Comments

1
Well good thing Murray loves bikes lanes.... oh wait
2
the stranger needs some threads with higher page views, oh yeah, write a story about bikes again, that'll do it.

*waits for the shit storm*
3
Wow.

It's almost like they were unborn babies or something.....
4
Except that separated bicycle lanes are not safer in every case. Consider the right-hook collision, where a cyclist in a right-side bike lane approaches an intersection (whether signalized or not). The cyclist will be in the blind spot of a motor vehicle in the adjacent travel lane. Car drivers are not currently taught to check their right-rear blind spots when turning right. The bicyclist is at a high risk of a right-hook collision.

Current discussions within the traffic engineering community about this are coming to the conclusion that bicycle lanes are safer if they merge with the vehicle lane some distance upstream of an intersection. This forces the motor vehicle traffic to merge with the bicycle traffic, with the result that no bicycle is in a right-rear blind spot.

Even this is not a 100% perfect solution.

Additionally, laws are not clear on exactly who has the right-of-way in the case of a bicycle lane on the right side of a vehicle lane. Per most laws, vehicles turning right must do so from a position as far right as practicable. Does this mean a motor vehicle must move right into the bicycle lane? Or does this mean the motor vehicle must stay in its travel lane? The laws are not clear. And they differ from city to city, county to county, state to state.

So from a traffic engineering standpoint, ending a bicycle lane upstream of an intersection (especially a signalized intersection) removes the legal grey area from the discussion. And since a right-turning motor vehicle will be slowing to make the turn, the speed differential between the bicyclists and the motor vehicles is reduced.

5

How many people drive cars with no bumpers, no airbags and no seat belts?
6
Car drivers are not currently taught to check their right-rear blind spots when turning right


I was taught that in drivers' ed, and I learned to drive 18 years ago. I also try to keep track of where a bicyclist is when I pass one and I know I need to turn soon.
7
popcorn.jpg
8
I was taught as a cyclist not to pass cars on the right at intersections. Maybe we need to better educated cyclists.
9
Why would we allow 13 year olds to use the road on a bike, when they cant even get a license until 15? I honestly dont see a 13 year old in being fully aware of the rules of the road. Theres no test needed to verify that.
10
What exactly is an appropriate penalty for accidentally striking a law abiding cyclist while violating traffic regulations? Do people hoestly think that people who accidentally run over cyclists should face jail time? There's a reason that the only drivers who are punished harshly in this situation are the ones also guilty of DUI or leaving the scene. The same is generally true for drivers who kill other people who are in vehicles. It's not bias against cyclists, it's a bias against harsh punishments for unintentional tragedies.
11
@10 you forget, cyclists are special, cars are evil. Once you have that formula, just plug in any data and you get required position.
12
@6
And the driver should signal a right turn, so the cyclist can slow down and not collide with the car.
13
@9: Because a bike isn't a 2 ton piece of metal capable of easily hurtling around at speeds in excess of 50 mph.
14
@ 9, I knew all the rules that a cyclist could reasonably be asked to know when I was thirteen. That was the age when I first started going on mountain rides with my dad, using often-narrow and busy highways. I knew what a stop sign means, what a speed limit is, what the colored lights on a traffic signal mean, which hand-turn signals to use when turning, how far to the right I'm supposed to ride, when to yield, and who gets to go first at a four way stop.

If you think I missed anything, let me know.
15
@Kinison, same thing here. At 13 I was riding from my parents' suburban home into town and back on rural roads and city streets. And riding the length of the Burke-Gilman trail. I knew enough of the rules of the road necessary.

A friend of mine was struck by a car one summer; the car driver failed to yield to him in a crosswalk. Upshot: He got a new Raleigh ten-speed out of it.
16
"And the driver should signal a right turn, so the cyclist can slow down and not collide with the car."

And cyclists should not then try to pass on the right, at speed, like the assholes I see in Seattle try all the time.
17
@4 - this has been figured out already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6…
18
@10 What is an accident? Why do we call it an accident instead of a collision? It automatically assumes the driver is free from guilt. If you are texting while driving, putting on makeup, yelling at your kids in the back seat or just "didn't see them". How the fuck didn't you see them? You should be prosecuted. It's like those assholes shooting their handguns into the air and killing someone "accidentally". You are wielding an inherently dangerous tool, if you are not looking where it is going, you should be held to account.

Cyclists aren't asking for every driver in a collision to be sent to jail. We are asking that the collision is investigated, which for the most part they are not. We are asking for some kind of punishment. Jail time may be a part of that or not. Mostly we want a society that doesn't treat pedestrian, cyclist, and driver deaths as unavoidable and blameless outcomes.

