bikes in Europe with real bike lanes—U.S. urban cycling culture is not Dutch cycling culture. There is not a culture of responsible cycling. We don't have real bike lanes. We don't stop for red lights. We don't stop for pedestrians. As a result, the U.S. also does not have many drivers or pedes…
And it's horrible.
The bicyclists ROUTINELY violate nearly every sane traffic law on the books. They go the wrong way against traffic, refuse to stop for stop lights or pedestrians in crosswalks, ride on sidewalks, have few if any safety features like headlights or taillights, and on and on.
If cyclists would simply follow the traffic laws that already exist, there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cyclists and pedestrians (yes, you read that right) and cyclists and cars.
You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out. Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them. Usually all the way over in the far lane.
I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.