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

91–100 of 186 posts

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

#91

Post by Arnt »

jinushaun wrote: post #29
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…

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…

Aren't you confusing cause and effect?

The Dutch >50% rule was introduced after a randomish clump of accidents in which adults in cars survived and children on bicycles died. There were many mortal accidents year after year, a lot of Dutch felt that car drivers weren't behaving sympathetically, and that particularly gruesome clump of accidents drove public opinion far enough to pass the >50% law.

THEN the culture changed, AFTER the change in rules.

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

#92

Post by kika »

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 quite expensive for the person who _wasn't guilty_ at the first place. And if they were guilty the future of the unfortunate car driver is much more grim. Courts routinely convict such drivers for 1-2 years behind bars (there even special "prisons" for such "criminals" which do not even look like prisons, more like military camps behind barbed wire). If the driver was drunk that could easily become 4-5 years or more.

And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia).

Go figure.

What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do , stop other party from doing the wrong thing". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc. Sure! Where do I sign up? The author fails to deliver the answer "how". "Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.

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

#93

Post by ptaipale »

cwp wrote: post #65
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…

By driving more slowly, under street lights, in a separate lane. You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.

If I drive on a road, and it does not have street lights, how do I start driving on it under street lights? It does not have them.

Face the reality. Where there is enough traffic to warrant it and the community can afford it, there are street lights and separate bike paths. But in many places, we don't have them. It is reasonable to require bikes to have lights in the dark, so that others can see them.

I ride bike to work, >10km one way, and 98 % of the route has bike or bike/pedestrian paths. But I still have a) lights in my bike, b) reflective jacket, c) helmet. In the winter, I occasionally have trouble with pedestrians just because I don't see them (even with the good lights I have in my bike).

Two thirds of bike fatalities here happen without a collision with a motor vehicle (i.e. bike hits another bike, a pedestrian, a stationary object, or just otherwise dies while riding). Of collisions with motor vehicles, the fault is usually with the driver, but not exclusively. Intersection + truck/bus is the dangerous combination.

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

#94

Post by ajuc »

brandonmenc wrote: post #37
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…

> 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 and hide - you will manage to explain yourself before court.

What's important is the attitude. IMHO the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die" is more insane than having to explain yourself after you killed someone, even if it's not your fault.

Death has smaller utility than discomfort.

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

#95

Post by ptaipale »

danielwarna wrote: post #75
jinushaun wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's funny how the exact same "Bicyclists don't respect any rules and are always at fault"-attitude exists here in Finland. Yet it turns out that drivers are at fault in 70% of all bike-car crashes.

Note, however, that few of (fatal) accidents are with cars. Cars do injure bicyclists, but lorries and buses are the deadly ones. For some reason, cyclists focus on opposing cars, not on reducing bike-LGV accidents.

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

#96

Post by malka »

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.

They are the same in France. Never saw a single cyclist stop at a red light.

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

#97

Post by angersock »

oska wrote: post #87
angersock wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commute to work every day on my bike, and I live in Houston, which is probably about as car-friendly a city as you can get. Most of the cyclists I see are pretty well-behaved, stopping at lights and behaving nicely. The drivers, though, have no idea what to do with this strange two-wheeled human-vehicle centaurish thing which randomly appears on the road with them. They'll swerve out into oncoming lanes of traffic…

> And then there are the pedestrians! If drivers are clueless, people that are ambling around or jogging are malevolently stupid. Call out your passing side ahead of time, and they stop and crane their head around trying to see if God himself was talking to them--instead of, you know, moving out of the way in the indicated direction. Then there are the uppity joggers who will get in your face for sharing a dirt path…

I do see the parallel.

Unfortunately, we are accepted neither by the drivers nor the pedestrians...I would be happy to stay off the sidewalks entirely (there being other safety issues with them) were the roads not so much worse.

Anyways, gripe as I do, I still consider it my responsibility not to hit pedestrians, since I'm the larger vehicle.

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

#98

Post by pascalo »

hueving wrote: post #82
pascalo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the overall road toll, hardly any fatalities are caused by cyclists. In fact, most accidents involving cyclist are caused by drivers.[1] Don't get me wrong, all of it counts and is sad and regrettable. I do however think there is an anti-cyclist bias ingrained in the perception and reporting of it's dangers, that's out of whack with the real numbers on accidents. [1] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafet…

What are you going on about? The person was complaining about bicycles on the sidewalk where it is illegal for them to be. Who cares if they don't kill people that often? It's not the point!

I am talking about perceived risk of cycling as a hyperbole vs actual risks that don't get mentioned. I'm pretty sure more people get killed by cars mounting the sidewalk.

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

#99

Post by ptaipale »

claudius wrote: post #88
yitchelle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians. Pedestrians and bike riders are not compatible either. I am a bike commuter as well. I live in West Germany at the moment, but I have also bike commuted to work in Australia. In general, commuting in Germany is a much safer proposition than in Australia. The German drivers seem to be more aware and tolerance to the bike commuters. The b…

I’m cycling to work in Munich at the moment. There’s a little piece (~800m) of one-way street with traffic lights at both ends. Due to the layout of the initial traffic lights, cyclists usually enter that street before traffic, as they have to obey their special bike-traffic-light. On that street, cars attempt and do pass by me every day, despite there definitely not being enough room for a bike and a car to move nex…

> Of course, most of these wouldn’t be issues if we treated bikes like cars with the exact same rights and obligations as cars.

Hmm, I suppose you did not mean this, but I think that mandating a bike rider's license, registration, insurance and annual tax would not help that much to remove problems.

Overall, I don't see how bikes could have the exact same rights and obligations as cars, although overall both are vehicles and should be treated as vehicles, equally. Still, you can't ride a bike on an Autobahn, and neither can you drive a tractor. You may or may not be allowed to ride bike on a road that is dedicated to buses, although you may be allowed to ride a bike there. Etc, etc. Bikes cannot and shouldn't have *exact' same rights and obligations as cars.

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

#100

Post by santaclaus »

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.

Safe bike culture varies wildly form city to city within the US. People in Portland are mad considerate (I've seen cyclists chide other cyclists for failing to use hand signals). NYC? I've seen bikers go the wrong way down Broadway in the UWS splitting lanes during rush hour.
Post reply on HN