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.<p>Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden.<p>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.
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.<p>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 around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- <i>even though I had been looking directly at him</i> prior to passing.<p>How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience.<p>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.<p>As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.
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.<p>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).<p>Go figure.<p>What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do <i></i><i></i>, 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.
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.
Some facts about cycling in the Netherlands:<p>- After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will be fined if you don't have them.<p>- Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced.<p>- Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic laws - they will run red lights when they can.<p>- Practically nobody wears helmets.<p>- 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)
This is one of the nice things about moving to France.<p>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.<p>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.
<i>"It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need any more defending from anybody."</i><p>This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national newspapers.<p><i>"it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar."</i><p>The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike people to read his bike blog.
I cycle to work nearly everyday in the UK. Locally we have crazy cycle lanes that at junction take you off the road and then have to yield to crossing traffic at junctions whereas if I stayed on the road I have right of way.<p>I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road.<p>However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them up and overtake then at the next set of lights.<p>Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me they would arrive no later.<p>I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road.<p>I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from behind.<p>On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit" response.
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 vehicles.<p>Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal access, they need to conform to the same rules.
I guess the right stays in the middle. We have to make drivers more responsible with cyclists, but on the other hand cyclists have to play following rules. I don't think is always drivers' fault or vice-versa, we should evaluate case by case, but admit that sometimes, some cyclists, are even more dangerous than cars for pedestrians, is not crazy. I saw bike-couriers in London, NY and even here in ZH completely ignoring signals, jumping on sidewalks, avoiding kids with emergency maneuvers. I am not pro-drivers or pro-cyclists, but we have to find the right balance to share streets.
I've seen a few comments here using the example of "I see cycle couriers doing X, therefore cyclists are at fault". It's worth being cautious trying to learn much from the example of cycle couriers: they're disproportionately visible members of the cycling population, they spend all their working days on bikes so they're disproportionately good at it and <i>very</i> confident in their skills, added to which they are stereotypically young, male, and have a strong financial incentive to bend the rules to get wherever they're going quickly.
I almost completely agree with the author's policy recommendations and criticisms of US car culture, but I find many of his arguments and implications to be fairly troubling.<p>> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)<p>Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe.<p>> That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed, the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”)<p>I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than others).<p>> Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws.<p>I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels like a sufficient reason to me.<p>> Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it.<p>As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like income and population density.<p>> What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving it, and undividedly so.<p>By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she already should already behave.
This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood of a serious injury resulting from an accident.<p>In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem.<p>As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
Someone once told me that bicycles have no business being on the road at all. I thought they were just bitter due to an altercation, but the more I thought about it - it's entirely logical. Most roads are simply not built for bicycles and that is why they shouldn't be allowed at this point. They become a hazard because they can't attain the proper speed and they are allowed to flop between acting like a cyclist and acting like a car as another poster mentioned.<p>It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties.<p>I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield.<p>You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars.<p>I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO.<p>The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.