Every (US) cyclist who was killed by a driver in 2020(outsideonline.com)
outsideonline.com
Every (US) cyclist who was killed by a driver in 2020
https://www.outsideonline.com/2409749/outside-cycling-deaths-2020
75 comments
Cities are requiring speed limiters on electric scooters and bikes, but I have never seen any serious suggestions from politicians that the same could and should be done on cars, despite the huge gap in danger.
Speed is also a poor proxy for safety. Lack of attention and aptitude is the real problem.
Some people's problem is that they drive faster than they or their cars can physically handle, but they are relatively rare compared to those who are unsafe even below the speed limit. Things like texting, fixating on the spot directly in front of the car, and simply not caring about putting others in danger. They are also less likely to speed simply because they don't have the confidence for it.
So speeding enforcement is a poor use of resources. What's really needed is some kind of driver screening to see if they have the mental and visual acuity, motor skills and discipline to drive at any speed. Intense scrutiny of new drivers is probably why western and northern Europe are the safest places to be on the road. With VR simulators and eye tracking this can even be done objectively and consistently at no risk to the public. Stare at the spot in front of the car? Miss an erratic cyclist in your field of view? Can't keep in your lane? Better get a bus pass. I expect a lot of politicians would balk at the idea since they know they themselves would fail.
Also, a better alternative to speed limits is tiered licenses, just like they are for motorcycles. I've experimented with seeing how fast I can drive on the derestricted Autobahn, and found it takes a very different skill set and lots of practice to do well. Everything happens in split seconds, before you know it you're task saturated, falling behind the car, have angry Germans in diesel Passats behind you and no planned escape in the middle lane. If you want to drive a particular speed you have to demonstrate in the simulator that you can keep up at that speed, and do so consistently over time. So the people who do on-ramps and merge at 50 km/h should probably be capped at that speed anyway and stay on surface streets. Then you have one that lets you in on the right lane at truck driving speeds, and then another that lets you drive at whatever speed you please.
Some people's problem is that they drive faster than they or their cars can physically handle, but they are relatively rare compared to those who are unsafe even below the speed limit. Things like texting, fixating on the spot directly in front of the car, and simply not caring about putting others in danger. They are also less likely to speed simply because they don't have the confidence for it.
So speeding enforcement is a poor use of resources. What's really needed is some kind of driver screening to see if they have the mental and visual acuity, motor skills and discipline to drive at any speed. Intense scrutiny of new drivers is probably why western and northern Europe are the safest places to be on the road. With VR simulators and eye tracking this can even be done objectively and consistently at no risk to the public. Stare at the spot in front of the car? Miss an erratic cyclist in your field of view? Can't keep in your lane? Better get a bus pass. I expect a lot of politicians would balk at the idea since they know they themselves would fail.
Also, a better alternative to speed limits is tiered licenses, just like they are for motorcycles. I've experimented with seeing how fast I can drive on the derestricted Autobahn, and found it takes a very different skill set and lots of practice to do well. Everything happens in split seconds, before you know it you're task saturated, falling behind the car, have angry Germans in diesel Passats behind you and no planned escape in the middle lane. If you want to drive a particular speed you have to demonstrate in the simulator that you can keep up at that speed, and do so consistently over time. So the people who do on-ramps and merge at 50 km/h should probably be capped at that speed anyway and stay on surface streets. Then you have one that lets you in on the right lane at truck driving speeds, and then another that lets you drive at whatever speed you please.
Pushing the physical speed limitations of cars is not what kills cyclists and pedestrians. In many countries, those groups are excluded from high speed roads.
These deaths predominantly happen around 30mph, at junctions and other road furniture.
Edit: I've based that on UK experience, while TFA puts most US accidents on "arterial" roads, which can be 30-50mph. This doesn't change what I'm saying to you though, cyclists aren't dying because cars explode at 50mph.
These deaths predominantly happen around 30mph, at junctions and other road furniture.
Edit: I've based that on UK experience, while TFA puts most US accidents on "arterial" roads, which can be 30-50mph. This doesn't change what I'm saying to you though, cyclists aren't dying because cars explode at 50mph.
I used to run my own hand built ebike so it didn't have any governor or limit on it. Was always safest when I could keep pace with cars. Otherwise they just try to pass and that's not great on residential streets.
My experience is:
Drivers tend to assume bikes are traveling about 10mph, or stationary. They get really surprised when you’re going faster.
