It's Never a Bicycle Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#41

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 7:57 AM UTC

conradludgate wrote: post #33

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #10

One of the linked accidents in the article looks terrible, a man is cycling along the road, a bus overtakes him and clips his handlebars, knocking him to the ground and then running over his torso with the rear wheels of the bus. What a lot of people don’t realise is that you can’t overtake bicycles in a single lane. If there’s no cycle path/markings a bicycle takes up the full lane for exactly this reason. Bicycles…

I've been teaching my girlfriend how to cycle in London recently. I've told her that she needs to stand her ground, and not cycle so close to the pavement. It's scary though. I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous

> I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous

I always let the bus and the truck have the right of way, even when I'm in my car, because I prefer to die in my bed.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#42

Post by kennywinker » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

timmy-turner wrote: post #4

Another quite common headline technique is "Car hits pedestrian/bicycle/other-car". As if the car was driving itself. It somehow shifts the blame away from the driver to the object, the car. Similar to accepting that software has bugs and thus anything can happen an no one is to blame. It sucks to read this, but its completely sound and logical for those who only drive cars. As more people start using bicycles these…

I’m not sure I agree with you about where to place blame. Sure, every driver has a duty to pay attention, and drive with caution - however, the sheer number of people injured by cars suggests there is a systemic problem. Blaming the driver in many incidents is like saying a lottery winner was skilled. The system is broken and has these injuries and deaths baked into it. Dealing with bad driving can only improve things to the limits of the systemic problems.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#43

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #30

brnt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dutch law has a nice solution: liability correlates with weight. The more weight you put on the street, the more explaining you have to do, because you chose to potentially cause more damage. In a collision, the weightiest vehicle therefore is by default liable, unless they can prove otherwise. This means that in bicycle-car accidents, drivers almost always pay, and in bicycles pedestrian accident the cyclist.

I've seen cyclists drafting behind trucks, where they ride about 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph. If something happens up front and the trucker has to hit the brakes hard, is it his fault if the cyclist goes under his rear bumper?

For every well intended law there has to be someone who can conjure a ridiculous scenario out of thin air to prove that the whole concept is meaningless. But guess what: this is traffic, not programming. And intent matters.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#44

Post by atoav » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 7:59 AM UTC

timmy-turner wrote: post #4

Another quite common headline technique is "Car hits pedestrian/bicycle/other-car". As if the car was driving itself. It somehow shifts the blame away from the driver to the object, the car. Similar to accepting that software has bugs and thus anything can happen an no one is to blame. It sucks to read this, but its completely sound and logical for those who only drive cars. As more people start using bicycles these…

To realize how skewed this really is you just have to imagine a world where "a bicycle hit a pedestrian". You will never read that, it will always be "cyclist" with the implication of "your fault for even using a bike"

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#45

Post by matsemann » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 7:59 AM UTC

Yes! This one is also great: "How We Talk About Drivers Hitting Cyclists" https://www.outsideonline.com/2392955/lets-talk-about-driver...

Media always portray it as a passive car just happened to hit a cyclist. But that shapes the discussion. It was an action by a driver. Not “he was struck from behind by an automobile while riding his bicycle a mere block from his home.”, as the article says. The cyclist wasn't struck. It wasn't by an automobile. It was a driver (actively) hitting him.

When it's framed like that instead, one can actually start improving and understand why it happened and try to avoid it in the future. Instead of portraying it like a freak accident like a meteor just happened to strike and there is really nothing to be done.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#46

Post by DocTomoe » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:00 AM UTC

brnt wrote: post #16

WalterBright wrote: post #6

Never? Some accidents involving bicycles and cars are the bicycle's fault, some are the car's fault. Some are both, some are neither's.

Dutch law has a nice solution: liability correlates with weight. The more weight you put on the street, the more explaining you have to do, because you chose to potentially cause more damage. In a collision, the weightiest vehicle therefore is by default liable, unless they can prove otherwise. This means that in bicycle-car accidents, drivers almost always pay, and in bicycles pedestrian accident the cyclist.

In all fairness that sounds a lot like "laws do not exist for cyclists". Having to prove your innocence is incompatible with the idea of rule of law.

As a car driver, I would start setting up dash cams (which are illegal in Europe thanks to GDPR) to help me proving my innocence.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#47

Post by jl6 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:00 AM UTC

The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, while the majority of drivers are not cyclists, so I think it’s quite reasonable to expect the cyclist to have the more rounded perspective on road safety.

The only cyclists I see behaving recklessly on the road are groups of teenage boys, and that’s more to do with them being teenage boys than being cyclists.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#48

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:00 AM UTC

fuzxi wrote: post #29

WalterBright wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An accident is an unintentional crash, which is not the same thing as not somebody's fault or not preventable.

IMO, the word 'accident' implies a lack of negligence.

Google says:

"an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."

I'll stick by my remark on it :-)

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#49

Post by renewiltord » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:01 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #30

brnt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dutch law has a nice solution: liability correlates with weight. The more weight you put on the street, the more explaining you have to do, because you chose to potentially cause more damage. In a collision, the weightiest vehicle therefore is by default liable, unless they can prove otherwise. This means that in bicycle-car accidents, drivers almost always pay, and in bicycles pedestrian accident the cyclist.

I've seen cyclists drafting behind trucks, where they ride about 5 feet behind the right rear bumper of a panel truck going 35 mph. If something happens up front and the trucker has to hit the brakes hard, is it his fault if the cyclist goes under his rear bumper?

Well, looks like the law will work there. He'll have lots of explaining to do and the explaining will be easy. Hardly sounds like a counter-example.

Re: It's Never a Bicycle Accident

#50

Post by clairity » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:03 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #26

Just the other day here a guy in an SUV passed through a cloud of cyclists pedal to the metal during the morning rush hour when a lot of local kids cycle to school either with their parents or alone. I confronted him a little bit further on (when he had to slow down again, which is one reason why such hurrying makes no sense, it's just too busy). His motivation: none of the kids put out their hand. So that carries a…

> “...I would love it if reckless drivers would lose their license at the first offense.”

that’s too punitive, but i’d be quite happy with a quickly escalating, income-/wealth-adjusted fine. so like 0.01% of yearly income on first offense, 0.1% on second offense, 1% on third offense, or something like that, on a rolling 12-month basis, where you can voluntarily give up you license for 3 months to reset the scale of you can’t/don’t want to pay. driving without a license could reinstate the scale and invoke the next level of fine on top.