kickstart

I don't think that's an accurate statement, because there's still the possibility of random events that have nothing to do with road users obeying the law, and the fact that humans are imperfect meaning they can make errors even when following the law to the letter.

Digital_Cowboy

That is one of the few things cycling infrastructurewise that I'd like to be imported from Europe to the USA, strict liability placed on the motorist.

What is the hit and run rate in Europe compared to the USA? It is my understanding that for a long time now that they've had a strict liability policy in place for any motorist who hits either a cyclist or a pedestrian. And that it isn't always a guarantee that if they can prove that the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault that that'll get 'em off of the hook as it were.

Not too long ago I saw a similar situation. The gal on the bike was enacting her own version of the Idaho stop. Except that at the very last intersection with a traffic light that she went through SHE was the one who cut off the motorist who had the light and was making a left hand turn.

Digital_Cowboy

+1,000

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, and IF I am not mistaken the law already makes allowances for that, with the obvious exception of if someone after hitting such an individual attempts to cover it up after the fact.

+1,000

Agreed, as I've said, it seems that all a motorist has to do is to utter those "three magic words" and they're let go with little more than a slap on the wrist and sometime as the LEO, judge and/or jury also usually being motorists themselves they can more likely be over-sympathetic towards the motorist and say "that could have been me" so I'm going to say "not guilty."

genec

I am taking the possibility of faulty humans out of the equation.... I stated: "if EVERYONE did follow the law." That leaves no room for errors by humans.

So what is left. Acts of God, machine failures, who knows. What I am stating is that I believe the laws are written to preserve safety... for the most part. The laws also heavily lean on traffic flow or level of use (I can't recall the right phrase... )

But essentially, if the laws are followed... to the letter, no human failure, but like a computer algorithm, all road users should be safe. If not, we got some problems.

StanSeven

Strongly agree with these posts.

It's amazing how one sided some views are. Humans make errors. Nobody is perfect. Trying to not make mistakes can put presure on some and makes things worse. Taking away the right to drive for a human mistake isn't right. Some people depend on vehicles for employment and have no alternatives.

I'm for harsher punishment for gross negligence, DUI, distractions via cel phone send texting, and so on. But we need to lighten up and recognize the best of make errors.

Edit: including my typos

Dave Cutter

Some people won't be happy until the entire population resides in prisons.... with day/work-release jobs. In a nation where the percent of the population is at record levels of incarcerations.... some people still want more, more ,more.

genec

I'm sorry, what were you saying THX-1138?

Shimagnolo

Zappa predicted it years ago in "Joes' Garage":

Eventually it was discovered, that God did not want us to be all the same. This was Bad News for the Governments of The World, as it seemed contrary to the doctrine of Portion Controlled Servings. Mankind must be made more uniformly if The Future was going to work. Various ways were sought to bind us all together, but, alas, same-ness was unenforceable. It was about this time, that someone came up with the idea of Total Criminalization. Based on the principle, that if we were all crooks, we could at last be uniform to some degree in the eyes of The Law. [...] Total Criminalization was the greatest idea of its time and was vastly popular except with those people, who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws, so, of course, they had to be Tricked Into It... which is one of the reasons, why music was eventually made Illegal."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe%27s_Garage

Dave Cutter

I had to Google that reference. I was "out of country" in 1971 when the movie was released.... and I had never heard of it.

I understand the concept of complete coherence to... the directives, rules, law, whatever.... to produce [whatever] prescribed results. And with all due respect to those who believe or wish to believe such complete obedience would produce the desired results. Humans have a very long and broad history that pretty much says... it doesn't work.

BTW my "out of country" experience proved to me that no level of threat, punishment, or even outright murderous violence will attain complete obedience.

B. Carfree

Sure, we all make errors. However, there is a difference between disregarding the safety of other road users by careless engaging in actions that change the odds of failure, like overdriving one's vision, and doing one's level best and still failing.

That said, some people just aren't going to be safe behind the wheel and I'd rather take a few people who might end up okay out from the driver's seat than leave many there who should not have control of what is a very poorly guided missile when under their control. We really should have better standards in place for people who want to obtain a license to drive. Our current ******* Jack box approach is failing miserably.

Leisesturm

What??!!! Taking away the right to drive for a human mistake that maims or kills someone is EXACTLY the thing to do! If they depend on their damn vehicles so damn much they will be more careful going forward! You will be as pissed off as anyone else on the other side if the reason you are over there is because some twit innocently knocked you off and went on to their mediocre existence sadder but wiser (but still a legal driver) with not so much as a traffic fine (waived) and your next of kin are paying out of pocket for the rest of their lives, for the three days of medical care you needed ($500K) that ultimately didn't save you. Countries where the right to drive isn't... a right, but, in fact a privilege, do much better with pedestrian/cyclist injury and fatality metrics.

