Advocacy & Safety - Can somebody explain the logic of this story

Not to mention the headline as well.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/01/road-safety-responsibility-of-cyclists-too/?partner=RSS

There are two incidents in this article, both of which the bicyclist was the victim, and yet the columnist is talking about bikers having to be responsible? Like I said in the discussion, if this was an incident with a car and a pedestrian would they have said "road safety responsibility of pedestrians too"? I doubt it.

I can't explain it... it is as baffling to me as the incident in Florida where the Taxi driver hit a group of 11 cyclists from behind, yet was not ticketed (at this point in time). A similar collision with another motor vehicle would have gotten the taxi driver a nearly immediate ticket.

While cyclists may have the letter of the law to give them balance, the reality is that cyclists are not equal in the eyes of law enforcement, nor the courts.

Did the 16 bicyclist change lanes right in front of the cab?

The logic is there. Example of cyclist following the rules get hit, but as genec points out 'the officials' don't always know the rules.
Article goes on to make point of shared responsibilities and need for training for both cyclists and motorist (and implied by article the officials too)
Al

Did the 16 bicyclist change lanes right in front of the cab?

No they swerved. (Yes I am being sarcastic)

One interesting quote from the article just jumped out at me:


Safety is the number one factor in whether people will ride bicycles, and maintaining roadway safety is a two-way street. More than 70 percent of bike-car collisions result from unsafe bicycle riding.

I'd like to know where that study came from.

The point seems to be "special legal treatment for bicycles so the police know what to do when some idiot hits one." The comments correctly point out that the law is plain to see, but needs to be enforced.

I'll explain this article in one sentence.

"Media bias against cyclists"

I'll explain this article in one sentence.

"Media bias against cyclists"

Well, so much for this thread.....

No they swerved. (Yes I am being sarcastic)

No doubt from out of nowhere... :rolleyes:

look, he just didn't see them, ok, not his fault... *rolleyes*

"More than 70 percent of bike-car collisions result from unsafe bicycle riding."

Around here, about 70% of bike-car collisions are deemed the fault of the motor vehicle operator. ie. the stats are the other way around.

I don't really understand what is so hard to interpret the law with regards to bicycles. They have the same rights as motor vehicles. Sure, some of them should probably be rewritten or added to make things clear cut and more understandable.

"When a cyclist is at fault in a crash, a class on safe road sharing between bikes and cars should be required."
The law I find is as clear cut in this case as if you were talking about a collision between two cars, because the cyclist should be treated in most cases as a car, providing they are making use of the road and such.

It's not a matter of changing the laws, but more a matter of making sure people know and obey them.

Although it's true that in many cases the cyclist is at fault, it's kind of odd to angle this story that way when it leads with an example where the motorist is clearly at fault.


There is no Tennessee ordinance that speaks plainly to what happens when a bicyclist is struck by a car.

Does there need to be? The article claims that TN law says that cyclists have the same rights as motorists, and the motorist was charged with running the stop sign and not having insurance, so what more do you think should have been done just because it was a bike? It's unfortunate and clearly wrong that the motorist did not have insurance, but presumably the cyclist has the same recourse and likelihood (however small) to recover damages from the motorist as another motorist would have in that situation. Are you saying bikes be given special treatment here?