Anyway the linked article is still full of shit. The conclusion is, "we all just need to play nice together" after describing a horrific SUV collision with a child. Please, some hipster treating a stop sign as a yield has zero to do with this: http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/09/12/ru…

The Bike Snob says it better than I ever could: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2013/11/…
19
@10 Yes, they should face jail time. What part of this law do you want to change?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…

(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person.

(2) Manslaughter in the second degree is a class B felony.
20
@17- Yes. That's the video that has sparked a months-long discussion now among traffic engineering professionals. As part of that discussion the right-hook danger was discussed, and the speed differential between cyclists and motor vehicles.

Note however, that the dutch solution requires infrastructure changes that are huge- absolutely huge, in the US urban environment. And they also count on cyclists obeying and following the cycle paths provided.

Most serious US commuters would likely as not follow the vehicle path through such an intersection as the dutch use, rather than follow the paths. Consider a bicyclist turning left- in the US they would take the left turn lane, and obey the left turn signal as a car would. In the Dutch system they would have to make two street crossings, waiting two complete cycles of the traffic signal.

US cyclists are not going to readily wait what amounts to extra time to make a maneuver they know and are comfortable making already.

Additionally, the Dutch intersection places pedestrians even farther away from the apex of the corner, which means they are farther from a car driver's line of sight. Which can increase the hazard to pedestrians legally occupying the crosswalk.

So those are examples of the discussions that have been generated from that video. I doubt we'll see Dutch-style intersection treatments, but we are seeing positive discussions and solutions. What I find interesting are how many professionals in the transportation engineering community are also bicycle commuters.
22
19, criminal negligence is a much higher standard than run of the mill civil negligence. The fact that a death occurs doesn't mean that an individual has necessarily acted with criminal negligence. Nor , most likely, does a mere noncompliance with traffic regulations. The latter would almost by definition make a driver liable for civil damages, depending on a states's comparative/contributory negligence standards. But I'm not of the opinion that it's good policy to saddle drivers that collide with cyclists with manslaughter convictions absent some serious aggravating factors (like, say, DUI). So I wouldn't really change much about that statute you cited.

18, no disagreement about investigations, or really most of what you wrote. Perhaps the legislature should define some of the behaviors you list as being criminally negligent. Texting certainly. But for the most part, these incidents should be dealt with by lawsuits or license revocations, and not by putting more people in orange.
23
@21: You have it precisely backwards. Since it is legally criminal to kill them, it is illegal de jure, but since no one is prosecuted, it is de facto legal. The laws say you can't do it, but IN FACT, you can.

See also wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact".
24
@22: How does that work? "The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner." If you ignore lane markings and stop lights while talking on a cell phone in traffic, how are you using reasonable care? If you hit someone, that's a foreseeable outcome, no?
25
@10 In the article the author proposes a penalty that is lenient enough that cops and prosecutors will actually hand it out, and tough enough that people will care. I think he mentioned about $12000 fine, community service, short prison term, etc.

I think the purpose of his recommendation was less about justice and more about what will work.
26
Its fun to also note, the vulnerable user law that we passed in this state, has never been successfully enforced, and police are banned by the attorney general from using it.

http://www.cascade.org/2013/09/vulnerabl…

The real issue is people are generally entitled assholes. Behind the wheel they recklessly endanger those around them with speed, distractions ( txting ) and have no issue justifying it. The only reason bikes become a focus is because bicycle riders tend to be more of a cohesive group than pedestrians, and people who have been injured or killed by someone in a car who wasn't drunk.

Driving is the primary cause of death in this country for people under 35, and the penalties for abusing it ( aside from drinking ) are minor to non existent.

We probably need more enforcement, its not a right, its a privilege, and you should lose it when you injure or kill someone by default. You should have to go back and ask a judge for the privilege back. Letting people drive away after ending a life is insane.
27
@17 YES!!

@20 You make the assumption that the current state of affairs with regard to US cyclists would remain the same with adequate infrastructure. I believe any sane cyclist would obey the rules in a system designed to accommodate them. The reality out there now is ambiguous at best for both cars and cyclists (getting slightly better with dedicated cycle tracks). In the Dutch system, bikes have priority (they are working the hardest), then pedestrians, and then cars. We mostly need drivers to realize they have the greatest responsibility and therefor exercise the most caution.
28
Sorry but doesn't this article imply that sober at-fault motorists go to jail when another motorist is killed in a collision? That's not normally the case, right? If so then isn't the rhetoric of this article built on false dichotomy?
29
24, the failure to use reasonable care to avoid foreseeable outcomes is negligence, which can be the basis for a civil recovery of money damages. Criminal negligence is a much higher standard. Usually something more like a gross deviation from the standard of care. It's an admittedly fuzzy concept and not consistently applied. DUI almost certainly qualifies, as would leaving the scene, which is why people get locked up for those, not to mention that those acts have their own penalties associated with them. Exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph most likely would not qualify. Texting probably would, eating a sandwich, changing the radio station, or having a heated conversation with a passenger, probably not. The line is somewhere between those things. The point is, even the less dramatic violations can be the basis for a civil lawsuit, but it takes a serious aggravating circumstance to lock someone up who doesn't have some foreknowledge of how dangerous their behavior is (as in recklessness or intent).
30
@27 Yes, in essence, there's a huge difference between Dutch culture and US culture with regard to cyclists and motorists.

