Friday, June 30, is the one-year anniversary of the crash that killed local bicycle advocate Jessica Bullen.
Stephen Eisenberg, the lawyer defending the driver in the crash that killed Jess while she was bicycling on Hope Road, was recently quoted saying, "It's called an accident the last time I checked." Apparently Mr. Eisenberg hasn't checked in a long while.
The Wisconsin DOT hasn't called car crashes accidents since the 1989 Wisconsin Traffic Accident Facts report, which included this statement on page one: "Traffic crashes are not accidents, but avoidable events caused by a single variable or chain of variables. We are dedicated to reducing traffic injuries and fatalities by addressing the factors that cause them ... Future editions will ... be called Crash Facts."
Federal Highway Administration research cites driver error as the principal cause in most automobile crashes. "Driver error" encompasses things like running stop signs and red lights, driving too fast for conditions, and not paying attention to the road, among other things. A crash resulting from those behaviors is very predictable, and, more importantly, preventable.
We should hold careless drivers accountable, just as we impose consequences for the negligence of those who wield other deadly weapons, especially when that carelessness results in the injury or death of others. A car is a deadly weapon: Pedestrians hit by cars traveling 20 mph have a 5 percent likelihood of being killed. At 30 mph, a pedestrian fatality is a 55 percent probability; pedestrians hit by cars driven at 40 mph have an 85 percent chance to end up dead.
For motorists to safely share the road with bicyclists specifically, we all need to recognize: 1) bicycles are legal vehicles; 2) bicyclists have all the same rights and responsibilities as operators of any other vehicle; 3) motorists are required to give three feet of clearance when passing any vehicle, including bicycles; and 4) motorists need to yield to bicyclists just as they would yield to any other vehicle.
Bicycle/car crashes are often caused because a left-turning motorist fails to yield to an oncoming bicyclist, or because a motorist pulls out of a driveway or side street in front of a cyclist. Simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles would make our streets a lot safer for everyone.
Everyone who exercises the privilege (it is not a right) to drive a car ought to be expected to operate the vehicle as if others' lives depend upon it. At the very least, there ought to be consequences for homicide by the negligent operation of a vehicle. That's the charge against Tracy Sorum, the man on trial in the death of Jessica Bullen, and it's appropriate, because the crash that killed Jess was no accident.
More than seven years ago, a 12-year-old Louis Payne shot and killed a friend, Shaina Davenport. Payne said the shooting was unintentional. Shaina's mother has stated that she believes Payne did not mean to shoot Shaina. Yet Payne is still behind bars, despite being barely old enough to qualify as an adult. The DA who prosecuted Payne said, "Kids do stupid things. But we do have to set standards."
By all means, we should set standards. It's time for our standards to include the expectation that anyone who exercises the privilege (it is not a right) to drive a vehicle will drive as if other people's lives depend upon it.
Crashes are not accidents, and no one else has to die because of a careless driver.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I believe that are true accidents. "Acts of God" type events are accidents, about it.
Everyone should be safe on the road as long as people follow the most important rules (common sense) when operating any kind of vehicle/machine. If one has to literally spell out what those rules are to another driver than I would be in favor of taking their license away. Won't happen, though.
Just imagine how many "Jaywalk All-Stars of Driving" there are on the road at any given time ..ouch.
If safety of others/ourselves were truly the main concern than we would all drive less than 25mph.
A cross your fingers attitude doesn't cut it behind the wheel.
I don't agree that thinking of a bicycle as another auto will do much good. That's just an attempt to fool oneself. Setting the clock ahead doesn't really fool you, does it? I don't think it's good enough for people to try and get drivers to pay -more- respect to bicyclists. More respect just isn't going far enough.
I don't want
more
respect. I want more respect than you have for yourself. We all deserve the same respect whether we are walking or driving a semi.
No need to treat others as children, though
We all have to take this responsibility. If we all take just enough responsibility than we will all arrive safely. -barring that little percentage
Helmet Head
Bicycle/car crashes are often caused because a left-turning motorist fails to yield to an oncoming bicyclist, or because a motorist pulls out of a driveway or side street in front of a cyclist. Simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles would make our streets a lot safer for everyone.
