The SF Chronicle has this short story on bikes vs. cars. Here is an excerpt:
One of the responses is a great example of ramifications of the false sense of security fostered by bike lanes, coupled with them being inherently contrary to the vehicular rules of the road.The latest CHP data on car-bike collisions that resulted in injury or death shows, most often, the cyclist is at fault. Take a look for yourself at the CHP statistics covering more than 11-thousand accidents around the bay during the past five years. Sixty percent of the time, the cyclist caused the crash. The most common violations that led to accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.
Note how he feels he did nothing wrong since he was in the bike lane. He claims he's an "avid biker", but he's clearly not an A&S regular, because his post is riddled with confusion.Originally Posted by BikeinBlue
He claims the gray area in bike/car ROW and laws is "immense". What he doesn't recognize is that the only bike/car ROW gray area in the law has to do with bike lanes. I'll bet he's a big supporter of bike lanes too, but I doubt he would be as big a supporter if he understood the role it played in his crash.
Do you think this BikeinBlue guy is an unusual or typical representative of how cyclists currently think?