Drivers assume that bikes are 2 dimensional, and don’t have a width. Bikes should be able to be squeezed into the space between any two lines on the pavement.
Drivers assume that their car ends somewhere around the back of their head, and as long as they can’t see you forward, they’ve managed to pass you and can move back in. This is especially obnoxious when they’re towing a trailer.
What you’ve built is effectively an underpowered motorcycle, with all the safety that they provide.
Drivers tend to assume bikes are traveling about 10mph, or stationary. They get really surprised when you’re going faster.
Drivers assume that bikes are 2 dimensional, and don’t have a width. Bikes should be able to be squeezed into the space between any two lines on the pavement.
Drivers assume that their car ends somewhere around the back of their head, and as long as they can’t see you forward, they’ve managed to pass you and can move back in. This is especially obnoxious when they’re towing a trailer.
What you’ve built is effectively an underpowered motorcycle, with all the safety that they provide.
Yes one that I could also ride on bike paths and park wherever I want. I would typically own the lane if it wasn't safe to pass or if there was potential for the door prize from parked cars on the side.
The main problem I find with that is drivers don't expect you to be going so fast. They will pull out in front of you without thinking.
Yes and you have to be especially wary of cars turning across in front of you. Always paranoid and assuming they'll do the worst.
Like for example in the EU where all cars sold after 2022 will be required to have speed limiters?
I think they are already limited, for example to 240 km/h.
Cars still have to abide by speed limits, which can be enforced because they have licenseplates.
If ebikes had license plates, we could enforce speed limits on them the same way as cars, rather than a hard limit by design.
If ebikes had license plates, we could enforce speed limits on them the same way as cars, rather than a hard limit by design.
I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that speed limits are not effectively enforced on cars. And if they are, what is the cost to making the limitation (+10mph or whatever as required for safety) automatic?
> I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that speed limits are not effectively enforced on cars.
No it's not, unless you have some study to back it up because it's not my experience.
(edit: just to be clear, the spirit of this comment is not to dismiss anything that isn't backed by studies, sometimes simple observation of the world around us is enough to reach solid conclusions, but I disagree that speed limits aren't respected and enforced. Could depend on where you live as well.)
No it's not, unless you have some study to back it up because it's not my experience.
(edit: just to be clear, the spirit of this comment is not to dismiss anything that isn't backed by studies, sometimes simple observation of the world around us is enough to reach solid conclusions, but I disagree that speed limits aren't respected and enforced. Could depend on where you live as well.)
First page of DDG found this: https://www.wired.com/2008/11/the-boy-who-cri/ (from 2008)
or this https://conversation.which.co.uk/motoring/breaking-speed-lim... it's from an insurer, but the % who admit to speeding is very high
or this from the UK gov https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
or this https://conversation.which.co.uk/motoring/breaking-speed-lim... it's from an insurer, but the % who admit to speeding is very high
or this from the UK gov https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The last thing we need more fees coming out of our pockets.
I bet politicians are already talking about it though? Fees/fines are the polite way of taxing.
I forgot to pay by registration this year. I got the smog, and tags. Gov. Neusome was nice enough to give a two month grace period.
I got another registration in the mail, and thought it was a mistake.
My regulation is 148. The late fee was $69 dollars. That should be unserious?
I never even notice how high DMV late fees are because I always paid on time.
My point is we do not need to muck up a great electric movement with a bunch of laws that are backed up by high fees.
I bet politicians are already talking about it though? Fees/fines are the polite way of taxing.
I forgot to pay by registration this year. I got the smog, and tags. Gov. Neusome was nice enough to give a two month grace period.
I got another registration in the mail, and thought it was a mistake.
My regulation is 148. The late fee was $69 dollars. That should be unserious?
I never even notice how high DMV late fees are because I always paid on time.
My point is we do not need to muck up a great electric movement with a bunch of laws that are backed up by high fees.
"we could" means "we don't". license plates for cyclist is a populist love child, but in practice almost the license plates on cars might be of use to me as a cyclist are if they actually run me down and there are witnesses. or parking violations maybe.
otherwise it's usually a he-said-she-said situation.
note: dashcams (for cyclists) aren't legal (or at least legal gray area afaik) in my country for privacy reasons.
otherwise it's usually a he-said-she-said situation.
note: dashcams (for cyclists) aren't legal (or at least legal gray area afaik) in my country for privacy reasons.
I think the speed limits are more for the benefit of riders than for things they collide with.