But what they ignore is that the reason the cyclist is overlooked in the first place is often because he is not positioned where the turning driver expect to encounter traffic. Asking motorists to remember to look for cylcists in their out-of-way positions on the road is not asking for "simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles", that's asking for special and unusual treatment.
fordfasterr
Awesome post.... I just re-posted it on 4 other forums !!!!!!
sbhikes
The article is very sensible. Thanks for sharing!
silversmith
Great article.
We're all too willing to excuse those who drive with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
We need to treat careless drivers, drunk drivers, enraged drivers like the criminals they are.
filtersweep
While I agree with you, it is not always true. I was flying down a hill taking the lane at 50-60kph yesterday when a driver made eye contact with me and pulled out to turn right right just in front of me. Without braking I passed him. Many drivers are stupid to the facts that bikes can be ridden as fast as cars.
But what they ignore is that the reason the cyclist is overlooked in the first place is often because he is not positioned where the turning driver expect to encounter traffic. Asking motorists to remember to look for cylcists in their out-of-way positions on the road is not asking for "simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles", that's asking for special and unusual treatment.
Helmet Head
Filtersweep, nothing is always true. The best riding more conspicuously positioned can do is improve our odds of being noticed to be about the same as that of motorcyclists. However, because of our slower typical speeds, we can afford to be overlooked more often than motorcyclists can.
ctyler
Thanks for posting this. I've believed this for a long time, but everytime you bring up the idea that it isn't just an "accident", people start spewing the usual excuses. By calling it an "accident" you absolve the person of any responsibility.
ChezJfrey
But what they ignore is that the reason the cyclist is overlooked in the first place is often because he is not positioned where the turning driver expect to encounter traffic. Asking motorists to remember to look for cylcists in their out-of-way positions on the road is not asking for "simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles", that's asking for special and unusual treatment.
And what you seem to ignore is that anyone piloting a vehicle has a responsibility to ensure that wherever they point their auto needs to be clear of anything that may intersect their path regardless of their "expectations." In other words, just because a driver isn't prepared, isn't looking and therefore doesn't expect a bike coming down the road or bike lane, or doesn't expect a pedestrian jogging on the sidewalk doesn't preclude the necessary care they should exercise when steering their vehicle; each driver needs to make sure that the path they choose is large enough and lengthy enough for them to pass safely without interrupting or endangering another's travel. It's common sense, and in most cases, law.
flipped4bikes
The Chief of Maine State Police said essentially the same thing in a statement on increased deaths on Maine's roadways and the upcoming Holiday weekend. There is no such thing as a traffic "accident". Bad decisions lead to bad driving and bad things which are ENTIRELY the responsibility of the involved drivers.
fordfasterr
I mentioned earlier that I re-posted this thread on a few other forums... these were car-centric forums...
Most of the replies were positive, but take a look at this one:
The easy answer to this is that bicycles should not be allowed on roads unless there is a bike lane. Look at it this way: if a car decided to travel 10 mph on a 25 or more mph road, they could get a ticket! These slow "vehicles" are the cause of the traffic "incidents" simply by being in the way, causing confusion, and making people go around them. Find a bike trail, *****holes.
law or not, what bicyclists will get when I come across them is my horn in their ear. I bet they love that.
When you are going significantly lower than the speed limit you are a hazard.
lol, I gave him a reply that went like this:
ouch.
The roadways are designed for all users, not just cars.. The roadway is not the carway...
Slow traffic is part of all roadway travelers such as garbage trucks, school buses, public transportation buses, horses (rare), and bicycles.
Bicycles are considered vehicles in all 50 states. Like it or not, you have to share the road safely.
If you honk your horn at a bicyclist and he falls, you are liable for his injuries and damage to his bicycle.
Honking your horn at bicyclists is very dangerous, it startles them and can possibly throw them off balance.
As a road user, you must respect all users of the road.
In many cases, people carry their kids on their bikes. What if it was someone in your family and you didn't even realize it? You scream by in your car, buzz them and honk your horn , they fall, the kid dies, the rider smashes open their head, and it turns out to be someone in your family? Not a smart idea me thinks...
