noglider 

@FBinNY, that's an interesting and compelling argument for disorder. I bet we could model that mathematically. I've read that accident rates are often lower at unmarked, uncontrolled intersections. Since no one has any expectations, everyone moves cautiously expecting anything to happen, ready to respond to anything.

NYC may or may not use bikes more heavily than other US cities. The Strava heat map seems to show that Boston beats NYC. We may have slower urban traffic than most or all, and that is in the cyclist's favor. As for crashes per trip or crashes per mile, I have no idea if we have more or fewer. Looking at the circumstances, I might expect fewer, but I really don't know.

rumrunn6

niknak

New York City is one of the safest big cities for walking and cycling according to bikewalkalliance.org in their 2016 Benchmarking Report. The report shows how many peds/cyclists are killed per 10k commuters.

1 DC 1.6
2 Boston 1.6
3 Seattle 1.9
4 Minneapolis 2.8
5 SF 2.8
6 Portland, OR 3.4
7 Virginia Beach 3.8
8 NYC 3.9
9 Chicago 4.3
10 Baltimore 5.3

My city San Jose is ranked 29th with 17.3 deaths per 10k commuters Most of the roadway deaths here are from peds trying to cross high-speed streets at night.

I try to avoid the high speed roads, even if they have bike lanes. Drivers don't pay enough attention and the judicial system treats these fatalities as "accidents".

rydabent

This is just another example of what I have stated many times. If you are so deranged you want someone dead, buy them a bike and run over them. You will only get your hands slapped if that.

Sorry for the family.

kickstart

Yes, we know......

And it still has nothing to do with the real issues.

noglider 

@niknak, thank you! Is there a link?

lostarchitect 

As someone who walks, bikes, drives and even motorcycles in NYC, bad driving is not the norm here. It may seem that way to people who are new, but I'd say it's largely the opposite. Most drivers are very good. They have to be, because traffic is so tight. It looks like chaos to uninformed eyes, but I think I can count on one hand the number of crashes I have seen in my 12 years living here. I can't say that for the other places I have lived.

All that said, it only takes one bad driver to end a life, so being vigilant is always called for. And we need to hold the NYPD accountable, they let people get away without charges way too often.

niknak

Benchmarking - Alliance for Biking & Walking

You have to download the report. The info I mentioned is on page 123.

scott967

I don't think it is meaningful to consider "NYC" as an entity. Certainly cycling on Staten Island is far removed from Midtown Manhattan.

scott s.
.

FBinNY 

Good data for anything bike related is hard to come by. For example Strava data shows numbers for people who care about Strava, which tend to be (but are not all) sport vs. utility riders and commuters. However, all 4 major east coast cities (NYC, Phila, Boston, and DC) have long histories as bike cities, and are probably fairly comparable in per capita bike use, depending on how you define the demographic.

For example, if You only count Manhattan and Brooklyn you get higher usage than if you include all five boroughs. Boston is likewise tricky because there are plenty of small cities that make up what most of think of as Boston. My nephew lives 2 miles outside the Phila city line, and commutes 7 mikes to center city. Do we count him in the Phila numbers as a rider, and if so do we include Wynnewood in the base numbers?

Accident data is likewise problematic. There is (or was) decent data that tended to show that injuries aren't evenly distributed across various types of collisions, with open road passing collisions being the worst in terms of death or serious injury, though intersection accidents are more common. So which is more dangerous? One thing that is known is that motor vehicle speed is a good predictor of seriousness of injury in collisions, so the easiest way to reduce the severity of injuries, if not the number of events is to lower speeds, and congestion does a good job in that respect.

One thing we all need to keep in mind is that bicycling is in fact very safe, and the collisions and injuries are a small, badly recorded data set prone to all sorts of skews. Rather than dwell of statistical odds, I prefer to understand how and why accidents occur and what, if anything, riders can do to keep themselves safer. Others disagree with that approach, and that's fine, but we each post according to what we think we know.

BobbyG

I looked up the penal codes and some explanations and I don't think there is a separate category for vehicular manslaughter. And without intent to harm, I believe this is a case of 2nd degree manslaughter according to New York State New York Penal Law - PEN § 125.15 | FindLaw
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person;  or
2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05;  or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

The penalty: 2nd degree manslaughter: Class C felony; 3-15 yrs. in prison, fine of up to $5,000
2nd degree manslaughter: Class C felony; 3-15 yrs. in prison, fine of up to $5,000

So there are laws on the books, but as the article points out, they aren't always enforced, and penalties are not always exacted. At least that is the criminal law. The victim's survivors could try to sue the driver in civil court.

If the goal is to provide a deterrent to prevent vehicle bicycle tragedies like this one, one way would be to encourage personal injury lawyers to advertise their services in this area. And just like drunk driving or reckless driving it would give top-of-mind awareness to the general public of the expense, potential loss of license and possiblility of incarceration. The insurance companies would join in helping to curb the problem as they would not want to pay out damages.

FBinNY 

Yes, NYS doesn't have a specific definition for vehicular homicide, and instead uses specific rules, ie. causing a death while DUI to bring the case into the general homicide statutes.

But the issue isn't the law per se, it's defining what constitutes recklessness or negligence, moving what may be an error in judgement or lapse of control, to a criminal act. This is actually trickier than it seems at a glance because, while we all know outrageous conduct at the extreme, it gets harder to work the shades of grey closer to what most would consider simple error.

Those who want tougher laws or enforcement need to realize that we ultimately depend on juries for enforcement, and cases where a juror might look at the defendant and think, "there but for the grace of God...." are extremely difficult to prosecute.

CB HI

What a terrible way to treat your adult college daughter. And before you ask, yes I have raised 3 boys who are doing extremely well in their adult lives. I made all my own decisions at the age of 15, and my boys made theirs at 16-17. Short of committing a felony, my boys knew I would cover college to any school they went. As adults, I forever have their gratitude for the parent helping hand with school and them making their own decisions.