That a good point, i never thought of this hypocracy
Whilst it's somewhat hypocritical there is some false equivalence there to consider. An ebike can still go beyond the engine cut-off speed and exceed the local speed limit, so would act differently to a speed limiter on a car, which would be more restrictive. So, for ebikes at least, these are different things. Also in some countries larger vehicles already require a speed limiter (although not cars) so the political will is there in some form.
Part of the reasoning for the speed limiter seems to be linked to the absence of mandatory training & licensing for ebikes & scooters. By limiting the speed governments are aiming to limit the risk to both rider and others and that risk has a direct correlation to speed.
A non-limited ebike is similar in many ways to a light petrol powered moped and so in much of Europe you can get non-limited ebikes but you need a light motorcycle license and wear a helmet, as you would riding a moped. So there's some equivalence in law there.
Part of the reasoning for the speed limiter seems to be linked to the absence of mandatory training & licensing for ebikes & scooters. By limiting the speed governments are aiming to limit the risk to both rider and others and that risk has a direct correlation to speed.
A non-limited ebike is similar in many ways to a light petrol powered moped and so in much of Europe you can get non-limited ebikes but you need a light motorcycle license and wear a helmet, as you would riding a moped. So there's some equivalence in law there.
Wow, 20-30% of deadly accidents were hit and run :(
I guess watching pain and death on TV all day long really makes you numb to the suffering of others.
I guess watching pain and death on TV all day long really makes you numb to the suffering of others.
We recently had an incident where a driver struck a lady's car door while she was loading her child, stops for a brief second and takes off.
That's terrible, we are in real trouble with this generation.
That's terrible, we are in real trouble with this generation.
> I guess watching pain and death on TV all day long really makes you numb to the suffering of others.
What does TV have to do with anything?
What does TV have to do with anything?
I'm regularly surprised by how much brutality I accidentally see when I turn it on.
I don't know about you, but I've probably seen 1000+ people suffer and die in movies so far. In real life, I have not yet observed anyone while he/she was first suffering and then dying.
So all my "experience" with people bleeding to death is fake.
I don't know about you, but I've probably seen 1000+ people suffer and die in movies so far. In real life, I have not yet observed anyone while he/she was first suffering and then dying.
So all my "experience" with people bleeding to death is fake.
>It was the deadliest year for cyclists and pedestrians on American roads since 1990.
Less traffic means higher speeds. Also those long straight roads with four lanes aren't suitable for urban areas.
See https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos for some great examples of what and what not to do.
Less traffic means higher speeds. Also those long straight roads with four lanes aren't suitable for urban areas.
See https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos for some great examples of what and what not to do.
Additionally, bikes sold out last year, pretty much every bike sold out, people where grabbing old bikes off craigslist for 2x or more their worth. There has to have been a disporportionate amount of bikers and new bikers compared to other years.
I read this article, a first person recounting of being hit by a van and its aftermath
https://www.outsideonline.com/2411290/cyclist-hit-by-car
From a Dutch perspective the US roads look all so hazardous and unwelcome. Still kind of surprised the yearly deaths are rising though. Safe roads are an amazing thing and can do a lot of good to society as well.
[deleted]
The story “To the Driver Who Hit Me and Ran” makes me never want to get on a bike again
I think cycling deaths and injuries are a really complex issue. Some thoughts on causes:
(1) There aren’t that many cyclists on the streets in the US (in part because cycling can be so unsafe) so drivers aren’t used to them and don’t know what to look for to prevent an accident.
(2) There is a culture that people on bikes don’t have to obey the laws of the road (e.g., routinely running red lights) which puts the cyclists at risk, and there is zero enforcement or licensing.
(3) There is a trend towards giant trucks/SUVs that have massive blind spots and are much more likely to cause serious injuries.
(4) Our roads in the US are designed in ways that (sometimes unintentionally) encourage drivers to drive fast, but faster cars lead to more serious accidents with cyclists and pedestrians.
Some of those are self-reinforcing. The safety issues cause there to by fewer cyclists, and the lack of cyclists means that drivers aren’t used to having them on the road, which causes more safety issues.
(1) There aren’t that many cyclists on the streets in the US (in part because cycling can be so unsafe) so drivers aren’t used to them and don’t know what to look for to prevent an accident.
(2) There is a culture that people on bikes don’t have to obey the laws of the road (e.g., routinely running red lights) which puts the cyclists at risk, and there is zero enforcement or licensing.