Leisesturm

Jail? Who is talking about jail? Record levels of incarceration? As I understand it, less than one percent of WASP Americans are in prison (~0.3%) its the rest of Americans that are incarcerated at staggering levels, and not for traffic offenses!! Very, very few Americans are behind bars for something they did using a car. But if we enacted a system of varying amounts of time without the ability to drive, you would see a sea change (see what I did there?) in the driving culture of America. I would start with a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 years revocation of driving privileges for any injury accident in which the driver was found at fault. Then five years if they are ever found guilty of a driving infraction of any kind, again. You know what happens if they strike out? Yeah. And what do you notice about all that justice? Not a single jail cell in use. Justice without jails. See what I did there?

genec

Therein is the rub... the finding of fault. The situations that often occur around any collision is that immediately all parties become defensive. Other motorists and possible witnesses take sympathies with peers. Even law enforcement, who should be objective, starts to make assumptions... "oh a cyclist is involved... right, well they are always doing 'something' wrong..." and the collision scene data gathering becomes somewhat one sided... even if traffic cameras are available. So the finding of fault becomes a witch hunt focused not so much on facts, but perceptions.

What is actually being discussed in this thread is that the driver should be assumed to be at fault unless the facts prove otherwise. This is a total reversal of how our laws are set up in the US. That's not to say there isn't precedent for said laws... we have "presumed guilty" laws for a number of situations... but collision with a vulnerable road user is not one of those situations. Reversal of those laws though would likely change how data and evidence was gathered at such scenes... which in the end may actually result in better investigations.

dynodonn 

This is how the Netherlands operates, but the car is not as big a king there as it is in the U.S.


Just yesterday while on one of our busy thoroughfares, it was sad to observe the way pedestrians were having cross at several non signaled intersections, in well marked crosswalks, complete with high profile signage.... at a run as fast as they could muster, regardless of age and ability.

genec

Yeah, it's ridiculous... just as much as having to constantly remind drivers of laws they should know...

KD5NRH

Good luck with that. I'm having enough trouble convincing them it's not legal to half-change lanes to brush pass a bike that's in the center of the lane and then turn right just far enough ahead to not quite call it a right hook.

gpsblake

I disagree as in many cases that is exactly the reason cyclist get hit. Riding at night without lights and stuff like that. Now of course "I didn't see him" isn't an excuse in a lot of cases either.

What I would like to see is more investigation into crashes to determine fault and then base prosecutions on that. But one of the things we have to remember is it's one thing to prosecute, it's another thing to get a jury to convict.

AlmostTrick

Random events? Like a meteor falling down from space? OK, sure. I'm having a difficult time imagining a driver error that would endanger another person while not being a violation of one law or another.

In hi-vis orange, or black and white stripes. Imagine the safety!

Dave Cutter

Actually Willem-Alexander is the King of the Netherlands. The cultural differences between old Europe and the new world are dramatic. Ideas of individual freedoms may be too great a gap to easily cross in many of these matters.

kickstart

Random events,
Flat tire, mechanical failure, wildlife, falling rocks, domestic animals, children, wind falls, medical issues, climate events, spills. Many common events can create hazards that traffic laws don't address.

Errors,
Reacting incorrectly to an event, legitimate distraction, obscured signage, confusion. One may, or may not inadvertently violate a law through error even if its their intention to not do so.

AlmostTrick

Thanks Kickstart, I knew you’d think of something.

Regarding driver error. Are there not presently laws requiring drivers to be in full control of their vehicle at all times? Stay within lanes, adhere to all traffic signals and signs, honor right of way, maintain a safe following distance, adjust speed for conditions… and on and on and on?

Sure, drivers can/will make errors, but whenever this error leads to a crash or near crash, I don’t think it’s possible to say there was not some law broken.

Genec is partially correct. Even though it’s not possible in the real world, if drivers did follow all The Rules, there would be no crashes due to “driver error”.

Yes, random events can lead to crashes even without driver error or breaking of laws, but that’s another issue.

Wanderer

Do you mean, the practice dummies**********

genec

Those random events are all valid... but in fact, really do occur rarely.

The second level of "errors," are based on human frailty... for the sake of argument, RE the laws, eliminate the human factor... Do the current laws guarantee the road users safety, if obeyed 100% of the time?

StanSeven

I'm talking about a human error. it happens to everyone. Even people on bicycles.