Think about that next time you plan to apply your road-nazi theology on a lawful user of the roadway.
Share the road, respect life and treat people the way you would like to be treated.
Somehow, I don't think that anything I will say to this person will change their mind, but I will at least get it off my chest.
marcm
Well said, fordfasterr. Though while it may be true that horns can startle bicyclists, part of (our) sharing the road ought to involve being prepared for horn-honking, which is usually legal and sometimes necessary or useful. (It goes without saying that the horn can be, and often is, misused, but that's beside the point.)
As for saying that traffic accidents don't happen, I think that's rather dishonest. Most automobile crashes are not intentional; they're accidental. So the word accident is appropriate -- "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury" (NOAD). What's wrong is the impression that traffic accidents just happen -- and, therefore, that no one is truly responsible. Most accidents, in fact, are preventable; they happen not inevitably, but because of one or more drivers' negligence or error.
So how about the term, "preventable accidents"? (That would cover all but those rare ones, I suppose, where no driver is found to be at fault. Perhaps something else could/should have been done to prevent those -- a lower speed limit, a better road design, etc.)
djwid
Well said, fordfasterr. Though while it may be true that horns can startle bicyclists, part of (our) sharing the road ought to involve being prepared for horn-honking, which is usually legal and sometimes necessary or useful. (It goes without saying that the horn can be, and often is, misused, but that's beside the point.)
I disagree with your statement that horn-honking is usually legal. In the majority of cases (outside NJ who has strange honking laws) the honking is illegal though not enforced.
Regarding the original post, I believe that eliminating the use of the word accident is a good thing.
-Djw
Carusoswi
I disagree with your statement that horn-honking is usually legal. In the majority of cases (outside NJ who has strange honking laws) the honking is illegal though not enforced.
Can you cite code proclaiming horn honking to be illegal? What is horn honking? Any sounding of a vehicle's horn, or just loud, long obnoxious blasts? How would the latter be defined, and by whom?
Although I find horn-honking annoying (whether I'm in a car or on my bike), I will often reply with a friendly wave when a motorist gives me a couple of short beeps on his/her horn as he approaches/overtakes me when I'm riding my bike. It's my sign of appreciation for the motorist's acknowledgement of my presence and obvious desire to warn/signal me of his intention to pass.
I am confident I will never collide with a motorist who is beeping at me in that manner.
If I read you correctly, this sort of horn blowing would also be illegal in your locale. Is that correct?
Caruso
CommuterRun
I agree with the article in the OP. Traffic crashes are not accidents at all, but happen due to negligence on the part of one or more vehicle operators.
It's high time to hold people legally responsible for their negligence. Negligence with a vehicle is just as irresponsible and bad as negligence with a firearm.
sgtsmile
As for saying that traffic accidents don't happen, I think that's rather dishonest. Most automobile crashes are not intentional; they're accidental. So the word accident is appropriate -- "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury" (NOAD). What's wrong is the impression that traffic accidents just happen -- and, therefore, that no one is truly responsible. Most accidents, in fact, are preventable; they happen not inevitably, but because of one or more drivers' negligence or error.
So how about the term, "preventable accidents"? (That would cover all but those rare ones, I suppose, where no driver is found to be at fault. Perhaps something else could/should have been done to prevent those -- a lower speed limit, a better road design, etc.)
Collision is a better word to use than accident. It is more accurate. I agree with you that most crashes are not intentional, and therefore seem accidental, but there is something inherant in the word accident that absolves those involved from responsibility. The overwhelming majority of car crashes are avoidable and are the result of being either unprepared or somehow distracted - even head on crashes and rear end crashes (i mean being rear ended here) are avoidable if a person prepares for it. Road design and high speed limits do not cause crashes btw, people do. If a road cannot be safely driven at 80kmph and the limit is 80kmph, then slow down. Road designers and speed limit setters are not the ones driving your car, you are. If a corner is very hard to see around, and you are approaching it from the blind spot (in otherwords, you are the one that would HIT a car that pulled out unaware of your presence because it is hard for them to see) and have the right of way it is your responsiblity to respond to the hidden intersection by slowing, keeping your foot lightly over the brake and lightly covering the horn with your thumb (to honk faster if you need to). You are obligated to respond to the hazard and be ready to stop even if there is no one there. This has nothing to do with law, and everything to do with the moral responsiblity of a road user to ensure everyone stays alive. The pressence of a hidden intersection should trigger in you a response that says "hey, there is a potential hazard, lets prepare for it." Doing this kind of thing will drastically reduce your chance of being in collision.