(3) There is a trend towards giant trucks/SUVs that have massive blind spots and are much more likely to cause serious injuries.
(4) Our roads in the US are designed in ways that (sometimes unintentionally) encourage drivers to drive fast, but faster cars lead to more serious accidents with cyclists and pedestrians.
Some of those are self-reinforcing. The safety issues cause there to by fewer cyclists, and the lack of cyclists means that drivers aren’t used to having them on the road, which causes more safety issues.
As a pedestrian I am routinely almost killed by cyclists.
In the UK, cyclists are responsible for between 2 and 3 pedestrian deaths each year. The total number of people killed on UK roads in the year to June 2020 was 1580 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...). This suggests that motorists directly kill about as many people in a morning as cyclists do in a year, and that's ignoring deaths caused by pollution.
2-3 seems surprisingly high to me, considering the small mass and low speed of most cyclists. Can you describe the most common classes of such accidents?
I realise how odd it sounds weird to ask about 2-3 when car drivers cause a four-digit number.
I realise how odd it sounds weird to ask about 2-3 when car drivers cause a four-digit number.
Go get hit by a bicycle at 10+ MPH and see how many times you're left disabled.
Well, a bicycle plus rider is about 100kg, which is a tenth of an old-fashioned car or closer to a twentieth of a SUV, so that should correspond roughly to getting hit by a car at about 1MPH.
I'm not awfully worried about cars moving at 1MPH, and correspondingly unworried about bicycles. You may disagree. Do you happen to drive a car? At 1MPH, or faster?
I'm not awfully worried about cars moving at 1MPH, and correspondingly unworried about bicycles. You may disagree. Do you happen to drive a car? At 1MPH, or faster?
Really? You routinely have near misses that would have been fatal?
There may be a little exaggeration. But there are many occasions where if I do not move out of the way or stop walking when I have right of way, I would be hit at high speed.
I wonder how many of these deaths could be attributed to cell phone use.
No idea. I cycle in Germany I would argue that the main issue is extremely aggressive and reckless behavior towards cyclists by car drivers, not that they're inattentive. Although that's a big problem as well, many drivers simply don't "look" for cyclists - you always need to act like you don't have right of way. Of course, many drivers get aggressive against cars as well, e.g. somewhat adhering to traffic laws is a surefire way of inciting road rage.
I'd argue that a lot of deadly accidents in the city are inattention and lack of suitable infrastructure - if you look at the statistics in Berlin for example, the common pattern for deadly accidents is (right-)turn crossing a cycle lane and crushing a cyclist. Still, dedicated right-turn lanes with a crossing cycling path are still built, traffic lights still allow right-turns while allowing straight through cycle traffic. Changes get made - if at all - after a deadly accident, sometimes it takes multiple. Suitable infrastructure is certainly not the only thing that's missing, but the current lack of it, combined with lackluster removal of parked vehicles on the bit that exists are a major driver or deadly incidents.
if the epidemic of cell phone use while (badly) driving where i live is any indication, it’s a very large share.
I don't know how to phrase this politely, but I'm actually surprised at how low that number is. Of course it would be great if we could lower that number even more.
But in my opinion that's nearly impossible. Cars and bicycles are vastly different vehicles and as long as they share the same infrastructure, tragic crashes will happen. People will make mistakes and as long as the collisions are a fragile human vs a multi-ton metal box on wheels, some of them will be fatal.
But in my opinion that's nearly impossible. Cars and bicycles are vastly different vehicles and as long as they share the same infrastructure, tragic crashes will happen. People will make mistakes and as long as the collisions are a fragile human vs a multi-ton metal box on wheels, some of them will be fatal.
That's a really cool website design for such a sad info...
The breakdown by gender is striking, but hard to interpret without knowing the breakdown of cyclists in general by gender. Is that info here somewhere?
We need to compare it to the number of km ridden on a bicycle per year. If the distance increase by time 10 and the death by 20% it is not that bad
Yea, I'm also wondering about that. It might sound callous but it doesn't sound like a massive number of deaths when compared to other deaths in the US but I'm not really sure how many people ride bikes and for how long they are on the road.
The Dutch law that in case of an accident the stronger party is always to blame always seemed pretty smart to me. Thus in case of an accident between a cyclist and a car, it's always the car. Does this still exist?
Generally drivers in the Netherlands seem much more careful, partly because of this, partly because they know what riding a bike in traffic is like.
