Generally I support policies which incentives safer driving, but it feels a bit won't to punish drivers when, although nominally" cars cause accidents", the actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility. This is a technical problem, and it should probably be addressed as such.
I'm betting you aren't a bicyclist. If you ride regularly you quickly realize that it's not a visibility problem, but that some drivers feel like bikes don't belong on the road.
I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving the engine, "rolling coal", etc.
Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an "accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough attention.
Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.
There's a lot of aggressive behavior that, while criminally dangerous, isn't as blatant as a brick. Aggression toward bicyclists is a continuum, and if you habituate the careless drivers to being careful, and you dissuade the thoughtlessly agressive, then the sociopaths may not feel like they're part of some larger body of "acceptable" behavior.
They probably already had a brick in their car. As someone who's had people verbally threaten to run me over this story doesn't sound outside the realm of possibility.
Go to your local ice cream/coffee social cycling ride in any major city and ask around about having things thrown at you. Nearly every person there will have a story.
Oh, I'm not disputing the validity of his story. I'm just saying that anyone willing to do this is already breaking the law, regardless of "presumption of guilt as applied to car vs bicycle incidents".
Yeah, I'm not a cyclist, but I live in a busy city with lots of cyclists. Most close calls I witness are related to a bike riding in a blindspot or in between lanes or occasionally running a red, but the problems you cite are definitely not technical and I think something should be done about them. But I'm not convinced that assuming guilty a priori is the answer to that problem either.
I don't know how much more visible I can be on my bike! When I'm doing anything other than my short commute, I'm decked out in high-visibility clothing, have daytime-visible bright flashing lights on my bike, and am decked out with a bunch of retroreflectors. Despite this, I have to swerve to avoid a door that was opened into the bike lane on at least a quarter or half of my 15 minute rides. I have to slam the brakes to avoid a car that's decided to abruptly turn or switch lanes about every four 15 minute rides. This is roughly the same rate as when I go for shorter 4 minute rides to/from work without any special clothes/lights on. In fact, the only reason I wear the high-visibility stuff is for when I get out into the more rural areas after sunset.
I doubt you could get more people to switch to commuting by bike if you required them to take those extreme measures, and it certainly doesn't seem to help me in the city much.
[edit] A simple thing a motorist can do to improve the safety of cyclists is to open a door using the "Dutch reach"[1]. It pretty much necessitates looking to the left before/as you open your door, and makes the check easier too!
As someone who has come close to merging into a cyclist a few times - I'm sorry. I grew up in an area without bike lanes, and then moved to SF, so it wasn't a habit to check bike lanes before turning across them (mental process goes - I'm in the rightmost lane, I just need to look out for pedestrians and I can turn). On the upside - I got rid of my vehicle, so I'm no longer a terror to cyclists.
The actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility
Sounds like you've never commuted by bicycle before. I've seen people decked out in high-vis clothing carried away in ambulances or their bikes found under car wheels with their headlights and tail lights still on. But don't take my word for it[1], the actual studies themselves aren't very conclusive either[2].
The actual root cause is likely inattentive drivers, poor roads/infrastructure, and the all too common drivers' mentality that "bikes don't belong on the roads" many cyclists encounter on a regular, day-to-day basis when drivers feel justified in passing too close, cutting cyclists off, or turning into them.
Your links don't really support your argument. That hi-vis gear doesn't eliminate visibility issues for small-cross-section vehicles is not good evidence that visibility isn't the primary issue.
I've also seen bright red cars get hit; I didn't claim that high visibility is a guarantee, only that it improves the odds.
The infrastructure bit is also not going to be solved by these laws (directly, anyway). Maybe more liability is the way to go for carelessness, but I do worry about those drivers who really do everything reasonable to avoid an accident, but still manage to hit someone.
I highly doubt it's a technical problem. As a biker, by far the most common violation is cars making right turns from non-right turn lanes. In particular, where I am, if you have a bike lane on the far right of the road, and you wish to turn right across it, you must first signal, then merge into the bike lane, then make your turn from your position half in the bike lane half in the rightmost vehicle lane (as the bike lane isn't wide enough for a car, you'll straddle it and a normal lane).
Pretty much nobody does this. You're lucky if you get a signal; half the time the only way you know the driver wants to turn at all is that instinct and experience is telling you their driving is otherwise erratic.
On occasions that I wish were more rare, you'll see a driver take a right from the leftmost lane, blinker be damned.
The other common problem is that Uber drivers tend to believe the bike lane is their personal drop-off lane. I've had Ubers stop in the lane when there is parking right there next to the lane. In San Francisco of all places.