By changing the terminology away from the word accident, we are doing more than messing with semantics. It is about changing an attitude away from one of helpless irresponsibility to one of responsibility.
sgtsmile
But what they ignore is that the reason the cyclist is overlooked in the first place is often because he is not positioned where the turning driver expect to encounter traffic. Asking motorists to remember to look for cylcists in their out-of-way positions on the road is not asking for "simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles", that's asking for special and unusual treatment.
If a cyclist doing their own thing in a predictable manner at the edge of the road is overlooked, then the driver is still at fault. There is no special treatment for cyclists if we insist that motorists look further than directly in front of their noses. Any driver who ONLY looks in the middle of a driving lane for hazards is a very poor driver with tunnel vision. When I trained drivers, they could not pass exams until they could point out every single hazard in an urban environment from building to building (including potential ones like blind allies etc). I expect to find traffic not just in the road way, but in driveways, at the edge of roads, in parking lots, in merge lanes - in fact, I expect it anyplace a car can fit into. The 1000+ kids I trained expected it too. The real issue is an utter failure on the part of the driving population (and cycling population too) to not realize how dangerous using our roadways is. Remember that exposure to risk often dulls us to it. Most drivers treat driving as such a commonplace thing that how dangerous turning at an intersection with traffic lights is is simply lost on them. Think about it: turning left at an intersection with turn lanes and lights requires on coming traffic to be either a long way away, or gone; requires traffic behind to be slowing WITH you as you slow for your turn; requires traffic on the cross street to be obeying the law and stopping; requires the crosswalks both on the street you are on and the cross street to be empty of pedestrians and bikes; requires a driver that is aware of the risks and LOOKS for things to be approaching the intersection from a distance; and lastly, requires the new road to be free of obstructions and have room for your car.
I do not argue that road position for a cyclist cannot help a cyclist, but rather argue that being a responsible road user involves more than looking at what is right in front of your nose. It involves actual thinking, and giving of space so that ALL can get where they are going safely.
Bikepacker67
If a cyclist doing their own thing in a predictable manner at the edge of the road is overlooked, then the driver is still at fault.
And the cyclist is still road pizza.
sgtsmile
And the cyclist is still road pizza.
and so would they be if they were mid lane and an inattentive driver came up, so your point is?
Bikepacker67
and so would they be if they were mid lane and an inattentive driver came up, so your point is?
Not true.
Your own words:
Any driver who ONLY looks in the middle of a driving lane for hazards is a very poor driver with tunnel vision.
I'd rather have that "poor driver" see me, by being where he looks.
sgtsmile
Yes true:) an inattentive person will miss seeing you no matter where you sit. Yes, there are things we can do to reduce risk, and it is obvious to any who ride in urban environments that lane placement can go a long way to reducing risk. My point is that a good driver who is well trained will see you whether you are in the middle of a lane, the edge of a lane, or a sidewalk.
However, if you do not believe this is possible, have fun! your mind is made up and I am not going to bother trying to convince you any further. What my point is was made in my posts above.
wahoonc
I'd rather have that "poor driver" see me, by being where he looks.
I have been twice rearended by inattentive drivers...both times I was driving a rather large bright Red F350 crew cab. Both drivers claimed they didn't see me:eek: :D EXCUSE ME???!!! One was in city traffic I was the first and only vehicle at a stop light on a multi lane road, the light turned green and I had just started to move. The other I was driving at the posted speed limit on a multi lane highway. Both drivers were on the cell phone and doing other things, in one case lighting a cigarette and the other writing something down. I would not have wanted to be in the center of the road on a bicycle on either of those occasions. There is a healthy percentage of drivers on the road that don't have the ability to walk and chew gum, much less drive something as complicated as a motor vehicle. Add in the various distractions and you have a fatal combination.