Generally drivers in the Netherlands seem much more careful, partly because of this, partly because they know what riding a bike in traffic is like.
Dutch person here. I believe the driver is at fault, unless it can be proven that the cyclist had a serious part in the crash.
Having said that, there is significant effort made here to just reduce conflict points between modes of transport. No law can help you if you're dead.
Having said that, there is significant effort made here to just reduce conflict points between modes of transport. No law can help you if you're dead.
This makes sense, even though I'd be on the receiving end of that, being the guy in the car. I'm assuming the actual text of the law is a little more nuanced, being written more in terms of responsibility to act to avoid the accident.
Despite appearances cars are far more agile than anything else on the road, and even if a biker makes the initial mistake, a driver has the biggest toolbox to mitigate or completely avoid the accident. This is something to be aware of when sharing the road with motorcycles as well.
Despite appearances cars are far more agile than anything else on the road, and even if a biker makes the initial mistake, a driver has the biggest toolbox to mitigate or completely avoid the accident. This is something to be aware of when sharing the road with motorcycles as well.
That seems short-sighted, if the "weaker" party can still cause the incident. If a bike swerves in front of a car, they are to blame regardless of how strong the car is.
This isn't unique to the U.S. The Netherlands is considered a haven for bikes, but:
https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/netherlands...
https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/netherlands...
The problem with that statistics is that it records the absolute number of people that died cycling, neither controlling for population size nor total distance cycled. That makes all conclusions drawn essentially worthless: an increase in accidents may be caused by an even larger increase in miles cycled, which would actually be a net improvement.
Do you know how many people in The Netherlands ride bicycles daily? A lot. I think almost everyone in the Neherlands has ride a bicycle daily some time in their life..
Having said that, in 2000, 1200 people died. So 610 deaths in 2020 doesn't seem that much.
The Netherlands is one of the safest place to ride a bicycle. And continues to improve on it.
Having said that, in 2000, 1200 people died. So 610 deaths in 2020 doesn't seem that much.
The Netherlands is one of the safest place to ride a bicycle. And continues to improve on it.
this is one reason I prefer mountain biking/trail riding to roads. At least there, all I have to worry about are trees, rocks and roots. No worry about being an unexpected hood ornament.
Are they on the rise because of an increase in cyclists?
My thoughts on this are that we drastically need to reduce vehicle (car, suv, etc) safety. As vehicles become safer and safer, drivers feel more confidence, and make everyone else less safe.
For example - many cars now have dipped (low beam) lights on during the daytime. This makes cars more visible, great, but by consequence everyone else becomes less visible.
Crush zones in cars are a great way to absorb energy from an impact and save the occupants... unless you're a cyclist or pedestrian on the receiving end.
Alternatively we revisit the concept that bicycles and cars are compatible and either put the cyclists with pedestrians (I can already hear the chorus of issues), or build out completely separate cycling infrastructure (at what cost), or make cars 3rd class citizens on the road that are obliged to yield to everything else (maybe except on motorways?).
For example - many cars now have dipped (low beam) lights on during the daytime. This makes cars more visible, great, but by consequence everyone else becomes less visible.
Crush zones in cars are a great way to absorb energy from an impact and save the occupants... unless you're a cyclist or pedestrian on the receiving end.
Alternatively we revisit the concept that bicycles and cars are compatible and either put the cyclists with pedestrians (I can already hear the chorus of issues), or build out completely separate cycling infrastructure (at what cost), or make cars 3rd class citizens on the road that are obliged to yield to everything else (maybe except on motorways?).
There's the (controversial) concept of "Risk Compensation", which covers some of the same ground; when we feel safer driving (eg, when we start wearing a seatbelt), we unconsciously compensate by driving with slightly less care. There are two problems with this: the risk is often transferred to other people, and the magnitude of the compensation is not guaranteed to be the same.
The Netherlands is a great example of reworking the streets to make them better (see for example: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic... and https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-...). There was a large and well-organised campaign starting in the 1970s.
The Netherlands is a great example of reworking the streets to make them better (see for example: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic... and https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-...). There was a large and well-organised campaign starting in the 1970s.
Still lots of problems... Netherlands is second worst in Europe for bike fatalities: https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/netherlands...
The article you quote contradicts your assertion:
> Despite this, the Netherlands is defended in the report. As cycling is a lot more common in the Netherlands compared to other countries, it stands to reason that more cycling fatalities occur. According to the report, the Netherlands is one of the safest places to cycle, with extensive cycling infrastructure networks.