There, most of the car drivers have also, in the past 24 hours, probably ridden a bicycle somewhere. Here, very very few car drivers have ridden a bicycle with any regularity.

There, the laws favor cyclists, and in a motor vehicle-cyclist collision, generally the motor vehicle driver is at fault, with few exceptions.

So yes, until US culture changes with regard to viewing cyclists as legitimate road users, there will be conflicts. No amount of engineered solutions will solve this. There must also be cultural changes in how cyclists are viewed as road users.

Oh hey, fun fact about cyclists mixing with other road users, the federal committee that oversees the official guidance for traffic controls (signs, markings, signals, etc) is seriously considering removing the "Share the Road" sign from its manuals.

It turns out that while bicyclists understood it to mean "Car users make room for us", the non-cycling car drivers understood it to mean "Bicycles move over and make room for us car drivers".

So since the true intent of the sign was misunderstood by a portion of the road users, they are likely going to recommend it no longer be used.
31
yeah at-fault not drunk drivers certainly aren't going to jail with any regularity. The reason the cops investigate car on car collisions probably derive not from criminal but bureaucratic causes - cars are licensed, drivers are licensed, both are insured, etc. Bikes are normally none of these, and I wouldn't want to be required to do so to get in on the fun of tape measures held to skid marks.
32
The "fault" is clearly with the city, not drivers or cyclists. Dead pedestrians and bicyclists are an informed decision when making fast roads and no accommodation for actual human beings. The city should tax car drivers to pay for funeral expenses, healthcare, and family reimbursements for its collateral damage. Or just calm traffic and complete roadways, but that would mean people couldn't live out their 2 fast 2 furious fantasies while going to work.
33
If a driver commits a minor infraction (for instance, not properly yielding right of way) and collides with a car, the driver is guilty of a minor infraction. If a driver commits the same infraction and collides with a bicycle, the result can very well be death, not because of the magnitude of the driver's error, but because of the asymmetry between the vehicles involved. If drivers were forced to accept the possibility of being charged with vehicular manslaughter due to a minor infraction, people would either a.) support outlawing bicycles on motorways of any kind, b.) stop driving, depending on the number of bikes in their area or c.) start driving incredibly cautiously.

a.) would logically result in cyclists pushing for construction of separate bike paths. b.) would be a good thing for the environment. c.) isn't all that hard really. Most of us already do this or there'd be even more car-bike accidents than there have been already.

I was prepared to argue that this would be an unfair state of affairs, but now that I think about it, it's hard to see the result as terribly bad.
34
Disgusting level of victim blaming in the New York Times. Drivers don't get away with moving down cyclists with impunity just because you saw some guys on bikes run a light. They get away with it because nobody wants to change the way they drive.

Every cyclist in America could ride like a perfect angel and not one more driver would go to jail for slaughtering them.
35
This article in the Chicago Reader touches on the fact that even DUIs don't necessarily get punished very harshly.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/cyc…

But a warning before you read that, the description of the accident literally gave me nightmares.
36
Do we really want to criminalize accidents? "Accident" means "not on purpose". We have more people in prison than just about any other nation already. If a big truck and a Smart car get in an accident we don't charge the truck driver differently than if they hit another truck, although the outcomes could be entirely different. Trucks aren't out to slaughter Smart cars and drivers aren't out to slaughter cyclists. Cyclists aren't somehow more special than anybody else using the roadways. Equestrians and horses get killed too but we don't treat the drivers like they did it on purpose nor should we. When I ride on the side of the road I know I'm taking certain risks and I take responsibility for those risks, because I'm riding something intrinsically more dangerous for me than driving. Yet I hope drivers give me some consideration by not blasting by and honking, for instance. Cycles are intrinsically more dangerous than driving. I've never seen anybody fall off a car. Drivers should be considerate of cyclists and vice versa. Criminalizing accidents because cyclists are more vulnerable in accidents? No, bad idea.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.