You are a fine example of why there are so many snowflakes out there these days.

If you did cut her off for making her own decisions at the age of 22, then it would serve you right if she freaked you out by going ROTC. Try treating her like the smart respectful woman (or as you say kid) that you say she is.

howsteepisit

Damnit that's twice in a 24 hour period I have agreed with CBHI - What's the world coming to?

_ForceD_

Hey CB HI...stop talking. You don't know anything about me or my kids. But FWIW...I served 20+ years in the military (how many did you serve?). If she joined ROTC...and/or the military I don't think I'd freak out.

Dan

CB HI

I am a retired Navy Officer. A clue for you, look at my avatar.

canklecat

The gist of the article indicates a paradigm shift is needed to undo the decades of damage.

• Driving education needs to emphasize responsibilities before rights.
• Officials must stop lazily categorizing these as "accidents", which implies something unforeseeable and unpreventable.
• Retrain officers and authorities to think in terms of negligence and responsibility, and use those terms rather than "accident". Words have meaning. Repeating words emphasizes the differences.
• Stop accepting "Couldn't see them" or "It happened too fast to react" as excuses. These may be valid defenses in court, but shouldn't be considered relevant to law enforcement when conducting an investigation.

Finally -- one I was pondering while riding Thursday -- a somewhat political strategy:
Propose increasing the minimums for mandatory liability insurance for personal injury.
As an alternative or adjunct, propose increasing the severity of consequences for negligence, failure to yield, failure to control vehicle, etc.

Proposing both alternatives will probably see different results in red and blue states. Some regions will resist the notion of shared financial responsibility through a blanket increase in liability insurance ("Why should I pay more when I'm a good driver? Let the reckless drivers pay more, either through higher insurance or stiffer penalties.")

Those regions also tend to be harsher in demanding punishment for crimes of personal injury or property loss. So where states resist the notion of increasing insurance rates, they might accept the notion of harsher legal penalties for negligent and reckless driving.

But at the beginning such a proposal is likely to be resisted all around. They'll prefer lower insurance rates and no penalties for irresponsible driving. They want rights, not responsibilities. That's a job for driver education and retraining.

In particular, retraining drivers to emphasize maintaining a safe distance, and speeds appropriate for conditions rather than regarding every speed limit sign as "+10", where 35 mph mentally translates to "45 mph is okay here". Many residential neighborhoods should be designated as priority zones for pedestrians and cyclists, with motor vehicles being given the privilege of driving only with extreme caution.

Locally one city council member has proposed reducing speed limits in residential neighborhoods without sidewalks to 20 mph. She'd prefer 15 but realizes this isn't practical. Even this has met with resistance from readers of local newspapers, with some commenters taking the attitude "Get out of my way, it's not my problem if you get run over walking in the street just because your neighborhood lacks sidewalks."

Another way of retraining driver attitudes is with the "open streets" concept, in which entire streets for blocks are shut down to motor vehicle traffic periodically for neighborhood street fairs. When this is done occasionally with publicity, it retrains the way drivers think and act in those neighborhoods. I've seen the results locally and it's pretty darned impressive. The streets are shut down only two or three times a year at most, for a weekend or single day on Saturday or Sunday. Yet the lesson seems to persist throughout the year, with drivers behaving more considerately, keeping to posted speed limits, deferring more readily to pedestrians and cyclists, etc.

A concerted effort over several years was needed to change attitudes about drunk driving. The same effort would be demanded to change the paradigm about driver negligence and personal responsibility, rather than accepting blanket excuses about unforeseeable accidents.

Cyclist0084

noglider 

I'm really impressed with the discussion here. We're opening it up to so many shades of gray. Thanks, everyone.

I would not tell my daughter she can't ride while she lives hundreds of miles away, but it's @_ForceD_'s choice, and I know nothing of him or his daughter. I find this to be a terrible way to speak to a parent you don't know. Perhaps his daughter thrives under extra guidance. Or perhaps it's damaging her. What the hell do I know about this family? I lean towards teaching my kids about risk and giving them increasing leeway as they get older, letting them mess up in a somewhat controlled environment. I sometimes erred on the side of too much caution and sometimes too little. It's bound to happen with any parent. My kids are 28 and 25 and are pretty wise for their ages.

Daniel4

I wasn’t directing it at NYC. It was an observation about everywhere in North America.

Here we have the police not pressing charges. There are examples where judges give out light sentences. In Toronto we had a mayor who condemned cyclists for riding in traffic because traffic is a sea of sharks. In posts on BikeForums we have people suggesting not to cycle in traffic because it’s too dangerous. And in this thread we have someone stating that Bike Lanes give a false sense of safety.

All these claims have one thing in common – that bad driving is acceptable and it’s the norm that everyone else has to work around.

kingston 

This is yet another case of a commercial vehicle killing a cyclist with a left/right hook, by far the most common serious vehicle/bicycle accident. It's a shame, because as a cyclist, if you know about the left/right hook, it's usually a pretty easy accident to avoid. If you can't clear the intersection ahead of the truck, just slow down and follow them through. You can make all the laws and harsh penalties you want to, but it's just a fact that trucks and buses can't see cyclists in their blind spot.

CB HI

The reason there are so many snowflake college adults and high school kids these days, too many parents follow his approach.

I-Like-To-Bike

Are these words of wisdom bicycling advocacy or bicycling safety related?

CB HI

More so than the majority of your post. And if you followed the thread, some parents prohibit their adult snowflakes from cycling = advocacy issue.

noglider 

Again, that approach is not mine, and I don't recommend it but I don't know everyone's situation. I advocated against it in my previous life.