> Despite this, the Netherlands is defended in the report. As cycling is a lot more common in the Netherlands compared to other countries, it stands to reason that more cycling fatalities occur. According to the report, the Netherlands is one of the safest places to cycle, with extensive cycling infrastructure networks.
There is a great thread about this on twitter [1]
SUVs/Trucks have longer blind spots. They cause significantly worse accident outcomes due to hitting the upper body and sending the person under the car, instead of over. I might be stereotyping, but I have found big cars to be particularly popular among women and mothers, many of whom have even larger blind spots due to be shorter/ the car seat not going up high enough.
> “We really feel we can see what’s in front of us, and if you tell somebody they can’t see eight feet in front of their vehicle, they think you’re crazy,” said Amber Rollins, who maintains the national injury and fatality database for KidsAndCars. “Unfortunately, not a day goes by that we don’t add a child to our database.”
> That database shows each year at least 3,000 children are injured and an average of nearly 60 kids are killed in frontover accidents in the United States. KidsAndCars tracked 575 frontover deaths over the past 10 years, compared to 304 deaths in the prior decade– an increase of 89 percent.
Small crossovers are particularly egregious because they are often just raised up hatchbacks with similar sized interiors and worse driving, worse visibility, and worse safety for everyone but the car sitting highest. I have similar but less valid complaint about SUVs when wagons have existed for time immemorial, with wagons driving better and having fewer blind spots.
On a similar note, horsepower has constantly gone up with zero improvement (or even decrease) in the quality of drivers or changes to speed limits. Why do cars need 400+ Horsepower when the buyer explicitly claims to be buying these SUVs for comfort over drivability.[2]
[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1396939038456750089.html
[2] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/trends202...
SUVs/Trucks have longer blind spots. They cause significantly worse accident outcomes due to hitting the upper body and sending the person under the car, instead of over. I might be stereotyping, but I have found big cars to be particularly popular among women and mothers, many of whom have even larger blind spots due to be shorter/ the car seat not going up high enough.
> “We really feel we can see what’s in front of us, and if you tell somebody they can’t see eight feet in front of their vehicle, they think you’re crazy,” said Amber Rollins, who maintains the national injury and fatality database for KidsAndCars. “Unfortunately, not a day goes by that we don’t add a child to our database.”
> That database shows each year at least 3,000 children are injured and an average of nearly 60 kids are killed in frontover accidents in the United States. KidsAndCars tracked 575 frontover deaths over the past 10 years, compared to 304 deaths in the prior decade– an increase of 89 percent.
Small crossovers are particularly egregious because they are often just raised up hatchbacks with similar sized interiors and worse driving, worse visibility, and worse safety for everyone but the car sitting highest. I have similar but less valid complaint about SUVs when wagons have existed for time immemorial, with wagons driving better and having fewer blind spots.
On a similar note, horsepower has constantly gone up with zero improvement (or even decrease) in the quality of drivers or changes to speed limits. Why do cars need 400+ Horsepower when the buyer explicitly claims to be buying these SUVs for comfort over drivability.[2]
[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1396939038456750089.html
[2] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/trends202...
I'd choose the separate infrastructure. We already spend billions on highways every year (often new highways which will end up being liabilities down the road as opposed to maintenance) we can spend a little on better infra. I'd rather not treat the situation as zero sum and basically wish more drivers and car riders die in larger numbers.
Again the situation isn't zero sum, we can save both car rider lives and bike rider and pedestrian lives.
Again the situation isn't zero sum, we can save both car rider lives and bike rider and pedestrian lives.
In terms of space requirements, the situation is zero-sum in many places (or pretty close to it).
The buildings in a city (or other established area) are a set distance apart. What’s the split of what’s between them is what you’re deciding on and that often involves non-monetary tradeoffs.
The buildings in a city (or other established area) are a set distance apart. What’s the split of what’s between them is what you’re deciding on and that often involves non-monetary tradeoffs.
I don’t really follow a lot of your points. Why are making cars visible making other things less visible? If everything is just a bland surface, and the eye can more easily make out a car, that doesn’t mean that pedestrians blend into their backgrounds any more or less noticeable than they were before. How are crush zones related? If it was just the surface of a less-crushable area, isn’t that just the same or worse for people getting hit?
