Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

141–150 of 186 posts

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

#141
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London has over 6,000 cycles that are registered with clearly visible numbers, and with the cyclist on the bike known. It's called the cycle hire scheme. In this time, not a single cyclist has been tried for anything, and yet several of them have been killed by HGVs. Registrations aren't stopping cyclist fatalities.

It is notable, though, that almost all London bike deaths seem to be from being run over by HGVs. Cyclists (stereotypically) loathe cars, but are not killed by cars. I don't really have own experience of London traffic, but from reading newspapers, it looks like you should do less to cars and more to heavy goods vehicles and buses.

Buses haven't caused that many deaths either.

It really is just the HGV, and the construction industry related HGV at that.

"You should"... well I and very many others are. However the essence of the issue appears to come down to a mix of the economics of being a HGV driver, local politics, and the nature of congestion and traffic in an old city.

The economics is that HGV drivers are paid by the job. They are effectively incentivised to complete a job as fast as possible to increase their earnings. Being paid to go faster isn't very compatible with driving safer.

The politics is a blend of TfL (Transport for London) not having the authority to re-design many junctions, local councils wishing to maximise traffic flow, and residents not wishing to tolerate construction traffic outside of work hours. This means that construction traffic can only operate during the work day (when it's most congested), on roads that were not designed for such a volume of HGV traffic, with junctions not designed for cyclist safety or space. A very recent HGV fatality is directly contributable to Westminster Council refusing to implement recommendations by TfL to make a junction next to a bridge safer... this was last week, you'll find the info online easily enough.

The last point relates to the city itself. You'll see from other comments that the best thing to do is to segregate cyclists from the motorised traffic, but that requires space. London is an old city and we cannot move buildings and streets to accommodate this segregation outside of more than a handful of wide boulevards and roads (such as the Embankment where it is being done). We can only achieve segregation by turning 2-way streets into 1-way streets (as is being done on Tottenham Court Road), but even then that adds pressure to surrounding roads. There are limits to what can be done to provide extra space and re-designs to existing junctions and roads.

Possibly the best thing is the cross-London move to a 20mph speed limit.

But the biggest remaining thing that could be done might be to change the economics of the construction industry in London. Perhaps just place an outright ban on HGVs that do not meet some strict requirement for operating in such a busy metropolis. Perhaps just change the status of road fatalities by HGVs such that they are considered a Health and Safety issue of the work-site that the work is being done for... i.e. if the victim's family can sue the construction site for death then perhaps that will change the job incentives enough to bring in safety features, etc.

But yeah, we are on it.

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

#142
post #69

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.

> It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it.

In the Netherlands, we would say check the street before opening your car door. If you open your car door on a narrow street and a car hits it, is the driver of the other car also responsible?

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

#143
post #3

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…

They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.

Please, no. The biggest nuisance I experience as a pedestrian are cyclists riding on the sidewalk.

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

#144
post #23

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…

Not really the point, I don't think. I expect to be safe from vehicles walking on a sidewalk, period (that's the point of sidewalks). People in/on vehicles, whether cars or bicycles, are taking on much more risk, at their choice.

The real solution is to separate cars and bikes, just like we separate cars and people. Dedicated, buffered bike lanes and safer intersections.

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they find you to be an issue? If you really do yield to pedestrians than I suppose they don't but most bicyclists are -- like smokers -- not nearly as considerate as they think they are.

My basic strategy is to wait until at least half of the sidewalk is open before passing any pedestrians. I have no problem coasting at pedestrian speed until I have a passing opportunity. It still beats walking.

You are one of the few considerate ones. I see cyclists on the sidewalk often, and most will force pedestrians out of the way to pass.

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

#146
post #5

Whilst I agree with the concept that motorists are responsible for their own behaviour on the road and should not endanger other travellers, I believe that on a road where the speed limit is 55mph, or realistically any speed, that vehicles using that roadway should be able to maintain a safe and non-obstructive speed on said roadways. If your vehicle cannot maintain such a speed, it shouldnt be on a road with other v…

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.

Having an obnoxious anti-cycling culture is by no means mutually exclusive with having irresponsible, law-breaking cyclists. (And in fact the latter may be a contributing factor to the former.)

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

#147
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people would have trouble with that, unless they are arguing from a purely selfish perspective. It is essentially "Marine Law" - the most maneuverable must make way way for lesser. Perfect common sense.

Not sure that makes sense in this context, or even reflects actual traffic law. A pedestrian is easily more maneuverable than a car (I can turn on a dime when walking, but a car needs much more time and space), but the car should never have automatic right-of-way over a pedestrian.

you mistake my meaning - it is "more makes way for less".

With boats, maneuverability. With "road sharers", survivability.

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

#148
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is notable, though, that almost all London bike deaths seem to be from being run over by HGVs. Cyclists (stereotypically) loathe cars, but are not killed by cars. I don't really have own experience of London traffic, but from reading newspapers, it looks like you should do less to cars and more to heavy goods vehicles and buses.

Buses haven't caused that many deaths either. It really is just the HGV, and the construction industry related HGV at that. "You should"... well I and very many others are. However the essence of the issue appears to come down to a mix of the economics of being a HGV driver, local politics, and the nature of congestion and traffic in an old city. The economics is that HGV drivers are paid by the job. They are effecti…

Yes, most deaths definitely from HGVs. The "bus error, brain dumped" association maybe came from this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11036188/Angry-bus...

Interestingly enough, over here (Helsinki) we have lots of segregated bike/pedestrian paths, and many cycling activists want to remove them from inner city and have bicycles on the street among other vehicles, "to be equal".

Personally, I think they're nuts. The separate paths are good, even if we still have to watch out in intersections.

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

#149
post #3

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…

> 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…

Where I live we have many bike roads, and in similar way, I can't tell how many times I see pedestrians use those roads. Parents with strollers are nearly performing suicide for themselves and their children, a behavior which is likely illegal as well.

It is almost as if everyone only care about conveniences rather than safety. If only everyone followed traffic laws, had dedicated roads for each kind of transportation, and maintenance for each kind of road was identical, then we would not be in this mess. As it stand, people are a hazard to each other when traffic of one kind mixes with an other.

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

#150
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. But lights burning out happens, and it's far more dangerous on a bike than on a car -- because a car is likely to have other lights and otherwise be large enough to be easily visible anyway.

Driving on the motorway without functional lights is extremely dangerous. Bikes can use the side-walk or stop when meeting traffic, but cars do not really have that option when dealing with broken down equipment.

That said, the law is the law. You have to be visible in traffic. If the light burns out, then maybe its a bad idea to be out in traffic at night.

Post reply on HN