Originally Posted by
unixpro
While it may be true that motorists must demonstrate some level of knowledge and proficiency once, in most states that's the end of it -- renewals are pretty much automatic. Even in states where there is some test required, it isn't generally a practical skills test. There's a big difference between knowing the law and practicing it. The evidence of this is the high number of drivers ticketed daily for offenses ranging from speeding to DUI to vehicular homicide. As with drivers, most people start out with at least some knowledge of bicycle law, even if it's just that they're expected to follow the same laws drivers are. The fact that there is no skills test required isn't that big a factor, in my opinion.
Testing is not required for a bicycle at all however. Legally you're expected to know the rules of the road, but they don't make you read any books. The fact that nobody tells you about the dangers of hopping sidewalks, riding by doors, or riding down the wrong side of the road doesn't strike you as a big factor?
Motorists are required to demonstrate knowledge in many primary safety practises. While some drivers may be negligent of such things, there will be many who will have a greatly reduced window for error thanks to training which will have helped prepare them ahead of time with things they might not have known or thought about beforehand. This is training that cyclists simply don't get, and a considerable factor in discrepancies in skill.
Originally Posted by
unixpro
As far as the vehicles themselves are concerned, they may start out with standard safety features, but these can and often are neglected or intentionally removed over time. In some states vehicles must pass a safety inspection, but I know that at least some vehicles are modified just for the inspection and then unmodified immediately thereafter. Bicycles also come with standard safety features as required by state law. Again, these can be removed or modified. As above, I don't see a significant difference.
There is a significant difference. Mandatory safety features on a bicycle (based on local regulations) include reflectors which are typically less effective than active lighting systems, and a bell which is of little use in road conditions (the bell doesn't usually *come* with the bicycle either. Actually, often the reflectors don't either, its the riders responsibility to purchase some). Contrasted to mandatory inclusion of high powered lights, seat belts and horns, I don't see how you can't see a significant difference in the usefulness of included safety features.
There aren't many features which you can add to a motor vehicle to greatly increase safety, primary needs come included. The same is not true for a bicycle, where out of box most models are missing features which can *greatly* enhance safety, such as active lighting or warning systems capable of reaching people inside their vehicles (horns and the like)
I don't know of any drivers who remove their lights for jollies, just ones who neglect to repair damaged ones. I can't think of any other "safety features" which are removed, saved that people don't always wear their seatbelts.