I mean, your overall point is right. Cars are mostly not compatible with pedestrians and small vehicles like bikes and scooters. There does need to be more separation between these modes. One example is flashing yield signs for pedestrian crossings. This separates pedestrians from traffic and makes them more noticeable. Separate-ish bike lanes are getting more common too. I think making certain streets car-free is a good idea in dense areas too.
Another note is that (IIRC), cars are already required to yield to pedestrians and bikes in many areas.
But when it comes to most roads outside of dense areas, cars aren’t going anywhere because cars are the mode of transportation which makes most sense when things are spread out and there aren’t a lot of people.
I mean, your overall point is right. Cars are mostly not compatible with pedestrians and small vehicles like bikes and scooters. There does need to be more separation between these modes. One example is flashing yield signs for pedestrian crossings. This separates pedestrians from traffic and makes them more noticeable. Separate-ish bike lanes are getting more common too. I think making certain streets car-free is a good idea in dense areas too.
Another note is that (IIRC), cars are already required to yield to pedestrians and bikes in many areas.
But when it comes to most roads outside of dense areas, cars aren’t going anywhere because cars are the mode of transportation which makes most sense when things are spread out and there aren’t a lot of people.
I’m old enough to remember when only motorcycles commonly had headlights on during the day. They were quite a bit more noticeable then than today as a result.
Same with only cop cars having third (or third and forth) brake lights. You paid attention and noticed them.
Same with only cop cars having third (or third and forth) brake lights. You paid attention and noticed them.
I've been in places where bicycles are required to be on the sidewalk (shoulder really doubles as sidewalk) and hate it both as a pedestrian and as a biker.
Also the website mixes relative and absolute stats. Car fatalities at "all time lows", relative to other years where tens of thousands die in cars. While a vastly-smaller biker-death stat is compared to the other years of vastly-smaller stats. Need to compare in terms of deaths per mile traveled or something. We probably don't want to make a change that leads to ten thousand more driving fatalities in hopes it will help a few hundred bikers.
Also the website mixes relative and absolute stats. Car fatalities at "all time lows", relative to other years where tens of thousands die in cars. While a vastly-smaller biker-death stat is compared to the other years of vastly-smaller stats. Need to compare in terms of deaths per mile traveled or something. We probably don't want to make a change that leads to ten thousand more driving fatalities in hopes it will help a few hundred bikers.
What if the risk was a manslaughter charge?
Of course not in all cases, but if we had better ways of showing you were on your phone and cruising at 50 in a neighborhood.
Of course not in all cases, but if we had better ways of showing you were on your phone and cruising at 50 in a neighborhood.
That’s what the risk is today, is it not?
I'm curious where you live? Because it seems more and more cities are adding bike lanes and separate bike paths, and cars are already obliged to yield to everything else, at least everywhere I've lived in the USA.
Historically, bike lanes were added to move the bikes off the road in order to keep the car traffic flowing. They have had nothing to do with cyclist or pedestrian safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cycling_infrastruct...
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6121129/bike-lanes-traffic-new-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/when-addi...
Edit: added Wikipedia link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cycling_infrastruct...
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6121129/bike-lanes-traffic-new-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/when-addi...
Edit: added Wikipedia link
Hm. The Vox article that you posted starts with: "The main point of building protected lanes was to make biking in the city safer." The Bloomberg article is talking about the same data, where the flow was found as an added benefit, not the point of the infrastructure work. Your Wikipedia article states that the original designs that were driven by the auto industry were nixed and replaced with safety-driven designs which are still in place today.
[deleted]
Your post is typical example of self-righteous and egotistical attitude of cyclists. Making cars less safe would make other people suffer more, and riding with pedestrians would endanger the pedestrians. How can one even suggest to explicitly increase danger that way for others in order to decrease danger for themselves?. Instead, I'd suggest the cyclists look at themselves. In my experience (Bay Area, mostly PA/MV/Sunnyvale) cyclists are less educated in traffic rules, less respectful of those rules and less polite than any other traffic participants - from riding wrong side of the road and riding on sidewalks to riding while reading smartphone to flying over STOPs to angrily banging on my car for taking over the bike lane before right turn as rules dictate (yep, hard to believe, yet it is true - i'm standing waiting for cross traffic to pass, and that cyclist instead of waiting behind me squeezes between me and the sidewalk while several times angrily banging on my car's roof while making the face - the poor moron had obviously no idea about the traffic rules, and that that specific rule is precisely for his own safety).