As a driver, and a biker, bikers: a red light applies to you. I've had a few close calls with bikers running reds. Laws like the proposed make me wonder how I'd "prove" it, if I didn't have a dashcam. (Which reminds me that I really need a dashcam.)
All of this is operator error, not problems with visibility. People are too damn lazy, so lazy they can't be bothered to follow the law, because 99% of the time it is without consequence, for them.
It doesn't help that the laws vary from state to state and city to city. In Oregon, it is illegal for a driver to enter the bike lane prior to making a right turn. This leaves right turning drivers blocking cars in their lane while trying to judge an approaching bike's speed and distance using their rear and side mirrors. California's law makes more sense, even though it sounds like too many drivers don't establish a position on the road that makes their intention to turn clear to cyclists.
Presumably the burden of knowing what's around is placed on the person operating the vehicle? In motorcycle safety classes they teach you not to outride your vision. Basically, you have to ride as though there could be a pothole, brick wall, whatever around every corner, every hill, etc. so go at a speed that lets you stop before hitting anything you don't see. Why aren't drivers taught this?
That is where the burden is placed, but it doesn't change natural human limits. Bikes are small, silent, agile, and often erratic things that often ride within mere inches of a car (if they're weaving in between lanes). In a busy city, you can check the bike lane before you right turn, and a bike could easily slip back into it while you change your focus back to the intersection. I'm a pedestrian in a crowded city, so I know that drivers aren't always attentive and that's a big part of the problem, but I also drive on occasion, and it can be hard to stay on top of all of the cars, bikes, and pedestrians all around you (and many cyclists and pedestrians pay no regard to traffic laws).
so go at a speed that lets you stop before hitting anything you don't see. Why aren't drivers taught this?
This was part of my driver's education curriculum.
A certain amount of "visibility" problems are cause by drivers too, if they are too close to the car in front then they lose peripheral vision, or they're driving too fast or some combination of the two.
Sure a rider dressed completely in black at night will be hard to see, but if you can't see a cyclist in front of you in broad daylight and have enough time to react to them then you're either driving dangerously or you're eyesight isn't good enough to be driving.
There is a decision on how to act when you don't have visiblity into a situation, and with the current "it's not your fault" legal perspective for motorists, the choice is reckless maneuvering that will kill obscured cyclists.
Comments
Generally I support policies which incentives safer driving, but it feels a bit won't to punish drivers when, although nominally" cars cause accidents", the actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility. This is a technical problem, and it should probably be addressed as such.
I'm betting you aren't a bicyclist. If you ride regularly you quickly realize that it's not a visibility problem, but that some drivers feel like bikes don't belong on the road.
I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving the engine, "rolling coal", etc.
Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an "accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough attention.
Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.
There's a lot of aggressive behavior that, while criminally dangerous, isn't as blatant as a brick. Aggression toward bicyclists is a continuum, and if you habituate the careless drivers to being careful, and you dissuade the thoughtlessly agressive, then the sociopaths may not feel like they're part of some larger body of "acceptable" behavior.
They probably already had a brick in their car. As someone who's had people verbally threaten to run me over this story doesn't sound outside the realm of possibility.
Go to your local ice cream/coffee social cycling ride in any major city and ask around about having things thrown at you. Nearly every person there will have a story.
Oh, I'm not disputing the validity of his story. I'm just saying that anyone willing to do this is already breaking the law, regardless of "presumption of guilt as applied to car vs bicycle incidents".
what is an > ice cream/coffee social cycling ride?
sounds fun
Yeah, I'm not a cyclist, but I live in a busy city with lots of cyclists. Most close calls I witness are related to a bike riding in a blindspot or in between lanes or occasionally running a red, but the problems you cite are definitely not technical and I think something should be done about them. But I'm not convinced that assuming guilty a priori is the answer to that problem either.
I don't know how much more visible I can be on my bike! When I'm doing anything other than my short commute, I'm decked out in high-visibility clothing, have daytime-visible bright flashing lights on my bike, and am decked out with a bunch of retroreflectors. Despite this, I have to swerve to avoid a door that was opened into the bike lane on at least a quarter or half of my 15 minute rides. I have to slam the brakes to avoid a car that's decided to abruptly turn or switch lanes about every four 15 minute rides. This is roughly the same rate as when I go for shorter 4 minute rides to/from work without any special clothes/lights on. In fact, the only reason I wear the high-visibility stuff is for when I get out into the more rural areas after sunset.
I doubt you could get more people to switch to commuting by bike if you required them to take those extreme measures, and it certainly doesn't seem to help me in the city much.
[edit] A simple thing a motorist can do to improve the safety of cyclists is to open a door using the "Dutch reach"[1]. It pretty much necessitates looking to the left before/as you open your door, and makes the check easier too!
