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

Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#111

Post by paintrayne »

baddox wrote: post #85
stephendedalus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver. I don't believe the author was saying that. He said... > We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers…

Perhaps we are quibbling over the definition of "accident." I would consider an unintentional collision to be an accident even if one person was driving recklessly. As far as I can tell, that is standard usage of the word, especially in the context of vehicle collisions.

Unintentional doesn't mean no fault. The fact that it is standard usage is the whole point -- it shouldn't be. Drivers do not pay attention, they do not look when they change lanes, and they hit bicycles and motorcycles and it is called an accident, as if the driver had no control of their vehicle.

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#112

Post by Symbiote »

bsder wrote: post #69
makeitsuckless wrote: post #12

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…

You want to be careful with these kinds of burden of proof chains. For example, a bicycle is moving much faster than a person opening a car door. It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it. Now see the problem? The reality is that cars and bicycles do not belong on the same roads. Period. Bicycles need bike lanes that are separated from roads.

Being "doored" is the car driver's fault. Children are taught to look before opening the door.

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#113

Post by popopje »

pandaman wrote: post #84
birken wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a cyclist and I completely disagree with this. I've biked thousands and thousands of miles in SF, and I think probably 80 or 90% of cyclists are responsible and law abiding. There are maybe 10 or 20 percent who are bad, run red lights and do other crazy shit. They are not the majority. And if you want further proof, just read the list of bicycle fatalities in SF [1] and see who is at fault. Most of the time it is…

Maybe cyclists in SF are so special, but in LA I have yet to see a cyclist stopping at a stop sign. I walk to/from work about 2 miles each way and see about a dozen cyclists every day. Sure, cars some times do not stop at the sign either but I don't see this happening nearly as often as I see cyclists just happily cycling through stop without even an attempt to slow down. And I see much more cars than bikes.

Cyclists do not _want_ to be hit by vehicles - if they are not stopping, they have looked around and deemed the situation to be safe enough.. That's not to say it's legal, but they do not have a death wish.

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#114

Post by brandonmenc »

ajuc wrote: post #94
brandonmenc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane. 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.

In most place where this could happen there is speed limit, probably to 30 kmph. At that speed you won't kill that kid. Most probably you will even manage to avoid it completely. Even if there's no speed limit - driving in a middle of town, near a path or pavement lined with trees you should be careful, and slow down. And in rare case that there's a tree near motorway and somehow a kid on a bike managed to get there…

> the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die"

You are putting words into mouths.

It's more like, "acknowledge that if you misbehave on the road, your chances of getting killed increase and it may be your fault." I don't know why it's impossible for some people to hear that without imagining the "deserves" part.

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#115

Post by rlpb »

bsder wrote: post #79
mdemare wrote: post #52

Some facts about cycling in the Netherlands: - After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will be fined if you don't have them. - Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced. - Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic laws - they will run red lights when they can. - Practically nobody wears helmets. - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 mi…

> - 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists) Um, isn't that actually quite a LOT . Do we really want to emulate that? The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year. Right about the same level as the fatal car crash death toll per year. Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a statistical viewpoint is not going to make people ve…

> The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a year.

Out of how many active cyclists?

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#116

Post by Sharlin »

It's fascinating how the mostly-subconscious bias shows in news articles about driver-cyclist and driver-pedestrian collisions. The driver (and their responsibility) is abstracted away by just referring to a "car", and even when it is clear that the driver broke the law it is rarely mentioned. Phrases like "a driver hit a cyclist" are almost never used; at most it's something like "A cyclist collided with a car" and often even worse - using formulations that imply that cars are some sort of an agency-less force of nature like lightning - getting hit is either an unfortunate accident or recklessness on the victim's part. Almost always the cyclist is victim-blamed for not using a helmet.

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#117

Post by peterfirefly »

kika wrote: post #92

The article calls for crackdown on drivers and may be rightfully so, but. I came to the US from the country where road laws are based on the concept of "operator of the dangerous machine". Such an operator is at fault by default and have to prove their innocence. End even if they do, they still have to compensate medical expenses. Such compensations are not as ridiculously high as they are in the US but still may be…

I've seen Russian dash cams. I figured it out ;)

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#118

Post by belorn »

cperciva wrote: post #26

At first I thought this was going to be a parody of "anti-rape-culture" campaigns (e.g., "teaching women to defend themselves from rapists is wrong, because we should be teaching men to not rape women"), but much to my surprise it seems that the author is serious. And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving…

There is a 100$-200$ fine where I live if you drive around a car without working lights. The same law is used if the rear light of a bicycle is not working.

So, to answer your question, people in traffic should follow traffic laws.

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#119

Post by kika »

maaaats wrote: post #110
kika wrote: post #92

The article calls for crackdown on drivers and may be rightfully so, but. I came to the US from the country where road laws are based on the concept of "operator of the dangerous machine". Such an operator is at fault by default and have to prove their innocence. End even if they do, they still have to compensate medical expenses. Such compensations are not as ridiculously high as they are in the US but still may be…

Why do you write this as if driving drunk is okay?

Hm, why do you have such impression? Killing someone while driving drunk is quite a felony in my book. But breaking someone's arm just because you were not able to figure out where the lane markings are is not okay too, but doesn't sound like a felony punishable by the jail time.

Also, the standards of sobriety are very different in different countries. In Russia you're technically drunk if you had a bottle of yogurt for breakfast. And they _will_ use that against you in court, it's not just a "fun fact".

Re: Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them

#120

Post by baddox »

paintrayne wrote: post #111
baddox wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we are quibbling over the definition of "accident." I would consider an unintentional collision to be an accident even if one person was driving recklessly. As far as I can tell, that is standard usage of the word, especially in the context of vehicle collisions.

Unintentional doesn't mean no fault. The fact that it is standard usage is the whole point -- it shouldn't be. Drivers do not pay attention, they do not look when they change lanes, and they hit bicycles and motorcycles and it is called an accident, as if the driver had no control of their vehicle.

I don't understand. My point is that "accident" just means that something is unintentional. It doesn't mean there is no fault. Calling a traffic collision accident does not imply that the driver had no control over their vehicle. It only means that the driver did not intend to have the collision.
Post reply on HN