[1] https://www.dutchreach.org/
As someone who has come close to merging into a cyclist a few times - I'm sorry. I grew up in an area without bike lanes, and then moved to SF, so it wasn't a habit to check bike lanes before turning across them (mental process goes - I'm in the rightmost lane, I just need to look out for pedestrians and I can turn). On the upside - I got rid of my vehicle, so I'm no longer a terror to cyclists.
Sounds like you've never commuted by bicycle before. I've seen people decked out in high-vis clothing carried away in ambulances or their bikes found under car wheels with their headlights and tail lights still on. But don't take my word for it[1], the actual studies themselves aren't very conclusive either[2].
The actual root cause is likely inattentive drivers, poor roads/infrastructure, and the all too common drivers' mentality that "bikes don't belong on the roads" many cyclists encounter on a regular, day-to-day basis when drivers feel justified in passing too close, cutting cyclists off, or turning into them.
[1] https://motorbikewriter.com/professor-debunks-hi-vis-clothin... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/1...
Your links don't really support your argument. That hi-vis gear doesn't eliminate visibility issues for small-cross-section vehicles is not good evidence that visibility isn't the primary issue.
I've also seen bright red cars get hit; I didn't claim that high visibility is a guarantee, only that it improves the odds.
The infrastructure bit is also not going to be solved by these laws (directly, anyway). Maybe more liability is the way to go for carelessness, but I do worry about those drivers who really do everything reasonable to avoid an accident, but still manage to hit someone.
I highly doubt it's a technical problem. As a biker, by far the most common violation is cars making right turns from non-right turn lanes. In particular, where I am, if you have a bike lane on the far right of the road, and you wish to turn right across it, you must first signal, then merge into the bike lane, then make your turn from your position half in the bike lane half in the rightmost vehicle lane (as the bike lane isn't wide enough for a car, you'll straddle it and a normal lane).
Pretty much nobody does this. You're lucky if you get a signal; half the time the only way you know the driver wants to turn at all is that instinct and experience is telling you their driving is otherwise erratic.
On occasions that I wish were more rare, you'll see a driver take a right from the leftmost lane, blinker be damned.
The other common problem is that Uber drivers tend to believe the bike lane is their personal drop-off lane. I've had Ubers stop in the lane when there is parking right there next to the lane. In San Francisco of all places.
As a driver, and a biker, bikers: a red light applies to you. I've had a few close calls with bikers running reds. Laws like the proposed make me wonder how I'd "prove" it, if I didn't have a dashcam. (Which reminds me that I really need a dashcam.)
All of this is operator error, not problems with visibility. People are too damn lazy, so lazy they can't be bothered to follow the law, because 99% of the time it is without consequence, for them.
It doesn't help that the laws vary from state to state and city to city. In Oregon, it is illegal for a driver to enter the bike lane prior to making a right turn. This leaves right turning drivers blocking cars in their lane while trying to judge an approaching bike's speed and distance using their rear and side mirrors. California's law makes more sense, even though it sounds like too many drivers don't establish a position on the road that makes their intention to turn clear to cyclists.
I grew up in a place without bike lanes, it's really hard to remember. I understand I have fucked up that process before, and feel bad about it.
Presumably the burden of knowing what's around is placed on the person operating the vehicle? In motorcycle safety classes they teach you not to outride your vision. Basically, you have to ride as though there could be a pothole, brick wall, whatever around every corner, every hill, etc. so go at a speed that lets you stop before hitting anything you don't see. Why aren't drivers taught this?
That is where the burden is placed, but it doesn't change natural human limits. Bikes are small, silent, agile, and often erratic things that often ride within mere inches of a car (if they're weaving in between lanes). In a busy city, you can check the bike lane before you right turn, and a bike could easily slip back into it while you change your focus back to the intersection. I'm a pedestrian in a crowded city, so I know that drivers aren't always attentive and that's a big part of the problem, but I also drive on occasion, and it can be hard to stay on top of all of the cars, bikes, and pedestrians all around you (and many cyclists and pedestrians pay no regard to traffic laws).
This was part of my driver's education curriculum.
A certain amount of "visibility" problems are cause by drivers too, if they are too close to the car in front then they lose peripheral vision, or they're driving too fast or some combination of the two.
Sure a rider dressed completely in black at night will be hard to see, but if you can't see a cyclist in front of you in broad daylight and have enough time to react to them then you're either driving dangerously or you're eyesight isn't good enough to be driving.
There is a decision on how to act when you don't have visiblity into a situation, and with the current "it's not your fault" legal perspective for motorists, the choice is reckless maneuvering that will kill obscured cyclists.